Military Review

"The politics of domination: from the XX to the XXI century"

18
"The politics of domination: from the XX to the XXI century"The ruling American elite - a newfound contender for global domination - repeated the fatal mistakes made in the past by the European powers


The fateful events in Ukraine in February-March of 2014, which were gradually preparing and provoked by US policy, brought the peoples of Europe to the threshold of a pre-war political crisis. These events urgently require consideration of the role and consequences of the policy of domination in the system of international relations and measures to counter this policy.

Опыт stories The twentieth century irrefutably shows that the policies of hegemony of great, and especially superpowers, their desire to achieve continental or global domination left an indelible imprint on the development of the world as a whole and individual nations, defined the "spirit of the times" and acted as the bearers of the most destructive and destructive phenomena in international relations.

The politics of domination was the main cause of the two "hot" and one cold world wars. In the age of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, it became a threat to the existence of human civilization.

Marxist-Leninist theory could not give a clear answer how world wars arise. The class approach to this problem did not explain many complex phenomena of international life. So, for example, it would be wrong to say, as was done before us, that the policy of hegemony is peculiar only to capitalist countries.

It is clear that the struggle for markets, sources of raw materials, spheres of influence largely determined and determines the policy of the domination of the capitalist powers, their financial oligarchies. But after all, the hegemonic desire to expand the sphere of domination in the world was not alien to Soviet politics either.

The basis of this desire was the messianic-ideological motives of “making the mankind happy” by the new social system. Hence the offensive strategy of the Soviet Union, aimed at the establishment of socialism in the world as opposed to the Western powers.

Consequently, Soviet politics, like capitalism, very often acted on the international arena as a destructive factor that caused the response of Western countries and threatened international peace and stability. However, in this case, the decisive role was played by subjective considerations, a distorted, highly ideological perception of the tasks facing the state leadership.

The desire for domination in the world arena is due to various reasons and can take different guises - a pronounced imperialist, messianic-ideological, nationalistic, economic, financial and oligarchic - or act as a combination of these separate forms.

In the twentieth century, the ruling circles of Germany were the main bearers of the policy of hegemony in two world wars. At the beginning of the last century, a pronounced hegemonic policy was presented by Kaiser Germany. She sought to establish continental dominance and the redistribution of colonies and spheres of influence in the world. The spread of contradictions between its policies and the interests of other European powers led to the First World War, which became a turning point in the development of Europe along a false and destructive path. He was very profitable overseas power - the United States.

Strategists of Nazi Germany put forward much more radical and far-reaching expansion plans. The way of thinking and the psychology of the leaders of the politics of domination was very clearly expressed by Hitler in his speech before the German generals 23 in November 1939 G.: “I see in the struggle the fate of all living things. No one can leave the struggle if he does not want to die ... It is important to realize the following: the state only makes sense if it will serve the preservation of the nation. We are talking about 82 millions of people. It imposes the greatest responsibility on us. He who does not assume this responsibility must not be a member of the nation. It gave me the strength to fight. This is the perennial problem of bringing the number of the German nation in line with the territory. It is necessary to provide the necessary living space. No cleverness here will help, the solution is possible only with the help of the sword. The fight has become different today than 100 years ago. Today we can talk about racial struggle. Today we are fighting for oil sources, for rubber, minerals, and so on ... I raised the German people to great heights, even though we are hated all over the world. I put this thing on the map. I have to choose between winning and losing. I choose to win. ”

The Nazi rulers viewed the creation of a “new European order” under the auspices of Germany as the basis for the deployment of a full-scale global expansion. Conquest of the “eastern space” by defeating the USSR, destroying the Russian statehood, dismembering the Russian nation and undermining its “biological power” was considered an indispensable condition for this.

This is very convincingly shown by the Nazi leadership's documents on strategic war planning, in particular, the Wehrmacht Supreme Command Directive No. 32 from 11 June 1941. “Preparing for the period after the implementation of the Barbarossa plan and the Ost General Plan is one of the most shameful documents of human history, developed in the depths of the departments of Himmler and Rosenberg. The purpose of the Ost Master Plan was formulated very simply: “It is not only about defeating a state with a center in Moscow .... The thing is, first of all, to defeat the Russians as a people, to disunite them.”

Most of the population of Russia was planned to be resettled to the Urals, the Caucasus, Africa and South America, and the Germans settled the liberated lands. On the eve of the attack on the Soviet Union, Himmler informed the top leaders of the SS at a meeting in Wewelsburg that one of the tasks of the campaign to the East was to destroy 30 million Slavs, and Goering told the Italian Foreign Minister in November 1941: “This year in Russia will die of starvation from 20 to 30 millions of people. It may even be good that this will happen: after all, some nations need to be reduced. ”

Only very few German state and military leaders understood all the adventurous, immoral and impracticable plans to establish German domination over the peoples, especially over the Russian people, their destruction for Germany itself. Clausewitz wrote about this: “Russia, with its 1812 campaign, testified, firstly, that a state with a large territory cannot be conquered (which, however, one could have known in advance), and, secondly ... in the heart of their country, the defender may be the strongest when the force of the enemy’s attack is exhausted, and defense with incredible power suddenly goes on the offensive. ”

But the leaders of Nazi Germany ignored the historical conclusions of Clausewitz and neglected the unshakable rule that statesmen should adhere to: "Before you take the first step in politics, you need to think about the latter."

Who was a loyal follower of the teachings of Clausewitz was Colonel-General Ludwig Beck, Chief of the General Staff of the Wehrmacht Land Forces. In 1938-1939 he courageously entered the fight against Germany’s plans to unleash a war in Europe, which, as he wrote in his notes to the political and military leadership, would inevitably grow into a world war, lead to the formation of a world anti-German coalition and put Germany at war on two fronts - simultaneously against the Western powers and the Soviet Union. Beck quite correctly predicted that in such a war Germany would suffer a complete defeat and "will be granted at the mercy or disfavor of the winners."

How did the German leadership react to the warnings of General Beck? Hitler called him a "whiner" (Heulboje). In August, 1938 Mr. Beck was forced to resign. In an atmosphere of military frenzy that engulfed the ruling elite of Germany after the defeat of Poland, he retained sobriety and wrote at the end of September 1939 that the victory over Poland is only the first big step for Germany to fall into the abyss of defeat. a coalition of powers in which the Soviet Union would present a special, and “under certain circumstances, mortal danger” to it.

General Beck’s appeals for prudence in the political and military strategy of Germany, which are very relevant today, didn’t take action at that time, but the truth was on his side. Hitler's aggression did not go unpunished. Instead of the “Millennial Empire,” the Nazi rule was limited to the “twelve-year Reich.” Hitler's "new order in Europe" collapsed under the blows of the Soviet army and allied forces. The defeat of the Russian state, the "dismemberment of the Russian people" and the undermining of its "biological power" failed miserably. The German people themselves were plunged by Hitler into an unprecedented national catastrophe.

The brutal defeat of Germany in the two world wars clearly demonstrated that any desire for global domination in our closely interconnected world leads to a “response defense response” of individual states and the world community as a whole and the formation of a powerful movement against the hegemonic power. Such is the objective law that operates in the system of international relations. It is clearly visible from the time of Napoleon.

Unfortunately, this pattern was not found in the policy of the Soviet leadership, which was clearly manifested in its messianic desire to make the expansion of the dominance of the communist regime of the Soviet type global. The period from 1918 to 1923 was the initial, trial phase of the Soviet expansion. Even then, Moscow embarked on a dangerous and false path of subjugating domestic politics and economics to the illusory plans of "class struggle in the international arena" and expanding the sphere of domination of the socialist system in Europe. During these years, which were characterized by post-war upheavals in many European countries, the Soviet leadership tried to use a politically and socially unstable situation in order to force the Soviet system in Eastern and Central European countries with the help of local communists.

The war with Poland unleashed in 1920 brought the first serious disappointment to the Soviet leadership. It was able to make sure that the Polish people and even the Polish workers (and this, from the point of view of the Marxist theory, looked especially discouraging) did not support the Red Army and put up stubborn resistance to it. National identity was much stronger than the class. Poland’s “blessing” did not take place.

Much more important for Moscow then seemed support for the revolutionary movement in Germany. But the defeat of the November revolution and the failure of the creation of the Republic of Soviets in Munich in 1923 prompted the Soviet leadership to rethink the tasks of the strategy and tactics of the world communist movement.

In the era of relative stabilization in Europe, class struggle strategists shifted the focus of their activities to playing to their own advantage the cards of “inter-imperialist contradictions”, primarily between Germany and the Western powers. The second stage of the Soviet expansion began.

23 August 1939 was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and a secret annex to it about the division of spheres of influence between the parties. He allowed Hitler to start a war against France, without worrying about his rear in the East, and in a lightning war to defeat and occupy it. And the Soviet Union implemented in 1939-1940. in its "sphere of influence", Eastern Europe, the seizure of parts of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldova. The started war against Finland ended in defeat. Finnish people defended their independence.

After World War II, the third stage of the Soviet expansion began. Now it is not confined to Eastern and Central Europe alone, but has spread to other regions of the world, adopting a global character.

The expansion of Soviet domination to Eastern and Central Europe destroyed the European balance of power and created a geopolitical threat to the Western powers. This was one of the most important causes of the Cold War and the creation of a world anti-Soviet coalition led by the United States. So again, in the system of international relations, the pattern of the “response defense response” to the expansion of the sphere of domination of an expansive power worked, this time against the Soviet Union.

The basis of the policy of the Western powers, led by the United States, formed first the doctrine of "deterrence", then the "rejection" of Soviet expansion and "flexible response" to it. Along with them, the American backstage developed and began to actively apply the concept of destroying the Soviet Union from within through secret subversive actions - bribing and recruiting officials in government structures, using traitors, creating a fifth column, etc. With the help of a “secret war”, US policy hoped to crush the Soviet Union without the use of military force, and their hopes were justified.

The Cold War proved to be very profitable for the United States. It allowed them to mobilize large forces and resources against the Soviet state, and most importantly, to establish their domination over Western Europe and turn it into a permanent springboard for advancing their interests in the Middle East, in Eurasia and in North Africa.

For the Soviet Union, the cold war meant an unbearable burden of confrontation with the far superior forces of the West. It affected the welfare of the people in the hardest way, the economic development of the country and became an obstacle to the implementation of the long overdue reforms of the Soviet system. But the Kremlin did not realize this. There was no departure from the policy of messianic hegemony. Its latest outbursts were absurd decisions to deploy medium-range SS-20 missiles in Eastern Europe and the invasion of Afghanistan. The country plunged deeper into the vicious circle of confrontation with the West.

What this eventually led to was written by a prominent Italian politician and publicist Giulietto Chiesa. He gave the Soviet policy of confrontation with the West the following assessment: “The Soviet Union lost everything in the arms race, in the fight with the United States for military domination ... The Russians made a murderous mistake when they entered this race, they realized too late that they had lost it. At some point, the system collapsed. ”

The policy of Moscow’s domination revealed its inferiority in the sphere of relations with the socialist countries. The reality of life very soon dispelled the hopes of the Soviet leadership and that, based on the Marxist-Leninist ideology, it would be possible to create a monolithic cohesion of the socialist camp around the Soviet Union. Instead, the Kremlin is faced with ever-increasing centrifugal processes.

The regularity of the “response defense response” began to act not only in the sphere of East-West relations, but also within the “socialist community”. Soviet dictates came up against growing resistance and the will to independence of the ruling circles of the socialist countries, who did not want to be wordless vassals of Moscow.

The aspirations of the opposition forces in Eastern European countries to free themselves from the Soviet tutelage (the uprising of Berlin workers 17 June 1953, the Hungarian revolution 1956, unrest in Poland that year, the Prague Spring 1968, etc.) were brutally suppressed. Moscow’s relations with Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Romania, and China were constantly overshadowed by tensions and even hostility that had turned into armed conflict in the case of China.

The hegemonic claims of the Kremlin did not allow the development of harmonious, partnership relations with socialist countries. The “doctrine of limited sovereignty” of socialist countries, adopted under Brezhnev, stood guard over the Stalinist model of socialism and completely blocked the path to a new “socialism with a human face” - a democratic alternative to Soviet totalitarianism. A profound political, economic, and moral crisis of the Soviet system was looming.

Common sense required other solutions. At the end of 70 and the beginning of 80, scientific and administrative circles sent signals to the Soviet leadership to move away from the flawed hegemony policy. Even the analytical department of the KGB, headed by Lieutenant-General Nikolai Leonov, sent an analytical note to the CPSU Central Committee and the government, which spoke of the need to stop external expansion and unacceptable "over-tension of forces" that threatened the country to collapse.

It is also known that the Soviet General Headquarters was against the invasion of Soviet troops in Afghanistan and insane plans to convert the people of this country to the communist faith. The Institute of Economics of the World Socialist System of the Academy of Sciences adhered to the same position. In a whole series of memoranda to the CPSU Central Committee, he called on the Soviet leadership to abandon the disastrous policy of messianic hegemony for the country.

Only since March 1985, with the advent of M. Gorbachev, did the gradual, very painful and controversial process of transition to “new thinking” in foreign policy and the self-liberation of the Soviet Union from the bonds of messianic-imperial ambitions begin. This process ended mostly by the end of 1989 - the beginning of 1990 of the year. By this time, the “Brezhnev doctrine” and the “military parity doctrine” with the West had officially ended with the new principles of Soviet foreign policy began to take shape. On their basis, an agreement was reached on ending the Cold War and the arms race, restoring the unity of Germany, laying the groundwork for the foreseeable future for the unification of the whole of Europe. All this is reflected in the Charter of Paris, signed by all European countries, the USA and Canada in November 1990.

But the further movement to a new peace order in Europe was interrupted after the destruction of the Soviet Union by Yeltsin and the forces behind him. Having achieved this, the United States was the only superpower in the world, fully seized by the "relay race" of global domination policy.

The essence of this policy was set forth in the “Project for the New American Century”, openly submitted by 3 on June 1997, by the US administration of the American and world community.

Here are a lot of talking passages from it:

«Our goal is to re-substantiate America’s global leadership role and organize its support ... Is the United States determined to transform the new century in the spirit of American principles and interests?»

«We probably forgot the key factors underlying Reagan’s success: the military, which is powerful and able to respond to current and future challenges; on foreign policy that courageously and decisively promotes American principles abroad; on national leadership that assumes the global responsibility of the United States».

«We cannot allow the responsibility for leading the world to be given to others ... If we do not take this responsibility, we will harm our vital interests ... From the history of the twentieth century we would have to learn a lesson that the task America's leadership should be taken seriously».

«We must substantially increase our military spending if we now want to take on global responsibility and adapt our armed forces to the future.».

«We must strengthen our relations with democratic allies and suppress regimes that intend to damage our interests and reject our values.».

«We must promote the cause of political and economic freedoms abroad».

«We must accept responsibility for America’s one-of-a-kind role in maintaining and developing a world order that would ensure our security, our well-being and the implementation of our principles».

«Such a “Reaganist” policy of military force and moral clarity may be today unpopular. But it is necessary if the United States wants to build on the successes of the past and if we want to preserve our security and our national greatness in the coming century.».

So, the ruling circles of the United States have not made absolutely any conclusions for themselves from the tragedies experienced by mankind in the twentieth century under the influence of the politics of domination, and from those national disasters that befell the great powers that carried out such a policy.

The ruling American elite - a newfound contender for global domination - repeated the fatal mistakes made in the past by the European powers. The disastrous consequences for the international community and for the United States themselves are obvious.

It should be noted that they are thoroughly investigated in the recently published fundamental two-volume work of General A.I. Vladimirova, "Fundamentals of the General Theory of War" (1805 pages!). It deals not only with military and national strategy, but also with the art of governing a state.

Referring to the politics of domination, the author writes: “The mistakes of the great powers in choosing a national strategy as a model of historical behavior and national existence ultimately always ended in their national (geopolitical) collapse ... An example of the correctness of this statement is the history of mankind itself, in which the appearance, development and the death of all empires — from the empire of Alexander the Great to the collapse of Nazi Germany and the USSR — was predetermined by the mistakes of their national strategy. Today, such a vivid example is the United States, which is also approaching its own national collapse due to moral depravity and the mistakes of its own national strategy. ”

Many prominent European statesmen also oppose American politics of global dominance. Thus, an outstanding politician, former German Bundes Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, wrote in his book “The powers of the future. Winners and losers in tomorrow's world ":" For most of continental European nations, in the foreseeable future, there are neither strategic nor moral grounds to obediently obey the newly-minted American imperialism ... We should not degenerate into helpfully supportive people. "

It has long been necessary to put the policy of domination under the ban of the international community.

This could be done by the UN General Assembly, adopting the “International Convention on the Prohibition and Punishment of the Dominance Policy”. Her project could look something like this:

«We, the nations of the United Nations -

1. Considering that the policy of the domination of the great powers led throughout the twentieth century to three world wars, costing innumerable human victims and enormous material losses to humanity, to the destruction of the priceless creations of world culture, the militarization of the economy, consciousness and the life of nations, the emergence of difficult to overcome "images the enemy ", to post-war poverty, devastation, despair and the bitterness of people, to the regress of production and science, intended for peaceful purposes;

2. Realizing that after every world war a great power reappeared, starting a policy of imperial-messianic domination and endangering the national interests and freedom of nations that united to counter this threat;

3. Considering that in the nuclear missile age a new world war as a consequence of the politics of domination will lead to the death of human civilization;

4. Convinced that the policy of hegemony has always been inextricably linked with expansion and acted as the most destructive and dangerous factor in the system of international relations, sharply contradicted the principles of democracy and morality of foreign policy, did not reckon with such norms of international community as “respect for the state sovereignty of peoples”, “ unity in diversity "," live and let live for others ";

5. Deeply aware of the urgent need to eliminate the material basis of the politics of domination by limiting the military expenditures of the countries - members of the UN to the norm of no more than 0,5% of gross domestic product;

6. We announce our decision to put a policy under the international prohibition, which aims to establish domination over nations, and consider it a crime against humanity.
».

The adoption of such a convention by the UN General Assembly would be a serious deterrent in countering the world community’s hegemony, dictate and dangerous military arbitrariness in the international arena. Russia could take the initiative to promote the convention along with a group of interested countries whose responsible leaders are aware of the danger of global domination policies for humanity.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru/spetsproekty/2014/04/21/organizatsiya-obedinennykh-natsii-oon/737946-politika-gospodstva-ot-xx-k-xxi
18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Same lech
    Same lech April 24 2014 19: 35
    +6
    The adoption of such a convention by the UN General Assembly would serve as a serious deterrent in countering the world community's policies of hegemony, dictatorship and dangerous military arbitrariness in the international arena


    The author considers the situation too naively ... for today the UN and, accordingly, the GENERAL ASSEMBLY are under the dictatorship of the United States and it is ridiculous to read the author's projects when the wolf runs the shepherd.
    1. Oleg14774
      Oleg14774 April 24 2014 20: 02
      +2
      ... The period from 1918 to 1923 was the initial, trial phase of Soviet expansion. Even then, Moscow embarked on a dangerous and false path of subjugating domestic politics and economics to the illusory plans of the "class struggle in the international arena" and expanding the sphere of domination of the socialist system in Europe ....
      This is a scam. That was Trotsky's idea. He, like Hitler, wanted world hygemony through the destruction of the rebellious. So this has nothing to do with the USSR. Do not confuse the snickering top of the CPSU and simple honest and decent members of the party.
  2. mig31
    mig31 April 24 2014 19: 35
    +2
    The imperial ways of the Americans remind me of Hitler with a globe in his hands, America should remember how it all ended for Nazi Germany ...
  3. ya.seliwerstov2013
    ya.seliwerstov2013 April 24 2014 19: 36
    +2
    Our man in Russia has long endured
    But I’m not ready to endure for so long
    If he dazzles the idea in the head
    Foolishly breaks a lot of firewood.

    So you America relax
    Take a comfortable pose,
    Get rid of intimate complexes
    And calm down your ambitions.
  4. Cutter
    Cutter April 24 2014 19: 52
    +4
    The American ruling elite. If you look from the outside, you are amazed at how unpleasant these faces are on the outside. Kindness and sincerity simply cannot live in such shells. Pay attention to the eyes of Soros, Biden, Brzezinski, Dick Cheney, Rockefellers and Morgan, etc. (Mackin and Obama is another story, this is just one definition of "fool"), for women Albright alone with Clinton is worth something. Their hatred is written on their faces. It is like a sign, a seal that these are representatives of something dark, vile and obscene. I really hope for the common sense of all mankind and the moment when the planet shakes off this mossy mud and we finally, instead of interplanetary internecine strife, we will move forward to a new world and stars!
    1. Vorodis_vA
      Vorodis_vA April 24 2014 21: 07
      0
      Hitler looked like a decent man, although I still agree with you - their fate is written on their faces. hatred eats from within.
  5. Giant thought
    Giant thought April 24 2014 21: 09
    +4
    We, Russians for peace in the whole world, we are like that according to our character. We do not need any hegemony, let us live calmly, work, raise children. So no, everyone climbs us with alien ideologies, useless morals, they want us to adapt to their world. But no, gentlemen of the Anglo-Saxons, we will not succumb to you.
  6. zmey77
    zmey77 April 24 2014 21: 11
    +1
    let it be known to you the author of this article that the Soviet Union collapsed Gorbachev and not Yeltsin. Before the arrival of Gorbachev, the Soviet Union was a superpower in all sectors — Yeltsin seized power from the weak-willed and not so distant Gorbachev!
    1. ia-ai00
      ia-ai00 April 24 2014 21: 34
      +2
      ebn, no better than a hunchback, the same traitor, and a drunk who sells his mother, just to fill his throat, and drank ...
    2. Manul
      Manul April 24 2014 21: 53
      +2
      Quote: zmey77
      let it be known to you the author of this article that the Soviet Union collapsed Gorbachev and not Yeltsin.

      Another "historian" came .. Young man, here it is customary here first to try (at least) to write without mistakes (observing at least some style and spelling), and secondly to own a question. You should not categorically refute people. Better with an interrogative intonation, or suddenly sit in a puddle. This is wet and uncomfortable.
  7. BlackJack
    BlackJack April 24 2014 21: 39
    +3
    Washington must be destroyed !!!
    1. Baikal
      Baikal April 25 2014 03: 11
      0
      Sergeant, well, we understood this, understood. Why write in each topic? hi
  8. Gvozdovsky
    Gvozdovsky April 24 2014 21: 55
    +4
    I put a bold "-" in the article, I could have put more, then I put more! The article is full of false liberal fabrications. The entire Soviet history of Russia (and not only the Soviet period) is a constant struggle for survival in a hostile environment. About the war with Poland: did the author study the background of this conflict for the sake of interest? am Maybe he is not aware of Poland’s seizures of the territories of Ukraine and Belarus in the period since 1918? Well, yes, of course, it’s so difficult! And so many lies about Stalin! In general, a nasty little article! Those who want to argue - great! Facts are a stubborn thing! bully
  9. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. April 24 2014 22: 02
    +2
    Only in March 1985, when M. Gorbachev came to power, did the gradual, very painful and contradictory process of the transition to a “new thinking” in foreign policy and the self-liberation of the Soviet Union from the shackles of messianic-imperial ambitions begin.

    What the hell is the transition to "new thinking", it was just an excuse. Everything just rushed and everyone just indulged, because the traitor was in charge. A real transition could be made even with a material and political benefit, and not with NATO at the border.
  10. mpa945
    mpa945 April 24 2014 23: 07
    +2
    The author considers the situation too naively ... for today the UN and, accordingly, the GENERAL ASSEMBLY are under the dictatorship of the United States and it is ridiculous to read the author's projects when the wolf runs the shepherd.

    Naive?
    And it seems to me a convinced libe.
    Article bold minus
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. siberalt
      siberalt April 25 2014 00: 08
      0
      And, you, "fat" plus! I fully support it.
  11. siberalt
    siberalt April 25 2014 00: 07
    +1
    If the author seriously believes that the United States is a new state and with a new ideologue, then he is deeply mistaken. This is just a continuation of the same "Europe", but from a different continent.
    1. not main
      not main April 25 2014 01: 42
      0
      Quote: siberalt
      If the author seriously believes that the United States is a new state and with a new ideologue, then he is deeply mistaken. This is just a continuation of the same "Europe", but from a different continent.

      More precisely, not Europe, but the Anglo-Saxons!
  12. Skif
    Skif April 25 2014 01: 30
    0
    The plans for world hegemony in the ruling circles of the United States are far from new; at the end of the 19th century, the States had already grown out of the "baby pants" of the Monroe Doctrine, the Spanish-American War clearly demonstrated this. Like the First World War, the United States sold weapons and strategic raw materials to BOTH warring parties for astronomical sums, and entered the war in 1917 (on the side of potential winners). The result is from debtors to creditors in Europe, political weight in the world. And what about the Second Front in 1944? Millions of Slavs died on the fronts, and then there were "liberators" under a big "mattress", then, when they were no longer needed, the Reich was already breathing out, although he snapped. And so on and so forth ... This is a huge PARASIT on the body of the planet, and there is really little choice - either you or you ...
  13. Deff
    Deff April 25 2014 03: 07
    0
    “This could be done by the UN General Assembly by adopting the“ International Convention on the Prohibition and Punishment of the Policy of Dominance. ”Its draft could look something like this:
    "We, the Member States of the United Nations -"

    Bullshit! Independence can only be ensured by financial, military and resource sovereignty.
    In a different scenario, - all statements are paper chatter.

    The formation of several world power centers can weaken mono-lordship.
    Small states will be able to maneuver between these centers, providing a little more sovereignty.

    So far, in an age of rapid movement and interest in the earth's resources, the independence of small non-nuclear states is open to question. Obviously, the development of the desire of small states to acquire nuclear sovereignty.

    A total change in the tasks of protecting against pressure and earthly sovereignty of small states is possible with the development of scientific and technological progress and the transition of a center of interests in the struggle for space resources.
  14. Deff
    Deff April 25 2014 04: 16
    +1
    1. Only Russia's informational counterattack in the central Western media with explanations of "Who and What Wants and How to Solve the Problem" can change the disposition of the United States and turn the electorate of Europe over to its side. The impending re-elections in Europe can displace the assholes of politicians, make them listen to public opinion!
    It is advisable to provide informational support in the Western media with the help of Western journalists who wish the EU peace and sovereignty and their countries.


    2. At the same time, to voice the reciprocal transfer of the economic impact of anti-Russian sanctions on the cost of energy for Europe and the phased displacement of American companies from the Russian energy market (Northern Shelf)


    3. To prepare financially and legally the idea of ​​prepayment for gas for the EU (as well as for Ukraine), as insurance against sanctioned anti-Russian measures.