|Alexandre Kojéve creía que con el tiempo |
todos nos aburguesaríamos.
Al final de la historia, predecía Kojéve,
todo el mundo será como Estados Unidos.
Lo dejo en inglés, pero con las herramientas elctrónicas de hoy día es fácil traducirlo al español.
Y por hacer de ello 'a priori' una síntesis para ver dónde vamos a entrar con el artículo, digamos que se trata de que para Craig Roberts, Rusia y China, dos países influenciados por el expansivo imperialismo militar-cultural yanqui (por lo menos mucho más que los USA estan influenciados por ellos), con lo poderosos que son, no estan ejerciendo ese poder de manera efectiva para defender sus intereses frente a la flagrante agresión hegemónica del Proyect for the New American Century (PNAC) que, claramente, trata de quitar de en medio cualquier rival que estorbe su meta de apoderarse de las riquezas del planeta.
Y Craig Roberts se extraña un tanto, por lo que se vé en su artículo, de que, Rusia y China, pudiendo fácilmente bloquear en su favor ese camino imperialista de los Estados Unidos que se está llevando a cabo a costa de la inacción de ambos, y, por lo tanto, erosionando sus intereses, no actuen en consecuencia.
Aqui acoto las partes mas importantes:
"The entire world knows that Washington overthrew the elected Ukrainian government, that Washington refuses to release its satellite photos of the destruction of the Malaysian airliner, that Ukraine refuses to release its air traffic control instructions to the airliner, that Washington has prevented a real investigation of the airliner’s destruction, that European experts on the scene have testified that both sides of the airliner’s cockpit demonstrate machine gun fire, an indication that the airliner was shot down by the Ukrainian jets that were following it. Indeed, there has been no explanation why Ukrainian jets were close on the heels of an airliner directed by Ukrainian air traffic control.
The entire world knows that if Russia had territorial ambitions, when the Russian military defeated the American trained and supplied Georgian army that attacked South Ossetia, Russia would have kept Georgia and reincorporated it within Russia where it resided for centuries.
Notice that it is not aggression when Washington bombs and invades seven countries in 13 years without a declaration of war. Aggression occurs when Russia accepts the petition of Crimeans who voted 97 percent in favor of reuniting with Russia where Crimea resided for centuries before Khrushchev attached it to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine in 1954 when Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country.
And the entire world knows that, as the separatist leader of the Donetsk Republic said, “If Russian military units were fighting with us, the news would not be the fall of Mariupol but the fall of Kiev and Lviv.”
Which is “the cancer of violent extremism”–ISIS which cut off the heads of four journalists, or Washington which has bombed seven countries in the 21st century murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians and displacing millions?
Who is the worst terrorist–ISIS, a group that is redrawing the artificial boundaries created by British and French colonialists, or Washington with its Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign policy, which declares Washington’s dominant objective to be US hegemony over the world?
ISIS is the creation of Washington. ISIS consists of the jihadists Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent to Syria to overthrow Assad. If ISIS is a “network of death,” a “brand of evil” with which negotiation is impossible as Obama declares, it is a network of death created by the Obama regime itself.
If ISIS poses the threat that Obama claims, how can the regime that created the threat be credible in leading the fight against it?
Obama never mentioned in his speech the central problem that the world faces. That problem is Washington’s inability to accept the existence of strong independent countries such as Russia and China.
The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine commits the United States to maintaining its status as the sole Unipower. This task requires Washington “to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” A “hostile power” is any country that has sufficient power or influence to be able to limit Washington’s exercise of power.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine explicitly targets Russia: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere.”
A “rival” is defined as any country capable of defending its interests or those of allies against Washington’s hegemony.
In his speech, Obama told Russia and China that they can be part of Washington’s world order on the condition that they accept Washington’s hegemony and do not interfere in any way with Washington’s control.
When Obama tells Russia that the US will cooperate with Russia “if Russia changes course,” Obama means that Moscow must accept the primacy of Washington’s interest over Russia’s own interest.
Clearly, this is an inflexible and unrealistic position. If Washington keeps to it, war with Russia and China will ensue.
Obama told China that Washington intended to continue to be a Pacific power in China’s sphere of influence, “promoting peace, stability, and the free flow of commerce among nations” by building new US air and naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam so that Washington can control the flow of resources in the South China Sea and cut off China at will.
As far as I can tell, neither the Russian nor Chinese governments understand the seriousness of the threat that Washington represents.
Washington’s claim to world hegemony seems too farfetched to Russia and China to be real. But it is very real.
By refusing to take the threat seriously, Russia and China have not responded in ways that would bring an end to the threat without the necessity of war.
For example, the Russian government could most likely destroy NATO by responding to sanctions imposed by Washington and the EU by informing European governments that Russia does not sell natural gas to members of NATO.
Instead of using this power, Russia has foolishly allowed the EU to accumulate record amounts of stored natural gas to see homes and industry through the coming winter.
Has Russia sold out its national interests for money?
Much of Washington’s power and financial hegemony rests on the role of the US dollar as world reserve currency. Russia and China have been slow, even negligent from the standpoint of defending their sovereignty, to take advantage of opportunities to undermine this pillar of Washington’s power.
For example, the BRICS’ talk of abandoning the dollar payments system has been more talk than action. Russia doesn’t even require Washington’s European puppet states to pay for Russian natural gas in rubles.
One might think that a country such as Russia experiencing such extreme hostility and demonization from the West would at least use the gas sales to support its own currency instead of Washington’s dollar.
If the Russian government is going to continue to support the economies of European countries hostile to Russia and to prevent the European peoples from freezing during the coming winter, shouldn’t Russia in exchange for this extraordinary subsidy to its enemies at least arrange to support its own currency by demanding payment in rubles?
Unfortunately for Russia, Russia is infected with Western trained neoliberal economists who represent Western, not Russian, interests.
When the West sees such extraordinary weakness on the part of the Russian government, Obama knows he can go to the UN and tell the most blatant lies about Russia with no cost whatsoever to the US or Europe. Russian inaction subsidizes Russia’s demonization.
China has been no more successful than Russia in using its opportunities to destabilize Washington. For example, it is a known fact, as Dave Kranzler and I have repeatedly demonstrated, that the Federal Reserve uses its bullion bank agents to knock down the gold price in order to protect the dollar’s value from the Federal Reserve’s policies. The method used is for the bullion banks to drive down the gold price with enormous amounts of naked shorts during periods of low or nonexistent volume.
China or Russia or both could take advantage of this tactic by purchasing every naked short sold plus all covered shorts, if any, and demanding delivery instead of settling the contracts in cash. Neither New York Comex nor the London market could make delivery, and the system would implode.
The consequence of the failure to deliver possibly could be catastrophic for the Western financial system, but in the least it would demonstrate the corrupt nature of Western financial institutions.
Or China could deal a more lethal blow. Choosing a time of heightened concern or disruptions in US financial markets, China could dump its trillion dollar plus holdings of US treasuries, or indeed all its holdings of US financial instruments, on the market. The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury could try to stabilize the prices of US financial instruments by creating money with which to purchase the bonds and other instruments.
This money creation would increase concern about the dollar’s value, and at that point China could dump the trillion dollars plus it receives from its bond sales on the exchange market. The Federal Reserve cannot print foreign currencies with which to buy up the dollars. The dollar’s exchange value would collapse and with it the dollar’s use as world reserve currency. The US would become just another broke country unable to pay for its imports.
Possibly, Washington could get Japan and the European Central Bank to print enough yen and euros to buy up the dumped dollars. However, the likelihood is that this would bring down the yen and euro along with the dollar.
Flight would occur into the Chinese and Russian currencies, and financial hegemony would depart the West.
By their restraint, Russia and China enable Washington’s attack upon them.
Last week Washington put thousands of its NGO operatives into the Moscow streets protesting “Putin’s war against Ukraine.” Foolishly, Russia has permitted foreign interests to buy up its newspapers, and these interests continually denounce Putin and the Russian government to their Russian readers.
Did Russia sell its soul and communication system for dollars? Did a few oligarchs sell out Russia for Swiss and London bank deposits?
Both Russia and China have Muslim populations among whom the CIA operates encouraging disassociation, rebellion, and violence.
(No existe ningun servivio de inteligencia, ruso o chino, que trabaje dentro de los Estados Unidos en el sentido de alzar a la población contra el gobierno de Washington)
Washington intends to break up the Russian Federation into smaller, weaker countries that could not stand in the way of Washington’s hegemony. Russian and Chinese fear of discord among their own Muslim populations have caused both governments to make the extremely serious strategic mistake of aligning with Washington against ISIS and with Washington’s policy of protecting Washington’s status quo in the Muslim world.
If Russia and China understood the deadly threat that Washington presents, both governments would operate according to the time honored principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Russia and China would arm ISIS with surface to air missiles to bring down the American planes and with military intelligence in order to achieve an American defeat. With defeat would come the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and all of the American puppet rulers in the area. Washington would lose control over oil, and the petro-dollar would be history. It is extraordinary that instead Russia and China are working to protect Washington’s control over the Middle East and the petro-dollar.
China is subject to a variety of attacks. The Rockefeller Foundation creates American agents in Chinese universities, or so I am informed by Chinese academics. American companies that locate in China create Chinese boards on which they place the relatives of local and regional party officials. This shifts loyalty from the central government to the American money. Moreover, China has many economists educated in the US who are imbued with the neoliberal economics that represents Washington’s interests.
(No sabemos que los Estados Unidos tengan algún economista americano que haya estudiado en China)
Both Russia and China have significant percentages of their populations who wish to be western. The failure of communism in both countries and the success of American cold war propaganda have created loyalties to America in place of their own governments.
In Russia they go by the designation “Atlanticist Integrationists.” They are Russians who wish to be integrated into the West. I know less about the Chinese counterpart, but among youth Western materialism and lack of sexual restraint is appealing.
The inability of the Russian and Chinese governments to come to terms with the threat posed to their existence as sovereign countries by the neoconservative insistence on American world hegemony makes nuclear war more likely.
If Russia and China catch on too late in the game, their only alternative will be war or submission to Washington’s hegemony."
("Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative?", Paul Craig Roberts
En las últimas lineas acotadas de Craig Roberts está la clave: guerra o sumisión. Para Kojéve lo que habrá es sumisión, y el mundo será como Estados Unidos.
Es tan sólo la especulación del predecir, nada más, somos conscientes de ello; sin embargo hay hechos, esta ahí la fenomenología de los hechos empíricos, y ésto nos dice que la influencia, la atracción, el 'atractor', por lo que vemos, no está ubicado en Rusia o en China. Both Russia and China have significant percentages of their populations who wish to be western.
En los USA no existen porcentajes significativos de una población que quiere ser o "imitar" a los rusos o a los chinos, es más, lo que hacen, frente al espejo, es imitarse a sí mismos; es, globalmente, un colectivo narcisismo: estan enamorados de si mismos: in love with themselves: los más grandes, los mas fuertes, los mas capaces, los de una Mission of Destiny en la Tierra; las frases de sus líderes --ya repetidas en ésta bitácora-- de Robert Kennedy y JF Kenedy de ser líderes espirituales del mundo y vigilantes de las paredes de la libertad en el mundo nunca fueron pronunciadas --que sepamos-- por ningún líder ni ruso ni chino.
¿Qué implica ello? Una atracción: la de la tribu poderosa, máxime cuándo constantemente se estan vanagloriando de ello y constantemente lo estan vendiendo y promocionando: ésto hace un gran impacto, intimida, y, hasta se rechaza, si, pero, al mismo tiempo, influencia, seduce, tienta, se impone. Ningún país, hoy en día, que no tenga éstas características egomaniacas, éste módulo psíquico-político-imperial (¿y libidinal?) se atrevería a ir a bombardear países saltandose todas las leyes a la torera, nadie lo hace, sólo ellos, desde luego, con la participación de otros, pero éstos otros ya estan absorvidos por el 'atractor' de marras.
¿Por qué ocurre de ésta manera y no en viceversa? Naturalmente, deben de haber factores objetivos para ello (Ni que decir tiene que las causas económicas son inequívocas, pero aqui, en éste análisis, vamos por otras partes del holograma) ¿Pudiera ser que uno de ellos estuviera basado en que the lack of sexual restraint is appealing, que la falta de restricciones sexuales-instintuales conforman el 'atractor' mencionado?