Published in


Ukrainian Trap

December, 2014

Ed.: Professor, the Ukrainian events of the last few months have raised many questions among our readers. People are trying to understand the essence of what is happening, but cannot explain the logic of events. Why do the new Ukrainian authorities act this way and not that way concerning the population of their country? Why did the European Union seek to tear Ukraine away from Russia with all its might? Why is the United States pursuing such an intransigent policy toward Russia? These and other questions are often impossible to answer not only for ordinary people but also for experts. Professor, can you clarify the situation a little bit?

Professor: To find an answer to any political question, we must always use a technique that has been known since the days of ancient Rome: “Who benefits?”

Who among the world’s players benefits from the current situation in Ukraine? What is Europe, the U.S., Russia, and perhaps some other players looking for in it? Which of them is most interested in this particular development of events?

To answer this question we need to accurately identify the main world problem of our time, the solution of which no longer tolerates any delay. Which player has a direct interest in this problem will play the leading role.

Editor: And what is the central problem of the world today which demands immediate solutions, in your opinion?

Prof.: Of course a solution to the financial problems that have arisen because of the rapid growth of the U.S. economy in the last three decades. The U.S. $17 trillion national debt is hanging by the sword of Damocles over the American economy and may lead to a global crisis.

Editor: Could you give us some more details about the risks of a collapse of the U.S. currency?

Prof.: If the U.S. dollar had to be devalued to get rid of its debt (assuming that there is no other way out of the debt pit), the world would be plunged into a deep economic crisis, because the dollar is the world’s currency, and the world production is bound to it. Immediately all international economic ties will be interrupted. The decline of production in all countries will be the inevitable result of the breakdown of international cooperation. Because of the stoppage of production, there will be a huge army of unemployed. Then there will inevitably be a fall in the standard of living in all countries of the world. The decline in consumption will be a decisive factor in political changes in the various states when “moneylessness” and hunger demand a redistribution of property and political change. In a world full of guns, hatred, misunderstanding, and deferred disputes, a world war for the redistribution of spheres of influence may break out. And it is a scenario that no country, including America, can avoid.

I can’t bear to think of the worst that might happen if a group of desperate people was to get their hands on nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction as a result of hunger riots. This solution to the financial problems is unacceptable.

Ed: I see. But then there has to be a way out of this difficult situation as a matter of urgency — there is no alternative, is there?

Prof.: That’s right-you have answered the question of what has been the springboard of all America’s actions in recent years. When you see the potential for the destruction of human civilization on earth, you’re looking for a peaceful way out of that situation.

Editor: Very interesting! And how did the best minds in the United States answer this question?

Prof.: There was an interesting solution, and I will now try to explain its essence.

To solve the financial problems, the United States needs to take extraordinary measures which can only be compared to a worldwide cataclysm. The problem is to arrange such a cataclysm without devastating consequences for the United States and its allies. That is, it is necessary to play a card that solves the problem of debt and does not create a world massacre in which you can easily burn yourself.

The only way to pay off one’s debts without a significant decline in the standard of living of one’s population is at someone else’s expense, as cynical as that sounds. It is necessary to find someone with whose help America could solve its financial problems. And such a natural solution has been found, given the chance by history itself.

Editor: And who will pay for the financial problems?

Prof: Naturally, no country in the world could do this without being turned into a desert. Therefore, events should be organized in such a way that the whole world, every country to a greater or lesser degree, becomes involved in the resolution of America’s financial difficulties. Such global cooperation would not only maintain world peace but would give the strongest impetus to progress.

Editor: How can this be done?

Prof.: To get out of debt, the U.S. needs new markets on a scale comparable to that of America. The only such market at the moment can be Europe. Therefore, we have to find a way of totally opening up the European market to the USA. We have been working on this project for many years.

God has given the U.S. the most advanced technology, the most powerful industry, enormous funds, and huge natural resources, all of which must be used to overcome the difficulties of America’s economic growth. God gave the same to Europe, so to solve the common financial and economic problems, we simply need to connect the two major economies of the earth into a single economy. And to do that, Europe must be reoriented towards closer cooperation with the United States.

Ed.: But Europe’s economy is already very closely tied to the U.S. economy.

Right. But you have to make the degree of cooperation even greater. We are talking about two economies that could be merged into one and complement one another.

Ed.: Well, what about Europe’s dependency on energy supplies from various countries, especially Russia?

Prof.: Consequently, it is necessary to create a situation in Europe where Europeans themselves refuse to cooperate with Russia and other suppliers of energy resources so that they tie their economic interest to U.S. energy supplies.

Editor: But that would be very bad for the European economy.

Very true. Otherwise, how could we resolve the financial and economic problems of the world’s two biggest economies peacefully? A peaceful resolution of these problems will require all countries to participate with their capabilities. Europe brought this upon itself by binding its economy to energy supplies from problematic regions.

The U.S. has always helped Europe; we helped Europe to rebuild itself after World War II, and now Europe, as a sign of gratitude to the U.S. for its decades of prosperity, should help America rebuild its economy.

Whose fault is it that circumstances are such that European assistance to the United States is already necessary? We are counting on Europeans to understand this situation, but in any case, there is nowhere to turn and we are all caught up in the moment.

Editor: Well, OK. So what would the Middle East and Russia say about all this?

Prof.: U.S. policy, if you remember, over the last decade has been aimed at trying to wake up the Middle East and bring democracy to the region. The Middle East is presently experiencing rapid social and political changes and in the future these changes will only intensify, making this region an extremely turbulent place and it is very likely to affect the security of energy supplies from the region.

Russia’s fate is in its own hands. Everyone will survive as best they can, and Russia, of course, must suffer a great deal from the breakup with Europe, but the degree of this suffering will largely depend on Russia itself. Russia is in a very unenviable position right now: it has to deal with very dangerous and, in principle, unresolvable issues. And whatever the Russians do, it’s not going to be in Russia’s favor because there’s nothing Russia can do to fundamentally change this situation.

Editor: So the West doesn’t intend to give Ukraine to Russia?

Prof.: What does Ukraine have to do with it? Whether a united Ukraine will remain on the world map or whether it will split up is irrelevant to the solution of the main problem. The main task of the events in Ukraine is to divide Europe from Russia so much that Europeans will completely refuse to cooperate with Russia and reorient their economy towards full cooperation with the United States. The main goal is to tie the European economy more tightly to the U.S. economy, and no one cares what will happen in Ukraine. Ukraine is only a means by which all problems can be solved without dragging the world into another world war. Ukraine is given the role of a blockage, which will interrupt European cooperation with Russia. And what kind of system, what kind of government will be there — these are not interesting questions at all. Only the people of Ukraine will be able to decide how tragic their fate will be in creating a new order in Europe.

Editor: But why was Ukraine chosen for the task of leading the world economy out of default on the U.S. currency?

Prof.: It’s very simple. After all, it is through Ukraine that Europe is supplied with energy from Russia. If you create controlled chaos in Ukraine and cut off energy supplies from Russia, Europe will howl with indignation. The only thing left would be to accuse Russia of being intransigent and aggressive, and Europe would be forced to break off economic relations with Russia and refocus on energy supplies from the United States. And then we, with our shale gas, will once again find ourselves in the role of Europe’s benefactors, a kind of energy wand.

By refusing Russian supplies, Europe would save its face as a defender of European human rights values and at the same time help the United States solve its financial debt problem.

Yes, cutting off Russian energy supplies would cause a lot of economic and social problems in Europe, but who says that Europe should not pay for years of prosperity under the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella? Let the Europeans also take part in preserving the well-being of the free world. Ultimately, the $500 billion that make up European trade with Russia should become European trade with America. Then we will have a real chance to live up to our financial obligations and keep the dollar as world currency.

Editor: As we now understand from your words, the U.S. does not intend to stabilize the situation in Ukraine?

Prof.: There is a wide range of things that could be done. But no matter what happens in politics in Ukraine, the main thing must remain unchanged: the cessation of extensive cooperation between Russia and Europe. Let the events in Ukraine take their course as they please, but in any case, they should lead to a rupture between Russians and Europeans.

Editor: Could you use some examples of the events in Ukraine to illustrate how your concept is being implemented? Some observers, while trying to predict the logic of events, often get blindsided by the lack of understanding of the reasons for the new Kyiv rulers’ behavior. Nor do people understand the logic of American behavior in connection with certain steps to resolve the conflict in Ukraine.

Prof.: Of course they do. Only it is necessary to realize one simple idea: the United States pursues exclusively its aim on the preservation of the world monetary system based on the dollar and all steps are made for the sake of realization of this aim. The Ukrainian campaign to break up economic relations between Europe and Russia has been launched for the practical implementation of this main goal. All events taking place in Ukraine should be viewed solely from this perspective.

For example, the agreement of February 21, when the Ukrainian opposition leaders and representatives of France, Germany, and Poland signed an agreement with Yanukovich on early presidential elections in Ukraine, was doomed in advance to be disregarded. If this agreement had been implemented, the discord in Ukraine could have subsided, and then no severing of Ukraine’s economic ties with Russia would have been out of the question. Consequently, it was necessary to flagrantly violate the agreements, which was done. And Russia and Europe had to become hostages of the unpredictable and illogical actions of the new Ukrainian authorities. The more misunderstandings arise between Russia and Europe, the sooner the conditions for the implementation of our plans to create an economic barrier in Ukraine will be created.

America needs an order in Ukraine that would interrupt economic cooperation between Russia and Europe with each other. And it is America’s policy to ensure that events unfold in this way. Now events in Ukraine are just unfolding, and we should not expect appeasement-an uneasy Ukraine must become an insurmountable barrier between Russia and Europe.

Understand one thing. To sever economic ties between Europe and Russia, Europeans must be so intimidated by the Russian threat that they want to do so — it is necessary to fundamentally change the European public opinion about cooperation with Russia. Russia’s aggressiveness and unpredictability must be emphasized in every way possible, provoking it to escalate the conflict in Ukraine. The media should constantly talk about the rising tensions in Ukraine and the violence and atrocities committed by the Russians so that Europe will be ripe for a break-up.

Let the Europeans shudder at a possible Russian invasion — the image of an unceremonious Russian, ready for any adventure, from a provocative overflight of an American destroyer to the advance of an armada of Russian tanks to the borders of the Baltics and Ukraine, should now be devoted to all the activities of our media. It is the activities of the media that now determine the mood of the European population and, ultimately, the success of the Ukrainian campaign for the United States.

Editor: Can you explain what America stands to gain from this development?

Prof.: I would love to. In the case of a gradual reduction in Europe’s economic relations with Russia, it will be forced to reorient its economy toward the United States, because only the American economy can be compared now with Europe’s economy in terms of volume and quality of goods. This will give a powerful impetus to the development of the U.S. economy, allowing it to begin eliminating U.S. debts.

But the most important thing should be energy cooperation between Europe and the United States. Europe’s rejection of Russian and Middle Eastern energy carriers will lead to huge investments in U.S. shale gas production and will create a powerful infrastructure for its processing and delivery to Europe. Europe would be interested in building this infrastructure as fast as possible and would not be stingy with spending.

Ed: What if Europe does not go along with this scenario and does not want to break off relations with Russia?

Prof.: That would be unthinkable: Europe is politically, militarily, and economically too dependent on the U.S. and apart from participation in NATO. And besides participation in NATO, there’s also Europe’s moral debt to America that saved it from totalitarianism and provided Europe with a comfortable living.

But if we consider it hypothetically, it would be extremely irrational on Europe’s part — it would only make things worse. It would doom America to the inevitable collapse of the dollar, and then world history will follow the most unfavorable scenario, as we mentioned above. Breaking with Russia is not an easy thing to do, but maintaining the status quo would have serious repercussions for Europe and the world.

Editor: Thank you, Professor. Could you conclude our conversation with a few words about the fate of the world soon as you see it?

Prof.: Certainly. Ultimately, Europe’s reorientation toward close economic cooperation with the United States should lead to the emergence of some kind of new unity under the code name of, for example, the North Atlantic Cooperation Organization. The more so since the military basis for such a union, in the form of NATO, has long existed. Such an association would be a logical continuation of the integration processes taking place in the modern world and would unite all the democratic peoples on both sides of the Atlantic in a single democratic civilization. Other democratic countries, such as Japan, Australia, and so on, could join this alliance in the future.

There is no need to hide the fact that such an alliance would be the most powerful in the history of mankind, and it would forever eliminate the danger of a revival of totalitarianism in the world. Such a union would contribute to the creation of such progressive productive forces which would be able to master the rapid development of outer space and turn the Earth civilization into a space civilization.

Russia, of course, will not be definitively excluded from the world community, but only if it does not oppose American efforts to overcome financial problems. Russia will be left alone with its natural resources if it persists in its quest to restore Russian hegemony. Then Russia will be subjected to a policy of isolation and encouragement of democratic processes inside Russia.

China can help Russia to some extent, but it will not want to intensify this cooperation too much because of the threat of losing the united European-American market. So Russia has to choose between progressive development and participation in overcoming the crisis in the modern world or become a marginal country doomed to eternal backwardness, like a miserly knight, guarding its unnecessary natural riches.

Editor: One last thing. Tell me, professor, what prompted your intention to reveal the secret springs of the current Ukrainian crisis? What or who is guiding you?

Prof.: I am not a supporter of the use of force in resolving conflicts, so I would like to work toward a peaceful resolution of problems. To do this, I think world leaders need to be clear about what is going on in the world today. Only complete openness in politics can lead to predictable results. I want the international community to understand the difficulties of the present moment and to participate in resolving them as much as possible.

In addition, there are people in the United States and Europe who hold similar views, and they would like to convey their views on peaceful problem-solving and cooperation through our dialogue.

On the other hand, there are many hawks, both in the West and in the East, who would like to see the resolution of pressing issues by force. Therefore, the main objective of our meeting is to show that there is a peaceful way to overcome all difficulties so that people understand that peace in the world depends on their efforts.

Summing up:

  1. In Ukraine, the U.S. is only pursuing its selfish interests to create a situation in Europe that would allow it to overcome the current financial crisis and remain the world’s economic leader, preserving the dollar as the world’s currency.
  2. America’s actions are against Russia. They are to create a reckless regime of rule in Ukraine that would make stable energy supplies from Russia to Europe impossible.
  3. The purpose of American actions in Ukraine is to cut off economic cooperation between Europe and Russia, forcing Europeans to reorient themselves to America, 100%.

If events in Ukraine follow the U.S. scenario, Russia will soon face economic problems. Inevitably, economic cooperation with Europe (and all other countries where American influence is strong) will be reduced. This will lead to a reduction in Russian production, with all the consequences implied.

To counteract these negative phenomena, Russia will have to be more active in accelerating the development of the domestic market and intensify cooperation with countries that are independent of American influence.

Most importantly, Russia must urgently develop its ideology of development, one that explains to Russians why they need to experience economic deprivation by opposing U.S. policies rather than disarming. Unfortunately, Russia still does not have such an ideology. Yet only this ideology can give people confidence in their rightness and enable them not only to withstand the raging struggle and overcome difficulties but also to create a strong and prosperous state. Without such an ideology, Russia simply will not survive.

As soon as the country faces economic difficulties, Russian liberals of all stripes will blame it all on the “Putin regime,” of course, and will begin to “rock the boat” in fulfillment of American orders. A ruthless battle for the minds of Russians will ensue, and the strongest will win. If it is liberalism — Russia will be doomed to collapse and destruction, despite all its weapons and resources. Therefore, the earliest development of the Russian ideology of development is not a matter of tactics, but a matter of fate.



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store