Act to back NATO to the hilt and let us have no more of the Trump rhetoric that served only to weaken the resolve of the West to support it. Re-unite all America's allies in a close-knit group that Trump caused to question U.S. solidarity with them. With this re-united coalition of nations, which will once again be called 'The Free World', resolutely face all "enemies" unwilling to back a western world needing and deserving of the support of all after 9/11.
It was clear in those pre-inauguration days that this would be the agenda for the upcoming Biden administration. Of course there would be the usual post-election soft-soap statements designed to give the impression of future unity within the USA itself, that this new administration would work in the interest of ALL Americans, not just those that had voted for Biden. This is invariably said immediately after such an election and invariably forgotten within days.
The foreign policy goal was clear. Unite the nations of the West under the supervision of the USA and its closest allies. The United Kingdom is of course the closest ally to the United States, followed some way behind by Germany and then, taking up the rear but generally extremely compliant are the other nations of the European Union. These would be the tight knit group (plus a few far allies such as Australia and New Zealand and, it was hoped, India, Turkey and Pakistan) who would present a united front against America's "enemies". It was clear then that the world was to be split again as it had been during the Cold War.
This new split however, would be seen to be without many of the checks and balances that characterised the cold War at its best. There would be extremely little diplomacy and where it appeared to be present it would in fact be little more than window dressing used as a tool to weaken, undermine and wrong-foot, the "enemy". Dialogue would be out of the question (though the Trump years appeared to provide some hope that it was indeed taking place. Though if you noticed at the time nothing very much came of it.) Detente? Completely out of the question. The war was to be permanent. Why so?
The reason why the war was to be permanent rests on the decisions made immediately after the events of nine eleven. A policy of no compromise was decided upon. Every last source of future danger was to be eliminated. Diplomacy would only lengthen the time before this could be effected so diplomacy was not to feature. The goal to eliminate and replace all potential sources of future danger was seen as absolutely urgent, there could be no delay. The USA would act with its allies to carry out the task using their overwhelming combined power and influence.
Thus we saw all the wars of choice that came after 9/11. Whether 9/11 was an inside job is irrelevant regarding the forces it unleashed. The attack upon and invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq came in quick succession. Then, seeing that full scale attacks and invasions had not produced perfect results, somewhat other means using proxy forces became the usual modus operandi. For Libya, NATO aerial attack was used. In Syria the use of proxy forces and convenient assistance from nearby interested parties were the tactics employed. Meanwhile every "enemy" was to be targeted by every means possible bar the military, primarily through demonization via already long-standing PsyOps (Psychological Operations) teams and those journalists and news organisations that were still accessible as in the previous CIA venture, 'Operation Mockingbird'.
In the frenetic days after 9/11 it was seen as the patriotic duty of everyone across the western world to support the USA in its time of greatest tragedy and seen as extremely bad form to make ANY criticism of the U.S. or its authorities whatsoever. Therefore there was little need to persuade journalists across the West to write the necessary articles and produce the necessary TV news that fit this new time. America needed all the help it could get against a world that had shown itself to be disgracefully antagonistic toward it. Not that there was not plentiful cause for a great many nations not to see the USA as an innocent friend but more as a threatening and dangerous force that had to be propitiated to.
So it was that a consensus became quickly seen to exist around never saying a word of criticism about U.S. foreign policy or that of its allies. The 'Coalition of the Willing' were a supremely good and above suspicion, almost evangelical force that would slay all the fearsome dragons threatening their own citizens and, of course, presenting a threat to the USA (and through the USA to themselves). The USA and its allies were to get a blank check. Those it opposed and sought to eliminate and replace would get a big fat black cross next to their names. It was simplistic, black and white, good and evil... and so easy to "understand" and get behind. And so easy to communicate with the ideal form of simplistic power to convince. Think Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Plain and simple. Just rinse and repeat. Over and over and over.
The regime change wars of choice however, began to hit problems. The simplistic notions of freedom and democracy and the building of "ideal" societies where they had never existed before began to palpably fail and be seen to fail. The 'Coalition of the Willing' began to refuse calls as the catastrophic failures of the project they had so willingly signed up to began to be excruciatingly obvious. One by one and then all in a rush they left Afghanistan. Iraq... after one chaotic situation after another with myriad forces jostling violently with one another, including ISIS, simply disappeared from the news. Much the same happened regarding Libya. In Syria, according to the simplistic views of the West the forces of darkness (Russia and the Syrian Arab Army) won out and it too largely disappeared from newsprint and screen.
Then came the next candidate before the ultimate and final project to bring down and replace the communist party of China. That candidate was of course Russia and the primary focus of the targeting Vladimir Putin. He had been a prime target since 2007 when he had stated unequivocally that Russia was not willing to be dominated by another nation or group of nations. This was purest anathema to those who insisted (at pain of elimination and replacement) that all nations must accept and fully comply with the now absolutely necessary post-9/11 domination of the western elites. Putin said no, sorry, we in Russia will NOT comply. We'll work with you on all the major international problems of the day, but Russia will not be ruled on major issues from outside her borders.
So it was that Russia came to be a problem to be "solved" and it was proceeded to be solved using the same techniques and tactics described above short of a military engagement; demonisation, diplomacy as a weapon, the media as a weapon, refusal of true dialogue... in short the weaponisation of all and everything that could assist in bringing the Russian leadership and the political structure (and if necessary) the financial and economic structure) of Russia to their knees. NATO, the EU and Ukraine would be the tools devised to effect this. No alleviation of the pressure on Russia would occur during this process. Trickery would take the place of diplomacy, the Minsk peace process would be a sham, no way out would be given Russia regarding the incremental loss of its security. The constant goal was to make it crack, fragment and disintegrate by all means possible.
This is where we are. The leaders of the west have no plan b. The doubling down must continue until the goal that cannot be questioned and has not been since 9/11 MUST be realised. Or the world destroyed in the process. It's all or nothing. No brakes exist or are desired. No diplomacy is advocated, no peace talks, nothing that might save lives and restore some balance and stability, only an ever-increasing beating of war drums and insertion of weaponry. The clock is ticking. The anxieties about China and the need to brings its leaders down before they become even more powerful and influential are growing. Russia must be "done" before that project gets into top gear. Russia however, due to its own needs of survival resists with all it's got.
While we all stand watching, fear rising within us, each day understanding with ever greater clarity the danger we are all in, that this not going to have the same ending as the Cold War, that this is going all the way toward the worst possible climax imaginable and that we stand now on a completely divided world where everything we thought normal is under extreme threat of non-existence. And we feel helpless to do anything to slow the global schism and geopolitical juggernaut of western leadership destroying us all.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment