A real memorial to a diplomat among a variety of similar memos for members of the diplomatic community. Politicians are too divided and often overloaded with work, which prevents them from seeing the whole picture.
Over the past fifty years, the West has been supporting the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East in the struggle against “Soviet aggression”, which in the 1990s developed into “Islamic extremism”. Without a doubt, the wrath of the "Arab world" is unfaithful. It is the result of oppression by the same Arab regimes imposed and supported by the United States, providing them with "help" in the form of military equipment and conducted by military "advisers" and intelligence officers of the training of restraint. The script of the modern play called “Arab Spring” was applied by the same authors who left fingerprints on the blood-stained banners of color “revolutions” in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan: USAID (Agency for International Development, engaged in providing direct economic and technical assistance to developing countries). countries; mixednews), the Ford Foundation, the Soros Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy and the non-governmental organization Freedom House.
True, most of these “revolutions” overthrew the regimes that were substitutes for the United States, but, like the previous regimes that played a role for these business circles and became useless, they were left to the mercy of fate. The list of such regimes is too long to cite in this article, but among others it is enough to name the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in Indonesia and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In fact, in such cases, Washington provokes them, causing a response, as is the case with Mubarak or even Gaddafi, and uses the evolving situation for their own purposes. In the end, these goals are clear to those who listen to the propaganda organs of the system and read official government documents. The goal of the Anglo-American influential circles and their younger allies is to turn the Middle East into a “fragmentation zone” or “sector of instability”, which requires dividing the region even more to further reduce the possibility of any cohesion under the auspices of national unity.
Eurasian Balkans and the "black hole" of power
It should be noted that in the republics of Central Asia the foundation for such coups has already been laid. Not to mention the fact that there is a very close parallel between the ruling elites of these countries and the ruling elites of the countries of the Middle East. With the exception of Kyrgyzstan, all other republics followed the example of the Arab “presidents”: they began to search for ways to manipulate republican political tools, such as the constitution and parliament, intending to extend the terms of their presidency for life and even pass on this post to their blood relatives or those in their near surroundings.
Similarly, the peoples of Central Asia also have serious reasons for dissatisfaction with their current regimes, whose roots go back to their kindred monopolies, which deprives society of harmonious functioning in the economic, social and political spheres. Moreover, events in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Libya showed that countries rich in petrodollars, such as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, whose heads calm their people with subsidies, are not far from such "revolutions." Nevertheless, the question “can the events of the Arab Spring spread to Central Asia?” Has already been answered in the affirmative before they occurred in the Arab world. The colored “revolutions” in the post-Soviet countries, which also influenced Iran, took place long before the Arab uprisings and were developed by the same “painted” business circles. To give a complete answer to the question, we must imagine that if the current wave that hit the post-Soviet countries rushed into the Iranian state and stirred up the streets of Tunis, Cairo, Sana'a, Benghazi, Kuwait and Amman, then with a new tide it will roll back to Central Asia.
For various reasons, the author of this article concludes that at the moment the Central Asian republics are in a safe zone. Although Mr. Brzezinski calls the Central Asian republics a “black hole” of power, labeling them the Eurasian Balkans, hinting at the main threat of ethnic conflicts and great-power regional rivalry, there are currently a number of factors acting in favor of the Asian republics. First, by becoming new victims of the interests of the West, drawn into financed, organized, and initiated state coups of the first wave of color “revolutions,” these states developed a defensive policy based on the tests they underwent. Secondly, at present, their population is almost isolated from the monotony of today's Western propaganda, glorifying the “great ideals” of “human rights”, since the governments of these republics have limited the influence or at least the popularity of supposed Western “non-governmental organizations” who, admittedly, were introduced to the role of "mentors" of such "revolutions".
The cold war is back
Since the ultimate goal of these intrigues is to isolate China and Russia, forcing them to accept the New World Order, in which they will never have an opportunity to play an important role, according to the general rule of security policy of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization; note mixednews), China and Russia were forced to intervene to eliminate such a threat from the Central Asian regimes. Having learned a lesson about the dangers posed by the color “revolutions” and the dirty hands that govern them, the post-Soviet countries (or at least their regimes) have awakened in the face of the danger that excessive effort carries in fulfilling the requirements of the West. It is clear that in all countries where color revolutions took place, their governments accepted the advances of the West in the name of peace and security (NATO expansion in the case of Ukraine and Georgia, peace in the Middle East in the case of Egypt or Jordan) or democracy (events in Kyrgyzstan in 1990's or almost fatal events for Karimov, who risked playing with fire, until he almost paid in 2005 year). Moreover, events in the Arab world would not be so tangible if it were not for the proximity of the cultures of the Central Asian republics to the cultures of Turkey and Iran. Now the success of such coups in these two kindred countries will be more detrimental to peace and security in Central Asia, since they both border on the sea or land with this region and have a stronger connection with the past and present of these states.
A look at the origins of current events in the Middle East could lead us to the days preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union and the beginning of the New World Order, which President George Bush (senior) 11 of September 1990 announced publicly in his prophetic speech. In that speech, Bush Sr. predicted a new world, a world starting in the 21 century, in which it would be forbidden for nations to "resolve their differences with the help of force" and their actions would be determined by the "rule of law". However, to achieve this world, it was necessary to destroy the old world, in which any state can be strong enough to challenge any other state. With the collapse of the USSR at the beginning of the last decade of the last millennium, the Anglo-American influential circles disappeared a big problem that hinders the fulfillment of their dreams of a world in which no nation could resist their will. At present sizes, many states, then, in the 1990-ies, had the resources - population, energy sources, raw materials, geopolitical advantages - to oppose the New World Order. The former Yugoslavia is a good example. As one with Mother Russia, covering the rear, it could be a formidable rival to the influence of Anglo-American supremacy in Europe.
This idea, adopted in those days, for a decade revealed many great strategists, such as Dr. Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski. This policy is reflected in Brzezinski’s book, The Great Chessboard, adopted by the United States as a military doctrine called Full Spectrum of Dominance, and continued in the Wolfowitz Doctrine, implemented in the Bush non-conservative program, and now in the Obama administration.
In fact, the current “Arab Spring” is just the next chapter in the development of this long, protracted dream embodied in the actions of Cecil Rhodes and Lord Milner and in their “Tentacles of the Round Table”. In the preceding two centuries, many powerful enemies, the Austro-Hungarian, German, Japanese, Persian and Ottoman empires, were fragmented. Yugoslavia also became the first prototype of what happens in the last phase of such fragmentation: with the support from abroad, a certain part of the population, or even a certain part of the government, defies the authorities, which ultimately leads to almost expected results.
In each case, there are legal and sometimes smoldering grievances for a long time, hidden by society, or a government that surfaced in the foreground and directed its efforts to anger the populace — by agitating and organizing agents (sometimes unwitting) —and taking them to the streets according to a predetermined plan. The rest is the work of propaganda agencies (i.e. leading media corporations along with intelligence bureaus), who are experts in falsifying statements and providing photographs of “evidence” to show “global” resentment by the government and enlist the support of the global community "For the people.
It is still believed that George Soros is the creator of such all-encompassing movements in many countries; movements that emerged at the expense of organizations such as USAID, the Ford Foundation, or the Soros Foundation, aimed at groups in society that already have a legal basis for self-organization. It is assumed that these groups should include student organizations, groups in support of the environment, trade unions, organizations involved in entertainment, or religious factions. With the help of these organizations, ideas should be spread and actions organized. Details on subversion can be found in the works of people like Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, F. U. Engdahl, or Professor Oscar Buffy, who did a great job of researching its origins.
Those who pursue such geopolitical plans tend to announce their actions over the years ahead, and they record their statements. There are many theories as to why they do it; too much for the scope of this article. Nevertheless, there are a lot of facts in these cases, and it is enough to read official documents and studies of such organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Relations, the Carnegie Endowment for World Peace or the Club of Rome, while looking at the events of the last century , to see that most of the major catastrophic events were first warned by these bards who predicted the death of a new era. In the end, everyone who leafs through Hitler’s book Mein Kampf makes it clearer that this “gloomy genius” also spread his dirty ideas long before he became a reality.
Not to mention that traces of funding for organizations such as USAID or the Ford Foundation lead to the same groups that sparked these “revolutions”. But many would be surprised to learn that even the New York Times wrote about this fact. In an article titled “US Groups Helped Cultivate Arab Rising”, the role of Anglo-American influential circles can be traced to the financing and organization of the groups that sparked and controlled many of these “uprisings”.
According to recent interviews and US diplomatic telegrams, a number of groups and individuals directly involved in uprisings and reforms in the region, including the Egyptian youth movement 6 April, the Center for Human Rights in Bahrain, and ordinary activists such as Yemeni youth leader Intsar Kadhi was trained and received financial support from organizations such as the International Republican Institute, the Institute for National Democracy and a non-governmental organization based in Washington. on human rights Freedom House. Republican and democratic institutions are weakly connected with republican and democratic parties. They were created by the US Congress and are funded through the channels of the National Endowment for Democracy Foundation, which was established in 1938, to give grants to support democracy and the development of nations. This organization annually receives from the Congress about one hundred million US dollars. Freedom House also receives most of its money from the US government, mainly from the US State Department.
Although the US government claims that these groups are created to support democracy, we all know what the US has in mind about building democracy, especially when it comes to the Middle East and the Muslim world. All we have to do is take a look at history human rights and the history of building democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan; to see that it is littered with the charred bodies of innocent citizens, and the mutilated bodies of hundreds of thousands of children poisoned by depleted uranium, not to mention the ruins left over from what was once a city with infrastructure and culture. All countries that are not under the hood of influential circles have, in one way or another, expressed their dissatisfaction with interfering in their internal affairs and even provoking uprisings by Western governments and business circles. This list includes Libya, Syria, Iran, Serbia, Belarus and even China and Russia. According to President Lukashenko, the actions taken by the West against his country from the outside and the manipulation inside are “all links in one chain, aimed at sowing distrust of power and strangling the country with a stranglehold. They want to make us be like everyone else, ultimately, like themselves. We are like a bone in their throat. ”
Fighting in the Middle East for True Independence
The facts of the fact that the governments of the Arab Spring countries for many years protested against interference in their internal affairs by these business circles through the US government became known. The government of Egypt, the loudest of all the victims of the "Arab Spring", declared its protest from the very beginning of this millennium. Apparently, such official statements were not unreasonable, since an article in the Washington Post in March 2011 of the year tells how funds from American technology firms help dissidents from the Middle East to avoid government censors. The history of building “democracy” always began with the involvement of so-called non-governmental organizations that arouse people's desires for more freedoms and opportunities, but ended with wars and separation, all funded by the same business circles. The war in Iraq was called the first brick on the road to the Great Middle East, according to which the US was to bring "utopia" to all Muslim countries from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean.
The Bush administration explained the invasion of Iraq for three reasons. The first is the war on terror, declared after 11 September 2001; Despite all the evidence to the contrary, in the United States Saddam Hussein was declared an accomplice, if not a sponsor, of Osama bin Laden. The second reason was the threat weapons mass destruction. It is now known that the information provided by the United States and the United Kingdom on this issue was false. Since the first two reasons fell away by themselves, the third became significant: Washington promised to make Iraq such an attractive model of democracy that would serve as a model for the entire Middle East.
However, this "utopia" was nothing new, despite the statements of the United States. This idea is rooted in the history of the emergence of geopolitics as a field of study. What the United States offered was more frankly shown in one of its military journals, and until now it has been gradually incarnated in Iraq and Sudan, is moving in Libya and Saudi Arabia and Iran. This map, which appeared during the euphoric period of Bush’s reign immediately after the war in Iraq, depicts the Middle East fragmented into small, newly emerged nation-states. The most glaring result of this plan is the weakening of the main regional historical states, such as Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia — by the way, the largest countries in the region — along with the long-standing policy of “divide and rule”. Over the past decade, the United States has been engaged in arming and financing separatist elements in Iran, which are responsible for terrorist attacks within that country.
Any country that has the ability to be self-sufficient, and resists the complete superiority of the old colonial powers in any region of the world, especially in the Middle East, is the goal of this attack. For example, Libya, like Iran, has its own Central Bank, and it is not influenced by the direct management of multinational banking associations. In addition, despite the small population, vast territory, strategic geographical location and large reserves of energy resources, the country's leadership is known for supporting independent economic and political ideas in its region and in Africa in particular (i.e., an independent foreign policy with the dream of all-African freedom from the Western financial and military-industrial complex).
It was not by chance that at the height of the civil war in Libya, the rebels took a break to create the Central Bank of their planned country. These are the rebels, whose commander-in-chief is none other than a member of al-Qaeda, who was previously detained in a US prison on charges of terrorism. Interestingly, despite the fact that (created by the FBI), al-Qaida was declared a particularly dangerous criminal gang in the US since the mid 1990-s, yet, when necessary, this gang has acted as an ally of the United States and Western business circles .
Al-Qaida was a good ally in Afghanistan, Serbia, Chechnya, Iran and Uzbekistan. Even in places of recent conflict such as Libya, this group, because of which the world's airports were turned into military camps, was an ally of the West. In the end, al-Qaida demonstrates its true color as a master of all trades in the Anglo-American Influential Circles program, “The Full Spectrum of Dominance,” as outlined in the New American Age project.
In fact, as in the case of Iraq, the last war that broke out in Libya is a good example of this strategy. It was filed by the UN and the world with nothing more than the introduction of a “no-fly zone”, but in fact turned out to be another massacre that filled the desert with uranium. Just like the war in Iraq, this conflict was based on lies and, at best, on a half-truth. While Western governments claimed that Colonel Gaddafi bombed his people from the air, and the UN required intervention and order to introduce a “no-fly zone”, those very high circles in the US defense department acknowledged that there was no evidence of this.
At a meeting of the US Department of Defense, which was represented by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen, with representatives of the media at the Pentagon in March 2011, the Minister of Defense responded to a question about the credibility of allegations of military air raids on civilians in Libya that in the press, but we have no confirmation of this, ”to which Admiral Mullen added:“ True. There was no confirmation. ” In fact, over the past few weeks, Cynthia McKinney, a member of US Congress, has discovered and confirmed that the forces opposing Gaddafi represent a multinational mixture of mercenaries trained by the CIA, also known as Al-Qaida, and not local formations. These secret al-Qaida brigades of the Central Intelligence Agency in the past did a good job against the USSR in the 1980s and the Balkans in the 90s. These are forces from the diaspora of Asian and African countries, who do not always know their puppeteers. For example, these same forces, who believed that they were leading a great jihad against the “infidels” and serving Islam, made a significant contribution to the destruction of Russia's geopolitical sphere on the Balkan Peninsula, thereby effectively weakening the defenses of the Middle East in particular and the Muslim world in general. This uneducated group of mercenaries, led by the Pentagon, controlled leaders such as al-Awlaki, clearly never knew the specific practical benefits that Yugoslavia provided to the Third World during the Cold War.
The Anglo-American cartel wants to get the paths and infrastructure created by Gaddafi, because "Libya is a coastal bridgehead for capturing the whole of Africa." Perhaps Gaddafi’s mistake was that he fully trusted this cartel in 2006, weakening his defense capability and letting the well-known Trojan horse into the ancient gates of Tripoli. The cartel has demonstrated that no amount of looted good will satisfy its hunger, until all the resources of each state, including human, belong to their system and - needless to say - to the business community. Otherwise, those nations deserve only the multitude of different ways of death until a universal way is found for the destruction of all with one blow. Gaddafi should take advantage of the lessons that cost the lives of Saddam and the Shah of Iran; although it is not too late for “he was taught” in the same way.
Hypocrisy about human rights
Looking at the reaction of the West to decisive measures taken in places where it was geopolitically destructive to react negatively, the argument for protecting human rights seems far from the truth. Bahrain is one such example. In the case of Bahrain, a small island state in the Persian Gulf, the West, without even blinking, allowed the most repressive actions to take place there. Bahrain, being 70 percent a Shiite state, both ethnically and historically linked to Iran, also serves as the base for the Fifth Naval fleet USA. And the United States does not need a further invasion. It is also not such a big state that could somehow resist the hegemony of Western business circles. Due to its very close proximity to the coast of Saudi Arabia (Bahrain is separated from the Arabian Peninsula by a bridge) and, of course, huge oil fields controlled by Anglo-American companies, Bahrain did not fall into the same category as Libya or Iraq, and its population fighting for its rights, did not deserve the "sympathies" of the West. Therefore, instead of sending troops to “help” the local population, it was decided to send Saudi and Emirate troops to further violate human rights. It would be more correct to say, as cult Amy Goodman states in an article titled "Cruel Repression in Bahrain, U.S.-backed" that US-backed repression woke up the Arab Spring in Bahrain.
Therefore, despite the rhetoric emanating from Washington, London and Paris, it is clear that separation and domination are the leading force of such “revolutions”, and not human rights and democracy. Current events in the region were pre-planned by these forces over several years, and since then they have gradually been brought to life. The retired US Army general, Wesley Clark, told Democracy Now, an independent political news and radio channel, in 2007, that ten days after September’s 11, another General told him that the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Foreign Policy magazine even posted an article entitled “Who's next?” In which he named candidate countries to replace the regime, only a few days after Mubarak’s resignation and a few days before the events in Libya. Among them were the usual candidates: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Belarus, and - most interestingly - Libya (just a few days before action against it), who did not obey the Western demands that he presented to the whole world. Like Sudan, Libya opened up Africa to the influence of China and did not join AFRICOM (African Command of the US Armed Forces; approx. Mixednews), a tool of American domination over Africa.
Most may be surprised, but “as Italian journalist Franco Bekis, who is right-wing, says, plans to stir up a rebellion in Benghazi were developed by the French intelligence agency in November 2010 of the year.” The true nature of these campaigns becomes clear only when they find excuses for their actions to legitimize their occurrence. Immediately after the start of the military campaign in Libya, the Anglo-American neo-imperialists offered justifying circumstances for the division of Libya. This "solution" of the "humanitarian problem" was proposed by various propaganda war organs, such as Farid Zakaria, who argued that fragmented Libya was better than one single under Gadhafi’s rule. Just two days before that, on March 22, British Secretary of State for the Armed Forces Nick Harvey told the BBC that the separation was “the only possible way out.” He added: "A reliable way out, in which they would not kill each other, would be the only way, in a certain sense, to achieve a humane goal." These realities also did not escape the observant eyes of regional leaders themselves when, in January 2011, after a successful separation in Sudan, both Libya and Egypt "expressed concern that the division in Sudan could be infectious and spread throughout the African continent."
Egypt as the key to rewriting the constitution
However, where separation is not a choice, there is no reason for fear: manipulating the emergence of new political entities that appear in such “springs”, whether in the Arab world, the Turkish-Persian kingdom, or Eastern Europe - the desired regions “Shelter zones” “- all the same will play into the hands of this not-so-ghostly ghostly business circles. In fact, the next phase of the Arab Spring also began in Egypt - perhaps in the most important place on the Great Chessboard of the Arab World. Since Egypt is the largest in population and the most historically cultural Arab state - thus having a direct impact on the rest of the Arab world (the most prolific of the Arab countries in terms of creating literature, art, theater and cinema) - and conveniently located geopolitically (in the center of the Arab world , at the intersection of the paths of Africa, Asia and Europe), this is the biggest tidbit recognized by most Western observers.
A former US diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations (one of the think tanks that made up the Anglo-American “Full Spectrum of Excellence” program) Richard Haas insisted that the United States leave Libya in a stalemate (meaning separation) and concentrate its efforts on more geopolitically important countries: "in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain and Iran." Haas insists that high-ranking politicians are wiser and focus on what they can do to see that Egypt’s transition is proceeding smoothly, that Saudi Arabia remains stable, and Iran does not. ” What he means by Egypt’s “smooth transition” is already being carried out by one of his associates on the same front, George Soros. The next stage of this “transition” is the formation of new orders that should emerge from this chaos, and there is no better way than to invest in the development of directions and the content of the constitutions of these newly emerging societies. Just like in Iraq, Americans write the Egyptian constitution through the use of their well-funded "nongovernmental organizations".
In an article titled “The US is preparing an aid package for the Egyptian opposition,” TIME magazine reports in detail that just two weeks after the “spontaneous” revolution in Egypt 25 January 2011, Washington officially "called for a transition to democracy, which Egypt has never I heard. In order to prevent the continuation of the dictatorial rule of a new strong leader or a dangerous power vacuum due to the fact that weak players are trying to seize control, Egypt needs to see the lightning-fast development of political parties that have been banned for a long time. Therefore, the United States is preparing a new package of assistance to Egyptian opposition groups created to help with constitutional reform, democratic development and the organization of elections, officials of the US Department of Foreign Affairs told TIME magazine. In fact, in view of the fact that unrest in Egypt was provoked by such a famous figure in Google as Wael Ghonim, it is fair that the US pays for a new constitution that is fabricated both in form and in content. As such an imperial policy successfully moves through the Arab world, Foreign Policy magazine asks a completely fair question: Who will be next?
Apathy of Russia
Knowing the geopolitical plans of the West in relation to Eurasia (and an expanded version of these plans in relation to Russia and China), one can ask the question: why do these two countries continue to remain “indifferent” to well-known events? Some, such as George Freeman from the American private intelligence and analysis company Stratfor, claim that the reason for this is solely his own benefit. Taking into account Russia's abstention in voting for imposing a veto on a UN decision allowing military action in Libya in 2011, while Prime Minister Putin criticized them as a medieval campaign, Freeman states that “abstention in voting was calculated step to facilitate intervention. The situation leading to instability could destroy Libya as an alternative source of oil and gas, thereby giving Moscow a greater share of the market — and greater control — in Europe. ” However, this opinion looks rather naive, and it would be hard to believe that Russia will sacrifice the place of the world leader in exchange for high revenues from natural resources, despite Putin’s statement a few years ago about the importance of developing natural resource basins.
Many blame Russia for the fact that it does not aspire to a multipolar world, according to President Putin’s speech in Munich in the 2007 year, when he declared that such arbitrariness of the West could be curbed. In the 1990s immediately after the end of the Cold War, Russia, in an effort to improve relations with the West, abandoned the role of a great deterrent force, which led to this shameless Anglo-American illegal, immoral and deadly movement towards superiority through force and deception. However, in this case it is impossible to be too strict with Russia or China, since, having relations with the West, they play with fire.
Over time, it became clear that the Anglo-Americans intend to achieve their superiority by force and not even averse to unleash the next world war of any scale in order to achieve the goal. Russia and China should also be on guard not to be fooled and drawn into a big war (as was the case with Germany in two wars), in which the endgame will only help adherents of unilateral and purposeful actions on the path to supremacy. Then the problem lies in balance, perhaps along with Prime Minister Putin’s latest campaign against treacherous actions against Libya. The rest of the free world (those countries that have not yet become dependent on Anglo-American supremacy) also have a great responsibility in supporting the actions of Russia or China against this one-sided imperialism.
Therefore, in the end we have to answer this important question: do we seriously deal with this problem and save the world from the next global conflict and imminent tragedy; Will the countries that still retain the possibility of leadership independent of the Anglo-American hegemony, rather than fail one after another in the next decades, stand in a united front? One day, Benjamin Franklin said to the other founding fathers of the United States: "Gentlemen, we must stick together, otherwise, rest assured, we will all be hanged separately."
Perhaps Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Indonesia will exercise caution. The fate of the free world may depend on it.