Military Review

Trump and train. What is American money going to?

US President Donald Trump almost simultaneously made two opposing statements. 18 December, he promulgated his “brilliant” doctrine, and the same day a tragedy occurred in the USA: a passenger train derailed in Washington state, not far from Seattle, and its two carriages fell from the overpass to the cars. Six people died, more than 80 - injured. Among the victims - not only passengers, but also those who were driving in cars.

The American President expressed his condolences to the relatives of the victims, wished recovery to the wounded. One can only join condolences and wishes. Least of all on this sad occasion, I would like to once again write critical material about the United States, but it's all about Trump's other words. It would seem that he finally saw the light - the money of American taxpayers did not go there.

«Seven trillion dollars spent in the Middle East. While our roads, bridges, tunnels, railroad tracks and much more are crumbling, He wrote on his Twitter. And do not forget to add: "But not for long!“Also, Trump called for the approval of his infrastructure plan as soon as possible.

Of course, these Trump words are also welcome. I would like to live to see the happy day when American money will cease to flow to fueling conflicts in the Middle East. To support terrorists under the guise of "opposition". The merciless airstrikes that kill civilians and, in addition, destroy the infrastructure of countries that are already much poorer than the United States and its European allies. And if even in a country like the United States, infrastructure problems lead to such tragedies, then one can only guess what kind of indirect damage people suffered in those states that bombarded trillions of US dollars.

But will we live to this very day, when the words of our overseas “partners” will turn into a deed? Alas. A little earlier this tramp statement the White House published the text of the National Security Strategy, and Trump presented this document (work on it began back in March).

The main thesis of the strategy: "Peace through power". So, again, some of the countries will fly bombs, again there will be pumping of "good" terrorists, again money will be allocated for the overthrow of the authorities in unwanted Washington states.

And, finally, directly a money issue. Trump condemned the reduction of the military budget, called it "devastating". And he added that he, along with his administration, "put an end to this."

So what does the US President really intend to end: the allocation of money for all sorts of foreign policy adventures (as in the Middle East) or a reduction in the budget for military needs (which provides just an increase in funding for various military adventures)?

And without it, Washington is spending more on military targets in 10 than Russia, and five times more than China. And here it is also planned to increase the US military budget. When was Trump sincere? When did he present the national security strategy or when he promised that the money would go to railways, bridges and other objects important for the population?

Actually, the American national security strategy does not contain anything new. All the same as it was. Again, the notion of “rogue states” (including Iran, which means glowing again in the Middle East), again “Russia and China are the main threats”, again “the fight against international terrorism” (in practice, it only turns around the growth of this terrorism). Is that added to the opposition to cyber threats. Well, yes, how can you manage without fighting sinister “Russian hackers”? Are they the ones that Trump allegedly made president?

In Russia, they criticized this strategy. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: "There is a reluctance to abandon the unipolar world". Chairman of the Committee on International Affairs of the Council of the Federation of the Russian Federation Konstantin Kosachev, in his blog on Facebook, said:The tonality of the document leaves no doubt that the United States is not satisfied with the changes in the world in recent years, and they intend to reverse them, returning the recent version of Pax Americana as a supposedly fair world order.».

So, in the new strategy - almost all that was with Obama. But when Trump went to power, he promised to revise Obama’s position on many foreign policy issues, in particular, on the Middle East. If from his rival Hillary Clinton expected tightening of this position, then from Trump, on the contrary, easing.

The position on the Middle East is not just an opinion concerning one particular region. This applies to the position of the United States around the world. - Do they refuse arrogant, criminal interference in the affairs of sovereign states or continue all the same aggressive policies as in Iraq, Libya, Syria?

For now we can only see the continuation of aggressive actions. Moreover, Trump, it seems, was not enough that Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen are ablaze. It was necessary to pour more kerosene into the long-standing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which was done, contrary to the opinion of almost the entire world community.

So it is unlikely that we will wait for Washington to stop investing huge amounts of money on political and military "dynamite", which is undermining the world not only in the Middle East, but also everywhere where the United States decides to defend "its" questionable interests. American money will continue to go on trying to support the role of Washington as a world gendarme. The train of war will move on. However, earlier such “trains”, in the “cabins” of which the “machinists” sat, imagining themselves the masters of the world, always suffered a crash.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 21 December 2017 15: 16
    I’m afraid that Trump himself doesn’t already know where he told the truth and where he lied. Yes, it doesn’t matter to him. Peskov correctly noted that the United States is not going to abandon the “unipolar world”. Already all of these "masters of the world."
    1. Berber
      Berber 21 December 2017 17: 01
      There is a systemic crisis in the United States. And let them say that this is eternal and nothing will change, this is not so. The United States has less leverage. The dollar is weakening (and how much you can use the machine), and accordingly the power of the states is weakening.
      1. Vladimir16
        Vladimir16 21 December 2017 18: 05
        The main thesis of the strategy: "Peace through power."

        They have a different path - "Peace through the anus." That is what they do. They have everything through ... opu. There are already princely English called to become a bugger, and the boy is only three years old. You need to stay away from them. They will devour themselves in the end. negative
        Here is, you know, exupery.
  2. Strashila
    Strashila 21 December 2017 20: 52
    Not ... nothing will change ... from the war there will be more exhaust in personal pockets and no reports whatsoever, all for thousands of miles ... and most importantly, there is a terrible Assad who just burns the dollars sent to fight him .. . literally. And in America ... everything is in sight, for every cent they ask ... you can’t do it very much.
  3. Lexus
    Lexus 23 December 2017 19: 53
    "Trump and the fuck ... Satisfied with the ruins of phasington." Everything goes to this. The world with a knife at the throat is a bad world.
  4. kush62
    kush62 23 December 2017 20: 21
    The largest corruption scandal in the history of the United States is gaining momentum, which brought to light the unauthorized costs of the Pentagon in the amount of $ 21 trillion

    All for the good of the world. Peace, the Pentagon cares about you !!! stop
  5. NF68
    NF68 24 December 2017 16: 28
    At the top of the United States some kind of "fermentation" as in a jar with a mash.
  6. renics
    renics 26 January 2018 16: 03
    Pentagon unauthorized costs of $ 21 trillion.
    Scientists at MSU (Michigan State University) found $ 21 trillion in unauthorized government spending; The Ministry of Defense is conducting the first ever audit.
    Earlier this year, economist Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University, who works with graduate students and former government officials, found in the documents of the Pentagon and the Department of Housing and Urban Development between 1998 and 2015, unauthorized expenses amounting to $ 21 trillion.

    The work of Mark Skidmore and his team, which basically consisted of digging into government website materials and sending repeated requests to the relevant US ministries, which remained unanswered, coincided with the suspicious actions of the inspector general's service, which disabled access to links to all key documents containing information about unreasonable expenses. Fortunately, the researchers managed to download and save these documents.
    The US Department of Defense recently announced that it intends to conduct the first full-scale independent audit in the history of the department. (Read December 7th, announcement here). This Pentagon statement says nothing about the reasons for this check. However, an announcement about her appeared four days after Skidmore spoke about the findings his team reached during the USA Watchdog news release, led by former CNN and ABC News correspondent Greg Hunter.
    “Although we cannot know for sure what role our efforts in comparing the original documents and publishing the results of their analysis played, we still believe that they influenced future events,” said Mark Skidmore, who holds the post of head of the Department of State and Municipal Finance and public policy at Michigan State University.
    Skidmore joined in this work last spring when he heard Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, mentioning a report that said the U.S. Army’s unreasonable spending of $ 2015 trillion in fiscal year 6,5. Given that the army’s budget amounted to $ 122 billion, this meant that unreasonable expenses were 54 times their total amount authorized by Congress. As a rule, such expenditures in state budgets constitute only a small fraction of authorized expenditures.
    Skidmore thought at first that Fitts was simply mistaken. “Perhaps she meant 6,5 billion, not trillions of dollars,” he said. “But I also found this report and made sure, of course, that we are talking about trillions.”
    Skidmore and Fitts then agreed to work together to further investigate the matter. In the summer, two graduate students at the University of Michigan combed through government websites, especially the Inspector General's Service website, in search of similar documents since 1998. They found evidence of unreasonable expenses totaling $ 21 trillion between 1998 and 2015. (The original government documents and a report describing this problem can be found here.)
    Finally, on December 8, in a Forbes magazine column co-sponsored by Lawrence Kotlikoff, Skidmore said that the “gigantic scale” of undocumented federal spending “should be a serious concern for all US taxpayers.”
    “Together, these reports indicate a clear non-compliance with the basic requirements of the Constitution and US law on expenses and their accounting,” reads an article in Forbes. “We urge the Budget Commission of the House of Representatives and the Senate to immediately begin investigating unaccounted federal spending, as well as finding the source from which the payments were made.”
    g-defense-department-to-conduct /