From Coup to Coup

Donate

From Coup to Coup

Originally appeared at Globalaffairs.ru; Appeared in Bulgarian at A-specto, translated by Valentina Tzoneva exclusively for SouthFront

The events from the summer political season this year do not give us a chance to take a breath. No one can imagine what will happen tomorrow. Even if we leave aside the nervous atmosphere bordering hysteria, which has got a hold of all the elites, there is a feeling of irreversible change of the coordinating system that, for a long time, was believed to be eternal. The August putsch of 25 years ago drew a line in Soviet history. The Soviet Union of Gorbachov, as well as the idea of the ‘New World Order’, built up on ‘shares’ like a shareholding composed of former opponents went beyond existence. We shall never know whether it was possible to keep the USSR, but after the disappearance of the Soviet Union, there was not a single word about some common design for the new world. First, Russia was seen as a defeated country. The scale of its social and economic devastation was compared to a military defeat. Second, Russia itself announced its desire for integration with the society of western countries; in other words, to accept their norms, but not to become a partner in the creation of a new world order.

From this moment on, the dominant position of the West became undeniable. The events on the border between the 80s and 90s of the last century, led to a radical turn in the world. However, after the passing of a quarter of a century, this assessment is questionable. It is true that the systematic confrontation of 1940-1980 finished with the disappearance of one of the sides, but if the backgrounds were changed, the institutions suffered very minor changes. The West did not change anything and again bet on the same structures that served it before, or said in a different way, no one had any intention to review the model for managing the world established in the period of the Cold War. It was accepted that the realisation of this model must lean not on two balancing each other super states, but only on one of them and this one state, superior to all the others, was destined to own the entire global power.

Slowly but surely it became clear that the practice of pouring new wine into old wineskins does not work. Gradually, Russia became a problem. Regardless of the initial enthusiasm, Russia did not integrate organically with the society of the Western democracies. This neither happened in the period of the devastation in the 90s, nor after the re-establishment of the state. It is true that up to the second half of 2000, the USA and Europe did not have particular problems with Russia. In 2004, the Harvard Economist, Andre Schlayfer, and the Political Analyst, Daniel Traceman, wrote that Russia will either “break up” and take up the road of “the normal countries”, or won’t manage the competition and will silently burn down as a meaningful international factor. Even in the period of 2007-2014 when the relations with the West started to deteriorate, it was still believed that Russia could give headaches, but could not create real problems.

Parallel to this, however, the Western model started to show defects. The experiment of making NATO a global policeman did not last for a long time. It started at the end of 1990 in Yugoslavia, after that in Afghanistan, and finished with the war in Iraq where the alliance was not in unanimity. The consequences of this experiment were huge. It became clear that a multiple military superiority is not sufficient for the realisation of the Western programme. The export of democracy only deepened the unresolvable problem for changes in the Middle East, and called for the categorical opposition from Russia and China. The correctness of this strategy created doubts in the Western society itself. The reason for the following cataclysms became the growing crisis at the core of the New World Order. Neither the ambitions of the wounded Russia, nor the economic height of China, neither the explosion of Islamic terrorism, on their own, could have brought in such a quick – in historic terms – decline of the neoliberal globalisation, which changed the bipolar model of the Cold War 25 years ago.

The summer of 2016 showed that the erosion has reached the heart of the liberal project. Two central institutions were struck – NATO and the European Union, as well as the USA – the leader of the global power. Proof for the conditions of the North-Atlantic alliance became the events in Turkey, which is a key ally of NATO and has the second biggest army in the alliance. President Erdogan started behaving as if NATO does not exist at all, and this at a time when NATO qualified Russia as an opponent and at the same time Ankara discussed the extension and the deepening of military technical links and contacts in the security sphere with Moscow. It is difficult to understand to what degree the information that the Russian special services warned Erdogan about the coup is correct. But at least it becomes clear that the Americans didn’t do so, although Russia and Turkey were in a dire conflict, and the USA together with Turkey, have been members of NATO since 1952.

The Republican candidate for the White House, Donald Trump, also added fuel to the fire. The speeches of the billionaire that America must protect only those countries which pay their installments to NATO, angered the military and strategic institutions in Washington and the EU. By the way, the USA has on numerous occasions and on different levels expressed its dissatisfaction with the passiveness and stinginess of its European partners. Trump brought the same accusations, but in a much sharper form. Moreover, he expressed his doubts about the correctness of the expansion of the alliance in which states are included not according to the principle of military expediency, but exclusively for political reasons. Saying this, he de facto allowed himself encroach on the “sacred cow”.

Broadly speaking, despite the external success of NATO and the confirmed bloc-solidarity at the summit in Warsaw, one can say that today the alliance is loose. In the American presidential campaign, for the first time in a quarter of a century, a nuance of a turn towards isolationism is noticed. Trump interprets the exceptionalism of the USA in a completely different way from its interpretations after the Cold War. His appeal for exceptionalism speaks about distancing America from everything that does not directly concern it. Whether Trump will win or not will be clear after the election, but the theme he spoke about will probably develop because it reflects the prevailing public sentiment.

The Euro-union is also undergoing a strong truce. Regardless of the reasons of the British voters for leaving the EU, a new historical reality was born. For the first time in the history of the Union, the community is not expanding but is contracting. The conflict with Turkey, the confusing relations with Russia and the exit of Great Britain are different in nature, but the conclusion from them is singular: a greater Europe with Brussels at its the centre failed to materialise.

Twenty-five years passed between the two failed putsches – the Soviet one in August 1991 and the Turkish one in July 2016. This was the period when an attempt to redesign the design of the past was made. This attempt led to its lawful outcome. The logic of the old construction won. The relations resembling those from the time of the Cold War are renewed. The world, after all, changed. After 1991, no new institutions were created, but now they have started emerging, thanks to Russia, China and some other national states. The new era which did not manage to take place in the past is coming and it cannot be stopped.

Author: Feodor Lukianov

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • medicis

    Glad Russia is resurgent in the world…. A reasonably honest and decent country. Not so sure about Erdogan’s Turkey…… he does not appear to be an honorable man.

  • Shhh

    English Common law countries allow judicial opinions rather than statutory or Constitutional law to determine civil rights including property ownership.The Supreme Court of USA controls everything in USA similar to Sanhedrin council in ancient Jerusalem. Common law systems are similar to Talmud allowing judicial opinions to be superior to original Constitution. Gay marriage becomes rule of law by adoption by US Supreme Court even though gay marriage was not approved by vote of Congress and is not found in Constitution or laws. The US Congress that makes law is powerless since the power to interpret and create law lies in US Supreme Court ( Sanhedrin council) .Under common law the US judges members of Supreme Court are given complete immunity from civil prosecution just like the Sanhedrin. Justice Ginsberg is worth 25 million dollars at least.This does not include other family members Trusts and other ways of getting kickbacks. The Three Jewish members of Supreme Court are not Karaites. Karaites believed that law was sacred and above opinions of men . The Talmudist believe their opinions are equal to statutory law. The Supreme Court can be influenced. Its not a democracy because the laws of Congress are meaningless . All legal meanings are created by opinions of judges. The war is between English Common law countries and the Non English Common Law Countries. The Talmudist already control all government matters including banking and property in the English common law countries, .

    • furr

      You are way wrong. The courts don’t create laws, that’s what Congress is for, or more recently the “executive orders”.

      Since USA has constantly been in a state of emergency since many decades, it is also all perfectly “legal” on paper.

      Whatever you may want to say by invoking Common Law (nothing to do with USA) or Talmud (nothing to do with anything nowadays, go read it), your knowledge about laws is very poor. You do post lots of nazi legends on the other side, so your agenda is quite clear.

      • Shhh

        Go look at wikipedia see national legal systems and you will see that US England and many other countries are common law. The highest leagal power in USA is opinions of Supreme Court. The US Constitution has nothing on gay marriage but it is created as law by US Supreme Court, The law and Constitution of common law countries sound fair in principal . But in practice justice and law and Constitution can be ignored at any time by a judge opinions. And the judge can get paid for that opinion without suffering consequences.
        Karaites are not Talmudist but they often lumped together .The followers of the Talmud were treated separately from Karaites in Russia by Czar. Karaites opposed Talmud and were welcome by Czar . The Talmudist system is the model for common law system that can be adopted by non Jews who place legal opinions above statutory or common law . The philosophy that judicial opinions are greater than law is also adopted by the Catholics that place the Popes opinion as superior or equal to original gospel. So the Catholic approach is “common law ” similar to Talmudist placing opinions of law as equal to original text of law . Six out of seven US supreme court justices are Catholic accepting opinions of law as equal or superior to law so they are ideal for ” common law ” positions. No protestants are Supreme Court justices but could be if they believe the judicial opinions are superior to original legal text, . It is a requirement that they believe their “opinions” are law ; thus Talmudist and those who adopt common law system are acceptable as US Supreme Court which creates the Supreme law superior to the US Constitution or laws. The common law system is derivative of the Talmud system .It can be adopted by Jews or non Jews. But in practice justice and law and Constitution can be ignored at any time by a judge opinions. And the judge can get paid for that corrupt opinion without suffering consequences under common law doctrines of judicial immunity.

        • furr

          Oh man… ripe.

          Common Law is a thing of the past, Talmud has nothing to do with any of this, courts don’t make laws in any country on this planet and law is not the same thing as justice.

          Here’s your full Talmud, please show me where it is anything alike common law, with page numbers please:
          http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/FullTalmud.pdf

          Also the Supreme Court is not really the highest court in the USA, that would actually be the Supreme Court of Pensilvania (for the actual “People” as defined in the law dictionary, which are not your common citizens). Let alone that both the Pope and the british Queen can revoke any american law, being the real owners of the land on paper.

          Why you keep beating that dead horse about “jewish conspiracy” is beyond me, since this site usually has visitors with IQ over 60.

          The consitution is basically void in an “emergency”, which as said above has been ongoing at least since the WW2. You can find like five different declarations of State of Emergency on the website of the US government anytime, they must be renewed annually.

          To sum it up, you are just waaaay too low-level and too uneducated, tell your handlers they should send someone more capable to sell that nonsense to the gullible. You’re not good enough for the job.

          • Shhh

            Look at wikipedia under national legal systems the USA is common law . If you think that state Pennsylvania court is more powerful than Supreme court your wrong. The Alabama Supreme Court judge was recently removed because his order conflicted with opinion of US judge. In civil practice cases are decided by citing legal opinions. The practice of collecting legal opinions as basis of law does go back to Talmud. However I have argued immunity issued in state and federal court. The Supreme Court held in Stump v. Sparkman that judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 damage actions for their “judicial” acts.5 The Court permitted liability only for acts taken “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”6 Drawing from the common-law immunity of judges, the Court held that judicial immunity protects judges even when their judicial acts:

            exceed their jurisdiction,7
            are done maliciously or corruptly,8 or
            are flawed by grave procedural error.9

            What I wrote is the truth but it conflicts with your perception of US government.

  • Spunkyhunk

    Very poor translation, full of errors. Some parts are actually unintelligible. This website needs to do a much better job of English translation and editing, if it wants to be taken seriously by international readers.