On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, we do not have, and never will have friends. However, the very use of the concept of "friend" in relation to some kind of geopolitical reality is strange. No friends. And there are no enemies. There are interests that may temporarily coincide or temporarily not coincide. Everything else - diplomatic tinsel and good manners, designed to ensure minimally calm news background for the inhabitants of the planet.
We have a rather erroneous and incredibly simplified view of the United States. As a rule, attempts to explain the evolution, or rather the involution, of this state cause a total misunderstanding. There is a simple analogy - the USSR. It is difficult for an ordinary American to explain that the USSR of Stalin and the USSR of Khrushchev are two very different states, which in a certain sense are even antipodes, despite external similarity, continuity of symbolism and basic ideology. Similarly, Roosevelt's USA and Reagan's USA (and even more so Clinton) are very different countries. Several key moments determined the fate of the United States in the twentieth century, and now we are at the first such point of the twenty-first century.
Today we are witnessing an interesting process, the result of which, in the most direct sense, depends on the future of our planet. It so happened that our American opponents have a rather impressive arsenal of nuclear weapons. weapons and “financial weapons”, and the serious problems of the current United States are a very tempting reason to use these weapons as part of geopolitical competition. Once again it must be emphasized that in this stories There is no "good" and "bad." All are bad. But there are "sane bad" and "irresponsible bad." With sane we can and even must agree on how we coexist further on one globe. With the insane to agree almost impossible. The dividing line between the sane and the irresponsible part of the American elite runs right along the line of answering the question: what to do if the United States can no longer be a planetary hegemon? Sane offer to negotiate with the rest of the geopolitical players, bargain for yourself the most favorable conditions for the next attempt to seize control of the world. Insane people act according to the principle “don't you get to anyone,” and it’s scary to imagine what they can do with the planet if they come to the final conclusion that hegemony cannot be kept. To illustrate the thesis about the presence of absolutely insane characters in the American elite, just look at John McCain. He is not the only one there, just “old grandfather, he doesn’t care,” that is, senator McCain no longer needs to pretend to be normal.
The heat of opposition between elite groups in the US can be measured indirectly. When everything is more or less calm, the clan fights are "under the carpet", and competing elite groups always put the interests of the United States above personal accounts or political points. But at key moments, when the road on which the country will go in the future depends on the outcome of the opposition of elites, national interests are sacrificed on the altar of victory in the war of elites. The brightest and most recent example is the position of Hillary Clinton (the public leader of the "irresponsible") about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The signing of this trade pact is an objective victory of Washington on the Asian front. This victory is especially valuable against the background of the recent desertion of Washington's Pacific vassals, which have massively fit into the Chinese Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. It would seem that in the name of the national interests of the United States, even those who hate the Obama administration should applaud it. It turned out the opposite. Hillary Clinton sharply criticized the Trans-Pacific Partnership, despite the fact that in the past, Clinton herself 25 (!) Publicly expressed her support and even called it the "gold standard of trade unions." When the desire to hurt the internal political rival outweighs the desire to promote national interests, this means that a real intra-elite civil war has begun.
Many actions of various American structures become understandable only if we consider them in the context of a tough and total war between various elite groups. For example, how can one explain the official discharge into the American press of the complete failure of the operation for training and financing the so-called "moderate Syrian opposition"? The administration of Obama got masochists? The White House takes pleasure when the whole world laughs at the Pentagon, and Putin publicly dunks the Americans in this epic failure? Then why did it? Within the logic of the civil war in the political elite of the United States, everything becomes crystal clear. Brzezinski, Clinton, McCain and other "deranged" publicly demand that Obama introduce a no-fly zone over Syria to protect "American assets," that is, militants with billions of US dollars invested. The calculation is obvious: either the Obama group should show all the undecided elitists and all voters that it is unable to defend US interests, or the Obama group should take the risk of military confrontation with Russia in Syria. PR men of the responsible part of the American elite came up with a brilliant move. One easy "sink" in the media that "moderate militants" in Syria total 5 pieces, they put the "dogs of war" in an uncomfortable position. Now they must either stop demanding the introduction of the American no-fly zone, or they must openly admit that they are demanding from the White House to protect IGIL.
The situation is heated to such an extent that the details of the intraelite stabbing are actively merging in the media. Anyone who wants to feel the heat of passion should read the delightful frankness of their “plums” from the internal political cuisine of the White House, which published Specialized American edition Politico - (Russian translation from Lenta.ru - "As Obama does not allow American hawks to influence foreign policy").
The essence of the conflict: Obama and his entourage systematically torpedo attempts to aggravate relations with Russia to the level of military conflict, while Republicans, a radical part of the Democrats, the leadership of the Pentagon and the CIA are bursting into battle. It is indicative of the list of those who, from 2012, promoted the idea of arming Syrian militants: Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, David Petraeus and John Brennan. It should be noted that Obama and his lieutenants were surrounded by insane hawks with high positions: Clinton was the head of the State Department, Leon Panetta was first the head of the CIA, then the head of the Pentagon, David Petraeus was the head of the CIA, and John Brennan is the current head of the CIA. During the Obama presidency, a tremendous effort was made to uproot the insane from the high offices, only this work was carried out with varying success. The removal of Hillary Clinton from the position of the head of the State Department was a huge success, and she was replaced by the sane Kerry. Unfortunately, with the power block the sequel of the history about Hydra turned out: in place of each removed insane leader of the CIA came the same insane, which supported the radical part of the intelligence community. At the same time, it can not be said that all the knights of the cloak and dagger dream of supporting the radical-irresponsible part of the American elites. For example, the same Petraeus was removed from office with the use of espionage technologies of extraction and use of compromising material. In the conditions of strict disagreement of the top secret services with the policy of the presidential administration it is easy to understand why some actions of Americans in the foreign policy field seem schizophrenic. The CIA may simply not inform its civil authorities, and the civil authorities, in turn, will take advantage of the opportunity to plague the stupid puppets.
It is easy to see that in the above list of leaders of the "insane" elitarians who are ready to go to war in order to preserve American hegemony, there are mainly politicians and security officials. This is not an accident, but a reflection of which segments of society and the economy are represented by certain elite groups. Obama is the "talking head" of the segment of the American elite that is associated with the Kennedy clan. Clan Patriarch, the most influential senator Edward Kennedy, publicly supported Obama for the democratic party’s primaries in 2008, effectively depriving Hillary Clinton of the chances of a presidency and thereby unleashing the current stage of confrontation in the American political elite. Thanks to the strong support of Kennedy and his supporters among the influential sponsors of the Democratic Party, it was Obama who became the Democratic candidate and won the election. Kennedy himself died of cancer, not having time to enjoy the results of the victory, but the Obama administration has fulfilled all obligations to the sponsors.
It is always very useful to look at the sponsors of American politicians in order to understand whose interests they represent. Senator Kennedy's campaigns have always been supported by high-tech structures (Microsoft), pharmaceutical concerns, medical equipment manufacturers, advertising agencies (Interpublic Group), consulting companies (Ernst and Young), financial conglomerates (Citigroup), media giants (Viacom) and, Of course, Hollywood (Time Warner), for whom the Kennedy clan is the most beloved politician. Actually, the business interests of the sponsors determine the political color of this elite group. In a radioactive desert, office packages, legal services, reality shows and banking services are not needed. About the Senator Kennedy himself said that this "lion of the Senate" had time to influence the policy of the United States much more than some presidents, and this is true. At least the tactics of this particular elite group turned out to be advantageous in the Cold War, which Hollywood and Coca-Cola won rather than American aircraft carriers.
Now we are at a historical fork. In addition to the direct power struggle between the sane and irresponsible part of the elites for specific commanding positions and financial flows, there are fights on two more important fronts. On the one hand, there is a struggle for the loyalty of the undecided elitarians, who are quite numerous and whose actions may tip the scales in one direction or another. It is to these undecided elitists, Hillary Clinton and radical Republicans who are trying to prove that “Obama is a weakling who is merging the USA”, and it is before them that Obama plays a play on the theme “Yes, I have torn the Russian economy to shreds, and in general we are still global leaders on all directions. " On the other hand, there is an active preparation for the presidential elections, and this preparation involves the discrediting of opponents. The meaning of discredit is extremely simple: if society is confident that a candidate cannot win the election, then “drawing” victory to him is pointless and dangerous, especially before a period of economic and political turbulence.
For example, Hillary Clinton will find it very difficult to defend herself against the charges of racism, after she during the debate actually failed issues related to police violence against blacks. And here even the promise to close the private prisons in which the negro prisoners work under slave conditions did not help her. Too quickly in the press proved that the owners of these private prisons are sponsors of the Hillary Clinton campaign. If the scandal connected with the storage of secret documents of the State Department on the personal server of the Clinton family is completed, and its participation in the uncoordinated supply of weapons to Libyan militants is finally proved, the “insane” will have to find a new candidate to participate in the presidential race. Joseph Biden, the irresponsible hawk, is already warming up on the “frontline,” and from the Republican side there is a whole line of people willing to wave a military baton “to the glory of America.” Fortunately, across the road to the presidency of the Republican hawks, there is still a barrier called Donald Trump, whose program is a nightmare for the irresponsible part of the American elite.
We live in an interesting and frightening era, when the future of the planet depends both on the actions of the Russian president and on the successes of ordinary Syrian infantrymen near Aleppo, and on how successfully a group of American politicians can protect the American "red button" from those for whom the global The war of all against all is the only possible response to the birth of a world in which America is no longer "number one". Recent events inspire certain optimism and hope that the transition to a multipolar world can still take place without a global catastrophe.