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

Part one is here.

The fact is that, often, historical facts are intertwined with the realities of today and provide the key to understanding many events and decisions. It is precisely those events and decisions that seem to us exclusive and unexpected, in full accordance with the wise statement of the German philosopher Georg Friedrich Hegel: "Experience and history teach that peoples and governments have never learned anything from history and have not acted according to the lessons that could be drawn from it", written by him in the introduction to his "Lectures on the Philosophy of History" in 1832.

For the most complete understanding of the absurdity of the current situation in the world, it is just necessary to recall some facts from world history. And first of all, it would be necessary to refresh the memory of the current and potential allies of the Anglo-Saxons.

For example, ask yourself how many wars in the entire history of its existence the United Kingdom has won in a one-on-one or one-on-many confrontation with an opponent equal to it in military power, political influence in the world, industrial and economic potential?

At the moment, it is not possible to recall such a "victory" of English weapons in visible history. By and large, England has always prevailed either over the enemy, armed with spears against English guns and cannons, or in a coalition with many countries, in the "crowd against one” version.

After analysing all their achievements in this field, it is possible to come to the conclusion that Great Britain considered and still considers the main weapon for defeating the enemy and eliminating competitors to be intrigue and unscrupulousness. All the time of its existence, Britain has survived by eliminating unwanted leaders of countries that dared to pursue policies that were not "pro-English".

Here it is appropriate to recall the "apoplectic blow of a snuffbox in the temple" of the Russian Emperor Pavel I, and the role of the English envoy Whitworth in these events. It weakened competitors by initiating border conflicts. Here it is appropriate to recall the Caucasian war of Imam Shamil, the money and weapons supplied to him by the British) and the clash of competing powers with England (for example, the Napoleonic Wars and the same murder of Emperor Pavel I.

In pursuit of self-serving goals, throughout its history, Britain entered into military alliances and created coalitions, whose members were used as cannon fodder, designed to solve English problems with their blood. At the same time, the Anglo-Saxons have always tried to assign to themselves the main merits in achieving victory over the enemy, and the preferences received from winning the war.

Possible skeptics are advised to get acquainted with the history of the emergence, course and results of such military conflicts as the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War of 1853-1856, during which Britain persuaded the Emperor of Austria-Hungary to speak out against Russia, who shortly before the events described, the Russian Empire ensured, at his request, the preservation of the territorial integrity of his empire, the Russian-Japanese war, the First World War, as a result of which such empires as the Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman and Russian empires disappeared from the face of history, and the Second World War, which was initiated by the Anglo-Saxons, who later entered into an alliance with the USSR, which bore the brunt of the destruction of Nazism in those years.

Isn't it symbolic that history is repeating itself now: once again, at the instigation of the Anglo-Saxons, a Nazi enclave has emerged near the Russian borders, posing a threat to the national security of our country?

However, the coup in Ukraine was carried out with the direct intervention of the United States, not Britain, but if you remember, what is the United States? This is a state founded, for the most part, by criminals, marginals and adventurers who escaped or were exiled from the Old World to the overseas colonies of Great Britain, which as a result of "anti-government separatist activities" (almost a quote from the speeches of American politicians regarding the L/DPR) separated from the mother country, declaring independence.

That is, initially, they are the same Anglo-Saxons, only more cunning and unscrupulous than their "cousins" from the old world. At the same time, the dominant mentality is that of criminals, adventurers, pirates and marginals, who were at the origins of the formation of the American nation…

Isn't it symbolic that again, as before the Second World War, Russia's (then Soviet) legitimate concern about the development of the situation in Europe is ignored? It is enough to recall the behaviour of Britain and France in April-August 1939, as a result of which the tripartite Soviet-Franco-British negotiations on the conclusion of a mutual assistance treaty between the USSR, Great Britain and France were disrupted in the face of the growing strength of German Nazism.

Such parallels, coupled with other historical facts, seem alarming and give rise to reasonable doubts about the sincerity of the statements of London and Washington about their commitment to peace.

"I have brought you peace," British Prime Minister Chamberlain said cynically and arrogantly, brandishing a piece of paper with Hitler's promise not to attack Britain. These words were spoken to them after returning from Munich in 1938, when Czechoslovakia was given to Germany and Poland.

Our home-grown pacifist liberals would like to recall in this connection some of his words spoken at that time: "Germany and England are the two pillars of the European world... Therefore, it is necessary to overcome our current difficulties in a peaceful way... it will probably be possible to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone except Russia."

Similarly, but even more radically, British Foreign Secretary Henderson put it: "It may even be argued that it is unfair to try to prevent Germany from completing its unity and preparing for war against the Slavs, provided that these preparations do not dissuade the British Empire that they are not simultaneously directed against it."

It seems that no one needs to be reminded of what happened after Great Britain, with the direct participation of France, destroyed the entire architecture of pan-European security in 1938, and how many victims the British flirtation with the Nazis cost humanity. Back then the whole planet was washed with blood!

Are there any parallels with the current actions of the "gentlemen" from the banks of the Thames and Potomac?

If we take it as an axiom that the head is necessary as a receptacle for brains, and not just to wear a hat, then it would not hurt to think about many things.

For example, returning to the question of the current and potential allies of the Anglo-Saxons, we can offer them to evaluate the first results of the special military operation conducted by Russia to denazify Ukraine.

There is no doubt that the events around Ukraine are only gaining momentum and are on the very first leg of the road to the finish line. At the same time, in sports there is a concept of "intermediate finish". Applying this concept to the operation conducted by Russia, in the bottom line, we have the following:

1. Russian troops are systematically and inevitably purging Ukraine of Banderist scum.

2. The resistance of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the nationalist battalions (where it exists) is chaotic, not coordinated, not organised, and does not obey a single plan for the complete absence of such a plan, as well as a command level capable of developing it, which is most likely a sign of the agony of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

3. Realising the futility and fatality of open clashes with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the Ukrainian Armed Forces spontaneously switch to partisan tactics.

4. True to their eternal tactic "the worse Russia is, the better we are", the "good" neighbours are pumping thousands of small arms and ammunition into Ukraine, with the aim of shedding as much Slavic blood as possible.

5. Suffering from lethal brain damage, the Ukrainian government is arming the so-called “territorial defence" with small arms, the overwhelming majority of which consists of Nazis and criminal elements, who are hardly primarily thinking of protecting the country's borders from the "aggressor".

At the same time, the authorities in power in Ukraine, who fulfil the will of US advisers, do not know that it is not enough to "distribute weapons to the masses". If now, at the wave of a magic wand, all the Russian troops disappear from the territory of the neighbouring country, then how will they take back the distributed weapons, if only in Kiev alone about 25,000 units of combat automatic weapons and almost a million rounds of ammunition are distributed uncontrollably?

6. The Russian Armed Forces do not consider the current events to be a war between states, with all the consequences that follow from this fact. It is this special operation that is being performed. Specifically, in a mode that spares the Ukrainian side, without using all available capabilities to defeat the opposing side's manpower and equipment. At the same time, the demonstrated pace of advance of troops speaks for itself.

7. The bravura slogans "America will help” were replaced by the decadent moans "we are left alone". And this is probably one of the most important results of our "intermediate finish". No one needs Ukraine. No one is really going to help Ukraine (and did not intend to initially), despite the bellicose statements made earlier by various politicians of the Collective Western countries.

For it is one thing to bravely win the hearts of the masses, broadcasting militant propaganda from the stands in cozy conference halls into microphones, and another is to really drive an angry bear back into its den… Shamefacedly averting their eyes, the pan-European establishment is now belligerently threatening Russia with sanctions, which were already hung on it like fleas on a watchdog. We got used to it already. It hurts, but not fatally. You see, and we'll think that it's time to start producing what they don't give us…

This is exactly where the reason arises to "turn on the brain, turn off the emotions" to all current and potential allies of the Anglo-Saxons, as mentioned above, as well as it was said about the history lessons, which, as you know, no one learns, and that the current global situation seems absurd.

So I would like to invite everyone to think deeply: why do we need such a friend and ally who can not just substitute, but also deliver a dastardly stab in the back?

This is not the first time that the Anglo-Saxon world, ignoring the honour and sanctity of the given word, has abandoned its allies in a difficult, deadly situation. It was with Poland in 1939, it happened now in Afghanistan and is happening with Ukraine. Rummaging through your memory, you can cite other examples of such behaviour of "gentlemen".

It was the same in 1940, when the British Navy carried out Operation Catapult, during which, having vilely struck in the back, the “gentlemen” destroyed warships of the French Navy in the ports, which at that time was an ally of the British in the war against the Nazis.

At the same time, France now again considers the British friends, and Russia – almost an enemy, despite the fact that our country has never allowed itself to do this to its allies.

So it turns out that in order to survive in our absurd world, it is necessary not to be guided by unsubstantiated emotions, but to scrupulously evaluate real facts (including historical ones), and think, think and think again, verifying each step and decisions made. After all, you will have to answer for them later to your descendants…

But most importantly, on the basis of a sober assessment of the situation and analysis of historical facts, to develop clear criteria for who can be called a friend and ally, and who is deadly dangerous.