VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

According to realistic American political analysts, the Democratic Party turns into the “continuous war party”

TEO GURIELI, political analyst, has answered the Russian Mind’s questions concerning the US presidential election outcome.

Photo: History in HD

It seems that in many countries, including Russia, of course, both politicians and ordinary people had followed the American elections with attention. Even now, they are watching with unflagging attention what is happening in the American political arena. How would you evaluate the current events?

First of all, I would like to point out that I think the game is over. The US Supreme Court refused to consider the claim for revising the election outcome submitted by Texas and supported by several other states. In the middle of December, the process of a phased transfer of power to Joe Biden, who won the presidential election, began.

Trump supporters assure their associates that they still have time until mid-January, but I am sure that the rearguard actions conducted by the Republicans are self-defeating. The Democrats have relied on distortion and massive fraud during the elections, and we saw that the electoral fraud was successful: the Democrats convinced the majority of the national population that Biden would bring it peace and prosperity.

It is a fact that everyone in the United States is tired of bickering in the corridors of power, robbery in the streets, and burning shops. And many believed the Democrats that, after having come to power, they would make the country not “great” like Trump had promised, but at least peaceful. And it seems that the majority of the population is ready to forgive them everything, including the “long-running”, but completely useless Mueller Committee, which had never been able to prove that Donald Trump won the previous election thanks to the Russians; a ludicrous attempt to impeach Trump; the informational “blackout” that the liberal mass media staged with the start of Trump’s election campaign; and support for radicals and anarchists who robbed luxury shops and smashed restaurants. In other words, President Trump did not lose the election; instead, the Democrats cheated the entire America, and moreover – the rest of the world’s population.

Do you think that all attempts by the Republicans to restore justice and find out whether there really was a massive violation, will fail?

I think, over time there will be numerous exposures of the monstrous ballot fraud that took place in a number of states, long lists of phantom voters who voted for Biden will be published together with the facts of bribery of thousands of people who worked at polling stations. But when the election campaign will over, the Democrats will begin a quick and reliable cleanup of all the national political bodies, expelling the Republicans from them, together with those who still cultivate the desire for justice and denial of meanness. All facts proving that the elections were unfair and, accordingly, illegal, will be buried. And over time, the liberal mass media will be able, with the facilitation of their deafening propaganda, to do what is still considered impossible today: they will prove that all accusations of the Republicans in dishonest and illegal actions of the Democrats were false.

More than 70 million Americans have voted for Trump. Many of them openly express their rejection of the election outcome and do not want to bow to the reality. Does it mean that a confrontation time may come to the country, and there may be an internal conflict?

If it occurs, such a conflict may catalyse more serious events: armed confrontation in a number of states, major clashes with the police and the army. I hope, it will not come to that. But the fact that centrifugal forces are raising in the United States today is an objective fact. For example, Texas is preparing to announce its desire to withdraw from the United States, resentment is growing in the states that are located between the coastal states: in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, and so on. I accept that as a result of a tough political struggle, the United States will split into three countries in a few years: Western, Central, and Eastern states. Such a development of events is considered now as almost impossible, but who knows now what will happen in a few years? In any case, events of that kind would be extremely dangerous for the whole world – after all, we are talking about a nuclear power with a gigantic arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Let us hope for the best and turn to other questions. The US economy suffered quite a great damage as a result of the pandemic. Under such conditions, will it be able to find ways to restore production, and what does the new president promise to do for that?

Joe Biden is not considered a major economist, and Kamala Harris has an even lower rating in this field. Obviously, when beginning to fulfil their official duties, they will first of all attempt to destroy everything in the economy what Trump has created during his presidency. It suffices to refer to their own speeches. They gave promises, not just generous, but completely meaningless, because it is almost impossible to complete them under the current conditions. Recall that they believe it is realistic to provide illegal immigrants with benefits and medical care, and their children with free education. Note that at the same time no idea was voiced in Biden’s pre-election economic program, that would be distinguished by its originality, thoughtfulness, a new approach to the economic situation in the country, primarily in terms of fight against poverty and unemployment and reduction of the tax burden imposed on ordinary Americans.

Photo: Gayatri Malhotra

What do you think can serve as inflammable material in the programs of this Democratic duo?

There are two dimensions here, one is internal, and another is external. If we talk about the internal one, then I cannot skip the following item in Kamala Harris’s program: she plans to force all Americans who have weapons to give them up to the government against some consideration. Let me remind you that now there are approximately 394 million firearms on hand in the United States. Many Americans believe that this will lead to an internal conflict, where the War Between the States would appear like a short-term collision among soccer fans.

For obvious reasons, we are primarily interested in the external dimension. After all, we are talking about the global security, about the security of Russia. What is our programme for tomorrow?

Russia’s position remained complicated during Trump’s presidency. But I feel that it will be even more difficult to us with Biden. Because he will enjoy the support of not only liberals, but also radicals, anarchists, in general, all leftists, who, before the elections, repeatedly received moral support from him – even when they were engaged in outrages. Having broken the resistance of the Republicans, he will achieve a kind of quasi-unification and will receive carte blanche for any action on the international stage. Let us recall that Biden never had either his own position or his own program: he has always been Obama’s puppet, and now he is engaged in continuing the Obamisation of the United States.

Do you think that US foreign policy under Biden will be fundamentally different from that of the Trump administration?

I think that the difference in their positions will be considerable – in particular, in relation to those global problems that may lead to an international conflict and a global war. President Trump promised to stop sending American soldiers to trouble spots and reduce their presence abroad. Instead, every time he faced a worryingly powerful reaction of his generals, who immediately began arguing that the US security would be threatened in case if they fail to destroy another Afghan village with American mortars. Because the Democrats’ position was always different. According to realistic American political analysts, the Democratic Party turns into the “continuous war party”.

We have to make a reservation right here: this party has always been of a such kind. Democratic President Truman ordered to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He also launched the Korean war, in which the USA involved Australia, Great Britain, and even “neutral” Sweden. America lost over 36 thousand soldiers during that war. Kennedy, a Democrat, sent 12 thousand American “consultants” to Vietnam, then supporting them with 300 helicopters managed by American pilots. The war became wide-scale, with the losses amounting to no less than 50 thousand American lives. Based on Clinton’s order (who also was a famous Democrat), the USA together with NATO heavily bombed Yugoslavia. Losses exceeded one thousand and five hundred people. When Obama won the 2008 US presidential election, he swore to bury the hatchet in Iraq and Afghanistan. These declarations were of no worth. The USA never stopped conducting wars over the entire eight-year period of Obama’s presidency. He instructed to bomb Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somali and even Pakistan. Ex-President Clinton’s faithful partner, Hillary, played her specific role in bombing Libya – while being the US Secretary of State, she reacted very enthusiastically to the news about a horrible martyrdom of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

In addition to the atomic bombing of Japanese cities that took place at the end of World War II, you have mentioned the regional conflicts too. But the US has always been very cautious about other nuclear powers, right?

Yes, it really didn’t come to a world war, because the US leaders always understood: a nuclear war is a verdict on humanity. But today the Democratic Party of the United States of America lives in a world of illusion. Most politicians in Washington truly believe, that Russia and China demonstrate papier mache rockets and cardboard tanks during military parades. They infix in mind of American citizens – like Adolf Hitler infused his fellow citizens beforetime – that “no bomb will reach the capital of the country”. Well, let us remind the appearance of Berlin at the end of WWII: it was difficult to find a single building in a good condition across the entire city. And it happened back in 1945, when the “God of war” included conventional artillery-type weapons, but not atomic rockets.

Now let us imagine that a single megaton blast value warhead rocket attacks a city comparable in its size with Washington, which is 177 sq. km only. The downtown turns into a barren wasteland, all buildings are destroyed at a 6-kilometer distance from the explosion epicentre, and the others are severely damaged. Only a few survivors remain there, suffering from bad burns. With this, US military experts recognise, that the capitals of the warring nations would be attacked by a dozen of rockets, but not a single one. The fact that an enemy will also be damaged, does not help a lot to hundreds and thousands of fatalities. American experts suggest, Moscow is targeted with 60 or even more rockets; do they really think, that such cities as Los Angeles, or Washington, or Houston are targeted with a smaller number?

Photo: Jeff Burak

As far as I know, discussions of a new war are being conducted only in the context of the use of conventional weapons, without the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Should a war begin, it would be conducted with the use of any destruction facilities available to the warring states, that would leave no chance for compassion to their civilians. However, American military strategists suppose that in case of collision between the superpowers Russia will primarily focus its efforts on NATO member states in Europe, while the USA will attempt to interfere after the exchange of initial attacks. Consequently, the Pentagon strategists would be happy, if conflagration of a new world war appeared in Europe first, preferably with the use of conventional weapons. Which would make NATO member states – especially those of them who would host America’s troops in their territories – a hostage of circumstance and targets for strategic and tactical nuclear missiles.

May a new war, should it happen, become global?

Once the USA unleash a war against Russia, it will more or less involve – in addition to NATO member states – some Latin American and Asian countries. At least 400 million people will be killed on both sides (some experts predict that the number of victims may reach 900 million people). Over 320 cities will be completely destroyed, the economies of the developed countries will lose 70 to 90 percent of their working capacity. Even if they avoid a nuclear winter, nuclear fallout will prevent from normal agriculture for many years. So, what is the sense of the war revealing no winners?

The abovementioned should be remembered when the representatives of the Democratic Party together with their supporters among liberals and top military officers call Americans to relax about a war against Russia and China – they say, such war will be short-term and triumphant. Indeed, some politicians will survive in anti-nuclear panic rooms, however even after the victory they will remain politicians living in a poor and unhappy country.

There will be no winners in a new world war.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Комментарии закрыты.