The conditions in which Russia has been set since the start of the new Cold War are significantly better than in the 50s. Another economic and technological level, a flexible and developed financial system, and a degree of integration into the outside world allow us to successfully resist external pressure, overcome and circumvent any sanctions. The only thing that can prevent is not the position of the leadership of the USA and the EU, but the mistakes that the national bureaucracy is capable of allowing. Moreover, the discussion here is not only about personnel and industrial policy or its absence, but also about things that are much less material.
The key issue of foreign relations is trust. And not only to informal promises, but also to written guarantees, which, as a rule, are inevitably violated. The question whether NATO’s non-proliferation to the east, the Treaty on the Strategic Missile Forces or an agreement on the transfer of power from the President of Ukraine to the opposition is at issue does not have a special role. The very possibility for Russia to view the countries of the Western bloc as partners, and not as competitors and potential military-political opponents after everything that has happened between them in the last quarter of a century, is highly questionable.
Obama's sorrows
References to the 21st century, at the beginning of which it is unacceptable to behave in the same way as in the 20th century, after President Crimean Obama accused President Putin after the Crimean referendum, they say nothing, except that the United States was extremely surprised when faced with that Russia behaved in critical circumstances with the same degree of readiness to defend its own national interests, like America, although much more professionally. Which led the White House to launch sanctions against the Kremlin, which contrasted so much with the previously announced “reset”.
In itself, the speed with which the United States began to impose sanctions against Russia, and the efforts that Washington made to join the maximum number of countries, regardless of their national interests, suggest that the Obama "reset" was nothing more than a diversion. Nothing stood behind him except an attempt to put Moscow to watchfulness and gain time. The preparation for complicating the relations of the Russian Federation with the world community and its immediate neighbors, in this case with Ukraine, demanded an imitation of a dialogue that did not imply a real partnership - like a dialogue on the problem of the Syrian chemical weapons.
Obama’s characteristic regret about his “successful cooperation” with former President Medvedev in contrast to the relations that have developed with the current Russian leadership. Recall that the “success” of this cooperation lay in the fact that Russia joined the anti-Libyan UN resolution advanced by the United States, which later, contrary to the spirit and letter of this resolution, legitimized NATO intervention in Libya. This resulted in the overthrow and death of Muammar Gaddafi, the actual disintegration of Libya as a state, the death of the American ambassador and the CIA residency in Benghazi and the leakage of modern weapons from Gaddafi’s warehouses that fell into the hands of Islamist radicals. There is nothing to say about the unprecedented exacerbation of the situation in the interior regions of the Sahara and the Sahel.
That is, “good Russia” is Russia, which at least does not prevent the United States and its allies from making mistakes of any scale, causing the security system to collapse in entire regions. Private and corporate interests, whether it is the personal interest of someone from Western politicians, departments or financial-industrial groups, are mixed with the interests of customers overthrowing a particular regime (in the case of Gaddafi - Saudi Arabia and Qatar), as well as ousting competitors (from Libya - first of all, Russia and China).
In Syria, the regrettable Libyan experience was taken into account by the Russian leadership. At the same time, the massive information war against Moscow could not change its position, and the course of the Syrian civil war provoked by Doha and Riyadh with the support of Ankara was influenced by the support of Iran and Shiite militias from Lebanon and Iraq. A firm stance in the UN Russia and China has complicated the possibility of intervention. As for the Syrian "insurgents", the leading role among them of radical Islamists has put the United States, France and Great Britain in an extremely difficult position, actually making them al-Qaeda allies, to which include the pro-Saudi "Jabhat al-Nusra" and the pro-Islamic Islamic the state of Iraq and the Levant. "
Supported by the Turkish secret service MIT, the Syrian Free Army collapsed and its most combat-ready units joined the ranks of the Islamists. The planned attack on Damascus from Jordan, in which the Americans prepared the shock corps, was, if not disrupted, then postponed for a long time after an unprecedented breakthrough of ISIL fighters in Iraq, where they, together with part of the local Sunni sheikhs and neo-Asaists, formed the Islamic Caliphate. The genocide of Christians and Kurdish Yazidis, the formation of a military alliance of the Baghdad government and Iran in Iraq put the US administration in a difficult position - first of all before voters and Congress, because they were a direct consequence of the withdrawal of the American occupation corps from there by Barack Obama.
Point bombing of Islamist American positions aviationas well as attempts to deliver humanitarian aid to refugees by air, underscore the Barack Obama administration's inability to support Iraq, which is an ally of the United States. This again contrasts sharply with the position of Russia, which supplied Baghdad with modern weapons systems in conditions when the Iraqi government needed this kind of support. The same can be said of Russian humanitarian support for the population of southeastern Ukraine, despite US statements that Russian humanitarian convoys will be considered by them as an invasion that go beyond any framework.
It seems that it was the US failures in the Middle East and Ukraine, where the confrontation of oligarchs turned into a civil war, provoked an aggravation of relations with Russia, which refused to play according to the rules proposed to it. Especially since these rules have long outlived themselves, from the point of view of many countries that are partners of America, including Israel and Turkey. The latter, despite the diametrically opposite position on Syria and the possibility of complicating Russia's position in the Black Sea region, maintains smooth and strong relations with Moscow. What is an alarming signal for the States, the consistency of which, and the readiness to follow in its fairway, are exposed to increasingly open doubts.
Sworn friend of israel
A special theme is the relationship of the American state with the Jewish one. The two-volume book of Professor Alec D. Epstein is devoted to this topic: “Nearest allies? Genuine история American-Israeli Relations ”, which will be published in the fall of this year. However, even up to the moment this fundamental work is published, the Russian-speaking reader, using the example of the history of these relations, can assess how much it makes sense to rely on such a partner as the United States.
One of the most striking works of this kind refers to the 1993 year. She came out on the eve of the signing of the “Agreement on Principles” between PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin with the participation of US President Clinton. Well-known public figure Irvin Moskovich, along with Helen Friedman, executive director of the Americans for Safe Israel organization, prepared a material that was published under the heading "Should America guarantee Israel’s security?" Below are quotes from this demonstration work.Moskovich and Friedman recall how in December 1957 under President Eisenhower, Israeli Ambassador Aba Eban received from the hands of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles a memorandum of assistance, which said: “America will make every effort to prevent UN armed forces in Gaza from continuing armed infiltration into Israel ". In addition, the United States guaranteed Israel the right of free passage through the Strait of Tiran.
In 1963, US President JF Kennedy reaffirmed this promise. However, when 17 May 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered the UN emergency forces to leave Gaza and Sinai, they left without the slightest resistance, and the United States didn’t do anything. Egyptian troops without interference occupied the Sinai Peninsula. The outcome was the Six Day War.
7 August 1970 as a result of the diplomatic efforts of the Nixon administration, a cease-fire in the War of Exhaustion, which Egypt led against Israel, was signed. This agreement included a promise to the United States to support the cease-fire. However, when Egypt broke the agreement, the United States did not intervene. Israel was forced to participate in another round of negotiations. Egypt, meanwhile, moved its missiles to the Suez Canal and in 1973 used them against Israel in the Doomsday War.
In 1975, the US signed a Joint Memorandum of Agreement, ensuring that America "does not recognize the PLO until the PLO recognizes Israel’s right to exist and does not adopt UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338". Immediately thereafter, the US leadership began to “look for approaches” to the Palestine Liberation Organization.
In March, 1988, Secretary of State George Schultz, in violation of US law, met with Edward Said and Ibrahim Abu-Lugard, PNS and PLO members. 14 December 1988-st Arafat announced his consent to the recognition of Israel, after which President Ronald Reagan canceled the promise of 1975 of the year, declaring it invalid.
For decades, the US State Department has ignored, defended and overlooked the PLO terror against Israel. So, when the 6 July 1989, as a result of the terrorist attack, was thrown into the gorge by an Israeli bus, the administration of President George W. Bush "did not notice." The silence of the PLO terror continued under the Clinton administration.
When Israel launched a raid on terrorists in southern Lebanon in March 1978 and occupied border territory, US President J. Carter forced Israeli forces to leave and replaced them with United Nations forces in Lebanon - UNIFIL. Their task in theory was to protect Israel from terrorists. However, in June, the 1978 of three hundred PLO terrorists again occupied the south of Lebanon. UNIFIL helped them with intelligence information and demonstrated open collaboration with the PLO. Israel could not respond for fear of putting the UN troops under attack. Although the Dutch, Irish, Norwegian, French, Swedish and Nepalese troops that were part of them, collaborated with the PLO.
The situation seemed to change under President Reagan, more friendly to Israel than Carter. Especially since the inaction and direct indulgence of the PLO by the UN forces led to the war in Lebanon, as a result of which Yasser Arafat and the main forces of the PLO were forced to evacuate to Tunisia. However, after two hundred and forty-two US marines were killed in the barracks as a result of a suicide bombing in October 1983, the US army left Lebanon. The country was left to its own devices - as is Iraq today.
13 September 1993, Israel, under US patronage, signed the Oslo Agreement. September 24 1995 is the Oslo 2 Agreement. In January, 1997, the Hebron agreement with the guarantees of Secretary of State Warren Christopher. In 1998, the Y memorandum (in the Russian-language press, the Wy Plantation Agreement). In 1999, an agreement in Sharm-a-Sheikh. All were broken.
The United States supported the creation of a Palestinian state. The division of Jerusalem is “the eternal and undivided capital of Israel” and the refusal of the Jewish state from its eastern part. Surrender of the Golan Heights to Syria (which was at the time of the negotiations on the list of countries sponsored by the State Department). Israel’s withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, with the eviction of two hundred thousand Jews (by October 2012, their number was more than seven hundred thousand, taking into account the East-disputed areas of East Jerusalem).
It was clear that the fact that these people, whose relocation does not solve the Palestinian problems, will turn into new displaced persons, of which there are more than enough in the Middle East, is not an American concern. Like the fact that it endangers the existence of Israel. However, the fate of eight and a half thousand residents of Jewish settlements, forcibly expelled by the Israeli Defense Forces from the Gaza Strip, did not become such a problem.
At the same time, the withdrawal from Gaza did not complete the Israeli conflict with the Palestinians, as explained by the Israeli left-wing initiators of this resettlement, led by Shimon Peres, and gave a chance to seize power to Hamas there. This organization took advantage of the chance provided by the Israelis, turning Gaza into a staging base for continuous attacks on Israel, and the civilian population of this territory hostage to such a policy provoking one Israeli military operation after another.
The reluctance of the Israeli leadership to return to Gaza and take control of its territory is once again clear. None of the statesmen likes to admit mistakes. Politicians like to fix them even less. Where does the idea of the demilitarization of Gaza come from under the control and guarantees of either the “world community” or the UN? The authors of it, however, did not give a single example when such a kind of demilitarization would be successfully implemented and such guarantees were implemented.
We cite in this connection three people whose words accurately describe what all these guarantees, including the American ones, stand for. Aba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister, in 1956: "Security guarantees are not suitable as a substitute for defense power." US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in 1967: “Israel must retain the commanding heights east of the 1967 border. In order to provide a defensive depth, Israel needs a band about fifteen miles wide on the Golan ”(which exceeds the territory Israel has now conquered from Syria). Senator Henry Jackson in 1973: "A significant part of the history of international guarantees is the history of countries that have lost their territory, their freedom, and even their sons and daughters."
The leadership of the United States is fighting for peace in the Middle East (mostly for someone else’s, including the Israeli bill) with the same intensity and the same destructive consequences as during the times of the superpower confrontation. What, from the point of view of local players, whom America has repeatedly substituted, is contrary to world practice, which the Roman “If you want peace - prepare for war” embodies. Although from the point of view of political timeservers like President Obama, they, demanding that their theories be implemented here and now, bear no guilt for the consequences of their actions.
Guarantor of tension
Interestingly, what would have happened to Europe if the Allies had fought Hitler during World War II according to the rules that the United States and the next “world community” in their wake prescribe to Israel, and also try to implement in Ukraine? In the latter case - with the danger of unleashing a new European war, in scale comparable to the Yugoslav beginning of the 90-s. Perhaps the Third Reich and in the XXI century would remain a European reality ... However, it is absolutely useless to ask the relevant American diplomats and politicians of the "new school".
Well-known political scientist Paul Eidelberg calculated that over the past two thousand five hundred years, Western Europe (including ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, whose territory was not limited to Europe) has gone through about a thousand wars. That is, in the cradle of European and Western civilization in general, the war went on every two and a half years. From where it is easy to understand that war is the norm of international relations, and peace is nothing more than preparation for war. So peace treaties may well be useless. And may be harmful. It depends on the content of the contracts and the conditions for their fulfillment or non-fulfillment.
In 1969, Lawrence Beylenson wrote “The Treaty Trap,” in which he analyzed peace treaties right up to Roman times. The conclusion is disappointing: contracts are concluded only in order to violate them. Moreover, treaties guaranteeing territorial integrity of a country are useless for a country that has received such guarantees. More precisely, worse than useless, as they create a false sense of security. However, these treaties are useful for countries or, in the Palestinian case, organizations whose leaders intend to break them at a convenient time.
All of the above is true not only for Israel. American politics was, is and will be what it is, not specifically in the Israeli case. There are more than enough examples. And the most revealing - from the history of Southeast Asia. Who remembers, back in 1954, at the initiative of the United States, the Collective Defense Treaty of Southeast Asia, SEATO, was created. This region has been declared an exemplary “containment of communism” zone. The results are impressive ...
Thus, at the height of the final phase of the Vietnam War 14 in November 1972, President Richard Nixon signed an agreement to protect South Vietnam from the North, which guaranteed American punitive actions if necessary, if the agreement was broken by Hanoi. These guarantees failed miserably, and in 1973, American troops were completely withdrawn from Vietnam. Who won the war, you can not ask.
In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Treaty of Mutual Defense between the United States and the Republic of China (in Taiwan). In 1976, President Jimmy Carter stated: "We are obliged by contract to guarantee the freedom of Formosa, Taiwan, the Republic of China." However, 15 December 1978, the contract was canceled by the same Carter, who announced the cessation of the supply of arms to Taiwan and the full recognition of the People's Republic of China.
What is called business. Nothing personal. Realistic politics of real politicians. As it has always been accepted in the USA. 9