It is quite convenient for representatives of the Western community to rally around NATO narratives about the causes of the armed conflict in Ukraine and not put themselves in a position of discomfort of doubt and testing of the postulates that dominate public opinion.
However, stepping out of this intellectual comfort zone, which is really, psychologically, only a fear zone is an important exercise for all those who advocate the search for truth, which can often differ significantly from the narratives set by the dominant actors.
In this analysis, I will not go into all the historical elements of each of the conflicting parties, which are certainly important and which led to the confrontation in which the world is today, but I wish to highlight the really dominant, dissimulated from the naked eye, the role of a key player in this conflict: the United States of America .
History shows us that, despite appearances, not a single war of the past has ever had a reason for its beginning any one single reason.
At the heart of every major conflict, of course, is a project consisting of many causes and sub-goals that must be achieved in the frame of the main ultimate goal, often far beyond the war itself.
The trigger reasons announced by the conflicting parties are only a reflection of the culmination, the tip of the iceberg of deep disagreements, which not only cannot be resolved diplomatically, but, often, on the contrary: the diplomatic solution of which would be an obstacle to achieving pre-established and carefully concealed goals.
Establishment of democracies
Basically, the United States of America and, secondarily, the rest of the Western community argue that the cause of the armed conflicts in the world, initiated by the latter, is the establishment of regimes of the rule of law, individual, collective freedoms and the light of democracy in the territories-abodes of tyranny, dictatorship and barbarism.
However, by analyzing the totality of more than fifty wars and armed interventions carried out since the end of World War II directly by the armed fist of the United States and / or indirectly, through satellite countries, and analyzing the final results of each of the military clashes, we can make one significant statement:
either the United States of America is incredibly bad at achieving its predetermined goals – because the latter are never achieved;
or, to be more serious, the true causes of the continuous process of destruction of parts of the world are not quite, or, to be more precise, have nothing to do with those advertised.
There is no doubt about the objectivity of this observation, because there are too many precedents of “realizations”, the final results of which are well known to us. Mentioning only the largest among them, we can name the wars in Korea and China, Guatemala, Vietnam and Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
Not to mention the many “secondary” American interventions throughout modern history, including direct bombing of civilians such as Cuba, Congo, Laos, Grenada, Lebanon, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Pakistan.
And even this list is by no means exhaustive, because it does not take into account so many confidential operations carried out around the world in order to establish “democratic values and human rights.”
A statement of the general state acquired by the “liberated” societies, the quality of their life before and after the processes of “democratization” passed through, can only arouse great bewilderment in the observer.
Survival of the United States of America
Without neglecting the fact that the American people, in and of themselves, are quite sympathetic and friendly – which in no way can be denied by those who have had experience of communication and interpersonal relations with their representatives, including myself, who has the honor of being acquainted with a number of Americans, who are bearers of high human values and for whom I have friendship and deep respect – one cannot, however, deny the fact that the freedom of thought of the American people, in its overwhelming majority, is deeply subordinated to the power of state propagandacarried out for many decades through virtually all existing information channels directly controlled by the American “deep state” and its lobbyists, pursuing their own goals on behalf of the American nation.
The noble motives of the armed interventions of the United States in the world, presented to the American population, are not much different from those advertised in the international arena.
Contrary to the narratives exhibited by some of the US antagonists, for the American “deep state” the true causes of repeated large-scale massacres – otherwise it is difficult to call their modus operandi – do not have their fundamental ultimate goal of world domination, as such, for the sake of domination.
This qualification is not entirely accurate. The ultimate goal is much more pragmatic: the survival of the United States of America .
Not just survival as a state formation, but the survival of structures that allow the realization of superprofits for the elites, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the survival of the model and standard of living acquired by the country with the end of the Great Depression, which ended with the outbreak of World War II and the revival of the American economy at the expense of the military industry.
This survival is simply impossible without military-economic, or rather, military-financial world domination.
It is by no means a historical accident that the military budget, called the defense budget, of the United States alone exceeds 1/3 of the world’s defense spending, which is a decisive element in maintaining financial dominance on a global scale.
The concept of survival through world domination was articulated at the end of the Cold War by Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense, in his so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine , which saw the U.S. as the only remaining superpower in the world and whose main goal is to preserve this status: ” to prevent the reappearance of a new rival, either in the territory of the former Soviet Union , or elsewhere, which would constitute a threat to the order previously represented by the Soviet Union.”
The main deep pillars of the conflict in Ukraine
Leaving aside the lofty narratives that appeal to the psychological sensitivity of the Western masses, who must fulfill their assigned role – approval – let’s look at the real reasons, the deep pillars of the new confrontation in the general framework of the survival of the United States of America – the conflict in Ukraine .
These deep, interdependent pillars are three:
maintaining the global dominance of the US financial system,
weakening the EU economy through the maximum destruction of relations between Russia and the EU
and a significant weakening of Russia’s position in the frame of a future conflict with China.
All other elements of the current conflict in Ukraine, on the American side, such as lobbying by the American military industry, the conquest of new energy markets, the protection of significant American economic assets on Ukrainian territory, corruption schemes, personal revanchism of Russophobic American elites, immigrants from Eastern European immigration, and many others – appear to me only as additions, derivatives and consequences of the three main causes listed.
The first of the three underlying pillars of the conflict in Ukraine: maintaining the global dominance of the US financial system.
The global dominance of the US financial system is based on a number of elements, chief among which are the extraterritoriality of US law, US Treasury bonds, and the petrodollar .
It is absolutely impossible to know or understand the true causes of not only the events in Ukraine, but also the causes of almost all wars initiated directly by the United States of America, without an accurate vision of the mentioned elements. So, let’s look at them in detail.
The dollar and the extraterritoriality of American law as a weapon of economic warfare
The concept of extraterritoriality of American law is the application of American law outside the borders of the United States of America, which allows American judges to initiate legal proceedings on facts that take place anywhere in the world.
The main element used as a pretext for legal charges is the fact that US national currency was used in transactions.
Thus, the legal mechanisms of extraterritoriality of American law provide American companies with serious competitive advantages. Completely illegal under international commercial law, but perfectly legal under US law.
How it works?
The extraterritoriality of American laws obliges foreign companies that use the American dollar in their operations to comply with American standards, submit to the supervision and control of the American state, which makes it possible for the latter to legalize economic and industrial espionage and the implementation of actions aimed at preventing the development of competitors of American companies.
When prosecuted by the US Department of Justice, incriminated foreign companies are required to “settle” their situation by assuming surveillance for several consecutive years under a “compliance program.”
In order to establish their world domination, countless lawsuits are launched without any substantive grounds, the real purpose of which is access to confidential information of competitors and economic interference.
In addition, by artificially exposing foreign companies that interest US groups to the risk of paying heavy fines to the US, US justice puts victims in a position where they are not inclined to show hostility to the idea of being taken over by US companies in order to avoid serious financial losses.
US Treasuries and petrodollars
In accounting there is such a term as bad debts.
US Treasury bills are bonds that are bought and redeemed in US dollars and are essentially bad debt .
Why?
Today, the sovereign debt of the American state has exceeded 31 billion US dollars and continues to grow by several billion dollars daily. This figure significantly exceeds the annual GDP of the United States and turns the bulk of the securities issued by the US Treasury into more than dubious values, since the latter are subject to reimbursement by the national currency. Currency, the issue of which is not supported, for the most part, by any real assets.
The solvency of US Treasury bonds is guaranteed solely by money printing and trust in the US dollar, which is based not on its real value, but on US military world domination.
And what about Russia?
Since the coming to power of Vladimir Putin, the Russian Federation has begun a progressive disposal of US Treasury bonds. Since 2014, the beginning of the conflict provoked by the US in Ukraine through a coup d’état, Russia has got rid of almost all US debt. If in 2010 Russia was one of the ten largest holders of US Treasury bonds, with a volume of more than $176 billion , then in 2015 it owned only about $90 billion, i.e. the total mass of these assets has almost halved in 5 years. Today, Russia has only about two billion US debt, which is an extremely small amount, comparable to the mathematical error in the world market for treasury bonds.
In tandem with the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China is also progressively getting rid of this dangerous debtor. If in 2015 it held more than 1270 billion US dollars of US bonds, today this amount is below 970 billion, i.e. ¼ decline over 7 years. To date, the amount of state US debt held by China is at its 12-year low.
Along with getting rid of US Treasury bonds, the Russian Federation initiated a gradual process of freeing the world from the petrodollar system .
A vicious spiral has been launched: the loosening of the petrodollar system will deal a significant blow to the US Treasury bond market . A fall in demand for the US dollar in the international arena will automatically cause a devaluation of the currency and, de facto, a fall in demand for Washington treasury bills, which will mechanically lead to an increase in the interest rate on the latter, making it impossible to finance the US government debt at the current level.
Critics of the notion that a depreciation of the dollar against many currencies will cause very significant damage to the US economy argue that a weaker dollar will lead to a significant increase in US exports and, accordingly, will benefit US manufacturers, which will, in effect, reduce the trade deficit. USA.
If they are absolutely right about the beneficial effects of the dollar devaluation on American exports, they are fundamentally wrong about the inevitably destructive end effect of the process on the American economy, since their position ignores a fundamental element: the United States is a country that has been on the path of deindustrialization for many decades, and the positive impact on exports will be relatively small in the face of a gigantic trade deficit. The deficit, which already in 2021 reached a record level in the history of the United States, and with the devaluation of the dollar, which means that the cost of imports at all levels, will have an absolutely destructive effect.
Thus, “settlement of accounts” with the two culprits of the current situation – Russia and China – is a key element of the survival strategy of the United States of America .
petrodollars
With the collapse in 1971 of the Bretton Woods agreements, which had been in force since 1944, the global dependence on the US dollar began to decline very dangerously for the US economy, and the latter had to look for an alternative way to increase global demand for the national currency.
The way has been found. In 1979, the “petrodollar” was born as part of the US-Saudi agreement on economic cooperation: “oil for dollars.” As part of this agreement, Saudi Arabia committed itself to selling its oil to the rest of the world only in US dollars, as well as reinvesting its excess reserves of US currency in US Treasury bonds and US companies.
In return, the United States assumed obligations and guarantees for the military security of Saudi Arabia.
Subsequently, the “oil for dollars” agreement was extended to other OPEC countries, and without any compensation from the Americans, and led to an exponential issuance of the US dollar. Progressively, the dollar became the main trading currency and other commodities, which secured the latter’s place as the world’s reserve currency and gave the United States unrivaled superiority and enormous privileges.
Today we are witnessing a strategic break in relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia , which is due to several major factors, among which are the very significant reduction in crude oil imports by America, of which Arabia was the largest supplier; the end of American support for Saudi Arabia in the war against Yemen and the intention of US President Joe Biden to salvage the nuclear deal with Iran’s Shiite mullahs, sworn enemies of the Sunni Saudis.
This triple “betrayal” of the Americans was extremely difficult for the Kingdom, which is especially sensitive to issues of honor in bilateral relations. Strategic disagreements between the two countries reached a climax with the start of the war in Ukraine, when the Saudi authorities faced an existential choice : to continue moving in the wake of the United States, or to join the camp of their main opponents, which are China and Russia. The second option was chosen.
Unlike America, which neglected the strategic interests of the Saudis, China, on the contrary, only increased cooperation with Saudi Arabia. And these bilateral relations are not limited to the fossil fuel sector, but are expanding significantly in the areas of infrastructure, trade and investment. Not only is large Chinese investment in Arabia constantly on the rise and China is currently buying up nearly a quarter of the Kingdom’s global oil exports, but the Kingdom’s Sovereign Fund plans to launch significant investments in Chinese companies in strategic sectors.
In parallel, in August 2021, an agreement on military cooperation between the Saudi Kingdom and the Russian Federation was signed.
Like Russia, Saudi Arabia has taken the path of de-dollarization of trade and investment with China.
The joint and synchronized actions of Russia, China and the OPEC countries along the path of progressive de-dollarization gained momentum with the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, which tore off the masks, and will have an almost inevitable avalanche effect against the global dominance of the American financial system in the future, as the central banks of many countries are invited to rethink the logic of reserve accumulation; and the virtues of investing in US Treasuries.
Declaration of war on the US dollar
The military actions in Ukraine against Russia and the coming war in the Asia-Pacific region against China are nothing more than part of the US reaction, which considers the actions of Russia and China against the global dominance of the American currency as a real declaration of war .
And the United States is absolutely right to take this announcement more than seriously, as the massive split from US Treasuries, coupled with the progressive displacement of the petrodollar system by powers like Russia and China, is nothing less than the beginning of the end for the American economy as we are. we have known it since the end of World War II – the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it today.
Countries that have dared to challenge the global dominance of the US monetary system in the past have paid the ultimate price for their audacity.
The difficulty is that the Russian Federation, like the People’s Republic of China, are military powers that cannot be attacked directly under any circumstances – which would be tantamount to suicide. Only proxy wars and hybrid wars can take place against these two countries.
Today we are in the “Russian phase”, tomorrow we will be in the “Chinese phase” of confrontation.
It is important to note that the events in Ukraine are by no means the first, but the third great war of the American dollar , not to mention the two “cold” dollar wars.
What are these wars, other than the one we know today?
This is the war in Iraq and the war in Libya. And the two “cold” dollar wars are wars against Iran and against Venezuela.
First Great Dollar War
Speaking of the first dollar war, that is, the war in Iraq , it is necessary to put aside the famous vial of imaginary anthrax that US Secretary of State Colin Powell shook at the UN on February 5, 2003, in order to destroy the country and massacre the Iraqi people – and recall the facts . Facts far from American fantasy.
In October 2000, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein announced that he was no longer willing to sell his oil for US dollars and that the country’s energy would only be sold in euros.
Such a statement was tantamount to signing the death warrant for its author.
According to an extensive study by the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Journalism Independence Foundation, between 2001 and 2003, the US government made 935 false statements about Iraq, 260 of which were directly from George W. Bush. And out of 260 deliberately false statements by the President of the United States, 232 concerned the presence in Iraq of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Colin Powell’s bubble, after 254 of the latter’s false statements on the same subject, was only the culmination of a long and painstaking preparation of national and international public opinion for the inevitable destruction of the Iraqi threat posed to the US currency .
And, when in February 2003 Saddam Hussein carried out his “threat” by selling more than 3 billion barrels of crude oil worth 26 billion euros – a month later, the United States carried out the invasion and total destruction of Iraq, the tragic consequences of which with the destruction of the country’s entire infrastructure and a colossal number of people killed are well known among the civilian population. To this day, the US authorities firmly maintain that this war had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq’s desire to free itself from the petrodollar system.
Given the complete judicial impunity for crimes against humanity committed by successive governments of the United States, the latter do not even bother to cover them up with stories that deserve the slightest credibility in the eyes of the international community.
The facts are well known, and we could stop there. But, to make the process of “defending” American interests even clearer, including the current events in Ukraine, let’s also talk about the penultimate – the second great dollar war – the war in Libya .
Second Great Dollar War
Six years have passed since the Iraqi threat was eliminated – a new existential threat to the US dollar has emerged in the face of someone who refused to learn the lesson of the tragic fate of Saddam Hossein: Muammar Gaddafi .
In 2009, as President of the African Union, Muammar Gaddafi proposed to the states of the African continent a real monetary revolution , which had every chance of changing the fate of the continent and therefore was met with great enthusiasm: to evade the dominance of the US dollar by creating an African monetary union in which the export of oil and other African natural resources will be paid for mainly by the gold dinar , a new currency to be created that will be based on the gold reserves and financial assets of the continent’s sovereign wealth funds.
Following the example of the Arab OPEC countries, which have their own sovereign oil funds, African oil-producing countries, starting with the oil and gas giants – Angola and Nigeria – have launched the process of creating their own national funds at the expense of oil export revenues. A total of 28 African oil and gas producing countries participated in the project .
Gaddafi, however, made a strategic miscalculation that not only “buried” the gold dinar, but also cost him his life.
He underestimated the fact that, on the one hand, for the American state, and on the other hand, for the “deep state” of Wall Street and the City of London, it was completely out of the question that this project could be realized.
Because not only would it put the US currency in existential danger, but it would also deprive New York and City banks of their habitual scrolling of trillions of dollars coming from the export of raw materials from the African continent. Thus, the United Kingdom was in complete symbiosis with the United States in its desire to destroy the power that threatened their well-being.
After the “allies” decided to neutralize the new threat, they were little concerned about the strange temporal coincidence in the eyes of observers: more than 40 years of inaction against Gaddafi, who came to power in 1969, and as soon as he presents the financial revolution project to the African Union – in Libya immediately a new civil war breaks out.
Having criminally invaded and destroyed Iraq based on the grossly deliberate lies spread at the UN in 2003 by the US state through Colin Powell about the so-called weapons of mass destruction allegedly owned by Saddam Hussein, the United States was unwilling to repeat the same pattern of action and were forced to diversify the implementation of the invasion, so as not to put themselves once again in the position of war criminals in a too obvious perspective.
At a time when the new “Arab spring” in Libya has reached the verge of its complete suppression by the forces of the Libyan state, the Americans, remaining in the shadows, are using satellite countries and vassals – France, Great Britain and Lebanon – to fish out of oblivion the UN Security Council resolution against Libya from 1973 – more than 35 years ago – to attack and destroy the country.
And the very implementation of this project was carried out in violation of even its own, newly adopted UN resolution: instead of the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya provided for by the resolution, direct bombing of military ground targets took place. These attacks were completely illegal and completely violated international law: those who voted for the adaptation of the resolution made it being firmly convinced by the authors that the purpose of the action was solely to establish a no-fly zone to protect the civilian population, and not to defeat Gaddafi and / or destroy him army.
This means that the United States, under the guise of satellite countries, once again lied to the UN in order to obtain legal grounds for starting hostilities and following a pre-planned plan to destroy the new threat to the US dollar.
The fact that the real initiators of the destruction of Libya in 2011 were the United States and no one else was an open secret.
And since the publication by Wikileaks of the April 2, 2011 correspondence between former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her adviser Sid Blumenthal on this matter, the “secret” has come out of the shadows: Clinton was a key element in the Western conspiracy against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and, specifically, against the new pan-African currency – a direct threat to the US dollar.
Blumenthal writes to Clinton: “According to confidential information obtained from this source, the Gaddafi government owns 143 tons of gold, as well as comparable financial assets … This gold was accumulated before the uprising and was intended to create a pan-African currency based on the Libyan gold dinar.”
As I mentioned earlier, no war has a single reason for its implementation. In the case of the war against Gaddafi, it was the same: one of its additional key reasons was the personal interest of Hillary Rodham Clinton to play the role of “iron lady” in the American political environment in view of the upcoming presidential elections. This war was tantamount to a statement from their political party: “Look, I was able to crush an entire country. So rest assured that I am fully capable of leading the election campaign.” In April 2015, Clinton announced her candidacy for the presidency and, in July 2016, was officially nominated by the Democratic Party.
In the second great dollar war, not only the future of Libya, but the future of the entire African continent was sacrificed on the altar of the well-being of the American economy .
All those who seek to threaten the American monetary system must disappear if they are not strong enough to fight back.
However, if we are talking about a power that is not possible to crush directly – as happened with Iraq and Libya – indirect multimodal large-scale attacks are developed and carried out, always remaining in the shadows, exposing the aggressor who has been subjected to aggression, in order to economically weaken the enemy to such an extent that the latter should abandon its plans to fight the dominance of the dollar and be forced to concentrate on solving new problems.
The second of the three deep pillars of the conflict in Ukraine: the weakening of the EU economy through the maximum destruction of relations between Russia and the EU .
Coup d’état in Ukraine
The maximum and long-term degradation of relations between Russia and Europe, especially Germany, which is the center of gravity of European economic power, is the strategic goal of the United States of America to achieve the weakening of the main direct competitor of the Americans in world markets – the European Union.
I would like to emphasize that I am in no way suggesting that the geographic areas targeted by American “interests” do not lack democracy and personal freedoms, especially in the Western format.
My contention is that the presence or absence of these noble concepts is in no way part of the cause of American aggression and is nothing more than an advertised pretext.
There are a number of striking examples of really bloody dictatorships, bearers of medieval legislation, not in the least disturbed by the collective west revolving around the United States, and even actively supported by the latter for the simple reason of their subordination to American foreign policy.
Having orchestrated and carried out coup d’état under the guise of “color revolutions”: in Yugoslavia in 2000 and in Georgia in 2003, the “orange” revolution was organized by the United States in Ukraine in 2004 with the aim of overthrowing the power of the predominantly pro-Russian moderate right-wing forces and the creation of “anti-Russia”, the establishment of a new government of extreme right Russophobic movements, allowing to pursue a policy that meets American strategic interests.
The coming to power in Ukraine in 2010 of Viktor Yanukovych with his globally pro-Russian policies created the need for a new “revolution”. Taking advantage of the social mass protests of 2014, the United States once again staged a coup d’état and re-established a fundamentally Russophobic ultra-nationalist government.
Speaking about the coup d’état organized by the United States, we are not talking about speculative conjectures, but about a proven fact. Not only have there been a number of statements by high-ranking US officials in this regard since the beginning of the war we are living through today, but going back to 2014, we find direct confirmation of this. Evidence that is a recording of a telephone conversation intercepted and distributed by Russian intelligence agencies: a conversation between Victoria Nuland, US Deputy Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, and Jeffrey Ross Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine in 2014. A recording on which Nuland and Pyatt distribute posts in the new Ukrainian government and which directly incriminates the American government in a coup d’état.
Russia’s opponents would like to question the authenticity of the recording, but this is impossible due to the fact that Victoria Nuland made a serious mistake: instead of firmly denying the veracity of the recording, in which the latter, among other things, insults the European Union, Nuland issued a formal apology for the caused her insults to the EU and thus confirmed the authenticity of the recorded conversation.
Also, on the non-government side, the much-controversial George Soros stated in a late May 2014 interview with CNN that his foundation’s branch in Ukraine “has played an important role in the events that are currently taking place in Ukraine.”
The coup d’état and the establishment of “anti-Russia” in Ukraine, carried out by the United States of America, could not but provoke strategic countermeasures on the part of the Russian Federation. Countermeasures known to us since 2014 and which reached their climax in February 2022.
Sabotage of the performance of the Minsk agreements
Compliance with the Minsk agreements, which would bring lasting peace to Ukraine, would be a real geopolitical catastrophe for the United States of America , with far-reaching detrimental economic consequences arising from the latter. The failure of the arrangements being made was, therefore, a vital element for the American, officially absent side.
From 2015 to 2022, in the frame of the Normandy format, neither Paris nor Berlin managed to put pressure on Kyiv so that the latter would grant autonomy and amnesty to Donbass. And this for a simple reason: in the person of the new president of Ukraine, the oligarch Petro Poroshenko, who came to power as a result of the 2014 coup d’état, the deep interests of the United States were represented at the negotiations. Interests that are successfully combined with the interests of the new Ukrainian elite.
However, as we shall see below, such pressure was not in the least part of the West’s intentions.
It was clear that in order to comply with the Minsk agreements, Ukrainian ultra-nationalist and neo-Nazi movements – the “armed fist” of the American coup in the person of Victoria Nuland – had to be immediately neutralized. Whereas the leader of the ultra-nationalist paramilitary organization Right Sector, Dmitry Yarosh, bluntly stated that he rejects the Minsk agreements, which he considers a violation of the constitution of Ukraine, and intends to continue the armed struggle.
This position of the exponentially growing ultra-nationalist forces suited both President Poroshenko, the United States, and their Western partners.
There is a very recent video, dated November 2022, of former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko talking about the Minsk agreements that took place in 2015. He bluntly admits:
“I believe that the Minsk agreements are a skillfully written document. I needed the Minsk agreements in order to get at least 4 and a half years to form the Ukrainian Armed Forces, build the Ukrainian economy and train the Ukrainian military together with NATO to create the best armed forces in Eastern Europe that would be trained according to NATO standards.”
According to this statement by a key figure in the Minsk agreements, the true goals of the negotiations had nothing to do with the advertised – the search for modus vivendi – but was solely to buy the time needed to prepare for a full-scale war.
And such a sensational recent interview given to the publishing house Die Zeit by ex-Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel is just an echo of the truth announced by Poroshenko and another confirmation of what the Western public has turned a blind eye to and, however, continues to turn a blind eye to. And it would be extremely short-sighted to separate Merkel’s revelations from her own “guarantees” given to President Yanukovych in 2014, which were one of the fundamental factors in the implementation of the coup d’état in Ukraine.
The Minsk Agreements were in fact only a spectacle , a staging, and, de facto, sabotaged even before they were initiated.
Sabotage of Nord Streams
Currently, there are rumors in the Western community about the author of the explosions on the Russian Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea. Even without taking into account the ill-considered statements of recent months by various US officials that significantly incriminate the latter, we must go back years to state that Russia’s sabotage of supplies to the European Union by no means is part of hasty operations “in the heat of the moment.” battles” of the current war, but fits well into the framework of the calculated, strategic long-term goals of American geopolitics.
Already in 2014, in a TV interview, Condoleezza Rice, US Secretary of State of that era, recognized the strategic importance of redirecting gas and oil supplies to Europe from Russia to America by neutralizing Russian gas pipelines: “…in the long term, we just want to change the structure of energy dependence [of the EU]. To make it more dependent on the North American energy platform, on the superior abundance of oil and gas found in North America…”
With the explosion of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines, the goal was finally achieved.
I leave it up to you to decide whether it’s a coincidence or not that this statement by the head of the US Foreign Ministry took place precisely in the year of the US-organized coup d’état in Ukraine – the year of the seizure of Ukrainian power by Washington, which led to a total reorientation of Ukrainian politics, the consequences of which we are now observing.
It is quite obvious that, on the one hand, such a destruction of the energy infrastructure was impossible in peacetime, when no propaganda could allow the slightest doubt about the identification of the only culprit and beneficiary of such an unprecedented event;
on the other hand, the decommissioning of Russian gas pipelines immediately changes the structure of European energy dependence and redirects it directly towards the North American energy platform, given the existing saturation of energy demand in the Persian Gulf.
American corporate power has finally gained access to the large European energy market and, at the same time, the ability to regulate the cost of production of the competitive industries of the old continent .
Shot in the leg
The facts of economic reality are stubborn: one of the foundations of the competitiveness of European industrial companies in the world market in relation to their direct competitors for decades has been energy supplies supplied by Russia at low prices and secured by long-term contracts .
The voluntary rejection by the current European leaders of access to this cheap energy makes the expression “shoot yourself in the foot” quite appropriate for the situation in which EU industry finds itself in the short and medium term, and also in the long term, if the corresponding policies are not tolerated. a radical change in its vector.
As one of the “side effects” of Europe’s energy hunger received by the United States, there will be a partial de-industrialization of the EU, which will directly contribute to the new American dream of reindustrializing a country that has been in decline since the 1970s, and which will be contributed by energy-intensive European companies, no longer able to maintain their usual level of activity while on the European continent and who will look for new ways to develop in the Americas, which will keep energy access prices at a relatively moderate level.
Already in September 2022, the cost of production of industrial goods in Germany jumped by 45.8%, which is a record high since 1949, the year the statistical surveys by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany began. And this trend will only inevitably develop.
Moreover, the constant delays undertaken by the German government in recent years at the level of almost all agreements in the field of military-industrial cooperation between France and Germany, which could lead to a significant development of an autonomous European defense industry, testify without any doubt to the political dominance of the United States over Germany. And Berlin’s statement at the beginning of the war in Ukraine about an unprecedented order of American weapons in its scale only once again confirms the above.
Even before the bright phase of the armed confrontation in Ukraine, this dominance led to several additional major American successes, which consisted in a significant weakening of European competitiveness in the field of arms ; expanding the market for the American military industry and, above all, neutralizing the danger of creating a truly autonomous European defense bloc outside NATO , which was previously discussed at the EU level.
However, despite undeniable successes in the process of weakening the economy of a European competitor, the American Democratic Party, historically a supporter of achieving goals through armed conflict, made a strategic mistake by refusing to follow the recommendations of Donald Trump, declaring the need to level relations and make peace with a traditional adversary, which is Russia, in order to ensure that the latter does not become a significant (energy and food) support in relation to the main enemy of the United States – China – at a time when a big clash with the latter will take place.
At the end of the conflict in Ukraine – the third great war of the US dollar – there will inevitably be a fourth – with China, the exact forms of which we have yet to discover.
Fourth Great Dollar War
The third and last of the main deep pillars of events in Ukraine: a significant weakening of Russia’s position in the frame of the future conflict with China, which will be the fourth great dollar war.
We are talking about the weakening of Russia, as a strategic partner of China, both in the economic sphere, in which both countries have real complementarity, and in the political, diplomatic and military-technical spheres.
But despite China maintaining the status quo with regard to Russian actions in Ukraine, in the face of direct threats of serious sanctions coming from the collective West led by the United States, the latter are producing a bitter statement of facts: the Sino-Russian alliance has remained unshakable.
As in the case of the confrontation in Ukraine and the previously mentioned wars, it is important to note the facts that, on the one hand, the war of the United States against China is inevitable , and, on the other hand: the real causes of a future war, again and in large part, lie in China’s desire to evade the petrodollar system – which is a “classic” and absolute casus belli from Washington’s point of view.
There are a number of facts that make it necessary for Americans to act tough, of which the main ones can be named:
In 2012, China initiated the purchase of crude oil from Iran, paying in yuan. Iran, whose oil contracts have been denominated in euros since 2016, with the rejection of the US dollar.
In 2015, China launched futures – futures contracts for oil at the Shanghai Futures Exchange ( Shanghai Futures Exchange ), the main purpose of which is the implementation of transactions through swaps in yuan between Russia and China and between Iran and China – which is a new strategic element of Chinese geopolitics.
In 2017, China, with its imports of 8.4 million barrels of crude oil per day, became the world’s largest importer of crude oil and, at the same time, signed an agreement with the Central Bank of Russia aimed at purchasing Russian oil in Chinese currency.
In 2022, as we saw earlier, China concludes an agreement with Saudi Arabia on the purchase of oil also in yuan.
And these processes, let me remind you, are taking place in parallel with the slow but progressive disposal of US Treasury bonds, the amount of which in China has decreased by ¼ over the past 7 years.
An analysis of the initiatives taken by the Celestial Empire in the foreign economic policy of the last decade clearly demonstrates the exponentially growing threat to the viability of the modern model of the American economy. Only radical measures taken by the United States authorities against the Chinese adversary can stop, or at least try to slow down, the process of undermining the foundations of the world economy, built by America since the end of World War II.
By this logic, China’s armed attack on Taiwan is an absolute necessary precedent for the United States of America . Everything will be done to ensure that this Chinese initiative takes place.
However, let’s be realistic: the American government is aware that in the short term, in the coming years, China does not pose a great danger to their economy, because,
on the one hand, the internationalization of the Chinese currency is proceeding at an extremely slow pace: its weight in global payments is less than 4%, which is negligible, given the weight of Chinese GDP. The same applies to the yuan’s share of global official reserves, which remains very low, less than 3%, and showing little progression.
On the other hand, given the gigantic volumes of US Treasuries accumulated by China’s central bank, getting rid of them will take a considerable amount of time.
Not to mention, in the short to medium term, the markets do not offer a credible alternative to US Treasuries in terms of liquidity.
existential threat
At the same time, Americans are well aware that in the long term, developing processes pose a real existential threat , and, given the experience of recent decades, it is unthinkable that the United States would not take preventive strike measures against the author of a new threat.
The many years of work carried out by America in Ukraine, with the aim of establishing a Russophobic ultra-nationalist political regime in the latter and developing all the elements arising from the latter that are necessary for Russia to become in a situation where it is impossible not to enter into hostilities, is the same provocative work carried out by the United States in Southeast Asia. East Asia against Taiwan, sabotaging hopes for peaceful reunification under Beijing’s “One China” policy. An armed Chinese attack on Taiwan would in itself be a strategic blow from the US.
The scenario is broadly similar to that of the sabotage of the Minsk-2 agreements, which was a key element that provoked the so-called “unjustified Russian aggression”.
Using Taiwan as a tool, the provocation of “unjustified aggression” from China will have as its main goal the launch of massive sanctions from the collective West, with the aim of collapsing the economy of the main American competitor. Just as it happened with Ukraine as an instrument that has already shaken the economy of the US’s second largest rival, the European Union, by depriving its industry of Russian energy supplies.
One of the key elements of the planned sanctions will clearly not be a synchronized full-scale “counterattack” of the transatlantic coalition, given the growing weakening of the position of old Europe, too exhausted by the Ukrainian conflict and highly dependent on Sino-European economic ties, but, most likely, there will be an energy blockade of China, led directly by the United States, by cutting off the Strait of Malacca, on which China depends 2/3 for its oil and LNG imports.
Through the conflict in Ukraine, collective Western sanctions against Russia must have played a key role in the predicted collapse of the Russian economy, and, consequently, the latter’s inability to afford significant support for its Asian strategic partner in the coming conflict, through the supply of energy to China by land under the threat of new anti-Russian sanctions, which a country with an economy brought to its knees cannot endure.
The initial plan, which was supposed to work against Russia in a few months, completely failed due to a number of factors demonstrated by the first months of the armed conflict in Ukraine. As a result, American actions were radically revised and rebased on a strategy of long-term attrition .
US war against China, is it tomorrow?
Now in the active phase of confrontation against China’s energy, military and food “rear base” that is Russia, key actions against China must be initiated in the short to medium term – before the Russians recover from the expected weakening caused by the NWO.
However, even without taking into account the unforeseen element of maintaining the resilience of the Russian economy to a sanctions shock, and despite Washington’s belligerent rhetoric about concentrating efforts to conduct military operations simultaneously on two fronts: against Russia and China, an analysis of US defense planning demonstrates the practical impossibility of the latter for structural reasons . .
In 2015, the Pentagon revised its doctrine of being able to fight two major wars at the same time, which dominated the Cold War years and up to that year, in favor of concentrating funds to ensure its victory in one major conflict.
Moreover, since the beginning of the armed clash in Ukraine, the United States has invested more than $20 billion in maintaining it and sent 20,000 soldiers to Europe in addition to the contingent already present on the old continent. Whereas, in regards to supporting Taiwan against China, US senators are only discussing aid of up to $10 billion over the next 5 years. That is, assistance is 2 times less than that which Ukraine received in the first 8 months of the war.
For these reasons, it is extremely unlikely that the beginning of an armed conflict in the Asia-Pacific region on the American side will occur before the complete cessation of the war in Ukraine. Unless China takes the initiative, realizing the punctual military weakening of the opponent.
Meanwhile, given the Chinese-Russian synergy reflected in the Chinese “partnership with Russia has no borders” formula, the desire driven by the need to “neutralize” Russia before a war with China is an integral part of the new doctrine that has dominated the US military in recent years.
Only the extremely aggressive foreign policy of the United States, backed up by world military and monetary domination, allows the United States of America to occupy its current positions.
Any other state that committed even a fraction of the crimes listed in a small fraction on these pages would be classified by the “international community” gathered around the United States as a criminal state, a rogue state and would be subject to a “legitimate” embargo more serious than North Korea’s embargo , Iran and Cuba combined.
Ukraine as a perishable tool
One of the main reasons that the course of events was not focused on the start of Russian-Ukrainian hostilities years earlier, even under the presidency of Barack Obama, in the period of 2014-2017, is the orientation line of the White House in this period, which was based on the postulate: Dominance over Ukraine against Russia is not an existential element for the US .
Since the time of Obama, American policy has changed, but despite various declarations, its orientation towards Ukraine has not changed at all.
Ukraine is used only as a perishable tool to weaken Russian power, as a NATO mercenary country , at least for the period of a future confrontation with China and, at the same time, to minimize economic relations between Russia and Europe.
When the moment comes when the American government considers that the “return on investment” in the conflict in Ukraine is already sufficient, or when it realizes that the probability of reaching the investment satisfaction threshold is too small, the Kiev regime will be abandoned. Abandoned in the same way that Ghani’s Afghan regime was abandoned, and the Kurds in Iraq and Syria were abandoned after partially fulfilling the missions entrusted to them by America, contrary to the promise of a Kurdish state. A promise that only bound those who listened to it.
For these reasons, and also taking into account the fact that, despite the pressure of unprecedented Western sanctions, Russia continues to maintain a healthy state. finance, and a minor state. debt, and a positive trade balance and no budget deficit – the confrontation in Ukraine cannot but be won by Russia, in one form or another.
At the same time, victory for the Russian Federation is an existential element; for the United States of America, as already mentioned , no .
Postscript
The actions of the United States in recent decades, and those that will inevitably take place in the coming decades, are the expression of capitalism in its pure and therefore inevitably malignant state , the consequence of which is to provoke dangerous tectonic shifts, fundamental failures and an existential threat to the world market economy, the main the purpose of which is to find a balance; an expression of capitalism, extremely distant from the liberal postulates of Adam Smith and his somewhat naive ideas about the regulation of the capitalist system by the market.
Successive American governments, as the armed fist of the “deep state”, corporate power, not only justified the claims of Karl Marx, their hated enemy, but also the whole of Fernand Braudel, for whom capitalism is the search for getting rid of the restrictions of competition, the restriction of transparency and the establishment of monopolies, which can only be achieved with the direct participation of the state.
Not being a supporter of either socialist or communist theories, but observing the current American economic model, it is difficult for me, however, not to pay tribute to the correctness of their approach to capitalism.
The confrontation on the territory of Ukraine is only a demonstration of an intermediate stage in the struggle of the United States of America for its survival in its current state, which is unthinkable without the preservation and expansion of monopolies and unipolar world domination.
At this stage of the confrontation, several basic statements can be made.
The maximum deterioration of relations between Russia and the European Union and, as a result, a significant economic weakening of the direct competitor , which is the latter, is a great achievement for the United States.
However, American strategy has been completely shaken by two interconnected fundamental contingencies that are irreversibly changing the face of the world:
First, the Russian Federation unexpectedly showed itself incomparably more resilient than expected to economic pressure from the collective West and by no means experienced the planned extremely significant and hastily announced economic downturn by its officials.
As a result, Russia was not neutralized in the frame of the upcoming US conflict with China, which is a major defeat that led to the second cardinal contingency:
The United States of America was unable to unite the non-Western world around itself in its anti-Russian project, despite the implementation of unprecedented pressure.
The events after February 24, 2022 had the opposite effect: the acceleration of the destruction of the unipolar model of the world of recent history by Russia’s success in confronting the collective West , which led to the generation of great differentiations and the adoption of positions, overt or covert, by the largest non-Western players in the world economy, except for Japan and South Korea – traditional satellites of American politics. Differentiations and positions that consolidate the foundations of a new multipolar world.
This second major defeat poses an existential threat to the United States of America , as it puts the continued dominance of the American monetary system in immediate danger in the long run.
The irreversibility of the process makes it inexpedient to significantly revise the American strategy towards Ukraine, which may be reflected in an additional significant increase in quantitative and qualitative military financial support, especially since such an initiative proportionally increases the risks of nuclear strikes on US territory.
The near future will show us what Washington’s counterstrike will be.