Why the US is killing the modern international political architecture. Part One

In modern conditions, the situation in the world is changing rapidly. Often, what still yesterday seemed unlikely or even impossible, already today becomes commonplace.

Back in December-January, Russia made attempts to resolve the crisis by diplomatic means, but its efforts did not bring a positive result, and its legitimate concern in obtaining security guarantees was arrogantly ignored by the Collective West.

Nowadays Russia is placed in such conditions when it is forced to resort to extreme measures to ensure not only its own safety, but also the safety of people who consider themselves Russian, and the Russian language as their native one. Russian people who have been subjected to systematic genocide for eight years on the territory of a neighbouring and once fraternal administrative-territorial entity.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to call Ukraine a state in the full sense of the word, based on the assessment of the internal political situation in the country and the actions of those who came to power as a result of the coup d'etat of 2014.

The decision to conduct a special military operation to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine, adopted by the President of Russia, was forced, though long-awaited, since its necessity became obvious a long time ago.

The cynical and spitting attitude of the United States and its satellites to Russia's concern about NATO's approach to its borders from year to year and their purposeful creation of anti-Russian enclaves around our country, the main one of which is the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the genocide of Russians in Ukraine, as well as the explicit intentions of its Nazi leadership to return the country to nuclear status, became the last straw that overflowed the cup of patience.

To have an uncontrolled and ungovernable anti–Russian enclave in the immediate vicinity, created and used by a likely enemy as a springboard for further expansion not only into the mental, but also into the territorial space of Russia, and even such an enclave with nuclear weapons, is a luxury that no one in their right mind can afford.

However, the goals, objectives and progress of the special military operation, as well as the ambiguous reaction to Russia's actions from foreign countries, are covered by our Institute in other publications in a sufficiently broad and prompt manner.

Here it seems appropriate to pay attention to other aspects of the global game that the Anglo-Saxon world has been playing against the Russian world for more than a dozen years or even more than just one century.

Thus, analysing today's news feeds, statements of political scientists and political figures around the world, it is impossible not to pay attention to the universal concern about the possibility of the situation escalating into a full-scale pan-European, if not global and armed conflict.

Such a probability is noted even by sensible foreign media figures.

On Friday, February 25, 2022, Fox News columnist Tucker Carlson noted: "The American media, in their characteristic deceitful manner, began to use the Ukrainian crisis for political gain." At the same time, Tucker considers the main task to prevent an economic crisis and a war with a nuclear power - Russia. But, he argues, it seems that few people in Washington want it.

As proof of his words, he cites the statement of an American businessman and politician, US Senator from Virginia Mark Robert Warner:

"One of the things that seriously bothers me is that Russia can use all its cyber power against Ukraine. The released malware will know no boundaries. If, for example, Russia decides to turn off electricity throughout Ukraine, it may well spread to the eastern parts of Poland and Romania and affect our own troops...

If hospitals close, or one of the NATO soldiers or American soldiers suddenly gets into a car accident due to non-working traffic lights... Hypothetically, we will find ourselves in the zone of application of Article 5 (Article 5 of the NATO Charter on Collective Security - Ed.), which provides for the assistance of NATO member countries to each other in the event of an attack on one of them," the senator said.

Similar "concerns" have already been publicly voiced by several figures from the US and the EU. Such statements of odious politicians could be taken as empty chatter, if not for one fact: on Friday, 25.02.2022, an extraordinary meeting of the heads of state and government of NATO member countries took place to develop a unified approach to events in eastern Europe. Following the meeting, it was decided that the North Atlantic Alliance would transfer rapid reaction forces to its eastern flank to deter the Russian Federation.

NATO members in a joint statement adopted on the results of the videoconference expressed their firm commitment to Article 5 of the NATO Charter on Collective Security.

Taking into account such decisions, the statements of the senator and similar figures do not seem to be accidental.

In this regard, it is interesting that, voluntarily or involuntarily, the American senator indicated a possible scenario for the implementation of provocation by Russophobic "hawks" from the banks of the Potomac or Thames, aimed at dragging Europe into a "big" war with Russia.

If desired, a lot of persons capable of carrying out such a provocation can be found among Ukrainian nationalists, Polish, Lithuanian-Latvian-Estonian or other Russophobes. Those fact that due to gaps in education and poor knowledge of history, such persons simply cannot understand the whole pernicious essence of the Jesuit designs of the American establishment, does not negate the seriousness of the situation.

So why, according to Tucker Carlson, few people in Washington want to stop the development of the crisis?

Isn't it because so many modern politicians and activists of various movements supporting the initiatives of the United States and advocating tough measures against our country are unwilling, and some are not able, to compare what is happening now with historical examples?

At the same time, based on such a comparison, with a high degree of probability, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The US’ intentions to undermine the situation to the level of a pan-European/global conflict have long been visible to any sane person. With a tenacity worthy of better application, the United States spends enormous resources on creating hotbeds of tension both in Europe and around the world.

And what, someone from the Washington "hawks" will allow such money to be wasted?

Apparently, the White House reflexively believes that in the event of a full-scale pan-European war, the only beneficiary will be the United States, which, as in the two world conflicts that took place in the 20th century, will be able to wait out the main events overseas. That is, in their opinion, out of reach.

At the same time, it is assumed that, without allowing damage to their territory, economy, industry and infrastructure, they will appear at the end on the ruins of Europe in the halo of peacemakers-deliverers, having again acquired all possible preferences for themselves.

As an example: the dollar became the reserve currency of the world precisely as a result of the Second World War, when the American monetary unit displaced the pound sterling, previously unofficially considered as such one, and in 1944 at the Bretton Woods conference received the status of the world reserve currency. Because "money loves silence", and the world currency cannot be the monetary unit of a state which is at risk of a foreign military invasion.

2. The interest in such a development of the situation is also due to the fact that the United States scrupulously calculates the possible results of such a collision, and quite rightly believes that all countries – active participants in the conflict, will suffer enormous demographic, infrastructural and economic losses. At the same time, taking into account modern technologies, such losses can reach a level that will call into question the very fact of the existence of the parties to the conflict not only as independent subjects of international law, but in general. Physically.

3. As in the case of the past world wars, the United States hopes to solve its pressing internal and external political and economic problems at the expense of old Europe. At least:

- to overcome the rapid decline in the ratings of both parties in power and, as a result, the brewing systemic domestic political crisis that threatens to lead to the collapse of the American statehood proper;

- to minimise the aggravation of the previously sluggish race crisis in the country, spurred by some interested parties in a short-sighted way in order to remove Trump from power in 2020;

- to level the huge external public debt of the United States by eliminating creditors from the world map;

- to restore the dominant position in the world that is rapidly being lost, but at a higher level, which practically makes them inaccessible to potential competitors. Here, as the saying goes, it's not even the "theory of the golden billion", but the theory of the "golden country".

The hotheads from the White House are not even stopped by the direct warning of the President of Russia that this time the blows will be inflicted not only on the performers, but also on the decision-making centres. Apparently, they do not take this statement seriously. But they should. It would be better for them, and their satellites, to listen to it.

Based on the above, we can draw a reasonable conclusion that, with a high degree of probability, the development of the situation with Ukraine according to such a scenario as we are seeing now, is not as exact as it is predicted by the United States, but it will not affect too much their plans to contain Russia either. The bottom line is that in this "chess game" the United States play unscrupulously, offensively, "a long game" and in multi-vector way.

At the same time, after recovering from an unexpected blow, they always try to benefit from any scenario. Although, most likely, not so unexpected one, because in this case, by and large, only two very predictable ways of responding to the actions of the United States from Russia were possible. In this regard, it seems that it is not at all difficult for the relevant professionals who are stubbornly trying to drive Russia into a position called zugzwang in chess, to calculate these methods and develop algorithms for responding to both cases.

So, the following variants of Russia's reaction to the anti-Russian actions of the United States were possible:

1. Russia does not interfere in the development of events, and does not take measures to actively counter the efforts of the United States and NATO to establish and consolidate Nazi ideology in Ukraine as a state one, continuing unsuccessful attempts to resolve the crisis situation diplomatically.

2. The Russian Federation does not ignore the formation of a potential springboard for aggression against its borders, and preemptively takes the necessary comprehensive measures to counter US plans to eliminate Russia as a geopolitical competitor, which is now happening.

In the first case, in the immediate vicinity of the borders of our country, a (psychologically) Russophobic Nazi enclave would be finally formed in the near future. The necessary propaganda work by Western countries has been carried out since the Soviet era, and for the last 30 years – in general, almost at the level of state ideology.

With such an intensity of "brainwashing", in 10 to 15 years we would get a situation in a neighbouring country where those who consciously remember the USSR and the "brotherhood of peoples" would practically step away from active affairs, and in key positions, including in state bodies, in the media, in the SBU and UAF, there would be spiritual followers of Bandera and Shukhevych, whose life credo is "hang Russian on the tree branch". This is despite the fact that even now a significant part of the UAF youth is "tied with blood" through 8 years of unpunished genocide in Donbass. Such a situation would sooner or later still lead to an inevitable military clash.

As we can see, the United States consciously and purposefully created exactly such a situation when military intervention by Russia became simply inevitable. Because the forecasts of the development of Russian-Ukrainian relations in this direction are such that Russia would still have to either, on its own initiative, carry out special measures aimed at ensuring its own security, or, sooner or later, it would be purposefully provoked on instructions from Washington into armed confrontation by a neighbouring country oversaturated with Western weapons. This is basically the same thing.

The difference is that in the first case, a special military operation would be carried out in conditions much more unfavourable for Russia. The internal political situation in Ukraine would be such that we would already face the task not of denazification of the country, a significant part of whose population does not accept Nazism and is loyal to Russia, but of full-scale destruction of the Nazi enclave, overwhelmingly hostile to Russians and Russia. Similar to the years 1941-1945 with all the ensuing consequences.

While in the second case, Russia itself chose the time of intervention, taking into account the readiness of the country and its Armed Forces, the level of which allows for a special military operation in its most sparing version for both sides of the conflict.

It should be noted that in both cases, there may be a direction of development of events in which the United States itself or at their instructions, attempts will be made to involve Russia and European countries in a full-scale conflict, through provocations, similar to the scenario that Warner described in his statement.

With one clarification, that in the second case, when the initiative belongs to Russia, the probability of such a conflict is fleetingly small. Because Russia is ready, and the United States is probably aware of this. And not all of them are rabid "hawks". There are also strictly professionals who remember perfectly about the unequivocal warnings of President Putin. And they know what does this portend to the United States directly.

Such an assumption might seem like one of the versions of the "conspiracy theory", if not for real historical examples that clearly show how through two world wars the Anglo-Saxons solved their internal and external problems and got rid of crises like, for example, the "Great Depression".

A natural question arises: how the possibility of a full-scale conflict in Europe now is interconnected with the events of bygone days, which, as mentioned above, we consider it appropriate to analyse in this regard?

To be continued...