Waiting for an American Perestroika

Share this post...

Submit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
American Perestroika
by Peter Chamberlin
It would be nice if the world of man was a simple creation, where honest effort was its own reward.  In such a world, mistakes would be understood as signals of corrections which needed to be made.  It is not our good fortunes to live in such a world, at least not as far as all the governments of the world are concerned.
Human governments are in the business of capitalizing upon mistakes, especially turning the mistakes of the opposing party to political advantage.  When the stumbling political party happens to be an adversarial government that is the process of self-destruction, then the political urge is to let them suffer. 
Such was the situation when the Soviet Union fell apart.  But that was no excuse for this mistaken American policy or for the train of mistakes which was to follow.

Nothing demonstrates the complexity of the ultimate design which confronts us, or the character flaws of the designers, better than the current state of American/Russian relations.  We were led to believe that we had witnessed the implosion of the Soviet state in 1991, but that earth-shaking event was not what it appeared on the surface to be.  The event, which was supposed to have meant the end of the modern Russian empire, as well as the end of Soviet Communism, ended nothing, except for the entangling alliances which had been arranged by the demented mind of Josef Stalin.

What really transpired was the “restructuring” (perestroika) of the Russian government, the cutting of economic and social liabilities under the liberal leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, to give the Kremlin leadership breathing space, in order survive the transition from a model communist system to capitalist model.  The “capitalism” that Gorbachev had in mind was not the “democratic-capitalist” of the United States, but the Chinese model of state-dominated capitalism.  Gorby had in mind the same Eastern version of “democracy,” as well. 
The fact that George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton turned their backs on the people of Russia and the former satellite states and allowed Russian leader Putin time to reestablish a “moderate police state” in the former Soviet space, stands-out as one of the greatest mistakes that any American president has ever made. 
Had we followed a different path in 1991, one based on cooperation and human compassion, instead of abandoning the people of the former totalitarian Communist dictatorship to suffer the tragic consequences of the failed Soviet system, then there is no doubt in my mind that we would now be living in that new world order of total peace and not living in a bankrupt world preparing for perpetual war and the strong likelihood of total economic collapse.  We should lay the blame for the failure of the world order at the feet of George H.W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton, the “godfathers” of revolutionary interventionist democracy (Reagan is its father.).

Perestroika should be considered to be a “reconstruction” process, since it began with a process of demolition/deconstruction.  “Soviet” space had to be cleared in order to raise the new Russian edifice.  In reality, this meant the selling-off of large portions of the state industries to foreign investors, in order to acquire reliable capital.  There was no shortage of potential buyers, but the Kremlin leadership intended that the end product would remain under their control.  This was done by empowering the most successful black marketeers in the old Soviet system, by essentially buying them off.  The majority of the “oligarchs” who ended-up owning much of the old Soviet industrial assets had risen to the top through dealings with the Russian mafia, most of whom are Russian Jews, with ties to Israel and international American-Jewish (Zionist) interests.

The opening of the Soviet empire (glasnost) enlivened the Soviet idea of “democracy” sufficiently to convince the world that Russia’s version of “sovereign democracy” was genuine.  This made possible the shedding of excess political baggage, which included allowing many more émigrés to Israel.  This apparent loosening of state repression brought about a readjustment of Western perceptions of the Kremlin, opening the doors for foreign investments in the decrepit Soviet infrastructure and for the harvesting of abundant post-Soviet natural resources.  Many of the new Russian-Israelis organized partnerships with legitimate Western investors and Russian-mafia crime bosses.  The end result was that Israeli interests obtained a working relationship with the Putin government, through the oligarchs.

The Russian oligarchs gobbled-up state assets in the former Soviet satellite states, gaining advantages over competitors from their inside connections to those governments and their access to powerful Jewish investors.  The oligarchs give the Kremlin direct control over the mining and steel-producing industries in Ukraine, as well as the aluminum mining and smelting facilities in Tajikistan, allowing the Russian government to profit immensely from profits made from refitted modernized industries.

The insiders control over strategic European and Asian industries, coupled with Gazprom’s dominance over energy production in all of Eurasia, have been played by Vladimir Putin like a “royal straight flush” on the international geopolitical scene, allowing him to undercut American interests which had formerly been perceived as unfair to the Russian leadership.  Putin’s apparent winning hand in the pipeline wars has given him an inflated sense of power, encouraging him to quietly accept minor irritants like small-scale militant attacks in the Caucasus backed by the CIA and Pentagon, without going to the source of the attacks and exposing the American “Islamists” for which the world now blames only Pakistan.

Although the separate states which had comprised the USSR were set free, enabling them to chart their own courses, links were maintained between governments of the former empire, most notably between militaries and state intelligence agencies.  As the ultimate manifestation of the Soviet state and the Communist ideal, the KGB (now known as FSB) maintained dominance over the entire “restructuring” operation, as well as over the separate spy agencies.  It is the KGB hand, in the shape of the former KGB General, Vladimir Putin, which has overseen the privatization of the empire and the empowering of the “oligarchs.”

On the other side of the equation and the other side of the Atlantic Ocean we see the record of the American privatization (deconstruction) process, also started by Ronald Reagan.   As the economy grinds to a halt, it allows the elite American “oligarchs” to also gobble-up the social service sector of our government, as well as the assets and life savings of the majority of Americans.

The world operates on the power principle—that power must always prevail.  This means that advantage over others must be maintained by keeping the other side at a disadvantage, “back on the other foot,” as some folks say.  For the United States, in the political arena, this meant using every available means to keep our adversaries off balance, as well as our allies.  Such a principle precludes the possibility of ever fully ending hostilities against any adversary, helping to explain the blindness of successive American administrations in their dealings with Russia and other opponents.  The American/Russian relationship is a strange blend of success and failure.  Each success was as much failure as it was victory, for both sides.

The American/Russian relationship is once again the key to unraveling the mysteries about our current fate, the shape of the future will be determined by the interactions of the leaders of these two great powers.  The ongoing terror war is but a reflection of our past collisions, given new forms, using new actors to fight-out the same unanswered contradictions that have kept us at each others’ throats for decades.  Which side will prevail, the side that offers the most secure-seeming scenario of a future of perpetual resource wars fought for unexpressed reasons, or will some kind of peaceful coexistence finally take root, offering new hope for the planet itself and for all of humankind?

Obama and Putin are equally determined national leaders, both pulling every available string to achieve the goals of their personal agendas.  At times, their separate agendas clearly converge, other times their wheels seem to spin in opposite directions.

During those intervals when both Obama and Putin seem to be spinning their wheels in tandem towards a common goal, it seems that both leaders tend to answer to a third overriding agenda, an unknown source of authority.  Some unseen, subversive force seems to always intervene on the world stage, to prevent any conflict from ending decisively (except perhaps for the Sri Lankan/Tamil conflict). 
Whether that unknown overriding authority is the work of the most powerful oligarchs themselves, or merely the result of forces at work which are beyond our current levels of understanding, will remain for future historians to decide.  Historically, the United States and Russia have interfered in all great power struggles in order to preserve a “balance of forces,” but neither the US nor Russia can be blamed for actions taken against themselves, unless both countries are run by leaders who have been compromised by another power.

Then there is the fourth spinning wheel, the eternal power source of the forces of democracy.  Among the spinning wheels which are competing for the world’s energy basket, the eternally spinning wheel of human motivation is the only wheel which really matters, for it is the only wheel which powers all the others.

The power of the “common will” is a force which every government must master.  Before any leader can harness the common will he must first bend his own will in the people’s direction.  He who seeks to override the common will first have to obtain the consent of the people, unless he possesses sufficient force to bend the people’s will to his own and is willing to accept the consequences if such an anti-democratic use of force.  Neither Putin nor Obama (not even the unseen powers behind all other powers) has so far been willing to risk the fallout from the use of overtly violent police state policies to crush the democratic forces, but both leaders are willing to allow their underlings to violently redraw the lines of acceptable dissent.  The process of narrowing the space of “acceptable” dissent has progressed further under Putin, than it has in the US.

Putin is trying to stabilize Russia and reclaim the best parts of the former Soviet Union, while working within the democratic model.  His idea is to redesign the democratic model to make acceptable the tight control of basic First Amendment Rights, such as free speech and the right to assemble.

Vladimir Putin has called the collapse of the Soviet empire “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”  In many ways, he was right; since millions of people were suddenly cast adrift, without a working government, or apparently, a friend in the world.  It was not only the Russian government and the fledgling governments of all Eastern Europe, as well as all of the “Stans,” who were cut adrift, because the American government itself, was also without direction or purpose with the sudden, unanticipated collapse of the Soviet system.

The tragedy of the sudden collapse of the slowly deteriorating Soviet government can best be described by comparing it to the situation in the post-war South, after our “last Civil War” (I fully expect a 2nd civil war, as part of the American collapse).  The collapse of currency, local supply lines and the descent of “carpet-baggers” upon the hungry war-weary Southerners was much like today’s invasion of carpet-bagger corporations who gave the hungry masses false hope, as they plundered the unsuspecting populations who were recently freed from their own corrupt government.  On the heels of the rapacious corporations came the proxy forces of the US government in the form of NGOs (non-governmental organizations).  Along with the NGOs, come the third-party foreign proxies of the US Government (Saudis, Turks, Israelis, etc.).

The invasion of former Soviet space has, so far, proceeded unopposed by Moscow for the most part, but all of that began to change with the revival of the neo-Soviet enterprises, in particular, Gazprom, the state oil and gas giant.  With the rise of Gazprom came the return of Russian political and economic leverage, especially over Europe.  Putin’s power plays in Chechnya and Georgia were made politically acceptable after Gazprom’s victory over Ukrainian gas company Naftogaz gave Moscow full control of most of the gas going to northern Europe.

The certain defeat of the Nabucco pipeline has probably breathed new life into Russia’s South Stream, which will further entrench Moscow as mediator of many European issues that should not be considered a legitimate Russian concern.  As insurance in case the reset goes bad, CIA-da is apparently revving-up operations with the Turkish “Deep State” and the PKK terrorist organization, as a presumed prelude to future attacks upon Russia’s South Stream pipeline as it traverses Turkey.  Depending upon the outcome of the joint effort in the terror war and how well the United States weathers the total collapse of its economy, Russian leaders believe that they will come out on top, or at least in a position to profit greatly off any American successes.

The simultaneous rising of Dmitry Medvedev with Barack Obama, and their US/Russian “reset” in relations, which the two lawyers have together engineered, has made possible an American/Russian mission in Afghanistan, but it has not led to cooperation on energy production or delivery plans.  Both sides are still married to their own profit potentials.    This reset in relations has also made possible a new united front against Chinese expansionism and resource monopolization.  Whether this anti-Chinese offensive is real or just more stage management is also a question that will have to be answered in the history books, because the future is not yet set (Where is Sarah Connor when you need her?).

This seems to be what the hidden overriding authority (the “third wheel”) wants from us.    The ceaseless succession of potential catastrophes which confront us are meant to convince us that survival in this age demands that we allow the European alliance to do whatever the leaders plan for us, as the price for achieving total dominance over all of the world, in particular, the world’s “energy basket.”  This is the given justification for the building confrontation with China and for perpetual war for as far as the eye can see.  If “We the People” allow these plans to go forward on their current track, then we will witness a further “Sovietization” of our own democracy, as well, and we will have deserved it.  It is time for that fourth wheel, the wheel of democratic action, to get spinning, before powers which are hostile to our best interests take the wheel of our power from us.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Share this post...

Submit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn