The US can no longer fight. This is how they got together to rule the world

Peter Akopov

Is America changing its global strategy – after all, Joe Biden announ-ced the end of American interventionism? First, his Defense Secretary L-loyd Austin, speaking of the complete withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, said that “traditional wars have d-rained America – and th-eir era is over,” and then the US President himself developed this idea:

“Turning the page in our foreign policy, which our country has been pursuing for the past 20 years, we must learn from the mistakes. <…> The decision on Afghanistan concerns not only Afghanistan. It is about the end of the era of major military operations to remake other countries. <…> Giving up this worldview and large-scale troop deployments will make us stronger, more efficient and safer at home. “

Biden explained the failure in Afghanistan by saying that “we conducted a counter-terrorism mission aimed at fighting terrorists and stopping attacks. “

Simply put, we took on an unsolvable problem, we wanted to civilize the wild people, the children of the mountains, nothing happened – so we will no longer do this. We are still better, more progressive, more elected and stronger than everyone else, but now we will not send troops to overthrow foreign governments.

Is America really going to give up military interventions abroad – and the world can relax a little at least about this?

To answer this question, you must first agree on what kind of America we are talking about – the United States of America or the leader of the Western world promoting the Atlantic project of globalization? About a national state – or about a supranational force that is building a world order favorable to it, based on “universal liberal principles”? Is there a US nation-state at all now? The overthrow of Trump proves the opposite – otherwise, the national interests and rights of the American people themselves would not have been so grossly and openly violated. The United States has long been held hostage by its own globalist elite, which does not intend to either retreat or abandon global goals. So is Biden just being cunning?

No, he says what he thinks: The United States really doesn’t need global interventions right now. That is, they can physically defeat and occupy most of the countries of the world – that’s just what’s the point? After all, America did not just want to control the world, it wanted to create in it a “correct” world order based on those very liberal values. That is, to have ideological control over the world, supported, of course, by military control (not occupation, but the presence of a power superior to any enemy and any coalition) and financial and economic.

She wanted to win the usual geopolitical struggle at the top level – but in the end she began to lose it even at the level of “simple” geopolitics. Why did the globalist States need the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? For anti-terror, oil control or heroin control? No, to reformat the Greater Middle East, to contain anti-Western processes in the Islamic world, and ultimately to control Eurasia. What happened as a result of military interventions? Exactly the opposite – including the growing hatred of America in the Islamic world, and disappointment in the reliability of the United States of its clients and allies (which began not after leaving Afghanistan, but almost ten years earlier). But America has not only worsened its position at the global level – it is also weakened and split within itself.

As a matter of fact, this is exactly what Trump proposed to do – only he had no attachment to the global mission of the United States, to globalism and Atlanticism as such. He really wanted to restore and strengthen the United States, but not in order to then return with renewed vigor to the construction of the Tower of Babel, that is, the global liberal world order. No, Trump perceives the world as a struggle between different centers of power, powers-civilizations – but the “Washington swamp” that has removed it looks at the world as a territory destined for American domination.

Such a messianic view, a sense of their “chosen by God” was originally inherent in the American elite (formed from English Protestant Quakers), but only in the 20th century did the States receive the appropriate opportunities and, in the process of implementing the project of Atlantic world domination, pushed Europe into the background. Including through its occupation.

By the way, in occupied Europe, primarily in Germany, the United States was formally doing the same thing as in Afghanistan – building a correct, democratic state. They did exactly the same thing in Japan – and achieved some success in this. At least, it seems so to them now, while Tokyo is tightly tied to Washington by a military alliance and a base in Okinawa.

But these are incomparable things – the building of the rule of law in Germany and Afghanistan? In the first case, it was only necessary to help to recreate what existed, and in the second, it was necessary to impose an alien? Well, it depends on how you look at it – more precisely, if we consider the Sharia and the Islamic structure of society unlawful and incorrect. After all, Afghanistan had its own model of the legal structure, but it did not interest the aliens at all, that is, the Americans.

They were frightened not only by the Sharia, they even blocked the decision to return to the throne of King Zahir Shah (deposed in 1973), which was going to be adopted in 2002 by the Loya Jirga – the council of all Afghan tribes, the real voice of the people.

Because the Americans wanted democratic elections? No, because they did not understand anything in Afghan society, and they did not care about their problems.

Was there a messianic belief in the possibility of building the kingdom of God on earth, moreover, by imposing the norms and way of life of one civilization on another, by transferring other people’s rules to anywhere in the world? And that too. But the most important thing was the boundless contempt for the locals, the attitude towards them as to underdeveloped savages. That is, everything that distinguished the Anglo-Saxon “white man’s burden” throughout the centuries of colonization anywhere in the world. And what, now America is giving up such an attitude?

Of course not. She refuses “major military operations to remake other countries.” The point is not that “medium military operations” are, it turns out, permissible. The main thing remains unchanged: the very attitude to all strangers as to savages, and the main goal is global domination through remaking the whole world according to its own plan. And so what with non-military means? Political, ideological, financial, cultural, psychological (also supported by military pressure) can inflict huge damage on the enemy – or even gain remote control over him. So America is forgiving, but not going anywhere – at least until it becomes (or is forced to become) a nation-state again. Well, or two states.

Leave a Comment