Special thanks to alex_serdyuk and miasolor]
Why American efforts to extend its influence does not succeed always and everywhere
Today, a few days before the presidential election, it is clear that Washington-planned Ukrainian blitzkrieg has failed. Quick victory of Maidan did not happen. Ukraine lost Crimea and Donbass, got stuck in civil confrontation, became impoverished. New Kiev authorities are trying to convince people that this is temporary, it’s necessary to wait just a little, and Europe and America will come to help. Some Ukrainians believe, but number of these believers dwindle with each passing day.
In U.S. themselves Intelligence Director Mike Flynn Pentagon and his deputy David Shedd are going to retire. And it is also certainly due to the Ukraine.
Most interestingly, the "Independence Ukraine" was not the first debacle of American politics.
Cynicism of U.S. officials in the promotion of American influence in the world is known to all. There are, for example, the names of military operations against sovereign states: "Desert Storm" and "Shock and Awe" in Iraq, "Deliberate Force", "Allied Force" and quite touching " Merciful Angel" in Yugoslavia. Certainly plan to depose Ukrainian leadership, too, had its codename. Something like "Happy Ukraine."
Each operation is preceded by painstaking analytical work. Millions and millions of dollars are spent on the study of internal problems and nurturing opposition. But for some reason Americans can’t always reap success.
For example, before the start of hostilities in Iraq in 2003, analysts in the U.S. quite skillfully calculated that Saddam Hussein will not provide much opposition. While many Russian experts composed war forecasts based on the strength of the Iraqi army, the amount of tanks and planes, American emissaries spend money on bribes to generals. As lately admitted in Washington, about $ 600 millions has been spent for these purposes.
Americans understood that Iran isn’ so easy to buy, and so far, despite repeated angry statements, there was no military operations against Tehran.
But in Syria, the White House plan clearly failed. The internal opposition wasn’t that strong, and now Bashar Assad army finishes the remnants of foreign terrorist groups.
In Egypt, the U.S., too, everything went against to plan. In the country there were generals who dared to take on the responsibility for the fate of their people and toppled "Muslim Brotherhood" which came to power through elections*.
Even more striking was the U.S. defeat in Georgia, where the army was trained by American instructors. On the day of the Beijing Olympics, Mikheil Saakashvili ordered the invasion of South Ossetia, counting on the "blitzkrieg". He failed. Moreover, as a result of military operations Georgia finally lost South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
In the case of the overthrow of Yanukovych, which occurred (hardly accidentally) during the Olympic Games in Sochi, the Americans hoped that the opposition will quickly take power in Kiev, and the rest of the country quietly submit to new rulers. Then the Black Sea would be an inland sea of NATO and Western tanks would stand at the borders of the Bryansk region. But miners of Donbass, after 23 years of continuously treated as inferior ethnicity, were able to organize themselves and did not yield to Kievian junta. Crimea even went to Russia.
Why this "Happy Ukraine" plan has failed? Why neither numerous NGOs, nor billions of dollars invested in destabilizing the situation have helped? Why intelligence agencies from overseas suffered such setback?
Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Vladimir Anokhin believes that Americans simply have not considered many factors in spreading the influence of this or that country:
”United States prepared standard script for destruction of regimes that hinder their domination in some regions of the world and growth of their power. The scheme is the same: first, create economic chaos, then it spreads into the politics, and then controlled chaos become uncontrollable. As a result, the state weakens, and puppet regme is estabilished. By this scheme, operations in Tunisia and Libya were conducted. But such a scenario in Syria has failed. Nevertheless, Americans have not learned their lesson from Syria and decided to use the same plan for Ukraine. There acted very rudely, casually, making tactical and strategic mistakes.
Multi-million dollar infusions are not always effective. Everyone knows that CNN is one of the leaders in the field of media. So, when it aired a coverage on the referendum in the Donetsk region, the map illustrating the event shown Ukraine on the territory of Pakistan. I immediately realized that these guys are not only have bad education, but also mindles. So that the amount of money does not affect the wisdom of decisions.”
"SP": “In the case of Iraq, the Americans calculated that the tip can be purchased. But in Ukraine the payment has failed.”
”U.S. focus on work with the oligarchs, businessmen and governing apparatus. But in any country live other people, too. Why, for example, America miscalculated the situation in Georgia? They have invested money, but did not consider the mentality of Georgians, have not considered its leadership weakness, did not consider the personal qualities of our President. Americans may know that Saakashvili can go for coarse and vile adventure, but did not predict a tough response from Russia. After all, when you do a surgical strike to some state, you need to consider not only the opportunity to respond on the part of that state, but also one of the surrounding countries.”
"SP": “It is no secret that the events in Ukraine largely directed against Russia. Are we ready to parry American moves?”
|I'll give you a very remarkable quote. One person said: "The power of Russia can be undermined only separation from Ukraine... it is necessary not only to tear Ukraine from Russia, but to pit two parts of a single nation against each other and watch as his brother will kill brother. To do this, just need to find and nurture the traitors among the national elite and use them to change the identity of one of the great people to such an extent that he would hate everything Russian, hate his family, without realizing it. Everything else would be matter of time. "
These are the words of Otto von Bismarck, the first German Chancellor. These words were said in the middle of the 19th century. So Russia always was taret for unfriendly actions, regardless of the social system or historical upheavals. When it was tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union. And Ukraine is often used as a factor in the weakening of our strength.
Impact on elites are always long-term. Say, the West has achieved a lot in the 1990s. But in Russia there are forces to resist.”
"SP": “Americans may not take into account such factors as the internal capacity of the people.”
”Yes. Wealth does not determine the state of his intellectual potential. Americans feel good in the accounts, but are poorly aware of psychology of various people on different continents. Anglo-Saxons generally very poorly understood the psyche of Slavs. Spirituality for the Anglo-Saxons, in principle, cannot be described the monetary equivalent. They did not understand the Arab mentality, and in Iraq and Libya has turned the chaos. U.S. is not able to understand of Afghans, too. They do not know how to behave like people who hold spiritual above the material. They put the mentality factor in last place, but because of this they will lose.”
Expert on international relations, political scientist Mikhail Korostik believes that the main reason lies in the development of events beyond the control of external influence factors:
”With regard to the Crimea, Ukraine itself is to blame in a greater extent. It could be a zone of accelerated development, but Kiev invested nothing in the peninsula, gradually transforming it into a backward agrarian territory. Actually, Ukraine never felt that this land belongs to her. And even now, some Ukrainian political analysts say that it is necessary to positively perceive separation of the Crimea, and if it had separated earlier then Yanukovych would not get their voices out there, and no problem would exist.
South-East situation is different. Elite close to Yanukovych at work there. And in the case of the territory is not America miscalculation, but simply the proximity to Russia and the fact that a large proportion of local residents working with us; so it was possible to put some resistance. And this resistance is much stronger than in Odessa or Kherson.”
"SP": “But even the Americans admitted that they did not anticipate Russian actions in the Crimea.”
”Existing political regime in Russia has its advantages. One of them consists in the fact that when the President along with its close surroundings decides something, the probability of leaks is minimized. For Russia, strategy of surprise is right; Putin chose it for a reason. The decision was made in the Crimea in the closed mode, and for the U.S. it was a surprise. Most likely, the United States hoped that Russia will swallow Ukrainian events as swallowed before the events in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Especially, there was lots of options for the development of the situation: the Crimea could become an independent state or could achieve greater autonomy within Ukraine. But the fait accompli was the least likely option.”
"SP": “Had America a detailed plan for the development of the situation in Ukraine?”
”Here, in my opinion, was the random factor. Ukraine - a large country with a population of 45 million people. Calculate everything was simply impossible.
Overthrow of Yanukovich by force does not make sense. In elections in 2015, he would have failed miserably by himself, without help from Maidan. But the Americans could have informed opposition leaders, on the eve of the elections will be some events that drastically reduce their chance of making it to the power. After that Ukrainian opposition began to act.”
Supervisor of "GDP" Research Center Said Gafurov sees the cause of failures in the conflicts of U.S. groups with diverse interests:
”Do not consider U.S. policy as a unified. Do not think that all Americans act in unison. U.S. foreign policy, including assistance to its allies, is situational. And depends on the sometimes divergent interests of different groups, which often play against each other. Say, the people associated with the military- industrial complex has a vested interest in exacerbating the conflict. And those who are associated with the "McDonalds" or "Coca-Cola", will lose money in the case of flared conflict.
Mechanism established by the Americans for political influence consists of three parts. First is this NGO, it is not very important. Second one is U.S. Department of State, and the third - the political institutions created by the ruling parties ( Democratic and Republican ). These three branches is competing with each other. And for the State Department continuity is typical: politicians come and go, while the officials working there is a negative attitude towards Russia, regardless what Obama spoke about the "reset."
As a result of lack of unity between U.S. agencies money go in different directions. For example, some American money went to those Ukrainian organizations that act as anti-fascists.
Americans do not need to be considered for the demiurges. Although they see themselves as ones. In practice, they are not omnipotent and suffering one defeat after another.”
* The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation decision dated 14 February 2003 declared "Muslim Brotherhood " as terrorist organization and prohibited its activity in Russian Federation.