Obama's Fifth International: on the crisis of American Trotskyism
This year we will celebrate the centenary of the beginning of the First World War. Then in 2017, we are waiting for another centenary - the anniversary of the October Revolution in Russia, which was provoked by a global armed conflict.
A century later, the situation in the world is again tense to the limit. Only if we talk about historical By analogies, paradoxically, the policy of the current Western establishment resembles not the diplomatic game of Kaiser Wilhelm or British Foreign Minister Edward Gray, but the chaotic actions of Leon Trotsky to foment the world revolution.
Of course, the concept of the “right to defense” did not originate in the Obama era. The so-called "humanitarian intervention" was carried out, as is known, in Yugoslavia and in Iraq. But if the previous US administrations tried to coordinate military actions with the US national interests, listen to the opinion of the closest allies and figure out (though not always skillfully) the consequences of their actions, now the destruction of ruling regimes around the world and the spread of chaos, it seems, has become an end in itself for Washington. The embodiment of the new policy are such “democratic furies” as Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Victoria Nuland, who in their telephone conversations are calling on to ignore their closest partners (recall the famous fuck EU Victoria Nuland).
The tactic of humanitarian intervention in 2011 was tested by the Obama team in Libya. The consequences are obvious: as a result of armed clashes between the detachments of the former insurgents, more people died than during the entire 40-year rule of Gaddafi. The country is sliding to the level of deep archaic. The Americans wanted to implement the same scenario in Syria, and it was only thanks to the veto applied by Russia and China that they did not succeed.
In fact, the United States is concerned only with formal signs of the "triumph of democracy": a multi-party system and a liberal economic "order." In 2005, in Iraq, for example, elections were held under the control of the American occupation forces, as a result of which the Shiite bloc got power. Sunni elections were boycotted, leading to a bloody civil war. And it doesn't matter that as a result, one and a half million Iraqis died, and two million became refugees. It does not matter that after the mass exodus of the middle class and the intelligentsia, the country lost all doctors and nurses and most of the university teachers. Baghdad, which in the 80 of the last century was considered one of the cleanest cities on Earth, was littered with mountains of debris and flooded with sewage. But in the country democratic elections were held on a multiparty basis, and Western companies gained access to Iraqi oil wealth. As American analyst David Goldman said recently: “Bush was convinced that any region of the Earth, be it the semi-wild Hindu Kush mountains or the stronghold of Muslim civilization in Baghdad, can be transformed into a new state of Illinois, and no casualties should be taken into account. Obama is confident that all the remote corners of the planet are potentially already Illinois. It remains only to make them believe it, destroying the previous political systems. ”
Anyway, the attitude to the elections in Washington is certainly biased. They call legitimate elections in Iraq, in which several provinces did not take part and are preparing to recognize the elections in Ukraine, despite the obvious split of this country. At the same time, Americans consider the people's referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and the upcoming presidential elections in Syria to be illegal. The problem is that Eastern Ukrainians and Syrians do not want to support pro-American “democratizers”, which means, according to Washington’s logic, they are inferior people.
Consequently, the American elite is characterized by a Manichaean, dualistic vision of the world. And, it must be said, the black-and-white optics of “own-aliens” strikingly reminds the psychology of the Bolsheviks, who in the 20-30-s of the last century tried to arrange a “world revolution”. Adventurism in foreign policy, radical ideologization, contempt for international law and the reached informal agreements, readiness to “throw” our partners - all this brings together Trotsky and Obama's diplomacy.
Another common feature is the lack of moral disgust in the choice of allies. As part of Obama's Fifth International, there are Libyan rebels, Syrian militants from Jabhat al-nusra, President of Rwanda Paul Kagame, who expelled hundreds of thousands of citizens from the country, Bandera and neo-fascists from Kiev. Such a motley coalition is created to dislodge disagreeable elites in countries traditionally considered to be geopolitical rivals of the United States (just as in the era of Trotsky, the Bolsheviks sought to overthrow the "Western imperialists"). And we will not sin against the truth if we call the new American foreign policy neo-Bolshevik.
In this regard, it becomes clear that the current cooling between Russia and the United States is not a temporary spat of business partners who are preparing to conclude a new treaty, but a deep ideological rift between fanatical supporters of the world revolution and realistic politicians who want to stop them.
A century later, the situation in the world is again tense to the limit. Only if we talk about historical By analogies, paradoxically, the policy of the current Western establishment resembles not the diplomatic game of Kaiser Wilhelm or British Foreign Minister Edward Gray, but the chaotic actions of Leon Trotsky to foment the world revolution.
Of course, the concept of the “right to defense” did not originate in the Obama era. The so-called "humanitarian intervention" was carried out, as is known, in Yugoslavia and in Iraq. But if the previous US administrations tried to coordinate military actions with the US national interests, listen to the opinion of the closest allies and figure out (though not always skillfully) the consequences of their actions, now the destruction of ruling regimes around the world and the spread of chaos, it seems, has become an end in itself for Washington. The embodiment of the new policy are such “democratic furies” as Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Victoria Nuland, who in their telephone conversations are calling on to ignore their closest partners (recall the famous fuck EU Victoria Nuland).
The tactic of humanitarian intervention in 2011 was tested by the Obama team in Libya. The consequences are obvious: as a result of armed clashes between the detachments of the former insurgents, more people died than during the entire 40-year rule of Gaddafi. The country is sliding to the level of deep archaic. The Americans wanted to implement the same scenario in Syria, and it was only thanks to the veto applied by Russia and China that they did not succeed.
In fact, the United States is concerned only with formal signs of the "triumph of democracy": a multi-party system and a liberal economic "order." In 2005, in Iraq, for example, elections were held under the control of the American occupation forces, as a result of which the Shiite bloc got power. Sunni elections were boycotted, leading to a bloody civil war. And it doesn't matter that as a result, one and a half million Iraqis died, and two million became refugees. It does not matter that after the mass exodus of the middle class and the intelligentsia, the country lost all doctors and nurses and most of the university teachers. Baghdad, which in the 80 of the last century was considered one of the cleanest cities on Earth, was littered with mountains of debris and flooded with sewage. But in the country democratic elections were held on a multiparty basis, and Western companies gained access to Iraqi oil wealth. As American analyst David Goldman said recently: “Bush was convinced that any region of the Earth, be it the semi-wild Hindu Kush mountains or the stronghold of Muslim civilization in Baghdad, can be transformed into a new state of Illinois, and no casualties should be taken into account. Obama is confident that all the remote corners of the planet are potentially already Illinois. It remains only to make them believe it, destroying the previous political systems. ”
Anyway, the attitude to the elections in Washington is certainly biased. They call legitimate elections in Iraq, in which several provinces did not take part and are preparing to recognize the elections in Ukraine, despite the obvious split of this country. At the same time, Americans consider the people's referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and the upcoming presidential elections in Syria to be illegal. The problem is that Eastern Ukrainians and Syrians do not want to support pro-American “democratizers”, which means, according to Washington’s logic, they are inferior people.
Consequently, the American elite is characterized by a Manichaean, dualistic vision of the world. And, it must be said, the black-and-white optics of “own-aliens” strikingly reminds the psychology of the Bolsheviks, who in the 20-30-s of the last century tried to arrange a “world revolution”. Adventurism in foreign policy, radical ideologization, contempt for international law and the reached informal agreements, readiness to “throw” our partners - all this brings together Trotsky and Obama's diplomacy.
Another common feature is the lack of moral disgust in the choice of allies. As part of Obama's Fifth International, there are Libyan rebels, Syrian militants from Jabhat al-nusra, President of Rwanda Paul Kagame, who expelled hundreds of thousands of citizens from the country, Bandera and neo-fascists from Kiev. Such a motley coalition is created to dislodge disagreeable elites in countries traditionally considered to be geopolitical rivals of the United States (just as in the era of Trotsky, the Bolsheviks sought to overthrow the "Western imperialists"). And we will not sin against the truth if we call the new American foreign policy neo-Bolshevik.
In this regard, it becomes clear that the current cooling between Russia and the United States is not a temporary spat of business partners who are preparing to conclude a new treaty, but a deep ideological rift between fanatical supporters of the world revolution and realistic politicians who want to stop them.
- Alexander Kuznetsov
- http://www.odnako.org/blogs/pyatiy-internacional-obami-o-krizise-amerikanskogo-trockizma/
Information