No matter who the next president is, there are indications that the U.S. will continue to support Israel’s uprising in the Middle East and further conflict with China, but it is uncertain what direction Russia policy will take.
There are now plenty of reports that Kamala will have a new and strengthened foreign policy team if she wins the presidential election. Philip Gordon is the leading candidate to replace Jake Sullivan as national security adviser. Pragmatist Someone who understands the “limits of American power.”
Gordon and Rebecca Risner, the vice president’s national security adviser, Have a vision They want a “more humble approach to foreign policy.” Yes, they are blob neocons, but we are told they are of the more responsible variety. Written Last week I wrote about Gordon and why I was skeptical of the hype around his more rational approach, but I want to expand on that here.
Because implicit in these articles defending Kamala’s foreign policy team was the idea that Joe Biden is to blame for the world being in chaos and for the risk of the US going head-to-head with Russia. As economist Philip Pilkington puts it in his always fascinating podcast: Multipolar I recently took up this argument, arguing that Biden, mainly due to his old age, was unable to rein in the crazy blobs and instead let them loose, causing Ukraine to spin out of control.
Biden is undoubtedly a demented, angry old man, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken is pretty foolish, but is there any reason to believe that their departure will lead to a less combative foreign policy?
While some detente with Russia would certainly be welcome, there are three reasons why it is unlikely to happen.
1. Let’s not forget that boasting about the wisdom of Democratic foreign policy advisers is now a genre. The same things that are being said about Gordon and Risner were being written about Biden’s team four years ago. Sullivan, for example, was said to be wary of overseas adventures, Believed “The strength of America’s foreign policy and national security lies primarily in a thriving American middle class.”
He was praised for visiting 112 countries with Hillary Clinton. What will he focus on in the Biden administration? According to PoliticoCOVID-19 pandemic:
Sullivan said the “primary focus” of the Biden NSC effort, at least initially, will be reorganizing the NSC to overcome the coronavirus pandemic and make public health a permanent national security priority.
So all these articles about the foreign policy geniuses on Kamala’s team don’t really mean anything. These people have very little input into setting priorities or policy. So who is?
2. For over 100 years, America’s wealthy have wanted to return to the pre-Bolshevik era. Their goal of plundering Russia became a temporary reality with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, the U.S. The best and the brightestt Sucked in Hundreds of billions of dollars were flown out of the country, with devastating consequences. The number of poor Russians soared from 2 million to 60 million in just a few years, and life expectancy plummeted. The Great Depression in the US was a walk in the park compared to the 1990s. Putin ended this national catastrophe that the West had inflicted on the country, but the West never forgave him. Why is the US and its allies so adamant about removing Putin and putting a theoretically more “friendly” person in power? Here are the top countries based on natural resource value as of 2021 (in trillions of dollars):
Source: Statista
In the eyes of America’s wealthy, Russia is too valuable a prey, and they have now painted themselves into a corner by helping to link Moscow and Beijing. If the idea of Russia controlling its own resources is intolerable, then China having privileged access is incomprehensible. Anti-Putin policy has been spawned from US corporate finance think tanks for two decades. For example, Kamala’s foreign policy geniuses, Gordon and Risner, both previously worked at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). According to Influence Watch, CFR’s funders are: include Accenture, appleBank of America, Black Rock, ChevronCisco, Citi, ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, GoogleHess, MetaJPMorgan Chase, Moody’s, Morgan Stanley.
Also, Have Corporate alliance with Bayer and Blackstone, Bloomberg PhilanthropiesCFR’s affiliates include American International Group, Booz Allen Hamilton, FedEx, Johnson & Johnson, Lockheed Martin, Merck, Microsoft, Pfizer, and TikTok. TwitterUnited Airlines, and Wells Fargo, among others.
Think tanks like CFR Pilot Legislation and foreign policy.
The RAND Corporation, which has many mutual backers with CFR, laid out a plan to undermine Russia and overthrow President Putin in an infamous 2019 investigation. paper“Russian expansion,” which was to involve economic pressure and ignite conflagrations throughout Russia, including Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The RAND blueprint has been largely carried out, with more success in some areas than others.
Though the RAND report doesn’t mention it, who is to say the US wouldn’t try to backstab Europe, or parts of it (such as the Baltic states, Poland, Germany, etc.) into a more direct confrontation with Russia (as long as the US can escape its Article 5 obligations)? Sure, that would be a disaster for every country, but would the US care if the purpose was to allow Moscow to continue putting out fires?
The key question is whether America’s rich see fighting Russia as an existential issue. Judging from the RAND paper, it seems they would rather see the world on fire than accept that we have to live in a multipolar world. As the RAND report shows, there is a clear mindset in the Blob that over-extending Russia by increasing chaos on its periphery will destabilize the country and bring about Putin’s downfall. So far, the opposite has happened, but that doesn’t seem to matter.
As I pointed out in a recent article examining Philip Gordon’s background, one of the big things that makes Gordon smarter than his Biden allies is that he is more aligned with Obama and believes in the limits of American power. But if you look closely at what they’re saying, it’s not that they want to give up on regime change in Russia. They want to keep the U.S. out of the loop so that Americans don’t get too involved and don’t die in direct confrontations. One of the things they were good at during the Obama administration was “leading from behind.” Isn’t that what the U.S. is doing now? They want to avoid direct confrontation with Russia, and Ukrainians and mercenaries are dying, Working on it It set the Caucasus on fire via Armenia. This month’s outbreak has led to the United States being the responsible actor. You might want a “reset” After being at odds with Russia at one point, the UK is now leading the escalation. With President Macron calling for troops, France has been the most proactive lately. The Baltic states are always going crazy. The US has mostly pursued the RAND Plan, adhering to President Obama’s “lead from behind” mantra. Down to the last Ukrainian, as they say.
Speaking of President Obama, he is considered to have been “wise” regarding the Ukraine issue. Spoke words of truth In 2016:
“The fact is, Ukraine, being a non-NATO member, will be vulnerable to Russian military domination no matter what we do.”
Obama was arguing that the US should not go to war directly, but in the same interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, he also echoed the RAND strategy, arguing that the US was putting too much pressure on Russia.
“Putin acted in Ukraine in response to a client state that was slipping out of his grasp, and he improvised to hang on to control there,” he said. “He did exactly the same in Syria, at great cost to his own country’s well-being. And the idea that Russia is somehow in a stronger position now, either in Syria or in Ukraine, than it was before the invasion of Ukraine or before he had to send troops into Syria fundamentally misunderstands the nature of power in diplomacy and in the world at large. Real power is being able to get what you want without using violence. Russia was much more powerful when Ukraine was a kleptocracy where he could pull the strings, even if it looked like an independent country.”
President Obama also oversaw the 2014 Ukrainian coup, and the Blob was likely working on the same script all along. It was under President Biden, not President Obama, that Russia launched its special military operations. The Blob could continue its efforts to provoke conflict between Ukraine and Russia under the Trump administration, despite the furor over Russiagate. Are there any signs that Trump would have the ability and willingness to take on these forces if he becomes president again?
So is there any reason to believe that with Ukraine defeated on the battlefield and a new administration in Washington, the plutocrats who fund Washington think tanks and promote this new Cold War strategy will rethink their plans?
Or is the US more likely to continue to destabilize the region around Russia? Is the US more likely to accept defeat in Ukraine, or leave it as a pile of rubble so that Russia has to pour men and money into pacifying it? Recently, Duran’s Alexander Mercouris and Alexander Christoforou have spoken about the possibility of replacing Zelensky with Ukraine’s former interior minister. Arsen AvakovThis is because his close ties to neo-Nazi groups and his tendency to collect damaging information against people make him someone who can effectively carry out terrorist activities in a failed state.
3. The Democratic Party Reveals It’s a pain to update the platform Are they trying to tell us something with Kamala’s platform in some areas, including Russia? Read:
President Biden will never turn his back on our allies, and in my second term I will continue to strengthen NATO, work with Ukraine to stop Putin’s atrocities, and contain Russian threats to our allies and our vital interests.
If you have any doubts, please click here In her nomination acceptance speech, Harris said:
And we should strengthen our global leadership, not abandon it. Meanwhile, Trump has threatened to abandon NATO. He has encouraged President Putin to invade our allies. He has said Russia can “do whatever it wants.” Five days before Russia attacked Ukraine, I met with President Zelensky to warn him about Russia’s planned invasion. I helped rally a global response of more than 50 nations to defend against Putin’s invasion. And as President, I will stand strong with Ukraine and our NATO allies.
Meanwhile, oligarch-funded think tanks are releasing a wave of documents arguing that the Cold War with Russia will never end. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Advocate Gordon, a co-author for the Council on Foreign Relations, advocated for a sustained “containment” strategy. Report They met with Robert Blackwill, a hardline Russia Republican, and they called for all possible measures to be taken against Russia: sanctions, weapons, undying commitment to Ukraine and Europe, which is basically what the U.S. has been doing ever since.
Kamala and the Democrats may not be setting the agenda, but they are signaling to the US oligarchs that they will stick to their agenda and continue with a policy towards Russia that could be a decades-long endeavour. Think tanks say the new Cold War is here to stay. The Obama-esque team of Gordon and Kamala may be more cunning and take a step back to regroup, but the policy will not change. It could get even worse, and a new emphasis on leading from behind may help insulate the US from the effects of this plan.
So far, the narrative is working: Biden will be blamed for Ukraine’s defeat, a new and improved Kamala team will come in and implement smarter policies that are pretty much the same as the old stupid policies. I’d be happy to be wrong.
