… by Konstantin Penzev, …with New Eastern Outlook, Moscow
[ Editor’s note: NEO has a deep writing bench, with most of their people coming from Russia’s top foreign policy academic institutions.
Spending years of study at a top university has long been the deeply trodden path for Russia’s top foreign policy scholars and diplomats, for both rich and poor students.
The Institute of Oriental Studies, established in 1814 in St. Petersburg, hence the golden domes image I use so frequently, and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations are like a combination of our Harvard, Columbia and George Washington Universities. For example, Russia’s current Foreign minister Lavrov is an alumni of Moscow State.
When we began our early discussions with NEO about working together, I saw the cross-pollination potential instantly, not only for our editors and writers, but for our readers, also. I knew I had found the magic potion to save our readers from becoming bored with our own writing and viewpoints. Getting stale is a long time occupational hazard for writers and publishers, but I am happy to say we have avoided it.
An outsider can often give you greater insight and understanding about things in your own backyard because they are not distracted with all the ‘knowledge clutter’ that we carry around. Those of you who live in an historic or otherwise interesting area have experienced this when you have taken visiting guests on the scenic tour…the comments they sometimes come up with based on their fresh look at things.
And so we have that below with Mr. Pensev’s new article, which is why I chose it for this evening. I learned some things, and hope you will, too. And if we do it well, we will be more feared when we enter the jungle of Geo-political politics, or maybe I should say swamp… Jim W. Dean ]
– First published March 16, 2014 –
What are they fighting for? Once, the Russian communist leader Vladimir Lenin said: “Every revolution is only worth something if it can defend itself.”
This statement is true. The Soviet state founder’s words can be paraphrased as: any person, nation or state is only worth something if they are able to defend themselves.
Vladimir Lenin, to be sure, would not challenge the later formulation. This man was a great politician, no matter what personal attitude you might have to him.
All self-respecting people are fighting for a better future. The Irish people fought for freedom, the Roman general Crassus fought for gold, and the Spartans fought simply because they wanted to fight. No matter what goals these people had, they had to pay with their own blood for their achievements.
All of them knew one simple truth: as long as no foreign soldier steps on the land, this land is not conquered. A puppet power is a very bad support.
I shall offer an example. Napoleonic France dominion over Europe ended at the Battle of Leipzig, when, suddenly, the whole Saxon Army (made to fight in Bonaparte’s Army) suddenly turned to the Allied camp, and instantly turning their guns, began to shoot the French, alongside whom they had fought not very long ago.
French sociologist Emmanuel Todd in his book “After the Empire” notes Washington’s disproportionate global ambitions and its real possibilities in the military sense. The power of the United States Army has, in many respects, a theatrical character. Nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers and cruise missiles all make for strong arguments in world politics.
Meanwhile, the decisive military factors, as it was a couple of thousand years ago, were and still remain the people’s ability to self-sacrifice — their will to win. Thus, Germans and the French should be considered as great military nations in the West, who shook the world with their weapons more than once.
What did the boys from the White House shake the world with? One day they dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing with a single blow two hundred thousand civilians. It was an act of terror in its purest form, as the bombing of these Japanese cities had no military purpose.
The Soviet Union defeated the Kwantung Army in a month’s time with minimal losses, and Japan did not have a chance to defend its territory. Great victories of America in World War II and later, are great especially according to Hollywood.
We can say that the U.S. government consists of speculators and adventurers who are quite capable of thinking pragmatically. Pragmatism consists of the following facts. The population of the United States, especially after Vietnam, is not eager to pay with their lives for the dirty political games of Washington.
The U.S. forces are now conscripted on a contract basis. This is neither bad nor good; it is simply that professionals have their own motivations.
Sensitivity of the American nation to war losses is due primarily to the fact that the political activities of Washington have a distinctly aggressive character. What should the White House do? One day, it was decided to change the tactics and not put its own army under fire.
The U.S. Administration decided to bet on the so-called “fifth column”, which exists in all (we emphasize in all) the countries, consisting of traitors and social outsiders. As it is indicated in the directive NSC 20/1:
“This element will always be present in any society… The only protection from the dangerous abuse of this element – is powerful regimes’ lack of desire to use this unfortunate feature of human nature.”
What are the Americans fighting for? They, in fact, do not fight. They print dollars and hand them to psychopaths, criminals and losers in any particular country that Washington decides to make a revolution and establish a puppet regime in.
The White House is ready to cooperate with Islamic terrorists, Ukrainian Nazis, Latin American dictators, even with Satan himself, and do you think that all these people would kill for high ideas and Victoria Nuland’s cookies? However, this is not the issue.
It is necessary to understand the following. Political regimes (regardless if they are democratic, authoritarian or totalitarian) can behave in the most insolent manner with Washington, only if they are strong enough.
An example of this is North Korea, which systematically irritates the White House, and the latter cannot do anything about it. Why? Alas, the U.S. population is corrupted, is not capable of self-sacrifice, and therefore, is not able to fight.
What should the U.S. citizen fight for, if his government is not guided by the interests of the nation, but by the interests of the international financial oligarchy? That is why all the so-called “threats” of President Obama against Russia concerning events in Ukraine are empty words.
From the interview of the United States former Ambassador in the UN, John Bolton, with Fox News:
John Bolton: The lesson for us is that America has begun to show weakness everywhere, all over the world. I think now all the cards are in Mr. Putin’s hands. And the only thing that Obama can do is just make rhetoric.
Fox News: All right. He said that Russia will have to pay a price. What do you think, what price is he speaking about?
John Bolton: Obama will be very unhappy. However, he is not prepared to force Russia to pay any prices.
U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, in an interview with NBC and CBS TV channels, said: “We are ready to completely isolate Russia.” Oh-la-la! Maybe John Kerry will try to isolate Russia from China, where the industrial production of the U.S., EU and Japan has moved? Maybe the EU will refuse to buy Russian gas, or France will ban Russian tourists taking photos with the Eiffel Tower in the background?
And here it is another statement of Secretary of the State Kerry: “In the twenty-first century it is impossible to behave as in the 19th century – that means invading another country under a completely false pretext.” Curiously, is he referring to Russia or the United States who invaded Iraq in the 21st century, under a completely fictional pretext? Yes, and the U.S. invaded not only Iraq!
This is the theater of the absurd. In Russia they say: it is better to be silent and to look wise than to say stupid things. Russia can be cheated, it is possible to draw its attention by some economic benefits, it is possible to bargain with it, but it is senseless to intimidate it.
Whenever the Russians were forced to retreat, then they came back with double demands and achieved them. Why? They have such a tradition.