The Two Wars of the West

 by Manlio Dinucci

For a year and a half, we have been emphasizing that the United States’ war in Ukraine is having a serious impact on the standard of living of European Union citizens. That against Gazan civilians, too. However, the latter will also benefit the EU: we will finally be able to return to correct gas prices, thanks to the price that we will steal from the Palestinian survivors.

Voltaire Network | Rome (Italy) | 18 November 2023

We are embroiled in two wars, in Europe and the Middle East, which have increasingly serious consequences for our living conditions and security.

On the European front, what the Wall Street Journal calls "one of the largest acts of sabotage in Europe since World War II" was carried out in September 2022: the United States, assisted by Norway and Poland, blew up the Nord Stream, the main gas pipeline carrying cheap Russian gas to Germany and from there to other European countries. The dynamics of this wartime action were reconstructed, based on precise evidence, by U.S. journalist Seymour Hersh and a German investigation.

U.S. Secretary of State Blinken called the Nord Stream blockade "a huge strategic opportunity for years to come" and pointed out that "the U.S. has become the main supplier of liquefied natural gas to Europe," gas that we European citizens pay much more for than what we used to import from Russia.

At the same time, the U.S. is passing on to Europe the enormous cost of the NATO war in Ukraine against Russia. The European Commission is paving the way for Ukraine’s next entry into the EU, with the consequence that we European citizens will be the ones paying for the huge Ukrainian deficit.

On the Middle East front, the European Union supports the war by which Israel, with the United States and NATO behind it, attacks Pelestine and fuels a regional conflict targeting Iran in particular. Italy, which has been linked to Israel by a military pact since 2004, has provided the fighter jets on which Israeli pilots are trained, which bomb Gaza massacring civilians, and supports the Israeli military in various ways. In return, PM Netanyahu has promised PM Meloni that Italy will become an energy hub for shunting to Europe the gas Israel will send through the EastMed pipeline.

The section of the offshore gas field, which Israel claims sole ownership of, is located largely in the territorial waters of the Palestinian Territory of Gaza and that of the West Bank. Through the EastMed pipeline Israel will thus export to Italy and the EU the Palestinian natural gas it has seized by military force.

El nuevo mundo surge ante nosotros

Thierry Meyssan

Thierry Meyssan señala la extrema importancia, no de la retirada estadounidense ‎de Siria sino del derrumbe de los puntos de referencia actuales del mundo. Estima que ‎estamos entrando en un corto periodo de transición en el cual los que hoy controlan los ‎acontecimientos, que son los «capitalistas financieros» –aunque los actores que ‎designa de esa manera no tienen nada que ver con el capitalismo original ni tampoco ‎con la banca original– van a ser apartados en beneficio de las reglas de derecho que ‎Rusia enunció… en 1899‎

Estamos viviendo algo que sólo se ve una o dos veces cada 100 años. Está surgiendo un nuevo ‎orden mundial y todas las referencias anteriores desaparecen. Los que antes fueron ‎increíblemente vilipendiados ahora triunfan mientras que los que solían dictar su voluntad están ‎en pleno descenso al infierno. Es cada vez más evidente que las declaraciones oficiales y las ‎interpretaciones que los periodistas divulgan ya no corresponden a los hechos. ‎Los comentaristas tendrán que cambiar de discurso, rápida y radicalmente, o van verse barridos ‎por el remolino de la Historia. ‎

En febrero de 1943, la victoria soviética ante la invasión nazi cambió el curso de la Segunda Guerra ‎Mundial. A partir de ese hecho, lo que vino después ya era inevitable. Pero todavía hubo que esperar que tuvieran lugar el ‎desembarco anglo-estadounidense en las playas de Normandía –en junio de 1944–, la ‎conferencia de Yalta –en febrero de 1945– y la capitulación del Reich –el 8 de mayo de 1945– ‎para finalmente ver el nacimiento del mundo nuevo. ‎

En un solo año, el Reich nazi había perdido su lugar y se veía reemplazado por nuevas potencias: ‎Estados Unidos y la Unión Soviética. En aquel mundo nuevo, el Reino Unido y Francia, que ‎‎12 años antes aún eran las dos primeras potencias mundiales, quedaban como espectadores del ‎proceso de descolonización de sus respectivos imperios. ‎

Hoy estamos viviendo un momento similar. ‎

Cada periodo histórico tiene su propio sistema económico y construye una superestructura ‎política destinada a proteger ese sistema. Al final de la guerra fría y con el derrumbe de la URSS, ‎el presidente Bush padre desmovilizó un millón de militares estadounidenses y confió la búsqueda ‎de la prosperidad a los dirigentes de las grandes transnacionales. Estos últimos se aliaron al ‎dirigente chino Deng Xiaping y trasladaron grandes cantidades de empleos estadounidenses ‎a China, país que se convirtió así en la gran fábrica del mundo.

Pero, lejos de ofrecer prosperidad a ‎sus conciudadanos, los dirigentes de las transnacionales acapararon sus ganancias, provocando la ‎lenta desaparición de las clases medias en las naciones de Occidente. En 2001, financiaron los ‎atentados del 11 de septiembre para imponer al Pentágono la estrategia Rumsfeld/Cebrowski de ‎destrucción de los Estados [1]. El presidente Bush hijo transformó entonces el «Medio Oriente ampliado», o «Gran ‎Medio Oriente» en campo de batalla de una «guerra sin fin». ‎

La liberación en una semana de una cuarta parte del territorio nacional sirio no es sólo la victoria ‎de Bachar al-Assad, el presidente sirio que desde hace 8 años «tiene que irse». Es también el ‎fracaso de la estrategia militar tendiente a instaurar la supremacía del capitalismo financiero. ‎Ha sucedido lo que parecía inimaginable. El orden mundial se ha modificado y la subsiguiente ‎secuencia de acontecimientos es inevitable. ‎

La fastuosa acogida al presidente ruso Vladimir Putin en Arabia Saudita y en Emiratos Árabes ‎Unidos es una muestra del espectacular cambio de posición de las potencia del Golfo Arábigo-‎Pérsico, que ahora se pasan al bando ruso. ‎

La también espectacular redistribución de las cartas en Líbano es igualmente muestra del mismo ‎fracaso político del capitalismo financiero. En un país dolarizado donde desde hace un mes ya ‎no se encuentran dólares, donde los bancos cierran sus puertas y se limitan las extracciones de ‎dinero que los clientes pueden realizar, las manifestaciones anticorrupción no podrán detener la ‎caída del orden anterior. ‎

Los estertores del orden agonizante se hacen sentir por todas partes. En Ecuador, el presidente ‎Lenín Moreno atribuye a su predecesor Rafael Correa –quien vive en Bélgica– y a un símbolo de ‎la resistencia frente a la explotación financierista –el presidente venezolano Nicolás Maduro– la ‎responsabilidad de haber organizado lo que en realidad es un levantamiento popular contra las ‎medidas del capitalismo financiero. ‎

El Reino Unido ya retiró de Siria sus fuerzas especiales y ahora está tratando de salir del Estado ‎supranacional que es la Unión Europea. Después de haberse planteado la posibilidad de conservar ‎el Mercado Común (el proyecto de Theresa May), el Reino Unido decide romper con toda la ‎construcción europea, conforme al proyecto de Boris Johnson. Mientras tanto, después de ‎los errores de los ex presidentes Nicolas Sarkozy y Francois Hollande, a los que se agregan ahora ‎los errores del presidente Emmanuel Macron, Francia pierde súbitamente toda credibilidad e ‎influencia. ‎

Por su parte, los Estados Unidos del presidente Donald Trump dejan de ser la «nación ‎indispensable», el «policía del mundo» al servicio del capitalismo financiero para tratar de ‎convertirse nuevamente una gran potencia económica. Así que Estados Unidos retira su arsenal ‎nuclear de Turquía y se dispone a cerrar el CentCom en Qatar mientras que todos reconocen ‎a Rusia como la potencia «pacificadora» que hace prevaler el derecho internacional que ‎ella misma había creado cuando convocó –en 1899– la «Conferencia Internacional por la Paz» ‎de La Haya, cuyos principios los miembros de la OTAN han venido pisoteando. ‎
‎

La Segunda Guerra Mundial puso fin a la Sociedad de las Naciones para dar paso al nacimiento de ‎la ONU. De la misma manera, este mundo nuevo creará probablemente una nueva organización ‎internacional basada en los principios de la Conferencia de 1899, realizada en La Haya por ‎iniciativa del zar Nicolás II y del premio Nobel de la Paz Leon Bourgeois. Para eso, primero habrá ‎que disolver la OTAN, que tratará de sobrevivir extendiéndose al Pacífico, y también la Unión ‎Europea, convertida en refugio del capitalismo financiero. ‎

Tenemos que comprender bien lo que está sucediendo. Estamos entrando en un periodo de ‎transición. Lenin decía, en 1916, que el imperialismo era la fase suprema de la forma de ‎capitalismo que desapareció con las dos Guerras Mundiales y con la crisis bursátil de 1929. ‎El mundo de hoy es el mundo del capitalismo financiero, que arruina una por una las ‎economías nacionales favoreciendo únicamente a unos pocos súper ricos. Su fase suprema ‎suponía dividir el mundo en dos partes, poniendo de un lado los países estables y globalizados y ‎del otro lado vastas regiones del mundo sin Estados, reducidas a servir únicamente como ‎‎“reservas” de materias primas. ‎

Ese modelo, rechazado tanto por el presidente Trump en Estados Unidos, como por los ‎‎«Chalecos Amarillos» en Europa occidental y por Siria en el Levante, es el modelo que hoy ‎agoniza ante nosotros. ‎

[1] «El proyecto militar de Estados Unidos para el mundo», por Thierry Meyssan, Red Voltaire, 22 de agosto de ‎‎2017.

The United States refuse to fight for the transnational financiers

by Thierry Meyssan

Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 25 December 2018

The US withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, as well as the resignation of General Mattis, attest to the upheaval that is shaking the current world order. The United States are no longer the leaders, either on the economic or the military stage. They refuse to keep fighting for the sole interests of the transnational financiers. The alliances that they used to lead will begin to unravel, but without their erstwhile allies admitting the powerful ascension of Russia and China.

On 19 December 2018, the announcement of the partial withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and the total withdrawal from Syria sounded like a thunderclap. It was followed the next day by the resignation of Secretary for Defense, James Mattis. Contrary to the affirmation of President Trump’s opposition, the two men hold one another in high esteem, and their difference of opinion has nothing to do with the withdrawals, but with the manner in which the consequences should be managed. The United States are facing a choice which will mark a separation and transform the world.

Before anything else, in order to avoid barking up the wrong tree, we should remember the conditions and the aim of the collaboration between between Trump and Mattis.
As soon as he entered the White House, Donald Trump was careful to surround himself with three senior military officers with enough authority to reposition the armed forces. Michael Flynn, John Kelly and especially James Mattis, have since left or are in the process of leaving. All three men are great soldiers who together had opposed their hierarchy during Obama’s presidency [1]. They did not accept the strategy implemented by ambassador John Negroponte for the creation of terrorist groups tasked with stirring up a civil war in Iraq [2]. All three stood with President Trump to annul Washington’s support for the jihadists. Nonetheless, each of them had his own vision of the role of the United States in the world, and ended up clashing with the President.
The storm whipped up by the mid-term elections has arrived [3]. The time has come to rethink international relations.

Syria

When in April, as he had promised, Donald Trump mentioned US withdrawal from Syria, the Pentagon persuaded him to stay. Not that a few thousand men could turn the tide of war, but because their presence acted as a counterweight to the Russian influence and a backup for Israël.
However, the transfer of Russian weapons of defence to the Syrian Arab Army, particularly the S-300 missiles and ultra-sophisticated radars coordinated by the automated command and control system Polyana D4M1, changed the balance of forces [4]. From that moment on, US military presence became counter-productive – any ground attack by pro-US mercenaries could no longer be supported by US aviation without the risk of losing aircraft.
By withdrawing now, the Pentagon avoids the test of power and the humiliation of an inevitable defeat. Indeed, Russia has successively refused to give the United States and Israël the security codes for the missiles delivered to Syria. This means that after years of Western arrogance, Moscow has declined the sharing of control of Syria that it had accepted during the first Geneva Conference in 2012, and that Washington had violated a few weeks later.
Apart from this, Moscow recognised a long time ago that US presence is illegal in terms of International Law, and that Syria can legitimately act in self-defence.

The consequences

The decision to withdraw from Syria is loaded with consequences.
1— Pseudo-Kurdistan
The Western project for the creation of a colonial state in the North-East of Syria which would be attributed to the Kurds will not happen. Indeed, fewer and fewer Kurds give it their support, considering that this conquest would be comparable to the unilateral proclamation of a state – Israël – by Jewish militia, in 1948.
As we have often explained, Kurdistan would only be legitimate within the boundaries which were recognised by the Conférence de Sèvres in 1920, in other words, in what is now Turkey, and nowhere else [5]. Yet only a few weeks ago, the United States and France were still considering the possibility of creating a pseudo-Kurdistan on Arab land, and having it administered under a UN mandate by the French ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bernard Kouchner [6].
2— The Cebrowski strategy
The Pentagon project for the last seventeen years in the « Greater Middle East » will not happen. Conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, it was aimed at destroying all the state structures in the region, with the exception of Israël, Jordan and Lebanon [7]. This plan, which began in Afghanistan, spread as far as Libya, and is still under way, will come to an end on Syrian territory.
It is no longer acceptable that US armies fight with taxpayers’ funds for the sole financial interests of global financiers, even if they are US citizens.
3— US military supremacy
The post-Soviet world order based on US military supremacy is now dead. This may be difficult to accept, but that changes nothing. The Russian Federation is now more powerful, both in terms of conventional weaponry (since 2015) and nuclear weaponry (since 2018 [8]). The fact that the Russian armies are one third less numerous than those of the US, and have only isolated troop presence overseas, cancels out the hypothesis of Russian imperialism.

The Victors and the Vanquished

The war against Syria will end in the moths to come for lack of mercenaries. The delivery of weapons by certain states, coordinated by KKR funds, may drag the crime on for a short time, but does not offer the hope of changing the course of events.
Without any possible doubt, the victors of this war are Syria, Russia and Iran, while the vanquished are the 114 states which joined the « Friends of Syria ». Some of these have not awaited defeat to correct their foreign policy. Indeed, the United Arab Emirates have just announced the forthcoming reopening of their embassy in Damascus.
However, the case of the United States is more complex. The Bush Jr. and Obama administrations shoulder the entire responsibility for this war. They were the ones who planned it and realised it within the framework of a unipolar world. On the other hand, as a candidate, Donald Trump accused these administrations of having failed to protect US citizens, but instead having served the interests of transnational finance. As soon as he became President, Mr. Trump persistently cut his country’s support for the jihadists and withdrew his men from the Greater Middle East. He must therefore be considered as one of the victors of this war, and could therefore logically avoid the US obligation to pay for war damage caused by the transnational companies implicated [9]. For him, it is now a question of reorienting the armed forces towards the defence of US territory, ending the whole imperial system, and developing the US economy.

Afghanistan

For the last few months, the United States have been discreetly negotiating with the Taliban for the conditions of their withdrawal from Afghanistan. A first round of contact with ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad took place in Qatar. A second round has just begun in the United Arab Emirates. Apart from the two US and Taliban delegations, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan are also participating. A delegation from the Afghan government has also arrived, in the hope of joining in.
It has been seventeen years since the United States and the United Kingdom invaded Afghanistan, officially in retaliation for the attacks of 9/11. However, this war followed the 2001 negotiations in Berlin and Geneva. The invasion was not aimed at stabilising this country in order to exploit it economically, but to destroy any form of a state in order to control its exploitation. So far, this has worked, since every day the situation is worse than the day before.
Let’s note that Afghanistan’s misery began during the Carter presidency. National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzeziński, called on the Muslim Brotherhood and Israël to launch a campaign of terrorism against the Communist government [10]. Terrified, the government appealed to the Soviets to maintain order. The result was a fourteen-year war, followed by a civil war, and then followed by the Anglo-US invasion.
After forty years of uninterrupted destruction, President Trump states that US military presence is not the solution for Afghanistan, it’s the problem.

The place of the United States in today’s world

By withdrawing half of the US troops legally stationed in Afghanistan and all of those illegally occupying Syria, President Trump is keeping one of his electoral promises. He still has to withdraw the 7,000 men and women who remain.
It is in this context that General Mattis asked a fundamental question in his letter of resignation [11]. He writes: « "One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof."
In other words, James Mattis does not contest the logic of the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and Syria, but what will probably follow - the dislocation of the alliances around the United States and finally, the possible dismantling of NATO. For the Secretary for Defense, the United States must reassure their allies by giving them the impression that they know what they are doing and that they are the strongest. It matters little whether this is true or not, the point is to maintain the cohesion between the allies, whatever the cost. However, for the President, there is a clear and present danger. The United States have already lost their first economic status to China, and now their first military place to Russia. It is necessary to cease being the one-eyed man leading the blind, but first to look after ones own.
In this affair, James Mattis is acting like a military man. He knows that a nation without allies is lost from the start. Donald Trump thinks like the CEO of a company. He must first clean up the deficient affiliates which are threatening to sink his enterprise.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation
Pete Kimberley

[1] Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, Michael Gordon & Bernard Trainor, Atlantic Book, 2006.

[2] ISIS is US: The Shocking Truth Behind the Army of Terror, George Washington’s Blog, Wayne Madsen, Webster Griffin Tarpley, Syrian Girl Partisan, Progressive Press, 2016.

[3] “International relations: the calm before the storm?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 9 October 2018.

[4] “Why is the United States suddenly withdrawing from Syria?”, by Valentin Vasilescu, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 21 December 2018.

[5] “The Kurdistan projects”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 5 September 2016.

[6] “Bernard Kouchner enters Syria illegally”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 14 December 2018.

[7] The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas P. M. Barnett, Putnam Publishing Group, 2004. “The US military project for the world”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 22 August 2017.

[8] “Vladimir Putin Address to the Russian Federal Assembly”, by Vladimir Putin, Voltaire Network, 1 March 2018. “The new Russian nuclear arsenal restores world bipolarity”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 6 March 2018. « Les moyens russes de Défense hypersonique », par Valentin Vasilescu, Traduction Avic, Réseau Voltaire, 28 mai 2016.

[9] “Seize the transnational corporations to rebuild Syria?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 14 August 2018.

[10] « Brzezinski : "Oui, la CIA est entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes …" », par Zbigniew Brzeziński, Le Nouvel Observateur (France) , Réseau Voltaire, 15 janvier 1998. Charlie Wilson’s War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History, George Crile III, Atlantic Monthly Press, 2003.

[11] “Resignation letter from James Mattis”, by James Mattis, Voltaire Network, 20 December 2018.