Saturday, December 6, 2014

The Russian President holds direct parallels between modern Western Politicians and Hitler.


The Russian President holds direct parallels between modern Western Politicians and Hitler.

What is the secret of American strategy?

By: Dmitry Travin 

News Newsland: What is the secret of American strategy? Vladimir Putin was right to say that Americans want to weaken Russia, to dismember it and grab it. The Russian President holds direct parallels between modern Western Politicians and Hitler.
Is it possible to make sense of where the truth ends, and where - the propaganda begins? A Chess game's foreign policy game of a kind. Here a lot depends on how the game will start, white or black. In the XIX century France played white.That Century began with the Napoleonic Wars, and although Bonaparte played it as early as 1815, to further European policies was largely a response to the challenge of the world from a great military leader and emperor. Perhaps only in 1870, when Prussia defeated the regime of Louis Bonaparte, this story could be considered as over. In the twentieth century white played Germany, which so abruptly entered the global policy, which will inevitably become two world wars.
Hitler played his to 1945 mu, but the further development of Europe is largely determined by the desire to integrate Germany into the international organizations in order to prevent new conflicts. 
In the XXI century white is played by the United States. This, as historical experience shows, does not guarantee the success of the United States, but so far the other players base their strategy only as a response to the American challenge. 

Some try to resolve disputes at the negotiating table, while others strive to give the enemy a horse's head, and others to take the initiative in the economy, seeking to conquer America with its own weapons. These strategies can be successful by black, or not, but in any case the world in the coming decades will depend largely on what kind of strategy for this party will America elect. Can we understand the real meaning of US policy, which some consider a diabolical conspiracy against the whole world, others - gradual movement towards a better future, for others - Throwing a crazy cat who does not know what he wants? 

The United States, of course, would like to maintain its dominance. This is no doubt, because in doing so they would have in their place Power. But for dominance it needs alliances. Alone, no one can conquer the world, and is not able to create a uni-polar one. Democratization on the conveyors, basically America, has two ways to retain dominance in the world. One is to not wait for favors from nature and self-build their faithful allies. The other - to take into account the realities and skillfully use circumstances.

Each of these methods has certain advantages as well as major disadvantages. Picturing the world in the XXI century can develop in many different ways - depending on which particular approach will dominate American foreign policy. It would seem the most natural for the United States, would be to rely on the American's strategic common values. Western-style democracy as it, is consistent with allies of Washington, regardless of how much money they took for this friendly support for what is the campaign political orientations of their current rulers. 

We sometimes look to strategies as built on the basis of values, not huge skepticism. Putin, in particular, even says, that the Europeans have lost their sovereignty, ie actually they have become satellites of the United States. However, history has a number of important examples of the formation of international coalitions on this principle.
They may be guided, in particular, by such cunning political players, as Metternich and Stalin. For example, after the defeat of Napoleon's troops, winners formed the Holy Alliance, whose task was the avoidance of new revolutions in Europe. "Allies," could hold together despite various contradictions. However, though sought to somehow do so smoothly as all monarchical regimes were fundamentally interested in the fact that their basic system of government has not changed the States. Napoleon did not break new boundaries established under the pretext of establishing liberty, equality and fraternity.

Another example - the formation of the Communist International, with which Soviet Russia has sought to contribute to the world revolution. The Bolsheviks believed that our country should serve as a basis for progressive reforms abroad, and therefore had helped in all countries the formation of pro-Soviet parties willing to organize this revolution, this only appropriated opportunities. 

Comintern had, of course, pop money from Moscow, but in general they were still convinced fighters do not fight for tactical goals, but for an ideal. Today's America sees its most consistent allies began with European countries, as well as some democratic countries, existing in other parts of the world. According to the particulars they can all argue among themselves, and sometimes very hard, but on matters of principle democracies find themselves in the same camp, and not because of pressure from Washington, but by understanding their community. 

In the light of this approach, it is quite natural for Americans to become the desired ideals in all parts of the world as much as possible. An assorted variety of democracies. After expansionism of the zones of democracy, it is an instant extension of the zone of influence for the United States. You can certainly rely on dictators and puppets for the good old principle of "he's, a son of a bitch of course, but he's our son of a bitch." 

However, when you change the dictator a danger exists that the new "son of a bitch" may find a new host. In this approach, America is not interested in the dismemberment of authoritarian Russia on the small authoritarian states, and to push the Kremlin from the effect on countries that can become democracies. America does not care about Russia's relations with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan even ruled by autocrats east, but Georgia or Ukraine. 

The United States wants to instruct all on the "right path". The American approach of reliance, is one close to the values ​​of their state. This is good in many ways, but there is a problem: democracy is not always created by an order. Despite the primitive conspiracy theory that any color revolutions occur on the order of Washington, the world has far more examples of failed democracy-building, rather than successful ones.

After the war, the Americans succeeded brilliantly with implementation of the Marshall Plan, which helped Western Europe to become democratic. But in recent years, perhaps the only a country in Central and Eastern Europe could confidently adapt to Western values, whereas in Asia, Africa and several Latin American countries democratization has only led to a change of some authoritarian regimes on the other hand. Some of these regimes (especially in Islamic countries), North America's actions are far more problematic than modes of the good old "sons of bitches", which where overthrown.
Washington, anyway, helped by the Iron Chancellor, today many have criticized. The United States has such an adorable value approach to conducting  foreign policy, and if reminded that there is already a policy of realpolitik, who in its time was especially popular due to the activities of the One Iron Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. As Bismarck, based this on specific short-term interests of individual countries, and not of the fundamental values ​​that should have been on the idea to combine or divide them all. 

This allowed Prussia to break one by one their principal opponents, creating in the center of Europe a great German Empire, which, like, none of the neighbors, did not want to see next. Realpolitiks and paying tribute to Comrade Stalin, made sure after Hitler came to power, that the support only of the Communist Party was not enough. The Soviet Union supported the Popular Front during the Spanish Civil War, although it was created in conjunction various leftist forces, not excluding even the liberals.
And in the Second World Stalin went on to direct alliance with bourgeois countries, which allowed, in the end, defeating Hitler and expanded the zone of influence of the Soviet Union in the region where the seemingly objective conditions for the communist revolution (highly developed industrial proletariat strong, effective Communist Parties) was so much favored.

What does it mean for realpolitik America today? Perhaps the most interesting interpretation of this problem, given the political words of scientist Samuel Huntington in his famous book "The Clash of Civilizations." Usually commentators of Huntington's theory pay any attention to the argument about the diversity of civilizations and the impossibility of reducing them all to a Western model. But in addition to this theoretical conclusion there is still an important and practical lesson.
In order to avoid a collision with all the consequences for the sad consequences of civilizations, America needs to take into account the real strength of individual countries. Within each civilization, according to Huntington, there are pivotal powers able to influence their neighbors and decide one way or another their own problem of coexistence.
It might not be democratic, but it is necessary to maintain a reasonable relationship, because without her help America can not establish any normal world order. The main conclusion of Huntington is that to prevent wars "core countries should refrain from intervening in conflicts in other civilizations "and that the" core countries need to agree among themselves in order to deter or stop wars fault line between states or groups of states related to their civilization.

"Naturally, this conclusion applies to America, and, therefore, it should not democratize those who live in a civilization (in any case, without the sanction of the core power). Regarding our country Huntington recommends that the United States and the European Union "to recognize Russia as a pivotal power Orthodox civilization and a major regional power with a legitimate interest in ensuring the security of its southern borders. 

"Following such advice would mean that the Kremlin is given carte blanche to tackle key problems most of the post-Soviet spaces. And certainly carte blanche with regard to Ukraine and Belarus. The democratization of the former Soviet Union could not be implemented before the time when the Kremlin democratized, but the complete destabilization in the area could have been avoided.

How to avoid chaos? The situation in the Ukraine in 2014, is a vivid illustration of the problem of the chaos that has arisen in a large region, corresponds to the concept of "civilization" according to Huntington. Let's Throw a minute an ethical approach to this issue on the principle of "Russia - the evil, Ukraine - the good, or vice versa," and try to analyze the situation from the perspective of real politics.
Suppose America and the European Union want to build a market, democratic Ukraine, which sooner or later will become part of a united Europe. Do they have an opportunity to solve this problem? In the case of the Czech Republic, Poland and Estonia, a similar problem was solved quite easily, as the citizens of these countries the vast majority of Europeans saw themselves and were ready to play by the rules proposed by the West.

In the case of Ukraine, it is not so. Here the situation is much more complicated.Different regions see the future in very different ways, besides these views are rapidly changing under the influence of current circumstances. For someone authority, is Europe, for someone like Russia, while others just focused on a thicker pocket neighbor.

Russia has failed to bring Ukraine into the Customs Union, however, and the West was not able to solve the problems of this country either, ignoring Russia's opinions. Accusing each other of mortal sins, succeeded brilliantly in both Moscow and Washington, but to solve the Ukraine problem - no! 

Ukraine does not become such a solid and reliable component of the Western world, as the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia. Instead, it turned into a source of headaches for those who would like clarity, stability and efficiency in dealing with this beautiful country going through a difficult stage in its development.
The West must understand clearly how flowing gas through Ukrainian pipelines, as planes fly in Ukrainian sky like working Ukrainian nuclear power plants. And if there is something wrong functioning, Western politicians is difficult to escape from the problems of response that Putin was to blame. Thus, America in the XXI century can continue its policy of democratization of the world, focusing on the progress that she has had in her past. But can do otherwise: to take into account the problems of long-term chaos prevailing in the Islamic world, and the growing chaos in the post-Soviet space. If the United States are transforming their course in the spirit of realpolitik, picture of the future of the world may be substantially different.Westernized elites in different parts of the world will be left without support, while authoritarian leaders will find in America an understanding that their not your partner. 

Dmitry Travin 


No comments:

Post a Comment