The Day the American Imperium Surrendered

[Lauren Johnson]

Joaquin Flores via Fort Russ

The US Empire is truly (sic) its last days.

What was said on live television at the UN with the ''joint'' statement made by Lavrov, and with Kerry at the conclusion, are "the things history is made from". And what was said behind closed doors versus what was said publicly is more than likely to be oceans apart.

There are certain key phrases that were used that are the biggest indication that this wide-gulf exists, setting aside an objective assessment of the situation which also demands such a view. Any objective appraisal indicates the US has a vulnerable position.

The decision to make this statement jointly and in the language of collaboration is partly about not scaring the general public - or giving the stock market a shock, given the relationship between this and treasury bonds and other notes which are held by the Chinese. The largest foreign holder of U.S. debt is of course China, which owns about $1.2 trillion in bills, notes and bonds, according to the US Treasury. The Chinese and the CSTO are no doubt involved in this conflict.

But chiefly, this decision to imply consensus and collaboration is about giving the US a graceful exit, something which is not only strategic for Russia but reflects its manner of conducting foreign policy. It is done in a manner which least encourages, least corners, and least frustrates their adversaries.

Allowing one's enemy a safe routing passage is an age old tactic, and a basic military maneuver which ensures the opponent does not have a necessary reason to fight to the bitter end.

It has allowed the US to make a hasty if somewhat tactical withdrawal without using the overt language of surrender.

Also, the language of collaboration has a legal meaning. While we live in a world where the US has tried to deconstruct the post-war order of law and precedent, and has abrogated any number of agreements and conventions, it is important to understand that this is not Russia's aim.

At the very core of the US's lawlessness is this: The post-war order created an international system of law, that while recognizing the supremacy of the victors of the war as evidenced in the structure of the UN Security Council, was also quite truly based in principles of equality between nations and the right to self determination.

In the several decades that followed the end of WWII the world saw a global anti-colonial and anti-imperialist uprising, primarily in the third world, which - despite some frustrations at the hands of US imperialism - was able to make good on the promises and values enshrined in the UN Charter. While the US continued to violate human rights and international law in some major instances; in South-east Asia and Central America in particular - its primary interaction with the world at large was not reliant on lawlessness as an operating system.

The US was agreeable to this post-war legal order, because through the international financial system of banks and parent structures like the IMF and WTO, they could dominate and control the third world countries economically even after they had won formal independence and sovereignty.

As many of these countries grew up, and in some ways surpassed the US, the method of maintaining hegemony through economic domination, that could counter the legal equality of nation-states, became less and less useful proportionally.

This explains in large part why the US has needed to defy international law as its primary operating system in order to hold on to or regain its once dominant position.

The combined forces of China, Russia, and Iran on the Eurasian continent cannot likely be defeated. The US is keenly aware of this, but for reasons of its own internal political and military culture, required 'evidence' in the form of a massively successful air campaign on the part of the Russians. This is what the Russians delivered today, and that was probably the main reason for it.

So what was said today behind closed doors?

What has probably in fact happened is a series of ultimatums were given by either side, but Russia is holding the cards. The US's primary bargaining tactic is to overplay its hand, and to bluff. Russia being aware of this, and aware of the delicate and sensitive US position given its newly discovered mortality, probably politely nodded in agreement to the US's threatening and outrageous claims and threats. All the while, however, it kept its focus on communicating their own final and unmoved position.

What has not happened is any sort of joint plan by the US and Russia to strike at ISIS targets. US media which hints at this are serving the primary role of running two kinds of interference: dissembling the reality that the US's main creation cum ally is in fact ISIS, and to make it look like the US is still part of something which smells or sounds like 'winning'.

What may have indeed happened is the US negotiating on behalf of Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to provide safe exit corridors for their foreign mercenary/extremist (hybrid) army groupments, and other important leaders, experts, and trainers. There is a growing view among many analysts that among the real refugees coming into Europe, are important leaders and trainers from ISIS/FSA/Al Nusra who got a bit ahead of the curve and made their exits a few weeks sooner.

What Kerry publicly said which is of critical importance - and what gives away the real nature of today's talk - that is US capitulation militarily - was this:

"As Sergey said to you, we agreed on the imperative of a ... as soon as possible, perhaps as soon as tomorrow, but as soon as possible - having a military to military deconflec .. deconfliction discussion, meeting, conference, whichever, whatever could be done as soon as possible, because we agree on the urgency of that deconfliction."

A military deconfliction discussion is neutrally postured face saving language for something more adequately described as 'disentanglement' or perhaps even 'terms of conditional surrender'.

To stare right in the face of the obvious - we must call it as it is. For two parties to have a deconfliction discussion - they must be in conflict. This is what was at the core of this last minute talk.

Another very significant thing that was not mentioned publicly was any talk of Syrian President Assad resigning from office.

There is little doubt who - between Kerry and Lavrov - begged for this emergency meeting to take place.

Outside of this more or less outright admission of defeat on the part of the US, is the similarity this has to the Debaltsevo situation and the Minsk Agreement.

This serves as a parallel to the Ukraine conflict where we saw the Debaltsevo cauldron, and the surrounding of what Motorola claimed publicly were NATO soldiers (whether in mercenary formations like Greystone/ Blackwater/ Xe/ Academi was not important), and the subsequent Minsk II Agreement built upon the defeat of the US proxy forces at Russian proxy force hands.

We also therefore must speculate as to whether combatants from the MI6, CIA, Mosssad and other secret military/special forces/ and/or the western mercenary outfits linked to these were among today's casualties.

And like with the Minsk II agreement, we will see the US continually attempt to sabotage it or work contrary to its own stated commitments.

At the same time, Russia is well aware of this, and will rely more heavily on its primary strength in today's emerging world: multi-polarity.

The US alliance is falling apart, and any wrong move which smells like a greater conflict could send the fragile US economy into shock mode. It has been difficult enough to use debt spending and an increasing debt-to-GDP ratio to simulate (not stimulate) growth. It has been difficult enough to shift numbers around to make a growing unemployment rate look like a shrinking one.

What Russia has essentially offered the US is also similar to September 2013 in Syria, but in heightened form, when Russia provided the US - as now - a very graceful and dignified official exit from the conflict. This came at the heels of a failed false flag attempt by the US to place the blame for a chemical weapons attack on the Syrian government.

What the US has threatened behind closed doors is that the it will double-down on its support for Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, or if you prefer 'ISIS'. This dovetails nicely with what has emerged publicly from Kerry, which is that Russia will "be allowed" to fight ISIS on its own.

To really understand how these two fit together, we need only hear from US presidential candidates like Trump, whose job it has been to float this idea. The idea is to 'let' Russia handle this fight, but with the real aim being here to increase support to ISIS with the goal of creating an Afghanistan like entanglement for Russia.

Truly, what was just said on live television at this late hour - after a long day of Russia obliterating at least 8 ISIS targets in 20 sorties - must be at odds with what was said behind closed doors.

As Lavrov spoke in the clear and transparent language of Russian diplomacy, Kerry had no choice but to nod his head in agreement, as if Lavrov's words were his own choosing.

Evidence that Kerry was forced into an agreement not to his liking behind closed doors, were his final public statements.

Conclusively and to summarize these; that while the two men had just tentatively agreed on points of principle - a Unified Syria, a Sovereign Syria, a Democratic Syria, a Secular Syria, and a Syria that is home to all ethnic and confessional groups - he would have to take this back to Obama and 'his team' for final approval.

In a diplomatic faux pas and incorrectly speaking for Lavrov, Kerry also included that Lavrov would likely be taking this back to Putin for approval. But it is not likely that Lavrov needs any further consultation given that what was agreed to were probably the full list of requirements from the Russian side. Victory does not typically require approval from above to accept - terms of surrender often do.

The difference is, Lavrov came, in standard Russian form, with the full authority of state to enter into the agreement of their own choosing, to begin with. Lavrov, like the gentleman he is, allowed the child-like Kerry to engage in a little more face-saving damage control.

Of course, Lavrov will not object publicly or correct Kerry. Russia' position of strength is not based on what Kerry thinks or does not think, says or does not say, but rather on its position in the international community.

Russia's strength lays with its partners in the region and on its actions founded firmly in principles of international law, and its military capacity - as resoundingly demonstrated today.

Russian strategy has been based upon its understanding between the relationship of actual power and support 'in principle' from the international community. As the US adventure has run out of gas, and run out of prospects for success - there has been an equal decrease in support from the international community. Filling the support vacuum, is Russia.

It is indeed very interesting to witness in real time the increased isolation of the US, and its decreased ability to make unilateral actions and demands upon the world. It is amazing to see that Kerry on live TV publicly surrendered the US position on Syria to Russia.

[Magda Hassan]

Spot on! I was just watching this joint media statement on tv and was thinking much the same. Joachin has made some excellent points.

[Lauren Johnson]

Spot on! I was just watching this joint media statement on tv and was thinking much the same. Joachin has made some excellent points.

I fear that this is only a tactical retreat. Expect something and "catalyzing." ::pullhairout::

[Magda Hassan]

For sure. But the US doesn't want the mask to fall off in public. And it is finding it very difficult to hang on to it. More contortions than a circus acrobat. But there is much left for them to do. And I'm sure they will try. But now the place they have to work from has much more limitations for them. It will be harder.

[Paul Rigby]

The US Drive for Hegemony Has Been Exhausted… Nearly

Running the world by lies and duplicity has its limits, and now the neocon strategies are failing badly

Timofei Sergeitsev (RIA Novosti)

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us...ly/ri10777

The author is prominent political consultant who has worked with leading Russian and Ukrainian politicians. He is also a film producer and a member of the Alexander Zinoviev Club at the International News Agency "Rossiya Segodnya". He is currently working on developing a national ideology for Russia.

This article was originally published at RIA Novosti. Translated by Sergei Malygin.

US world domination: conspiracy or public strategy?

What was the reason for the crowds of refugees from the Middle East to rush to Germany? What triggered the Volkswagen scandals? Why is it, that news of German cars polluting the environment in the US became public knowledge immediately after a Normandy 4' meeting took place in Paris, with both Germany and France pressing Kiev to promptly move forward with the peace process?

Shinzō Abe, the Japanese Prime Minister announces his intent to resume dialogue with Russia, invites Vladimir Putin to visit and suddenly, we are informed that Islamic State militants are using new Toyotas. Meaning what, that Japan is delivering cars to terrorists? Why does the US bomb Syria and not fight the Islamic State, all the while declaring it a major threat to humanity? Why did the US kill Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi if there were no gains or tangible benefits to be had? What was the real motivation in bombing Yugoslavia? Who is it the US actually wants to weaken? Russia, or its "allies" in Europe?

This much can be stated straight away - there is no "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory" doesn't exist as a theory. What does exist is a machinery accusing one of promoting them in order to silence any voices of reason, essentially turning us all into imbeciles willing to deny the existence of anything we cannot outright see or touch with our hands. In essence, an attempt to relegate culturally and politically developed nations to a primitive state with no knowledge of science, politics, governance, or even medicine.

At the same time, lying is a widely used instrument in politics and diplomacy. The American political class believes that it knows the exact measure of lying needed over a given period of time. The lies must be super intensive and must be kept alive as long as needed to hide the agenda behind them. Once the desired result is achieved, there is no more need for any excuses: there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So what? We knew that and now what? Too late to be waving fists now after the battle in Iraq is long over. Well then, good riddance.

The point however, lies not only in the "logic of the lie" and the techniques of its application through propaganda and politicians themselves. The entire twentieth century was marked by the ever more important roles of supra-national political structures - political clubs, parties, classes, and oligarchies of international monopolies. Countries have increasingly become instruments in the hands of these groups and structures, political elites not bound to and not limited by governments or presidential succession, not accountable to any democratic institutions.

Playing on a grand chessboard

Regardless of who occupies the office of the President of the United States, the Congress or the Senate, or the personalities amongst the officials of the State Department and intelligence agencies, the political strategy of the US remains unchanged and consistent. It is no secret and thus, referring to it as any sort of conspiracy is out of the question.

In their own circles, the political elites and domestic institutions of the US are extremely forthcoming. One book that lays out all the reasons behind the actions of the US on the international stage in very accurate detail, nuances included, is not an analysis but rather a blueprint published in 1997 (in Russian 1999). I am referring to "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The main objective of the US is clearly defined within it. Namely, the pursuit of a new form of world hegemony and includes the methods to be used to achieve it: by gaining control of Eurasia, the key to which is to pull Ukraine away from the Russian sphere of influence, bringing it into the geographical fold of Europe.

In no uncertain terms, this scant publication represents a real time plan of action, which we have witnessed being implemented over the years. A political instrument of the plan - the so-called Trilateral Commission - was founded by the same aforementioned Brzezinski and David Rockefeller in 1973. US policy is not limited to "protecting interests" or "responding to challenges," it is a thoroughly designed, all encompassing political project.

The strategy of the US in the 20th century radically transformed from a doctrine of isolationism towards internationalist control of European affairs. This took place by means of the all-out war between European countries, in which the United States played a limited and isolated role. At the expense of this war, they built upon the situation and have strived to keep the conflict going since that time - first in the form of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and now through an artificially induced confrontation with Russia. Not limiting itself to that, conflicts must now be spread across the continent.

Russia resists

In Syria however, this tactic has encountered a serious setback in the form of an effective intervention by Russia - both militarily and politically. A formidable obstacle to the continuation of the United States' strategy has also developed in Ukraine.

In fact, at present the United States has almost completely exhausted much of its energy on this project of revamping US hegemony, within the circumstances that unfolded after the dissolution of the USSR.

All that they conceived, was implemented; but control over Eurasia was not achieved. On the contrary, the ensuing processes pushed Russia into the field of Eurasian political planning, where it is able to offer a system of collective security on the continent from a Eurasian geopolitical and geo-economic standpoint, replacing the outdated "European only" NATO and ridding the US of its hegemony, in principle from Lisbon to Vladivostok, as many Europeans already desire.