NATO’s Aggression Reaches for Russian Waters

December 7, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – The recent Kerch Strait incident marks a new low amid the US-led expansion of NATO eastward.

The intentional provocation executed by Kiev saw three Ukrainian naval vessels seized by Russia. The vessels were intentionally violating protocol for passing through the Strait – protocol previously agreed upon by Kiev and previously observed by Ukrainian naval vessels.

The extent to which Ukraine was aware of these protocols and the 2003 agreement that put them in place includes entire events organized in Ukraine by NATO-sponsored “think tanks” discussing the necessity to “rip them up” and attempt to assert greater control over the current joint-use of the Sea of Azov.

In the wake of this incident – predictable calls are being made to use it as a pretext to expand NATO even further east, with senior American Foreign Policy Council fellow and former professor at the US Army War College Stephen Blank declaring the need for the US to “lease” Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov, patrol the sea with US warships,  all while committing to the “full-fledged” arming of Ukrainian forces.

Blank’s commentary – published in The Hill in a piece titled, “Russia’s attack on Ukraine is an act of war,” predicates an anti-Russian narrative and NATO’s eastward expansion into Ukraine upon a number of blatant falsehoods.

He mentions Russia’s “seizure” of Crimea, its “claiming that Crimea, the Sea of Azov, and the Kerch Strait are exclusively Russian waters,” and the building of the Crimean Bridge which Blank claims is impeding Ukrainian commerce in the Sea of Azov – all as Russian provocations.

However, Blank conveniently omits the US-NATO backed putsch that seized power in Ukraine in 2013 – setting off Ukrainian-Russian tensions in the first place. Nowhere in Blank’s commentary does he mention the prominent role paramilitary Neo-Nazi organizations have played in both overthrowing the elected government in 2013 and militancy carried out against Russian businesses, institutions, and even Ukrainians of Russian decedent – particularly in Donbass, eastern Ukraine.


Blank would even feign ignorance over Russian President Vladimir Putin’s motives in repatriating Crimea and taking measures against a now fully hostile Ukraine sitting on Russia’s borders.

Also conveniently omitted from Blank’s commentary was any mention of decades of NATO’s eastward expansion along with various episodes in NATO’s history where it waged wars well beyond its jurisdiction and mandate, including in Libya and Afghanistan.

Coupled together with Blank’s prescription for a “response” – it is abundantly clear who stood most to benefit from the Kerch Strait incident – especially considering the systematic expansion of NATO that has been ongoing long before President Putin ever came to power.

Blank suggests:

Beyond imposing more sanctions, waging a robust informational campaign and transferring more arms to Ukraine we can and must do something more innovative and decisive. We have the means and precedent for doing so.

He then suggests (emphasis added):

Ukraine could lease ports on the Black Sea and even in the Sea of Azov to the U.S. while we lend them military equipment they need for air, naval, and ground warfare. The U.S. or NATO naval vessels could then stay at those ports for as long as necessary without bringing Ukraine formally into NATO. It would greatly diminish the chance of Russian attack if those forces patrolled the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

Blank concludes by claiming:

Not only do these forces deter future Russian attacks they show everyone, not least in Moscow, that Putin’s reckless adventurism has merely brought NATO into Ukraine to stay, the exact opposite of his goals.

Yet, claiming Russia’s actions prompted NATO’s entrance into Ukraine is preposterous – especially considering NATO’s decades-long and relentless expansion eastward. The US-NATO backed putsch in 2013 was aimed wholly at placing a proxy regime in power that would uproot all Russian influence and interests in Ukraine, fast-track Ukraine’s entry into both the European Union and NATO, and join the front-line of NATO expansion – literally right on Russia’s borders.

NATO Expansion was the Goal Long Before “Putin’s Reckless Adventurism”  

Despite assurances from senior US representatives to the Soviet Union toward the end of the Cold War that NATO would not be expanded “one inch to the east,” it has since been expanded directly to Russia’s borders.

NATO members bordering Russia now include Estonia, Latvia, and Norway – with Georgia and Ukraine both bordering Russia and being considered “aspirant” countries.

Norway was host of one of the largest NATO exercises in decades – Trident Juncture. Other exercises are regularly held in the Baltic states bordering Russia. And US troops have carried out training, have provided arms to, and have ensured compliant regimes remain in power in Ukraine and Georgia.

Then US Secretary of State James Baker – as revealed in now declassified documents maintained in archives by George Washington University – personally and repeatedly made assurances to then Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not be further expanded toward Russian borders.

In one document titled, “Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow,” Baker would state in regards to the reunification of Germany (emphasis added):

We fought a war [World War 2] together to bring peace to Europe. We didn’t do so well handling the peace in the Cold War. And now we are faced with rapid and fundamental change. And we are in a better position to cooperate in preserving peace. I want you to know one thing for certain. The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process. 

In other words – the US recognized the Soviet Union’s role in defeating Nazi Germany and admitted both nations failed to broker peace in the war’s aftermath. The US also stated it sought to cooperate with Russia regarding the reunification of Germany and the post-Cold War political order in Eastern Europe. It would stand to reason that in exchange for any sort of cooperation from Moscow, certain assurances would have to be made that NATO would not be expanded further eastward.

Baker would continue, claiming (emphasis added):

All our allies and East Europeans we have spoken to have told us that they want us to maintain a presence in Europe. I am not sure whether you favor that or not. But let me say that if our allies want us to go, we will be gone in a minute. Indeed, if they want us to leave, we’ll go and I can assure you that the sentiment of the American people is such that they will want us to leave immediately. The mechanism by which we have a US military presence in Europe is NATO. If you abolish NATO, there will be no more US presence. 

Of course, if the sentiment of the American people was and is for the US to withdraw its military presence from Europe – as a defender of global democracy – the US finds itself making a very undemocratic decision by keeping its military in Europe regardless.

Baker then claims (emphasis added):

We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is part of NATO, there would no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.

Baker would reiterate this point by asking Gorbachev the question:

Would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no US forces or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward? 

Obviously then, just as now, Russia had nothing to gain by allowing NATO to continue expanding eastward. A meeting between then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Gorbachev following the Baker-Gorbachev meeting would again reiterate commitments not to expand NATO any further eastward.

The US has – in retrospect and to no one’s surprise – claimed that the meetings, language used, and agreements were non-binding, misinterpreted, and ultimately did not equate to any sort of constraint on NATO’s expansion, including up to and along Russia’s borders.Some have claimed that the assurances only applied to NATO’s presence in Germany – but clearly Baker’s assurances of not expanding NATO’s jurisdiction eastward inside of Germany was an acknowledgement that NATO’s move eastward – anywhere – was seen as a threat and provocation by Moscow.

If the US understood that eastward expansion of NATO’s jurisdiction inside of Germany would be perceived rightfully as a threat and provocation, why wouldn’t it be equally understood that eastward expansion outside of Germany and up to Russia’s borders would be perceived as an even greater threat and provocation?  Wouldn’t the US equally see similar expansion by Russia westward as a threat and provocation?

Putting the Shoe on the Other Foot – How Would Washington React to “Russian Expansion?”

To understand how bad NATO expansion actually looks outside the bubble of American exceptionalism and just what sort of situation Moscow is faced with – consider what Washington’s reaction would be to a Russian-backed coup in Canada, Mexico, or both.

Consider both nation’s hosting Russian troops and receiving Russian arms with high-level Russian politicians vowing to overthrow the political order of the United States next.

Consider as Russia did this, it also imposed sanctions on the United States – crippling its economy – then blamed Washington’s “incompetence” rather than Russia’s own sanctions for the predictable economic crisis. Consider if Russia also imposed secondary sanctions on American allies, preventing them from trading with the US, thus attempting to impose a modern-day blockade on the United States itself.

It takes little imagination to conclude Washington would not tolerate such activity – and considering what the US has already done in reaction to unfounded claims of “Russian meddling” in US elections, such extreme meddling, sanctions, and military and economic encirclement carried out along America’s borders would fall well within the realm as “acts of war.”

Washington has lied the American people into serial wars abroad, destroying entire regions of the planet and killing millions. One can only imagine what Washington would do if actually confronted with genuine acts of war carried out directly on its borders.

And yet Russia’s reaction to exactly these sort of very real provocations carried out by the US and NATO all along its borders and against its allies has been measured, patient – and for some – considered even woefully inadequate.

Despite this, US policymakers and the Western media still manage to twist the narrative a full 180 degrees and portray Russia – a nation with a military budget and GDP a fraction of those of the United States – as the “aggressor.”

NATO Will Not Stop Itself  

It is clear that NATO’s expansion is aimed at Moscow itself. It will continue until it is forcibly stopped. This means either by Russia warding off NATO expansion until NATO collapses under its own unsustainable weight, or Russia outmatches NATO at the very edge of the West’s extent in areas Moscow clearly holds the military, sociopolitical, and economic advantage.

The Kerch Strait incident and attempts to leverage it as a pretext to place NATO warships in the Sea of Azov is a dangerous provocation – the Sea of Azov is not “international waters” and is considered by both Ukraine and Russia as an inland sea they share control over.

If people like Stephen Blank have their way and warships enter the Sea of Azov – NATO will be one step past many of the proxy wars the West is already fighting Russia through – and one step closer to fighting Russian forces directly.

Blank’s claiming NATO must act to confront Russian “provocations” is an instance of inverse reality. In this case – NATO is encircling Russia, violently stripping it of buffer states where the West and East have and could have continued to share influence to avoid conflict, and is instead turning them into frontier fortresses in preparation for what is clearly further and more direct conflict planned with Russia in the future.

A nation leading an alliance that must cross the Atlantic Ocean and several seas to station its vessels in Russian waters is not reacting to provocations – it is the provocateur.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

Advertisements

Book review: Professor Stephen Cohen’s “War with Russia?”

December 05, 2018

by Yvonne Lorenzo for The Saker BlogBook review: Professor Stephen Cohen’s “War with Russia?”

Over ten years ago, one of the few voices that I listened to that provided facts outside the propaganda narrative of the legacy mass media and the U.S. government on what the situation was regarding Georgia fighting with Russia was from Russia scholar Professor Stephen Cohen. I felt blessed to discover him and his work.

After the events in Ukraine, where a U.S. sponsored putsch installed a fascist government in power, he and conservative radio talk show host John Batchelor held numerous conversations on the “New Cold War” with Russia. Professor Cohen has decided to collect the summaries of those conversations, up to recent events including the Kerch incident, in a new book, War with Russia?: From Putin and Ukraine To Trump and Russiagate. While Professor Cohen has written several works of scholarship and is unique in not sticking to the “party line” that Russia is greatest enemy of America and the West, this book is special because it’s both timely and accessible to interested readers. What is appalling, and demonstrates the bias of the so-called elites, is as Professor Cohen writes in his introduction, To My Readers:

I had been arguing for years—very much against the American political-media grain—that a new US-Russian Cold War was unfolding, driven primarily by politics in Washington, not in Moscow. For this perspective, I had been largely excluded from influential print, broadcast, and cable outlets where I had previously been welcomed…

But the “controversy” surrounding me since 2014, mostly in reaction to the contents of this book, has been different—inspired by usually vacuous, defamatory assaults on me as “Putin’s No. 1 American Apologist,” “Best Friend,” and the like. I never respond specifically to these slurs because they offer no truly substantive criticism of my arguments, only ad hominem attacks. Instead, I argue, as readers will see in the first section, that I am a patriot of American national security, that the orthodox policies my assailants promote are gravely endangering our security, and that therefore we—I and others they assail—are patriotic heretics. Here too readers can judge.

Professor Cohen is a unique American voice arguing that American national interests, including the often cited but ill-defined “National Security” are not best served by making Russia an enemy. One of the chapters in the book, The Silence of the Doves, discusses the nonexistent antiwar movement, even though the most likely outcome of war with Russia would be a nuclear conflict. Regarding Putin’s March speech on the new weapons technology Russia has developed, Professor Cohen’s insight exceeds anything the legacy media and so-called Russia experts purvey:

In the speech, Putin does not comment directly on past nuclear-arms races, but he makes clear that another, more dangerous, one looms, depending on how Washington reacts to Moscow’s new weapons. Washington can accept the parity—the deterrent—Russia has restored and return to full-scale nuclear arms negotiations. Or it can try again to surpass Moscow’s parity. If Washington chooses the latter course, Putin says, Moscow is fully able and ready to compete, again and again, though he makes clear he would prefer instead to commit his remaining years of leadership, legacy, and national resources to Russia’s modernization and prosperity, which he spells out (yet again) in the first two-thirds of his speech. Putin insists, that is, Russia’s new weapons are not for any kind of aggression but solely for its legitimate military defense and, politically, to bring Washington back to détente-like policies and particularly to nuclear arms negotiations. The Kremlin, he adds, is “ready.” Even having made a compelling and obviously proud presentation of what Russia has unexpectedly achieved, does Putin really believe Washington will “listen now”? He may still have some “illusions,” but we should have none. Recent years have provided ample evidence that US policy-makers and, equally important, influential media commentators do not bother to read what Putin says, at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service reports. Still worse, Putin and “Putin’s Russia” have been so demonized it is hard to imagine many leading American political figures or editorial commentators responding positively to what is plainly his hope for a new beginning in US-Russian relations. If nothing else, strategic parity always also meant political parity—recognizing that Soviet Russia, like the United States, had legitimate national interests abroad. Years of American vilifying Putin and post-Soviet Russia are essentially an assertion that neither has any such legitimacy. Now, making matters worse, there is the Russiagate allegation of a Kremlin “attack” on the United States. Even if President Trump understands, or is made to understand, the new—possibly historic—overture represented by Putin’s speech, would the “Kremlin puppet” charges against him permit him to seize this opportunity? Do the promoters of Russiagate even care?

I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It addresses critical issues as our two nations drift closer and closer to military confrontation, a confrontation as Professor Cohen points out is not driven by Russia’s government but by irrational Russophobia by our political, financial and military class: the rulers. Professor Cohen does not provide solutions, but he raises important questions, and concludes:

Again, in light of all this, what can be done? Sentimentally, and with some historical precedents, we of democratic beliefs traditionally look to “the people,” to voters, to bring about change. But foreign policy has long been the special prerogative of elites. In order to change Cold War policy fundamentally, leaders are needed. When the times beckon, they may emerge out of established, even deeply conservative, elites, as did unexpectedly Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in the mid-1980s. But given the looming danger of war with Russia, is there time? Is any leader visible on the American political landscape who will say to his or her elite and party, as Gorbachev did, “If not now, when? If not us, who?”

I think there is hope as in the fact a bright and capable minority of ordinary people seek out alternative news and information; for I don’t see any such leaders on the horizon. Perhaps as America socially implodes, a “Yellow Vest” revolt against the sociopath ruling class of warmongers might come into being and stop them from their dreams of eternal hegemony and war without consequence. Only Nemesis awaits them; I’m sure it’s only a matter of time.

Yvonne Lorenzo [send her mail] makes her home in New England in a house full to bursting with books, including works on classical Greece, history and literature. Her interests include mythology, ancient history, plasma cosmology and classical music, especially the compositions of Handel, Mozart, Bach, and the Bel Canto repertoire. She is the author of Son of Thunder and The Cloak of Freya.

Trump and Gorbachev ترامب وغورباتشوف

Trump and Gorbachev

فبراير 22, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Whether Mikhail Gorbachev was an agent to the US intelligence as accused by his opponents or not, and whether Donald Trump was an agent to the Russian intelligence as accused by his opponents or not, the aspects of similarity in the circumstances which brought them to the rule, and the conditions in which each one rules, as well as the roles which are represented by each one of them in the history of the superpower where both of them stood at the top of the pyramid in it are elements that allow the objective comparison between the two figures.

Gorbachev has led the Soviet Union after the defeat in a war that was the first war which he launched within an offensive plan outside the borders after the World War II, through the entry of his troops to Afghanistan, it was not mere an arming support for an ally or a circumstantial escalation of a position. That defeat led to the rise of the popular resentment in the Russian community entitled the compliant from spending on wars, the glories of the greatness, and the rise of voices that called for the priority of paying attention and concern to the declining Russian interior, that suffered economically and socially, and where the services were retracted and its infrastructure was eroded. While Trump is leading America after a resounding defeat of many wars that were the first after the World War II which aimed to extend the influence of the American leadership in the world in an offensive way and within an imperial campaign not within the context of an involvement in a war, its beginning was the support of an allied regime or a subordinate as the wars of Vietnam and Korea. It adopted a slogan of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan in the beginning and then overthrowing Syria. As a result of the defeat there were escalated claims to abandon the pursuit behind the role of the world policeman, while America internally is retracting economically and socially as described by Trump himself in his electoral campaign in terms of unemployment, the declining services, and the imminent collapse of the infrastructure, so he launched his slogan America first, in confronting this situation.

Trump’s campaigns against the ideological media which is dominated by him in a factional way are similar to Gorbachev’s ones launched against the ideological media, moreover the escalating campaigns of Trump against the intelligence are similar to Gorbachev’s ones. The two men are in a battle with the elites of their countries that led their global aspect namely the media and the intelligence. The racist white calls of Trump against the US interior are similar to the Russian Gorbachev’s white calls against the countries of the Soviet Union and which were looking to get rid of them as burdens. Trump’s battles with the economic blocs which monopolize the US economy in favor of the minority of the owners and workers, versus the decline of the sectors which employ most of the Americans and which their owners are distributed on a major faction of the owners of the capitals represented by Trump are similar to the battles of Gorbachev against the possession of the country of the huge economies and the marginalization of the rising capital. Both of them raises the slogan of the balance of the economy’s aspects through perestroika project for the reconstruction, and a direct contact with the people as nominated Glasnost by Gorbachev, and which is translated by Trump in his daily tweets on Twitter.

Gorbachev considered that the reason of the bottleneck of the Soviet Union especially Russia was due to the useless investment on the race of arming as a tax for the global leadership, and that the weighing of the private sector in the economy will lead to the recovery of the middle class and the structures of the useful production. Trump considers that the economic bottleneck of America is due to the tax which it pays as a cost for the global leadership, either through spreading huge forces outside the borders to protect rich allies that do not pay anything as Japan, Europe, and the Gulf or through economic facilities for the poor allies within agreements that led to the weakness of the US economy as the agreement with Argentina and the countries of the Pacific which is known as NAFTA. The two men converge on the call to liberate their countries from these burdens as a way for the economic recovery and the getting out of the bottleneck and recession.

Gorbachev’s policies which based on removing the dominance of the country on the major economic sectors have led to a big decline of the earnings and the weakness in the country’s ability to spend, so the market declined and became weaker. There were new economic powers that quickly handled the economy of the market including the enormous class differences in the community. Russia within ten years emerged as a country from the third world after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the fall of the socialist system, and the collapse of its military alliance entitled Warsaw Pact which most of its countries moved to the West under the title of the European Union or NATO. The question which faces Trump and his project is whether the linking of the military deployment with the paying of its costs by the allies will lead to the regression of the influence on the allies and thus on the world, and whether weakening the giant intercontinental enterprises in favor of the US national companies which depend on the US market will lead to the confusion in the qualitative importance of the US currency in the world markets and to the bankruptcies as a result of the scarcity of the external resources and the revenues of the speculation of the US banks, and whether all of that will open the debate about the justification of sticking to the dollar as a mandatory international currency in the banking transactions and in the US banks as a knot for the passage of the financial transactions in the world. The dollar and banking currency are the last ways for protecting the US leadership in the world, and they are translated by the sanctions through which America is threatening all of its opponents.

It is striking that the Jewish community in each of Russia and America is supporting these two men, and it is striking their excessive enthusiasm toward Israel. Israel’s interest in Gorbachev was confined with making the international arena in favor of America while through the Israeli weakness it is enough from Trump to submit an ally in America which does not believe that Israel is in need of who can save it from itself and from its arrogance, on the contrary to share with it this arrogance, an ally that reassures its settlers that they have an ally that does not argue with them, as it is striking how the fall of the Soviet Union was the insurance policy for a quarter of a century for Israel which was facing with the rise of Gorbachev a valiant Palestinian uprising that is known by the uprising of stones and an active Lebanese resistance that has already  liberated half of the occupied territories. But the US monopoly of ruling the world was as a momentum for Israel to overcome many threats and crises, while the instability of America today coincides with the entry of Israel into deadly existential crisis, where it does not have an insurance policy. It is striking as well that at the time of the Russian regression America has rushed to fill the gap, and at the time of the American regression Russia rushes to fill the gap, so the history repeats that powerfully but harshly… this is history.

The paradox here is that Gorbachev has waged the battle of changing the Soviet Union at the spokesman of the cultivated elegant elites against whom he described by (the bullies) while Trump is waging his battle as a “bully” who fights the pedant elites . It is enough to notice the language of Trump.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

ترامب وغورباتشوف

ناصر قنديل

– سواء أكان ميخائيل غورباتشوف عميلاً للمخابرات الأميركية، كما يتّهمه خصومه أم لم يكن، وسواء كان دونالد ترامب عميلاً للمخابرات الروسية، كما يتّهمه خصومه أم لم يكن، فإنّ أوجه التشابه في الظروف التي أوصلت كلا من الرجلين إلى الحكم، والظروف التي يحكم فيها كل منهما، والأدوار التي يمثلها كل منهما في تاريخ الدولة العظمى التي وقف على رأس الهرم فيها، عناصر تسمح بالمقارنة الموضوعية بينهما.

– تولّى غورباتشوف قيادة الاتحاد السوفياتي بعد هزيمة في حرب كانت الأولى التي قام بها ضمن خطة هجومية خارج الحدود بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية عبر دخول قواته إلى أفغانستان، وليست دعماً تسليحياً لحليف أو تصعيداً ظرفياً لموقف فقط، وترتّب على هذه الهزيمة صعود نقمة شعبية في المجتمع الروسي عنوانها التذمّر من الإنفاق على الحروب وأمجاد العظمة، وارتفاع أصوات تنادي بأولوية الانتباه والاهتمام لداخل روسي يتداعى ويعاني اقتصادياً واجتماعياً، وتتراجع الخدمات فيه وبناه التحتية تتآكل بينما يتولى ترامب قيادة أميركا بعد هزيمة مدوّية لحروب، هي الأولى بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية الهادفة لتمديد نفوذ الزعامة الأميركية في العالم هجومياً ضمن حملة إمبراطورية وليست ضمن سياق تورّط بحرب، بدايتها دعم نظام حليف أو تابع كحروب فييتنام وكوريا، واتخذت عنوان غزو العراق وأفغانستان بداية وإسقاط سورية لاحقاً، وتصاعدت بأثر الهزيمة المطالبات بالتخلّي عن اللهاث وراء دور شرطي العالم، بينما أميركا في الداخل تتراجع اقتصادياً واجتماعياً، كما وصفها ترامب نفسه في حملته الانتخابية لجهة البطالة وتراجع الخدمات وتداعي البنى التحتية، وأطلق في مواجهة هذه الحال شعاره «أميركا أولاً».

– تتشابه حملات ترامب على الإعلام العقائدي المسيطر عليه فئوياً بالحملات التي شنّها غورباتشوف على الإعلام الايديولوجي، كما تتصاعد حملات ترامب على المخابرات بما يستعيد حملات غورباتشوف المشابهة والرجلان في معركة مع نُخَب بلديهما التي قادت طابعهما العالمي، الذي مثّل الإعلام والمخابرات جناحيه، وتتشابه أيضاً دعوات ترامب العنصرية الببضاء الموجّهة للداخل الأميركي بحملات غورباتشوف الروسيّة البيضاء الموجّهة لدول الاتحاد السوفياتيّ والساعية للتخلّص منها كأعباء. وكذلك تتشابه معارك ترامب مع التكتلات الاقتصادية التي تستأثر بالاقتصاد الأميركي لحساب أقليّة من المالكين والعاملين فيها، مقابل ذبول القطاعات التي تُشغل غالبية الأميركيين ويتوزّع أصحابها على شريحة ضخمة من أصحاب الرساميل، يمثلهم ترامب، بمعارك غورباتشوف ضد ملكيات الدولة للاقتصادات الضخمة وتهميش الرأسمال الصاعد، وكلاهما يرفع شعار إعادة التوازن لأجنحة الاقتصاد عبر مشروع «بريسترويكا» لإعادة البناء، وخطاب مباشر للشعب أسماه غورباتشوف بـ«الغلاسنوست»، ويترجمه ترامب في تغريداته اليومية عبر تويتر.

– اعتبر غورباتشوف أن سبب اختناق الاتحاد السوفياتي، خصوصاً روسيا ناجم عن الاستثمار اللامجدي على سباق التسلح، كضريبة للزعامة العالمية، وأن ترجيح كفة القطاع الخاص في الاقتصاد سيؤدي لإنعاش الطبقة الوسطى وبنى الإنتاج المجدي. ويعتبر ترامب أن الاختناق الاقتصادي لأميركا ناتج عن الضريبة التي تدفعها ثمناً للزعامة العالمية، سواء عبر نشر قوات هائلة خارج الحدود لحماية حلفاء أغنياء لا يدفعون شيئاً كاليابان وأوروبا والخليج، أو عبر التسهيلات الاقتصادية للحلفاء الفقراء ضمن اتفاقيات ترتّب عليها إضعاف الاقتصاد الأميركي كحال الاتفاقية مع الأرجنتين ودول المحيط الهادئ المعروفة بـ«اتفاق نفتا». ويلتقي الرجلان على الدعوة لتحرير بلديهما من هذه الأعباء طريقاً للانتعاش الاقتصادي، والخروج من الاختناق والركود.

– ترتّب على سياسات غورباتشوف مع إزالة سيطرة الدولة على القطاعات الاقتصادية الكبرى تراجع هائل في الواردات، وضعف في قدرة الدولة على الإنفاق فتراجع السوق وازداد ضموراً، وظهرت قوى اقتصادية جديدة بسرعة حملت اقتصاد السوق وما فيه من فوارق طبقية هائلة في المجتمع، فظهرت روسيا فيها خلال عشر سنوات كدولة من دول العالم الثالث، بعدما تفكّك الاتحاد السوفياتي وسقطت المنظومة الاشتراكية وانهار حلفها العسكري المسمّى بـ«حلف وارصو» وذهبت أغلب دوله لضفة الغرب تحت عنوان الاتحاد الأوروبي أو حلف الأطلسي. والسؤال الذي يواجه ترامب ومشروعه عما إذا كان سيترتب على ربط الانتشار العسكري بتسديد الحلفاء تكاليفه إلى تراجع النفوذ على الحلفاء وبالتالي في العالم، وما إذا كان سيترتب على إضعاف الشركات العملاقة العابرة للقارات لحساب الشركات الأميركية الوطنية الصرفة، والمعتمدة على السوق الأميركية، إلى اضطراب في الوزن النوعي للعملة الأميركية في الأسواق العالمية، وإلى إفلاسات تُصيب بسبب شحّ الموارد الخارجية وعائدات المضاربات، الكثير من المصارف الأميركية، وما إذا كان كل ذلك سيفتح النقاش حول مبرّر التمسك بالدولار عملة دولية إجبارية للتعاملات المصرفية، وبالمصارف الأميركية كعقدة مرور للطرق المالية في العالم. وهذان هما، الدولار والتداول المصرفي، آخر ما تبقى من جدران حماية لزعامة أميركية في العالم تترجمهما سياسة العقوبات التي تلوّح بها أميركا لخصومها كلّهم.

لافت أن تقف الجالية اليهودية في كل من روسيا وأميركا بقوة وراء دعم الرجلين. ولافت حماسهما المفرط لـ«إسرائيل». وقد كانت مصلحة «إسرائيل» من غورباتشوف تنحصر بإخلاء الساحة الدولية لأميركا، بينما مع الهزال «الإسرائيلي» صار يكفي من ترامب أن يقدّم لـ«إسرائيل» حليفاً في أميركا لا يؤمن بأن «إسرائيل» تحتاج لمن ينقذها من نفسها ومن غطرستها، بل يشاركها هذه الغطرسة، حليفاً يطمئن مستوطنيها أنهم يحظون بحليف لا يجادلهم. كما هو لافت كيف كان سقوط الاتحاد السوفياتي بوليصة تأمين لربع قرن أمام «إسرائيل» التي كانت تواجه مع صعود غورباتشوف انتفاضة فلسطينية باسلة عرفت بانتفاضة الحجارة ومقاومة لبنانية نشطة كانت قد حرّرت نصف الأراضي المحتلة، فجاء التفرّد الأميركي في حكم العالم شحنة دفع لتتخطّى «إسرائيل» الكثير من المخاطر والأزمات، بينما يتزامن تخلخل أميركا اليوم مع زمن دخول «إسرائيل» أزمة وجودية قاتلة، ولا يبدو أمامها بوليصة تأمين. ولافت أيضاً أنه في زمن الانكفاء الروسي اندفعت أميركا لتملأ الفراغ، وفي زمن الانكفاء الأميركي تندفع روسيا لتملأ الفراغ. يفعلها التاريخ بقوّة ولكن بقسوة أيضاً… هو التاريخ!

– المفارقة أن غورباتشوف خاض معركة تغيير الاتحاد السوفياتي بلسان النخب المتأنّقة والمثقفة، بوجه من وصفَهم بـ«القبضايات»، ويخوض ترامب حربه بصفته «القبضاي» الذي يقاتل النخب المتحذلقة والمتفذلكة، وتكفي لغة ترامب لقول ذلك.

(Visited 192 times, 192 visits today)
%d bloggers like this: