“America is not fighting the threats of terrorism and drugs. She creates them. ”
US troops will remain in Afghanistan after the 2014 year - “for a long time”
Who knows what Obama says, promising oaths to the Americans to withdraw the troops from Afghanistan soon! Did Mali know that at the NATO Lisbon Summit back in November 2010, it was decided that the Afghan authorities would fully take control of the country by the 2014 year, and the US military contingent would leave Afghanistan by this time! All this is a fairy tale for the public. American troops are both in Afghanistan, and there will remain there after the 2014 year, and “for a long time”!
4 made this eloquent admission in October in an interview with the CBC television channel commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF), American General John Allen. “We plan to win. The plan must be successfully executed. Therefore, although many hear that following the results of the Lisbon conference we are leaving in 2014, we are actually going to stay here for a long time, ”said Allen to the question of the 60 minutes TV presenter on the US strategy in Afghanistan who was specifically for Kabul regarding the US strategy in Afghanistan, reports RIANews».
At the same time, Allen specified that the question of the number of troops remaining in Afghanistan, as well as their status, should be decided within the framework of new agreements with Kabul. According to the general, the remaining soldiers in Afghanistan can form a special anti-terrorism corps or serve as military advisers.
So America stays in Afghanistan. As stated, "for a long time." With the current course of events, this means forever.
What does this mean for Russia? Expert Alexander Tchaikovsky comprehensively answered this question in the article “Terrorism and drugs: the commander of the United States and NATO in Europe goes to Moscow” posted on the REGNUM portal. We give its text in full:
“Between 9 and 12 in October, Admiral James Stavridis, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces in Europe and NATO Supreme Command Commander, will visit Moscow. On the eve of his visit to Russia, the admiral visited Israel, Romania and Turkey. The main topic of talks in Romania and Turkey was the implementation of plans to deploy elements of the NATO missile defense system in Europe. The agenda of the forthcoming talks between Stavridis and Russian officials will include, in all likelihood, transit of goods for NATO troops in Afghanistan, cooperation in the fight against terrorism and drug threat, the situation in Afghanistan and Libya.
Consider, firstly, the strategic principles that the US and NATO leadership embodies with regard to Russia, and which will guide Stavridis in negotiations with Russian officials. Secondly, we will analyze what goals the admiral pursues in specific issues on the agenda. We will take into account historical precedents that shed light on how the United States has tackled similar challenges in the recent past.
The strategy of a “global” NATO: solving Russia's tasks with the hands of Russia
Preliminary clarification of the terminology: “US” and “NATO” are used interchangeably as part of this material when it comes to strategic circumstances. At the tactical level, there are differences between the two entities due to the subordination of NATO to the military-political goals and objectives of the United States. The combination of Admiral Stavridis, like his predecessors, the leadership of the command of the US Armed Forces in Europe and the NATO Combined Forces clearly demonstrates the unity of the strategic goal-setting and control of the US and NATO forces.
The main strategic construct that sets NATO’s policy today is the concept of “global NATO”. The starting excuse for this concept is simple: the threats to the security of the United States and the Western world are today global, and a truly global alliance is needed to combat them. One of the authors of this concept, Ayvo Daalder, with arrogant aggression typical of his circles, declared in 2006: “NATO believes that the best (and often the only) means against remote threats is to vigorously intercept them at the source. Such defense at the forefront requires global military access. ” Member of the National Security Council under B. Clinton and Advisor on the Foreign Policy of Presidential Candidate B. Obama, since May 2009, Daalder has been the US Ambassador to NATO.
“Defense at the forefront” means a military-political presence or representation in every significant non-NATO country. The implementation of this gigantic mission requires the presence of "junior partners" or satellites who would perform tactical tasks within their own country and region: participation in US-initiated wars - by military contingents, supply weaponsby financing; conducting subversive activities through the hands of non-governmental organizations; implementation of commercial projects, the main profit from which goes to American corporations, and other similar functions.
The US is increasing the number of its satellites through “color revolutions”, distributing various kinds of loans and contracts, elementary blackmail and open fighting, as in Libya. “The next step for NATO should be to provide membership in the organization to any democratic state that is willing and able to contribute to the fulfillment of new NATO responsibilities,” continues Daalder.
The most recent example of “defense at the front lines” is given by Libya, where the “regime change” was carried out by pre-planned and coordinated actions of the US and NATO military and intelligence services with the so-called Libyan "opposition". In Libya, the US administration is working on the Obama Doctrine, which, according to sources in the New York Times in the White House, could become a new model for the use of US force. This doctrine consists of two main points: 1) The United States is responsible for the threat of genocide or a humanitarian crisis in the world; 2) The United States will act only in coalition with partners. That is, an attack on a sovereign state no longer requires that this state represent a threat to the United States. There is no need for a humanitarian crisis or genocide. All that is needed is a “threat” of such a crisis — and a “threat” can always be provided with information and propaganda tools or organized. As for the presence of "partners", there will always be Sarkozy, Saakashvili and other Yushchenko, which the United States has led to power for this purpose.
With regard to Russia, NATO’s strategy is to progressively draw it into the operations of the Alliance and use its capabilities to realize its goals.
The gradual process - the key to success, according to Washington strategists. If you throw a frog in boiling water, it will jump out of it. And if you put the frog in cold water and slowly heat it, the frog will cook, and it will not even notice it.
The main method and justification for drawing Russia into the activities of the United States and NATO is “combating common threats”: terrorism and drug trafficking. The problem is that, as will be shown below, the United States DOES NOT FIGHT with the threats of terrorism and drugs. They CREATE them. In fact, under the pretext of “combating terrorism and drug trafficking”, the United States: 1) penetrates into Central Asia, using Russia's existing connections and resources; 2) expand their military and subversive infrastructure along the southern flank of Russia; 3) reinforce and expand the pro-American / pro-NATO lobby in Russia.
This is similar to judo, in which the opponent's weight is used against him, and in recent years, the US has been practicing this sport much more successfully than Russia. The ultimate goal of the United States remains the same: submission and control over states in the race for global dominance. The main obstacles to the realization of the goal are Iran, Russia, and China. Afghanistan is an ideal base for military and subversive impact on all three states at once.
The immediate task for the United States, in which Russia is assigned the main role, is to establish its presence in Central Asia, cut off the region from Russia and take control of local resources. Thus, the United States is pushing out of Central Asia and China, depriving it of access to the much-needed raw material base for it.
The mechanism for the implementation of these tasks and goals is, in particular, land and air transit of goods for the US and NATO troops in Afghanistan through Russia and "cooperation" in the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking.
US Northern Delivery Network = Northern Route for Russia
The Northern Delivery Network (Northern Distribution Network) is a transit route for goods through Russia, Central Asia and the Caucasus, which is logistical support for the 140-thousandth occupational contingent in Afghanistan. The US Central Command, which developed the concept of SSD by September 2008, deliberately demilitarized the name and laid down the participation of only commercial companies. In addition to solving the crucial task of logistical support for US and NATO troops, the northern delivery network creates support infrastructure in transit countries for the future military-political and economic activities of the United States and contributes to an increased US presence.
The Northern Delivery Network consists of three alternative routes. SSD-North begins at the port of Riga, crosses Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan by rail and arrives in the Afghan Termez. The KCP route - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan - also starts in Riga, but bypasses Uzbekistan. SSD-South provides an alternative to Russia: transit begins in Georgia at the port of Poti, crosses Azerbaijan and the Black Sea, arriving from Baku through the Caspian Sea to the Kazakh port of Aktau, and then through Uzbekistan to Termez. The northern route runs along roads and railways and ferries across the Caspian Sea. The United States is also considering the possibility of delivering goods from the east of Russia - via Vladivostok and Siberia to Kazakhstan and beyond, as commander of the US military transport command General Duncan McNabb reported in March 2010. Consent to the ground transit of "non-combat" (nonlethal) cargo from Russia was received, according to Washington sources, at the NATO-Russia summit in April 2008. The first 20-foot containers began to arrive in Kabul in March, 2009, at a rate of more than 500 units per week. A few months later, the ground corridor was strengthened by air: on July 6 in Moscow, the presidents of Russia and the United States signed agreements allowing the transit of military cargoes (weapons, ammunition, military vehicles, spare parts), and personnel through Russian airspace now. The first aircraft with US supplies landed in Afghanistan in early August; The United States expressed its satisfaction with the speed of implementation of the agreement. The results of the Russian assistance to the US and NATO military campaign in Afghanistan are obvious: if two years ago 2009% of logistics was passing through Pakistan, today 90% passes through Russia. But this is far from the limit: US officials say that by the beginning of 40, more than 2012 / 2 of logistical supplies to Afghanistan will arrive along the northern route; restrictions on the nature of the goods will also be relaxed, they report, according to the Associated Press. Apparently, they already know the results of the Stavridis talks in Moscow.
In addition to solving the aforementioned goals and objectives, the transit of cargo through Russia gives the United States a number of other tactical advantages.
First, land and air transit through Russia allows for the collection of significant amounts of intelligence information along the entire route of cargo. The Far East and Siberia in this regard are very interesting for the USA - what a long route! And what of the fact that it is more expensive? Access of the Russian representatives to the transported containers is prohibited.
Secondly, transit routes reinforce such fiercely anti-Russian states like Georgia and Latvia, and allow Russia to play against them. The arrival of huge amounts of US military supplies to the ports of Riga and Poti determines the constant presence of US Navy ships in the Black and Baltic Seas, develops the port infrastructure in Georgia and Latvia, and reinforces their role in realizing the interests of the United States and NATO. At the same time, as the case of Georgia shows, there is no need to be a member of the Alliance in order to actively participate in its operations.
Moreover, the US is playing the Georgian-Azerbaijani route against Russia, saying: “You don’t want us to expand military cooperation with Georgia and Azerbaijan?” Then bring the goods under your control and the control of the CSTO states ”(as if control exists). USA - masters to drive opponents in a situation where they lose with any choice.
Thirdly, the reorientation of logistics to Russia is unleashing the US hands on Pakistan. At a Senate hearing on 22 on September, the chairman of the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, Admiral M. Mallen, accused the Inter-Agency Intelligence of Pakistan (ISI) of organizing terrorist attacks against US troops. Such harsh accusations by the United States have not yet allowed themselves, although they have long been aware of the involvement of ISI in the killings of American soldiers in Afghanistan. Perhaps, in doing so, the Obama administration is creating a pretext for intensifying the bombing of Pakistan’s border areas with unmanned aerial vehicles or even for organizing raids into Pakistan from Afghanistan.
Finally, the distribution of contracting contracts for transportation is an effective way of recruiting supporters and lobbyists in business circles. According to one of the developers of the SSD concept, Andrew Kuchins, Russian and Ukrainian companies carrying cargo and NATO troops “have become deeply dependent on this business ... This security cooperation with political approval gives a very significant economic return - approximately $ 1 billion year for Russian companies.
In fact, logistic support, according to the combat regulations for counterinsurgency (counterguerrilla) actions by the US Armed Forces, is "an integral part of counterinsurgency operations." What is "counterinsurgency"? The Vietnamese, Nicaraguans, Iraqis, Afghans and dozens of other nations that the United States “liberated” and “democratized” in a bloody way can tell in detail about this. The counterinsurgency strategy develops methods of suppressing resistance that the dissenting local population renders to the invaders (in our terminology, partisans and patriots, as opposed to collaborators). The authorship of the military regulations is owned by General Petraeus, now the director of the CIA, and General Mattis, commander of the US Central Command.
But that's not all. The northern delivery network, according to American plans, is only the first step in the development of transit states and control over them. The second stage should be the “Modern Silk Road”, the concept of which is developed by the Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies (Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS) together with the military and special services. “Modern Silk Road,” according to the CSIS report, is a transcontinental trading network that fully covers the Eurasian space, which records the presence of US economic interests, confirms the success of the counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan, and prevents the United States from developing its broad strategic goals. The concept of Russia is stated separately: “The modern Silk Road” will undermine Russia's export monopoly and provide access to thirsty new markets in China, India and Pakistan. ”
It is no coincidence that the chairman of the Eurasia Foundation, which serves as a cover for US intelligence circles and is actively engaged in subversive activities in Russia, the Caucasus and Central Asia, is the chief adviser on the international strategy of the Chevron oil company, Jan Kalitsky. And in the summer of 2011, Andrei Kortunov, head of the Russian structure of the Eurasia Foundation - the New Eurasia Foundation, was appointed executive director of the newly created Russian Council on International Affairs.
Let's return to the topic of transit. The results of the use of local carriers for the transit of US military goods in Afghanistan are described by the report of Congressman John Tierna "Field Commanders: Blackmail and Corruption in the US Military Transportation System in Afghanistan" (Warlord, Inc .: Extortion and Corruption Along the US Supply Chain in Afghanistan), released in June 2010 of the year.
70% Logistics 200 US and NATO military bases, including the security of convoys, the Pentagon assigns private military contractors. These contracts make up a huge amount of $ 2,16 billion and are distributed among 8 companies: five US, Dubai and two Afghan. US contractors do not participate in transportation, but hire Afghan subcontractors.
An example of an Afghan subcontractor is Vatan Risk Management, owned by Ahmed Popal and Rashid Popal, nephews of President Karzai. They, in turn, transfer security issues to field commander Ruhullah. Locals call him "Butcher." Ruhulla completely controls the route number 1 between Kandahar and Kabul with a length of 480 km. All carriers, without exception, pay Ruhullah for “escorting” the cargo, or “security”, otherwise the convoy will come under fire. A typical convoy consists of approximately 300 trucks and 400-500 guards. About 3500 trucks pass through the highway every month, and Ruhulla charges $ 1500 for each ride, which gives him $ 5,25 million of revenue per month. All roads in Afghanistan are distributed between such commanders like Ruhullah.
So in Afghanistan, the US military is creating a new class of “businessmen” and leaders of paramilitaries who actively cooperate with the occupiers, receive huge amounts of money from them, and for the appropriate fee will perform the necessary task.
The report makes the following conclusions: 1) US logistics security is ensured by Afghan warlords involved in racketeering; 2) The uncontrolled flow of money to military contractors feeds corruption, undermines the central government and US efforts to stabilize Afghanistan; 3 security contracts are a significant source of funding for the Taliban. The US Department of Defense knows all this.
According to the results of the report, the Pentagon began an investigation, but this summer it was suddenly discontinued.
"Cooperation" in the fight against terrorism and drug threat
However, the most important conclusion remained beyond the scope of the report: precursors and drugs are transported along the same roads, the same field commanders receive money for their transportation. Contract contracts with them mean the tacit consent of the United States to the transportation of drugs, guaranteeing non-interference of the organs that would have to fight drug trafficking and the absence of prosecution.
This conclusion sheds light on one more important consequence / task of expanding the transit of US military goods through Russia - the increase in drug traffic. There is a transport - drugs will go, this simple rule is well known to specialists. The fact that for the United States is the “northern delivery network”, for Russia, the northern route of heroin.
Professor Peter Dale Scott, one of the world's largest experts on the CIA's role in drug trafficking, said in an interview with a French television channel: “When America declared war on drugs in Colombia in the 1990s, I was at the conference and openly declared: when we start sending planes to Colombia for the war on drugs, their flow to America will not decrease, but increase. And 10 years later, I looked at the statistics: drug production in Colombia for 10 years t. the war on drugs has tripled ... This is not done at the level of generals (rather ordinary), but the planes will transport drugs, we saw it in Vietnam ... We can assume that this is happening now. "
Since the end of the 1970s, when the United States, through the very interdepartmental intelligence of Pakistan, began to form groups of Islamic extremists to penetrate into Afghanistan and Soviet Central Asia, which later grew into Al Qaeda, funding, armament and combat training of extremist networks did not stop . Today in Afghanistan from the so-called. The United States is preparing a “moderate” part of the Taliban to prepare a new version of early Al Qaeda, which would destabilize the situation at given points, organize outings to neighboring states, strengthen existing terrorist networks.
Under the guise of fighting terrorism, the United States is fighting only those extremists with whom they fail to agree. Similarly, with drug trafficking: the official policy of NATO, according to a repeated public statement by the leadership of the Alliance, is limited to combating the part of the drugs that feeds the Taliban. This is 4-6% of the total 65-billionth turnover of Afghan heroin. What about the rest of the 94-96% ?! This is the problem of the Afghan government, they say: Afghanistan is an independent state, and the US / NATO cannot interfere in their internal affairs without their consent. But they can occupy the country with a 140-thousandth contingent!
The United States has accumulated extensive experience in conducting combat and subversive activities in sovereign states with the assistance of drug-producing and drug-consuming accomplices: in Southeast Asia in 1950-1970. (“Golden Triangle”), in Afghanistan in 1980 (“Golden Crescent”), in Colombia (from 1970 to 2000). The model of US actions is as follows: in order to achieve their interests in a country or region, they choose radical groups, preferably already industrialized with drug production and drug trafficking. What do the USA give them?
1) provide military support: combat training by instructors of the CIA and special forces, the supply of weapons;
2) provision of transport infrastructure for the transport of weapons and drugs;
3) coverage of drug production, exemption from persecution at home and abroad;
What do the United States get?
1) self-financing intermediary force (proxy), with whose hands they carry out their military, political and economic interests in the country and the region;
2) the ability to destabilize the country and the region: to corrupt power, undermine the strength and consciousness of society, deprive the nation of the will to resist, conduct underground and punitive operations against dissenting patriots;
3) the ability to conduct "black", that is, completely forbidden secret operations, with complete lack of control by Congress and without the need to report to other branches of the US government;
4) the ability to collect information through drug and criminal networks.
So, in Thailand in 1950-60-s. The main militarized units in the US service were Border Patrol Police (BPP) and a specially created, trained and armed CIA Air Police Support Unit (Police Aerial Reinforcement Unit, PARU). In Laos, the Hmong tribe mediated the American power. These processes are described in detail in Alfred McCoy’s classic book, “Heroin Policy: CIA Participation in World Drug Trafficking” (Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade) and in the works of Peter Dale Scott, in particular, "Drugs, oil and war: the United States in Afghanistan, Colombia and Indochina" (Peter Dale Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina).
Today, the United States in a similar way form "anti-terrorism" and "anti-drug" cadres in Central Asia. The special unit Scorpions, formed, financed and prepared by the United States, is based in Batken, Kyrgyzstan. In Tajikistan, in the Karatag mountain gorge (40 km west of Dushanbe), in early July, 2011 held a groundbreaking ceremony at the foundation of the Training Center for Anti-Drug and Antiterrorist Agencies of Tajikistan, which will be built by 2012. "In the implementation of this project, funded by the US Central Command, a total of about $ 10 million will be invested," said Ken Gross, the US Ambassador to Dushanbe, who participated in the ceremony.
So in Afghanistan and in Central Asia, the United States is forming loyal units in law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Terms and myths of war against Russia
To conduct an information-psychological war, the United States created a special language in which attractive, melodious, life-affirming terms replace the real meaning of concepts. Thus, torture is called “enhanced interrogation techniques” (enhanced interrogation techniques), psychological warfare is called “military information support operations”. The occupying army is dubbed the "International Security Assistance Force", the largest subversive project in Eurasia - the tempting "Modern Silk Road", and the deep penetration into Russia by the Northern Delivery Route. Like mail.
“Collaboration” in translation from American today means using your resources and capabilities for that? to subjugate and subjugate you. When open war tanks and fighters are impossible, then everything - “friendship”, “partnership”, “struggle against common threats” - becomes a war. Cooperation for the United States, to paraphrase Clausewitz, is the continuation of the war by other means. In general, the United States does not have the habit of declaring war: after conducting more than 200 military interventions, the US Congress declared war only five times! Even Vietnam and Korea were not considered war!
In addition to the code language, the USA creates myths. Among the declassified "WikiLeaks" documents there is a special memorandum of the so-called. "The Red Cell" (The Red Cell) CIA of 11 March 2010. In it, information-psychological propaganda specialists develop promises for Germany and France, where 80% of the population opposes participation in operations in Afghanistan. Given the French susceptibility to the suffering of the civilian population and the fate of women, the Red Cell proposes to “think in an unconventional way” suggests “using French guilt for leaving Afghans to fend for themselves” and focusing on the Taliban’s message to prohibit education for girls , won back at such a high price. ” For the Germans, the Red Cell has other arguments: "A defeat in Afghanistan will increase the risks of terrorism, opium and refugees in Germany."
For Russia, Washington has developed individual myths that have gained immense popularity in our country: "Russia benefits from the US presence in Afghanistan, the US restrains the flow of terrorism that will rush into Russia if the US leaves." Answer simple questions: what was the threat of terrorism for Russia in the summer of 2001, and what is it now, after the 10 years of the American war? The threat has increased both in the number of terrorist acts committed and in the number of extremist networks capable of creating terror. What was the drug traffic of opiates from Afghanistan in the summer of 2001, and what is it now? Increased more than 40 times. For those who are worried that “the US will leave Afghanistan” and that “the US is bogged down in Afghanistan”: the United States in Afghanistan is conducting extremely dynamic operations to form loyal militias that will be used to destabilize neighboring states. "Swamp" here and does not smell. The US also provides impunity for the production of more than 90% heroin in the world and its traffic. And the United States will leave Afghanistan no more than they left Germany and Japan through 65 years after the end of World War II: in Germany today, a contingent of more than 52 000 people is based, in Japan - more than 35 000 people. And when Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama raised the issue of withdrawing the US military base from Okinawa in 2009, he very soon had to “resign”.
Finally, in addition to special terminology and myths, the United States uses a primitive gross lie. In February 1990, US Secretary of State J. Baker promised "M. Gorbi" that with the unification of Germany, NATO "will not move east an inch." After 20 years of NATO's indomitable expansion, Russia has the longest front line in the military history of the world, from Estonia in the north-west to China in the southeast - much longer than during the Great Patriotic War. Scheduled for the summer of 2011, the beginning of the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan was immediately transferred to the 2014-th (and now, as it became known from the confession of General John Allen, this conclusion will never happen. - Note KM.RU). The “temporary” US military base Manas in Kyrgyzstan is not only not closed: on the contrary, such bases and combat training centers are deployed throughout Central Asia.
Paraphrasing Churchill's well-known remark about Russia, American promises are treachery, wrapped in lies, wrapped in deceit.
In Russia, one must finally understand one elementary truth: cooperation with the United States and NATO is impossible. The United States can only serve its interests, which, from the point of view of Russia's interests, is called collaborationism. In such a service is the choice of the pro-American lobby in Russia and the end of the history of an independent Russian state. The Stavridis visit will be the next step in the implementation of these plans. In addition to Moscow, Stavridis will visit Volgograd. This is another slap in the face to the Russian people, as well as the participation of the troops of the NATO member states in the Victory Parade on Red Square.
People who think so in Russia are the overwhelming majority. They support another choice: put an end to expansion and then oust the American presence from the Eurasian region, unite with other opponents of American domination (and there are a majority of such states in the world), ensure the economic development of their countries and regions for the benefit of their peoples, not American corporations. ” .
Information