Originally appeared at A-specto, translated by Valentina Tzoneva exclusively for SouthFront
We have become accustomed to using different terminology, often without fully understanding their meaning. We juggle words with extreme lightness, missing the moment when their meaning turns into their opposite. That is why the anticipation of impending hard times calls for a need for society to handle semantically-precise concepts and simple notions for what is happening on the global chessboard today. Even those who are least tempted by politics feel the need to find an explanation for what they experience on a daily basis in their ordinary lives. People search for answers to questions like:
Why do we not have jobs? Why are the Islamic terrorists detonating bombs on us? Why are the banks bankrupt and why have we lost our savings and homes? Why have the prices in the shops increased? Why have our countries become flooded with refugees? Why are our children not educated? What is the reason for our confidence in tomorrow to thin out, quietly and almost unnoticeably? From which moment and in relation to what did the talks about an alleged third world war cease to be distant and speculative?
These and other questions face millions of apolitical-till-yesterday citizens, who are anxiously seeking explanations. They want to know the answers to these questions in order to build a new vision of the world where tomorrow won’t be a day for a randomly-drawn lotto ticket, but a predictable and logical continuation of today. People want their future to be predictable and mostly quiet and safe. Unfortunately, this whole atmosphere is a fertile environment for propaganda of the media in its attempt to replace the concepts and brainwash the audience through planting disastrous images. And all this is done with intrusive and shrill declarations and stigmas, camouflaged under the alleged concern for the wellness of the citizens. More frightening is that the techniques and methods of media manipulation increase in proportion to the confrontation between the geopolitical adversaries. The world has reached a dead-end street again and this time, due to the financially-orientated model of the liberal economy imposed by USA, which turned into a global dominant economy system after the collapse of the USSR.
Globalisation became the engine of the liberal economy, and its three supporting pillars are free trade, free movement of capital and free movement of labour from poor countries to rich ones. Today however, free trade runs on low revs and we can say that it is dead still, due to a number of political and other reasons. The process of movement of free capital is facing more limitations related to financial security and the battle against terrorism. There are even more talks about “running” of capital towards offshore zones, rather than the free movement of capital flows into the global financial net. The free movement of people after the invasion of the waves of refugees in Europe, made some European countries build physical barriers at their state borders in order to stop the flow of refugees. This de facto erased the meaning of the last advantage attributed to globalisation.
But even without a more serious analysis of the results from applying the liberal model, and only on the basis of historic experience from Reagan onwards, it becomes obvious that this economic system can only function on the principles of deception and robbery. On its own, the system cannot maintain its existence without constant external financing. In the beginning, it was a parasite on the back of the collapsed USSR. Later on, problems emerged after the fraud of “toxic” derivatives and the robbery of banks in 2008. At the time, in order to prevent the total collapse of the banks, the USA adopted the policy of the so-called “quantitative acquisition,” aiming to stimulate investment in the industry and to take the economy out of the deep recession into which it had fallen. The current period without wars for a substantial period of time, and during which developed countries, in practice, have had no place from which to suck resources, has led to crises for those who are on top of the “food chain.” The liberal economic system, without the “pouring in of money,” is collapsing.
The necessity of a Third World War (or an opportunity for extraction of fresh resources from conquered countries) is vital for the survival of most Western countries, and in particular, for their fabulously wealthy elites. But the danger for the West comes from the fact that starting a new war will not resolve but will further worsen their problems. Today, there are no such weak enemies that will be easily conquered and become donors for the troubled Western states. Now, the approximate parity in the world is the way it was before the two world wars, which on its own increases the risk of a new global conflict. It could be a classic type of conflict, such as the two previous world wars, but it could also be a hybrid – disguised by a great number of localised conflicts. The main goal of the organisers of these numerous conflicts is, along with economic and informational aggression which they practice, to block the possibility of the opponent from using a nuclear weapon.
The marks of this strategy are quite obvious. First, it is the interruption of sustainable economic relations by imposing economic sanctions and deepening the economic decline, leaving intact only certain “areas of economic growth.” It is noteworthy that during the first and second World Wars, America was that designated area. And since the Americans liked it at the time, now they are now attempting to repeat the same scenario. In parallel with this as is known, one of the goals of any world war is “zeroing” or at the least, a devaluation of pre-war debts and restarting the global economy. It is hardly necessary to guess which country will benefit most from this when the debt of the USA exceeds US$19 trillion. The following question immediately follows: which are the possible zones for military conflict after which the global economy could be restarted, keeping the existing liberal economic model and the hierarchy established on the “food chain” ladder of the current financial elite?
The options are not many, but according to the opinions of a number of western analysts, the most acceptable option is that the quantity of accumulated-at-the-moment contradictions be buried in the ruins of Russia. Then Europe and Asia will turn into territories of broken and kept-in-declining-economic enclaves, surrounded by raging chaos after the destruction of Russia. On one side, the realisation of this scenario will allow America to remain the island of stability and will be a starting point for restarting the new growth of the European and Asian economies on account of what has been robbed from defeated Russia. On the other side, the USA will be able to maintain its hegemony and continue playing the role of global policeman. However, what does the distribution of interests look like in the quadrangle of the USA, Russia, Europe and China? It is clear that Russia and the USA are antagonistic. This is so because, as we mentioned earlier, the USA could keep its present role only on condition of destroying Russia and weakening of Europe and China. If this hypothesis is correct, then the possibility of achieving some consensus between Washington and Moscow becomes hypothetic, unless it does not happen at the expense of a partial loss of national sovereignty by Russia or its full capitulation to the United States. That is, if Russia wants to survive and some “new Gorbachov” does not appear, it will inevitably have to come to a confrontation with the United States. In this situation, Europe will be a natural ally to America.
The vassal subordination of Europe today on the orders of Washington is not only due to the “purchase” of European politicians or the compromising information that the CIA holds against key European leaders. The fundamental reasons are the lack of an independent financial system, capable of securing the required minimum level of financial sovereignty and the lack of its own combat-capable armed forces. That’s why Europe is forced to swim in the distant waters of America, which for good or for bad, fulfils for these deficiencies. This dependence will continue until such time when the USA can guarantee European security and economic stability. The threat of a collapse of these two pillars of support will make some European leaders look for new guarantors for their privileged status. On the other hand, Europe cannot look at the scenario for a potential destruction of Russia with approval because its borders will then become the forefront line for the opposite side where the level of aggressive instability will be dangerously high. The Europeans are perfectly comfortable with “option Gorbachov” when the state of the USSR separated itself from its functions and, with the enthusiasm of a convinced masochist, allowed everyone who wanted to rob it. The option where Russia does not capitulate but turns itself from a zone of free-of-charge robbery into an unpredictable exporter of military threats and aggressive instability does not suit the Europeans. Finally, a situation arises where Europe would support the USA in the blitzkrieg against Russia, only if it is certain of victory.
However, the continuous Russian resistance and the lack of any prospect for a change in the situation, inevitably leads to the gradual distancing of Europe from the American policy which is directed at the destruction of Russia. In the frame of the quadrangle (USA, Europe, Russia and China), Beijing plays the role of a natural and situational partner of Moscow for now in its opposition to the West. Each battle won by Russia automatically reduces the competitiveness of the West to China. That is why if China does not collide with some unpredictable politics from Moscow, Russia will be able to rely on Chinese economic and political support in the future. Or, we can say that in the frame of the quadrangle-configuration, Europe and Chine, presenting their own interests, to a certain degree play the role of tactical allies of the main opposing parties. On top of this, neither Europe nor China – unlike the USA – are interested in the destruction of Russia because this will make them weak and place them in the centre of the Eurasian chaos that will follow.
The global hegemon needs a quick death of Russia in order to achieve its goals. It is not ready for a long and expensive conflict with unknown end. In the conditions of a time-deficit, the best method for them is, in case Russia cannot be defeated from the outside, to explode it from the inside, which will collapse the state or at least bring in cardinal changes of the power at present. In the second scenario, it can be expected that the new power will sharply change the direction of the state’s ship and this will lead to chaos and civil war in the country. This on its own will create the necessary conditions for breaking the financial and economic channels for interaction in Eurasia, and China and Europe will become weaker, but due to the fault of the new Russian power.
The activities of the USA clearly show that they are preparing a special scenario for Russia. It is most probable that technology will used to activate an implosion inside the country and change the ruling elite. This is so because the creation of chaos in Eurasia is already in motion. The Middle East is completely in chaos and the rest will be finalised by the Islamic State. The break of economic relations between Europe and countries from the Asia-Pacific region, or the turn of all the territories between Russia and Central Asia into zones of instability and local wars, is coming. Central Asia is already potentially unstable in any case, that is why the USA is prepared to sacrifice it in favour of the reviving sect of the Taliban. Only Russia, in this zone of instability, has the potential to defend its national interests. It is the only country ready to oppose the Americans. That is why the crash of the resistance of Russia and a redirection of the foreign political course of the country is the number one task for America.
The weakness of the US’ plans is in the lack of unity in the very Euro-Atlantic bloc. Given the unreasonable increase in the level of risk, the loyalty towards the USA will start evaporating immediately. For example, for Washington the Ukraine of today is a perfect catalyst for the Eurasian chaos, but for Europe, Ukraine is something like a “suitcase without a handle”: kindly donated to the Europeans by the Americans. To counteract the “Russian aggression,” Europe is ready to consolidate and endure some hardships, but the Europeans have no intention of sacrificing themselves in order to preserve the power of Poroshenko and his oligarchs for the sake of some geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the USA.
The past few years have shown that the hopes of the Euro-Atlanticists for a quick capitulation of Russia did not materialise. On this account, however, the destructive foreign policy of the USA caused the revival of irrationality in the thoughts and politics of Western countries. This completely discredited the idea for progress and democracy. Instead, all over Europe, the parties of the left and right nationalists are on the rise. And this is not a temporary condition after which the sobering will come. This is a deep systematic crisis and the beginning of the crash of the European civilization and of the Western model. Perhaps the British philosopher and professor of the London School of Economics, John Grey, is right saying: ”Communism is just one of the Western projects. The fall of communism will be followed by the crash of the Western project. Communism left behind a vacuum that was filled by the demons who are ruling the world of today.”