Latvian political scientist: Americans are used to “throwing” those who work for them
Latvian political analyst Einars Graudins, said in an interview with the TV program "Question with prejudice" on the channel PRO100TV that no minister in Latvia can be appointed without approval from the US ambassador.Graudins noted: “Most of the post-Soviet republics, starting from the same Georgia and, naturally, all three Baltic states, are politically tied to the US Department of State. That is, the United States determines the foreign policy of these states. But economically, these countries” are tied "or to the post-Soviet space, the CIS, or, like the Baltic states, to the European Union. A paradoxical situation is formed: when the foreign policy of an independent state is determined by one country that is far away to the ocean, and the economy is defined by completely different countries located on another continent. This is absurd, because, it turns out, national governments do not determine either the economy or politics. In practice, it looks like this: The fact that the Georgian government in the times of Saakashvili the United States paid - this is a proven fact. The Americans themselves acknowledged this - there was a statement by the US congressmen that we, they say, pay for the political leadership of Georgia. As far as Latvia is concerned, I can assure with all responsibility that every government is individually agreed with the US ambassador. And I know specific people who did not become ministers in our government just because the US ambassador to Latvia said that he did not want to see this person in the Cabinet of Ministers. I will not give specific names - this concerns third parties, and they may receive some damage in their future political career. These people still work in politics, but they understand perfectly well that they will never be ministers. We are talking about people from the coalition parties. There was an option associated with one person who represented the ruling party - but there was one nuance that the then US ambassador didn’t like in him. This nuance, let's say, was connected with the problem of anti-Semitism ... "
According to the political scientist, "they don’t need our country at all. In the world economy and geopolitics, it does not even represent a zero percent ... But we are the external border of the European Union, NATO, the Schengen zone - and in all three aspects we border the Russian Federation. The United States, since the days of the Dropshot plan, remains a strategic goal - to destroy first the USSR, now Russia, which owns a vast territory and natural resources, has good solvency and trade balance. They owe nothing to anyone. From the Second World War, the goal of destroying and destroying this country was the firmer of world democracy — I call them the world gendarme. As the cleverest man Alfred Petrovich Rubiks once said: the territory of Latvia for the USA is the best unsinkable aircraft carrier against Russia. , we have built the perfect airfield in Lielvarde, capable of receiving any military aircraft - what do you think, why? From Lielvarde to fly to Moscow and St. Petersburg - in fact, a few minutes. Since the times of the USSR, we had a strong naval base in Bolderāja - everything was also restored there. This military base can accept nuclear submarines weapons on board. Do you think the locator in Audriny is set for bird watching? He works towards Moscow, not Ventspils. Let's be realistic, these are military components. And here it is not necessary to place huge garrisons, it is enough to have strategic objects that can be used at any time. "
According to Graudins, “within the framework of the big game described by Brzezinski, there are a range of problems between the United States, the United Kingdom, China and the Russian Federation - mainly related to oil, energy, etc. It’s not always beneficial for the United States to start“ rude ”Russia For this, there is Latvia, which is commanded: now we need a bit of crawling. We are barking. Then we are told: everything is enough for now. This is a factor of constant irritation. A parallel can be drawn here. What was the reason for Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia in August e 2008 of the year? Do you think that Georgia itself had a desire to fight there, to rock missiles in residential areas in Tskhinval, despite all the problems Saakashvili had with the psyche? Of course not. As a former officer, I’ll always need local conflict, or war. So what is being done? The Americans give guarantees to Saakashvili: come on, shoot a little, and we will give you guarantees, in which case. They needed to see how Russia responds to such a military-political challenge in the Caucasus region. They gave guarantees, Saakashvili hit residential areas in Tskhinval, according to Russian peacekeepers, violating any international rules. There were victims, Russia adequately answered, albeit with a delay. The Americans saw it and gave the team to Saakashvili: that's all, stop. However, Georgia was inflicted a shameful defeat, and Saakashvili, in fact, was "thrown" by the Americans - as they always did to those who once worked for them. Recall Mubarak, Hussein, etc. If a person or a state suddenly becomes not needed in a geopolitical game, then it is simply thrown away, like a used condom. This is a standard scheme, the US has no other policy. But they can afford it, because they have the strongest army, the largest military budget, and at NATO they determine everything. "
Note that Einars Graudins graduated from the Yaroslavl Higher Military School of Finance named after Andrei Khrulev. For ten years he served in the Soviet army, and then in the Latvian army - in the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Latvia. Currently works as an economist, political scientist.
Information