Капитал

Миром правят деньги! Точнее, миром правит банковский капитал! Цель банковского капитала - отчуждение экономических субъектов от средств производства прибыли. При этом ни национальные, ни любые другие границы не могут остановить этот исторический процесс. Национальное государство было обречено на вымирание с того момента, когда первый ростовщик получил право давать деньги  под процент в долг. Банковский капитал не признает не только национальных границ, но никаких границ вообще, если они стоят на его пути к власти. Поэтому, степень независимости отдельно взятой страны определяется уровнем национализации ее банковского капитала. Финансовые банковские механизмы и кредитные инструменты - это стратегическое оружие, которое, как и ядерные ракеты, не может находиться в частных руках, не представляя при этом угрозы всему обществу. Частный банковский капитал не представляет угрозы только тогда, когда находиться под контролем всего общества. Общество, допустившее к бесконтрольной деятельности и власти частный ростовщический капитал, обречено на деградацию и распад. Причина - стремительное и неконтролируемое смещение центра тяжести политической власти из центра в отдельные части общества, ведущее к разрыву и разрушению общественных связей и отношений, поддерживающих целостность общества.

Struggle for Syria: Showdown of Global Forces

The events surrounding Syria have been unfolding very tragically over the past week, mostly along the lines startlingly reminding the logic of the all but forgotten Cold War era, the times famously marked by global rivalry between the two blocks of nations, frenziedly involved in arms race and localized but fierce armed conflicts the world over generally conducted by proxy and used as test grounds for the strategic opponents’ weapons systems and military equipment as well as their overall battle-fighting capabilities.

The difference between the old ideologically constrained times and recent history is in the way such conflicts are waged. Cold War political correctness and ideological lines urged the global rivals to conceal, at least officially, their direct or indirect involvement. These days, all masks of civilized façade have been almost completely removed. The world is witness today how sheer power of arms and military might, and strategic planning decide finally who is right and who is dead.

Numerous multinational terrorist groups, some as notorious as the CIA-controlled “Al-Qaeda”, and local paramilitary criminal element in Syria have increased their bold and mindlessly and overtly violent attacks against local civilian population openly bragging that their strategic guidance, tactical coordination and control, and overall information and moral support is provided by the governments of US, Great Britain, and France, whereas most sophisticated weapons are shipped in from the Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Libya, the staunchest allies of the lone hysterically power grabbing “superpower” left over from the Cold War era. The Western governments not only admit their dominant role in those tragic events, even in the face of the most horrendous crimes and atrocities performed by their protégés, getting increasingly drunk on blood and violence, but blatantly insist on some moral grounds which they have long lost. As lies and misinformation become hard and harder to pass for what is really going on, the leading NATO member-states accelerate their efforts at building a strong up-to-date coalition of nations bound to contribute to the military might of the organization.

The power and military capabilities of NATO have become far greater since the end of the Cold War era not only in terms of materiel but from the number of states that are supposed to provide their support in times of need. NATO summit in Chicago (20-21 May 2012) had drawn together not only the heads of state of its 28 member states but also the delegates of 32 other countries, revealing the global dimensions of the organization.

The choice of Chicago for the NATO summit is also obvious given President Obama’s political origins and that it is today governed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, former Obama chief of staff, hawk and Israeli army officer. The host committee was composed by the Bilderberg Group centered around Madeleine Albright, Chairman of the NDI/NED and John H. Bryan, who sits on the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs.

NATO summit was officially to consider three main issues:

1.       How to exert control over Central Asia to ensure efficient military crackdown on those areas that could be actively resisting or subverting international political and economic developments projected in that region.

2.       How to deal more efficiently with the budget restraints in current global financial situation. 

3.       How to deploy effectively offensive weapon systems in potential military campaigns against Russia and China as the primary and ultimate opponents in terms of overall military capabilities.

Given the fact that NATO leaders look upon Russia and China as the only remaining hurdles in the Anglo-American-French-German financial and corporate capital’s endeavor to subdue and redesign global economy according to their needs and intrinsic interests, the future dynamic of US – Russia relationships lies in the standoff and strategic confrontation between two major power blocks of nations. On the one hand it is going to be a NATO-based alliance of nations depending for their military security on the core member-states, namely the US, the UK, France, and Germany; on the other hand there are going to be nations coalescing around Russian efforts to ensure collective security within their borders.

 The Summit of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), meeting on May 15, 2012 may have been less grandiose than NATO but it is capable of mounting resistance to it.

Current developments in Central Asia and the Middle East are best viewed from the standpoint of this strategic confrontation, which has always been there, ever since the United States has become a nation, and most probably will never go away given the current carbon energy-based economy and fundamentally flawed financial and monetary system.

Controlling Central Asia is of paramount importance to anyone who wants to control the world today. The allied intervention in Afghanistan was planned by the NATO leadership even before the September 11, 2001 attacks, used to justify it and bring its Allies on board. It was tailored to respond to specific interests of the Coalition. It was a strategic maneuver against Iran once Iraq was invaded. It was also a way of restricting the Russian “zone of influence” in the Muslim states, former members of the Soviet Union. It also helped to open a pathway for the exploitation of Caspian petroleum. It gave unique opportunities to establish a global control on the world market of drugs derived from poppies. Finally, the invasion of Afghanistan gave NATO leading member-states access to huge reserves of precious minerals there.

While ripping the benefits of the current situation in Afghanistan, the organizers of this adventurous Central Asia campaign are trying to secure their strategic position and lay grounds for its next steps planned for the future. Ten years have passed since the invasion and the imminent attack on Iran remains postponed while the relations of the U.S. with Russia and China have become ever more strained. Just before the NATO summit, Washington concluded an emergency strategic pact with Kabul. But the recent troop withdrawal cannot conceal the Pentagon’s long-term plans to remain in-country. Ironically, the Western countries need to maintain troops in Afghanistan to threaten Russian interests in Central Asia but also need to pass through Russian territory in order to provision those same troops.

The principal question of the Chicago summit was not to establish if Allied troops are necessary for the stabilization of Afghanistan or whether their mission is finished, though, but whether the Allies are prepared to carry forward an encroachment on Russian territory (and Chinese while they’re at it). Since then, the decision of President Francois Hollande to pull French troops out as soon as possible should be understood for what it is, not an attempt to bring an end to an aberrant colonial expedition but a situational refrain from a particular operation for reasons of national operative capabilities as well as for political reasons, regarding the overall increasingly hostile position taken by the NATO against Russia and China in Central Asia.

The Pentagon has succeeded in modifying the rules that govern the internal functioning of the Alliance to ensure the possibility of using NATO more leanly in the current environment of rapidly developing and changing political landscape in Europe and other parts of the world. Historically, the organization was established to mobilize itself as an ensemble if one of its members was attacked. These days, Washington initially determines its colonial objectives and then creates a coalition ad hoc. For example, an alliance centered on France and the United Kingdom was formed to destroy Libya. The Germans did not participate. Yet they did assemble the fleet of AWACS surveillance planes. The Pentagon has the right to requisition materiel from their Allies should they refuse to take part in a particular coalition.

In order to eliminate the Russian and Chinese nuclear deterrent, the United States envisions protecting itself from enemy missiles to be able to launch theirs without fear of reprisals. This is the underlying principle of the “missile shield.” There are no interceptor missiles capable of destroying the highly sophisticated Russian and Chinese anti-ballistic missiles in flight. The Pentagon plans to deploy a radar system capable of surveying global airspace and installing as closely as possible a ring of threatening missiles aimed at Russia and China.

The U.S. Defense Department has already negotiated with a great number of countries agreements to install the missile shield. It also promotes military pacts among those states that enter into them. For example, the U.S. invited Jordan and Morocco to join the Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC), making it into a sort of refurbished Bagdad Pact.

To counter NATO’s de-facto global expansion, Russia has made a military pact with its old Soviet partners, the Collective Treaty Security Organization, the CTSO. Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan joined, but without Azerbaijan. Moscow and Beijing then established the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Its initial goal was narrowly conceived to prevent potential NATO interference in Central Asia but it is evolving into a military pact. The SCO also includes, either as observers or partners, Mongolia and the states of the Indian sub-continent, still without Azerbaijan.

In view of these developments, according to the NATO leadership, any international military intervention there on their part might unleash a genuine civil war in Syria. That would mean turning Syria into another Vietnam for the United States with much graver consequences for the latter, though. Although Russia has done everything necessary to prevent the destruction of Syria by the Libyan scenario, it is too early to say that the danger of national destruction for Syria is over. What is clear is that the world is faced by a new phase of global confrontation between the West and Russia. And the testing ground of their resolve has come to be on the Syrian soil. The West has been losing its moral grounds rapidly in view of the recent events the world over and now in Syria and this fact, supported by Russia’s active position with regard to Syria, has created a shift in the balance of power. Russia has deployed in Syria one of the world’s best systems of anti-aircraft defenses. It may not prevent the bombing of the country but is capable of inflicting severe losses on NATO air forces.

The final declaration of the NATO Summit, “We are following the evolution of the Syrian crisis with growing concern and firmly support the current efforts of the U.N. and the Arab League and the full implementation of the Annan 6-point plan” demonstrates that military intervention in Syria in the nearest future has been ruled out. The global standoff between the two geostrategic nemeses has taken an all but forgotten form of permanent proxy armed conflicts of varying intensity, without outdated ideological masks, the overall narrative boiling down to a story as old as the world itself: two greater powers fighting for the spoils of a lesser one, ultimately fighting for their survival. As the old story goes, when the rival powers are matching, the moral aspect determines the winner and it is the moral grounds that the NATO member-states and their cronies have none left to stand on.