El ensayo del ruso Nikolai Starikov que constituyó nuestro post anterior fue objeto de atención y reflexión por parte de otro ruso, Dmitri Orlov, del cual hemos reproducido varias de sus notas vertidas en el blog "Club Orlov" (cluborlov.com). Acá va la que escribió ayer:
Título: The
Imperial Collapse Playbook
Texto: Some
people enjoy having the Big Picture laid out in front of them—the biggest
possible—on what is happening in the world at large, and I am happy to oblige.
The largest development of 2014 is, very broadly, this: the Anglo-imperialists
are finally being forced out of Eurasia. How can we tell? Well, here is the Big
Picture—the biggest I could find. I found it thanks to Nikolai Starikov and a
recent article of his [Véase nuestro post anterior con la nota de N.S.].
Now, let's first
define our terms. By Anglo-imperialists I mean the combination of Britain and
the United States. The latter took over for the former as it failed, turning it
into a protectorate. Now the latter is failing too, and there are no new
up-and-coming Anglo-imperialists to take over for it. But throughout this
process their common playbook had remained the same: pseudoliberal
pseudocapitalism for the insiders and military domination and economic
exploitation for everyone else. Much more specifically, their playbook always
called for a certain strategem to be executed whenever their plans to dominate
and exploit any given country finally fail. On their way out, they do what they
can to compromise and weaken the entity they leave behind, by inflicting a
permanently oozing and festering political wound. “Poison all the wells” is the
last thing on their pre-departure checklist.
• When the
British got tossed out of their American Colonies, they did all they could,
using a combination of import preferences and British “soft power,” to bolster
the plantation economy of the American South, helping set it up as a sort of
anti-United States, and the eventual result was the American Civil War.
• When the
British got tossed out of Ireland, they set up Belfast as a sort of
anti-Ireland, with much blood shed as a result.
• When the
British got tossed out of the Middle East, they set up the State of Israel,
then the US made it into its own protectorate, and it has been poisoning
regional politics ever since. (Thanks to Kristina for pointing this out in the
comments.)
• When the
British got tossed out of India, they set up Pakistan, as a sort of anti-India,
precipitating a nasty hot war, followed by a frozen conflict over Kashmir.
• When the US
lost China to the Communists, they evacuated the Nationalists to Taiwan, and
set it up as a sort of anti-China, and even gave it China's seat at the United
Nations.
The goal is
always the same: if they can't have the run of the place, they make sure that
nobody else can either, by setting up a conflict scenario that nobody there can
ever hope to resolve. And so if you see Anglo-imperialists going out of their
way and spending lots of money to poison the political well somewhere in the
world, you can be sure that they are on their way out. Simply put, they don't
spend lots of money to set up intractable problems for themselves to solve—it's
always done for the benefit of others.
Fast-forward to
2014, and what we saw was the Anglo-imperialist attempt to set up Ukraine as a
sort of anti-Russia. They took a Slavic, mostly Russian-speaking country and
spent billions (that's with a “b”) of dollars corrupting its politics to make
the Ukrainians hate the Russians. For a good while an average Ukrainian could
earn a month's salary simply by turning up for an anti-Russian demonstration in
Kiev, and it was said that nobody in Ukraine goes to protests free of charge;
it's all paid for by the US State Department and associated American NGOs. The
result was what we saw this year: a bloody coup, and a civil war marked by
numerous atrocities. Ukraine is in the midst of economic collapse with power
plants out of coal and lights going off everywhere, while at the same time the
Ukrainians are being drafted into the army and indoctrinated to want to go
fight against “the Muscovites.”
But, if you
notice, things didn't go quite as planned. First, Russia succeeded in making a
nice little example of self-determination in the form of Crimea: if it worked
for Kosovo, why can't it work for Crimea? Oh, the Anglo-imperialist
establishment wishes to handle these things on a case-by-case basis, and in
this case it doesn't approve? Well, that would be a double-standard, wouldn't
it? World, please take note: when the West talks about justice and human
rights, that's just noise.
Next, the
Russians provided some amount of support, including weapons, volunteers and
humanitarian aid, to Ukraine's eastern provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk, which
declared themselves People's Republics and successfully fought Ukraine's
so-called “anti-terrorist operation” to a stalemate and an imperfect,
precarious cease-fire. Very significantly, Russia absolutely refused to get
involved militarily, has withheld official recognition of these republics, has
refused to consider breaking up Ukraine, and continues to insist on national
dialogue and a peace process even as the bullets fly. According to Putin,
Ukraine must be maintained as “a contiguous political space.” Thus, the Russians
have responded to the Anglo-imperialists' setting up of an anti-Russia in the
form of Ukraine by setting up an anti-Ukraine in the form of DPR and LPR,
thereby shunting the Anglo-imperialist attempt to provoke a war between Ukraine
and Russia into a civil war within Ukraine.
You might also
notice that the Anglo-imperialists have been getting very, very angry. They
have been doing everything they can to vilify Russia, comparing Putin to Hitler
and so on. This is because for them it's all about the money, and they didn't
get what they paid for. What the Anglo-imperialists were paying for in
corrupting Ukraine's politics was a ring-side seat at a fight between Ukraine
and Russia. And what they got instead is a two-legged stool at a bar-room brawl
between Eastern and Western Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine accounts for a quarter of
the Ukrainian economy, produces most of the coal that had formerly kept the
lights on in the rest of the country, and contains most of the industry that
had made Ukraine an industrialized nation. Western Ukraine is centered on the
unhappy little rump of Galicia, where the political soil is so fertile for
growing neo-Nazis. So, paying billions to watch a bunch of Ukrainians fight
each other inconclusively while Russia gets to play peacemaker is not what the
Anglo-imperialists wanted, and they are absolutely livid about it. If they
don't get the war they paid for PDQ, they will simply cut their losses, pack up
and leave, and then do what they always do, which is pretend that the country
in question doesn't exist, which, the way things are going in the Ukraine, it
barely will.
Note that
leaving, and then pretending that a place doesn't exist, is something the
Anglo-imperialists have been doing a lot lately. When they left Iraq, they did
succeed in setting up a sort of anti-Iraq in the form of Iraqi Kurdistan, but
that all blew up in their face. Their attempts to set up an anti-Syria or an
anti-Libya died in their infancy, and they don't seem to have any plan at all
with regard to Afghanistan, unless it is to repeat every single blunder the
Soviets made there as carefully and completely as possible.
What's more, it's
starting to look like they are about to get kicked out of Eurasia altogether.
Most of the major Eurasian players—China, Russia, India, Iran, much of Central
Asia—are cementing their ties around the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to
which the United States isn't even admitted as an observer. As for the European
Union, the current crop of EU politicians is very much bought and will be paid
for upon retirement by the Anglo-imperialists, but the only reason they are
still in power is that there are lots of older voters in Western Europe, and
older people tend to cling to what they know even after it stops working—for
them or, especially, for their kids. If it was up to the young people, the
Anglo-imperialists would face open rebellion. In fact, the trends in voting
patterns show that their departure from the region is a matter of time.
Here is a preview
of possible coming attractions. On their way out, the Anglo-imperialists will
of course try to set up an anti-Europe, and the obvious choice for that is
Britain. Of all the European nations, it is the most heavily manipulated by
their Anglo cousins from across the pond. It would take minimal effort for them
to hurt Britain economically, then launch a propaganda campaign to redirect the
blame for the bad economy toward the continent. They wouldn't even have to hire
translators for their propaganda—a simple “spelling-chequer” (or whatever)
would suffice. And so, to make sure that their efforts to provoke a
large-scale, hugely destructive, festering conflict between Britain and Europe
fail, Europe would do well to set up an anti-Britain within Britain.
And the obvious
choice for an anti-Britain is of course Scotland, where the recent independence
referendum failed because of... the recalcitrance of older voters. A dividing
line between the Anglo empire and Eurasia running through the English
Channel/La Manche would be a disaster for Europe and moving it somewhere west
of Bermuda would pose a formidable challenge. On the other hand, suppose that
line ran along Hadrian's Wall, with the traditionally combative and ornery
Scots, armed with the remnants of North Sea oil and gas, aligning themselves
with the Continent, while England remains an ever-so-obedient vassal of the
Anglo-imperialists? That would reduce the intercontinental conflict to what
Americans like to call a “pissing contest”: not worth the high price of
admission. Yes, there would be some strong words between the two sides, and
some shoving and shouting outside of pubs, and even some black eyes and loose
teeth should diplomacy fail, but that should be the extent of the damage. That
I see as the best-case outcome.
So that's the big
picture I see heading into 2015, which I am sure will be a most tumultuous
year. Not to make a prediction as to timing (don't worry, you won't ever get
one out of me!) but 2015 could be the year the Anglo-imperialist franchise
finally starts shutting down in obvious ways. We know it will have to shut down
eventually, because failing all the time is not conducive to its survival. The
bonus question is, what sort of anti-America will these parasites set up inside
America before they abandon their host and scatter to their fortified compounds
in undisclosed locations around the world? Or will they not even bother, and
just provoke a war of all against all?
I would think
that they would at least try to leverage their expensively engineered red/blue
divide within the United States. This fake cultural/political divide, with all
the pseudoliberal/pseudoconservative indoctrination and university- and
church-based brainwashing that put it in place, cost them a pretty penny. It
was engineered to produce the appearance of choice at election-time while
making sure that there isn't any. But could it not be pressed into service in
some more extreme manner? How about leveraging it to organize some sort of
rabidly homophobic racist fundamentalist separatist enclave somewhere down
south? Or perhaps one somewhere in the north, where zoophilia is de rigeur
while heterosexual intercourse requires a special permit from a committee
stocked with graduates in women's studies? Now, fight, you idiots! Don't you
see how well that could work in practice? Would they waste such a nice
opportunity to set up a system of controlled mayhem? I think not!
I leave all of
that up to you to imagine.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario