During the Great Depression, 32 President of the United States and one of the most prominent statesmen of the first half of the twentieth century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, said: "One of my main tasks is to protect bankers and businessmen from suicide." This touching concern turned into the greatest tragedy of all mankind - the Second World War, the main instigators of which were American industrialists and financiers.
In that war, more than 54 million people died, 90 million was injured, 28 million of the total number of injured became disabled.
The Second World War solved many problems of the American establishment, but not all: the Soviet Union not only survived, but turned into a superpower. The main task that FD set for himself. Roosevelt, was resolved with over-fulfillment - the United States turned into a global financial center. In July, in the small town of Bretton Woods, 1944 at the international conference of winners laid the foundation for such institutions as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, from 1960 - the World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). At the same time, the US dollar was declared a type of world money, along with gold. By that time, the US controlled 70% of the world's gold reserves. In the United States itself, by the end of the war, there was 129 billion dollars (a colossal sum, and for today!) Liquid savings.
This money, "earned" by American bankers and industrialists on the sufferings and deaths of millions of people, gave a powerful incentive to the production of consumer goods and capital construction. Not to mention the international status that the United States received. Even Rusobof and the ideological enemy of our country Z. Brzezinski admitted: “Paradoxically, the defeat of Nazi Germany raised America’s international status, although it did not play a decisive role in the military victory over Hitlerism. The merit of this victory should be recognized for the Stalinist Soviet Union. " One way or another, but the foundation of modern hegemonism of America was laid precisely in the last world war.
The results of the great and terrible war formed among those who rule America in fact, the only model of behavior: the solution of their own problems should always be achieved at the expense of other countries and peoples. Throughout the post-war period, the United States resorted to aggression whenever they either had economic problems or needed to divert attention from unpopular economic measures within the country.
So, the Korean War was a reaction to the first post-war recession of the year 1949. The invasion of Lebanon followed the decline of 1957-1958. The aggression against Vietnam was a reaction to the economic downturn of 1967, and the "launch" by Carter of the second round of the Cold War - to the downturn of 1979. Fall of 1981-1982 not only Reagan's “military Keynesianism”, but also the American “approach” to Nicaragua and Grenada. I'm not even talking about such large-scale US / NATO interventions in the twenty-first century as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya.
Many American scientists and writers also pay attention to the aggressive nature of US foreign policy as a reaction to internal problems. Thus, the largest historian of the first half of the twentieth century, one of the founders of the economic direction in US historiography, the author of the 4-heavy work “Formation of American Civilization” Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948) believed that after the victory over Japan in 1945, The United States is "eternal war for eternal peace."
Based on the developments Ch.O. Birda, the famous American liberal writer Gore Vidal, in his work 2002 of the Year, Why We Are Hated, put tables of military and other operations conducted by the Americans before 2001 of the year on several pages. At the same time, “the author out of compassion (to the readers. - EP) did not list the military operations that the CIA carried out in different countries, for example, in Guatemala (1953), or in Iran (1953), when Mossadegh was dropped, or Chile, when Allende was dropped, etc. " And most importantly, Gore Vidal emphasized that “in these several hundreds of wars against communism, terrorism, drugs, and sometimes even unknown at all against what happened between the events in Pearl Harbor and“ black Tuesday ”11 of September 2001, we (America. - EP) tried to strike first. But we are good guys, aren't we? (italics mine - E.P.) ”.
In turn, Ziauddin Sardar and Merrill Win Davis in the book “Why do people hate America” in the period from 1890 (US military action in Argentina) to 2001 (beginning operations in Afghanistan) counted 124 American interventions in various parts of the globe . Moreover, as the authors point out, a special place in the interventionist policy of the United States has always been occupied by provocations. Examples? You are welcome.
In 1898, an explosion of the American ship "Men" was organized - the Spaniards were accused. As a result, the United States began a war with Spain.
7 in May 1915 of the United States was substituted for the German submarines "Lusitania". The liner with a shaded name and without a flag of any country purposefully entered the zone designated by the German government as the “zone of underwater war”. Under wartime conditions, the Lusitania was torpedoed by a German submarine and sank. Killed 1198 people from 1959 ex aboard. This incident was used for informational pressure on the public opinion of many countries that have dramatically changed their attitude towards Germany.
In 1941, Roosevelt was well aware of the impending strike on Pearl Harbor, but did nothing as needed an excuse for going to war.
In 1964, there have been so-called Tonkin incident which has given rise to the top of the Vietnam War.
The explosion of the Twin Towers in September 11 2001 he became a pretext for military intervention in Afghanistan.
The mythical nuclear program was the reason for the destruction of Iraq. A nuclear provocative cause has long been hanging over Iran and North Korea. And now the chemical weapon in Syria.
Another American scientist, Honored Professor, gave a terrible description of US foreign policy stories Princeton University Arnaud J. Meyer. He could not publish his article “Untimely Thoughts” on the events of 9 / 11 in the USA - “the most democratic country in the world”. We managed to do this in the French newspaper Le Monde. I quote:
“In recent times, until recent events, acts of individual terror were considered weapons of the weak and poor, while acts of state and economic terror were weapons of the strong. In both types of terror, it is important to distinguish between object and victim. This distinction is crystal clear in the event of a blow to the International Trade Center: the object is the brightest symbol and focus of global corporate and economic power, the victims were the unfortunate, mostly ordinary employees. Another thing is the Pentagon: there is concentrated the highest military command ... of capitalist globalization, causing, in the Pentagon language, “collateral” damage to human life.
One way or another, after 1947, America has become the main criminal pioneer, guilty of "pre-emptive" state terrorism, first of all in relation to the third world countries, and therefore, as a rule, ignored. In addition to the constant subversive activities and the overthrow of governments in rivalry with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Washington resorted to political assassinations, creating surrogates for death squads and detachments of so-called freedom fighters (such as bin Laden). He organized the assassination of Lumumba and Allende and tried to carry out the assassination of Castro, Gaddafi and Hussein, put a veto on any attempts to curb not only Israel’s violations of international agreements and UN resolutions, but also its policy of "preemptive" state terror (my curse. - E. P.)".
The genesis of the Syrian crisis is set by the very nature of US hegemony. But why in Washington were aiming at the "final solution" of the Syrian question right now? Why turned to the proven scheme - provocations? And why did they prepare her so badly: the staged nature of video frames, slipped to the world as “evidence” of a chemical attack allegedly carried out by the Syrian army, became apparent almost the next day ?!
Officially, the fact of the provocation was confirmed on September 9 at the briefing "Human Rights and Armed Conflicts: US Threats to Use Force against Syria and International Law" during the 24 session of the UN Human Rights Council. As noted in the message for the media following the meeting, “convincing evidence was provided that the videos and photos of the victims of Himataki in the 21 suburb of Damascus in August were fabricated in advance. The audience was shown the testimony of numerous witnesses who unanimously claimed that the chemical weapons in the area of Eastern Guta were used precisely by the militants. The results of the investigations carried out by the activists of the incident and the testimony of eyewitnesses were transferred to the Independent Commission of Inquiry in Syria. "
However, why the U.S. withdrew? It's not in the rules of the global leader and the UN has long been America can not decree.
As already mentioned, the United States used to solve their problems at the expense of international brigandage. It is here rooted crisis in Syria and the reasons for its escalation.
First, at present, the US economy is approaching a “fiscal cliff”. Under such conditions, the promises made by Obama during the election campaign — tax cuts, wage increases, and legalization of migrants — cannot be fulfilled in principle. The country has a stalemate political situation, accompanied by a decline in the popularity of Obama and his team. Exit advisers and analysts from the White House is seen in the "little victorious war." A more convenient place for such a war than an exhausted and devastated Syria is hard to come up with. But the solution of domestic economic problems due to military intervention is the “good” tradition of the Anglo-Saxons.
Secondly, the forces behind Obama actively support and implement the project of “controlled chaos” from Mauritania to Kyrgyzstan and Kashmir. “The arc of instability,” starting in the Balkans, should, by their logic, reach Russia and China.
However, on this path of global destabilization a “problem” has formed - Syria. Moreover, Damascus is an ally of three major powers at the same time - Russia, China and Iran. For Russia, Syrians are not only allies, but also friends, as Vladimir Putin emphasized.
As for the "chaos", it is needed for very specific purposes. One of them is the transit of hydrocarbons. And here again the Russian factor arises. I believe that the escalation of the Syrian crisis should be viewed as a direct reaction to the intensification of the Russian energy policy. The fact is that 13 August during the visit of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. In Baku, serious agreements were reached on oil transit: relevant agreements were signed between the Russian state-owned company Rosneft and Azerbaijani partners; New directions and forms of cooperation in the fuel and energy sector have been identified. Moreover, the signed agreements have a long-term character - “the prospect of years on 15, maybe 20, that is, a good basis is laid for cooperation for many, many years to come.” Following the meeting, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stressed that “I think that very much will depend on the active interaction, coordination of our efforts within the framework of regional energy issues. We are committed to decisive cooperation, to strengthening cooperation with Russia in this important direction of economic and political development. ” The dry residue of this meeting was the creation of the Russia-Azerbaijan oil bond, i.e. of exactly what he was so afraid of and what the West had been working against for many years.
The genesis of the Syrian crisis was initially, in general, largely determined by the problem of transit of energy resources. As it is known, gas deposits were discovered in the Southern Mediterranean - both on the sea shelf and on the territory of Syria (Kara). In the Syrian crisis, there is another “gas” factor: if the Assad regime is overthrown, Qatar, exporting liquefied natural gas, will be able to transport “blue fuel” directly from the Mediterranean coast through Syria. This will at least double the volume of its exports and at the same time complicate Iranian exports. The strengthening of Qatar in the gas market automatically leads to a deterioration in the position of Russian companies. And if we add control over Algerian gas (which Americans are also actively working on), then this is fraught with a blockade of Russia's entire oil and gas exports.
Speaking about the oil and gas wars in the Middle East, do not forget about the kind of struggle that is taking place around South Stream. But this is a topic for another conversation.
There are other reasons for the escalation of the Syrian crisis and the aggressive position of Washington. For example, the desire to break the bond Tehran - Damascus - Hezbollah, which creates problems for the United States and Israel. However, the demonstration of Russia and all the rest remains the most important in the attempts of the “final solution” of the Syrian issue: the world will be as decided by the United States and the supranational structures of global governance behind them.
And now is the time to recall the words of Stalin, who loved to repeat: “There is a logic of intentions, and there is a logic of circumstances. And the logic of circumstances is stronger than the logic of intentions. ” So, provocateurs and arsonists did not take into account the logic of circumstances. They did not take into account that Russia has changed, and the world has changed. The unipolar system no longer exists, and shouts from Washington in Moscow are no longer as they were twenty years ago.
At the same time, we recognize that the Syrian crisis is still far from being resolved. It is only slightly frostbitten. Ahead - intense and exhausting diplomatic battles.