{"id":78147,"date":"2018-09-02T18:15:22","date_gmt":"2018-09-02T18:15:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2018\/09\/02\/la-politiquesysteme-dopee-aurussiagate\/"},"modified":"2018-09-02T18:15:22","modified_gmt":"2018-09-02T18:15:22","slug":"la-politiquesysteme-dopee-aurussiagate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2018\/09\/02\/la-politiquesysteme-dopee-aurussiagate\/","title":{"rendered":"La politiqueSyst\u00e8me dop\u00e9e au\u00a0Russiagate<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

La politiqueSyst\u00e8me dop\u00e9e au Russiagate<\/em><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Le commentateur russe Sergei Latichev a d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 un texte d’analyse d’une r\u00e9cente audition devant la commission des affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res du S\u00e9nat US, de Wess Mitchell, assistant au Secr\u00e9taire d’État pour l’Europe et l’Eurasie (poste où il a succ\u00e9d\u00e9 \u00e0 Victoria Nuland, la fameuse architecte du coup d’État du Maidan, \u00e0 Kiev, en f\u00e9vrier 2014). L’int\u00e9r\u00eat de cette audition est que rien, absolument rien n’est dissimul\u00e9e des ambitions des USA, ou dans tous les cas du d\u00e9partement d’État, de poursuivre une super-politiqueSyst\u00e8me<\/a> <\/strong>(ou une politiqueSyst\u00e8me super-turbo<\/em><\/strong>, puisqu’Obama lui-m\u00eame avait trouv\u00e9 la formule de la politiqueSyst\u00e8me-turbo<\/em><\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Pompeo, le nouveau secr\u00e9taire d’État-poids lourd avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9mis les fondements de la chose dans un discours d’une exceptionnelle brutalit\u00e9, où Dieu \u00e9tait convoqu\u00e9 en urgence pour donner son absolution<\/strong>, – c’\u00e9tait rapport\u00e9 sur ce site le 23 mai 2018<\/a> :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

« Cela se traduit par ce que Pompeo affirme \u00eatre une \u00ab\u00a0agressivit\u00e9 justifi\u00e9e par la justesse de la connaissance\u00a0\u00bb <\/strong>(\u00ab\u00a0aggressiveness born of righteous knowledge\u00a0\u00bb) expliquant le volont\u00e9 des USA de soumettre par la coercition (jusqu’\u00e0 la force militaire s’il le faut, cela va de soi avec un joyeux entrain) <\/strong>les parties r\u00e9calcitrantes devant cette h\u00e9g\u00e9monie d’inspiration divine… Par \u00ab\u00a0parties\u00a0\u00bb, nous entendons cela va de soi l’Iran, la Cor\u00e9e du Nord, la Syrie pour les crises les plus pressantes ; bien sûr la Russie et la Chine pour la concurrence inacceptable de souverainet\u00e9 et de puissance ; bien sûr aussi les alli\u00e9 du bloc-BAO qui entraveraient cet effort, notamment les Europ\u00e9ens qui doivent accepter avec joie et entrain leur r\u00f4le de \u00ab\u00a0vassaux privil\u00e9gi\u00e9s dans la pratique de la vassalit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong><\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Sergei Latichev met en \u00e9vidence la description op\u00e9rationnelle de cette politique, pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e par Mitchell comme une quasi-nouveaut\u00e9 alors qu’il s’agit d’une resuc\u00e9e, monstrueusement amplifi\u00e9e, – au plus les USA essuient d\u00e9faites et catastrophes, au plus ils affirment l’ampleur maximaliste de leur in\u00e9vitable h\u00e9g\u00e9monie sur le monde, – de la \u00ab\u00a0doctrine-Wolfowitz\u00a0\u00bb (voir « To Finish In a Burlesque of An Empire <\/em>», de William Pfaff<\/a>, du 12 mars 1992) et des diverses \u00e9jaculations des neocons <\/em>qui ont suivi. L’ambition du plan Pompeo-Mitchell est beaucoup plus massive et pr\u00e9cise que le pensum de Wolfowitz, alors qu’entretemps il y a eu toutes ces catastrophes et l’effondrement d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 commenc\u00e9e de la puissance US. La coordination et la logique sont parfaites<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Dans le propos de Mitchell, la destruction par d\u00e9sint\u00e9gration de la Russie puis de la Chine, par tous les moyens dont pour l’instant l’\u00e9tranglement \u00e9conomique par les sanctions, est assum\u00e9e comme une in\u00e9luctable cons\u00e9quence de la strat\u00e9gie. Tout cela, d’une certaine fa\u00e7on, n’est pas vraiment nouveau, – ce qui l’est par contre, est de le dire si ouvertement. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Il y a une explication \u00e0 cette audace dialectique, par ailleurs bien risqu\u00e9e… C’est la partie qui est finalement, – selon notre point de vue, – la plus int\u00e9ressante de l’intervention de Mitchell. Il s’agit de l’int\u00e9gration de cette politique ext\u00e9rieure de totale d\u00e9structuration par la puissante pouss\u00e9e du d\u00e9terminisme-narrativiste<\/a> <\/strong>de la narrative <\/em>compl\u00e9t\u00e9e, depuis 2014-2015 (\u00ab\u00a0coup de Kiev\u00a0\u00bb et entr\u00e9e dans la course pr\u00e9sidentielle de Trump), par le Russiagate <\/em>et tout ce qui va autour, \u00e9tendu \u00e0 toutes les zones de tension de la terre <\/strong>(Syrie, approvisionnement en \u00e9nergie de la Russie vers l’UE, Ukraine, etc.). Dans tous ces domaines, qui conduisent \u00e0 une \u00ab\u00a0riposte\u00a0\u00bb de Washington, – alors qu’on sait \u00e9videmment que Washington et la politiqueSyst\u00e8me plus sollicit\u00e9e que jamais sont les producteurs de ces d\u00e9sordres per\u00e7us comme des \u00ab\u00a0agressions\u00a0\u00bb, – les USA ont \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9couvert\u00a0\u00bb, ou bien \u00ab\u00a0per\u00e7u\u00a0\u00bb enfin justement, que la \u00ab\u00a0menace\u00a0\u00bb russe avait une logique et un objectif compl\u00e8tement diff\u00e9rents de ce que l’on croyait<\/strong>, qu’il s’agissait en fait d’une politique de conqu\u00eate du monde et de d\u00e9membrement des USA.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sergei Latchev exprime justement ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne de cette fa\u00e7on : « Il y a des passages extr\u00eamement curieux dans le discours de Mitchell. En discutant de la politique de la Russie mais sans avoir la possibilit\u00e9 de savoir de quoi il s’agit en v\u00e9rit\u00e9, il applique aux actes de la Russie la logique et les m\u00e9thodes de politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re des USA<\/em>… » On retrouve alors ais\u00e9ment, mais pouss\u00e9 \u00e0 l’extr\u00eame obsessionnel et parano\u00efaque d’une situation de paroxysme d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e \u00e0 partir de l’attaque 9\/11, ce que PhG d\u00e9crit pour exposer « L’Am\u00e9ricain vu par Sartre<\/a><\/em> ». Cela ferait que Poutine institu\u00e9 \u00ab\u00a0m\u00e9chant catastrophique\u00a0\u00bb et \u00ab\u00a0axe du Mal\u00a0\u00bb \u00e0 lui tout seul, aurait produit en v\u00e9rit\u00e9 une politique qui ob\u00e9it \u00e0 une conception am\u00e9ricaniste totale de la politique (cette d\u00e9couverte servant elle-m\u00eame \u00e0 justifier et \u00e0 donner son impulsion \u00e0 la politique US, qui serait de la m\u00eame forme, mais par d\u00e9finition vertueuse et productrice de Bien au contraire du Mal poutinien) :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

« Cette \u00ab\u00a0identit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb de l’am\u00e9ricanisme est, par un processus d’inversion qui est devenu une d\u00e9marche constante de notre \u00e9poque, une \u00ab\u00a0non-identit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong>, destin\u00e9e \u00e0 \u00eatre universelle, où chacun est personne puisqu’il peut \u00eatre tout le monde<\/strong>, et bien entendu et avec enthousiasme, vice-versa. (Ainsi comprenons-nous mieux comment, pour l’Am\u00e9ricain, le \u00ab\u00a0Rest of the World\u00a0\u00bb n’existe pas puisqu’il est lui-m\u00eame, en m\u00eame temps, l’Am\u00e9rique et le \u00ab\u00a0Rest of the World\u00a0\u00bb ; que, par cons\u00e9quent, le \u00ab\u00a0Rest of the World\u00a0\u00bb ne peut-\u00eatre que l’Am\u00e9rique ; qu’il n’y a, par cons\u00e9quent, rien d’autre \u00e0 en attendre et y comprendre que ce qu’il sait de l’Am\u00e9rique.)<\/em>[…]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

» \u00ab\u00a0Au contraire <\/em>[des Fran\u00e7ais, des Europ\u00e9ens, de toutes les grandes nations du \u00ab\u00a0vieux monde\u00a0\u00bb], la sp\u00e9cialit\u00e9 de l’Am\u00e9ricain c’est de tenir sa pens\u00e9e pour universelle<\/em>.\u00a0\u00bb »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Cela conduit donc \u00e0 une description g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la politique russe comme un \u00ab\u00a0double\u00a0\u00bb de la politique US (voir Russiagate<\/em>), mais chronologiquement invers\u00e9e et moralement invertie… On pourrait aussi bien faire dire aux am\u00e9ricanistes que \u00ab\u00a0ce sont les Russes qui ont commenc\u00e9 les premiers, nous obligeant, nous Am\u00e9ricains modestes, retenus et respectueux des us et coutumes du droit international, \u00e0 intervenir avec vigueur pour emp\u00eacher l’irr\u00e9parable\u00a0\u00bb (la r\u00e9ussite de l’offensive g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de subversion de Poutine et de \u00ab\u00a0sa\u00a0\u00bb Russie) : « Notre strat\u00e9gie est anim\u00e9e par la prise de conscience du fait que la menace russe a \u00e9volu\u00e9 au-del\u00e0 de la simple menace externe ou militaire<\/em>. [Nous avons observ\u00e9 que cette menace] comprend des op\u00e9rations d’influence sans pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent, orchestr\u00e9es par le Kremlin <\/em>[…] sur le sol de nos alli\u00e9s et m\u00eame ici chez nous aux États-Unis<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

» …La menace des op\u00e9rations d’influence russe <\/em>[aux USA m\u00eame] existait bien avant notre \u00e9lection pr\u00e9sidentielle de 2016 et se poursuivra longtemps apr\u00e8s ce cycle \u00e9lectoral, et apr\u00e8s le prochain, et apr\u00e8s le prochain<\/em>… », etc., etc…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Ainsi, tous les fondements de la politiqueSyst\u00e8me que suivent les USA, \u00e0 l’origine depuis le document-Wolfowitz de 1992, puis avec le 11 septembre, cette politiqueSyst\u00e8me \u00e0 l’origine de toutes les guerres, interventions, etc., ayant tourn\u00e9 au \u00ab\u00a0chaos\u00a0\u00bb apr\u00e8s les multiples \u00e9checs US, \u00e9tant transform\u00e9e en une \u00ab\u00a0strat\u00e9gie coh\u00e9rente\u00a0\u00bb (la fameuse \u00ab\u00a0strat\u00e9gie du chaos\u00a0\u00bb \u00e0 laquelle r\u00eavent nombre d’analystes, surtout et pseudo-antiSyst\u00e8me, pour d\u00e9chiffrer dans ce magmas de d\u00e9sordre am\u00e9ricaniste une coh\u00e9rence strat\u00e9gique et une pens\u00e9e \u00ab\u00a0complotiste\u00a0\u00bb venue de loin), – tout cela finit par \u00eatre r\u00e9troactivement mis au compte, au cr\u00e9dit ou au d\u00e9bit c’est selon, de Poutine lui-m\u00eame<\/strong> ! (En fait, avant m\u00eame qu’il soit au pouvoir, si l’on remonte \u00e0 la doctrine-Wolfowitz…) C’est bien lui qui a conduit, forc\u00e9, contraint les USA, \u00e9galement dans la conception et la r\u00e9alisation de cette \u00ab\u00a0strat\u00e9gie du chaos\u00a0\u00bb ; tout cela est fort bienvenu, puisque permettant d’habiller d’habits somptueux et de vertus extra-lucides le nombre incroyable d’\u00e9checs et de catastrophes am\u00e9ricanistes enregistr\u00e9s au moins depuis 9\/11<\/strong>… « Ayant accus\u00e9 la Russie moderne d’utiliser les m\u00e9thodes \u00ab\u00a0bolch\u00e9viques\u00a0\u00bb et \u00ab\u00a0sovi\u00e9tiques\u00a0\u00bb conduisant \u00e0 l’affrontement g\u00e9opolitique avec l’Am\u00e9rique, Mitchell fait de Poutine le \u00ab\u00a0p\u00e8re\u00a0\u00bb de la doctrine et de la politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re am\u00e9ricaine, \u00ab\u00a0une strat\u00e9gie du chaos pour un effet strat\u00e9gique<\/strong>\u00ab\u00a0. <\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ainsi le simulacre de la politiqueSyst\u00e8me \u00e0 la sauce Russiagate <\/em>est-il imput\u00e9, par le biais de la narrative <\/em>d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e par \u00ab\u00a0D.C.-la-folle\u00a0\u00bb et ses divers sc\u00e9naristes, \u00e0 Poutine qui devient lui-m\u00eame un simulacre forg\u00e9 pour \u00eatre le p\u00e9ch\u00e9 originel de cet affreux d\u00e9sordre mondial que les USA veulent bien, une fois de plus, prendre en charge pour le bien de tous<\/strong>, – une fois Russie et Chine r\u00e9duites en une (grosse) poign\u00e9e de bantoustans <\/em>de circonstance..<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

« Faut-il se pr\u00e9parer \u00e0 la troisi\u00e8me guerre mondiale ?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

» D’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale et quoi qu’on fasse, il a \u00e9t\u00e9 act\u00e9 par Mitchell que les États-Unis se pr\u00e9paraient \u00e0 un conflit universel, une nouvelle guerre mondiale et que \u00ab\u00a0l’objectif principal de la politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re de l’administration est de pr\u00e9parer notre nation \u00e0 relever ce d\u00e9fi en renfor\u00e7ant syst\u00e9matiquement les moyens et les fondements politiques du pouvoir am\u00e9ricain \u00ab\u00a0. La voie vers la victoire est la destruction de la Russie, contre laquelle il faut, selon le plan du D\u00e9partement d’État, incliner et unir ses voisins en les faisant danser au son de la flute de Washington et des vassaux am\u00e9ricains en Europe<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

» La diplomatie, selon Mitchell, est un \u00e9l\u00e9ment mineur dans les relations avec la Russie, que les cercles influents de Moscou refusent obstin\u00e9ment de reconnaître, car ils ont l’illusion de pouvoir parvenir \u00e0 \u00ab\u00a0s’entendre\u00a0\u00bb avec Washington sur autre chose que la capitulation<\/em>… »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Ainsi est compl\u00e8tement justifi\u00e9e, par une n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d\u00e9fensive contre les ambitions d’h\u00e9g\u00e9monie mondiale de la Russie (et de la Chine pour suivre, pour sûr), la politiqueSyst\u00e8me que suivent les USA, et dont le but fondamental est la destruction, si possible par fracturation et d\u00e9sint\u00e9gration, des deux grands ennemis, la Russie et la Chine… Enfin, lorsque nous \u00e9crivons \u00ab\u00a0les USA\u00a0\u00bb, il nous paraît possible que l’expression soit un peu ambitieuse et il n’est pas assur\u00e9 que cette politique soit celle du pr\u00e9sident<\/strong>. Par contre, on peut \u00eatre sûr que John McCain<\/a>, – paix \u00e0 son \u00e2me, – l’aurait approuv\u00e9e dans les termes où elle est dite par Mitchell.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

(Tout le monde oublie, dans ce concert de vocif\u00e9rations, que l’entreprise mondiale de d\u00e9structuration et la \u00ab\u00a0strat\u00e9gie du chaos\u00a0\u00bb avec au bout la d\u00e9sint\u00e9gration de la Russie et de la Chine en passant par une Troisi\u00e8me Guerre mondiale bien temp\u00e9r\u00e9e, est, parall\u00e8lement, et \u00e0 un rythme \u00e9bouriffant, en train de d\u00e9vorer \u00ab\u00a0D.C.-la-folle\u00a0\u00bb et les USA eux-m\u00eames<\/strong>, et c’est alors comme si ces menaces nous venaient d’un Mitchell confortablement install\u00e9 dans un transat, sur le pont d\u00e9j\u00e0 tr\u00e8s fortement inclin\u00e9 du Titanic<\/em><\/strong>…<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Le Saker-US<\/a> <\/em>a mis en ligne le 1er<\/sup>septembre, en m\u00eame temps que le site Stalkerzone.org<\/a><\/em>, le texte de Sergei Latichev publi\u00e9 d’abord en russe<\/a> et traduit par Ollie Richardson et Angelina Siard sous le titre « The US State Department Openly Outlined Its Plans to Guarantee America’s Global Primacy<\/em> ». (Nous avons adapt\u00e9 le titre pour des raisons techniques.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n

_________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

US Plans to Guarantee America’s Global Primacy<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Speaking in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the assistant to the Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Wess Mitchell stated that the US punishes Russia because Moscow prevents Washington from establishing control over Eurasia in order to restore its world supremacy…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The US, at last, openly admitted why they fight against Russia, and that they won’t accept any other outcome in the current confrontation with Moscow besides its capitulation, because America’s world supremacy is impossible without total control over Eurasia, which so far they don’t have.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

All of this isn’t the conjectures of \u00ab\u00a0conspiracy theorists\u00a0\u00bb or \u00ab\u00a0Putin’s propaganda\u00a0\u00bb, but the quintessence of the policy of the US stated the other day by the assistant to the Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Wess Mitchell in his speech in front of members of Senate Foreign Relations Committee.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Mitchell explained to the Senators that the State Department’s financing depends on the essence of the US’ policy towards Russia. He named the \u00ab\u00a0recognition that America has entered a period of big-power competition\u00a0\u00bb as \u00ab\u00a0the starting point of the National Security Strategy\u00a0\u00bb, having emphasised that the previous administrations weren’t sufficiently prepared for this and didn’t prepare the country for victory in this competition.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The senior representative of the State Department further emphasised: \u00ab\u00a0Contrary to the hopeful assumptions of previous administrations, Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest US primacy and leadership in the 21st Century\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

And after that Mitchell detonated a bomb. However, this will be a surprise only for those who don’t understand that Russia is already in a state of active hybrid war with the US:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

And here Mitchell detonated an atomic bomb, with terrible destructive consequences, and not just an ordinary bomb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Firstly, establishing total control over Eurasia is declared as the most important task for the US. A claim is made for the clear victory of the civilisation of the Sea over the civilisation of Land, the center and the only pillar of support of which is Russia. Secondly, Washington openly declared a priority of the most strictest demands of geopolitics of the most catastrophic character (The Sea must flood the Land) over any human rights trivialities used in \u00ab\u00a0public diplomacy\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Thirdly, a challenge is laid down to the very existence of Russia – it can stop its domination in its own geographical area of existence only having become fragmented or being divided into small puppet states. Fourthly, Russia is called a \u00ab\u00a0hostile\u00a0\u00bb country. This implies that hybrid war was declared to it long ago, and that the Americans will try, as Mitchell noted earlier, to win. Thus, he recognised that Moscow’s attempts to reach an agreement with Washington can be welcomed only if it is a question of capitulation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Well and, lastly and fifthly, Mitchell’s mention of \u00ab\u00a0hostile powers\u00a0\u00bb in plural can only mean that he meant the strategic ally of Russia – China, the only independent power on the periphery of Eurasia. The US considers China to be its main economic competitor and military threat, which in some respects is just as mighty as the Russian threat, and in the long term even more dangerous. Thus, \u00ab\u00a0preventing the domination\u00a0\u00bb also of China in the open spaces of Eurasia provides this same scenario as for Russia: dismantling the Celestial Empire into which that compete for the attention and favor of Washington, and which don’t lay down any claims concerning geopolitics.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

That’s the scale of things.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Should we prepare for the third world war?<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

In general, whatever one may do, Mitchell declared that the US prepares for a universal conflict, a new world war, and \u00ab\u00a0the central aim of the administration’s foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power\u00a0\u00bb. The way to victory in it is the shattering of Russia, against which it is necessary, according to the plan of the State Department, to incline and unite its neighbors dancing to the tune of Washington and the American vassals in Europe.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Diplomacy, according to Mitchell, is a minor element in relations with Russia, which, by the way, influential circles in Moscow stubbornly refuse to recognise, cherishing the illusion to \u00ab\u00a0agree\u00a0\u00bb with Washington about something besides capitulation. The senior representative of the State Department clearly designated that \u00ab\u00a0our Russia policy proceeds from the recognition that, to be effective, US diplomacy toward Russia must be backed by ‘military power that is second to none and fully integrated with our allies and all of our instruments of power'\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Mitchell bragged that for the last one and a half years (when, we will add, the \u00ab\u00a0Russian agent\u00a0\u00bb Donald Trump was already sat in the White House) the US obtained from allies in NATO a $40 billion increase in military expenditure and \u00ab\u00a0achieved virtually all policy objectives\u00a0\u00bb in this direction, including the establishment within the framework of the North Atlantic alliance of two new Commands, the implementation of hybrid war preparations, and \u00ab\u00a0major, multi-year initiatives to bolster the mobility, readiness, and capability of the Alliance\u00a0\u00bb. Moreover, here it obviously means offense and not defense. And it is not only about NATO countries.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The language of Mitchell reveals that the US considers its policy towards Russia in military categories: \u00ab\u00a0We have placed particular emphasis on bolstering the states of frontline Europe that are most susceptible to Russian geopolitical pressure. In Ukraine and Georgia, we lifted the previous administration’s restrictions on the acquisition of defensive weapons for resisting Russian territorial aggression\u00a0\u00bb. The Caucasus, the Black Sea region, even Central Europe is called by Mitchell zones of geopolitical combat against Russia, competing \u00ab\u00a0for hearts and minds\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

And here the US State Department according to him, finds itself on the front line: all 50 American diplomatic missions in Europe and Eurasia \u00ab\u00a0develop, coordinate and execute tailored action plans for rebuffing Russian influence operations in their host countries\u00a0\u00bb. In this regard the Balkans merited a special mention, where \u00ab\u00a0American diplomacy has played a lead role in resolving the Greece Macedonia name dispute and is engaging with Serbia and Kosovo to propel the EU-led dialogue\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

It is unlikely that serious people had even the slightest doubts about who Russia and Greece owe for the crisis in their relations, that it’s not at all that Russian diplomats tried to disrupt mutual understanding between Athens and Skopje, and that they \u00ab\u00a0bribed\u00a0\u00bb someone, sometimes using for this purpose \u00ab\u00a0spies in cassocks\u00a0\u00bb. The official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova, for example, directly pointed a finger at the Americans as the creators of the diplomatic scandal, declaring: \u00ab\u00a0we know\u00a0\u00bb. And now it is also Mitchell who confirmed that it is the State Department that did everything, and not the despised by Greeks Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, who simply ran across to the side of Russia’s enemy.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Defeating Russia economically<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0In tandem\u00a0\u00bb with these efforts aimed at shattering Russia, according to Mitchell, the US carries out a whole series of events of an economic nature: 217 Russian physical and legal entities are under sanctions, six diplomatic missions are closed, \u00ab\u00a060 spies [were] removed from U.S. soil\u00a0\u00bb, and the State Department \u00ab\u00a0closely and effectively coordinated with European allies\u00a0\u00bb. Here, by the way, Mitchell involuntarily admitted for what reason Anglo-Saxon intelligence agencies needed the \u00ab\u00a0Skripal affair\u00a0\u00bb and who organised this provocation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The senior representative of State Department expressed satisfaction with the course of the economic war with Russia: \u00ab\u00a0on average, sanctioned Russian firms\u00a0\u00bb lose about a quarter of their operational revenue, the total asset evaluation of such a company falls by 50%, and it is thus compelled to reduce its staff by a third. According to the estimates of State Department experts given by Mitchell, \u00ab\u00a0our sanctions, cumulatively, have cost the Russian government tens of billions of dollars on top of the broader impact on state-owned sectors and the chilling effect of U.S. sanctions on the Russian economy\u00a0\u00bb. Mitchell gave the situation with the RUSAL company, and also attacks on the Russian ruble, which strongly lost weight for this reason, as an example of successful hybrid war against Russia.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

We will crush them until they capitulate<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

However, if Russia stops resisting the US’ expansion in Eurasia – first of all, in Ukraine, stops countering the US’ policy in Syria – which Mitchell characterised as \u00ab\u00a0Russian aggression\u00a0\u00bb, and we will wave the white flag, then America will be ready to negotiate capitulation: \u00ab\u00a0But in all of these areas, it is up to Russia, not America, to take the next step. Our policy remains unchanged: steady cost-imposition until Russia changes course\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

There are some more curious moments in Mitchell’s speech. By arguing about the policy of Russia, but without having the opportunity to know what it really consists of, he attributes American logic and its foreign policy methods to the actions of Moscow.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Self-exposure<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

Here are quotes:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Our strategy is animated by the realization that the threat from Russia has evolved beyond being simply an external or military one; it includes unprecedentedly brazen influence operations orchestrated by the Kremlin (in reality – Washington – ed) on the soil of our allies and even here at home in the United States\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0The threat from Russian influence operations existed long before our 2016 presidential election and will continue long after this election cycle, or the next, or the next. As the recent Facebook purges reveal, the Russian state has promoted fringe voices on the political left, not just the right, including groups who advocate violence, the storming of federal buildings and the overthrow of the U.S. government. Russia foments and funds controversial causes – and then foments and funds the causes opposed to those causes. Putin’s thesis is that the American Constitution is an experiment that will fail if challenged in the right way from within. Putin wants to break apart the American Republic, not by influencing an election or two, but by systematically inflaming the perceived fault-lines that exist within our society\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Having accused modern Russia of using \u00ab\u00a0Bolshevist\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0Soviet\u00a0\u00bb methods in the geopolitical standoff with America, Mitchell made from Putin the \u00ab\u00a0father\u00a0\u00bb of the leading for quite some time US’ foreign policy doctrine – \u00ab\u00a0a strategy of chaos for strategic effect\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Thanks, Mr Mitchell, for your frankness.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In general, it is worth being grateful to the prominent State Department employee. Mitchell not only outlined the purposes of the US’ foreign policy, but also revealed the methods that Washington intends to use to put them into practice, he showed everyone who is ready to look at the truth in the eyes what a frightening danger the US constitutes for the rest of the world and, first of all, for Russia.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Sergei Latichev<\/h4><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La politiqueSyst\u00e8me dop\u00e9e au Russiagate Le commentateur russe Sergei Latichev a d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 un texte d’analyse d’une r\u00e9cente audition devant la commission des affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res du S\u00e9nat US, de Wess Mitchell, assistant au Secr\u00e9taire d’État pour l’Europe et l’Eurasie (poste où il a succ\u00e9d\u00e9 \u00e0 Victoria Nuland, la fameuse architecte du coup d’État du Maidan, \u00e0… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[3977,16991,3650,2622,18515,18517,3812,4846,3851,12941,916,2730,3965,18516],"class_list":["post-78147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-chine","tag-detruire","tag-hegemonie","tag-la","tag-latchev","tag-malt","tag-mike","tag-mitchell","tag-mondiale","tag-pompeo","tag-poutine","tag-russie","tag-simulacre","tag-weiss"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78147","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78147\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}