Our translation of an article from RIA Novosti
America is becoming dangerous. Not in terms of strength and danger to the enemy - no, in terms of danger to its allies, to the world as a whole, to everyone.
Too much imbalance between financial and military capabilities, on the one hand, and irresponsibility and arrogance, on the other.
A third of a century ago, having lost the counterweight and external control, America itself lost its balance and self-control.
During this third of a century, it carried out aggression in Yugoslavia - in the early and late 1990s, Somalia (1993), Afghanistan (2002), Iraq (2003), hybrid aggression in Georgia (Rose Revolution, 2003) and Ukraine "Orange Revolution", 2004-2005), participated in the Saakashvili regime's war in South Ossetia (2008), tried to carry out a coup in Belarus (2010), committed aggression in Libya in 2011, participated in the coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014, and carried out acts of aggression in Syria in 2017-2018. However, in Syria, US aggression has been ongoing since 2011, because it has been making attempts to overthrow President Assad by means of mercenaries (which is part of the definition of aggression), since that time.
The first three wars were initiated in the Clinton administration, the second five under Bush, the next four plus, ongoing acts of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, that is, six already under Obama. Trump started a new act of aggression and continued old aggression in Syria.
There were thirteen aggressions of three US presidents before Trump. Plus the continuation at Trump. An average of one aggression every two years. Trump held out for one and a half years after declaring peace.
Hitler from the moment he came to power in January 1933 before the Second World War in September 1939, committed three acts of aggression: the capture of Austria, participation in the invasion of Spain, and the seizure of Czechoslovakia. Thus also once every two years. Clinton committed aggression less often, every two and a half. Bush junior matched Hitler in terms of frequency: every two years. Obama outstripped him with six aggressions in eight years. Trump, to be precise, twice committed acts of aggression against Syria and almost started a war with the DPRK - three crises on the verge of a world war in 15 months.
And not only Trump, but also Bush, as well as Obama (which no one today remembers) started their administrations by declaring their rejection of globalism and of imposition of their will on the rest of the world. In other words, it's not about personalities. It's about trends, the internal logic of the US’s existence, its economy and its elite at any given stage. There are objective laws (they can be discussed separately), which inevitably push the US to aggression, not just as a vain desire for expansion, but as a factor in ensuring its own existence.
The US has the power for such a policy, but there are no external restrictions. And thus "power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Most of the attacks with motives had an element that caused extremely reasonable doubts about their authenticity: from the "Powell test tube" to the simulation of a gas attack in the Douma. First, they used dubious or fabricated facts, then levelled accusations of meddling in elections - and finally they concluded that, since they could convince the world that counterfeits are the real thing, they might as well convince us of facts that do not exist.
The leadership of the United States is corrupted by the notion of imaginary omnipotence - imaginary, because they are not omnipotent, but there is a notion of omnipotence, and it does not meet any resistance. Nebenzia [Russia’s permanent representative to the UN] called the recent acts of US aggression in Syria international hooliganism, but this is too soft. In fact, it is something between international banditry, racketeering and terror.
But even if it were a matter of simple hooliganism, the bully is not deterred by accusations. He is proud of what he is. This is the essence and delight of hooliganism.
In principle, American foreign policy has never been built on any ethical or legal grounds. It was always built on the attitude towards the latter as an instrument for the formulation of their desires. Moreover, the US itself does not live by codified law, but by case law, where each relatively new situation is subject to interpretation by the judge who decides the case.
For their political tradition, for their political culture, right is what they deem right. It's not even cynicism, it's a sincere inner conviction. When they develop a policy on the basis of this belief, their collective foreign policy machine, including the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA and the Ministry of Finance, begins to implement it mechanically.
It is useless to explain anything or use any means of persuasion. Some of the executors of this mechanical will can fully agree with the rationality and justification of your objections and even with the illogical actions of their leadership. But, having agreed, they will not give up their intentions. It's a fantasy to think that the policies of different departments can contradict each other. This can only happen at the decision-making stage. After that they are of a single mind, they just have different roles.
It is impossible to stop them with words, talks and UN resolutions: from their point of view, those external norms and decisions that meet their vision of what is right and beneficial for them must be executed.
The implementation of the political line they have developed can be halted only by forcing them to reconsider the adopted setting. And one can accomplish this only by creating a force majeure situation. In this respect, the US is like a drunken cowboy in a saloon: it can be stopped and prevented from shooting, only once it feels a knife at its throat or hears the click of a cocked revolver held at its temple. Or once it has taken a bullet. Otherwise it simply will not believe it ts being dealt with seriously.
The US foreign policy machine has always methodically executed its own plan, until it meets with a strong rebuff involving unacceptable losses.
The US speaks on equal terms only when it deals with an equal force and believes this force will be used against it.
Otherwise, it does not understand. It didn’t understand before, but now it refuses to understand on principle. To stop, it must feel a steel wall and retaliatory strikes before it.
Sergey Chernyakhovsky, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, Member of the Academy of Political Sciences
URL of original Russian-language article: