LATEST ARTICLES

ROMANIAN — Geopolitica păcii – Jeffrey Sachs în Parlamentul European

Geopolitica păcii – Jeffrey Sachs în Parlamentul European

 

Transcriere completă

Introducere

Prof. Jeffrey D, Sachs: Michael, vă mulțumesc foarte mult și vă mulțumesc tuturor pentru șansa de a fi împreună și de a gândi împreună. Aceasta este într-adevăr o perioadă complicată și în schimbare rapidă și una foarte periculoasă. Așadar, avem cu adevărat nevoie de claritate în gândire. Sunt deosebit de interesat de conversația noastră, așa că voi încerca să fiu cât se poate de succint și clar. Am urmărit foarte îndeaproape evenimentele din Europa de Est, fosta Uniune Sovietică, Rusia, în ultimii 36 de ani. Am fost consilier al guvernului polonez în 1989, al președintelui Gorbaciov în 1990 și 1991, al președintelui Elțin în 1991-1993, al președintelui Kucima al Ucrainei în 1993-94. Am contribuit la introducerea monedei estoniene.

După Maidan, noul guvern m-a rugat să vin la Kiev și am fost dus prin Maidan și am învățat multe lucruri direct. Am fost în contact cu liderii ruși de mai bine de 30 de ani. Cunosc îndeaproape conducerea politică americană. Fostul nostru secretar al Trezoreriei a fost profesorul meu de macroeconomie acum 51 de ani, doar ca să vă faceți o idee. Am fost prieteni foarte apropiați timp de o jumătate de secol. Îi cunosc pe toți acești oameni.

Vreau doar să spun asta pentru că ceea ce vreau să explic din punctul meu de vedere nu este o chestiune secundară, nu este ideologie. Este ceea ce am văzut cu ochii mei și am experimentat în această perioadă. Din punctul meu de vedere al evenimentelor care s-au abătut asupra Europei în multe contexte – și voi include nu doar criza din Ucraina, ci și Serbia din 1999, războaiele din Orientul Mijlociu, inclusiv Irakul, Siria, războaiele din Africa, inclusiv Sudanul, Somalia, Libia – acestea sunt într-o măsură foarte semnificativă, care v-ar surprinde poate și ar fi denunțate pentru ceea ce urmează să spun, acestea sunt războaie pe care Statele Unite le-au condus și provocat. Acest lucru este adevărat de mai bine de 40 de ani.

Ce s-a întâmplat, mai bine de 30 de ani, ar trebui să spun mai precis, Statele Unite au ajuns la opinia, în special în 1990, ’91 și apoi odată cu sfârșitul Uniunii Sovietice, că SUA conduceau acum lumea și că SUA nu trebuiau să țină cont de opiniile, liniile roșii, preocupările, punctele de vedere privind securitatea sau de orice obligații internaționale sau de orice cadru al ONU. Îmi pare rău că o spun atât de clar, dar vreau să înțelegeți.

Am încercat din greu în 1991 să obțin ajutor pentru Gorbaciov, pe care îl consider cel mai mare om de stat al timpurilor noastre moderne. Recent am citit memorandumul arhivat al discuției Consiliului de Securitate Națională despre propunerea mea, cum au respins-o complet și au râs de ea când am spus că Statele Unite ar trebui să ajute Uniunea Sovietică în stabilizarea financiară și în realizarea reformelor sale.

Documentele memorandumului, inclusiv cele ale unora dintre foștii mei colegi de la Harvard, spun în special că vom face minimul necesar pentru a preveni dezastrul, dar minimul necesar este că nu este treaba noastră să ajutăm. Dimpotrivă, nu este în interesul nostru să ajutăm.

Când Uniunea Sovietică s-a destrămat în 1991, opinia a devenit și mai exagerată. Pot numi capitol și versete, dar opinia era că noi conducem spectacolul. Cheney, Wolfowitz și multe alte nume pe care le-ați cunoscut, credeau literalmente că aceasta este acum o lume americană și că vom face ce vrem. Vom curăța de fosta Uniune Sovietică. Vom elimina orice aliați rămași. Țări precum Irak, Siria și așa mai departe vor dispărea.

Suntem cu această politică externă de acum, practic de 33 de ani. Europa a plătit un preț greu pentru asta, deoarece Europa nu a avut nicio politică externă în această perioadă pe care să o pot înțelege. Fără voce, fără unitate, fără claritate, fără interese europene, doar loialitate americană. Au fost momente în care au existat dezacorduri și dezacorduri foarte, cred, minunate, mai ales ultima dată semnificativă a fost în 2003, în războiul din Irak, când Franța și Germania au spus că nu susținem ca Statele Unite să ocolească Consiliul de Securitate al ONU pentru acest război.

Acel război, apropo, a fost născocit direct de Netanyahu și colegii săi de la Pentagonul american. Nu spun că a fost o legătură sau o reciprocitate. Spun că a fost un război direct. Acela a fost un razboi r dus pentru Israel. A fost un război pe care Paul Wolfowitz și Douglas Feith l-au coordonat cu Netanyahu. Și aceea a fost ultima dată când Europa a avut o voce.

Și am vorbit cu liderii europeni atunci, și au fost foarte clari, și a fost minunat. Europa și-a pierdut complet vocea după aceea, dar mai ales în 2008.

Acum, ceea ce s-a întâmplat după 1991 până în 2008 este că Statele Unite au decis că unipolaritatea însemna că NATO se va extinde undeva de la Bruxelles la Vladivostok pas cu pas.

Nu va exista sfârșit pentru extinderea spre est a NATO. Aceasta ar fi lumea unipolară a SUA. Dacă joci jocul riscului în copilărie, așa cum am făcut eu, aceasta este ideea SUA, să avem pace pe fiecare parte a tablei. Orice loc fără o bază militară americană este practic un inamic. Neutralitatea este un cuvânt murdar în lexicul politic american, poate cel mai murdar cuvânt. Cel puțin dacă ești un inamic, știm că ești un inamic. Dacă ești neutru, ești subversiv, pentru că atunci ești de fapt împotriva noastră, pentru că nu ne spui nimic. Te prefaci că ești neutru.

Așadar, aceasta a fost mentalitatea, iar decizia a fost luată oficial în 1994, când președintele Clinton a semnat extinderea NATO spre est. Vă amintiți că pe 7 februarie 1991, Hans-Dietrich Genscher și James Baker al III-lea au vorbit cu Gorbaciov. Genscher a ținut o conferință de presă ulterior, în care a explicat: NATO nu se va deplasa spre est. Nu vom profita de dizolvarea Pactului de la Varșovia. Înțelegeți că aceasta a fost într-un context juridic, nu unul întâmplător.

Acesta a fost sfârșitul celui de-al Doilea Război Mondial, negociat pentru reunificarea Germaniei. S-a făcut un acord ca NATO să nu se miște niciun centimetru spre est. Și a fost explicit și se găsește în nenumărate documente. Și căutați Arhiva de Securitate Națională a Universității George Washington și puteți găsi zeci de documente. Este un site web numit „Ce a auzit Gorbaciov despre NATO”. Uitați-vă, pentru că tot ce vă spun SUA este o minciună în legătură cu asta, dar arhivele sunt perfect clare.

Așadar, decizia a fost luată în 1994 de a extinde NATO până în Ucraina. Acesta este un proiect. Nu este vorba despre o administrație sau alta. Acesta este un proiect al guvernului SUA care a început acum mai bine de 30 de ani. În 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski a scris „Marea tablă de șah”. Nu sunt doar reflecții ale domnului Brzezinski.

Aceasta este prezentarea deciziilor guvernului Statelor Unite explicate publicului. Și cartea descrie extinderea spre est a Europei și a NATO ca evenimente simultane. Și există un capitol bun în acea carte care spune: ce va face Rusia pe măsură ce Europa și NATO se extind spre est?

Și îl cunoșteam personal pe Zbigniew Brzezinski. A fost foarte amabil cu mine. Consiliam Polonia. A fost de mare ajutor. A fost un om foarte drăguț și inteligent și totusi a greșit totul.

Așadar, în 1997, a scris în detaliu de ce Rusia nu putea face altceva decât să adere la extinderea spre est a NATO și a Europei. De fapt, el spune despre extinderea spre est a Europei și nu doar a Europei, ci a NATO. Acesta a fost un plan, un proiect. Și explică cum Rusia nu se va alinia niciodată cu China.

De neconceput. Rusia nu se va alinia niciodată cu Iranul. Rusia nu are altă vocație decât cea europeană. Așadar, pe măsură ce Europa se îndreaptă spre est, Rusia nu poate face nimic în privința asta. Așa spunea un strateg american. Se pune vreo întrebare de ce suntem în război tot timpul?

Pentru că un lucru legat de America este că știm întotdeauna ce vor face omologii noștri și întotdeauna greșim.

Și unul dintre motivele pentru care greșim întotdeauna este că, în teoria jocurilor pe care o practică strategii americani, nu vorbești de fapt cu cealaltă parte. Știi doar care este strategia celeilalte părți. Asta e minunat. Economisește atât de mult timp. Nu ai nevoie de nicio diplomație. Așa că acest proiect a început și am avut o continuitate a guvernului timp de 30 de ani, până poate ieri, poate 30 de ani de proiect.

Ucraina și Georgia au fost cheile proiectului. De ce?

Pentru că America a învățat tot ce știe de la britanici. Și astfel suntem aspirantul imperiu britanic. Și ceea ce a înțeles imperiul britanic în 1853, domnule Palmer, Lord Palmerston, scuzați-mă, este că înconjurați Rusia în Marea Neagră și îi refuzați accesul la estul Mediteranei.

Și tot ce urmăriți este un proiect american de a face asta în secolul XXI. Ideea era că ar exista Ucraina, România, Bulgaria, Turcia și Georgia, literalmente Marea Neagră, care ar priva Rusia de orice statut internațional prin blocarea Mării Negre și, în esență, prin neutralizarea Rusiei ca mai mult decât o putere locală.

Brzezinski este complet clar în această privință. Și înainte de Brzezinski, a fost Mackinder și cine deține insula lumii deține lumea. Deci acest proiect datează de mult timp. Cred că datează practic de la Palmerston.

Și, din nou, am trăit prin fiecare administrație. I-am cunoscut pe acești președinți. Le-am cunoscut echipele.

Nimic nu s-a schimbat prea mult de la Clinton la Bush, la Obama, la Trump, la Biden. Poate că s-au înrăutățit pas cu pas. Biden a fost cel mai rău în opinia mea. Poate și pentru că nu a fost compos mentis în ultimii doi ani. Și spun asta serios, nu ca o remarcă sde scuză.

Sistemul politic american este un sistem de imagine. Este un sistem de manipulare media zilnică. Este un sistem de relații publice. Așadar, ai putea avea un președinte care practic nu funcționează și să-l țină la putere timp de doi ani, iar acel președinte să candideze pentru realegere. Și un lucru e că a trebuit să stea pe o scenă timp de 90 de minute singur. Și asta a fost sfârșitul.

Dacă nu ar fi fost acea greșeală, ar fi continuat să aibă candidatura, indiferent dacă dormea ​​după ora 16:00 sau nu. Deci, aceasta este realitatea. Toată lumea este de acord cu ea. Este nepoliticos să spun ceea ce spun, pentru că nu spunem adevărul despre aproape nimic din lumea asta în acest moment.

Așadar, acest proiect a continuat din anii 1990. Bombardarea Belgradului timp de 78 de zile consecutive în 1999 a făcut parte din acest proiect. Se dezbină țara atunci când granițele sunt sacrosancte, nu-i așa?

Cu excepția Kosovo. E în regulă, pentru că granițele sunt sacrosancte, cu excepția cazului în care America le schimbă.

Sudanul a fost un alt proiect similar. Rebeliunea Sudanului de Sud. S-a întâmplat asta doar pentru că sud-sudanezii s-au revoltat?

Sau vă pot da manualul CIA ca să înțelegeți, ca adulți, despre ce este vorba? Evenimentele militare sunt costisitoare. Necesită echipament, antrenament, tabere de bază, informații, finanțare.

Asta vine de la marile puteri. Asta nu vine de la insurecții locale. Sudanul de Sud nu a învins Sudanul de Nord sau Sudanul într-o bătălie tribală. A fost un proiect american. Mergeam des la Nairobi și mă întâlneam cu militari americani, senatori sau alte persoane profund interesate de politica Sudanului. Aceasta făcea parte din jocul unipolarității.

Așadar, extinderea NATO, după cum știți, a început în 1999 cu Ungaria, Polonia și Republica Cehă. Și Rusia era extrem de nemulțumită de asta. Dar acestea erau țări încă departe de graniță. Și Rusia a protestat, dar, desigur, fără niciun rezultat. Apoi a intrat în putere George Bush Jr. Când au avut loc atacurile din 11 septembrie, președintele Putin a promis tot sprijinul.

Și apoi SUA au decis, pe 20 septembrie 2001, că vor lansa șapte războaie în cinci ani. Și îl puteți asculta online pe generalul Wesley Clark vorbind despre asta. El a fost comandantul suprem al NATO în 1999. S-a dus la Pentagon pe 20 septembrie 2001. I s-a înmânat documentul care explica șapte războaie. Acestea, apropo, erau războaiele lui Netanyahu.

Ideea era parțial de a curăța vechii aliați sovietici și parțial de a elimina susținătorii Hamas și Hezbollah. Pentru că ideea lui Netanyahu era că va exista un singur stat, mulțumesc, doar un singur stat. Va fi doar Israelul. Israelul va controla tot teritoriul. Și pe oricine se opune, îl vom răsturna.

Nu exact noi, prietenul nostru, Statele Unite. Aceasta este politica SUA până în această dimineață. Nu știm dacă se va schimba. Acum, singura problemă este că poate SUA va deține Gaza în loc ca Israelul să dețină Gaza. Dar ideea există de cel puțin 25 de ani. De fapt, datează de la un document numit „Clean Rupture” (Ruptură curată), pe care Netanyahu și echipa sa politică americană l-au elaborat în 1996 pentru a pune capăt ideii soluției cu două state.

Îl puteți găsi și online. Deci acestea sunt proiecte. Acestea sunt evenimente pe termen lung. Nu sunt, ale lui Clinton, ale lui Bush, ale lui Obama,

Acesta este modul plictisitor de a privi politica americană ca pe un joc de zi cu zi. Dar nu asta este politica americană.

Așadar, următoarea rundă de extindere a NATO a venit în 2004 cu încă șapte țări, cele trei state baltice, România, Bulgaria, Slovenia și Slovacia.

În acest moment, Rusia era destul de supărată. Aceasta a fost o încălcare completă a ordinii postbelice convenite odată cu reunificarea Germaniei. În esență, a fost o păcăleală fundamentală sau o dezertare a SUA de la un acord de cooperare, asta e tot, pentru că ei cred în unipolaritate.

Așa cum își amintește toată lumea, pentru că tocmai avutsese loc Conferința de Securitate de la München săptămâna trecută, în 2007, unde președintele Putin a spus: „Opriți-vă, ajunge, opriți-vă acum”.

Și, bineînțeles, asta a însemnat că în 2008, Statele Unite au blocat extinderea NATO către Ucraina și Georgia. Acesta este un proiect pe termen lung. L-am ascultat pe domnul Saakașvili la New York în mai 2008 și am ieșit, am sunat-o pe Sonia și i-am spus: „Omul ăsta e nebun”.

Și o lună mai târziu, a izbucnit un război. Pentru că Statele Unite i-au spus acestui tip că am salvat Georgia. Și el stă la Consiliul pentru Relații Externe și spune: „Georgia este în centrul Europei”. Ei bine, nu este, doamnelor și domnilor. Nu este în centrul Europei. Și cele mai recente evenimente nu sunt utile pentru Georgia, pentru siguranța sa și pentru parlamentarii dumneavoastră care merg acolo sau pentru europarlamentarii care merg acolo și pentru politicienii europeni.

Asta duce la distrugerea Georgiei. Asta nu salvează Georgia. Asta duce la distrugerea Georgiei, complet distrugerea ei. În 2008, după cum știe toată lumea, fostul nostru director CIA, William Byrne, i-a trimis un mesaj lung Condoleezzei Rice, „Nyet înseamnă Nyet”, despre expansiune. Știm acest lucru de la Julian Assange, pentru că, credeți-mă, niciun cuvânt nu i se spune americanilor despre orice, nici dumneavoastră, nici ziarelor dumneavoastră, nici ziarelor dumneavoastră din aceste zile. Așadar, trebuie să-i mulțumim lui Julian Assange, dar putem citi si memorandumul în detaliu.

După cum știți, Viktor Ianukovici a fost ales în 2010 pe platforma neutralității. Rusia nu avea niciun fel de interese teritoriale sau planuri în Ucraina. Știu. Am fost acolo în acești ani. Ceea ce negocia Rusia era un contract de închiriere pe 25 de ani, până în 2042, pentru baza navală din Sevastopol. Asta e tot.

Nu pentru Crimeea, nu pentru Donbas, nimic de genul acesta. Această idee că Putin reconstruiește Imperiul Rus este propagandă copilărească. Mă scuzați. Dacă cineva cunoaște istoria de zi cu zi și de la an la an, este vorba de lucruri copilărești. Lucrurile copilărești par să funcționeze mai bine decât lucrurile pentru adulți. Deci, niciun plan.

Statele Unite au decis că acest om trebuie răsturnat. Se numește operațiune de schimbare de regim. Au existat aproximativ 100 de astfel de operațiuni din partea Statelor Unite, multe în țările dumneavoastră și multe în întreaga lume. Asta face CIA-ul pentru a-și câștiga existența. Bine?

Vă rog să știți. Este un tip de politică externă foarte neobișnuită. Dar în America, dacă nu ii place cealaltă parte, nu negociați cu ei, încearcă să-i răsturnați, de  preferință pe ascuns. Dacă nu funcționează pe ascuns, o faceți în mod deschis. Mereu spun că nu este vina noastră. Ei sunt agresorul. Ei sunt cealaltă parte. Ei sunt Hitler.

Asta apare la fiecare doi sau trei ani, fie că este vorba de Saddam Hussein, fie că este vorba de Assad, fie că este vorba de Putin. Este foarte convenabil. Aceasta este singura explicație de politică externă pe care o primește vreodată poporul american. Ei bine, ne confruntăm cu München 1938. Nu putem vorbi cu cealaltă parte. Sunt dușmani răi, implacabili. Acesta este singurul model de politică externă pe care îl auzim vreodată din mass-media. Și mass-media repetă acest lucru în întregime pentru că este complet subornată de guvernul SUA.

Acum, în 2014, SUA au lucrat activ pentru a-l răsturna pe Ianukovici. Toată lumea știe apelul telefonic interceptat de colega mea de la Universitatea Columbia, Victoria Newland, și de ambasadorul SUA, Peter Piat. Nu există dovezi mai bune. Rușii i-au interceptat apelul și l-au pus pe internet. Ascultați-l. Este fascinant. Îi cunosc pe toți acești oameni, apropo, făcând asta, toți au fost promovați în administrația Biden. Asta e treaba.

Acum, când a avut loc Maidanul, am fost chemat imediat. Oh, profesor Sachs, noul prim-ministru ucrainean ar dori să vă vadă pentru a vorbi despre criza economică, pentru că sunt destul de bun la asta. Așa că am zburat la Kiev și am fost plimbat prin Maidan și mi s-a spus cum SUA a plătit banii pentru toți oamenii din jurul Maidanului. Revoluție spontană a demnității…

Doamnelor și domnilor, vă rog, de unde vin toate aceste instituții media?

De unde vine toată această organizare? De unde vin toate aceste autobuze?

De unde vin toți acești oameni chemați? Glumiți?

Acesta este un efort organizat. Și nu este un secret decât pentru cetățenii Europei și ai Statelor Unite. Toți ceilalți îl înțeleg destul de clar.

Apoi a venit Minsk și în special Minsk-2, care, apropo, a fost modelat după autonomia Tirolului de Sud. Iar belgienii s-ar fi putut înțelege foarte bine cu Minsk-2. Se spunea că ar trebui să existe autonomie pentru regiunile vorbitoare de limbă rusă din estul Ucrainei. A fost susținut în unanimitate de Consiliul de Securitate al ONU.

Statele Unite și Ucraina au decis că nu trebuie aplicat. Germania și Franța, care erau garanții procesului de la Normandia, l-au lăsat baltă. Și a fost absolut o altă acțiune unipolară americană directă, Europa jucând, ca de obicei, un rol subsidiar complet inutil, chiar dacă era un garant al acordului.

Trump, unul, a ridicat armamentul. Au fost multe mii de morți în bombardamentele Ucrainei în Donbas. Ca si cum nu a existat niciun acord Minsk-2.

Și apoi Biden a intrat în funcție. Și, din nou, îi cunosc pe toți acești oameni. Am fost membru al Partidului Democrat. Acum m-am obligat să jur că nu voi fi membru al niciunui partid, pentru că oricum ambele sunt la fel.

Și pentru că democrații au devenit susținători ai războiului în timp. Și nu a existat o singură voce despre pace, la fel ca majoritatea parlamentarilor voștri, în același mod.

Așadar, la sfârșitul anului 2021, Putin a pus pe masă un ultim efort în două proiecte de acorduri de securitate, unul cu Europa și unul cu Statele Unite. SUA au pus pe masă pe 15 decembrie 2021. Am avut o convorbire de o oră cu Jake Sullivan la Casa Albă, implorându-l pe Jake să evite războiul.

Poți evita războiul. Tot ce trebuie să faci este să spui că NATO nu se va extinde la Ucraina. Și el mi-a spus, oh, NATO nu se va extinde la Ucraina. Nu-ți face griji. I-am spus, Jake, spune-o public. Nu, nu, nu, nu putem spune-o public. A spus, Jake, vei avea un război pentru ceva ce nici măcar nu se va întâmpla.

El a spus, nu-ți face griji, Jeff, nu va fi război. Aceștia nu sunt oameni foarte inteligenți. Îți spun, dacă pot să-ți dau părerea mea sinceră, nu sunt oameni foarte inteligenți. Și am avut de-a face cu ei mai bine de 40 de ani. Vorbesc între ei, nu vorbesc cu nimeni altcineva.

În teoria jocurilor cooperative, nu vorbești cu cealaltă parte. Pur și simplu îți faci strategia. Aceasta este esența teoriei jocurilor. Nu este teoria negocierii. Nu este teoria pacifistă. Este o teorie unilaterală, necooperativă, dacă știi teoria formală a jocurilor. Asta e ceea ce practică ei. A început cu RAND Corporation. Asta practică și în prezent.

În 2019, a apărut un articol de RAND, „Cum enervam Rusia?” Știați că au scris un articol pe care Biden l-a urmat? „Cum enervăm Rusia?” Aceasta este literalmente strategia. Cum enervăm Rusia?

Încercăm să o provocăm, să o facem să se destrame, poate să avem o schimbare de regim, poate să avem tulburări, poate să avem o criză economică.

Așa îți numești aliatul. Glumești? Așa că am avut un apel telefonic lung și frustrant cu Sullivan. Stăteam afară în gerul înghețat. Încercam să am o zi de schi. Și iată-mă, Jake, nu face război. Oh, nu va fi război, Jeff.

Știm multe despre ce s-a întâmplat luna următoare, și anume că au refuzat să negocieze. Cea mai stupidă idee a NATO este așa-numita politică a ușilor deschise. Glumești?

NATO își rezervă dreptul de a merge unde vrea fără ca vreun vecin să aibă vreun cuvânt de spus.

Ei bine, eu le spun mexicanilor și canadienilor, nu încercați. Știți, Trump ar putea vrea să preia Canada. Așa că Canada ar putea spune Chinei: de ce nu construiește o bază militară în Ontario? Nu aș sfătui asta. Și Statele Unite nu ar spune: ei bine, este o ușă deschisă. Asta e treaba lor. Adică, pot face ce vor. Nu e treaba noastră. Dar adulții din Europa repetă asta. În Europa, în comisia ta, ești un înalt reprezentant. Astea sunt niște prostii. Asta nici măcar nu e geopolitică pentru bebeluși. Asta e pur și simplu lipsă de gândire.

Așa că a început războiul. Care a fost intenția lui Putin în război?

Vă pot spune care a fost intenția lui. Era să-l forțeze pe Zelenski să negocieze neutralitatea. Și asta s-a întâmplat în termen de șapte zile de la începerea invaziei. Ar trebui să înțelegeți asta, nu propaganda care se scrie despre asta.

Ah, că au eșuat și el urma să preia Ucraina. Haideți, doamnelor și domnilor, înțelegeți ceva elementar. Ideea era să păstreze NATO. Și ce este NATO?

Sunt Statele Unite în jurul graniței Rusiei. Nici mai mult, nici mai puțin.

Ar trebui să adaug un punct foarte important. De ce sunt atât de interesați?

În primul rând, pentru că, dacă China sau Rusia ar decide să aibă o bază militară pe Rio Grande sau la granița cu Canada, nu numai că Statele Unite ar intra în panică, dar am avea război în aproximativ 10 minute.

Dar pentru că Statele Unite au abandonat unilateral tratatul privind rachetele antibalistice în 2002 și au pus capăt cadrului de control al armelor nucleare procedând astfel. Și acest lucru este extrem de important de înțeles. Cadrul de control al armelor nucleare se bazează pe încercarea de a bloca un prim atac. Tratatul ABM a fost o componentă critică a acestui lucru. SUA au ieșit unilateral din tratatul ABM în 2002. A explodat o garnitură a Rusiei. Deci tot ce am descris este în contextul distrugerii sistemului nuclear.

Și începând cu 2010, SUA au instalat sisteme de rachete Aegis în Polonia și apoi în România. Și Rusiei nu-i place asta. Și una dintre problemele dezbătute în decembrie și ianuarie, decembrie 2021, ianuarie 2022, a fost dacă Statele Unite își revendică dreptul de a instala sisteme de rachete în Ucraina?

Și Blinken i-a spus lui Lavrov în ianuarie 2022 că Statele Unite își rezervă dreptul de a instala sisteme de rachete oriunde doresc. Acesta este presupusul vostru aliat. Și acum haideți să instalăm sisteme de rachete intermediare înapoi în Germania. Statele Unite au ieșit unilateral din tratatul INF în 2019. Nu există un cadru pentru arme nucleare în acest moment. Niciunul.

Când Zelenski a spus în șapte zile, haideți să negociem, cunosc detaliile perfect. Pentru că am vorbit în detaliu cu toate părțile. În câteva săptămâni, a existat un schimb de informații despre un document pe care președintele Putin îl aprobase și pe care Lavrov îl prezentase, document gestionat de mediatorii turci. Am zburat la Ankara pentru a asculta în detaliu ce făceau mediatorii.

Ucraina a renunțat unilateral la un acord apropiat. De ce?

Pentru că Statele Unite le-au spus să facă asta. Pentru că Marea Britanie a adăugat cireașa de pe tort, trimițându-l pe Bojo la începutul lunii aprilie în Ucraina și explicând. Și a făcut-o recent.

Și dacă securitatea voastră este în mâinile lui Boris Johnson, Dumnezeu să ne ajute pe toți. Keith Starmer se dovedește a fi și mai rău. Este de neimaginat, dar este adevărat. Boris Johnson a explicat și puteți căuta pe site că ceea ce este în joc aici este hegemonia occidentală, nu Ucraina, hegemonia occidentală.

Michael și cu mine ne-am întâlnit la Vatican cu un grup în primăvara anului 2022, unde am scris un document care explica că nimic bun nu poate ieși din acest război pentru Ucraina. Negociați acum, pentru că orice durează va însemna un număr masiv de morți, riscul unei escaladări nucleare și probabila pierdere a războiului. Vreau să schimb un cuvânt din ceea ce am scris atunci.

Nu era nimic greșit în acel document. Și de când acel document, de cândSUA i-a convins pe negociatori să se retragă de la masa negocierilor, aproximativ un milion de ucraineni au murit sau au fost grav răniți. Iar senatorii americani, care sunt cât se poate de nesuferiți, cinici și corupți, spun că aceasta este o cheltuială minunată a banilor noștri, pentru că niciun american nu moare. Este un război pur prin intermediari. Unul dintre senatorii noștri de lângă mine, Blumenthal, spune asta cu voce tare. Mitt Romney spune asta cu voce tare. Sunt cei mai buni bani pe care îi poate cheltui America. Niciun american nu moare. Este ireal.

Acum, doar ca să ne aducem la ziua de ieri. Acest proiect a eșuat. Ideea proiectului era ca Rusia să renunțe. Ideea de la bun început a fost că Rusia nu poate rezista, așa cum a explicat Zbigniew Brzezinski în 1997. Americanii credeau că avem avantajul. Vom câștiga pentru că îi vom păcăli. Nu vor lupta cu adevărat. Nu se vor mobiliza cu adevărat.

Opțiunea nucleară este de a-i scoate din SWIFT. Asta îi va distruge. Sancțiunile economice, asta îi va distruge. HIMARS-urile, asta îi va distruge. ATAKMS-urile, F-16-urile. Sincer, ascult asta de 70 de ani. Le ascult ca pe o semi-înțelegere, aș spune, de aproximativ 56 de ani. Vorbesc prostii în fiecare zi. Țara mea, guvernul meu. Îmi este atât de familiar, complet familiar.

I-am implorat pe ucraineni, și aveam un istoric cu ucrainenii. I-am sfătuit pe ucraineni, nu sunt anti-ucrainean, sunt pro-ucrainean, complet. Le-am spus, salvați-vă viețile, salvați-vă suveranitatea, salvați-vă teritoriul, fiți neutri. Nu ascultați americanii. Le-am repetat faimoasa zicală a lui Henry Kissinger, că “a fi dușman al Statelor Unite este periculos, dar a fi prieten este fatal”.

Așa că permiteți-mi să repet asta pentru Europa. A fi dușman al Statelor Unite este periculos, dar a fi prieten este fatal.

Așadar, permiteți-mi să închei acum cu câteva cuvinte despre Trump. Trump nu vrea să fie pierzător. De aceea este mai probabil ca acest război să se termine, pentru că Trump și președintele Putin vor fi de acord să pună capăt războiului.

Dacă Europa va face toată instigarea la război, nu contează. Războiul se termină. Așa că scoateți-l din sistemul vostru. Vă rog să le spuneți colegilor voștri că s-a terminat. Și s-a terminat pentru că Trump nu vrea să aibă un pierzător în spate. Asta e tot. Nu este vorba de vreo moralitate măreață, nu vrea să aibă un pierzător în spate.

Cea care va fi salvată de negocierile care au loc chiar acum este Ucraina. În al doilea rând, este Europa. Bursa voastră de valori crește în ultimele zile din cauza veștilor oribile despre negocieri. Știu că acest lucru a fost întâmpinat cu groază pură în aceste camere, dar aceasta este cea mai bună veste pe care ați putut-o primi.

Acum, i-am încurajat, nu mă ascultă, dar am încercat să iau legătura cu unii dintre lideri. Majoritatea nu vor să audă nimic de la mine. Dar le-am spus, nu mergeți la Kiev. Mergeți la Moscova. Discutați cu omologii voștri. Glumiți?

Voi sunteți Europa. Sunteți 450 de milioane de oameni.

Aveți o economie de 20 de trilioane de dolari. Ar trebui să fiți principalul partener economic comercial al Rusiei. Aveți legături naturale. Apropo, dacă cineva ar dori să discute despre cum au aruncat SUA în aer Nord Stream, aș fi bucuros să vorbesc despre asta.

Așadar, administrația Trump este imperialistă în esență.

Este o mare putere care domină lumea. Vom face ce vrem când putem. Vom fi mai buni decât un Biden senescent și ne vom reduce pierderile acolo unde trebuie. Există mai multe zone de război în lume, Orientul Mijlociu fiind o alta. Nu știm ce se va întâmpla cu asta.

Din nou, dacă Europa ar avea o politică adecvată, ar putea opri acel război. Voi explica cum.

Dar războiul cu China este, de asemenea, o posibilitate. Deci nu spun că suntem în noua eră a păcii, dar suntem într-un tip de politică foarte diferit acum.

Și Europa ar trebui să aibă o politică externă și nu doar o politică externă a rusofobiei, ci o politică externă realistă, care înțelege situația Rusiei, care înțelege situația Europei, care înțelege ce este America și ce reprezintă. Care încearcă să evite invadarea Europei de către Statele Unite, pentru că nu este imposibil ca America să debarce trupe pe teritoriul danez. Nu glumesc. Și nu cred că ei glumesc.

Iar Europa are nevoie de o politică externă, una reală, nu un „da”, vom negocia cu domnul Trump și ne vom întâlni cu el la jumătatea drumului. Știți cum va fi asta? Sunați-mă după aceea. Vă rog să nu aveți oficiali americani în fruntea Europei. Aveți oficiali europeni. Vă rog să aveți o politică externă europeană.

Veți trăi cu Rusia alături mult timp.

Așa că vă rog să negociați cu Rusia. Există probleme reale de securitate pe masă. Dar bombasticul și rusofobia nu servesc deloc securității dumneavoastră. Nu servesc deloc securității Ucrainei. A contribuit la un milion de victime în Ucraina din cauza acestei aventuri americane idioate în care ați semnat și apoi ați devenit susținătorii principali. Nu rezolvă nimic.

În ceea ce privește Orientul Mijlociu, apropo, SUA i-au predat complet politica externă lui Netanyahu acum 30 de ani. Lobby-ul israelian domină politica americană. Nu aveți nicio îndoială „Aș putea explica ore întregi cum funcționează. E foarte periculos. Sper că Trump nu-și va distruge administrația și, mai rău, poporul palestinian din cauza lui Netanyahu, pe care îl consider un criminal de război, pus sub acuzare în mod corespunzător de CPI.

Și nu mai trebuie să i se spună că va exista un stat Palestina la granițele din 4 iunie 1967, conform dreptului internațional, ca singura cale pentru pace. Singura modalitate prin care Europa poate avea pace la granițele cu Orientul Mijlociu este soluția cu două state.

Există un singur obstacol în calea acesteia, apropo, și anume veto-ul Statelor Unite și al Consiliului de Securitate al ONU. Deci, dacă vreți să aveți o oarecare influență, spuneți Statelor Unite să renunțe la veto. Sunteți alături de 180 de țări din lume. Singurele care se opun unui stat palestinian sunt: ​​Statele Unite, Israel, Micronezia, Nauru, Palau, Papua Noua Guinee, [domnul Malay (?)] și Paraguay.

Deci, acesta este un loc în care Europa ar putea avea o mare influență.” Europa a tăcut în legătură cu JCPOA și Iranul. Cel mai mare vis al lui Netanyahu în viață este un război între Statele Unite și Iran. Nu a renunțat. Și nu este imposibil ca și acesta să se întâmple. Și asta pentru că SUA, în această privință, nu au o politică externă independentă.

Este condusă de Israel. Este tragic. Este uimitor, apropo. Și s-ar putea termina. Trump ar putea spune că își dorește politica externă înapoi. Poate. Sper să fie așa.

În cele din urmă, permiteți-mi să spun doar în ceea ce privește China, China nu este un dușman. China este doar o poveste de succes. De aceea este considerată de Statele Unite ca un dușman, pentru că China are o economie mai mare decât Statele Unite.

Asta e tot.

________________________________________

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Foarte bine.

Acum, întrebări, vă rog să nu faceți nicio declarație. Faceți doar întrebări, pentru că suntem prea mulți și nu avem prea mult timp. Deci, de unde să încep? Încep cu partea stângă. Am o preferință spre stânga, după cum știți. Da, continuați.

Vorbitor din Republica Cehă: Mulțumesc, Jeffrey Sachs din Republica Cehă. Ne bucurăm că vă avem aici. Avem o problemă. Am fost blestemați de o vrăjitoare care a spus UE că UE este dezordonată. Deci nu se va îmbunătăți până în 2029. Dar ceea ce ar trebui să facem noi, central-europenii, între timp, mai ales dacă germanii nu votează suficient pentru Sarah Wagenknecht, ar trebui să creăm un fel de neutralitate pentru Europa Centrală? Sau ce ne-ați sugera să facem?

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Deci, în primul rând, toți nepoții mei sunt cehi. Vreau să știți. Iar Sonia este născută în Cehia și cetățeană cehă. Deci suntem foarte mândri. Sunt soțul secundară în această privință, dar sunt un aspirant ceh.

Europa trebuie să aibă o politică externă care să fie o politică externă europeană și trebuie să fie o politică externă realistă. Realism nu înseamnă ură. Realistul încearcă de fapt să înțeleagă ambele părți și să negocieze. Există două tipuri de realiști, un realist defensiv și un realist ofensiv. Dragul meu prieten John Mearsheimer, care este realistul ofensiv, suntem prieteni foarte apropiați și îl iubesc, dar cred mai mult decât el. Vorbești cu cealaltă parte și găsești o modalitate de a ajunge la o înțelegere.

Așadar, practic, Rusia nu va invada Europa. Acesta este punctul fundamental. Poate ajunge până la râul Nipru. Nu va invada Europa, dar există probleme reale. Principala problemă pentru Rusia erau Statele Unite, deoarece Rusia, ca putere majoră și cea mai mare putere nucleară din lume, a fost profund îngrijorată de unipolaritatea SUA de la început.

Acum, că acest lucru pare să se încheie, Europa trebuie să deschidă negocieri direct și cu Rusia, deoarece Statele Unite își vor pierde rapid interesul și veți trăi cu Rusia alături pentru următoarele mii de ani. Bine.

Deci, ce doriți? Vreți să vă asigurați că statele baltice sunt în siguranță. Cel mai bun lucru pentru statele baltice este să oprească rusofobia lor. Acesta este cel mai important lucru. Estonia are aproximativ 25% cetățeni ruși sau cetățeni vorbitori de limbă rusă, etnici ruși. Letonia la fel. Nu provocați vecinul. Asta e tot. Nu este greu. Chiar nu este greu.

Și din nou, vreau să-mi explic punctul de vedere. Am ajutat aceste țări, cele despre care vorbesc, încercând să le dau sfaturi. Nu sunt dușmanul lor. Nu sunt marioneta lui Putin. Nu sunt apologetul lui Putin. Am lucrat în Estonia. Cred că este a doua cea mai înaltă distincție civilă pe care un președinte al Estoniei o poate acorda unui cetățean străin, pentru că eu am conceput sistemul lor monetar pentru ei în 1992.

Așa că le dau sfaturi. Nu sta acolo, Estonia, și nu spune: vrem să destrămăm Rusia. Glumești?

Nu face asta. Nu așa se supraviețuiește în lumea asta.

De fapt, supraviețuiești cu respect reciproc. Supraviețuiești în negocieri. Supraviețuiești în discuții. Nu interzici limba rusă. Nu este o idee bună când 25% din populația ta are limba rusă ca limbă maternă.

Nu e corect nici dacă n-ar exista un gigant la graniță. Nu ar fi lucrul corect de făcut. Ar fi ca limbă oficială. Ar fi o limbă în școala primară să fie interzise.

Nu  antagoniza Biserica Ortodoxă Rusă. Deci, practic, trebuie să ne comportăm ca adulții. Și când spun constant că se comportă ca niște copii,

Sonia îmi spune mereu că este nedrept față de copii. Pentru că asta e mai rău decât copiii. Avem o nepoată de șase ani și un nepot de trei ani, și chiar se împacă cu prietenii lor. Și nu le spunem să meargă doar să-i ridiculizeze mâine și în fiecare zi. Le spunem să meargă, să-i îmbrățișeze și să se joace. Și o fac. Nu e greu. Apropo, ei bine, oricum, nu voi insista asupra acestui aspect.

Mulțumesc.

Așadar, alegeți un nou guvern. Nu, nu ar trebui să spun asta. Tot ce ar trebui să spun este să schimbați politica.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Nu vreau să am un…

Tânără reporteră de la Brussels Times: Funcționează?

Da. Bună, numele meu este Kira. Sunt reporter la Brussels Times. Mulțumesc pentru discuția fascinantă, Jeffrey. Am vrut doar să te întreb despre declarațiile lui Trump despre dorința ca membrii NATO să își mărească cheltuielile cu 5%.

Și acum vedem o mulțime de țări care se luptă să demonstreze că vor face acest lucru, inclusiv Belgia. Și având în vedere că Belgia este și sediul NATO, am vrut să te întreb care ar fi răspunsul potrivit la aceste declarații ale membrilor NATO? Mulțumesc.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Nu suntem exact de acord în această privință. Așadar, permiteți-mi să vă ofer propria mea opinie. Prima mea recomandare, cu tot respectul pentru Bruxelles, este mutarea sediului NATO în altă parte. Vorbesc serios, pentru că una dintre cele mai grave părți ale politicii europene din acest moment este o confuzie completă între Europa și NATO. Acestea sunt complet diferite, dar au devenit exact la fel.

Europa este mult mai bună decât NATO. În opinia mea, NATO nici măcar nu mai este necesar. Aș fi pus capăt la asta în 1991. Dar pentru că SUA l-au considerat un instrument de hegemonie, nu o apărare împotriva Rusiei, a continuat ulterior.

Dar confuzia dintre NATO și Europa este mortală, deoarece extinderea Europei a însemnat extinderea NATO, punct. Și acestea ar fi trebuit să fie lucruri complet diferite. Deci, acesta este primul punct.

Părerea mea, din nou, cu tot respectul pentru Michael, am avut doar o scurtă conversație despre asta, este că Europa ar trebui să aibă practic propria politică externă și propria securitate militară, propria autonomie strategică, așa-numita.

Și ar trebui. Sunt în favoarea acestui lucru.

Aș desființa NATO și poate Trump o va face oricum. Poate Trump va invada Groenlanda. Cine știe?

Atunci veți afla cu adevărat ce înseamnă NATO. Deci, cred că Europa ar trebui să investească în securitatea sa. Cinci procente este extravagant, ridicol, absurd, complet absurd. Nimeni nu trebuie să cheltuiască o asemenea sumă. Două până la trei procente din PIB, probabil în circumstanțele actuale.

Ceea ce aș face, apropo, ar fi să cumpăr producție europeană. Pentru că, de fapt, în mod ciudat, ciudat, din păcate, în lumea asta, și este un truism, dar este regretabil, așa că nu îl susțin. O mare parte din inovația tehnologică provine din sectorul militar, deoarece guvernele investesc în sectorul militar.

Deci, Trump este un vânzător de arme. Înțelegeți asta. Vinde arme americane. Vinde tehnologie americană. Vance v-a spus acum câteva zile, nici nu vă gândiți să aveți propria tehnologie de inteligență artificială. Așadar, vă rog să înțelegeți că această creștere a cheltuielilor este pentru Statele Unite, nu pentru voi. Și în acest sens, sunt complet împotriva acestei abordări.

Dar nu aș fi împotriva unei abordări în care Europa ar cheltui două până la trei procente din PIB pentru o structură de securitate europeană unificată și ar investi în Europa și tehnologia europeană, fără ca Statele Unite să dicteze utilizarea tehnologiei europene. Este atât de interesant. Olanda este cea care produce singurele mașini de semiconductori avansați, litografie ultravioletă extremă. Este ASML.

Dar America determină fiecare politică ASML. Olanda nu are nici măcar o notă de subsol. Nu aș face asta dacă aș fi în locul vostru, să predați toată securitatea Statelor Unite. Nu aș face-o. Aș avea propriul cadru de securitate, ca să puteți avea și voi propriul cadru de politică externă.

Europa reprezintă multe lucruri pe care Statele Unite nu le susțin. Europa susține acțiunile climatice, apropo, pe bună dreptate, pentru că președintele nostru este complet nebun în privința asta. Iar Europa reprezintă decența, social-democrația ca etos. Nu vorbesc despre un partid. Vorbesc despre un etos al modului în care se realizează egalitatea vieții.

Europa reprezintă multilateralismul. Europa reprezintă Carta ONU. SUA nu reprezintă niciuna dintre aceste idei subțiri. Știți că secretarul nostru de stat, Marco Rubio, și-a anulat călătoria în Africa de Sud pentru că pe ordinea de zi erau egalitatea și sustenabilitatea. Și a spus: „Nu intru în detalii. Aceasta este o reflectare sinceră a profundului libertarianism anglo-saxon.”

Și libertarianismul. Egalitarismul nu este un cuvânt din lexiconul american. Dezvoltare durabilă, deloc. Probabil știți, apropo, că dintre cele 193 de state membre ale ONU, 191 au avut planuri ODD (Planuri de Dezvoltare Durabilă) prezentate ca evaluări naționale voluntare. 191. Două nu au avut. Haiti și Statele Unite ale Americii.

Administrația Biden nici măcar nu a avut voie să menționeze obiective de dezvoltare durabilă. Trezoreria avea o politică de a nu menționa obiective de dezvoltare durabilă. Bine, menționez toate acestea pentru că aveți nevoie de propria politică externă.

Eu public un raport, două rapoarte în fiecare an. Unul, Raportul Fericirii Mondiale, și 18 din primele 20 de țări, dacă îmi amintesc bine, sunt europene. Aceasta este cea mai înaltă calitate a vieții din întreaga lume. Așadar, aveți nevoie de propria politică pentru a proteja această calitate a vieții.

Statele Unite sunt mult mai jos. Și în celălalt raport, unde este colegul meu Guillaume? Este undeva în cameră aici. Uite-l acolo. Guillaume LaFortune este autorul principal al raportului nostru anual privind dezvoltarea durabilă. Și aproape toate primele 20 de țări sunt țări europene pentru că voi credeți în aceste lucruri.

Și de aceea sunteți cei mai fericiți, cu excepția geopoliticii. Doar calitatea vieții.

Deci aveți nevoie de propria politică externă, dar nu o veți avea decât dacă aveți propria securitate. Pur și simplu nu o veți avea. Și astfel, apropo, 27 de țări nu pot avea fiecare propria politică externă. Aceasta este o problemă. Aveți nevoie de o politică externă europeană și de o structură de securitate europeană. Și apropo, deși Michael mă asigură că este mort,am fost cel mai mare fan al OSCE și cred că OSCE este cadrul adecvat pentru securitatea europeană. Ar putea funcționa cu adevărat.

Vorbitor din Slovacia: Mulțumesc. Mulțumesc foarte mult. Da, OK. Ei bine, vă mulțumesc, domnule profesor. Sunt din Slovacia, iar prim-ministrul meu, Robert Fico, a fost aproape împușcat mortal pentru că opiniile dumneavoastră sunt similare cu ale sale. Da, noi, in Slovacia, cu un guvern slovac suntem dintre puținele țări din Uniunea Europeană care vorbim cu rușii.

Acum două luni, vorbeam cu domnul Medvedev. Peste două săptămâni, voi vorbi la Duma cu domnul Slutsky, care este președintele Comisiei pentru Afaceri Externe a Rusiei de la Moscova. Poate întrebarea mea este: care ar fi mesajul dumneavoastră pentru ruși în acest moment? Pentru că, după cum am auzit, sunt pe valul victoriei. Nu au niciun motiv să nu cucerească Donbasul, deoarece acesta este scopul lor de război. Și ce le poate oferi Trump pentru a opri imediat războiul? Care ar fi mesajul pentru ruși din partea dumneavoastră? Vă mulțumesc foarte mult.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Multe lucruri importante sunt acum oferite și pe masă. Și cred că războiul se va termina rapid din cauza asta. Și aceasta va fi cel puțin o binecuvântare într-o perioadă foarte, foarte dificilă. Cred că exact cum va fi acordul este acum doar o chestiune de teritoriu. Și anume dacă este vorba despre cele patru regiuni complete, inclusiv Herson și Zaporijia, sau dacă se află pe linia de contact și cum vor fi negociate toate acestea.

Nu sunt implicat în negocieri. Așa că nu pot spune mai multe. Dar baza va fi că vor exista concesii teritoriale. Va exista neutralitate. Vor exista garanții de securitate pentru Ucraina, pentru toate părțile. Va exista, cel puțin cu SUA, sfârșitul sancțiunilor economice. Dar ceea ce contează, desigur, sunt Europa și Rusia.

Cred că există și poate va exista o reluare a negocierilor privind armele nucleare, ceea ce ar fi extraordinar de pozitiv. Cred că există probleme extrem de importante pe care Europa să le negocieze direct cu Rusia. Așadar, l-aș îndemna pe președintele [António] Costa și pe conducerea Europei să deschidă discuții directe cu președintele Putin, deoarece securitatea europeană este pe masă.

Îi cunosc pe liderii ruși, mulți dintre ei destul de bine. Sunt buni negociatori și ar trebui să negociați cu ei. Și ar trebui să negociați bine cu ei. Le-aș pune câteva întrebări. I-aș întreba care sunt garanțiile de securitate care pot funcționa astfel încât acest război să se încheie definitiv?

Care sunt garanțiile de securitate pentru statele baltice?

Ce ar trebui făcut?

O parte a procesului de negociere este de fapt să întrebi cealaltă parte despre preocupările tale, nu doar să știi ce știu ei, așa cum crezi tu că este adevărat, ci să întrebi, de fapt, că avem o problemă reală. Avem o îngrijorare reală. Care sunt garanțiile? Ei bine, vreau să știu și răspunsurile.

Apropo, îl cunosc pe domnul Lavrov, ministru Lavrov de 30 de ani. Îl consider un ministru de externe strălucit. Vorbește cu el. Negociază cu el. Obține idei. Pune idei pe masă. Pune idei contrare pe masă. Nu cred că toate acestea pot fi rezolvate prin pură rațiune din cauza ta.

Războaiele se rezolvă prin negociere și înțelegerea problemelor reale. Și nu numiți cealaltă parte mincinoasă atunci când își exprimă problemele. Trebuie să stabiliți care sunt implicațiile acestui lucru pentru beneficiul reciproc al păcii. Așadar, cel mai important lucru este să încetați țipetele, să încetați incitarea la război și să discutați cu omologii ruși.

Și nu implorați să fiți la masa negocierilor cu Statele Unite. Nu trebuie să fiți în aceeași cameră cu Statele Unite. Sunteți Europa. Ar trebui să fiți în aceeași cameră cu Europa și Rusia. Dacă Statele Unite vor să se alăture, este în regulă. Dar să implorați, nu. Și apropo, Europa nu are nevoie ca Ucraina să fie prezentă atunci când Europa discută cu Rusia. Aveți o mulțime de probleme, probleme directe.

Nu predați politica voastră externă nimănui. Nici Statelor Unite, nici Ucrainei, nici Israelului. Mențineți o politică externă europeană. Aceasta este ideea de bază.

Hans Neuhoff: Hans Neuhoff din Grupul Politic Suveranist din acest parlament. Alternativă pentru Germania ca partid politic. În primul rând, permiteți-mi să vă mulțumesc, domnule Sachs, pentru prezența dumneavoastră și pentru că ne-ați împărtășit ideile dumneavoastră. Și fiți sigur că multe dintre ideile dumneavoastră și ale colegului dumneavoastră, John Mersheimer, au fost bine primite de grupurile politice de aici și au fost integrate în agenda noastră. Împărtășesc în mare măsură opiniile dumneavoastră.

Totuși, există o întrebare referitoare la relatarea istorică pe care ați oferit-o, despre care aș dori să intru în detalii. Aceasta se referă la începutul extinderii NATO. Ați relatat de pe site-ul web, What Gorbachev Heard, că există multe citate din Genscher, de exemplu, că NATO nu se va mișca niciun centimetru spre est. Acum, tratatul 2 plus 4 a fost semnat în septembrie 1990, nu-i așa? La Moscova. Deci, la acel moment, Pactul de la Varșovia încă exista. Și țări precum Polonia, Ungaria și Cehia nu au participat la negocierile pentru tratatul 2 plus 4. Așadar, Pactul de la Varșovia s-a dizolvat de fapt în iulie 1991, iar Uniunea Sovietică s-a dizolvat în decembrie 1991.

Așadar, nimeni dintre cei prezenți la negocieri nu a putut vorbi în numele Poloniei, în numele Ungariei, în numele Slovaciei, că nu vor încerca să devină membru NATO odată ce situația generală se va schimba. Așadar, contraargumentul pe care trebuie să-l combatem este că a fost voința acestor țări, a Poloniei, a Ungariei, a Slovaciei, că au vrut să adere la NATO datorită istoriei pe care o aveau cu Uniunea Sovietică. Și, bineînțeles, Rusia era încă percepută într-un fel ca un adept al Uniunii Sovietice. Deci, cum puteți combate acest argument?

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Nu am nicio îndoială de ce Ungaria, Polonia, Republica Cehă, Slovacia au vrut să adere la NATO. Întrebarea este ce fac SUA pentru a face pace? Pentru că NATO nu este o alegere a Ungariei, Poloniei, Republicii Cehe sau Slovaciei. NATO este o alianță militară condusă de SUA.

Și întrebarea este cum vom stabili pacea într-un mod fiabil? Dacă aș fi luat acele decizii pe atunci, aș fi pus capăt complet NATO în 1991. Când acele țări au solicitat NATO, le-aș fi explicat ce a spus secretarul nostru al Apărării, William Perry, ce a spus omul nostru de stat principal, George Kennan, ce a spus ultimul nostru ambasador în Uniunea Sovietică, Jack Matlock. Ei au spus: ei bine, vă înțelegem sentimentele, dar nu este o idee bună, deoarece ar putea provoca un nou Război Rece cu Rusia. Așa că așa aș fi răspuns.

Când acele țări s-au alăturat în primul val, nu cred că a fost chiar atât de important, cu excepția faptului că a făcut parte dintr-un proiect mai amplu. Și proiectul a fost deja elaborat în 1994. Există o carte foarte bună de Jonathan Haslam, Harvard University Press, numită “Hubris”, care oferă o documentație istorică detaliată a ceea ce s-a întâmplat pas cu pas. Și merită cu adevărat citită.

Deci, asta e acum, dar ideea pe care aș vrea să o subliniez este că Ucraina și Georgia erau prea departe. Asta e chiar în fața Rusiei. Asta se întâmplă în contextul destabilizării complete a cadrului nuclear. Acest lucru se întâmplă în contextul instalării de sisteme de rachete de către SUA la granițele Rusiei.

Dacă îl ascultați pe președintele Putin de-a lungul anilor, probabil că principalul lucru, dacă îl ascultați cu atenție, care îl preocupă sunt rachetele la șapte minute de Moscova, un atac de decapitare. Și acest lucru este cât se poate de real. SUA nu numai că ar intra în panică, dar au intrat în panică atunci când s-ar întâmpla asta în emisfera vestică. Deci este criza rachetelor cubaneze inversată.

Și, din fericire, Nikita Hrușciov nu s-a ridicat și nu a spus politica ușilor deschise a Pactului de la Varșovia. Putem merge oriunde vrem. Cuba ne-a cerut-o, nu este treaba Americii. Ceea ce a spus Hrușciov este război, Doamne, nu vrem război. Punem capăt acestei crize. Amândoi ne retragem. Asta au decis Hrușciov și Kennedy în cele din urmă.

Deci aceasta este adevărata consecință. Rusia a înghițit cu multă durere chiar și statele baltice, România, Bulgaria, Slovacia și Slovenia. Este Ucraina și Georgia. Și este din cauza geografiei. Este din cauza Lordului Palmerston. Este din cauza primului Război al Crimeii. Este din cauza sistemelor de rachete care explică esența motivului pentru care Aici a fost acest război.

Deputat european din Germania: Vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule profesor Sachs, pentru prezență. Ați menționat că Uniunea Europeană trebuie să își formuleze propria politică externă. În trecut, alianța germano-franco a fost un factor important pentru aceste politici. Acum, cu războiul din Ucraina, probabil, acesta a primit o scăpare. Credeți că în viitor, când Uniunea Europeană va formula această nouă politică externă, va fi din nou în prim-plan? Sau ar trebui să fie alte țări sau alte blocuri care să încerce să facă această schimbare?

Vă mulțumesc foarte mult.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Oh, este greu. Este greu pentru că, desigur, nu aveți încă o constituție pentru Europa care să stea la baza unei politici externe europene. Și nu se poate face prin unanimitate. Trebuie să existe o structură în care Europa să poată vorbi ca Europa, chiar și cu unele opoziții, dar cu politica europeană. Nu vreau să simplific prea mult cum se ajunge acolo exact. Dar chiar și cu structurile pe care le aveți, ați putea face mult mai bine negociind direct.

Prima regulă este că diplomații voștri ar trebui să fie diplomați, nu secretari de război. Sincer, asta ar ajunge la jumătatea drumului, cel puțin acolo unde vreți să ajungeți. Un diplomat este un talent foarte special. Un diplomat este antrenat să stea alături de cealaltă parte și să asculte, să strângă mâna, să zâmbească și să fie amabil. Este foarte greu. Este o abilitate. Este antrenament. Este o profesie. Nu este un joc. Ai nevoie de acest tip de diplomație. Îmi pare rău. Nu auzim așa ceva.

Voi face doar câteva plângeri. În primul rând, Europa nu este NATO, așa cum am spus. Am crezut că Stoltenberg era cel mai rău, dar m-am înșelat. Situația merge din ce în ce mai rău. Ar putea cineva din NATO să nu mai vorbească, pentru numele lui Dumnezeu, despre mai mult război?

Și ar putea NATO să nu mai vorbească în numele Europei? Și Europa să nu mai creadă că este NATO. Acesta este primul punct absolut. În al doilea rând, îmi pare rău, dar vicepreședinții voștri înalți reprezentanți trebuie să devină diplomați. Diplomația înseamnă să mergi la Moscova, să-ți inviți omologul rus aici, să discuți. Acest lucru nu s-a întâmplat până acum. Deci, acesta este, de fapt, punctul meu de vedere.

Acum, cred că Europa ar trebui să devină mai integrată și mai unită în anii următori. Cred cu tărie în subsidiaritate. Așa că discutam. Nu cred că politica locuințelor este cu adevărat principala problemă a Europei. Cred că aceasta poate fi gestionată la nivel local sau la nivel național. Nu o văd ca pe o problemă europeană. Dar nu văd politica externă ca fiind o problemă a celor 27 de țări. O văd ca pe o problemă europeană. Și văd securitatea la nivel european. Deci cred că lucrurile trebuie reajustate. Dar aș vrea să văd mai multă Europă pentru probleme cu adevărat europene și poate mai puțină Europă pentru lucruri care sunt subsidiare Europei la nivel național și local. Și sper că o astfel de evoluție poate avea loc.

Știți, când lumea vorbește despre marile puteri acum, vorbește despre SUA, Rusia, China. Includ India. Și chiar vreau să includ și Europa. Și chiar vreau să includ și Africa ca o uniune africană. Și vreau să se întâmple asta. Dar veți observa pe listă că Europa nu apare acum. Și asta pentru că nu există o politică externă europeană.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Bine.

Europarlamentar din Luxemburg: Vă mulțumesc foarte mult. Și vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule profesor, pentru acest discurs foarte curajos, un discurs foarte clar pe care l-ați ținut. Sunt europarlamentar din Luxemburg. Întrebarea mea este următoarea. Care sunt consecințele pe termen lung ale acestui război pierdut? Am pierdut războiul. Acum avem un viitor incert pentru NATO. De asemenea, avem în mod clar, și v-ați referit la asta, marginalizarea Europei. Avem o consolidare a țărilor BRICS, care pot fi rivale în multe privințe. Deci, va exista un viitor pentru un Occident colectiv în următorii 20 sau 30 de ani?

Vă mulțumesc foarte mult.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Nu cred că există un Occident colectiv. Cred că există Statele Unite și o Europă care au în unele domenii interese paralele și în multe domenii nu au interese paralele. Îmi doresc ca Europa să conducă o dezvoltare durabilă. Transformare climatică, decență globală.

Cred că dacă lumea ar arăta mai mult ca Europa, ar fi o lume mai fericită, mai pașnică, mai sigură. Și longevitate și mâncare mai bună, apropo.

Dar, ca să spun, în orice caz, Europa are o vocație destul de diferită de tradiția americană. Și, sincer, față de tradiția anglo-saxonă, pentru că au trecut 200 de ani de hegemonie anglo-saxonă sau de hegemonie aspirațională, britanicii încă mai cred că ei conduc lumea.

Este uimitor ce înseamnă nostalgia. Nici măcar nu se opresc. E aproape ca o scenetă Monty Python, de fapt. Dar, în orice caz, unde eram? Mă gândesc la Monty Python când cavalerul are toate membrele tăiate și spune: totul e bine. Sunt victorios. Aceea este Marea Britanie, din păcate. Și deci este cu adevărat teribil.

Așa că nu, nu cred în Occidentul colectiv. Nu cred în Sudul global. Nu cred că toate aceste geografii nici măcar nu au sens. Așa că nici măcar nu înțeleg despre ce este vorba. Cred că am putea fi într-o adevărată eră a abundenței dacă ne-am lămuri mințile. Suntem în mijlocul celui mai mare progres tehnologic din istoria omenirii.

Este cu adevărat uimitor ce se poate face chiar acum. Știți, mă minunez de faptul că cineva care nu știe chimie a câștigat Premiul Nobel pentru chimie pentru că este foarte bun la rețele neuronale profunde, un geniu, DemisHassabis. Au descoperit plierea proteinelor, lucru pe care generații de biochimisti și-au petrecut întreaga viață. Și acum DeepMind a descoperit cum să o facă, știți, cu miile de proteine.

Avem prieteni care și-au petrecut întreaga viață cu o singură proteină, prieteni străluciți. Și acum ce putem face noi. Deci, dacă într-adevăr, și la fel și cu energia regenerabilă, după cum știe toată lumea, prețurile scad cu peste două ordine de mărime, costurile. Am putea transforma planeta. Am putea proteja sistemul climatic. Am putea proteja biodiversitatea. Am putea asigura că fiecare copil primește o educație bună. Am putea face atât de multe lucruri minunate chiar acum.” Și de ce avem nevoie pentru a face asta? În opinia mea, avem nevoie de pace, cel mai important.

Iar ideea mea fundamentală este că nu există motive profunde pentru conflict nicăieri, pentru că fiecare conflict pe care îl studiez este doar o greșeală. Nu este, nu luptăm pentru Lebensraum/Habitat. Acea idee care a venit de la Malthus și care a devenit o idee nazistă a fost întotdeauna o idee greșită. A fost o greșeală, o greșeală intelectuală fundamentală. O greșeală intelectuală, apropo, pentru că oamenii de știință de renume au adoptat ideea că avem războaie rasiale, am avut războaie naționale, am avut războaie pentru supraviețuire, pentru că nu avem suficiente resurse pe planetă.

Ca economist, vă pot spune că avem destule resurse pe planetă pentru dezvoltarea tuturor, destule. Nu suntem într-un conflict cu China. Nu suntem într-un conflict cu Rusia. Dacă ne calmăm, dacă întrebați despre termen lung, termenul lung este foarte bun, mulțumesc. Termenul lung, dacă nu ne aruncăm în aer, este foarte bun. Și deci asta ar trebui să urmărim, o viziune pozitivă comună în conformitate cu dreptul internațional.

Datorită tehnologiei noastre, lucrurile funcționează acum la scară regională. Înainte erau sate, apoi erau zone mici, apoi a fost unificarea țărilor. Acum este regional. Asta nu se întâmplă doar pentru că regiunile sunt minunate. Se întâmplă pentru că realitățile tehnologice subiacente spun că Europa ar trebui să fie o zonă integrată prin transport, prin căi ferate rapide, prin tehnologie digitală, prin… Și așa există Europa.

Politica urmează realitățile tehnologice într-o măsură foarte importantă. Suntem acum într-o lume a regiunilor. Deci Europa ar trebui să fie o Europă cu subsidiaritate. Nu pierdem toate elementele naționale și locale minunate. Dar Europa ar trebui să fie Europa. Deci partea bună este să… Vreau ca Europa să aibă diplomație, de exemplu, cu ASEAN.

Am petrecut mult timp cu țările ASEAN. Dacă Pactul Verde al UE este o idee minunată. Le-am spus cu mulți ani în urmă, bine, liderilor ASEAN, să facă un Pact Verde ASEAN. Și apoi să discute cu europenii, astfel încât să aveți această relație minunată, comerț, investiții, tehnologie. Așa că anul trecut au anunțat un Pact Verde ASEAN. Ce a făcut Europa în privința asta? Nimic. Spunea, scuze, suntem în războiul din Ucraina, mulțumesc. Nu am avut niciun interes. Deci acesta este punctul meu de vedere.

Perspectivele sunt foarte pozitive dacă construim pacea.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Pentru că trebuie să plecăm, primesc tot timpul mesaje că ar trebui să părăsesc camera. Scurt. Ceva foarte scurt.

Tânără doamnă deputată europeană: Da. Scuze, da, vă mulțumesc mult pentru prelegere. Am vrut să întreb, credeți că ieșirea din conflict este un fel de finlandizare? Și apoi, credeți că asta este modul în care ați fi vrut să vedeți, de exemplu, procesul natural al Finlandei și Suediei, scuze, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, credeți că o ieșire din conflict este un fel de finlandizare?

Și apoi, asta ați fi vrut să vedeți în politica externă a Suediei și Finlandei, ca exemplu? Adică, în loc să devină membri NATO, acesta este modul în care ați fi vrut să vedeți aceste țări împărțite cu politică externă? Și credeți că aceste țări care se învecinează cu Rusia ar trebui pur și simplu să cedeze soartei lor, astfel încât, bine, să nu putem provoca Rusia. Adică, acesta este modul în care trebuie să trăim.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Foarte bună, excelentă întrebare. Și permiteți-mi să vă raportez o parte despre finlandizare. Finlandizarea a plasat Finlanda pe primul loc în Raportul Mondial privind Fericirea an de an. Bogată, de succes, fericită și sigură. Asta e înainte de NATO. Deci finlandizarea a fost un lucru minunat. Numărul unu în lume.

Când Suedia, Finlanda și Austria erau neutre. Bravo, inteligent. Când Ucraina era neutră, inteligent. Dacă aveți două superputeri, țineți-le puțin separate. Nu trebuie să fiți cu nasul lipit una de cealaltă.

Mai ales dacă una dintre ele, SUA. Și astfel, finlandizarea, în opinia mea, are o conotație foarte pozitivă. La fel și austriacizarea. Austria, în 1955, și-a semnat neutralitatea. Armata sovietică a plecat. Și Austria este un loc minunat, apropo. Absolut minunat. Și aceasta este o modalitate fundamentală de a evita conflictul. Dacă Statele Unite ar fi avut vreun pic de bun simț, ar fi părăsit aceste țări ca un spațiu neutru între armata americană și Rusia. Dar aici SUA și-au pierdut mintea. OK.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Mulțumesc foarte mult. Vreau doar să închei cu un apel. Cred că amândoi suntem de acord că războiul se va termina într-o lună sau două. Asta înseamnă că luptele se vor termina. Nu înseamnă că vom avea pace în Europa. Pacea în Europa trebuie să fie realizată de noi, de europeni, nu de un președinte din Statele Unite.

Trebuie să creăm această pace. Și aceasta este Europa, care include, desigur, Belarus, Rusia și toate aceste alte țări. Deci trebuie să facem ceva. Și suntem aici, un parlament. Ca parlamentari, reprezentăm oamenii. Suntem singura instituție legitimă, democratic legitimă, din Uniunea Europeană. Poate că ar fi trebuit să devenim puțin mai proactivi în încercarea de a avansa acest proces de pace, indiferent de partid.

Cred că nu știu câte partide sunt cu adevărat aici, dar dacă putem vorbi unii cu alții fără să spunem: „Sunteți din partidul acesta, sunteți din partidul acesta”, cred că trebuie să ne concentrăm. Dacă aici nu am putea lua mai multă inițiativă din partea parlamentului față de comisie, spunând: „Noi prezentăm oamenii, nu pe voi. Noi prezentăm oamenii”. Și acești oameni din Europa vor pace.

Și asta ar trebui să facem. Deci, poate acesta este începutul. În fiecare lună, voi organiza împreună cu colegii mei același lucru aici, pe diferite teme, care au fost în jurul acestui subiect. Și sperăm că de data aceasta vom avea o discuție diferită de cea pe care o avem în plen, unde practic nu avem o discuție, ci vom avea o discuție și în cadrul partidului și vom invita și persoane din alte partide politice. Nu invităm pe nimeni.

Haideți să discutăm asta până la urmă. Cu toții ne dorim aceeași pace pentru următoarea generație. Și am o mulțime de copii, nepoți, și dumneavoastră la fel.

Și asta este ceea ce ne trebuie.

Bine, vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule profesor.

Hans Neuhoff: Hans Neuhoff din Grupul Politic Suveranist din acest parlament. Alternativă pentru Germania ca partid politic. În primul rând, permiteți-mi să vă mulțumesc, domnule Sachs, pentru prezența dumneavoastră și pentru că ne-ați împărtășit ideile dumneavoastră. Și fiți sigur că multe dintre ideile dumneavoastră și ale colegului dumneavoastră, John Mersheimer, au fost bine primite de grupurile politice de aici și au fost integrate în agenda noastră. Împărtășesc în mare măsură opiniile dumneavoastră.

Totuși, există o întrebare referitoare la relatarea istorică pe care ați oferit-o, despre care aș dori să intru în detalii. Aceasta se referă la începutul extinderii NATO. Ați relatat de pe site-ul web, What Gorbachev Heard, că există multe citate din Genscher, de exemplu, că NATO nu se va mișca niciun centimetru spre est. Acum, tratatul 2 plus 4 a fost semnat în septembrie 1990, nu-i așa? La Moscova. Deci, la acel moment, Pactul de la Varșovia încă exista. Și țări precum Polonia, Ungaria și Cehia nu au participat la negocierile pentru tratatul 2 plus 4. Așadar, Pactul de la Varșovia s-a dizolvat de fapt în iulie 1991, iar Uniunea Sovietică s-a dizolvat în decembrie 1991.

Așadar, nimeni dintre cei prezenți la negocieri nu a putut vorbi în numele Poloniei, în numele Ungariei, în numele Slovaciei, că nu vor încerca să devină membru NATO odată ce situația generală se va schimba. Așadar, contraargumentul pe care trebuie să-l combatem este că a fost voința acestor țări, a Poloniei, a Ungariei, a Slovaciei, că au vrut să adere la NATO datorită istoriei pe care o aveau cu Uniunea Sovietică. Și, bineînțeles, Rusia era încă percepută într-un fel ca un adept al Uniunii Sovietice. Deci, cum puteți combate acest argument?

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Nu am nicio îndoială de ce Ungaria, Polonia, Republica Cehă, Slovacia au vrut să adere la NATO. Întrebarea este ce fac SUA pentru a face pace? Pentru că NATO nu este o alegere a Ungariei, Poloniei, Republicii Cehe sau Slovaciei. NATO este o alianță militară condusă de SUA.

Și întrebarea este cum vom stabili pacea într-un mod fiabil? Dacă aș fi luat acele decizii pe atunci, aș fi pus capăt complet NATO în 1991. Când acele țări au solicitat NATO, le-aș fi explicat ce a spus secretarul nostru al Apărării, William Perry, ce a spus omul nostru de stat principal, George Kennan, ce a spus ultimul nostru ambasador în Uniunea Sovietică, Jack Matlock. Ei au spus: ei bine, vă înțelegem sentimentele, dar nu este o idee bună, deoarece ar putea provoca un nou Război Rece cu Rusia. Așa că așa aș fi răspuns.

Când acele țări s-au alăturat în primul val, nu cred că a fost chiar atât de important, cu excepția faptului că a făcut parte dintr-un proiect mai amplu. Și proiectul a fost deja elaborat în 1994. Există o carte foarte bună de Jonathan Haslam, Harvard University Press, numită “Hubris”, care oferă o documentație istorică detaliată a ceea ce s-a întâmplat pas cu pas. Și merită cu adevărat citită.

Deci, asta e acum, dar ideea pe care aș vrea să o subliniez este că Ucraina și Georgia erau prea departe. Asta e chiar în fața Rusiei. Asta se întâmplă în contextul destabilizării complete a cadrului nuclear. Acest lucru se întâmplă în contextul instalării de sisteme de rachete de către SUA la granițele Rusiei.

Dacă îl ascultați pe președintele Putin de-a lungul anilor, probabil că principalul lucru, dacă îl ascultați cu atenție, care îl preocupă sunt rachetele la șapte minute de Moscova, un atac de decapitare. Și acest lucru este cât se poate de real. SUA nu numai că ar intra în panică, dar au intrat în panică atunci când s-ar întâmpla asta în emisfera vestică. Deci este criza rachetelor cubaneze inversată.

Și, din fericire, Nikita Hrușciov nu s-a ridicat și nu a spus politica ușilor deschise a Pactului de la Varșovia. Putem merge oriunde vrem. Cuba ne-a cerut-o, nu este treaba Americii. Ceea ce a spus Hrușciov este război, Doamne, nu vrem război. Punem capăt acestei crize. Amândoi ne retragem. Asta au decis Hrușciov și Kennedy în cele din urmă.

Deci aceasta este adevărata consecință. Rusia a înghițit cu multă durere chiar și statele baltice, România, Bulgaria, Slovacia și Slovenia. Este Ucraina și Georgia. Și este din cauza geografiei. Este din cauza Lordului Palmerston. Este din cauza primului Război al Crimeii. Este din cauza sistemelor de rachete care explică esența motivului pentru care Aici a fost acest război.

Deputat european din Germania: Vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule profesor Sachs, pentru prezență. Ați menționat că Uniunea Europeană trebuie să își formuleze propria politică externă. În trecut, alianța germano-franco a fost un factor important pentru aceste politici. Acum, cu războiul din Ucraina, probabil, acesta a primit o scăpare. Credeți că în viitor, când Uniunea Europeană va formula această nouă politică externă, va fi din nou în prim-plan? Sau ar trebui să fie alte țări sau alte blocuri care să încerce să facă această schimbare?

Vă mulțumesc foarte mult.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Oh, este greu. Este greu pentru că, desigur, nu aveți încă o constituție pentru Europa care să stea la baza unei politici externe europene. Și nu se poate face prin unanimitate. Trebuie să existe o structură în care Europa să poată vorbi ca Europa, chiar și cu unele opoziții, dar cu politica europeană. Nu vreau să simplific prea mult cum se ajunge acolo exact. Dar chiar și cu structurile pe care le aveți, ați putea face mult mai bine negociind direct.

Prima regulă este că diplomații voștri ar trebui să fie diplomați, nu secretari de război. Sincer, asta ar ajunge la jumătatea drumului, cel puțin acolo unde vreți să ajungeți. Un diplomat este un talent foarte special. Un diplomat este antrenat să stea alături de cealaltă parte și să asculte, să strângă mâna, să zâmbească și să fie amabil. Este foarte greu. Este o abilitate. Este antrenament. Este o profesie. Nu este un joc. Ai nevoie de acest tip de diplomație. Îmi pare rău. Nu auzim așa ceva.

Voi face doar câteva plângeri. În primul rând, Europa nu este NATO, așa cum am spus. Am crezut că Stoltenberg era cel mai rău, dar m-am înșelat. Situația merge din ce în ce mai rău. Ar putea cineva din NATO să nu mai vorbească, pentru numele lui Dumnezeu, despre mai mult război?

Și ar putea NATO să nu mai vorbească în numele Europei? Și Europa să nu mai creadă că este NATO. Acesta este primul punct absolut. În al doilea rând, îmi pare rău, dar vicepreședinții voștri înalți reprezentanți trebuie să devină diplomați. Diplomația înseamnă să mergi la Moscova, să-ți inviți omologul rus aici, să discuți. Acest lucru nu s-a întâmplat până acum. Deci, acesta este, de fapt, punctul meu de vedere.

Acum, cred că Europa ar trebui să devină mai integrată și mai unită în anii următori. Cred cu tărie în subsidiaritate. Așa că discutam. Nu cred că politica locuințelor este cu adevărat principala problemă a Europei. Cred că aceasta poate fi gestionată la nivel local sau la nivel național. Nu o văd ca pe o problemă europeană. Dar nu văd politica externă ca fiind o problemă a celor 27 de țări. O văd ca pe o problemă europeană. Și văd securitatea la nivel european. Deci cred că lucrurile trebuie reajustate. Dar aș vrea să văd mai multă Europă pentru probleme cu adevărat europene și poate mai puțină Europă pentru lucruri care sunt subsidiare Europei la nivel național și local. Și sper că o astfel de evoluție poate avea loc.

Știți, când lumea vorbește despre marile puteri acum, vorbește despre SUA, Rusia, China. Includ India. Și chiar vreau să includ și Europa. Și chiar vreau să includ și Africa ca o uniune africană. Și vreau să se întâmple asta. Dar veți observa pe listă că Europa nu apare acum. Și asta pentru că nu există o politică externă europeană.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Bine.

Europarlamentar din Luxemburg: Vă mulțumesc foarte mult. Și vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule profesor, pentru acest discurs foarte curajos, un discurs foarte clar pe care l-ați ținut. Sunt europarlamentar din Luxemburg. Întrebarea mea este următoarea. Care sunt consecințele pe termen lung ale acestui război pierdut? Am pierdut războiul. Acum avem un viitor incert pentru NATO. De asemenea, avem în mod clar, și v-ați referit la asta, marginalizarea Europei. Avem o consolidare a țărilor BRICS, care pot fi rivale în multe privințe. Deci, va exista un viitor pentru un Occident colectiv în următorii 20 sau 30 de ani?

Vă mulțumesc foarte mult.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Nu cred că există un Occident colectiv. Cred că există Statele Unite și o Europă care au în unele domenii interese paralele și în multe domenii nu au interese paralele. Îmi doresc ca Europa să conducă o dezvoltare durabilă. Transformare climatică, decență globală.

Cred că dacă lumea ar arăta mai mult ca Europa, ar fi o lume mai fericită, mai pașnică, mai sigură. Și longevitate și mâncare mai bună, apropo.

Dar, ca să spun, în orice caz, Europa are o vocație destul de diferită de tradiția americană. Și, sincer, față de tradiția anglo-saxonă, pentru că au trecut 200 de ani de hegemonie anglo-saxonă sau de hegemonie aspirațională, britanicii încă mai cred că ei conduc lumea.

Este uimitor ce înseamnă nostalgia. Nici măcar nu se opresc. E aproape ca o scenetă Monty Python, de fapt. Dar, în orice caz, unde eram? Mă gândesc la Monty Python când cavalerul are toate membrele tăiate și spune: totul e bine. Sunt victorios. Aceea este Marea Britanie, din păcate. Și deci este cu adevărat teribil.

Așa că nu, nu cred în Occidentul colectiv. Nu cred în Sudul global. Nu cred că toate aceste geografii nici măcar nu au sens. Așa că nici măcar nu înțeleg despre ce este vorba. Cred că am putea fi într-o adevărată eră a abundenței dacă ne-am lămuri mințile. Suntem în mijlocul celui mai mare progres tehnologic din istoria omenirii.

Este cu adevărat uimitor ce se poate face chiar acum. Știți, mă minunez de faptul că cineva care nu știe chimie a câștigat Premiul Nobel pentru chimie pentru că este foarte bun la rețele neuronale profunde, un geniu, DemisHassabis. Au descoperit plierea proteinelor, lucru pe care generații de biochimisti și-au petrecut întreaga viață. Și acum DeepMind a descoperit cum să o facă, știți, cu miile de proteine.

Avem prieteni care și-au petrecut întreaga viață cu o singură proteină, prieteni străluciți. Și acum ce putem face noi. Deci, dacă într-adevăr, și la fel și cu energia regenerabilă, după cum știe toată lumea, prețurile scad cu peste două ordine de mărime, costurile. Am putea transforma planeta. Am putea proteja sistemul climatic. Am putea proteja biodiversitatea. Am putea asigura că fiecare copil primește o educație bună. Am putea face atât de multe lucruri minunate chiar acum.” Și de ce avem nevoie pentru a face asta? În opinia mea, avem nevoie de pace, cel mai important.

Iar ideea mea fundamentală este că nu există motive profunde pentru conflict nicăieri, pentru că fiecare conflict pe care îl studiez este doar o greșeală. Nu este, nu luptăm pentru Lebensraum/Habitat. Acea idee care a venit de la Malthus și care a devenit o idee nazistă a fost întotdeauna o idee greșită. A fost o greșeală, o greșeală intelectuală fundamentală. O greșeală intelectuală, apropo, pentru că oamenii de știință de renume au adoptat ideea că avem războaie rasiale, am avut războaie naționale, am avut războaie pentru supraviețuire, pentru că nu avem suficiente resurse pe planetă.

Ca economist, vă pot spune că avem destule resurse pe planetă pentru dezvoltarea tuturor, destule. Nu suntem într-un conflict cu China. Nu suntem într-un conflict cu Rusia. Dacă ne calmăm, dacă întrebați despre termen lung, termenul lung este foarte bun, mulțumesc. Termenul lung, dacă nu ne aruncăm în aer, este foarte bun. Și deci asta ar trebui să urmărim, o viziune pozitivă comună în conformitate cu dreptul internațional.

Datorită tehnologiei noastre, lucrurile funcționează acum la scară regională. Înainte erau sate, apoi erau zone mici, apoi a fost unificarea țărilor. Acum este regional. Asta nu se întâmplă doar pentru că regiunile sunt minunate. Se întâmplă pentru că realitățile tehnologice subiacente spun că Europa ar trebui să fie o zonă integrată prin transport, prin căi ferate rapide, prin tehnologie digitală, prin… Și așa există Europa.

Politica urmează realitățile tehnologice într-o măsură foarte importantă. Suntem acum într-o lume a regiunilor. Deci Europa ar trebui să fie o Europă cu subsidiaritate. Nu pierdem toate elementele naționale și locale minunate. Dar Europa ar trebui să fie Europa. Deci partea bună este să… Vreau ca Europa să aibă diplomație, de exemplu, cu ASEAN.

Am petrecut mult timp cu țările ASEAN. Dacă Pactul Verde al UE este o idee minunată. Le-am spus cu mulți ani în urmă, bine, liderilor ASEAN, să facă un Pact Verde ASEAN. Și apoi să discute cu europenii, astfel încât să aveți această relație minunată, comerț, investiții, tehnologie. Așa că anul trecut au anunțat un Pact Verde ASEAN. Ce a făcut Europa în privința asta? Nimic. Spunea, scuze, suntem în războiul din Ucraina, mulțumesc. Nu am avut niciun interes. Deci acesta este punctul meu de vedere.

Perspectivele sunt foarte pozitive dacă construim pacea.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Pentru că trebuie să plecăm, primesc tot timpul mesaje că ar trebui să părăsesc camera. Scurt. Ceva foarte scurt.

Tânără doamnă deputată europeană: Da. Scuze, da, vă mulțumesc mult pentru prelegere. Am vrut să întreb, credeți că ieșirea din conflict este un fel de finlandizare? Și apoi, credeți că asta este modul în care ați fi vrut să vedeți, de exemplu, procesul natural al Finlandei și Suediei, scuze, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, credeți că o ieșire din conflict este un fel de finlandizare?

Și apoi, asta ați fi vrut să vedeți în politica externă a Suediei și Finlandei, ca exemplu? Adică, în loc să devină membri NATO, acesta este modul în care ați fi vrut să vedeți aceste țări împărțite cu politică externă? Și credeți că aceste țări care se învecinează cu Rusia ar trebui pur și simplu să cedeze soartei lor, astfel încât, bine, să nu putem provoca Rusia. Adică, acesta este modul în care trebuie să trăim.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Foarte bună, excelentă întrebare. Și permiteți-mi să vă raportez o parte despre finlandizare. Finlandizarea a plasat Finlanda pe primul loc în Raportul Mondial privind Fericirea an de an. Bogată, de succes, fericită și sigură. Asta e înainte de NATO. Deci finlandizarea a fost un lucru minunat. Numărul unu în lume.

Când Suedia, Finlanda și Austria erau neutre. Bravo, inteligent. Când Ucraina era neutră, inteligent. Dacă aveți două superputeri, țineți-le puțin separate. Nu trebuie să fiți cu nasul lipit una de cealaltă.

Mai ales dacă una dintre ele, SUA. Și astfel, finlandizarea, în opinia mea, are o conotație foarte pozitivă. La fel și austriacizarea. Austria, în 1955, și-a semnat neutralitatea. Armata sovietică a plecat. Și Austria este un loc minunat, apropo. Absolut minunat. Și aceasta este o modalitate fundamentală de a evita conflictul. Dacă Statele Unite ar fi avut vreun pic de bun simț, ar fi părăsit aceste țări ca un spațiu neutru între armata americană și Rusia. Dar aici SUA și-au pierdut mintea. OK.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Mulțumesc foarte mult. Vreau doar să închei cu un apel. Cred că amândoi suntem de acord că războiul se va termina într-o lună sau două. Asta înseamnă că luptele se vor termina. Nu înseamnă că vom avea pace în Europa. Pacea în Europa trebuie să fie realizată de noi, de europeni, nu de un președinte din Statele Unite.

Trebuie să creăm această pace. Și aceasta este Europa, care include, desigur, Belarus, Rusia și toate aceste alte țări. Deci trebuie să facem ceva. Și suntem aici, un parlament. Ca parlamentari, reprezentăm oamenii. Suntem singura instituție legitimă, democratic legitimă, din Uniunea Europeană. Poate că ar fi trebuit să devenim puțin mai proactivi în încercarea de a avansa acest proces de pace, indiferent de partid.

Cred că nu știu câte partide sunt cu adevărat aici, dar dacă putem vorbi unii cu alții fără să spunem: „Sunteți din partidul acesta, sunteți din partidul acesta”, cred că trebuie să ne concentrăm. Dacă aici nu am putea lua mai multă inițiativă din partea parlamentului față de comisie, spunând: „Noi prezentăm oamenii, nu pe voi. Noi prezentăm oamenii”. Și acești oameni din Europa vor pace.

Și asta ar trebui să facem. Deci, poate acesta este începutul. În fiecare lună, voi organiza împreună cu colegii mei același lucru aici, pe diferite teme, care au fost în jurul acestui subiect. Și sperăm că de data aceasta vom avea o discuție diferită de cea pe care o avem în plen, unde practic nu avem o discuție, ci vom avea o discuție și în cadrul partidului și vom invita și persoane din alte partide politice. Nu invităm pe nimeni.

Haideți să discutăm asta până la urmă. Cu toții ne dorim aceeași pace pentru următoarea generație. Și am o mulțime de copii, nepoți, și dumneavoastră la fel.

Și asta este ceea ce ne trebuie.

Bine, vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule profesor.

Estonian — Täielik transkript – Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: „Rahu geopoliitika”

0

Täielik transkript – Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: „Rahu geopoliitika”

Kõne Euroopa Assambleele ja küsimused-vastused

 

Rahu geopoliitika – Jeffrey Sachs Euroopa Parlamendis

Täielik transkript

 

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: See on tõepoolest keeruline ja kiiresti muutuv aeg ning väga ohtlik. Seega vajame me tõesti selget mõtlemist. Ma olen eriti huvitatud meie vestlusest, seega püüan teha nii lühidalt ja selgelt kui võimalik.

Ma olen viimased 36 aastat väga tähelepanelikult jälginud sündmusi Ida-Euroopas, endises Nõukogude Liidus ja Venemaal. Olin 1989. aastal Poola valitsuse nõunik, 1990. ja 1991. aastal president Gorbatšovi nõunik, 1991. kuni 1993. aastal president Jeltsini nõunik ja 1993. kuni 1994. aastani Ukraina presidendi Kutšma nõunik. Aitasin kaasa Eesti oma valuuta kasutuselevõtule. Aitasin mitut endise Jugoslaavia riiki, eriti Sloveeniat. Olen jälginud sündmusi väga lähedalt 36 aastat.

Pärast Maidani sündmusi palus uus valitsus mul Kiievisse tulla, mind viidi Maidani ümbrusesse ja ma õppisin palju asju esmaallikast. Olen olnud üle 30 aasta kontaktis Venemaa juhtidega. Tunnen lähedalt Ameerika poliitilisi juhte. Meie eelmine rahandusminister oli 51 aastat tagasi minu makroökonoomika õpetaja, et teile aimu anda. Oleme pool sajandit väga lähedased sõbrad olnud. Ma tunnen kõiki neid inimesi.

Ma tahan seda öelda, sest see, mida ma oma seisukohast selgitada tahan, ei ole teise käe info ega ideoloogia. See on see, mida ma olen oma silmaga näinud ja selle aja jooksul kogenud. Minu arusaama järgi on Euroopat tabanud sündmused paljudes kontekstides – ja ma ei pea silmas ainult Ukraina kriisi, vaid ka Serbiat 1999. aastal, sõdu Lähis-Idas, sealhulgas Iraagis, Süürias, sõdu Aafrikas, sealhulgas Sudaanis, Somaalias, Liibüas – neid on väga olulisel määral, mis teid ehk üllatab ja mille kohta mind hukka mõistetakse, need on sõjad, mida Ameerika Ühendriigid juhtisid ja põhjustasid. See on olnud nii juba üle 40 aasta.

Täpsemalt öeldes, enam kui 30 aastat tagasi, eriti 1990. ja 1991. aastal ning seejärel Nõukogude Liidu lagunemisel, jõudis Ameerika Ühendriikide valitsus seisukohale, et Ameerika Ühendriigid juhivad nüüd maailma ja et Ameerika Ühendriigid ei pea arvestama kellegi seisukohti, punaseid jooni, muresid, julgeolekuprobleeme ega rahvusvahelisi kohustusi ega ÜRO raamistikku. Vabandust, et ma seda nii otse ütlen, aga ma tahan, et te seda mõistaksite.

1991. aastal püüdsin ma väga aidata Gorbatšovi, kes oli minu arvates meie ajastu suurim riigimees. Lugesin hiljuti arhiivist leitud memot, milles kirjeldatakse Riikliku Julgeolekunõukogu arutelu minu ettepaneku üle, kuidas nad selle täielikult tagasi lükkasid ja naersid selle laualt, kui ma ütlesin, et Ameerika Ühendriigid peaksid Nõukogude Liidul finantsstabiilsust saavutada ja reforme läbi viia aitama. Märgukirjas on dokumenteeritud, sealhulgas mõned minu endised kolleegid Harvardist, kes ütlevad, et me teeme minimaalselt, et katastroofi ära hoida, aga ainult minimaalselt, meie ülesanne ei ole aidata. Vastupidi, meil ei ole huvi aidata.

Kui Nõukogude Liit 1991. aastal lõppes, muutus see seisukoht veelgi ülemäärasemaks. Võin tuua konkreetseid näiteid, aga seisukoht oli, et meie juhime asju. Cheney, Wolfowitz ja paljud teised, kelle nimesid te kindlasti teate, uskusid tõesti, et nüüd on maailm Ameerika Ühendriikide oma ja me teeme, mida tahame. Me puhastame end endisest Nõukogude Liidust. Me kõrvaldame kõik järelejäänud liitlased. Riigid nagu Iraak, Süüria ja teised kaovad.

Me oleme seda välispoliitikat kogenud nüüd juba sisuliselt 33 aastat. Euroopa on selle eest kõrget hinda maksnud, sest Euroopal pole selle aja jooksul olnud mingit välispoliitikat, mida ma suudaksin mõista. Ei häält, ei ühtsust, ei selgust, ei Euroopa huve, ainult lojaalsus Ameerika Ühendriikidele.

On olnud hetki, mil on olnud erimeelsusi ja minu arvates väga toredaid erimeelsusi, eriti viimati 2003. aastal Iraagi sõja ajal, kui Prantsusmaa ja Saksamaa ütlesid, et nad ei toeta Ameerika Ühendriikide otsust minna selle sõja jaoks ÜRO Julgeolekunõukogust mööda. See sõda oli muide otseselt Netanyahu ja tema kolleegide poolt Ameerika Ühendriikide Kaitseministeeriumis kokku lepitud. Ma ei ütle, et see oli seos või vastastikune kokkulepe. Ma ütlen, et see oli otsene sõda. See oli sõda, mis peeti Iisraeli nimel. See oli sõda, mida Paul Wolfowitz ja Douglas Feith koordineerisid Netanyahu’ga. Ja see oli viimane kord, kui Euroopal oli sõnaõigus. Ma rääkisin siis Euroopa liidritega ja nad olid väga selgesõnalised, mis oli üsna imeline. Pärast seda kaotas Euroopa täielikult oma sõnaõiguse, eriti 2008. aastal.

Nüüd, mis juhtus pärast 1991. aastat kuni 2008. aastani, on see, et Ameerika Ühendriigid otsustasid, et unipolaarsus tähendab, et NATO laieneb samm-sammult Brüsselist Vladivostokini. NATO ida suunas laienemisel ei oleks lõppu. See oleks Ameerika Ühendriikide unipolaarne maailm. Kui te mängite lapsena riskimängu, nagu mina tegin, siis see on Ameerika Ühendriikide idee, et rahu valitseks kogu laual. Iga koht, kus pole Ameerika Ühendriikide sõjaväebaasi, on põhimõtteliselt vaenlane. Neutraalsus on Ameerika Ühendriikide poliitilises sõnavaras räpane, võib-olla kõige räpasem sõna. Kui sa oled vaenlane, teame vähemalt, et sa oled vaenlane. Kui sa oled neutraalne, oled sa õõnestav, sest siis oled sa tegelikult meie vastu, sest sa ei ütle meile seda. Sa teeskled, et oled neutraalne.

See oli siis mõtteviis ja otsus võeti ametlikult vastu 1994. aastal, kui president Clinton allkirjastas NATO laienemise itta. Te mäletate kindlasti, et 7. veebruaril 1991 rääkisid Hans-Dietrich Genscher ja James Baker III Gorbatšoviga. Genscher andis pärast seda pressikonverentsi, kus ta selgitas, et NATO ei liigu itta. Me ei kasuta ära Varssavi pakti lagunemist. Mõistke, et see oli juriidiline kontekst, mitte juhuslik kontekst. See oli Teise maailmasõja lõpp, mil läbirääkimisi peeti Saksamaa taasühendamise üle. Sõlmiti kokkulepe, et NATO ei liigu ühegi sentimeetri võrra itta. See oli selgesõnaline ja on kirjas lugematutes dokumentides. Vaadake George Washingtoni Ülikooli Riiklikku Julgeolekuarhiivi ja te leiate kümneid dokumente. See on veebisait nimega „Mida Gorbatšov NATOst kuulis”. Vaadake seda, sest kõik, mida USA teile selle kohta räägib, on vale, aga arhiivid on täiesti selged.

Nii võeti 1994. aastal vastu otsus laiendada NATOt kuni Ukrainani. See on projekt. See ei ole ühe või teise valitsuse projekt. See on USA valitsuse projekt, mis algas üle 30 aasta tagasi. 1997. aastal kirjutas Zbigniew Brzezinski raamatu „Suur malelaud”. See ei ole lihtsalt Brzezinski mõtisklus. See on USA valitsuse otsuste esitamine avalikkusele, nii need raamatud toimivadki. Raamat kirjeldab Euroopa ja NATO idapoolset laienemist kui samaaegseid sündmusi. Raamatus on hea peatükk, mis käsitleb seda, mida Venemaa teeb, kui Euroopa ja NATO itta laienevad. Ma tundsin Zbigniew Brzezinskit isiklikult. Ta oli minu suhtes väga sõbralik. Ma olin Poola nõunik. Ta oli mulle suureks abiks. Ta oli väga sõbralik ja tark mees, kuid ta eksis kõiges.

Nii kirjutas ta 1997. aastal üksikasjalikult, miks Venemaa ei saa teha muud, kui nõustuda NATO ja Euroopa ida poole laienemisega. Tegelikult räägib ta Euroopa ida poole laienemisest ja mitte ainult Euroopast, vaid ka NATOst. See oli plaan, projekt. Ja ta selgitab, kuidas Venemaa ei liitu kunagi Hiinaga. See on mõeldamatu. Venemaa ei liitu kunagi Iraaniga. Venemaal ei ole muud kutsumust kui Euroopa kutsumus. Nii et kui Euroopa liigub itta, ei saa Venemaa midagi teha. Nii ütleb veel üks Ameerika strateeg. Kas on küsimus, miks me oleme kogu aeg sõjas? Sest üks asi Ameerika kohta on see, et me teame alati, mida meie vastased teevad, ja me eksime alati.

Ja üks põhjus, miks me alati eksime, on see, et mänguteoorias, mida Ameerika strateegid mängivad, ei räägi sa tegelikult teise poolega. Sa lihtsalt tead, mis on teise poole strateegia. See on imeline. See säästab nii palju aega. Sa ei vaja mingit diplomaatiat. See projekt algas ja meil oli valitsemise järjepidevus 30 aastat, kuni võib-olla eilseni — ehk umbes 30 aastat kestnud projekt.

Ukraina ja Gruusia olid projekti võtmed. Miks? Sest Ameerika õppis kõik, mida ta teab, brittidelt. Ja nii oleme me Briti impeeriumi jäljendajad. Ja mida Briti impeerium 1853. aastal mõistis, härra Palmer, lord Palmerston, vabandust, on see, et ümbritsetakse Venemaad Musta mere ääres ja keelatakse Venemaale juurdepääs Vahemere idaosale. Ja kõik, mida te näete, on Ameerika projekt, mis teeb seda 21. sajandil. Ideeks oli, et Ukraina, Rumeenia, Bulgaaria, Türgi ja Gruusia oleksid Musta mere piirkonna riigid, mis võtaksid Venemaalt ära igasuguse rahvusvahelise staatuse, blokeerides Musta mere ja neutraliseerides Venemaa enam kui selle kohaliku jõu. Brzezinski on selles suhtes täiesti selge. Enne Brzezinski oli Mackinder, kes ütles, et kes omab maailma saart, omab maailma. Seega on see projekt väga vana. Ma arvan, et see ulatub põhimõtteliselt tagasi Palmerstoni aega 19. sajandil. Ja veel kord, ma olen elanud läbi kõik valitsused. Ma olen tundnud neid presidente. Ma olen tundnud nende meeskondi. Midagi ei muutunud eriti Clintonist Bushini, Obamast Trumpini ja Bidenini. Võib-olla muutusid nad samm-sammult halvemaks. Minu arvates oli Biden kõige halvem. Võib-olla ka seetõttu, et ta ei olnud viimase paari aasta jooksul compos mentis. Ja ma ütlen seda tõsiselt, mitte sarkastiliselt.

Ameerika poliitiline süsteem on kuvandi süsteem. See on igapäevane meedia manipuleerimise süsteem. See on PR-süsteem. Nii võib olla president, kes põhimõtteliselt ei funktsioneeri, ja see president võib olla võimul kaks aastat ja kandideerida isegi uuesti. Ja üks neetud asi oli see, et ta pidi 90 minutit üksi laval seisma. Ja see oli kõik. Kui poleks olnud seda viga, oleks ta kandideerinud, olenemata sellest, kas ta magas pärast kella neljani pärastlõunal või mitte. See on tegelikult reaalsus. Kõik lepivad sellega. On ebaviisakas öelda seda, mida ma ütlen, sest me ei räägi praegu peaaegu millegi kohta selles maailmas tõtt.

Nii et see projekt jätkus alates 1990. aastatest. Belgradi pommitamine 78 päeva järjest 1999. aastal oli osa sellest projektist. Riigi jagamine, kui piirid on pühad, kas pole nii? Välja arvatud Kosovo. See on okei, sest piirid on pühad, välja arvatud juhul, kui Ameerika neid muudab.

Sudaan oli teine seotud projekt. Lõuna-Sudaani mäss. Kas see juhtus lihtsalt sellepärast, et Lõuna-Sudaani elanikud mässasid? Või kas ma võin teile anda LKA mänguraamatu, et te täiskasvanutena mõistaksite, millest siin tegelikult jutt on? Sõjalised sündmused on kulukad. Nad nõuavad varustust, väljaõpet, baaslaagreid, luuret, rahalisi vahendeid. See kõik tuleb suurriikidelt. See ei tule kohalikelt mässulistelt. Lõuna-Sudaan ei alistanud hõimulahingus ei Põhja-Sudaani ega Sudaani. See oli Ameerika projekt. Käisin tihti Nairobis ja kohtusin Ameerika sõjaväelaste, senaatorite ja teistega, kes olid sügavalt huvitatud Sudaani poliitikast. See oli osa unipolaarsuse mängust.

NATO laienemine algas, nagu teate, 1999. aastal Ungari, Poola ja Tšehhi Vabariigiga. Venemaa oli selle üle äärmiselt rahulolematu. Aga need riigid olid piirist veel kaugel. Venemaa protestis, aga loomulikult tulutult. Siis tuli võimule George Bush Jr. Kui toimus 9/11, lubas president Putin igakülgset toetust. Siis otsustas USA 20. septembril 2001, et alustab viie aasta jooksul seitset sõda. Seda saab kuulata kindral Wesley Clarki veebikõnest. Ta oli 1999. aastal NATO ülemjuhataja. 20. septembril 2001 läks ta Pentagoni. Talle anti paber, milles selgitati seitset sõda. Need olid muide Netanyahu sõjad. Idee oli osaliselt puhastada vanad Nõukogude liitlased ja osaliselt kõrvaldada Hamasi ja Hezbollah’ toetajad. Sest Netanyahu idee oli, et seal saab olema üks riik, tänan teid, ainult üks riik. See saab olema Iisrael. Iisrael kontrollib kogu territooriumi. Ja kõik, kes sellele vastu on, kukutame. Mitte meie otseselt, vaid meie sõber, Ameerika Ühendriigid. See on olnud Ameerika Ühendriikide poliitika kuni tänase hommikuni. Me ei tea, kas see muutub. Ainus muudatus on see, et võib-olla hakkab Gaza kuuluma Ameerika Ühendriikidele, mitte Iisraelile. Aga see idee on olnud olemas vähemalt 25 aastat. See pärineb tegelikult dokumendist „Clean Break”, mille Netanyahu ja tema Ameerika poliitiline meeskond koostasid 1996. aastal, et lõpetada kahe riigi lahenduse idee. Selle leiate ka internetist. Need on projektid. Need on pikaajalised sündmused. Need ei ole Clinton, Bush või Obama. See on igav viis vaadata Ameerika poliitikat kui igapäevast mängu. Aga Ameerika poliitika ei ole selline.

Järgmine NATO laienemine toimus 2004. aastal, kui liitus seitse riiki: kolm Balti riiki, Rumeenia, Bulgaaria, Sloveenia ja Slovakkia. Sel hetkel oli Venemaa päris vihane. See oli täielik rikkumine sõjajärgse korra suhtes, mis oli kokku lepitud Saksamaa taasühinemisel. Sisuliselt oli see põhimõtteline trikk või USA taganemine koostöölepingust, sest nad usuvad unipolaarsusesse.

Nagu kõik mäletavad, sest meil oli just eelmisel nädalal 2007. aastal Müncheni julgeolekukonverents, kus president Putin ütles: „Lõpetage, piisab, lõpetage kohe.” Ja muidugi tähendas see, et 2008. aastal surusid Ameerika Ühendriigid Euroopale peale NATO laienemise Ukrainasse ja Gruusiasse. See on pikaajaline projekt. Ma kuulasin 2008. aasta mais New Yorgis Saakašvilit ja läksin välja, helistasin Soniale ja ütlesin, et see mees on hull. Ja kuu aega hiljem puhkes sõda. Sest Ameerika Ühendriigid ütlesid sellele mehele, et me päästsime Gruusia. Ja ta seisab Välissuhete Nõukogus ja ütleb, et Gruusia on Euroopa keskmes. Noh, see ei ole nii, daamid ja härrad. See ei asu Euroopa keskmes. Ja viimased sündmused ei aita Gruusia julgeolekut ega teie parlamendiliikmete ega Euroopa Parlamendi liikmete ega Euroopa poliitikute sinna minek. See hävitab Gruusia. See ei päästa Gruusiat. See hävitab Gruusia, hävitab täielikult.

2008. aastal, nagu kõik teavad, saatis meie endine LKA direktor William Byrne Condoleezza Rice’ile pika sõnumi: „Njet tähendab Njet” laienemise kohta. Seda teame Julian Assange’ilt, sest uskuge mind, ameeriklastele ei räägita praegu midagi, teile ei räägita midagi ja teie ajalehed ei räägi midagi. Seega peame tänama Julian Assange’i, kui me saame seda märgukirja üksikasjalikult lugeda.

Nagu te teate, valiti Viktor Janukovõtš 2010. aastal neutraalsuse platvormil. Venemaal polnud Ukrainas üldse territoriaalseid huve ega plaane. Ma tean seda. Ma olin nendel aastatel seal. Venemaa pidas läbirääkimisi 25-aastase rendilepingu üle Sevastoopoli mereväebaasi kohta kuni 2042. aastani. See on kõik. Mitte Krimm, mitte Donbass, mitte midagi sellist. See idee, et Putin taastab Vene impeeriumi, on lapselik propaganda. Vabandust. Kui keegi teab päev-päevalt ja aasta-aastalt ajalugu, siis see on lapselik jama. Lapselik jama näib toimivat paremini kui täiskasvanulik jama. Niisiis, mitte mingeid plaane polnud.

Ameerika Ühendriigid otsustasid, et see mees tuleb kukutada. Seda nimetatakse režiimivahetuse operatsiooniks. Ameerika Ühendriigid on neid teinud umbes 100, paljud teie riikides ja paljud kogu maailmas. See ongi LKA töö. Selge? Palun pidage seda meeles. See on väga ebatavaline välispoliitika. Aga Ameerikas, kui te teisele poolele ei meeldi, siis te ei pea nendega läbirääkimisi, vaid üritate neid kukutada, eelistatavalt salaja. Kui salaja ei õnnestu, siis teete seda avalikult. Te ütlete alati, et see pole meie süü. Nemad on agressorid. Nemad on teine pool. Nemad on Hitler. See tuleb esile iga kahe või kolme aasta tagant, olgu see siis Saddam Hussein, Assad või Putin. See on väga mugav. See on ainus välispoliitiline selgitus, mida Ameerika rahvale kuskil antakse. Noh, me seisame silmitsi 1938. aasta Müncheniga. Teise poolega ei saa rääkida. Nad on kurjad, lepitamatud vaenlased. See on ainus välispoliitika mudel, mida me kunagi meie massimeediast kuuleme. Ja massimeedia kordab seda täielikult, sest see on täielikult Ameerika Ühendriikide valitsuse poolt altkäemaksuga mõjutatud.

Nüüd, 2014. aastal, töötas USA aktiivselt Janukovitši kukutamise nimel. Kõik teavad telefonikõnest, mida kuulasid pealt minu Columbia Ülikooli kolleeg Victoria Nuland ja USA suursaadik Peter Piat. Paremat tõendit ei ole võimalik leida. Venelased kuulasid tema kõnet pealt ja panid selle internetti. Kuulake seda. See on põnev. Ma tean, et kõik need inimesed said selle eest Bideni administratsioonis edutamise. See ongi töö.

Kui Maidan toimus, helistati mulle kohe. Oh, professor Sachs, uus Ukraina peaminister soovib teiega kohtuda, et rääkida majanduskriisist, sest ma olen selles päris hea. Nii lendasin ma Kiievisse ja mind viidi Maidani ümbrusesse ning mulle räägiti, kuidas USA maksis raha kõigile Maidani ümber olevatele inimestele. Spontaanne väärikuse revolutsioon. Daamid ja härrad, palun, kust need kõik meediakanalid tulevad? Kust tuleb kogu see organisatsioon? Kust tulevad kõik need bussid? Kust tulevad kõik need kutsutud inimesed? Kas te teete nalja? See on organiseeritud tegevus. Ja see pole saladus, välja arvatud Euroopa ja Ameerika Ühendriikide kodanikele. Kõik teised mõistavad seda üsna selgelt.

Siis tuli Minsk ja eriti Minsk-2, mis muide oli kujundatud Lõuna-Tirooli autonoomia eeskujul. Ja belglased oleksid võinud Minsk-2-ga väga hästi suhestuda. See ütles, et Ukraina idaosas peaks olema autonoomia venekeelsetele piirkondadele. Seda toetas ühehäälselt ÜRO Julgeolekunõukogu. Ameerika Ühendriigid ja Ukraina otsustasid, et seda ei rakendata. Saksamaa ja Prantsusmaa, kes olid Normandia protsessi tagajad, lasid sel minna. Ja see oli täiesti järjekordne otsene Ameerika unipolaarne tegevus, kus Euroopa, nagu tavaliselt, mängis täiesti kasutut kõrvalrolli, kuigi oli lepingu tagaja.

Trump tõstis relvastust. Ukraina pommitamine Donbassis nõudis tuhandeid ohvreid. Minsk-2 lepingut ei olnud. Siis astus ametisse Biden. Ma tunnen kõiki neid inimesi. Ma olin varem Demokraatliku Partei liige. Nüüd olen ma vandunud, et ei kuulu ühegi partei liikmeskonda, sest mõlemad on niikuinii ühesugused. Ja kuna demokraadid muutusid aja jooksul täielikeks sõjakiihkajateks. Ja rahu kohta ei olnud ühtegi häält, nagu enamik teie parlamendiliikmetest, samamoodi.

1991. aasta lõpus pani Putin lauale viimase katse kahe julgeolekukokkuleppe eelnõu näol: ühe Euroopaga ja teise Ameerika Ühendriikidega. Ameerika Ühendriigid panid selle lauale 15. detsembril 2021. Ma rääkisin tund aega Jake Sullivaniga Valges Majas, paludes: „Jake, ära tee sõda. Sa saad sõda ära hoida. Sa pead ainult ütlema, et NATO ei laiene Ukrainasse.” Ja ta vastas mulle: „Oh, NATO ei laiene Ukrainasse. Ära muretse.” Ma ütlesin: „Jake, ütle seda avalikult.” „Ei, ei, ei, me ei saa seda avalikult öelda.” Ma ütlesin: „Jake, sa hakkad sõda pidama millegi pärast, mida isegi ei juhtu.” Ta vastas: „Ära muretse, Jeff, sõda ei tule.” Need inimesed ei ole eriti targad. Ma ütlen sulle ausalt, et need inimesed ei ole eriti targad. Ma olen nendega tegelenud üle 40 aasta. Nad räägivad iseendaga. Nad ei räägi kellegi teisega. Koostöömänguteoorias ei räägi te teise poolega. Te lihtsalt koostate oma strateegia. See on mänguteooria olemus. See ei ole läbirääkimisteooria. See ei ole rahutagamise teooria. See on ühepoolne, koostööst hoiduv teooria, kui te tunnete formaalset mänguteooriat. Seda nad mängivadki. See algas RAND Corporationis. Seda nad mängivad siiani.

2019. aastal ilmus RANDi artikkel „Kuidas laiendada Venemaad?”. Kas teate, et nad kirjutasid artikli, mida Biden järgis? „Kuidas ärritada Venemaad?” See on sõna otseses mõttes strateegia. Kuidas ärritada Venemaad? Me üritame seda provotseerida, üritame seda lõhestada, võib-olla tekitada režiimimuutuse, võib-olla rahutused, võib-olla majanduskriisi. Seda nimetate te oma liitlaseks. Kas te teete nalja? Niisiis oli mul pikk ja frustreeriv telefonikõne Sullivaniga. Seisin külmas. Juhuslikult üritasin suusapäeva veeta. Ja seal ma olin, Jake, ära alusta sõda. Oh, sõda ei tule, Jeff.

Me teame palju sellest, mis järgmisel kuul juhtus, nimelt et nad keeldusid läbirääkimistest. NATO kõige rumalam idee on niinimetatud avatud uste poliitika. Kas te teete nalja? NATO jätab endale õiguse minna sinna, kuhu tahab, ilma et naabritel oleks mingit sõnaõigust. Ma ütlen mehhiklastele ja kanadalastele, et ärge proovigegi. Trump võib tahta Kanada üle võtta. Seega võiks Kanada öelda Hiinale, et miks te ei ehita sõjaväebaasi Ontariosse? Ma ei soovitaks seda. Ja Ameerika Ühendriigid ei ütleks, et see on avatud uks. See on nende asi. Ma mõtlen, et nad võivad teha, mida tahavad. See ei ole meie asi. Aga Euroopa täiskasvanud kordavad seda. Euroopas, teie komisjonis, olete te kõrge esindaja. See on mõttetus. See ei ole isegi algeline geopoliitika. See on lihtsalt mõtlemata tegutsemine.

Nii algas sõda. Mis oli Putini eesmärk selles sõjas? Ma võin teile öelda, mis oli tema eesmärk. See oli sundida Zelenskõi läbirääkimisi neutraalsuse üle. Ja see juhtus seitsme päeva jooksul pärast invasiooni algust. Te peaksite seda mõistma, mitte propagandat, mis selle kohta kirjutatakse. Oh, et nad ebaõnnestusid ja ta kavatses Ukraina üle võtta. Tulge, daamid ja härrad, mõistke midagi põhilist. Eesmärk oli NATO säilitamine. Ja mis on NATO? See on Ameerika Ühendriigid Venemaa piirist eemal. Mitte rohkem, mitte vähem.

Peaksin lisama ühe väga olulise punkti. Miks nad on nii huvitatud? Esiteks, sest kui Hiina või Venemaa otsustaksid rajada sõjaväebaasi Rio Grande’ile või Kanada piirile, siis mitte ainult Ameerika Ühendriigid ei läheks hulluks, vaid meil oleks umbes 10 minuti pärast sõda. Aga ka sellepärast, et Ameerika Ühendriigid loobusid 2002. aastal ühepoolselt ballistiliste rakettide tõrje lepingust ja lõpetasid sellega tuumarelvade kontrolli raamistiku. Ja seda on äärmiselt oluline mõista. Tuumarelvade kontrolli raamistik põhineb esimesena ründamise takistamisel. ABM-leping oli selle oluline osa. Ameerika Ühendriigid loobusid 2002. aastal ühepoolselt ABM-lepingust. See ajas Venemaa marru. Seega kõik, mida ma olen kirjeldanud, on seotud ka tuumarelvade kontrolli raamistiku hävitamisega.

Alates 2010. aastast paigutasid Ameerika Ühendriigid Aegis-raketisüsteemid Poolasse ja seejärel Rumeeniasse. Venemaale see ei meeldi. Üks detsembris ja jaanuaris, 2021. aasta detsembris ja 2022. aasta jaanuaris arutatud küsimusi oli, kas Ameerika Ühendriigid nõuavad õigust paigutada raketisüsteemid Ukrainasse. Blinken ütles Lavrovile 2022. aasta jaanuaris, et Ameerika Ühendriigid jätavad endale õiguse paigaldada raketisüsteeme sinna, kuhu nad soovivad. See on teie oletatav liitlane. Ja nüüd paigaldame keskmise ulatusega raketisüsteemid tagasi Saksamaale. Ameerika Ühendriigid lahkusid 2019. aastal ühepoolselt INF-lepingust. Praegu puudub tuumaraketiraamistik. Täiesti.

Kui Zelenskõi ütles, et seitsme päeva pärast alustame läbirääkimisi, tean ma selle üksikasju väga hästi. Sest olen kõigi osapooltega üksikasjalikult rääkinud. Paari nädala jooksul vahetati dokument, mille president Putin oli heaks kiitnud ja mille Lavrov oli esitanud ning mida haldasid Türgi vahendajad. Lendasin Ankarasse, et kuulata üksikasjalikult, mida vahendajad tegid. Ukraina loobus ühepoolselt peaaegu saavutatud kokkuleppest. Miks? Sest Ameerika Ühendriigid käskisid neil seda teha. Sest Ühendkuningriik lisas veel viimase lihvi, saates Bojo aprilli alguses Ukrainasse selgitusi andma. Ja ta tegi seda hiljuti. Ja kui teie julgeolek on Boris Johnsoni kätes, siis aidaku meid kõiki jumal. Keith Starmer osutub veelgi halvemaks. See on kujuteldamatu, aga see on tõsi. Boris Johnson on selgitanud ja te võite seda veebilehelt järele vaadata, et siin on kaalul Lääne hegemoonia, mitte Ukraina, Lääne hegemoonia.

Michael ja mina kohtusime 2022. aasta kevadel Vatikanis ühe rühmaga, kus kirjutasime dokumendi, milles selgitasime, et sellest sõjast ei saa Ukraina jaoks midagi head tulla. Läbirääkimised peavad toimuma kohe, sest kõik, mis võtab aega, tähendab tohutut arvu surmajuhtumeid, tuumaeskalatsiooni ohtu ja tõenäolist sõja kaotust. Ma tahan muuta ühte sõna sellest, mida me siis kirjutasime. Selles dokumendis ei olnud midagi valesti. Ja alates sellest dokumendist, alates sellest, kui USA rääkis läbirääkijad lauast ära, on umbes miljon ukrainlast surnud või saanud raskelt haavata. Ja Ameerika senaatorid, kes on nii vastikud, küünilised ja korrumpeerunud, kui üldse võimalik, ütlevad, et see on suurepärane raha kulutamine, sest ükski ameeriklane ei sure. See on puhas proxy-sõda. Üks meie senaatoritest, Blumenthal, ütleb seda valjusti. Mitt Romney ütleb seda valjusti. See on parim raha, mida Ameerika kulutada saab. Ükski ameeriklane ei sure. See on ebareaalne.

Nüüd, et tuua meid eilsesse päeva. See ebaõnnestus. See projekt ebaõnnestus. Projekti idee oli, et Venemaa annab alla. Kogu aeg oli idee, et Venemaa ei suuda vastu panna, nagu Zbigniew Brzezinski 1997. aastal selgitas. Ameeriklased arvasid, et meil on ülekaal. Me võidame, sest me blufime neile. Nad ei hakka tegelikult võitlema. Nad ei hakka tegelikult mobiliseerima. Äärmuslik samm: nende eemaldamine SWIFTi süsteemist. See teeb neile lõpu. Majanduslikud sanktsioonid, see teeb neile lõpu. HIMARS, see teeb neile lõpu. ATAKMS, F-16. Ausalt öeldes olen seda 70 aastat kuulanud. Olen seda umbes 56 aastat pooleldi mõistvalt kuulanud. Nad räägivad iga päev mõttetuid asju. Minu riik, minu valitsus. See on mulle nii tuttav, täiesti tuttav.

Ma palusin ukrainlasi ja mul oli ukrainlastega head suhted. Ma nõustasin ukrainlasi, ma ei ole ukrainlaste vastane, ma olen täiesti ukrainlaste poolt. Ma ütlesin: päästke oma elud, päästke oma suveräänsus, päästke oma territoorium, olge neutraalsed. Ärge kuulake ameeriklasi. Ma kordasin neile Henry Kissingeri kuulsat ütlust, et olla Ameerika Ühendriikide vaenlane on ohtlik, aga olla sõber on saatuslik.

Las ma kordan seda Euroopa jaoks. Olla Ameerika Ühendriikide vaenlane on ohtlik, aga olla sõber on saatuslik.

Las ma lõpetan nüüd paar sõnaga Trumpi kohta. Trump ei taha kaotajat. Seetõttu on tõenäolisem, et see sõda lõpeb, sest Trump ja president Putin lepivad kokku sõja lõpetamises. Isegi kui Euroopa õhutab sõda nii palju kui tahes, ei muuda see midagi. Sõda lõpeb. Nii et võtke see oma süsteemist välja. Palun öelge oma kolleegidele, et see on läbi. Ja see on läbi, sest Trump ei taha kaotajat kanda. See on kõik. See ei ole mingi suur moraal, ta ei taha kaotajat kanda. See on kaotaja. See, kes päästetakse praegu toimuvate läbirääkimistega, on Ukraina. Teine on Euroopa. Teie aktsiaturg on viimastel päevadel tõusnud läbirääkimiste kohutavate uudiste tõttu. Ma tean, et see on siin saalis põhjustanud suurt õudust, aga see on parim uudis, mida te saaksite.

Ma julgustasin neid, nad ei kuula mind, aga ma üritasin mõnede liidritega ühendust võtta. Enamik ei taha minult midagi kuulda. Aga ma ütlesin, ärge minge Kiievisse. Minge Moskvasse. Arutage oma kolleegidega. Kas te teete nalja? Te olete Euroopa. Te olete 450 miljonit inimest. Te olete 20 triljoni dollari suurune majandus. Te peaksite olema Venemaa peamine majanduspartner. See on loomulik side. Muide, kui keegi soovib arutada, kuidas USA Nord Streami õhku lasi, räägin sellest hea meelega.

Seega on Trumpi administratsioon sisimas imperialistlik. See on suurriikide domineerimine maailmas. See on „me teeme, mida tahame, kui saame”. Me oleme paremad kui vananev Biden ja vähendame kahjusid seal, kus vaja. Maailmas on mitu sõjatsooni, üks neist on Lähis-Ida. Me ei tea, mis seal juhtub. Jällegi, kui Euroopal oleks õige poliitika, saaksite selle sõja peatada. Ma seletan, kuidas. Aga sõda Hiinaga on samuti võimalik. Ma ei ütle, et oleme uuel rahuajastul, aga me oleme praegu väga erinevas poliitilises olukorras. Euroopa peaks omama välispoliitikat, mitte ainult russofoobset välispoliitikat, vaid realistlikku välispoliitikat, mis mõistab Venemaa olukorda, mõistab Euroopa olukorda, mõistab, mis on Ameerika ja mille eest see seisab. See püüab vältida Euroopasse sissetungi Ameerika Ühendriikide poolt, sest pole võimatu, et Ameerika lihtsalt maabub Taani territooriumile. Ma ei naljata. Ja ma ei arva, et nemad naljatavad.

Ja Euroopa vajab välispoliitikat, tõelist välispoliitikat, mitte seda, et jah, me räägime Trumpiga läbi ja lepime temaga kokku. Teate, kuidas see välja näeb? Helistage mulle pärast. Palun ärge pange Euroopa juhiks Ameerika ametnikke. Pange Euroopa ametnikud. Palun pange paika Euroopa välispoliitika. Te elate Venemaaga veel kaua koos. Seega palun pidage Venemaaga läbirääkimisi. Laual on tõelised julgeolekuküsimused. Aga pompöösne retoorika ja russofoobia ei aita teie julgeolekut üldse. See ei aita Ukraina julgeolekut üldse. See aitas kaasa miljonile ohvrile Ukrainas selle idiootliku Ameerika seikluse tõttu, millega te nõustusite ja mille peamiseks toetajaks saite. See ei lahenda midagi.

Muide, Lähis-Idas andis USA 30 aastat tagasi välispoliitika täielikult Netanyahu kätesse. Iisraeli lobbitöö domineerib Ameerika poliitikas. Selles pole kahtlustki. Ma võiksin tundide kaupa selgitada, kuidas see toimib. See on väga ohtlik. Ma loodan, et Trump ei hävita oma administratsiooni ja veelgi hullem, Palestiina rahvast Netanyahu pärast, keda ma pean sõjakurjategijaks, keda Rahvusvaheline Kriminaalkohus on õigustatult süüdistanud. Ja tuleb öelda, et rahule jõudmiseks on ainus viis rahvusvahelise õiguse kohaselt luua Palestiina riik 1967. aasta 4. juuni piirides. Euroopa jaoks on ainus viis rahu saavutamiseks Lähis-Ida piiridel kahe riigi lahendus. Selle teel on muide ainult üks takistus, nimelt Ameerika Ühendriikide ja ÜRO Julgeolekunõukogu vetoõigus. Kui te tahate mõju avaldada, öelge Ameerika Ühendriikidele, et nad loobuksid vetoõigusest. Te olete koos 180 riigiga maailmas. Ainsad, kes on Palestiina riigi vastu, on Ameerika Ühendriigid, Iisrael, Mikroneesia, Nauru, Palau, Paapua Uus-Guinea, [hr Malay (?)] ja Paraguay. Seega on see koht, kus Euroopal võiks olla suur mõju.

Euroopa on vaikinud JCPOA ja Iraani suhtes. Netanyahu suurim unistus elus on sõda Ameerika Ühendriikide ja Iraani vahel. Ta ei ole loobunud. Ja pole võimatu, et see ka juhtub. Sest Ameerika Ühendriikidel pole selles osas iseseisvat välispoliitikat. Seda juhib Iisrael. See on traagiline. See on muide hämmastav. Ja see võiks lõppeda. Trump võib öelda, et ta tahab välispoliitikat tagasi. Võib-olla. Ma loodan, et see on nii.

Lõpetuseks tahaksin öelda Hiina kohta, et Hiina ei ole vaenlane. Hiina on lihtsalt edulugu. Sellepärast peavad Ameerika Ühendriigid seda vaenlaseks, sest Hiina majandus on suurem kui Ameerika Ühendriikide oma. See on kõik.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Väga hea. Nüüd küsimused, palun ärge tehke avaldusi. Esitage ainult küsimusi, sest meid on liiga palju ja meil ei ole palju aega. Kust ma alustan? Alustan vasakult poolelt. Nagu te teate, eelistan ma vasakut poolt. Jah, palun.

Kõneleja Tšehhi Vabariigist: Tänan, Tšehhi Vabariigist, Jeffrey Sachs. Meil on hea meel, et te siin olete. Meil on probleem. Meid on neednud nõid, kes rääkis sellest ELile, ja EL on segaduses. Seega ei parane olukord enne 2029. aastat. Aga mida meie, Kesk-Euroopa elanikud, peaksime vahepeal tegema, eriti kui sakslased ei hääleta Sarah Wagenknechti poolt piisavalt, kas me peaksime looma mingi neutraalsuse Kesk-Euroopale? Või mida te soovitaksite meil teha?

Prof Jeffrey D. Sachs: Esiteks tahan ma, et te teaksite, et kõik mu lapselapsed on tšehhid. Sonia on sündinud Tšehhis ja on Tšehhi kodanik. Me oleme selle üle väga uhked. Mina olen selles suhtes abikaasa, aga tahaksin olla tšehh.

Euroopa vajab välispoliitikat, mis on Euroopa välispoliitika, ja see peab olema realistlik välispoliitika. Realistlikkus ei tähenda vihkamist. Realistlikkus tähendab tegelikult mõlema poole mõistmist ja läbirääkimiste pidamist. On kahte liiki realiste: kaitsvad realistid ja ründavad realistid. Minu kallis sõber John Mearsheimer, kes on ründav realist, on minu väga lähedane sõber ja ma armastan teda, aga ma usun rohkem kui tema. Räägid teise poolega ja leiad viisi, kuidas kokkuleppele jõuda.

Ja nii et põhimõtteliselt ei kavatse Venemaa Euroopat vallutada. See on põhiline punkt. Võib-olla jõuab ta Dnepri jõeni. Ta ei kavatse Euroopat vallutada, aga on olemas reaalsed probleemid. Venemaa peamine probleem oli Ameerika Ühendriigid, sest Venemaa kui suurriik ja maailma suurim tuumariik oli algusest peale sügavalt mures Ameerika Ühendriikide unipolaarsuse pärast. Nüüd, kui see näib lõppevat, peab Euroopa alustama läbirääkimisi ka otse Venemaaga, sest Ameerika Ühendriigid kaotavad kiiresti huvi ja te elate järgmise tuhande aasta jooksul Venemaaga. Olgu.

Mida te tahate? Te tahate kindlustada Balti riikide julgeolekut. Balti riikide jaoks on parim lõpetada oma russofoobia. See on kõige olulisem. Eestis on umbes 25% venelasi või venekeelseid kodanikke, etnilisi venelasi. Lätis on sama. Ärge provotseerige naabrit. See on kõik. See ei ole raske. See ei ole tõesti raske.

Ja veel kord, tahan selgitada oma seisukohta. Olen aidanud neid riike, millest räägin, püüdnud nõu anda. Ma ei ole nende vaenlane. Ma ei ole Putini marionett. Ma ei ole Putini kaitsja. Ma olen töötanud Eestis. Ma arvan, et see on teine kõrgeim tsiviilauhind, mida Eesti president võib anda mittekodanikule, sest ma kujundasin neile 1992. aastal nende rahasüsteemi. Niisiis annan ma neile nõu. Ära seisa seal, Eesti, ja ütle, et me tahame Venemaa lõhestada. Kas sa naljatad? Ära tee seda. Niimoodi ei ole võimalik selles maailmas ellu jääda. Tegelikult jääd ellu vastastikuse austuse abil. Jääd ellu läbirääkimiste abil. Jääd ellu arutelude abil. Te ei keelusta vene keelt. See ei ole hea mõte, kui 25% teie elanikkonnast on emakeeleks vene keel. See ei ole õige isegi siis, kui piiril ei oleks hiiglast. See ei oleks õige tegu. Te peaksite seda pidama ametlikuks keeleks. Te peaksite seda õpetama algkoolis. Te ei peaks vaenama vene õigeusu kirikut. Seega peame käituma nagu täiskasvanud. Ja kui ma pidevalt ütlen, et nad käituvad nagu lapsed, vastab Sonia mulle alati, et see on laste suhtes ebaõiglane. Sest see on hullem kui laste käitumine. Meil on kuueaastane ja kolmeaastane lapselaps, ja nemad lepivad oma sõpradega ära. Me ei ütle neile, et minge, naerge neid homme ja iga päev välja. Me ütleme: „Mine, tee neile kallistus ja mine mängima.” Ja nad teevadki seda. See pole raske. Muide, igatahes, ma ei hakka seda teemat pikemalt arutama. Tänan.

Nii et valige uus valitsus. Ei, ma ei peaks seda ütlema. Ma peaksin ütlema ainult, et muutke poliitikat.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Ma ei taha poliitilist…

8:46 Noor naisreporter Brussels Timesist: Kas see töötab? Jah. Tere, minu nimi on Kira. Ma olen Brussels Timesi reporter. Tänan teid huvitava loengu eest, Jeffrey. Ma tahtsin küsida teilt Trumpi avalduste kohta, et NATO liikmed peaksid suurendama oma kulutusi 5% võrra. Nüüd näeme, et paljud riigid, sealhulgas Belgia, püüavad tõestada, et nad teevad seda. Arvestades, et Belgia on ka NATO peakorter, tahaksin küsida, milline oleks NATO liikmete sobiv vastus nendele avaldustele? Tänan.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Me ei ole selles küsimuses täiesti ühel meelel. Lubage mul esitada oma arvamus. Minu esimene soovitus, kogu austuse juures Brüsseli vastu, on viia NATO peakorter mujale. Ma mõtlen seda tõsiselt, sest üks Euroopa poliitika halvimaid aspekte on praegu Euroopa ja NATO täielik segadus. Need on täiesti erinevad, kuid on muutunud täpselt ühesugusteks. Euroopa on palju parem kui NATO. Minu arvates ei ole NATO enam isegi vajalik. Ma oleksin selle 1991. aastal lõpetanud. Aga kuna USA pidas seda hegemoonia vahendiks, mitte kaitseks Venemaa vastu, siis jätkus see ka pärast seda. Aga NATO ja Euroopa segadus on surmav, sest Euroopa laienemine tähendas NATO laienemist, punkt. Ja need oleksid pidanud olema täiesti erinevad asjad. See on esimene punkt.

Minu enda arvamus, taas kogu austuse juures Michaelile, kellega me sellest vaid lühidalt rääkisime, on, et Euroopal peaks põhimõtteliselt oma välispoliitika olema ja oma sõjaline julgeolek, oma strateegiline autonoomia, niinimetatud. Ja nii peaks olema. Ma olen selle poolt. Ma lõpetaksin NATO ja võib-olla Trump teeb seda niikuinii. Võib-olla Trump vallutab Gröönimaa. Kes teab? Siis saaksite tõesti teada, mida NATO tähendab. Niisiis, ma arvan, et Euroopa peaks investeerima oma julgeolekusse. Viis protsenti on veider, naeruväärne, absurdne, täiesti absurdne. Keegi ei pea sellist summat kulutama. Praegustes oludes ilmselt kaks kuni kolm protsenti SKPst.

Mina, muide ostaksin Euroopa toodangut. Sest tegelikult, kummalisel ja kahjuks selles maailmas, ja see on tõsiasi, aga kahjuks, nii et ma ei propageeri seda. Paljud tehnoloogilised uuendused pärinevad sõjaväesektorist, sest valitsused investeerivad sõjaväesektorisse. Trump on relvamüüja. Te mõistate seda. Ta müüb Ameerika relvi. Ta müüb Ameerika tehnoloogiat. Vance ütles teile paar päeva tagasi, et ärge isegi mõelge omaenda tehisintellekti tehnoloogia omamisele. Seega palun mõistke, et see kulutuste suurenemine on Ameerika Ühendriikide jaoks, mitte teie jaoks. Ja selles mõttes olen ma sellise lähenemisviisi vastu.

Aga ma ei oleks vastu lähenemisviisile, kus Euroopa kulutab 2–3% SKPst ühtse Euroopa julgeolekustruktuuri jaoks ja investeerib Euroopasse ja Euroopa tehnoloogiasse, ning Ameerika Ühendriigid ei dikteeri Euroopa tehnoloogia kasutamist.

See on nii huvitav. Just Madalmaad toodavad ainsana arenenud pooljuhtide masinaid, äärmuslikku ultraviolettlitograafiat. See on ASML. Aga Ameerika määrab kõik ASMLi poliitikad. Madalmaadel pole isegi joonealust märkust. Ma ei teeks seda teie asemel, et anda kogu julgeolek Ameerika Ühendriikide kätesse. Ma ei teeks seda. Mul oleks oma julgeoleku raamistik, et saaksite ka oma välispoliitika raamistiku.

Euroopa seisab paljude asjade eest, mille eest Ameerika Ühendriigid ei seisa. Euroopa seisab kliimameetmete eest, muide, õigustatult, sest meie president on selles osas täiesti hull. Ja Euroopa seisab sündsuse, sotsiaaldemokraatia kui eetika eest. Ma ei räägi parteist. Ma räägin eetikast, kuidas elu võrdsus toimib. Euroopa seisab multipolaarsuse eest. Euroopa seisab ÜRO harta eest. Ameerika Ühendriigid ei seisa ühegi neist asjadest eest. Te teate, et meie riigisekretär Marco Rubio tühistas oma reisi Lõuna-Aafrikasse, sest päevakorras oli võrdsus ja jätkusuutlikkus. Ja ta ütles, et ta ei hakka sellesse sekkuma. See on aus peegeldus sügavast anglosaksi libertarismist.

14:40 Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Ja libertarism. Egalitarism ei ole sõna Ameerika sõnavarast. Jätkusuutlik areng, üldse mitte. Te ilmselt teate, et 193 ÜRO liikmesriigist 191 on esitanud SDG (jätkusuutliku arengu plaanid) plaanid vabatahtlike riiklike ülevaadetena. 191. Kaks ei ole seda teinud. Haiti ja Ameerika Ühendriigid. Bideni administratsioonil ei lubatud isegi öelda „säästva arengu eesmärgid”. Rahandusministeeriumil oli poliitika, et säästva arengu eesmärke ei tohi nimetada. Ma mainin seda kõike, sest teil on vaja oma välispoliitikat.

Ma avaldan kaks raportit aastas. Üks on maailma õnnelikkuse raport ja kui ma õigesti mäletan, on 20 parima riigi seas 18 Euroopa riiki. See on kõrgeim elukvaliteet kogu maailmas. Seega vajate oma poliitikat, et seda elukvaliteeti kaitsta. Ameerika Ühendriigid on palju madalamal kohal. Ja teine raport, kus on mu kolleeg Guillaume? Ta on siin kuskil ruumis. Seal ta ongi. Guillaume LaFortune on meie iga-aastase säästva arengu raporti peamine autor. Ja peaaegu kõik 20 parimat riiki on Euroopa riigid, sest te usute sellesse. Ja seetõttu olete te kõige õnnelikumad, välja arvatud geopoliitikas. Aga elukvaliteedis. Seega vajate oma välispoliitikat, aga seda ei saa, kui teil pole oma julgeolekut. Lihtsalt ei ole. Ja muide, 27 riigil ei saa olla igaühel oma välispoliitikat. See on probleem. Teil on vaja Euroopa välispoliitikat ja Euroopa julgeolekustruktuuri. Ja muide, kuigi Michael kinnitab mulle, et see on surnud, olin ma OSCE suurim fänn ja usun, et OSCE on Euroopa julgeoleku jaoks õige raamistik. See võiks tõesti toimida.

Kõneleja Slovakkiast: Tänan. Suur tänu. Jah, olgu. Tänan, professor. Ma olen Slovakkiast ja minu peaminister Robert Fico oleks peaaegu maha lastud, sest teie arvamused on sarnased tema omadega. Jah, meie, Slovakkia, Slovakkia valitsus, oleme üks väheseid Euroopa Liidu riike, kes räägivad venelastega. Kaks kuud tagasi rääkisin ma härra Medvedeviga. Kahe nädala pärast räägin ma Duumas härra Slutskiga, kes on Moskvas Venemaa välisasjade komitee esimees. Minu küsimus on ehk selline, milline oleks teie sõnum venelastele praegusel hetkel? Sest nagu ma kuulsin, on nad võidukäigul. Neil pole mingit põhjust Donbassi vallutamata jätta, sest see on nende sõja eesmärk. Ja mida Trump saab neile pakkuda, et sõda kohe lõpetada?

Milline oleks teie sõnum venelastele? Suur tänu.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Praegu on pakkumisel ja laual palju olulisi asju. Ma usun, et selle tõttu lõpeb sõda kiiresti. Ja see on vähemalt üks õnnistus väga-väga raskel ajal. Minu arvates on kokkuleppe täpne sisu nüüd ainult territoriaalsete küsimuste küsimus. Nimelt kas see hõlmab kõiki nelja oblastit, sealhulgas kogu Hersonit ja Zaporižžjat, või kas see hõlmab kontaktjoont ja kuidas see kõik läbirääkimistel kokku lepitud saab. Ma ei ole läbirääkimiste ruumis. Seega ei saa ma rohkem öelda. Aga aluseks on territoriaalsed järeleandmised. Tuleb neutraalsus. Tulevad julgeolekutagatised Ukrainale, kõigile osapooltele. Tuleb, vähemalt USA puhul, majandussanktsioonide lõpetamine. Aga loomulikult loeb Euroopa ja Venemaa.

Ma arvan, et tuumarelvade läbirääkimised on taastatud ja võib-olla taastatakse need veelgi, mis oleks erakordselt positiivne. Ma arvan, et Euroopa jaoks on äärmiselt olulised küsimused, mille üle tuleb otse Venemaaga läbirääkimisi pidada. Seega kutsuksin president [António] Costa ja Euroopa juhte üles alustama otseseid läbirääkimisi president Putiniga, sest Euroopa julgeolek on kaalul. Ma tunnen Venemaa juhte, paljusid neist üsna hästi. Nad on head läbirääkijad ja te peaksite nendega läbirääkimisi pidama. Ja te peaksite nendega hästi läbirääkimisi pidama. Ma küsiksin neilt mõned küsimused. Ma küsiksin neilt, millised on julgeolekutagatised, mis võiksid toimida, et see sõda lõppeks lõplikult? Millised on julgeolekutagatised Balti riikidele? Mida tuleks teha? Läbirääkimiste protsessi osa on tegelikult küsida teiselt poolelt teie murede kohta, mitte ainult teada saada, mida nemad teavad, nagu teie arvate, vaid tegelikult küsida, et meil on tõeline probleem. Meil on tõeline mure. Millised on tagatised? Ma tahan ka vastuseid teada.

Muide, ma tunnen Lavrovi, minister Lavrovi, juba 30 aastat. Ma pean teda suurepäraseks välisministriks. Rääkige temaga. Rääkige temaga läbi. Hankige ideid. Pange ideed lauale. Pange vastuväited lauale. Ma ei arva, et kõike seda saab lahendada puhtalt omaenda mõistusega. Sõjad lahendatakse läbirääkimistega ja mõistes, millised on tegelikud probleemid. Ja te ei nimeta teist poolt valetajaks, kui nad oma probleeme väljendavad. Te töötate välja, millised on selle tagajärjed rahu ühiseks hüvanguks. Seega on kõige olulisem lõpetada karjumine, lõpetada sõjakäik ja arutada Venemaa kolleegidega. Ja ärge paluge, et saaksite istuda ühe laua taga Ameerika Ühendriikidega. Te ei pea olema ühes ruumis Ameerika Ühendriikidega. Te olete Euroopa. Te peaksite olema ühes ruumis Euroopa ja Venemaaga. Kui Ameerika Ühendriigid tahavad liituda, siis olgu nii. Aga paluda ei tohi. Ja muide, Euroopa ei pea Ukrainat kaasama, kui Euroopa räägib Venemaaga. Teil on palju probleeme, otseseid probleeme. Ärge andke oma välispoliitikat kellelegi üle. Mitte Ameerika Ühendriikidele, mitte Ukrainale, mitte Iisraelile. Säilitage Euroopa välispoliitika. See on põhiidee.

Hans Neuhoff: Hans Neuhoff Euroopa Parlamendi suveräänse poliitilise fraktsiooni grupist. Poliitiline partei Alternatiiv Saksamaale. Esiteks tahaksin teid tänada, härra Sachs, et olete siin ja jagate meiega oma ideid. Võite olla kindel, et paljud teie ja teie kolleegi John Mersheimeri ideed on siinsete poliitiliste fraktsioonide poolt hästi vastu võetud ja meie tegevuskavasse integreeritud. Jagan laialdaselt teie seisukohti. Siiski on üks küsimus seoses teie esitatud ajaloolise ülevaatega, mida ma sooviksin veidi täpsemalt käsitleda. See puudutab NATO laienemise algust. Te viitasite veebisaidile „What Gorbachev Heard”, kus on palju tsitaate näiteks Genscherilt, et NATO ei liigu sentimeetritki ida suunas. 2+4 leping sõlmiti 1990. aasta septembris, eks? Moskvas. Sel ajal oli Varssavi pakt veel olemas. Ja sellised riigid nagu Poola, Ungari ja Tšehhi ei osalenud 2+4 lepingu läbirääkimistel. Varssavi pakt lagunes tegelikult 1991. aasta juulis ja Nõukogude Liit lagunes 1991. aasta detsembris. Seega keegi läbirääkimistel osalenutest ei saanud rääkida Poola, Ungari ega Slovakkia nimel, et nad ei püüaks saada NATO liikmeks enne, kui üldine olukord muutub. Seega vastuväide, millele me peame vastu astuma, on see, et Poola, Ungari ja Slovakkia soovisid NATOga ühineda just oma ajaloo tõttu Nõukogude Liiduga. Ja muidugi tajuti Venemaad ikka veel mingil määral Nõukogude Liidu järglasena. Kuidas siis sellele argumendile vastu vaielda?

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Ma ei kahtle, miks Ungari, Poola, Tšehhi Vabariik ja Slovakkia soovisid NATOga ühineda. Küsimus on selles, mida Ameerika Ühendriigid teevad rahu tagamiseks? Sest NATO ei ole Ungari, Poola, Tšehhi Vabariigi ega Slovakkia valik. NATO on Ameerika Ühendriikide juhitud sõjaline liit. Küsimus on selles, kuidas me saavutame rahu usaldusväärsel viisil? Kui ma oleks tol ajal neid otsuseid teinud, oleks ma NATO 1991. aastal täielikult lõpetanud. Kui need riigid NATO-ga ühinemist taotlesid, oleksin neile selgitanud, mida ütles meie kaitseminister William Perry, mida ütles meie juhtiv riigimees George Kennan, mida ütles meie viimane suursaadik Nõukogude Liidus Jack Matlock. Nad ütlesid: „Me mõistame teie tundeid, aga see ei ole hea mõte, sest see võib provotseerida uue külma sõja Venemaaga.” Niimoodi oleksin ma vastanud.

Kui need riigid liitusid esimeses laines, ei olnud see minu arvates tegelikult nii oluline, välja arvatud see, et see oli osa suuremast projektist. Ja see projekt oli juba 1994. aastal välja töötatud. Jonathan Haslamil on väga hea raamat, mis on ilmunud Harvard University Pressi kirjastuses ja kannab pealkirja „Hubris”. See annab üksikasjaliku ajaloolise ülevaate sellest, mis samm-sammult juhtus. See on tõesti lugemist väärt. Nüüd on olukord selline, aga ma tahaksin rõhutada, et Ukraina ja Gruusia olid liiga kaugel. See on otse Venemaa vastu. See on tuumaraamistiku täieliku destabiliseerumise kontekstis. See on kontekstis, kus USA paigaldab raketisüsteeme Venemaa piiridele. Kui kuulata president Putini sõnu aastate jooksul, siis ilmselt peamine asi, mille üle ta muretseb, on see, et raketid, mis asuvad seitsme minuti kaugusel Moskvast, on pea pakule panek. Ja see on väga reaalne. USA mitte ainult ei läheks paanikasse, vaid läkski paanikasse, kui see läänepoolkeral juhtus. Seega on see Kuuba raketikriisi vastupidine olukord. Õnneks Nikita Hruštšov ei tõusnud püsti ja öelnud: „Varssavi pakti avatud uste poliitika. Me võime minna, kuhu tahame. Kuuba on meilt palunud, see ei ole Ameerika asi.” Hruštšov ütles, et sõda, jumal, me ei taha sõda. Me lõpetame selle kriisi. Me mõlemad taganeme. Seda otsustasid Hruštšov ja Kennedy lõpuks. See ongi tegelik tagajärg. Venemaa neelas isegi suure valu ja vaevaga Balti riigid, Rumeenia, Bulgaaria, Slovakkia ja Sloveenia. See on Ukraina ja Gruusia. Ja see on geograafia tõttu. See on lord Palmerstoni tõttu. See on esimese Krimmi sõja tõttu. See on raketisüsteemide tõttu, mis on selle sõja põhjuseks.

Euroopa Parlamendi liige Saksamaalt: Suur tänu, professor Sachs, et tulite. Te mainisite, et Euroopa Liit peab kujundama oma välispoliitika. Varem oli Saksamaa-Prantsusmaa liit nende poliitikate suur edasiviiv jõud. Nüüd, Ukraina sõjaga, on see ilmselt murdunud. Kas te arvate, et tulevikus, kui Euroopa Liit hakkab kujundama uut välispoliitikat, on nad jälle esirinnas? Või peaksid seda muutust püüdma teha teised riigid või teised blokid?

Tänan teid väga.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Oh, see on raske. See on raske, sest loomulikult pole Euroopal veel põhiseadust, mis tõesti toetaks Euroopa välispoliitikat. Ja see ei saa olla ühehäälne. Peab olema struktuur, kus Euroopa saab rääkida Euroopana, isegi kui on mõningaid erimeelsusi, aga Euroopa poliitika raames. Ma ei taha liiga lihtsustada, kuidas sinna täpselt jõuda. Aga isegi olemasolevate struktuuridega saaksite palju paremaid tulemusi, kui läbirääkimisi peetaks otse. Esimene reegel on, et teie diplomaadid peaksid olema diplomaadid, mitte sõjaministrid. Ausalt öeldes, see viiks teid poolele teele, vähemalt sinna, kuhu te tahate jõuda. Diplomaat on väga eriline talent. Diplomaat on koolitatud istuma teise poolega ühe laua taha, kuulama, kätt suruma, naeratama ja olema meeldiv. See on väga raske. See on oskus. See on koolitus. See on elukutse. See ei ole mäng. Te vajate sellist diplomaatiat. Mul on kahju. Me ei kuule midagi sellist.

Ma teen lihtsalt paar kaebust. Esiteks, Euroopa ei ole NATO, nagu ma ütlesin. Ma arvasin, et Stoltenberg oli kõige hullem, aga ma eksisin. See läheb aina hullemaks. Kas keegi NATO-s võiks jumala pärast lõpetada rääkimise veelgi enamast sõjast? Ja kas NATO võiks lõpetada Euroopa eest rääkimise? Ja Euroopa võiks lõpetada mõtlemise, et see on NATO. See on esimene absoluutne punkt. Teiseks, vabandust, aga teie kõrged esindajad ja asepresidendid peavad saama diplomaatideks. Diplomaatia tähendab Moskvasse minekut, oma Venemaa kolleegi siia kutsumist, arutlemist. Seda pole seni juhtunud. See ongi minu seisukoht.

Ma usun, et Euroopa peaks järgnevatel aastatel muutuma integreeritumaks ja ühtsemaks. Ma usun tugevalt subsidiaarsusesse. Niisiis arutasime. Ma ei arva, et elamupoliitika on Euroopa peamine probleem. Ma arvan, et seda saab käsitleda kohalikul või riiklikul tasandil. Ma ei näe selles Euroopa probleemi. Aga ma ei näe välispoliitikat 27 riigi probleemina. Ma näen selles Euroopa probleemi. Ja ma näen julgeolekut Euroopa tasandil. Seega ma arvan, et asju tuleb ümber korraldada. Aga ma sooviksin näha rohkem Euroopat tõeliselt Euroopa küsimuste puhul ja võib-olla vähem Euroopat asjade puhul, mis on Euroopa jaoks pigem subsidiaarsed riiklikul ja kohalikul tasandil. Ja ma loodan, et selline areng võib toimuda.

Teate, kui maailm räägib praegu suurriikidest, räägitakse USAst, Venemaast, Hiinast. Ma lisaksin sinna ka India. Ja ma tahaksin tõesti lisada ka Euroopa. Ja ma tahaksin tõesti lisada ka Aafrika kui Aafrika Liidu. Ja ma tahan, et see juhtuks. Aga te märkate nimekirjast, et Euroopat seal praegu ei ole. Ja see on sellepärast, et Euroopal pole välispoliitikat.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Olgu.

Euroopa Parlamendi liige Luksemburgist: Suur tänu. Ja suur tänu, professor, selle väga julge ja selge kõne eest, mille te pidasite. Ma olen Euroopa Parlamendi liige Luksemburgist. Minu küsimus on järgmine. Millised on selle kaotatud sõja pikaajalised tagajärjed? Me kaotasime sõja. Nüüd on NATO tulevik ebakindel. Meil on ka selgelt, ja te viitasite sellele, Euroopa marginaliseerumine. Meil on BRICS-riikide tugevnemine, mis võib olla paljudes aspektides konkurentsiks. Kas kollektiivsel Läänel on tulevikku järgmise 20 või 30 aasta jooksul? Suur tänu.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Ma ei usu, et on olemas kollektiivne Lääs. Ma usun, et on olemas Ameerika Ühendriigid ja Euroopa, mille huvid on mõnes valdkonnas paralleelsed ja paljudes valdkondades mitte paralleelsed. Ma tahan, et Euroopa juhiks jätkusuutlikku arengut. Kliimamuutused, globaalne viisakus. Ma usun, et kui maailm oleks rohkem Euroopa sarnane, oleks see õnnelikum, rahulikum ja turvalisem maailm.

Ja muide, pikaealisus ja parem toit. Aga igal juhul on Euroopal ülesanne, mis erineb Ameerika traditsioonist. Ja ausalt öeldes ka anglosaksi traditsioonist, sest anglosaksi hegemoonia või hegemoonia püüdlused on kestnud 200 aastat ja britid usuvad endiselt, et nad juhivad maailma. Nostalgia mõju on hämmastav. Nad isegi ei lõpeta. See on tegelikult peaaegu nagu Monty Pythoni sketš. Aga igal juhul, kuhu ma jäin? Ma mõtlen Monty Pythoni sketši, kus rüütlil lõigatakse kõik jäsemed ära ja ta ütleb, et kõik on hästi. Ma olen võidukas. See on kahjuks Suurbritannia. Ja see on tõesti kohutav.

Nii et ei, ma ei usu kollektiivsesse Läände. Ma ei usu globaalsesse Lõunasse. Ma ei usu, et need geograafilised mõisted üldse mõtet omavad, sest ma vaatan palju kaarte ja globaalne Lõuna on enamasti Põhjas ja Lääs pole isegi Lääs. Seega ei saa ma aru, millest siin jutt on. Ma usun, et me võiksime elada tõelise külluse ajastul, kui me oma pead korda saaksime. Me oleme inimkonna ajaloo suurimas tehnoloogilises arengus. On tõesti hämmastav, mida praegu on võimalik teha. Teate, ma imetlen asjaolu, et keegi, kes ei tea keemiast midagi, võitis Nobeli rahuauhinna keemia alal, sest ta on väga hea sügavate neurovõrkude alal, geenius, Demis Hassabis. Nad mõistsid ära valkude kokkuklapitumise, mille kallal põlvkonnad biokeemikuid kogu oma elu töötasid. Ja nüüd on DeepMind välja mõelnud, kuidas seda teha, tuhandete valkude puhul. Meil on sõpru, kes on kogu oma elu pühendanud ühele valgu uurimisele, geniaalsed sõbrad. Ja nüüd, mida me saame teha. Nii et tegelikult, ja sama kehtib ka taastuvenergia kohta, nagu kõik teavad, langevad hinnad rohkem kui kaks suurusjärku, kulud. Me saaksime planeeti muuta. Me saaksime kaitsta kliimasüsteemi. Me saaksime kaitsta bioloogilist mitmekesisust. Me saaksime tagada, et iga laps saaks hea hariduse. Me saaksime praegu teha nii palju imelisi asju. Ja mida me selleks vaja on? Minu arvates on meil vaja eelkõige rahu.

Ja minu põhiline seisukoht on, et kuskil pole sügavaid põhjuseid konfliktideks, sest iga konflikt, mida ma uurin, on lihtsalt viga. See pole nii, et me võitleme eluruumi eest. See idee, mis pärineb Malthuselt ja sai natside ideeks, oli alati vale idee. See oli viga, fundamentaalne intellektuaalne viga. Intellektuaalne viga, muide, sest juhtivad teadlased võtsid omaks idee, et meil on rassisõjad, meil on rahvuslikud sõjad, meil on ellujäämisesõjad, sest meil ei ole planeedist piisavalt. Majandusteadlasena võin teile öelda, et meil on planeedist piisavalt kõigi arenguks, piisavalt. Me ei ole konfliktis Hiinaga. Me ei ole konfliktis Venemaaga. Kui me rahuneme, kui te küsite pikaajalise perspektiivi kohta, siis pikaajaline perspektiiv on väga hea, tänan. Pikaajaline perspektiiv, kui me end ise õhku ei lase, on väga heaJa see ongi see, mille poole me peaksime püüdlema, positiivne ühine visioon rahvusvahelise õiguse raames. Tänu meie tehnoloogiale toimivad asjad nüüd piirkondlikul tasandil. Varem olid need külad, siis väikesed piirkonnad, siis riikide ühendamine. Nüüd on need piirkondlikud. See ei ole ainult sellepärast, et piirkonnad on imelised. See on sellepärast, et tehnoloogilised reaalsused ütlevad, et Euroopa peaks olema integreeritud piirkond transpordi, kiirraudtee, digitaalse tehnoloogia, … abil. Ja nii ongi Euroopa. Poliitika järgib tehnoloogilisi reaalsusi väga olulisel määral. Me elame praegu piirkondade maailmas. Seega peaks Euroopa olema Euroopa subsidiaarsuse põhimõttel. Ärge kaotage kõiki imelisi, imelisi riiklikke ja kohalikke elemente. Aga Euroopa peaks olema Euroopa. Seega hea külg on see, et… Ma tahan, et Euroopal oleks diplomaatia, näiteks ASEANiga. Ma veetsin palju aega ASEANi riikides. Kui ELi Roheline kokkulepe, imeline idee. Ma ütlesin palju aastaid tagasi ASEANi liidritele, et tehke ASEANi roheline kokkulepe. Ja siis rääkige eurooplastega, et teil oleksid need imelised suhted, kaubandus, investeeringud, tehnoloogia. Eelmisel aastal kuulutasid nad välja ASEANi Rohelise kokkuleppe. Mida Euroopa sellega tegi? Mitte midagi. Ta ütles: vabandust, me oleme Ukraina sõjas, aitäh. Pole huvi. See ongi minu mõte. Väljavaated on väga positiivsed, kui me rahu loome.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Kuna me peame minema, saan ma kogu aeg sõnumeid, et ma peaksin ruumist lahkuma. Lühidalt. Midagi väga lühikest.

Noor naine, Euroopa Parlamendi liige: Jah. Vabandust, jah, suur tänu loengu eest. Ma tahtsin küsida, kas te arvate, et me oleme konfliktist väljas, kas see on mingi Soome-stiilis lahendus? Ja siis veel, kas teie arvates on see see, mida te oleksite soovinud näha, näiteks Soome ja Rootsi loodusliku protsessi puhul, mis on, vabandust, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, kas teie arvates on konfliktist väljapääs mingi Soome-tüüpi lahendus? Ja kas see on see, mida te oleksite, vabandust, jah, kas see on see, mida te oleksite soovinud näha näiteks Rootsi ja Soome välispoliitikas? Kas see on see, mida te oleksite soovinud näha nende riikide välispoliitikas, selle asemel, et nad liituksid NATOga? Ja kas sa arvad, et need Venemaaga piirnevad riigid peaksid lihtsalt alistuma oma saatusele, et okei, me ei saa Venemaad provotseerida. Nagu, see on viis, kuidas me peame elama.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Väga hea, suurepärane küsimus. Ja lubage mul rääkida ühest osast soomestamisest. Soomestamine tõi Soomele aasta aastalt esikoha maailma õnnelikkuse raportis. Rikas, edukas, õnnelik ja turvaline. See oli enne NATO-ga ühinemist. Seega oli soomestamine suurepärane asi. Esikohal maailmas. Kui Rootsi, Soome ja Austria olid neutraalsed. Bravo, tark otsus. Kui Ukraina oli neutraalne, tark otsus. Kui sul on kaks suurriiki, hoia neid veidi lahus. Nad ei pea olema üksteisel ninapidi vastas. Eriti kui üks neist, USA, surub oma nina teise sisse. Seega on Soomestumisel minu arvates väga positiivne tähendus. Sama kehtib ka Austria kohta. Austria allkirjastas 1955. aastal oma neutraalsuse. Nõukogude armee lahkus. Ja Austria on muide imeline koht. Absoluutselt imeline. See ongi põhiline viis konfliktide vältimiseks. Kui Ameerika Ühendriikidel oleks olnud mingitki mõistust, oleksid nad jätnud need riigid neutraalseks alaks Ameerika sõjaväe ja Venemaa vahel. Aga just seal Ameerika Ühendriigid kaotasid. OK.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Suur tänu. Tahaksin lõpetada ühe üleskutsega. Ma arvan, et me mõlemad oleme nõus, et sõda lõpeb ühe või kahe kuu jooksul. See tähendab, et võitlus lõpeb. See ei tähenda, et Euroopasse saabub rahu. Rahu Euroopas peame looma meie, eurooplased, mitte Ameerika Ühendriikide president. Me peame selle rahu looma. Ja see on Euroopa, mis hõlmab muidugi Valgevenet, Venemaad ja kõiki teisi riike. Seega peame midagi tegema. Ja me oleme siin, parlamendis. Parlamendiliikmetena esindame me inimesi. Me oleme ainus õiguspärane, demokraatlikult õiguspärane institutsioon Euroopa Liidus. Võib-olla peaksime olema veidi proaktiivsemad, et püüda seda rahuprotsessi parteide vahel edasi viia. Ma ei tea, kui palju parteisid siin tegelikult on, aga kui me saame üksteisega rääkida ilma ütlemata, et sa oled sellest parteist, sa oled sellest parteist, siis ma arvan, et me peame tõesti keskenduma. Kui me ei suuda siin rohkem initsiatiivi parlamendilt komisjoni suhtes võtta ja öelda, et me esindame rahvast, mitte teid. Me esindame rahvast. Ja need inimesed Euroopas tahavad rahu. Ja see on see, mille poole me peaksime püüdlema. Niisiis, võib-olla on see algus. Me teeme seda iga kuu, ma korraldan koos oma kolleegidega siin sama asja erinevate teemade kohta, mis kõik on sellega seotud. Ja me loodame, et seekord saame arutelu, mis on teistsugune kui meil täiskogul, kus me põhimõtteliselt arutelu ei pea, vaid et me peame arutelu ka parteide vahel ja kutsume ka inimesi teistest erakondadest. Me ei kutsu kedagi. Arutame seda lõpuks. Me kõik tahame sama rahu järgmisele põlvkonnale. Mul on palju lapsi ja lapselapsi, teil ka. Ja just seda me vajame. OK, suur tänu, professor.

Full Transcript – The Geopolitics of Peace – Jeffrey Sachs in the European Parliament

0

Part 1

Part 2

Full Transcript

Introduction

Michael, thank you so much, and thanks to all of you for the chance to be together and to think together. This is indeed a complicated and fast-changing time and a very dangerous one. So, we really need clarity of thought. I’m especially interested in our conversation, so I’ll try to be as succinct and clear as I can be. I’ve watched the events very close-up in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Russia and Ukraine, very closely for the last 36 years. I was an adviser to the Polish government in 1989, to President Gorbachev’s economic team in 1990 and 1991, to President Yeltsin’s economic team in 1991 to 1993, and to President Kuchma’s economic team in Ukraine in 1993 to 1994. I helped introduce the Estonian currency. I helped several countries in former Yugoslavia, especially Slovenia. After the Maidan, I was asked by the new government to come to Kyiv, and I was taken around the Maidan, and I learned a lot of things firsthand. I’ve been in touch with Russian leaders for more than 30 years. I also know the American political leadership close-up. Our previous Secretary of Treasury, Janet Yellen, was my wonderful macroeconomics teacher 52 years ago. We have been friends for a half century. I know these people. I say this because what I want to explain in my point of view is not second-hand. It’s not ideology. It’s what I’ve seen with my own eyes and experienced during this period. I want to share with you my understanding of the events that have befallen Europe in many contexts, and I’ll include not only the Ukraine crisis, but also Serbia 1999, the wars in the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, the wars in Africa, including Sudan, Somalia, Libya. These are to a very significant extent the result of deeply misguided US policies. What I will say may well surprise you, but I speak from experience and knowledge of these events.

(*1) Edited transcript of Professor Jeffrey Sachs’ speech in the European Parliament at an event titled “The Geopolitics of Peace”, hosted by former UN Assistant Secretary General and current BSW MEP Michael von der Schulenburg, on February 19, 2025. The transcript has been edited for clarity and annotated in footnotes and hyperlinks. 

The Geopolitics of Peace i. U.S. Foreign Policy

These are wars that the United States has led and caused. And this has been true for more than 30 years now. The United States came to the view, especially during 1990-91, and then with the end of the Soviet Union, that the US now runs the world, and that the US does not have to heed anybody’s views, red-lines, concerns, security viewpoints, international obligations, or any UN framework. I’m sorry to put it so plainly, but I do want you to understand.

I tried very hard in 1991 to get financial help for Gorbachev,(*2) who I think was the greatest statesman of our modern time. I recently read the archived memo of the National Security Council discussion of my proposal on June 3, 1991, reading for the first time how the White House completely dismissed it, and essentially laughed off the table my plea for the US to help the Soviet Union with financial stabilization and with financial aid to make its reforms. The memo documents that the US Government decided to do the very minimum to prevent disaster, but just the minimum.(*3) They decided that it’s not the US job to help. Quite the contrary.(*4)

When the Soviet Union ended in 1991, the view became even more exaggerated. And I can name chapter and verse, but the view was we [the US] run the show. Cheney, Wolfowitz, and many other names that you will have come to know literally believed this is now a US world, and we will do as we want. We will clean up from the former Soviet Union. We will take out any remaining Soviet-era allies. Countries like Iraq, Syria, and so forth will go. And we’ve been experiencing this foreign policy for now essentially 33 years. Europe has paid a heavy price for this because Europe has not had any foreign policy during this period that I can figure out. No voice, no unity, no clarity, no European interests, only American loyalty.

There were moments where there were disagreements and, I think, very wonderful disagreements. The last time of significance was 2003 in the lead-up to the Iraq war when France and Germany said we don’t support the United States going around the UN Security Council for this war. That war was directly concocted by Netanyahu and his colleagues in the US Pentagon.(*5) I’m not saying that it was a link or mutuality. I’m saying it was a war carried out for Israel. It was a war that Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith coordinated with Netanyahu. And that was the last time that Europe had a voice. I spoke with European leaders then, and they were very clear, and it was quite wonderful to hear their opposition an unacceptable war. Europe lost its voice entirely after that, but especially in 2008. What happened after 1991, and to bring us to 2008, is that the United States decided that unipolarity meant that NATO would enlarge somewhere from Brussels to Vladivostok, step by step.

(*2) Which became part of a project led by Prof. Graham Allison at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government with Gorbachev economic advisor Grigory Yavlinsky and published in the book Window of Opportunity: The Grand Bargain for Democracy in the Soviet Union, Pantheon Books, 1991.

(*3) Richard Darman, at the OMB, put it this way. “In defining the U.S. interest, we need to be somewhat Machiavellian. What is the minimum amount necessary to mollify a regime with which we wish to work on other ma]ers? In other words, what is the bare minimum to keep things moving. I don’t believe we need to worry about the USSR’s decomposi^on. If this is our internal understanding, then we can go ahead publicly.” Later, Darman adds, “I want to seem serious while not fooling ourselves. We have enough ingredients already for a good PR package.” (Emphasis in original)

(*4) See also my paper “How the Neocons Chose Hegemony Over Peace in the Early 1990s,” available here: h]ps://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-ar^cles/bfsmbpe4plx7cc6lgxhf37lx249r22?rq=how%20the%20neocons

(*5) See Dennis Fritz, Deadly Betrayal: The Truth about why the United States Invaded Iraq, OR Books, 2024. Link here: h]ps://orbooks.com/catalog/deadly-betrayal/

ii. NATO Expansion

There would be no end to eastward enlargement of NATO. This would be the US unipolar world. If you play the game of Risk as a child like I did, this is the US idea: to have the piece on every part of the board. Any place without a US military base is an enemy, basically. Neutrality is a dirty word in the US political lexicon.

Neutrality is perhaps the dirtiest word according to the US mindset. If you’re an enemy, we know you’re an enemy. If you are neutral, you are a subversive, because you’re really against us, but just not telling us. You’re only pretending to be neutral. So, this was indeed the mindset, and the decision was taken formally in 1994 when President Clinton signed off on NATO enlargement to the east.

You will recall that on February 7, 1990, Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker III spoke with Gorbachev. Genscher gave a press conference afterwards where he explained that NATO will not move eastward.(*6) Germany and the US would not take advantage of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Understand, please, that this commitment was made in a juridical and diplomatic context, not a casual context. These commitments were core to the negotiations to end World War II that made way for German reunification.

An understanding was reached that NATO will not move one inch eastward.(*7) And it was explicit, and it is in countless documents. And just look up National Security Archive of George Washington University, and you can get dozens of documents.(*8) It’s a website called “What Gorbachev Heard About NATO.” Take a look, please, because everything you’re told by the US about this promise is a lie, but the archives are perfectly clear.

So, the decision was taken by Clinton in 1994 to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. This is a long-term US project. This is not due to one administration or another. This is a US government project that started more than 30 years ago. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote The Grand Chessboard, describing the NATO enlargement eastward.

That book is not just the musings of Mr. Brzezinski. That is his presentation to the public of decisions already made by the United States government, which is how a book like this works. The book describes the eastward enlargement of Europe and of NATO as simultaneous and conjoined events. And there’s a good chapter in that book that asks, what will Russia do as Europe and NATO expand eastward?

I knew Zbig Brzezinski personally. He was very nice to me. I was advising Poland, and he was a big help. He was also a smart man, and yet he got everything wrong in 1997. In 1997, he wrote in detail why Russia could do nothing but accede to the eastward expansion of NATO and Europe.(*9) In fact, he says the eastward expansion of Europe and not just Europe, but NATO. This was a US plan, a project. And Brzezinski explains how Russia will never align with China. Unthinkable. Russia will never align with Iran.

According to Brzezinski, Russia has no vocation other than the European vocation. So, as Europe moves east, there’s nothing Russia can do about it. So, says yet another American strategist. Is it any question why we’re in war all the time? Because one thing about America is we always “know” what our counterparts are going to do, and we always get it wrong! And one reason we always get it wrong is that in the non-cooperative game theory that the American strategists play, you don’t actually talk to the other side. You just know what the other side’s strategy is. That’s wonderful. It saves so much time. You simply don’t need any diplomacy.

(*6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogM0EjYbPRk

(*7) It was an agreement, albeit verbal, as Gorbachev emphasized to the US and Germany the importance of the US- German pledge not to expand NATO eastward.

(*8) Many of the key documents are here https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early and here https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard

(*9) Here is what Brzezinski writes: “Russia’s only real geostrategic op^on—the op^on that could give Russia a realis^c interna^onal role and also maximize the opportunity of transforming and socially modernizing itself—is Europe. And not just any Europe, but the transatlan^c Europe of the enlarging EU and NATO. Such a Europe is taking shape, as we have seen in chapter 3, and it is also likely to remain linked closely to America. That is the Europe to which Russia will have to relate, if it is to avoid dangerous geopoli^cal isola^on.” Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic ImperaEves (p. 118). Basic Books. 1997.

iii. The Black Sea Strategy

So, this project began in earnest in 1994, and we have had a continuity of government policy for 30 years until maybe yesterday, perhaps.(*10) A thirty-year project. Ukraine and Georgia were the keys to the project. Why? Because America learned everything it knows from the British.

We are the wannabe British Empire. And what the British Empire understood in 1853, with Mr. Palmerston, excuse me, Lord Palmerston [together with Napoleon III], is that you surround Russia in the Black Sea, and you deny Russia access to the Eastern Mediterranean. What you’re watching is an American project to do the same in the 21st century. The US idea was that there would be Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia all in NATO, that would deprive Russia of any international status by blocking the Black Sea and essentially by neutralizing Russia as little more than a local power. Brzezinski is clear about this geography.

After Palmerston and before Brzezinski, there was of course Halford Mackinder in 1904: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;Who rules the Heartland commands the World- Island;Who rules the World-Island commands the world.”(*11)

I’ve known the presidents and/or their teams. Nothing changed much from Clinton to Bush Jr. to Obama to Trump to Biden. Maybe they got worse step by step. Biden was the worst in my view. Maybe this is also because he was not compos mentis for the last couple of years. I say that seriously, not as a snarky remark. The American political system is a system of image. It’s a system of media manipulation every day. It is a PR system. You could have a president that basically doesn’t function and have that person in power for two years and run for reelection. The one thing is he had to stand on a stage for 90 minutes by himself, and that was the end of it. Had it not been that glitch, he would have gone on to have his candidacy, whether he was sleeping after 4 PM in the afternoon or not. So, this is the reality. Everybody goes along with it. It’s impolite to say what I’m saying because we don’t speak the truth about almost anything in this world right now.

So, this project went on since the 1990s. Bombing Belgrade 78 straight days in 1999 was part of this project. Splitting apart that country when borders are “sacrosanct,” aren’t they? Except for Kosovo, that is. Borders are sacrosanct except when America changes them. Breaking apart Sudan was another related US project. Consider the South Sudan rebellion. Did that just happen because South Sudanese rebelled? Or shall I give you the CIA playbook?

Let us please understand as grown-ups what this is about. Military campaigns are costly. They require equipment, training, base camps, intelligence, finance. That support comes from big powers. It doesn’t come from local insurrections. South Sudan did not defeat Sudan in a tribal battle. Breaking Sudan was a US project. I would go often to Nairobi and come across US military or Senators or others with a “deep interest” in Sudan’s internal politics. That war was part of the game of US unipolarity.

(*10) I refer to the Trump-Pu^n phone call of February 12, 2025 and the statements that followed in quick succession.

(*11) Mackinder wrote in 1919 the book DemocraEc Ideals and Reality, building upon his earlier work The Geographical Pivot of History from 1904.

iv. U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO Expansion

And so, NATO enlargement, as you know, started in 1999 with Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Russia was extremely unhappy about it, but these were countries still far from Russia’s border. Russia protested, but, of course, to no avail. Then George Bush Jr. came into office. When 9/11 occurred, President Putin pledged all support to the US. And then the US decided around September 20, 2001, that it would launch seven wars in five years!

You can listen to General Wesley Clark on video speak about that.(*12) He was NATO’s Supreme Commander in 1999. He went to the Pentagon around September 20, 2001. He was handed a piece of paper explaining the prospect of seven US wars of choice. These were, in fact, Netanyahu’s wars.

The US Government plan was partly to clean up [remove] old Soviet allies and partly to take out supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. Netanyahu’s idea was and is that there will be one state, thank you, in all pre-1948 Palestine. Yes, only one state. It will be Israel. Israel will control all the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. And if anyone objects, we will overthrow them. Well, not Israel, exactly, but more specifically our friend, the United States. That’s been US policy until this morning. We don’t know whether it will change. Now the only wrinkle is that maybe the US will “own Gaza” [according to President Trump] instead of Israel owning Gaza.

Netanyahu’s idea has been around at least for 25 years. It goes back to a document called “Clean Break” that Netanyahu and his American political team put together in 1996 to end the idea of the two-state solution. You can also find that document online.(*13)

So, these are long-term US projects. It’s wrong to ask, “Is it Clinton? Is it Bush? Is it Obama?” That’s the boring way to look at American politics, as a day-to-day or year-to-year game. Yet that’s not what American politics is.

After 1999, the next round of NATO enlargement came in 2004 with seven more countries: the three Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia. At this point, Russia was pretty upset. This second-wave of NATO enlargement was a complete violation of the post-war order agreed at the time of German reunification. Essentially, it was a fundamental trick, or defection, of the US from a cooperative arrangement with Russia.

As everybody recalls, because we just had the Munich Security Conference last week, President Putin went to the MSC in 2007 to say, “Stop, enough is enough.” Of course, the US did not listen.(*14)

In 2008, the United States jammed down Europe’s throat it’s long-standing project to enlarge NATO to Ukraine and to Georgia. This is a long-term project. I listened to Mr. Saakashvili in New York City in the Spring of 2008, when he spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations. He told us that Georgia is in the heart of Europe and as such would join NATO. I walked out and called my wife, and said, “This man’s crazy; he’s going to blow up his country.” A month later, a war broke out between Russia and Georgia, in which Georgia was defeated. The most recent events in Tbilisi are again not helpful for Georgia, with your MEPs going there to prod protests. That doesn’t save Georgia; that gets Georgia destroyed, completely destroyed.

In 2008, as everybody knows, our former CIA director William Burns, who at the time was the US Ambassador to Russia, sent a long diplomatic cable back to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, which was famously entitled “Nyet means Nyet.”(*15) Burns’ message was that NATO enlargement was opposed by the entire Russian political class, not just President Putin.

We know about the cable only from Julian Assange. Believe me, not one word is told to the American people about anything of this by our government or our leading newspapers these days. So, we have Julian Assange to thank for the memo, which we can read in detail.

As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as President of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off and on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda. Excuse me.

If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Yet childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation.

There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the US since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.(*16) That’s what the CIA does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American Government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.

They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. We can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil and implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our government and mass media. The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the US government.

(*12) See the interview of Former NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark, in 2011 with Democracy, where he was told by Pentagon official “we’re going to a]ack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years— we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

(*13) In 1996, Netanyahu and his American advisors issued the document “Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” with the Ins^tute for Advanced Strategic and Poli^cal Studies. This new “clean break” strategy called upon Israel to reject the framework of “land for peace”. This effec^vely advocated that Israel would not withdraw from the Pales^nian occupied lands of 1967 in exchange for regional peace. Instead, Israel would con^nue with its policy of occupa^on un^l securing “peace for peace”, by reshaping the Middle East to its liking. Redrawing the map of the region consisted of toppling governments that were opposed to Israel’s dominance. Link here: https://www.dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf

(*14) On February 10, 2007, Russian President Vladimir Pu^n delivered a speech at the 43rd Munich Security Conference. The speech can be found here http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034

(*15) Ambassador William Burns’ memo Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines. The memo can be found here https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

(*16) Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, and concluded that “Regime change operations, especially those conducted covertly, have osen led to prolonged instability, civil wars, and humanitarian crises in the affected regions.” O’Rourke, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War, 2018. Aser 1989, there is ample evidence of the CIA involved in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and many other countries.

v. The Maidan Revolution and Its Aftermath

Now in 2014, the US worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call intercepted by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Nuland, and the US ambassador, Peter Pyatt. You don’t get better evidence. The Russians intercepted her call, and they put it on the Internet. Listen to it.(*17)

It’s fascinating. By doing that, they all got promoted in the Biden administration. That’s the job. When the Maidan occurred, I was called soon after. “Professor Sachs, the new Ukrainian prime minister would like to see you to talk about the economic crisis.” So, I flew to Kyiv, and I was walked around the Maidan. And I was told how the US paid the money for all the people around the Maidan, the “spontaneous” revolution of dignity.

Ladies and gentlemen, please, how did all those Ukrainian media outlets suddenly appear at the time of the Maidan? Where did all this organization come from? Where did all these buses come from? Where did all those people come from? Are you kidding? This is an organized effort. And it’s not a secret, except perhaps to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else understands it quite clearly. Then after the coup came the Minsk agreements, especially Minsk II, which, incidentally, was modeled on South Tyrolean autonomy for the ethnic Germans in Italy. The Belgians too can relate to Minsk II very well, as it called for autonomy and language rights of the Russian speakers of Eastern Ukraine. Minsk II was supported unanimously by the UN Security Council.(*18) Yet the United States and Ukraine decided it would not be enforced. Germany and France, the guarantors of the Normandy process, also let it be ignored. This dismissal of Minsk II was another direct American unipolar action with Europe as usual playing a completely useless subsidiary role though it was guarantor of the agreement.

Trump won the 2016 election and then expanded arms shipments to Ukraine. There were many thousands of deaths in the shelling by Ukraine in the Donbas. There was no implementation of the Minsk II agreement. Then Biden came into office in 2021. I hoped for better but was profoundly disappointed once again. I used to be a member of the Democratic Party. I now am a member of no party because both are the same anyway. The Democrats became complete warmongers over time, and there was not one voice in the party calling for peace. Just as with most of your parliamentarians, the same way.

At the end of 2021, Putin put on the table a last effort to reach a modus operandi with the US, in two security agreement drafts, one with Europe and one with the United States. He put the Russia-US draft agreement on the table on December 15, 2021.

Following that, I had an hour-long call with [National Security Advisor] Jake Sullivan in the White House, begging, “Jake, avoid the war. You can avoid the war. All the US has to do is say, ‘NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine.’” And he said to me, “Oh, NATO’s not going to enlarge to Ukraine. Don’t worry about it.”

I said, “Jake, say it publicly.” “No. No. No. We can’t say it publicly.” I said, “Jake, you’re going to have a war over something that isn’t even going to happen?” He said, “Don’t worry, Jeff. There will be no war.” These are not very bright people. I’m telling you, if I can give you my honest view, they’re not very bright people. They talk to themselves. They don’t talk to anybody else. They play game theory. In noncooperative game theory, you don’t talk to the other side. You just make your strategy. This is the essence of non-cooperative game theory. It’s not negotiation theory. It’s not peacemaking theory. It is unilateral, noncooperative theory, if you know formal game theory.

That’s what they play. That kind of game theory started [in application] at the RAND Corporation. That’s what they still play. In 2019, there’s a paper by RAND, “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground.”(*19) Incredibly, the paper, in the public domain, asks how the US should annoy, antagonize, and weaken Russia. That’s literally the strategy. We’re trying to provoke Russia, trying to make Russia break apart, perhaps have regime change, maybe unrest, maybe an economic crisis.

That’s what you in Europe call your ally. So, there I was with my frustrating phone call with Sullivan, standing out in the freezing cold. I happened to be trying to have a ski day. “Oh, there’ll be no war, Jeff.” We know what happened next: the Biden Administration refused to negotiate over NATO enlargement. The stupidest idea of NATO is the so-called open-door policy, based on Article Ten of the NATO Treaty (1949). NATO reserves the right to go where it wants, as long as the host government agrees, without any neighbor – such as Russia — having any say whatsoever.

Well, I tell the Mexicans and the Canadians, “Don’t try it.” You know, Trump may want to take over Canada. So, the Canadian Government could say to China, “Why don’t you build a military base in Ontario?” I wouldn’t advise it. The US would not say, “Well, it’s an open door. That’s Canada’s and China’s business, not ours.” The US would invade Canada.

Yet grownups, including in Europe, in this Parliament, in NATO, in the European Commission, repeat the absurd mantra that Russia has no say in NATO enlargement. This is nonsense stuff. This is not even baby geopolitics. This is just not thinking at all. So, the Ukraine War escalated in February 2022 when the Biden Administration refused any serious negotiations.

(*17) Link to the transcript of the leaked phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

(*18) The Minsk II agreement was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council through Resolution 2202, which was adopted unanimously on February 17, 2015. https://press.un.org/en/2015/sc11785.doc.htm

(*19) Link to RAND paper: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

vi. The Ukraine War and Nuclear Arms Control

What was Putin’s intention in the war? I can tell you what his intention was. It was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality. This happened within days of the start of the invasion. You should understand this basic point, not the propaganda that’s written about the invasion claiming that Russia’s aim was to conquer Ukraine with a few tens of thousands of troops.

Come on, ladies and gentlemen. Please understand something basic. The idea of Russia’s invasion was to keep NATO out of Ukraine. And what is NATO, really? It is the US military, with its missiles, its CIA deployments, and all the rest. Russia’s goal was to keep the US away from its border. Why is Russia so interested in this? Consider if China or Russia decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or in the Canadian border, not only would the United States freak out; we’d have war within about ten minutes. When the Soviet Union tried this in Cuba in 1962, the world nearly ended in nuclear Armageddon.

All of this is gravely amplified because the United States unilaterally abandoned the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and ended the relative stability nuclear arms control framework by doing so. This is extremely important to understand. The nuclear arms control framework is based, in large part, on trying to deter a first [decapitation] strike. The ABM Treaty was a critical component of that stability. The US unilaterally walked out of the ABM Treaty in 2002. This blew a Russian gasket. So, everything I’ve been describing about NATO enlargement has occurred in the context of the US destruction of the nuclear framework. Starting in 2010, the US began to put in Aegis anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and then later in Romania. Russia doesn’t like that.

One of the issues on the table in December and January, December 2021, January 2022, was whether the United States claimed the right to put missile systems in Ukraine. According to former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, Blinken told Lavrov in January 2022 that the United States reserves the right to put missile systems in Ukraine.

That’s, my dear friends, is your putative ally. And now the US wants to put intermediate missile systems in Germany. Remember that the United States walked out of the INF treaty in 2019. There is no nuclear arms framework right now.(*20) Essentially, none.

When Zelensky said a few days after Russia’s invasion that Ukraine was ready for neutrality, a peace agreement was in reach. I know the details of this because I talked to key negotiators and mediators in detail and have learned much from public pronouncements of others. Shortly after the start of negotiations in March 2022, a document was exchanged between the parties that President Putin had approved, and that Lavrov had presented. This was being managed by the Turkish mediators. I flew to Ankara in the spring of 2022 to hear first-hand and in detail what happened in the mediation. The bottom-line is this: Ukraine walked away, unilaterally, from a near agreement.

(*20) The United States formally withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty on August 2, 2019, following a six-month suspension period that began on February 2, 2019

vii. The End of the Ukraine War

Why did Ukraine walk away from the negotiations? Because the United States told them to and because the UK added icing to the cake by having BoJo [Boris Johnson] go to Kyiv in early April to Ukraine to make the same point. Keir Starmer turns out to be even worse, even more of a warmonger. It’s unimaginable, but it is true. Boris Johnson explained, and you can find it on the web, that what’s at stake here is nothing less than Western hegemony! Not Ukraine but Western hegemony. Michael von der Schulenberg and I met at the Vatican with a group of experts in Spring 2022, and we wrote a document explaining that nothing good can come out of continued war.(*21) Our group argued strenuously, but to no avail, that Ukraine should negotiate immediately, because delays will mean massive deaths, risk of nuclear escalation, and possibly an outright loss of the war.

I wouldn’t want to change one word from what we wrote then. Nothing was wrong in that document. Since the US talked Ukraine out of the negotiations, perhaps one million Ukrainians have died or been severely wounded. And American senators who are as nasty and cynical as imaginable say this is a wonderful expenditure of US money because no Americans are dying. It’s the pure proxy war. One of our senators nearby New York State, Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal, said this out loud. Mitt Romney said this out loud. It’s the best money America can spend. No Americans are dying. It’s unreal.

Now, just to bring us up to yesterday, the US Ukraine Project has failed. The core idea of the project all along was that Russia would fold its hand. The core idea all along was Russia can’t resist, just as Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in 1997. The Americans thought the US surely has the upper hand.

The US will win because we’re going to bluff them. The Russians are not really going to fight. The Russians are really going to mobilize. We’ll deploy the economic “nuclear option” of cutting Russia out of SWIFT. That will destroy the economy. Our sanctions will bring Russia to their knees. The HIMARS will do them in. The ATACMS, the F-16s, will do them in. Honestly, I’ve listened to this kind of talk for more than 50 years. Our national security leaders have spoken nonsense for decades.

I begged the Ukrainians: stay neutral. Don’t listen to the Americans. I repeated to them the famous adage of Henry Kissinger, that to be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal. Let me repeat that for Europe: To be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.

(*21) The meeting at the Vatican was the Fraternal Economy Session on Jubilee 2025: Hope in the Signs of the Times. Link here: https://www.pass.va/content/dam/casinapioiv/pass/pdf-booklet/2024_booklet_fraternal_economy.pdf

viii. The Trump Administration

Let me end with a few words about President Donald Trump. Trump does not want Biden’s losing hand. This is why Trump and President Putin are likely to agree to end the war. Even if Europe continues with its warmongering, it won’t matter. The war is ending. So, please, get it out of your system. Please tell your colleagues. “It’s over.” It’s over because Trump doesn’t want to hold on to a loser. The one that will be saved by the negotiations taking place right now is Ukraine. The second is Europe.

Your stock market is rising in recent days because of the “horrible news” of negotiations and potential peace. I know this prospect of a negotiated peace has been met with sheer horror in these chambers, but this is the best news that you could get. I’ve tried to reach out to some of the European leaders. I’ve said, don’t go to Kyiv, go to Moscow. Negotiate with your counterparts. You’re the European Union. You’re 450 million people and a $20 trillion economy. Act like it.

The European Union should be the main trading partner of Russia. Europe and Russia have complementary economies. The fit for mutually beneficial trade is very strong. By the way, if anyone would like to discuss how the US blew up Nord Stream, I’d be happy to talk about that too. The Trump administration is imperialist at heart. Trump obviously believes that the great powers dominate the world. The US will be ruthless and cynical, and yes, also vis-à-vis Europe. Don’t go begging to Washington. That won’t help. It would probably spur the ruthlessness. Instead, have a true European foreign policy.

So, I’m not saying that we’re at the new age of peace, but we are in a very different kind of politics right now, a return to great power politics. Europe needs its own foreign policy, and not just a foreign policy of Russophobia. Europe needs a foreign policy that is realistic, understands Russia’s situation, understands Europe’s situation, understands what America is and what it stands for, and that tries to avoid Europe being invaded by the United States. It’s certainly not impossible that Trump’s America will land troops in Greenland. I’m not joking, and I don’t think Trump is joking. Europe needs a foreign policy, a real one. Europe needs something different from, “Yes, we’ll bargain with Mr. Trump and meet him halfway.” Do you know what that will be like? Give me a call afterwards.

Please have a European foreign policy. You’re going to be living with Russia for a long time, so please negotiate with Russia. There are real security issues on the table both for Europe and Russia, but the bombast and the Russophobia is not serving your security at all. It’s not serving Ukraine’s security at all. This American adventure that you signed on to and for which you are now the lead cheerleader has contributed to around 1 million Ukrainian casualties.

ix. On the Middle East and China

On the Middle East, incidentally, the US completely handed over foreign policy to Netanyahu 30 years ago. The Israel lobby dominates American politics. Please, have no doubt about it. I could explain for hours how it works. It’s very dangerous. I’m hoping that Trump will not destroy his administration, and far worse, the Palestinian people, because of Netanyahu, whom I regard as a war criminal who has been properly indicted by the ICC.(*22)

The only way for Europe to have peace on your borders with the Middle East is the two-state solution. There is only one obstacle to it, and that is the veto of the United States in the UN Security Council, at the behest of the Israel Lobby. So, if you want the EU to have some influence, tell the United States to drop the veto. In this the European Union would be together with around 160 other countries in the world. The only ones that oppose a Palestinian state are basically the United States, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Argentina, and Paraguay.(*23)

The Middle East is a place where the European Union could have a big geopolitical influence. Yet, Europe has gone silent about the JCPOA and Iran and around half of Europe has gone silent over Israel’s war crimes and blockage of the two-state solution.

Netanyahu’s greatest dream in life is the war between the United States and Iran. And he’s not given up. It’s not impossible that a US-Iran War will also come. Yet Europe could stop it – if Europe has its own foreign policy. I’m hoping that Trump will end Netanyahu’s grip on American politics. Even if not, the EU can work with the rest of the world to bring peace to the Middle East.

Finally, let me just say with respect to China, China is not an enemy. China is merely a great success story. That’s why it is viewed by the United States as an enemy, because China has a bigger economy than the United States (measured in international prices). The US resists reality. Europe should not do so. Let me repeat, China is no enemy and no threat. It is a natural partner with Europe in trade and in saving the global environment.

That’s all. Many thanks.

(*22) “Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for  the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine.” Link to ICC: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state

(*23) The United Nations can end the Middle East conflict by welcoming Palestine as a member. Link to my article here: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/1/10/the-un-can-end-the-middle-east-conflict-by-welcoming-palestine-as-a-member

Q&A Section

Audience Question: Should Europe increase its military spending?

Professor Jeffrey Sachs Answer:

I would not be against an approach of Europe spending two to three percent of GDP for a unified European security structure and invested in Europe and in European technology, and not having the United States dictate the use of European technology. The Netherlands produces the only machines of advanced semiconductors using extreme ultraviolet lithography. That company, of course, is ASML. Yet America determines every policy of ASML. If I were you, I wouldn’t hand over all security and technology to the United States.

I would suggest having your own security framework so you can have your own foreign policy framework as well. Europe stands for lots of things that the United States does not stand for. Europe stands for climate action. Our president is completely bonkers on this. And Europe stands for decency, for social democracy, as an ethos. Europe stands for multilateralism. Europe stands for the UN Charter. The US stands for none of those things. Our Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently canceled his trip to South Africa because equality and sustainability were on the agenda. That is a vivid, if grim, reflection of Anglo-Saxon libertarianism. Egalitarianism is not a word of the American lexicon. Nor is Sustainability.

You may know that of the 193 UN member states, 191 have presented SDG (Sustainable Development Goal) plans to the UN in the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF). Just three countries have not done so: Haiti, Myanmar and the United States of America. Biden’s Treasury was not even permitted to use the phrase Sustainable Development Goals. I mention all of this because you need your own foreign policy.

I issue two reports each year. One is the World Happiness Report. In the 2024 report, 8 of the top 10 countries are European. Europe has the highest quality of life in the whole world. The US ranked 23rd. The other annual report is the Sustainable Development Report. In the 2024 report, 19 of the top 20 countries in sustainable development are in Europe. The US ranked 46th. You need your own foreign policy to protect that quality of life! I was and remain a great fan of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and continue to believe that OSCE is the proper framework for European security. It could really work.

Audience Question: How should Europe engage diplomatically with Russia?

Professor Jeffrey Sachs Answer:

I think that there are tremendously important issues for Europe to negotiate directly with Russia. And so, I would urge, President Costa and the leadership of Europe to open direct discussions with President Putin because European security is on the table. I know the Russian leaders, many of them, quite well. They are good negotiators, and you should negotiate with them, and you should negotiate well with them. I would ask the Russian counterparts some questions. I would ask them, what are the security guarantees that can work so that this war ends permanently? What are the security guarantees for the Baltic states? Part of the process of negotiation is to ask the other side about your concerns. I know Foreign Minister Lavrov for 30 years. I regard him as a brilliant foreign minister. Talk with him. Negotiate with him. Get his ideas. Put your ideas on the table. The most important thing is to stop the yelling, stop the warmongering, and discuss with the Russian counterparts. And don’t beg to be at the table with the United States. You don’t need to be in the room with the United States. You’re Europe. You should be in the room with Europe and Russia. Don’t hand over your foreign policy to anybody, not to the United States, not to Ukraine, not to Israel. Keep a European foreign policy. This is the basic idea.

Audience QuestionCountries including Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic wanted to join NATO. So does Ukraine. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so?

Professor Jeffrey Sachs Answer:

NATO is not a choice of Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, or Ukraine. NATO is a US-led military alliance. The question facing Europe back in 1991 and today is how to ensure peace. If I were making decisions back in 1991, I would have ended NATO altogether when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, and certainly when the Soviet Union itself ended. When countries requested NATO membership, I would have explained to them what our defense secretary William Perry, leading statesman George Kennan, last US ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock, all said in the 1990s. They all said, in effect, “We understand your feelings, but enlarging NATO is not a good idea because it could easily provoke a new Cold War with Russia.” There’s a very good new book by Jonathan Haslam, published by Harvard University Press, called Hubris. It offers a detailed historical documentation of NATO enlargement. It explains how the US was too arrogant to discuss, negotiate, and honor the redlines of Russia, even after promising that NATO would not enlarge.

Audience Question: What are the long-term consequences of this lost war?

Professor Jeffrey Sachs Answer:

We’re in the biggest technological advance in human history. It’s truly amazing what can be done right now. You know, I marvel at the fact that somebody who knows little chemistry won the Nobel Peace Prize for chemistry because he’s superb at AI and deep neural networks, indeed a genius, Demis Hassabis. He and his team at DeepMind figured out how to use AI to crack the problem of protein folding, a problem that had occupied generations of biochemists. So, if we put our minds, our resources and our energies towards it, we can transform the world energy system for climate safety. We can protect biodiversity. We can ensure every child gets a quality education. We can do so many wonderful things right now. What do we need for success? In my view, most importantly, we need peace. And my basic point is there are no deep reasons for conflict anywhere because every conflict I study is just a mistake. We are not struggling for Lebensraum. That idea, which essentially came from Malthus and later became a Nazi idea, was always wrong, a fundamental intellectual mistake. We have had race wars, national wars of survival, out of the fear that we don’t have enough for everybody on this planet, so that we are in a struggle for survival. As an economist, I can tell you, we have plenty on the planet for everybody’s sustainable development. Plenty. We’re not in a conflict with China. We’re not in a conflict with Russia. If we calm down, if we ask about the long term, the long term is very good, that is, if we don’t blow ourselves up beforehand. So, this is my point. The prospects are very positive if we construct the peace.

Audience Question: Do you think the way out of this conflict is a Finlandization of Ukraine?

Professor Jeffrey Sachs Answer:

Excellent question. Let me just report one aspect about Finlandization. Finlandization landed Finland number one in the World Happiness Report year after year. Finland is rich, successful, happy, and secure. That’s pre-NATO Finland I’m discussing. So “Finlandization” was a wonderful thing for Finland. When Sweden and Finland and Austria were neutral, bravo. Smart. When Ukraine was neutral, smart. If you have two superpowers, keep them apart a little bit. If the United States had any sense at all, it would have left these countries as the neutral space in between the US military and Russia, but the US has far too little sense. 

Source where to get automatic translations in various languages:

https://www.other-news.info/edited-transcript-professor-jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/

Nate Bear — The AI Drones Used In Gaza Now Surveilling American Cities

0
  The AI Drones Used In Gaza Now Surveilling American Cities Nate Bear Oct 31, 2025 https://www.donotpanic.news/p/the-ai-drones-used-in-gaza-now-surveilling  

   

AI-powered quadcopter drones used by the IDF to commit genocide in Gaza are flying over American cities, surveilling protestors and automatically uploading millions of images to an evidence database.

 

The drones are made by a company called Skydio which in the last few years has gone from relative obscurity to quietly become a multi-billion dollar company and the largest drone manufacturer in the US.

 

The extent of Skydio drone usage across the US, and the extent to which their usage has grown in just a few years, is extraordinary. The company has contracts with more than 800 law enforcement and security agencies across the country, up from 320 in March last year, and their drones are being launched hundreds of times a day to monitor people in towns and cities across the country.

 

Skydio has extensive links with Israel. In the first weeks of the genocide the California-based company sent more than one hundred drones to the IDF with promises of more to come. How many more were delivered since that admission is unknown. Skydio has an office in Israel and partners with DefenceSync, a local military drone contractor operating as the middle man between drone manufacturers and the IDF. Skydio has also raised hundreds of millions of dollars from Israeli-American venture capitalists and from venture capital funds with extensive investments in Israel, including from Marc Andreessen’s firm Andreessen Horowitz, or a16z.

 

And now these drones, tested in genocide and refined on Palestinians, are swarming American cities.

 

According to my research almost every large American city has signed a contract with Skydio in the last 18 months, including BostonChicagoPhiladelphiaSan DiegoCleveland and Jacksonville. Skydio drones were recently used by city police departments to gather information at the ‘No Kings’ protests and were also used by Yale to spy on the anti-genocide protest camp set up by students at the university last year.

 

In Miami, Skydio drones are being used to spy on spring breakers, and in Atlanta the company has partnered with the Atlanta Police Foundation to install a permanent drone station within the massive new Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. Detroit recently spent nearly $300,000 on fourteen Skydio drones according to a city procurement report. Last month ICE bought an X10D Skydio drone, which automatically tracks and pursues a target. US Customs and Border Protection has bought thirty-three of the same drones since July.

 

The AI system behind Skydio drones is powered by Nvidia chips and enables their operation without a human user. The drones have thermal imaging cameras and can operate in places where GPS doesn’t work, so-called ‘GPS-denied environments.’ They also reconstruct buildings and other infrastructure in 3D and can fly at more than 30 miles per hour.

 

The New York police were early adopters of Skydio drones and are particularly enthusiastic users. A spokesman recently told a drone news website that the NYPD launched more than 20,000 drone flights in less than a year, which would mean drones are being launched around the city 55 times per day. A city report last year said the NYPD at that time was operating 41 Skydio drones. A recent Federal Aviation Authority rule change, however, means that number will undoubtedly have increased and more generally underpins the massive expansion in the use of Skydio drones.

 

Prior to March this year, FAA rules meant that drones could only be used by US security forces if the operator kept the drone in sight. They also couldn’t be used over crowded city streets. An FAA waiver issued that month opened the floodgates, allowing police and security agencies to operate drones beyond a visual line of sight and over large crowds of people. Skydio called the waiver ground-breaking. It was. The change has ushered in a Skydio drone buying spree by US police and security forces, with many now employing what is called a ‘Drone As First Responder’ program. Without the need to see the drone, and with drones free to cruise over city streets, the police are increasingly sending drones before humans to call outs and for broader investigative purposes. Cincinnati for example says that by the end of this year 90% of all call outs will be serviced first by a Skydio drone.

 

This extensive level of coverage is enabled by Skydio’s docking platform hardware. These launch pads are placed in locations around a city enabling drones to be remote charged, launched and landed many miles away from police HQs. After launch, all the information gathered by these flights is both saved to an internal SD card and automatically uploaded to special software configured for law enforcement. This software is made by Axon, a major financial backer of Skydio and the controversial maker of Tasers and ‘less-lethal weapons’ used by police departments in the US and across the west. The software, Axon Evidence, enables, in the words of an Axon press release, ‘the automatic uploads of photos and video footage from drones into a digital evidence management system.’

 

Axon’s equipment is also central to Israel’s infrastructure of apartheid, with the company providing body cameras and Tasers to Israeli police forces and prison guards who routinely torture Palestinians. Axon, which participated in a $220 million Series E round of funding in Skydio, is just one of the many entities backing Skydio who serve a Zionist agenda.

 

Skydio’s first investor in 2015 was Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) which provided $3 million of seed capital to the three-man team behind the drone maker. They have since invested tens of millions across numerous funding rounds. The founders of a16z, Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, are both notorious Zionists. The firm was the most active venture capital investor in Israel in 2024 and this summer Andreessen and Horowitz visited Israel to meet with tech companies founded by ex-IDF and Unit 8200 war criminals.

 

Other Skydio investors include Next 47, which has an office in Israel headed by Moshe Zilberstein who worked in the IDF’s computer spy centre Mamram, and Hercules Capital whose managing director Ella-Tamar Adnahan is an Israeli-American described by Israeli media as “Israel’s go-to tech banker in the US.”

 

The saturation of US police departments with drone technology so closely connected to Israel, technology used to carry out war crimes is a frightening, if not unsurprising, development. Skydio drones will be central to the rapidly advancing proto-fascism in the US and the crack down on Antifa and other so-called ‘domestic terrorists’ by the Trump administration. In this context, the bigger surprise is that the rapid expansion of Israel-linked surveillance drone technology across America has so far gone largely under the radar.

 

Skydio should also make it on to the agenda of Zohran Mamdani. Recently criticised for saying “when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it’s been laced by the IDF,” Skydio is just another example that shows he’s right. If he has the courage of his convictions, he could do worse than use his powers as mayor to shut down the NYPD’s Skydio deal.

 

Skydio is also a large supplier to the Department of Defence, recently signing a contract to provide the US Army with reconnaissance drones. As a significant supplier to both military and civilian security forces, it raises questions about what information is or will be shared between the US military and domestic security agencies via the Skydio-Axon digital evidence management system.

 

Skydio shows once again how Gaza is the laboratory for weapons makers, the place where new surveillance and apartheid technologies are tested, before being refined and used in the west. And next year Skydio is rolling out new indoor drones. We can only speculate as to what extent these new drones were informed by the ‘learnings’ accrued via genocide.

 

The story of Skydio shows that what happens in Gaza doesn’t stay in Gaza.

The logic of capitalist imperialism means these technologies will always find their way home.

  Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber or buying me a coffee. All my work is free but your financial support has been a lifeline.  

FREE REINER! — HOW IS REINER DOING? REINER HAS 2 VISITORS

0

HOW IS REINER DOING? REINER HAS 2 VISITORS

ELSA

https://truthsummit.substack.com/p/how-is-reiner-he-has-2-visitors

DEC 11, 2025

Hendrik Sodenkamp and Anselm Lenz are from the publication, Democtratic Resistance. It’s one of the publications Reiner looks forward to reading each week. They went to visit Reiner.

A German friend sent this to me – it’s not on my usual reading list. And then I turned to Google. So here’s the report from Sodenkamp and Lenz, translated courtesy of Google:

https://demokratischerwiderstand.de/artikel/538/besuch-bei-reiner-fuellmich-im-gefaengnis

 

 

Dr. Reiner Füllmich, the world-renowned exposer of the Corona terror lie and the illegal state of emergency, has been imprisoned as a political prisoner for two years and two months. Sodenkamp and Lenz report on their visit and interview with the prominent lawyer and award-winner at Bremervörde Prison.

The Bremervörde prison is located about an hour from the motorway. We pass flatlands, secure psychiatric facilities, and barracks complexes. It feels like a special zone within Germany. On the outskirts of Bremervörde, a large, gray concrete block awaits us. New construction. Enormous.

In front of the entrance gate, with its massive, retractable bollards and undercarriage inspection system, a middle-aged woman is already waiting, alone. She, too, is here for a visit. Only one person is allowed in at a time. Inside, a young woman with a small boy in a stroller is going through the first security check. When she’s finished, it’s the older woman’s turn. She’s waved through. Apparently, she comes often and is known here. Then it’s our turn: journalists Hendrik Sodenkamp and Anselm Lenz.

Our identity cards are checked. Just like at airports, the following happens: The Federal Republic of Germany must have placed some kind of entry in our “certificate of good conduct,” which is displayed on the screens. The officials always have to look something up on another screen, frowning. The same thing happens here. We are marked, stigmatized. Our press passes are tossed back into the drawer with a gesture of “Doesn’t count for us.”

“Who are you actually going to see?” asks the officer in the blue court jumper behind the bulletproof glass. “Dr. Reiner Füllmich.” – “Ah!” comes the reply through the intercom. Telephones, cameras, pens, and notebooks are not allowed inside. “Above all, no paper! No scraps of paper, no pens, not even tissues, not even a piece of chewing gum wrapper,” announces the jumper and his microphone. But: “15 euros in change are allowed.” Does he mean Swiss francs? Russian rubles? Swedish kronor? – He means euro coins, as will later become clear.

Two honest journalists on their way to seeing a great lawyer – that’s how things will be in Germany in the year 2025

We lock our few belongings in a small locker: notebook, fine-liner pen, press passes, ID cards, and a mobile phone. After the cheerful security check – “it’s just like at the airport, belts off!” – we are allowed into the next room, where the older woman and three other women, each with a small child, are waiting. We greet them politely.

The women and their three adorable children seem to already know the drill. The three younger women, who wouldn’t stand out on Berlin’s public transport, have clearly dressed themselves and their children up. They are going to visit their husbands and the fathers of their children. Two murderers and a man slaughterer, as we will later learn from Füllmich.

Here we sit, waving to the shy children so they aren’t afraid of us, since we clearly don’t fit the usual visitor profile, and look through the barred window. A concrete-walled courtyard, security strips like the former Berlin Wall, only three times as high, more barbed wire, more concrete. Behind bars and barbed wire, a seemingly unused football pitch.

On the walls of the waiting room are photographs of prison cells: bars and, beyond them, a patch of lush grass in the yard. It’s not the most dilapidated administrative and enforcement facility we’ve been to in Germany over the past six years (some were shockingly run-down, like the “GeSa” in Berlin, the prison in Kassel). This one is clean, looks freshly painted, and everything is comparatively bright. The officers make an effort to be matter-of-fact, even friendly.

He stands ready behind the last pane of bulletproof glass:

The great lawyer and Enlightenment thinker Reiner Füllmich

Then heavy, blue steel doors are unlocked, and we, along with the women and children, are ushered into the visitors’ corridor and up the stairs. Through a pane of bulletproof glass, we can see Reiner Füllmich. He smiles, we wave. The last door also opens, and we approach each other, shake hands, and greet each other while standing. For two years and two months, the German regime has held Dr. Reiner Füllmich, a lawyer, as a political prisoner. Since October 2023.

Füllmich is alleged to have evaded taxes. Is there any truth to it? In any case, it’s the oldest trick used by collapsing regimes and their prosecutors: to incriminate opposition figures through their tax returns. The accusation against the prominent civil rights activist, entrepreneur, and peace demonstration organizer Michael Ballweg of deliberately making tax errors ultimately amounted to only about 20 euros (DW reported ). That “20 euros” wouldn’t have covered a single square centimeter of the perversely criminal Jens Spahn villa deal in Berlin-Dahlem.

Now, full concentration on Füllmich; we only have 60 minutes in this long, windowless visitor room. Let’s take a seat at the table, modeled after a primary school teachers’ lounge under fluorescent lights. During our conversation, the mothers will repeatedly approach the snack vending machines in the room, beaming with joy. The machines are located behind our table with Füllmich. The three women get their husbands paper-cup coffee, Smarties, and gummy bears. Each of them clacks their 15 coins into the machines, one after the other. It’s an hour of pure bliss. The children play in a sparsely furnished play corner, chewing on gummy bears. The fathers hug and cuddle them.

 

Sodenkamp: Mr. Füllmich, how are you?

Dr. Reiner Füllmich: So far, so good. I do a lot of sports and keep myself fit here. I did gymnastics for a long time, and that really helps a lot here. I’ve also done horseback riding and surfing. It’s important to exercise so you don’t deteriorate. Besides, I have to say that things are considerably better here in Bremervörde than in Göttingen-Rosdorf. I’ve been here since May. The atmosphere is much better, there’s less stress with other inmates, and the guards are in a better mood too. Everyone is on my side, or rather, our side. Corona was a complete fabrication.

 

Lenz: Mr. Füllmich, may we quote you and reconstruct the interview from our notes?

Füllmich: Of course. Everything, every word, without restriction. Paper and pen aren’t allowed here because the drug Spice was allegedly smuggled in here, soaked in paper. The drug is difficult to dose, and that’s supposedly why there have been heart attacks and other problems in here. But the guards will also testify in my trials, and they’ll testify on my behalf. Many of the guards are deeply uneasy about what’s going on here in Germany, including the Corona lie and the warmongering. They all vote for the AfD now. I’ve even signed autographs for them here in my cell. They tell me, “This is for my wife, we’re your fans.”

Sodenkamp: And what is the contact like with the other prisoners?

Füllmich: Also good. As a lawyer, I’ve already been able to do some work for a few of them. Many of the men here only had court-appointed lawyers who didn’t represent them well. I mean, these men were sometimes practically betrayed by these court-appointed lawyers. As a lawyer, I can be of some help, at least by drafting applications for them. There are quite a few foreigners here, ninety percent I’d say. That helps, of course. And that earns me respect here, and I get along well.

Sodenkamp: What crimes are your fellow inmates accused of?

Füllmich: There are some serious cases here. Murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, manslaughter. Apparently, that’s how they’re handling these cases in Germany now, grouping them together. They’re supposedly doing the same in England.

Sodenkamp: Is it normal that you, as a suspected fraudster, are placed in the same wing as violent offenders? With Michael Ballweg, as far as we could ascertain from him, it was different. 

Füllmich: I mean, that’s pretty normal in Germany. But it’s better here than in Göttingen-Rosdorf. There, I witnessed people being beaten up right next to me until the guards arrived. And I also saw two inmates, after giving warning, smash a glass bottle over the head of another inmate, whom they called a Gypsy, so that his eye was hanging out. And that was with prior warning, which the prison educator, who should have been responsible, didn’t react to. I sued him because of that, and as a result, I was transferred here to Bremervörde.

Here in Bremervörde, I even had a telephone in my cell at first. You can rent them here. Since I’m locked up here for most of the day, I could use that time to call my wife, who’s currently in Mexico with our dogs. I haven’t seen her in two years. Until recently, we could talk on the phone for long periods. Now that’s been forbidden again. And I could call friends and acquaintances.

This went on until about six weeks ago. It was the port lawyer Justus Hoffmann who filed a complaint with the prison, first under a pseudonym and then under his real name. My phone was taken away, and since then I can only speak to my wife twice a week for twenty minutes each time.

Lenz: What is your daily routine like here in Bremervörde?

RF: Every weekday we are woken up at six o’clock. On weekends at seven o’clock. We then have an hour for breakfast. Breakfast is given to us here the evening before. We have an hour of so-called free time in the yard. That’s the only time we get fresh air here.

The only other thing is that we get unlocked in the afternoon and can walk up and down the corridor for an hour. My cell is along a long corridor with 19 others, ten doors on the left, ten on the right. Lunch is pretty good quality. Otherwise, there’s just soggy white bread. We’re allowed to buy things in the prison shop. I use that for fruit and vegetables, which I can keep in my cell.

I actually get along quite well with the inmates here. Some of them have been victims of real miscarriages of justice. I’m currently working on the case of a young man who was treated terribly by the security services and the justice system. Truly criminal and corrupt.

As a young lawyer, I initially worked at the public prosecutor’s office. I couldn’t stand it there because of all the corruption among the prosecutors. And these prisons here are all semi-privatized; prison is a business. They want to do it like in the US. Now, even here, people are simply thrown into pretrial detention. The money is always right.

Sodenkamp: What do you do during the day?

Fuellmich: I receive 70 to 100 letters and postcards a day. I try to actually answer most of them. Luckily, I have a typewriter here, so that’s possible. I’ve standardized a few lines, always the same, and then I write the rest personally. The mail and the warmth of heartfelt messages are very important for staying grounded here. But it’s also important for me to stay in touch with friends and activists. I always receive the weekly newspaper “ Demokratische Widerstand” (Democratic Resistance ), which I’m very happy about every week. How are things with you?

Lenz: For almost every conceivable reason, we’re taking a break from printing for the first time in five and a half years. This gives us the time, for the first time, to undertake journeys lasting several days and elaborate visits like this one. We will continue.

Füllmich: You guys are the toughest out there. I like your clear language. You don’t beat around the bush and present things in a way that everyone can understand. And you go into great depth. You’re versatile and highly skilled. You’re heroes to me, also because you don’t fall into the Nazi traps set by informants. By the way, I can also imagine that Markus Haintz is an informant.

Lenz: He actively denounced me to the BBC propagandist Marianna Spring, deliberately trying to drive a wedge between my British-German family. Not to mention the bank account seizures of around €40,000 he orchestrated against the newspaper and publishing house using all sorts of legal tricks. If he hadn’t siphoned this money from our business to his own account, DW would have fewer worries right now.

The worst part was that he wanted to have my GmbH (limited liability company) share auctioned off. Markus Haintz has obviously been getting up every morning in Mallorca for years and dreaming up the next dirty trick against us. Now we are ready to launch a counter-offensive against Haintz with the renowned lawyers Eberhard Schultz and Armin Grimm from the House of Democracy and Human Rights and force him into a costly main trial.

The mere announcement in court has now led to Maggus offering us a settlement, perhaps even partially repaying the money he stole from us. We will see if an agreement is possible. It wouldn’t fail because of us if he swears under oath that he is no longer an informant and is now acting honestly in the interests of his clients in the democracy movement. We are striving to keep the organization together, to keep the entire movement together, and not to exclude anyone. There was a period when three to five people, who had been active on the fringes of the new German peace and democracy movement since March 28, 2020, attempted to completely destroy us personally and DW as a newspaper.

As the pioneering force of the movement, we eventually had to publicly defend ourselves and make an example of them, showing that they couldn’t treat us this way, that we wouldn’t be figuratively shot down, neither from the outside nor from an ambush behind our own lines. We stand tall and have nothing to take back and only a little to soften.

Fill me up: Bravo! Keep going!

Lenz: We’re here for you, Reiner. We’re conducting this interview professionally, using the formal “Sie” form. However, we were already on a first-name basis early in 2020. What are the conditions of detention here, Dr. Füllmich?

Füllmich: Thank you for being here. I look forward to the newspaper every week. The television here only shows the usual propaganda, and the prison library is very poorly stocked. But at least there are a few good authors: I’m currently reading a lot of Peter Scholl-Latour. The letters take up a lot of time. And then there’s continuing my cases for the other inmates. I’m sure you’ll hear about that. It’s unbelievable what kind of bombshells are still going to explode – figuratively speaking – in the German justice system!

Lenz: Mr. Reiner Füllmich, you are considered a leading legal expert in exposing the Corona lie and the illegal state of emergency, and as almost everyone knows today, your doubts were entirely justified. Let’s assume we knew nothing about it yet. How would you describe the goals of this conspiracy? Why do people do something like the Corona lie? 

Fill me out: First, population reduction; second, total control; and third, this strange turn towards transhumanism! What happened from 2020 onwards was just a test run for what’s to come. But those in power can’t carry it out anymore. We’re too strong. There are too many of us. And we’re too good. Just like you.

Lenz: In your Corona inquiry committee, you spoke with hundreds of opposition experts starting in the summer of 2020. I assume you wouldn’t vouch for every single word spoken by every single one of them. But do you have anything to retract regarding the impetus, the direction, and the key findings of the Corona inquiry committee?

Füllmich: No, I take absolutely nothing back. And I have nothing to change about the experts either.

Lenz: Does the mail reach you reliably? 

Fill me: Overall, yes! I’m amazed; sometimes letters and postcards arrive within three days. Sometimes it takes weeks. I receive 70 to 100 items of mail in prison every day. I try to answer them all. I have a typewriter in my cell. I have a pre-written message that I use to tell everyone how I’m doing and what the latest developments are. I then add the rest individually. Some of the mail I receive is quite insightful. It gives me information about new developments, which I can then use to piece things together.

Lenz: Of the regime’s accusations against the entrepreneur, civil rights activist, and demonstration organizer Michael Ballweg, who was held in pretrial detention in Stammheim for nine months starting June 29, 2022, only errors in his tax return amounting to €19.52 remained at the time of the verdict. Or was it even a penny more? How much of the accusations against you, Mr. Füllmich, will remain?

Fill me up: Nothing!

Lenz: Really? Zero? 

Fill me: Zero!

Reiner Füllmich, at our meeting, is wearing an older, fine denim shirt that must once have been of high quality, ordinary trousers, and loafers. He doesn’t give the impression of a broken prisoner, but rather displays a speed and rigor of thought that betrays no loss of substance. He is not a defeated man, not a refuted figure, certainly not a criminal, but presents himself to us as a victor of the future. We will follow his statements regarding the allegedly highly criminal public prosecutor Laue in Göttingen elsewhere.

Our conversation then turned to Füllmich’s account of a loan he had taken out from the donations received by the Corona Inquiry Committee. At the time of our visit, this loan had been the starting point of his imprisonment for two years and two months.

“I had taken out a loan of €700,000 to safeguard it.” He had agreed with his lawyer, Viviane Fischer, that he would participate in future meetings from America via Zoom and would no longer be present in Germany at Viviane Fischer’s office on Waldenserstrasse in Berlin, where the recordings had previously taken place. The Corona Committee had already been put under pressure and threatened by the well-known account closures and attacks from the regime. He had gotten along well with Viviane Fischer, who, despite her known weaknesses, had her own issues. However, the Hamburg law firm Hafen-Anwälte was essentially an outpost of the secret State Security police department and was a contributing factor to his fate.

Fischer, Wodarg, Hoffmann and shady port lawyers:

Dispute in the complex situation or state security?

According to Füllmich, the situation had become clearer shortly before his departure for Mexico. He had already informed Wodarg and his associates that he would repay the loan early. The entire transaction had also been secured by the sale of one of his houses. It was precisely at that moment that the ports lawyers filed a complaint against him and even denounced him to the state security service.

Overall, it was an attempt to destroy his person and his work as an internationally renowned COVID-19 educator. Following his imprisonment, his ranch in a Native American territory in the US was forced into a distress sale, fetching only half its value of €1.5 million. The goal, he said, was to ensure his wife could continue living in Mexico.

Füllmich strikes us as composed, physically and mentally fit. His eyes are somewhat more lowered than before, and upon closer inspection, reveal a shocked look in light of the events of the past six years. We, too, are stressed and shaken by the transformation of large parts of our Federal Republic of Germany’s state apparatus into a weapon of terror against us and millions of opposition members in Germany.

Nevertheless, Füllmich is convinced of the integrity of his actions and his work as an investigative lawyer. “My father was a police officer, I come from Bremen. I decided to become a lawyer at the Bremen Roland statue, because the Roland stands for justice. My profession has always been about justice, never about making a lot of money, even though I have made a lot of money at times. As you know, I have sued the world’s largest corporations. It’s not about the money for me.”

The happy wives and children of murderers and killers

The elaborately made-up and attractively dressed women come running around our table one last time today from the tables and the games corner. From the snack machines, they call out across the room in languages we identify as Romanian, Arabic, and Ukrainian. Do their husbands want another Coca-Cola or a Snickers? And do the little ones need more gummy bears?

It’s a moment of pure joy for them and the fathers with migrant backgrounds who certainly can’t pay child support from prison. They hug their children, play in the play area, and kiss their wives, who have dressed up especially beautifully for them today. – Free Reiner! But we must come to an end.

Black Book Corona at Sodenkamp & Lenz 

Füllmich remains emotionally resonant even in prison, appearing both as a whole man and as a sensitive comrade, a dedicated advocate for his fellow inmates. He speaks of his wife, his cousin, and the good judicial officers. He occasionally inquires about our personal well-being, the state of our newspaper, our original contributors, our Berlin colleagues, the employees of the publishing house, and our book publisher. He asks how our loved ones are doing.

Füllmich emphasizes that he has nothing to retract from the “Black Book Corona” containing the findings of the Corona Inquiry Committee, which has been published by Sodenkamp & Lenz with his approval and authorization since the beginning of 2021. The work remains one of the first major books on the subject, is quotable, and is one of the great early achievements of the Enlightenment movement.

“The end!” echoes through the long room on the upper floor of the prison wing, where the three mothers with their small children and the older lady with her incarcerated husband, a German man around 60, have taken their seats at the five widely spaced tables, each with four chairs. We are being ushered out.

Beyond the prison gates, we head to the car and drive to the next rest stop. We transcribe the interview verbatim from memory, compile our findings, and agree on the final form. This is a journalistic technique that adheres to journalistic standards and that professionals like us have mastered. Fortunately, our brains are not yet as soft and our souls not as black as those of our mainstream colleagues, this perfidious pack of liars, these accomplices of mass murderers and warmongers. Now, strengthen our resistance, build up DW, and DONATE !

https://demokratischerwiderstand.de/spenden

The donation link above is to Democratic Resistance, an amazing resource, which Reiner looks forward to reading weekly. Below, the usual link, to Reiner – always a worthy cause. But this time, I am very happy to include the link to Sodenkamp and Anselm Lenz’s great publication.

__________________

  1. By the way, to donate for Reiner’s legal and other expenses, here is a link: https://www.givesendgo.com/GBBX2

___________________

_________________________________

BELOW:

– information for letters to Reiner,

– information to donate,

– excellent overviews of Reiner’s case.

Note: if you are new to the ongoing updates on Reiner’s case, or just want a refresher, please go to the links to excellent recent overviews.)

_________________________________

Here is the address to write to Reiner:

LETTERS;

JVA Bremervoerde

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

Am Steinberg 75

D – 27432 Bremervoerde

Germany

postcards and cards allowed,

no glitter on the envelops,

no stamps or money in the envelops,

no books or other objects – not permitted,

nothing to be mentioned about the case – though now, according to the latest information, his mail is no longer scanned,

put your name of each page of the letter, just in case – though at present letters are no longer taken out of the envelops.

__________________________

TO DONATE:

To donate, here is the link for donations for legal and other expenses: https://www.givesendgo.com/GBBX2

___________________

A NUMBER OF EXCELLENT OVERVIEWS OF THE REINER FUELLMICH CASE:

IN 4 LANGUAGES: THE FULL STORY

by Seba Terribilini

ENGLISH:

THE FULL STORY OF DR. REINER FUELLMICH

https://substack.com/home/post/p-171347044

June 13, 2025, revised version Aug 19, 2025

ITALIAN:

STORIA DEL DR. REINER FUELLMICH: PERSECUZIONE, ABUSI E SCANDALOSA CONDANNA

https://substack.com/home/post/p-171341951

June 8, 2025, updated Aug 18, 2025

GERMAN:

DIE GANZE GESCHICHTE VON DR. REINER FUELLMICH

https://substack.com/home/post/p-171350306

June 15, 2025, revised version Aug 19, 2025

FRENCH:

L’HISTOIRE COMPLÈTE DU DR REINER FUELLMICH

https://substack.com/inbox/post/176302692

Oct 16, 2025

SCANDAL IN GERMANY: UPDATE ON THE SHOCKING PERSECUTION OF DR. REINER FÜLLMICH

by Seba Terribilini and Cynthia Salatino

worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/scandal-in-germany-update-on-the

April 22, 2025

THE ATROCIOUS CONVICTION OF REINER FUELLMICH:

Reiner Fuëllmich sentenced to additional 3 years and 9 months in prison

by Greg Reese

gregreese.substack.com/p/the-atrocious-conviction-of-reiner

May 15, 2025

2 WEEKS OF RESEARCH – ALL THE DETAILS

EVENTS FROM THE BEGINNING

by Paul Gregory

https://www.klasseverantwortung.de/endtimes/8.html

April 25, 2025

THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PREVENT FÜLLMICH’S RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE AT ALL COSTS – A PROCESS THAT GOES FAR BEYOND LEGAL BOUNDARIES

https://uncutnews.ch/regierung-will-fuellmichs-rueckkehr-in-die-oeffentlichkeit-um-jeden-preis-verhindern-ein-prozess-der-weit-ueber-juristische-grenzen-hinausreicht/

May 13, 2025

2 MUST-READ PIECES. 2 EXCELLENT OVERVIEWS OF “The Unjust and Evil Prosecution of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich”

https://truthsummit.substack.com/p/2-excellent-overviews-reiner-fuellmich-case

Sept 5, 2024

MORE SUPPORT FOR REINER! Including from one of the last people he interviewed

https://truthsummit.substack.com/p/support-for-reiner-peter-koenig-wolfgang-jeschke

Sept 6, 2024

EVEN MORE SUPPORT FOR REINER! Including a fabulous detailed timeline

https://truthsummit.substack.com/p/more-support-for-reiner-fuellmich-timeline

Sept 7, 2024

_________________________________

Posted DEC 3, 2025

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 警察国家美利, 第13章下, 次美国革命?预期的内乱, Chapter 13, The Next American Revolution? Anticipated Civil Unrest

0
警察国家美利坚

第一章-警察国家的崛起 — CHAPTER 1-The Rise of the Police State

第二章联邦调查局 — Chapter 2 — The FBI

美国联邦调查局反情报程序 — CHAPTER 3 – COINTELPRO

第四章普遍公共监督 — Chapter 4 — Universal Public Surveillance

第五章其他监视 – Chapter 5 — Other Surveillance

第6章寻找无政府主义者,或者可能只是政治活动家 — Chapter 6 — Searching for Anarchists, or Maybe Just Political Activists

第七章赢得信息战 —  Chapter 7   — Winning the Information War

第八章任意和不负责任的执法 — Chapter 8 — Arbitrary and Unaccountable Law Enforcement

第9章警察的军事化 — Chapter 9 — The Militarisation of the Police

第十章占领华尔街 — Chapter 10 — Occupy Wall Street

第11章恐吓媒体和颠覆媒体 — Chapter 11 — Intimidating the Media & Subverting the Press

第12章捷径:民主走向法西斯主义 — Chapter 12 — The Short Road: Democracy to Fascism

第13章下一次美国革命?预期的内乱 — Chapter   13 — The Next American Revolution? Anticipated Civil Unrest

 
警察国家美利

13章下一次美国革命?预期的内乱 — Chapter  13 — The Next American Revolution? Anticipated Civil Unrest

 

CHINESEENGLISH

 警察国家美国》第一卷免费电子书 

 

为内战做准备?– Preparing For Civil War?

 

 

US authorities have for decades become increasingly prepared for mass civil disturbances resulting from government and corporate attacks on American society.We can recall that in the early 1980s the Hidden State launched its open war on the middle class by the savage FED induced recession and the unilateral revocation of the social contract that had existed since 1946.

几十年来美国当局越来越为政府和企业对美国社会攻击造成大规模内乱做好准备。我们可以回顾,20世纪80年代初隐藏的国家通过美联储引发野蛮衰退和单方面撤销自1946年以来存在的社会契约对中产阶级发动了公开战争。

 

At that time, the US government had already anticipated widespread public unrest, fully expecting mass protests and riots, and had made preparations to deal with them in the form of internment camps.In a real sense, the government had prepared for another civil war.

当时,美国政府已经预料广泛公众骚乱,完全预料大规模抗议和骚乱,并准备以拘留营的形式应对。从真正意义上讲,政府已经为另一场内战做好了准备。

 

Like most of the “Great Transformation”, it began during Reagan’s reign with what was called“Rex 84”, an abbreviation for Readiness Exercise 1984, a plan by the US government to detain large numbers of American citizens in case of civil unrest.This master plan involved the FBI, Department of Defense, the Emergency Measures group, the Secret Service, the CIA and altogether 34 government agencies.

与大多数大转型一样,它始于里根统治时期Rex 841984年战备演习的缩写,美国政府计划在发生内乱时拘留大量美国公民。该总体规划涉及联邦调查局、国防部、紧急措施小组、特勤局、中央情报局和总共34个政府机构。

 

It was presented as an exercise to test military assistance in civil defense in times of national emergency,but in fact the plan was anticipating civil disturbances, major demonstrations and labor strikes that would affect continuity of government.

计划被描述为在国家紧急状态下测试民防军事援助的演习但事实上该计划预计会出现影响政府连续性的内乱、重大示威和劳工罢工。

 

The anticipated civil unrest from the FED-induced financial crisis that devastated the middle class was considered “subversive”, REX-84 being an authorisation for the US military to implement government controlled movements of civilian populations at both state and regional levels, the arrest of many segments of the American population, and the imposition of martial law. (1) (2)The Rex-84 program was created under the pretense of a possible mass exodus of illegal aliens attempting to cross into the US from Mexico, but when the program accidentally became public during the Iran-Contra Congressional hearings in 1987 it was revealed that it was in fact a secret federal government program“to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be ‘national security threats’.”

联储引发的金融危机导致的预期内乱摧毁中产阶级被认为是颠覆性REX-84授权美国军方在州和地区层面实施政府控制的平民 动,逮捕许多美国人口,并实施戒严令。1)(2)Rex-84计划试图从墨西哥越境进入美国非法外国人可能模外流借口创建但当该计划在1987伊朗门国会听证会意外公开时,人们发现它实际上是一个秘密联邦政府计划暂停宪法宣布戒严指派军事指挥官接管州和地方政府并拘留大量被政府认定为国家安全威胁美国公民。

 

This was part of a master contingency plan for which the FBI today has a primary list of more than 100,000 Americans, and a secondary list ten times larger, who are targeted to be rounded up as subversives, including labor leaders, scholars and public figures, the incarceration designed to isolate political dissidents and to contain civil unrest.

这是一总体应急计划的一部分联邦调查局今天有一10多万美国人的主要名单,以及一十倍以上次要名单,他们目标是被围捕为颠覆分子,包括劳工领袖、学者和公众人物,监禁旨在孤立持不同政见者和遏制内乱。

 

Source

来源

 

And these are prison camps, ringed with fences, barbed wire and armed guards, not places from which escape would be likely, and they were designed to hold Americans, not Mexicans. (3) There is no question the US government is prepared for the possibility of widespread and uncontrollable domestic disorder.  This program in place and building for years was encouraged by fears of a massive public uprising in the wake of the 2008 banking fraud.

这些是监狱营地,周围有围栏、铁丝网和武装警卫,不是逃跑的地方,它们目的是关押美国人,墨西哥人3毫无疑问美国政府已经为可能出现的广泛而无法控制国内混乱做好了准备。2008年银行欺诈案发生,人们担心会发生大规模公众起义,这鼓励了这计划实施和建设多年

 

Antonin Scalia

安东宁·斯卡利亚

 

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said some years ago that concentration camps were a likely future reality for Americans and that the Supreme Court would not do anything about the tyranny should the executive branch think it necessary. He mentioned the World War II internment of Japanese in the US and said of these camps,“you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again”. (4) (5)

美国最高法院大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚几年前表示,集中营可能是美国人未来现实如果行政部门认为必要最高法院不会对暴政采取任何行动。到第二次世界大战期间日本人关押在美国并谈到这些集中营,如果你认为同样事情不会再发生,那你是自欺欺人(4) (5)

 

In 2009, as the US financial crisis deepened and concern about public unrest was increasing, the US National Guard was posting job opportunities for “Internment/Resettlement Specialists” to work in “civilian internee camps” within the United States, and Halliburton [former] subsidiary KBR was seeking subcontractors to staff “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the US. Earlier, in 2006, KBR was contracted by Homeland Security to build detention centers designed to deal with “the rapid development of unspecified “new programs” that would require large numbers of people to be interned.” (6) (7)

2009年,随着美国金融危机的加深和对公众骚乱担忧增加,美国国民警卫队拘留/重新专家发布在美国平民拘留营工作工作机会哈里伯顿[]子公司KBR正在寻找分包商,为位于美地区紧急环境营地配备人员早些2006,KBR与国土安全订合同建造拘留中心以应对未指明的新项目的快速发展项目将需要大量人员被拘留。(6) (7)

 

 

The US has for many years been dangerously close to a situation where, if the American people take to the streets in protest, these internments can be easily carried out. By 2004, there were more than 800 of these internment camps in the US, all empty, but all fully operational, staffed, and surrounded by full-time guards, ready to receive prisoners. I have seen photos. As well, many military bases are slated to be closed down and used as extra civilian prisons if the need arises, all intended for the internment of dissidents and others deemed “potentially harmful to the state”. Some camps can each hold 20,000 or more prisoners, a massive effort at civilian population control, and the program is still expanding. The US is very near the point today where political dissidents questioning the actions of their government will risk being rounded up and forced into these prison camps, essentially a government plan to forcibly suppress political dissent under the guise of rooting out domestic “terrorism”.

多年来,美国一直处于危险的境地,如果美国人民走上街头抗议,这些拘留很容易进行。2004美国有800这样的拘留营空的但都全面运作有人值守周围有全职警卫随时准备接收囚犯。我看过照片。此外如果需要许多军事基地将被关闭并用额外民用监狱所有这些都是为了关押持不同政见者和其他认为可能对国家有害一些营地每个可以容纳2或更多囚犯是控制平民人口的一巨大努力该计划仍在扩大。今天美国非常接近这样一个时刻即质疑政府行为的持不同政见者将面临被围捕并被迫进入这些战俘营风险基本上政府在根除国内恐怖主义的幌子下强行镇压政治异议计划。

 

The US government defines many Americans as having become “pre-revolutionary”from their outrage at the 2008 government-approved housing collapse, with increasing concern that massive civil unrest would emerge from both the poverty-stricken lower classes and the eviscerated middle class, leading to what would become an internal civil war.This is the reason that the FBI and DHS increasingly focus their“anti-terror”apparatus on white middle-class Americans like the Occupy Wall Street protestors who were categorised as “low-level terrorists”.

美国政府许多美国人定义为革命前,因为他们对2008年政府批准的住房崩溃感到愤怒越来越担心贫困的下层阶级和掏空中产阶级都会出现大规模,导致内部内战。是为什么联邦调查局和国土安全部越来越他们的反恐机构集中在白人中产阶级美国人身上,比如被归类为低级恐怖分子占领华尔街抗议者

 

 

In 2008, the Washington Post reported government plans to station many tens of thousands of troops inside the country for purposes referred to as “domestic security” in the light of massive civil unrest that would follow an economic collapse or serious financial crisis, perhaps stemming from 2008.

2008年,《华盛顿邮报报道称,鉴于经济崩溃或严重金融危机可能源于2008后将发生大规模内乱,政府计划在国内部署数万名士兵用于所谓的国内安全

 

According to the government document,

根据政府文件,

 

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security”,stating that the military may be needed to quell“purposeful domestic resistance”. To prepare for this quelling of resistance, the US has resorted to demonising its own citizens, a recent study funded by DHS conveniently identifying those Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”and who exhibit signs of being“reverent of individual liberty”, and re-categorising them as“extreme right-wing” terrorists. (8) (9) (10)

美国国内普遍存在的内乱将迫使国防机构在极端情况下重新调整优先事项,以捍卫基本的国内秩序和人类安全声明可能需要军队来平息有目的的国内抵抗。为了准备压抵抗,美国采取了妖魔化本国公民的做法土安全部最近资助的一研究方便地确定那些怀疑中央联邦权力和表现尊重个人自由迹象的美国,并他们重新归类为极右翼恐怖分子。(8) (9) (10)

 

 

The program is designed to “reduce and eliminate” all domestic resistance to the US government. “Crowd control agents” will be used for this purpose, and government agencies will be involved in “gathering information on dissidents”to identify all those who have either “threatened or are creating disturbances”. The US military produced a manual on what it termed “Civil Disturbance Operations” that outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots and civil unrest. Military and other law-enforcement will be tasked with“breaking up unauthorized gatherings” and restoring order by “presenting a show of force, establishing roadblocks, breaking up crowds, employing crowd control agents, and other operations as required”.

该计划旨在减少和消除国内对美国政府所有抵制。人群控制代理人将用于此目的,政府机构将参与收集不同政见者的信息以识别所有威胁或制造骚乱人。美国军方编制关于其所谓的内乱行动手册概述在发生大规模骚乱和内乱时,如何使用军事资产帮助地方和州当局恢复和维护法律和秩序。军方和其他执法部门将负责打破未经权的集会并通过以下恢复秩序 展示武力、设置路障、驱散人群、雇佣人群控制人员以及其他必要的行动

 

Free PDF

免费PDF文档

The same government manual describes how prisoners will be processed through these internment camps, and outlines how these internees would be “re-educated”while detained in prison camps inside their own country by their own government. A leaked military document titled ‘FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations’, outlined a program for “re-education camps” in the US which contained plans for “political activists” to be “pacified” by various psychological officers into “sympathising” with the government and into “developing an appreciation of US policies” while detained in prison camps inside the US. The document was restricted to Department of Defense personnel but was been leaked and posted online. It outlined policies for “processing detainees into internment camps” and made clear these operations would be used for domestic civilian situations. (11) (12) The full document is available here: (13)

同一政府手册描述囚犯将如何通过这些拘留营进处理,并概述这些拘留者在被本国政府关押在本国监狱营地时将如何接受再教育泄露名为FM 3-39.40拘留重新安置行动军事文件概述了美国的再教育营计划其中包含各种心理官员政治活动家的计划使关押在美国境内战俘营时同情政府并了解美国政策该文件限于国防部人员但被泄露并发布网上。它概述将被拘留者送入拘留营的政策并明确表示这些行动将用于国内平民情况。()1112完整文档可在此处获取:(13)

 

“Once the detainees have been processed into the internment camp, the manual explains how they will be “indoctrinated”, with a particular focus on coercing political dissidents into expressing support for U.S. policies.”

一旦拘留者被处理进拘留营,该手册解释他们将如何被灌输,特别侧重于强迫持不同政见者表达对美国政策支持。

 

Part of the stated role of the psychological officers would be to identify political activists, political leaders, ‘malcontents’, and other agitators, and to develop and execute appropriate “indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes”.

心理官员的部分职责是识别政治活动家、政治领导人、不满者和其他煽动者,并制定和执行适当灌输计划以减少或消除敌对态度

 

However, their first task would be to“pacify and acclimate detainees to accept the internment facility’s authority and regulations”.

然而,他们的首要任务是安抚和适应拘留者接受拘留设施的权威和规定

 

There are also disturbing insights into the government’s intention to use brutal force to violently quell any civil political unrest. The manual includes a long list of weapons meant to be used against protesting American civilians, including anti-riot grenades. Page 20of the manual authorises the use of “deadly force” in confronting these peaceful political “dissidents”, the murderous intent made disturbingly clear with the directive that “Warning shots will not be fired” first. Northcom itself, in a September 8, 2008 Army Times article, said the first wave of the deployment, which was put in place on October 1st at Fort Stewart and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed at tackling “civil unrest and crowd control”.

对于政府打算使用野蛮武力暴力平息任何内乱,也有令人不安的见解。该手册列出一长串用于对付抗议美国平民的武器,包括防暴手榴弹。该手册20页授权使用致命武力对抗这些和平的政治持不同政见者其杀人意图令人不安明确表示,并指示首先不鸣枪警告Northcom200898陆军时报文章中表示第一波部署于101日在斯图尔特堡和科罗普林斯彼得森空军基地实施旨在解决内乱和人群控制问题

 

In November of 2013, Forbes Magazine ran an article based on the AP newswire, detailing that DHS had been assembling a massive weapons arsenal since 2011 or 2012. (14) The AP reported that Homeland Security had been stockpiling ammunition by buying more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in addition to a prior purchase of 1.5 billion rounds, for a staggering total of more than three billion rounds. This is more ammunition than the US military used collectively in all its wars in the last decade, and represents about ten shots for every man, woman and child in America. There were also confirmed purchases by various government agencies, of hundreds of millions of hollow-point rounds to be delivered to dozens of locations around the US. These bullets are so lethal they are banned for battlefield use during warsbecause they mushroom and fragment on impact, their only purpose being to cause the maximum possible damage to internal organs. Also purchased were large numbers ofmagnum rounds with the power to penetrate walls, and a frighteninghundreds of millions more rounds of specialty sniper ammunition.

201311福布斯杂志根据美联社新闻专线发表文章,详细介绍了国土安部自2011年或2012年以来一直在组装大规模武器库。14美联社报道称国土安全一直在囤积除了之前购买的15亿发弹药外,还购买16亿多发弹药总计超过30亿发这比美国军方在过去十年中所有战争中集体使用弹药相当于美国每个男人、女人和孩子大约10子弹多个政府机构也确认购买数亿空心尖弹将运往美国各地数十个地点。这些子弹非常致命在战争期间被禁止战场使用因为它们在撞击时会蘑菇和碎裂其唯一目的是对内脏器官造成最大可能伤害此外还购买大量能够穿透墙壁口径子弹以及数亿发令人恐惧特种狙击弹药。

 

Even more, it was reported in early 2015 that DHS had placed orders for massive amounts of other kinds of anti-civilian weaponry termed“Less Lethal Specialty Munitions”,which were described as “an arsenal of specialized weaponry for training and deployment against crowds”. These included flash grenades, light bursts, gas and chemical grenades, riot rounds, rubber bullets, and much more. These are all heavy-duty crowd control and civilian intimidation weapons. They have no other purpose and, in the volume in which they are being purchased, it is clear the US government is expecting some very serious civil disturbances, possibly a revolution, and soon.

重要的报道2015年初,国土安全部订购了大量其他类型的反民用武器称为低致命性特弹药,被描述为用于训练和部署对抗人群的专用武器库。这些包括闪光手榴弹、闪光弹、毒气和化学手榴弹、防暴弹、橡皮子弹等等。这些都是重型人群控制和平民恐吓武器。它们没有其他目的,从购买数量来很明显美国政府预计很快就会发生一些非常严重内乱,可能革命。

 

As recently as 2018, Forbes was reporting more of the same, that these purchases have reached an astonishing ubiquity. It isn’t only Homeland Security who is arming to the teeth.Thousands of agents at the IRS now have tactical assault rifles and heavy weaponry.

就在2018福布斯报道更多类似的事情,这些购买已经达到惊人的普遍性。不仅仅是国土安全在武装到牙齿。美国国税局的数千名特工现在拥有战术突击步枪和重型武器。

 

Screenshot Forbes, October 20, 2017

截图福布斯,20171020

 

The Small Business Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairshave purchasedthousands ofGlock handguns. The Health Services agencies purchased millions of dollars worth of Glock handguns – equipped with silencers. The US Geological Survey, which is a weather bureau, purchased millions of dollars worth ofWinchester Black Shadow shotguns with large bulk ammunition orders in addition to Glock handguns. Even the Department of Education purchased millions of dollars worth of Glock handguns, shotguns and body armor. I am unaware of any nation in the world where the income tax department or the departments of education and health care require huge amounts of military-grade weapons, much less body armor and gun silencers.

小企业管理局和退伍军人事务部已经购买数千格洛克手枪卫生服务机构购买价值数百万美元的格洛克手枪配备消声器美国地质调查局是一气象局,除了格洛克手枪,还购买价值数百万美元的温彻斯特黑影霰弹枪,并订购大量散装弹药。甚至教育部购买价值数百万美元的格洛克手枪、霰弹枪和防弹衣。我不知道世界上有哪个国家的所得税部门或教育和医疗保健部门需要大量的军用级武器,更不用说防弹衣和枪支消声器了。

 

In June of 2016, RT reported that non-military federal agencies had more firepower than the entire US Marine Corps, this including agencies like education, health and income tax.(15) RT documented, a new report where 67 non-military federal US agencies spent $1.50 billion purchasing guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. The details came from the Militarization of America: non-military federal agencies purchases of guns, ammo, and military-style equipment, published by the non-profit good government group OpentheBooks.com. (16) (17)

20166月,RT报道称非军事联邦机构火力超过整个美国海军陆战队其中包括教育、卫生和所得税机构。15)RT记录新的报告67美国非军事联邦机构花费15亿美元购买枪支、弹药和军用设备。这些细节来自美国军事化非军事联邦机构购买枪支、弹药和军用装备由非营利好政府组织OpentheBooks.com出版 (16) (17)

 

In addition to the massive purchase of ammunition, DHS was showing off its acquisition of heavily armored and mine-resistant personnel carriers which have been seen on streets all across America and verified with photos and video. Forbes noted that these vehicles are equipped with gun ports and are “designed to withstand IEDs, mine blasts and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass”, and asked why they would be necessary on American streets. The DHS also purchased large amounts of riot gear and bullet-proof checkpoint booths, as well as a purchase of 7000 automatic rifles, and 2700 armored vehicles, and the deployment of drones with allowance for their use on US citizens.

除了大量购买弹药外,国土安全部还展示了其采购的重型装甲和防雷运兵车,这些运兵车在美国各地的街道上都能看到,并通过照片和视频进行了验证。福布斯指出这些车辆配备枪口设计用于承受简易爆炸装置、地雷爆炸和50口径防弹玻璃撞击并询问为什么在美国街头需要这些车辆国土安全部还购买大量防暴装备和防弹检查站,以及购买了7000自动步枪和2700装甲车,并部署允许在美国公民身上使用的无人机。

 

The DHS is becoming a massive domestic army to handle domestic conflict. In the words of Ellen Brown,“somebody in government is expecting some serious civil unrest …”

国土安全部正在成为一支庞大的国内军队,以处理国内冲突。用艾伦·布朗的话来说,政府中有人预计会发生严重的内乱……”

DHS chiefJanet Napolitano claimed this was to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States that would require the “shelter and processing” of large numbers of people, but this is nonsense. By whom will the US be attacked that Homeland Security would be responsible for defense, and from where would arise a mass of peaceful immigrants so large as to require more than three billion bullets to repel them?

 

国土安全部部长珍妮特·波利塔诺声称这是为了应对大量移民涌入美国,这将需要大量人员的庇护和处理,但这是无稽之。美国将受到谁攻击国土安全将负责防御从哪里会出现大量和平移民以至于需要30多亿发子弹才能击退他们

This is the same government that recently shut down many of its operations including most of the National Parks, for lack of funds, yet had sufficient money to purchase billions of bullets for a non-existent civilian army. A spokesperson was quoted as justifying this massive purchase to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase”, and claimed DHS used “as many as 15 million rounds every year in training exercises”. Someone should ask DHS to divide 3 billion by 15 million, which tells us the ammunition purchase will supply DHS needs for the next 200 years. The authorities naturally attribute criticism and hard questions to mentally-unbalanced ‘conspiracy theorists’, but this is one more instance where actions appear irrational and the official story is so full of holes that it makes no sense.

正是这个政府最近因为缺乏资金关闭包括大多数国家公园在内的许多行动,但却有足够资金为一不存在平民军队购买数十亿子弹。据报道发言人大规模购辩护,以帮助政府以低廉价格进行大规模采,并声称国土安全部每年在训练演习中使用多达1500万发子弹有人应该要求国土安全部将30亿除以1500这告诉我们购买弹药将满足国土安全部未来200年的需求。当局自然会将批评和难题归咎于精神不平衡的阴谋论者但这是又一个行动似乎不合理例子官方故事充满漏洞毫无意义。

 

Perhaps the most frightening part being that all these were termed “no hesitation targets”, meaning to fire without hesitation at the sight of these enemies.

也许最可怕的是,所有这些都被称为毫不犹豫的目标,意思是一看到这些敌人就毫不犹豫地开火。

Another DHS purchase that produced a firestorm of anger when its news went viral, was the supply of what we might call ‘unconventional’ paper targets which were used as practice shooting targets in ‘training exercises’. These targets consisted of figures of American civilians in residential settings. They includedsmall children, a young pregnant mother, old women in robes, grandmothers and grandfathers in their kitchens and front yards, teenagers in parks, little girls and more, perhaps the most frightening part being that all these were termed “no hesitation targets”, meaning to fire without hesitation at the sight of these enemies. What could possibly justify the supply of such targets to a military force, with such an instruction? The US fedbiz.op website took down the solicitation after Infowars broke the story, and eventually apologized publicly for creating these targets of small children.

国土安全部另一购买在其消息传播时引发愤怒的风暴,那就是我们可以称之为非传统纸靶的供应靶在训练演习中用作练习射击靶。这些目标包括居住环境中的美国平民。他们包括小孩、一年轻的孕妇、穿着长袍的老妇人、厨房和前院的祖母和祖父、公园里青少年、小女孩等等也许最可怕所有这些被称为毫不犹豫目标意思一看到这些敌人毫不犹豫开火根据这样的指示向军队提供这样的目标有什么理由呢?Infowars爆料后美国fedbiz.op网站取消招揽活动并最终为制造这些针对幼儿的目标公开道歉。

 

In early 2014 it was reported that the US military had built a $100 million fake city of about 300 acres in Virginia, for use in training troops for the occupation of cities, complete with a sports stadium, bank, school, and an underground subway in order to train for future combat scenarios in American urban areas. The subway carriages even carry the same logo as those in Washington DC. More disturbingly, it was reported that“soldiers are being taught that Christians, Tea Party supporters and anti-abortion activists represent a radical terror threat, mirroring rhetoric backed by the Department of Homeland Security which frames “liberty lovers” as domestic extremists.”

2014年初,据报道,美国军方在弗吉尼亚州建造座耗资1亿美元、占地300英亩的假城市,用于训练占领城市的部队,包括一体育场、银行、学校和一地下地铁以便为美国城市地区的未来战斗场景进行训练。地铁车厢甚至带有与华盛顿特区相同的标志。更令人不安的是,据报道士兵们被教导说,基督徒、茶党支持者和反堕胎活动家代表激进恐怖威胁,这国土安全部支持言论相呼应部将自由爱好者定义为国内极端分子

 

The DHS is also building a 176-acre secure compound in the lowest-income area of Washington, DC, which seems almost certainly a preparation for civil war. (18) (19)

土安全部还在华盛顿特区最低收入地区建造176英亩的安全大院,这似乎几乎可以肯定为内战准备。(18) (19)

 

The trigger could be an economic collapse that causes angry Americans to flood the streets similar to the Occupy Wall Street and other scenes witnessed across both the US and Europe during the last FED-induced economic crisis. It is worth noting that the Occupy Wall Street protest had the right idea but the wrong target. Wall Street is just an idea, and a bit player. The ultimate cause is the FED, and that should have been their focus.But the FED, the bankers and the FBI saw this coming and infiltrated and financed the protest groups as a way to take control and deflect them from any useful action or focus.

触发因素可能是经济崩溃,导致愤怒的美国人涌上街头,类似于上次美联储引发的经济危机中占领华尔街以及美国和欧洲目睹的其他场景。值得注意是,占领华尔街抗议活动的想法正确的,但目标是错误华尔街只是一个想法也是一个小玩家。最终的原因是美联储这应该是他们的重点。但美联储、银行家和联邦调查局看到一点,并渗透和资助抗议团体,以此作为控制和转移他们对任何有益行动或重点方式。

 

In the middle of 2013 several US local media reported the DHS was conducting widely public but still “top secret” exercises categorised as “full scale terrorism drills” across the entire nation with the stated purpose of making citizens“feel safe”, but which resulted in thousands of terrified people not knowing how to respond to what appeared as a domestic invasion by the US military. People were capriciously apprehended and released after having their belongings searched, but nevertheless urged to celebrate their “independence” from tyranny. These drills were presented as readiness training for potential terrorist incursions, though DHS failed to mention the New York Times observation that all the domestic terror plots in the United States over the last decade were “hatched by the FBI”.

2013美国当地媒体报道称,国土安全部正全国范围内进行广泛公开但仍然绝密演习,被归类为全面恐怖主义演习其明确目的是让公民感到安全但这导致数千惊恐人不知道如何应对美军的国内入侵。人们在财物被搜查后被随意逮捕并释放但仍被敦促庆祝他们从暴政中独立出来。这些演习被视为对潜在恐怖分子入侵的准备训练尽管国土安全部没有提到《纽约时报》的观察即过去十年美国所有的国内恐怖阴谋都是由联邦调查局策划的

 

One other worrying development was the appearance of US military C-130 cargo planes apparently spraying mosquitoes over various Florida cities at an altitude of less than 50 meters. Pest control is hardly a military duty, these events immediately reminding me of the US military spraying bacterial and other pathogens over many parts of the US in various CIA-related experiments on the domestic population. These low-altitude overflights are almost certainly practice runs for potential crowd control in the future,for dispensing tear gas or other non-lethal (or lethal) material that would disperse or disorient protestors.I cannot imagine all the possibilities, but the US military most certainly is not going into the mosquito-spraying business. (19) (20)

另一个令人担忧的事态发展是,美国军用C-130货机的出现显然在佛罗里达多个城市上空不到50米的高度喷洒蚊子。虫害防治几乎不是一项军事任务,这些事件立即让我想起美国军方在美国许多地区对国内人口进行的各种与中央情报局有关的实验中喷洒细菌和其他病原体。这些低空飞越几乎可以肯定是未来潜在人群控制练习,用于分发催泪瓦斯或其他非致命(或致命)材料,以驱散或迷惑抗议者。我无法想象所有的可能性,但美国军方肯定不会进入灭蚊业务。(19) (20

)

US Major General Curry was quoted as stating,

美国少将库里说:

 

“We have local police, backed up by each state’s National Guard, backed up by the Department of Defense. So in addition to all these forces why does Homeland Security need its own private army? Why do the SSA, NOAA and other government agencies need to create their own civilian security forces armed with hollow nose bullets?”

我们有地方警察,由各州国民警卫队国防部支持。那么除了所有这些部队为什么国土安全部还需要自己的私人军队?为什么SSANOAA和其他政府机构需要建立自己配备空心子弹民用安全部队?

   

Senator Daniel Inouye. Source

参议员Daniel Inouye。来源

 

Some may want to dismiss this as just another conspiracy theory, but we might recall the words of Senator Daniel Inouyein 1987,“There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.”

有些人可能会认为这只是另一个阴谋论,但我们可能还记得参议员Daniel Inouye1987的话,有一个影子政府,有自己空军、海军、筹款机制,能力追求自己国家利益,不受任何制衡,也不受法律本身的束。

 

Unfortunately, the US has been under‘national emergency’ since September 14, 2001. In 1974, a Senate Committee revealed the US had been under national emergency since 1933 and were currently under 4 different Presidentially declared states of emergency. Thus, martial law could be declared anytime. Source

不幸的是,自2001914日以来,美国一直处于国家紧急状态1974参议院委员会透露美国自1933年以来一直处于国家紧急状态目前处于4个不同的总统宣布的紧急状态。因此戒严可以随时宣布。Source

The threats to civil liberties go much farther and are much more ominous than I’ve related so far. Another factor is the spate of secret Executive Orders that Obama signed without Congressional approval, observers claiming those orders violated existing laws and were therefore illegal but that the powers behind the White House considered themselves above all law.

对公民自由的威胁比我迄今为止所描述的要严重得多,也更加不祥。另一个因素是奥巴马没有国会批准的情况下签署一系列秘密行政命令观察员声称这些命令违反现行法律,因此是非法的,但白宫背后权力认为自己凌驾于所有法律之上

 

One of the most sinister was Executive Order 13603 which granted authorization to seize possession of every possible resource, including property and “all food storage facilities”.One author wrote that “This extremist, maniacal edict is designed to enforce our submission, rendering us totally dependent on Big Brother government or face the obvious – starvation and extermination.”

其中最险恶13603行政命令命令授权没收所有可能资源,包括财产和所有食品储存设施作者写道这项极端主义、疯狂的法令旨在强制我们屈服使我们完全依赖老大哥政府否则面临饥饿和灭绝。

 

What could possibly have instigated such an order, unless the government is preparing for an all-out war against the American people? What possible excuse, during peace-time, would a “democratic” government have, for the initiation of a program to seize all the “food, water and food storage facilities” of a nation? If we add these to the internment camps and the bullets, what conclusions are possible?

除非政府准备对美国人民发动全面战争,否则是什么引发了这样的命令?在和平时期,一个民主政府会有什么借口来启动一项夺取一个国家所有食物、水和食物储存设施的计划?如果我们把这些加在拘留营和子弹上,可能会得出什么结论?

 

When we consider these two items, Executive Order 13603 and the new powers granted to DHS, the only possible response can be fear.

当我们考虑这两个项目,即第13603号行政命令和授予国土安全部的新权力时,唯一可能的回应可能是恐惧。

Another ominous threat is that much of the NSA’s illegal intelligence-gathering activities were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, the same people with the 800 internment camps and the 3 billion bullets. The apparent reason is that the NSA can collect information on domestic political dissidents but has no police powers to act on them, whereas DHS has legislative authority to gather, arrest and incarcerate anyone on their watch lists. DHS is apparently creating a “graded list” of these targeted so-called “security threats”, with those at the top of this list assessed according to how widely disseminated are their anti-establishment views, the followers they appear to have,and these will be the first to disappear into the internment maze.This new policy gives Homeland Security full authority to effectively terrorise the American people under a pretense of controlling domestic terrorism. When we consider these two items, Executive Order 13603 and the new powers granted to DHS, the only possible response can be fear.

另一个不祥的威胁是美国国家安全局的大部分非法情报收集活动转移到国土安全部这些人拥有800拘留营和30亿发子弹。显而易见的原因是,国家安全局可以收集国内持不同政见者的信息,但没有警察权力对其采取行动,而国土安全部则有立法权收集、逮捕和监禁其观察名单上的任何人。国土安全部显然正在这些针对性所谓安全威胁创建一个分级名单根据他们的反建制观点传播度、他们似乎拥有追随者评估名单顶部的这些将是第一消失在拘留迷宫中这项新政策赋予国土安全部充分的权力以控制国内恐怖主义为借口有效地恐吓美国人民。当我们考虑这两个项目即第13603号行政命令和授予国土安全部的新权力时唯一可能的回应可能是恐惧。

 

If all this isn’t enough, DHS was revealed to have a secret procedure for the instant shutting down of all private communications in America, including mobile phone networks, a program accidentally revealed when government officials in San Francisco disabled all mobile phone calls during a peaceful protest against yet another man shot dead by the police. The administration insisted it had the legal authority to control these communications “during times of national crisis”, “for the purpose of ensuring public safety”, but it has also given DHS the power to actually “seize” all privately-owned communications facilities in order to prevent any civilian communications occurring. Some individuals applied to the courts for further information on these new procedures and policies, but DHS claimed it was “unable to locate or identify any records” in relation to the matter. Nothing more to be said, but it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the US government is quickly becoming fully prepared for war against its civilian population.

如果这一切不够的话国土安全部被披露有一个秘密程序,可以立即关闭美国的所有私人通信包括移动电话网络。旧金山政府官员在和平抗议另一被警察枪杀男子时禁用所有移动电话一程序意外泄露。政府坚称,在国家危机期间为了确保公共安全,它有权控制这些通信,但它也赋予国土安全部实际扣押所有私有通信设施权力止任何民用通信的发生一些人向法院申请有关这些新程序和政策进一步信息但国土安声称无法找到或识别与此事有关何记录。没什么好说的但很难避免这样一个结论即美国政府正在迅速为针对平民的战争做好充分准备。

 

With the NSA revelations by Edward Snowdon, there is no longer any question that many US government agencies have been monitoring and gathering information on large numbers of known American political dissidents, these agencies including the NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, various military groups and another 70 or 80 so-called “public-private fusion centers” scattered around the US. Former NSA Technical Director William Binney claimed in an interview that the NSA had a list of 500,000 to one million people in the US who were closely watched and whose every communication and bit of personal data were recorded. These are not terrorists in any sense, but potential leaders of political dissension and therefore potential suspects in the event of civil disturbances.There also exists a database known as “Main Core”, containing names of Americans who might be considered troublesome, and which knowledgeable sources claim contains the names and communication information of more than eight million Americans who would be potential suspects of political activism, which would include“national opposition to US military invasion abroad”. It includes political dissidents, environmental and other activists, political and tax protesters, lawyers and professors, publishers and journalists, and many more who are most likely harmless, average people.

随着爱德华·斯诺登(Edward Snowdon)对美国国家安全局(NSA)的揭露,毫无疑问许多美国政府机构一直在监视和收集大量已知的美国持不同政见者信息,这些机构包括国家局、联邦局、中央局、国土安全部、各种军事团体和散布在美国各地另外7080所谓公私融合中心安全局技术总监威廉·宾尼(William Binney采访声称国家安全局有一美国50万至100万人的名单他们受到密切他们的每一通信和个人数据被记录下来这些人在任何意义上都不是恐怖分子而是潜在的政治分歧领导人因此在发生内乱时是潜在的嫌疑人。还有一个名为主核心数据库其中包含可能被视为麻烦美国人的名字知情人士声称该数据库包含800万美国人的姓名和通信信息这些人可能是政治激进义的潜在嫌疑人包括全国反对美国军事入侵海外。它包括持不同政见者、环保和其他活动家、政治和税务抗议者、律师和教授、出版商和记者以及更多最有可能无害的普通人。

 

The database apparently contains all to and from email addresses, all email content, all in and out phone numbers plus duration of calls, the amounts and locations of ATM withdrawals, all credit card purchases and much more. It appears that this dissident surveillance program dates back to the early 1980s, the time of our Great Transformation, when it was revealed that Oliver North, operating from a secure White House site, had been using a database called PROMIS which was part of the REX-84 plan, to track dissidents and potential troublemakers within the United States.This database was meant to identify and immediately locate perceived “enemies of the state” if mass civil disturbances were to break out. (21) (22)

该数据库显然包含所有往来电子邮件地址、所有电子邮件内容、所有进出电话号码加上通话时间ATM取款金额和地点、所有信用卡购买等等。看来这个不同政见者的监视计划可以追溯到2080年代初我们的大转型时期有消息称奥利弗·诺斯在一个安全白宫网站运作一直在使用一个名为PROMIS据库该数据库是REX-84计划的一部分用于追踪美国境内的持不同政见人士和潜在麻烦制造者。该数据库旨在识别并立即定位规模内乱爆发时感知到的国家敌人(21) (22)

 

中产阶级起义 — The Middle-Class Revolt

 

A somewhat strange cause to celebrate. There’s no doubt about it—the American middle class is shrinking. Source

一个有点奇怪的庆祝理由。毫无疑问,美国中产阶级正在萎缩。来源

In late 2008 a leaked internal memo from Tom Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist, contained ominous predictions for American civil society after the vicious financial crisis. He wrote,“The world is not going back to normal ‘after the magnitude of what they have done’”.

2008底,花旗行首席技术策略师汤姆·菲茨帕特里克(Tom Fitzpatrick)泄露的一内部备忘录对恶性金融危机后美国公民社会做出了不祥的预测。他写道,在他们所做的巨大努力之后,世界不会恢复正常

 

Fitzpatrick claimed that the massive destruction of the middle class, the draining of all the wealth from the population, and the QE money creation by the FED would either bring about a resurgence of inflation or that the US would fall into “depression, civil disorder and possibly war”. He claimed that with the passing of each week and month there was a growing danger that could lead to political instability, a risk of domestic unrest because people were becoming increasingly disenfranchised and impoverished.

菲茨帕特里克声称中产阶级的大规模毁灭、人口中所有财富的流失以及美联储创造的化宽松货币要么会导致通货膨胀的复苏要么美国将陷入萧条、内乱,甚至可能爆发战争他声称,随着时间的推移可能导致政治不稳定危险越来越大,这是一国内动荡的风险因为人们越来越被剥夺权利和贫困。

 

Lest we succumb to the temptation of accepting the 2008 financial crisis and the resulting loss of homes as an accident of fate, it would be wise to consider these quotes by Montagu Norman, Governor of The Bank of England prior to the crash of 1929, addressing the United States Bankers’ Association, New York, Idaho Leader, 26 August 1924.

为了避免我们屈服于2008金融危机和由此导致房屋损失视为命运意外的诱惑,明智的做法是考虑1929年金融危机前英格兰银行行长蒙塔古·诺曼在1924826纽约爱达荷州领袖美国银行家协会发表讲话。

 

“Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world.”

资本必须以一切可能方式保护自己,包括通过合并和立法。债务必须尽快收回,贷款必须尽快取消。当普通民众通过法律程序失去家园时,他们将变得更加温顺,更容易通过主要金融家领导下的中财富力量运用的政府强力量来治理这些真理在我们的主要人物中是众所周知他们现在正在组建一个帝国主义来治理世界。

 

And his thoughts on democracy:

他对民主的看法:

 

“By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance.”It is thus, by discrete action, we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.”

通过政党制度划分选民,我们可让他们精力花在为无紧要的问题上。因此,通过离散的行动,我们可以为自己确保计划周密、成果丰硕的目标

 

The US government has developed an increasing fear of its own middle class, wide awake to the protests and uprisings in other nations where governments have colluded with the international bankers and large multi-nationals to gut their middle classes and effect the same transfer of wealth to the top 1% as occurred in America. People in many Western societies have become disgruntled and bitter at the increasing evidence that their vaunted democracies have been usurped by the unrestrained capitalists, creating intolerable situations where the people are sacrificed for the increasing wealth of that same top 1%.

美国政府对自己的中产阶级越来越感到恐惧,对其他国家抗议和起义常清醒在这些国家政府与国际银行家和大型跨国公司勾结,摧毁他们的中产阶级并像美国一样将财富转移到最富有的1%许多西方社会的人们对越来越多证据感到不满和痛苦这些证据表明他们吹嘘的民主国被不受约束的资本家篡夺造成令人无法忍受的局面这种情况人们为了同一最富有1%的财富牺牲。

 

At first, the US government exhibited a grim and rather reprehensible kind of satisfaction at watching the misery in other nations where the FED and IMF and the International Bankers had succeeded in their aims of wealth transference,but it also realised that the same boiling rage existed in America and perhaps much less controllable.

起初,美国政府对美联储、国际货币基金组织和国际银行家成功实财富转移目标的其他国家的苦难表现一种严峻而应受谴责的满足感,但它也意识到,美国存在同样愤怒而且可能更难控制。

US citizens were protesting against a government that was no longer democratic in any sense, and was both unwilling and unable to repair a hopelessly corrupt and inefficient system. They finally awoke en masse and objected to ingrained corruption, shoddy public services, high taxes, homelessness, unemployment, rising inflation, the development of a police state, and more. It is public rage at the realisation of having been betrayed by a “democratic” government that converts civil unrest into political activism and revolution, and it is this that lies at the heart of the FBI’s categorisation of US political dissent as “domestic terrorism”. This terminology is important because the US, in all its hypocrisy for democracy, free speech and freedom of assembly, cannot face the world with open and apparent suppression of political dissent. Therefore, US citizens protesting against their own government cannot be exercising free speech but rather anarchy and terrorism, thereby justifying the use of deadly force to control dissension. The powers that control America have no interest in fairy-tales of freedom. They are interested in wealth and control, and the people in any country are irrelevant including those in the US.

美国公民正在抗议一个在任何意义上都不再民主政府,这个政府既不愿意也无法修复一个无可救药腐败和低效制度。他们最终集体觉醒,反对根深蒂固的腐败、劣质的公共服务、高税收、无家可归、失业、通货膨胀加剧、警察国家的发展等等。公众对被一个将内乱转化为政治激进义和革命民主政府背叛的认识感到愤怒而这正是联邦调查局美国政治异议归类为国内恐怖主义的核心所在。这个术语很重要因为美国对民主、言论自由和集会自由的虚伪无法以公开和明显的压制政治异议来面对世界。因此抗议本国政府的美国公民不能行使言论自由而是行使无政府状态和恐怖主义从而为使用致命武力控制分歧辩护。控制美国的大国对自由的童话故事毫无兴趣。他们对财富和控制兴趣任何国家的人民无关紧要包括美国人民

 

Americans have experienced first-hand the destruction of their quality of life; they see clearly the disappearance of future opportunity for their children, and they recognise better than most the loss of their freedom of expression which they have so valued. And they know it is precisely the retraction of that expression that is necessary for their no-longer-democratic government to maintain control. 

美国人亲身经历了生活质量的破坏;他们清楚地看到了孩子未来机会的消失,他们比大多数人更清楚地认识到他们如此珍视的言论自由的丧失。他们知道正是撤回这种表达才是他们不再民主的政府保持控制所必需的。

 

This is where their economic and social dissatisfactions mutate into political activism – revolution, in fact – and it is this realisation among the authorities that has spawned the internship camps, the billions of bullets purchased, and the “shoot to kill” orders.

这就是他们的经济和社会不满转变为政治激进主义的地方——事实上是革命——正是当局的这种认识催生了实习营、购买的数十亿颗子弹和格杀勿论的命令。

 

革命:阶级权力的斗争 — Revolution –The Struggle for Class Power

 

阶级斗争

Buried in the litany of troubles the US is facing today is the primary fact that the nation is engaged in a brutal class war, a struggle for class power that the bottom 99% are losing. This war was declared in the late 1970s, gained great momentum in the 1980s and 1990s, and is still accelerating toward its final desperate conclusion. There are few signs on the horizon that cause hope for a change in direction, and I fear it may be too late.

在美国今天面临的系列麻烦中,最主要的事实是,美国正在进行一残酷阶级战争,一底层99%正在失去阶级权力斗争。这场战争于20世纪70年代末宣战20世纪80年代和90年代获得了巨大的势头并且仍在加速走向最终的绝望结局。地平线上几乎没有迹象表明方向改变我担心这可能为已晚。

 

There is still power with the people themselves, and indeed without the both active cooperation and silent complicity of the people, none of the pathological descent into despair would have been possible. Probably the only force in America that can change what is happening is the combined force of labor. This isn’t so easy today, since the government killed most labor organisations and there is now little if any leadership. A total withdrawal of labor succeeded in forcing a new social contract in 1946 and may be the only power remaining today, but times have changed and tactics must change too. If all unions withdrew their services with the full cooperation of unorganised labor, change might be possible.

人民自己仍然有权力,事实上,如果没有人民的积极合作和无声共谋,任病态的绝望可能也许美国唯一能改变现状力量是劳动力的联合力量。如今,这并不容易,因为政府杀死了大多数劳工组织,现在几乎没有领导层。1946年,劳动力的完全撤出成功地迫使了一种新的社会契约,这可能是今天唯一剩下的力量,但时代已经改变,策略也必须改变。如果所有工会在无组织劳工的充分合作下撤回服务,变革是可能的。

 

But realistically, there is no hope that such a mass protest could be organised even though it is the only possible way to get the attention of whatever remains of a conscientious government and force through a reversal of the tide. In any case, taking to the streets is unlikely to produce pleasant results. If the police don’t have enough bodies to beat up and arrest everyone, DHS has its internment camps, its 3 billion bullets, its years of practice with “no-hesitation” human targets, and it will use all of them.

但现实地说,即使这是通过扭转局势来吸引一个尽职尽责的政府和力量的唯一可能方式,也不可能组织这样的大规模抗议活动。无论如何走上街头不太可能产生令人愉快的结果。如果警察没有足够的尸体来殴打和逮捕每个人国土安全部就有拘留营、30亿发子弹、多年来毫不犹豫的人类目标它将使用所有这些。

 

The only safe way for Americans to go on strike today is to stay at home. On this topic, one internet commenter wrote,“Just don’t go to work. There is no need to picket in the streets to be on strike, and the factories and offices will be just as quiet and empty, and the profits just as non-existent. The police cannot possibly conduct home-by-home visits to beat up strikers one by one, and no military, even the DHS, is efficient when trying to blow up houses scattered all over the county, one by one. Strikers are probably safe if they stay at home and lock their door.”

美国人今天罢工的唯一安全方式就是呆在家里。关于这个话题,一网友写道:不要去上班。没有必要在街上纠察罢工,工厂和办公室也会一样安静空旷,利润一样不存在警察不可家挨户地工者,而且有军队甚至土安全部,在试图散布全县各地房屋时有效如果罢工者呆在家锁门他们可能是安全

 

Another wrote,

另一位写道,

 

“Another tactic is for Americans to simply quit shopping. They don’t have the money anyway, and don’t need all that useless junk. Don’t buy anything you don’t actually need, and delay even those purchases as long as possible, especially the big-ticket items like cars and furniture. If at all possible, delay every purchase for at least one year. As much as is practicable, stop driving your car. Cancel your cable TV and read a book.” Your grandmother gave you advice 100 years ago that is still valid today: “Use it up, wear it out. Make it do. Do without.”

另一种策略是美国人干脆放弃购物。反正他们没有钱,也不需要那些无用圾。不要买任你实际上不需的东西,尽可能推迟购买尤其汽车和家具高价商品如果可能每一购买都推迟至少一年可能地停止开车。取消有线电视读一书。你祖母100年前给你建议至今仍然有效用完它穿坏它做到一点不要。

 

A third commenter gave this advice:

第三位评论者给出了这样的建议:

 

One thing you can do to get their attention is to stop paying your bills. VISA and MasterCard can’t cancel 800 million credit cards at the same time, and no bank can process 100 million mortgage defaults. No system can cope with massive non-payment of debt. You are their only source of money and you can ensure they don’t get any of it. That will wake them up. Tell them you’ll begin paying when the overseas corporate tax holiday is over, when high income taxes are reinstated for the rich, when the individual bankers are in prison and when the lost jobs begin returning. This isn’t foolproof, but it’s the best I can do.”

你可以做的件事就是停止支付账单。VISA万事达卡不能同时取消8亿张信用卡,也没有一家银行可以处理1亿抵押贷款违约。没有一个系统可以应对大规模债务拖欠。你是他们唯一的资金来源可以确保他们不会得到任何资金。这会让他们清醒来。告诉他们,当海外公司免税期结束时,当富人恢复高所得税,当个人银行家入狱时,当失去工作开始回来时,你将开始支付。这不是万无一失的,但这是我能做最好的事情

 

And finally, a more ambitious poster offered these comments:

最后,一张更雄心勃勃的海报给出了这些评论:

 

“Today, the US State Department, the CIA and the FBI pride themselves on their ability to use Twitter and Facebook to cause civil unrest, chaos, violence, and even revolutions, in other countries. It may not have occurred to them that the same tools they use against everyone else can be just as easily used against them. The CIA used Gene Sharp and his Einstein Institute to prepare the Otpor civil disobedience manuals that our government used as the gunpowder to destroy Jugoslavia, and as the template for a dozen other “color revolutions” of which it was so proud. Copies are freely available on the internet.”

今天,美国国务院中央情报局联邦调查局为自己能够利用推特和脸书在其他国家引发乱、混乱、暴力甚至革命而感到自豪。他们可能没有想到,他们用对付其他人工具可以同样容易对付他们中央情报局利用吉恩·夏普和他的爱因斯研究所编写了Otpor公民不服从手册我们政府将其用作摧毁南斯拉夫火药并作为引以为豪其他十几颜色革命的模板副本可以在互联网上免费获得。

 

William Blum again:

威廉·布鲁姆再次:

 

“As I’ve said before: Inasmuch as I can’t see violent revolution succeeding in the United States (something deep inside tells me that we couldn’t quite match the government’s firepower, not to mention its viciousness), I can offer no solution to stopping the imperial beast other than this: Educate yourself and as many others as you can, raising their political and ideological consciousness, providing them with the factual ammunition and arguments needed to sway others, increasing the number of those in the opposition until it raises the political price for those in power, until it reaches a critical mass, at which pointI can’t predict the form the explosion will take or what might be the triggerBut you have to have faith. And courage.”

正如我之前所说:由于我看到暴力革命在美国取得成功(告诉我我们无法政府的火力相匹敌,更不用说它邪恶),我无法提供除此之外的任何解决方案阻止帝国的野兽教育自己和尽可能他人,提高他们的政治意识形态意识为他们提供影响他人所需事实弹药和论据,增加反对派人数直到它提高当权政治代价,直到它达到临界点一点上我无法预测爆炸将采取什形式无法预测什么可能是导火索……但你必须有信心。勇气。

 

重建美国 — Rebuilding America

 

 

This is an amended list of actions Americans must take if they want to bring their country into the community of nations as a civilised member instead of its present status as a genocidal bully, and to begin healing the nation itself. It is compiled from my own notes with the inclusion of excerpts from a speech made by Chris Hedges at Northeastern University. (23)

这是一份经过修订的行动清单,如果美国人想让他们的国家作为一个文明成员而不是目前作为种族灭绝欺凌者的地位融入国际社会,并开始治愈国家本身,他们必须采取这些行动。它是根据我自己的笔记编写的,其中包括Chris Hedgesat Northeastern University.23)的演讲摘录

 

Discard the existing two-party political system as diseased and useless, and form one new party with a totally new slate of legislators not formerly involved in government.

抛弃现有的两党政治制度,认是病态和无用组建一由以前不参与政府的全新立法者组成新政党

 

Their first tasks would be to:

他们的首要任务是:

1. Arrest all war criminals on American soil. Begin with both Bushes, Cheney and Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice, both Clintons, Kissinger, Albright, and a long list of other White House and Congressional staff, on charges of treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

1.逮捕美国领土上所有战犯。布什、切尼和拉姆斯菲尔德、威尔和赖斯、克林顿夫妇、基辛格尔布赖特以及一长串其他白宫和国会工作人员开始,他们被指控叛国、战争罪和危害人类罪。

 

2. Disband the Federal Reserve Banking System and repudiate all outstanding debt to the FED. The government would, according to the law and constitution, issue its own currency from this point forward.

2.解散联邦储备银行系统并拒绝向美联储偿还所有未偿债务。政府将根据法律和宪法,从现在开始发行自己的货币。

 

3. Force the break-up of all the big banks and eliminate interstate banking.Nationalise the so-called investment banks like Goldman Sachs, confiscate their assets and shut them all down. Reintroduce banking sector regulations as was done after the 1930s, to ensure a catastrophe cannot recur, with violations punished by mandatory prison sentences. Outlaw program stock trading by the banks. Force the banks to revert to simple banking functions to serve the economy.

3.迫使所有大银行分拆,取消州际银行业务高盛等所谓的投资银行国有化,没收其资产并全部关闭。20世纪30年代后那样重新引入银行业监管以确保灾难不会再次发生违反规定者将被判处强制性监禁。禁止银行进行股票交易。迫使银行恢复简单的银行职能,为经济服务。

 

4. Disband the CIA and all its clandestine projects by cutting off all funding. Confiscate all CIA records, files, computers, data, and make the details public. Emasculate the FBI and all its executives and officers. Arrest the planners and perpetrators of all false-flag ops. Kill the NSA. Immediately cease all domestic espionage on US citizens. Cut off all funding, seize all bank accounts and confiscate all records and documents. Bomb the Arizona data storage facility to rubble. Kill the Department of Homeland Security and dismantle and close all internment camps within the continental US.

4.通过切断所有资金解散中央情报局及其所有秘密项目。没收中情局的所有记录、文件、电脑、数据,并公开细节。解放联邦调查局及其所有高管和官员。逮捕所有假旗行动的策划者和肇事者。杀死NSA立即停止对美国公民的所有国内间谍活动。切断所有资金扣押所有银行账户没收所有记录和文件。将亚利桑那州的数据存储设施炸成瓦砾。杀死国土安全部拆除并关闭美国大陆的所有拘留营。

 

5. Disband the NED, USAID, the VOA and the 100+ other subversive NGOs that are used today to destabilise the governments and societies of other nations.Recall all CIA espionage agents from foreign embassies and consulates, who constitute about 80% of all US foreign “diplomatic” staff. Designate all Foundations and Think Tanks as enemy aliens, and shut them down.

5.解散NED、美国国际开发署、美国之音和100其他颠覆性非政府组织这些织今天被用来破坏其他国家政府和社会的稳定。召回所有来自外国大使馆和领事馆中情局间谍他们约占美国所有外国外交人员的80%。将所有基金会和智库指定为敌方外星人,并将其关闭。

 

6. Reduce the military budget by 85% and close all foreign military bases. Bring home all foreign-based military personnel and give them jobs guarding the bankers.

6.削减85%军事预算,关闭所有外国军事基地。把所有驻扎在外国的军事人员带回家,给他们提供保护银行家的工作。

 

7. Totally eliminate the private sector from infrastructure and social services and confine it to commerce where it belongs. Roll back deregulation and privatisation, reclaiming all public infrastructure to be operated by the government for the common good. Especially kill the despicable private prison system, and free the more than one million who should never have been in prison at all. Kill the movements to debtor’s prisons and civil forfeiture before they gain any more momentum, and pass harsh legislation that holds policemen individually responsible for their crimes.

7.从基础设施和社会服务完全消除私营部门其限制在其所属商业领域撤销放松管制和私有化,收回所有公共基础设施由政府为共同利益运营。特别是杀死卑鄙的私人监狱系统释放100多万根本不应该被关进监狱的人。在债务人监狱和民事没收运动获得更多动力之前将其扼杀并通过严厉的立法追究警察对其罪行的个人责任。

 

8. Begin immediate construction of a system of publicly-owned and operated hospitals and medical clinics, and guarantee that all citizens have access to free or easily-affordable health care. Eliminate all insurance companies from the health-care process. Restore funding for universal education.

8.立即开始建设公立医院和诊所系统,并保证所有公民都能获得免费或容易负担得起的医疗保健。将所有保险公司从医疗保健过程中剔除。恢复普及教育的资金。

 

9. Make all lobbying illegal, with automatic prison sentences for influence-peddling. Designate lobby groups like AIPAC as criminal organisations and hostile enemy aliens, and treat them accordingly. Kill the SuperPacs and corporate donations. Eliminate all corporate contributions to election campaigns, and limit individual contributions to $1,000 maximum. Break the corrupt Zionist control of Congress, Wall Street, the media, the World Bank and the IMF. Terminate their globalism and any reference to a New World Order. Eliminate immediately all funding and financial support for Israel.

9.将所有游说行为定为非法,贩卖影响力自动判处监禁。AIPAC等游说团体指定为犯罪组织和敌对敌国人并相应地对待他们。杀死SuperPacs和企业捐款。取消所有公司对竞选活动捐款个人捐款限制在最高1000美元。打破犹复国主义者国会、华尔街、媒体、世界银行和际货币基金组织的腐败控制。终止他们的全球主义和任何对新世界秩序提及。立即取消对以色列的所有资金和财政持。

 

10. Eliminate legal immunity for the elites. Make illegal the payment of corporate fines for personal crimes. Put the people in prison. Levy an 85% income tax on all corporate profits being held outside the country by US-based multinationals. Reinstate the taxes on the rich and very rich. Eliminate personal tax breaks on capital gains and institute an 85% tax on all income over $500,000 per year.

10.取消精英法律豁免权。将因个人犯罪而支付的公司罚款定为非法。把人关进监狱。对总部位于美国的跨国公司在国外持有的所有公司利润征收85%的所得税。恢复对富人和非常富有的人征税。取消对资本收益个人税收减免对每年超过50万美元所有收入征收85%税。

 

11. The media monopoly must be broken by forcing de-centralisation and pushing the ownership once again into thousands of individual companies owned by totally unrelated parties. The current control of the media must be dismantled because of the Zionists’ propaganda and the Hidden State’s political agenda. Force the disintegration of all media holding groups and wide dispersion of all media, restricting ownership to only one newspaper or TV station permarket. Outlaw opinion-based journalism and make untruthful news reports punishable by public flogging.

11.必须通过强制中心化和所有权再次推给完全无关各方拥有数千公司打破媒体垄断。由于犹太复主义者的宣传和隐藏国家的政治议程必须废除目前媒体的控制迫使所有媒体控股集团解体所有媒体广泛分散每个市场只拥有一报纸或电视台。取缔基于舆论的新闻报道,对不真实的新闻报道以公开鞭刑。

 

12. Eliminate GM food, or at least legislate full disclosure on food labels. Eliminate factory farms; institute extensive monitoring and harsh penalties for food chemical violations.

12.消除基因食品,或至少立法全面披露食品标签。消除工厂农场;对食品化学违规行为进行广泛监测严厉处罚

 

13. Use the money collected from the rich, the bankers and the FED to begin repairing America’s dilapidated infrastructure before any more dams and bridges collapse.

13.在更多的水坝和桥梁倒塌之前利用从富人、银行家和美联储那里筹集资金开始修复美国破旧基础设施。

 

14. Close all the torture prisons. Close Guantanamo, Diego Garcia, Abu Ghraib, and the other torture prisons and demand an accounting of all prison ships and their human cargo. Close the School of the Americas and destroy all the torture manuals.

14.关闭所有酷刑监狱。关闭塔那摩、迪戈加西亚、阿布格莱布其他酷刑监狱并要求对所有监狱船只其人员货物进行清点。关闭美洲学校销毁所有酷刑手册

 

15. Emasculate the US President, the Presidency, and the White House, and return all power to Congress because it is the concentration of power in the office of the President that has permitted the total alien control of all vital parts of the US government.

15.解放美国总统、总统和白宫,所有权力交还给国会因为是总统办公室的权力集中,才允许外国人完全控制美国政府的所有重要部门。

 

16. Eliminate all US-sponsored sanctions against other nations, especially China, Russia, Syria and Iran. End the illegal occupation of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Get out of the Ukraine. Dismantle immediately all organised interference in the internal affairs and elections of other nations. Refund the $100 billion of Iraqi gold and cash seized, and the similar amount from Libya.

 

16.取消美国对其他国家,特别中国、俄罗斯、叙利亚和伊朗所有制裁。结束夏威夷、波多黎各、阿富汗、伊拉克和利比亚的非法占领。离开乌克兰 。立即废除对其他国家内政和选举的一切组织干涉。退还缴获1000亿美元伊拉克黄金和现金以及利比亚的类似金额。

  *

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 —Dealing with Demons).

罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成32种语言,他的文章在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站以及100多个英语平台上发布。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位,并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾是上海复旦大学的客座教授,为高级EMBA课程提供国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生现居上海,目前正在撰写十本与中国和西方有关的书。他是辛西娅·麦金尼的新文集《当中国打喷嚏》的撰稿人之一。(第2章——与恶魔打交道)。

His full archive can be seen at

他的全部文章库可以在以下找到

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

他的联系方式是

2186604556@qq.com

*

注释 — Notes (1) Rex 84: FEMA’s Blueprint for Martial Law in America (2) Rex 84 – Your Internment Camp Awaits You (3) U.S. Concentration Camps: FEMA and the REX 84 (4) https://www.dcclothesline.com/2019/04/03/before-his-suspicious-death-justice-scalia-predicted-the-return-of-internment-camps/ (5) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/3/justice-scalia-to-lecture-at-univ-of-hawaii/ (6) Army National Guard Advertises for “Internment Specialists” (7) Video: Become a FEMA Camp Internment/Resettlement Specialist (8) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217_2.html?hpid=topnews (9) Pentagon Plans To Keep 20,000 Troops Inside US To Bolster domestic security (10) Washington Post: 20,000 More U.S. Troops To Be Deployed (11) FM 3-39.40 INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT (12) FM 3-39.40 INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT OPERATIONS (13) https://www.infowars.com/yes-the-re-education-camp-manual-does-apply-domestically-to-u-s-citizens/ (14) Why Are Federal Bureaucrats Buying Guns And Ammo? $158 Million Spent By Non-Military Agencies (15) 24 Jun, 2016; Non-military federal agencies have more firearm authority than entire US Marine Corps (16) https://www.openthebooks.com/the-militarization-of-america–open-the-books-oversight-report/ (17) https://www.openthebooks.com/openthebooks_oversight_report_-_the_militarization_of_america/ (17) Asymmetric Warfare Group Built a Fake City in Virginia (18) US army builds fake city to shoot at during training (19) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-enlists-u-s-air-force-to-spray-for-mosquitoes-after-harvey/ (20) Pentagon Misinformation Ops Target Press and Public (21) Main Core – Wikipedia (22) https://www.infowars.com/main-core-a-list-of-millions-of-americans-that-will-be-subject-to-detention-during-martial-law/ (23) http://calendar.northeastern.edu/event/political_economy_forum_presents_chris_hedges *

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

本文可能包含受版权保护的材料其使用未经版权所有者特别授权。此内容根据合理使用原则提供,仅用于教育和信息目的。此内容没有商业用途

 

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2024

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 警察国家美利坚 — 第12章捷径:民主走向法西斯主义 — Chapter 12 — The Short Road: Democracy to Fascism

0
警察国家美利坚

第12章捷径 Chapter 12 — The Short Road: Democracy to Fascism

By Larry Romanoff

 CHINESE    ENGLISH

 警察国家美国》第一卷免费电子书 

   

Fascism is a political ideology fundamentally authoritarian in character, with a strong nationalism and an essentially belligerent militaristic outlookFascism carries primarily a corporate perspective as opposed to a socialist view, directed to satisfying the needs, values and objectives of finance and corporations, organising both the economy and the political system according to this agenda. 

法西斯主义是一本质上具有威权主义特征政治意识形态,具有强烈民族主义和本质上好战军国主义观点法西斯主义主要是一企业观点而不是社会主义观点,旨在满足金融和企业的需求、价值观和目标,根据这议程组织经济和政治体系。 

 

A fascist government actively suppresses any objection to its ideology and typically will crush any movement which opposes it. In keeping with their belligerent nature, fascist governments generally view violence and war as stimulants to national spirit and vitality.

法西斯政府积极压制对其意识形态任何反对通常会镇压任何反对它运动。与他们的好战性质相一致,法西斯政府暴力和战争视为民族精神和活力兴奋剂。

 

Being politically Right-Wing, they maintain their position through firm control or compliance of the media, and most often engage in a vast array of lies and deception. These governments tend to be bigoted, if not racist, invariably require “enemies” to achieve public solidarity, and are often supremacist or at least ‘exceptional’ in their self-assessment. They either believe, or pretend to believe, that they have a license on truth. Large military budgets, the creation and demonisation of fictitious enemies to propagate fear and maintain population control, are all typical characteristics of a fascist regime, as is massive public surveillance.

作为政治上的右翼,他们通过严格控制或遵守媒体来维持自己的地位,并且最经常地参与各种各样的谎言和欺骗。这些政府即使不种族主义者往往是偏执是要求敌人来实现公众团结并且往往是至上主义者或者至少在自我评估中是例外。他们要么相信要么假装相信他们有真理的许可证。巨额军事预算、制造和妖魔化虚构的敌人以传播恐惧和维持人口控制大规模公共监视都是法西斯政权的典型特征。

 

In 1995 the Italian Scholar Umberto Eco produced a paper titled ‘Eternal Fascism’ (1) in which he examined the characteristics of fascist regimes. In 2003, Laurence W. Britt did an excellent and scholarly work in dissecting and categorising past fascist regimes (2), in which he revealed common threads that linked all of them in “patterns of national behavior and abuse of power”. He wrote that “Even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi, (which is) not a revelation … but useful … to shed needed light on current circumstances.” I am including here a composite of edited extracts from these two papers with additional commentary of my own. Significant statements by these two authors are in quotation marks. This is a list of the characteristics of fascist states, taken from Britt’s original article:

1995意大利学者翁贝托·埃科发表题为《永恒法西斯主义》论文他在论文中考察法西斯政权的特征。2003劳伦斯·W·布里特在剖析和分类过去法西斯政权方面出色学术工作(2),他揭示了将所有这些政权联系共同线索国家行为模式和滥用权力他写道即使对这些法西斯和原法西斯政权进行粗略的研究也会发现他们的运作方式绝对惊人地趋同,(不是一种启示……而是有用的……有助于揭示当前的情况。我在这里附上了这两篇论文的编辑摘录以及我自己的额外评论。这两位作者的重要声明用引号括起来。以下是法西斯国家的特征列表,摘自布里特的原始文章:

 

法西斯主义的早期预警信号 — Early Warning Signs of Fascism  
  • 强大而持续的民族主义  Powerful and continuing nationalism
  • 军队的至高无上  Supremacy of the military
  • 对国家安全的痴迷  Obsession with national security
  • 对犯罪和惩罚的痴迷  Obsession with crime and punishment
  • 识别敌人/替罪羊是一个统一的原因  Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
  • 对人权的蔑视  Disdain for human rights
  • 企业权力受到保护,劳动力受到压制  Corporate power is protected while labor power is suppressed
  • 受控大众传媒  Controlled mass media
  • 任人唯亲和腐败猖獗 Rampant cronyism and corruption
  • 宗教与政府交织  Intertwined religion and government
  • 舞弊选举  Fraudulent elections
  • 对知识分子和艺术的蔑视  Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
  • 猖獗的性别歧视  Rampant Sexism
 

If we examine the US on these categories, we find an almost perfect match. Certainly the US has the most strident nationalism of all nations today, with the hysteria of patriotism and flag-worship unabated and even increasingwith the delusional theory of American Exceptionalism as virulent as ever.

如果我们在这些类别上考察美国,我们会发现几乎完美的匹配。当然美国拥有当今所有国家中最强烈的民族主义,爱国主义和国旗崇拜的歇斯底里有甚至越来越多美国例外主义的妄想理论一如既往地恶毒。

 

Questioning these oppressive activities is now often portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous … as about Wounded Knee Massacre. Source

质疑这些压迫性活动现在经常被描述为不爱国甚至叛国……像关于伤膝大屠杀一样 来源

 

There is no questionabout military supremacywith the US spending almost twice as much on its military as the rest of the world combined and being by an order of magnitude the world’s largest arms manufacturer and dealer. Obama once stated flatly that for the US to remain ‘peaceful and prosperous’ it needed the world’s largest and most powerful military to maintain an overwhelming military supremacy. Obsession with issues of national security is so common in the US today they have become objects of ridicule. Every manner of information is withheld, every manner of lie is told, every manner of crime is committed, all with the excuse of ‘national security’. Britt noted that a national security apparatus was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints, with its actions always justified under the rubric of protecting “national security”, and that questioning these oppressive activities is now often portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

军事霸权是毫无疑问美国在军事上的支出几乎世界其他国家总和的两倍并且是世界上最大武器制造商和经销商。奥巴马曾明确表示美国要保持和平与繁荣需要世界最大、最强大军队来保持压倒性军事霸权。对国家安全问题的痴迷在今天的美国非常普遍他们已经成为嘲笑的对象。国家安全借口隐瞒各种信息撒谎犯罪。布里特指出国家安全机构通常是一压迫工具秘密运作不受任何限制其行动总是以保护国家安全借口质疑这些压迫活动现在往往被描述为不爱国甚至叛国。

 

 All the fascist regimes have an obsession with crime and punishment, Britt stating that most “maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations” – a perfect description of America today, including the ‘unchecked power and rampant abuse’ by the police. He also noted that in all these fascist states, ‘normal’ crime and political crime were almost interchangeable, “often merged into trumped-up criminal charges … used against political opponents of the regime”. These characteristics of crime, punishment and incarceration are all fields in which America leads the world by a wide margin today as we have already seen. In terms of enemies n being needed for solidarity and to maintain “a unifying cause”, the US is also the outstanding world leader, creating real and fictitious enemies not only for itself, but doing a rather good job in creating animosities throughout the world. In fact, a signature feature of the US is its worldwide propagation of regional unrest, as we see in Asia today, and with interference in the Ukraine, Russia, China, and dozens of other countries. Creating political chaos and large military risks is a common fascist trait, which is partly why military supremacy is necessary, black and white America attempting to partition the world into ideological factions, often in preparation for war.

所有法西斯政权痴迷于犯罪和惩罚,布里特表示,大多数维持着严厉的刑事司法制度大量监狱人口”—是对当今美国的完美描述,包括警察的不受束的权力和猖獗虐待。他还指出在所有这些法西斯国家正常犯罪和政治犯罪几乎可以互换经常合并成捏造的刑事指控用于对付政权的政治对正如我们已经看到的那样犯罪、惩罚和监禁的这些特征都是美国今天遥遥领先世界领域在团结和维护统一事业敌人方面美国也是杰出的世界领导者不仅为自己制造真实和虚构敌人而且在全世界制造仇恨方面相当好。事实上美国的一个标志性特征是它在全球范围内传播地区动荡正如我们今天在亚洲看到的那样并对乌克兰、俄罗斯、中国和其他几十个国家进行干涉。制造政治混乱和巨大军事风险是法西斯共同特征,这程度上就是为什么军事霸权是必要,美国黑人和白人试图世界划分为意识形态派别,通常为了备战。

 

With the fall of the USSR, the US turned immediately to other nations, never really forgetting Russia. 

随着苏联的解体,美国立即转向其他国家,从未真正忘记俄罗斯。 

 

For some decades, the US milked the Cold War for all it was worth, casting the Soviet Union as a bitter enemy and creating animosity where none would have existed. With the fall of the USSR, the US turned immediately to other nationsnever really forgetting Russia, and then created its 9-11 ‘Pearl Harbor Moment’ that would permit it to have a permanent enemy in the person of ‘terrorism’, a war that will never be won since the US creates all the terrorist events to prolong it. It has the added advantage of demonising all the world’s Muslims while equating all Arabs with terrorists. Enough enemies here for a lifetime of fascism.

几十年来,美国榨取冷战的所有价值苏联视为死敌在根本不存在地方制造敌意。随着苏联的解体美国立即转向其他国家从未真正忘记俄罗斯然后创造了9-11珍珠港时刻使它一个永敌人恐怖主义这场战争永远不美国制造了所有的恐怖事件来延长它有一额外优势,就是妖魔化世界上所有穆斯林,同时将所有阿拉伯人等同于恐怖分子。这里有足够的敌人来对抗法西斯主义。

 

A fundamental practice of a fascist or pre-fascist government is demonisation of ‘the others’, outsiders who are the enemy.

法西斯或前法西斯政府的一个基本做法是妖魔化他人,即敌人的局外人。

 

For the people, these (usually imaginary) enemies provide not only an essential cornerstone of the fascist state but an essential adhesive for their fabricated national identity. Being thus united against a common other, fascism becomes deeply racist by definition and in practice. This demonisation of selected enemies is so intense that pacifism or a lack of belligerence equate to treason, due to sympathising with the enemy or, in today’s US lexicon, “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”. In the world of fascism, disagreement is treason. George Bush and Dick Cheney: “If you aren’t with us, you’re against us”. US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles: “There are only two kinds of people in the world: Christians who believe in capitalism, and the other kind.” In his study of these regimes, Britt wrote that “the most significant common thread” among them was this demonisation of other peoples as enemies of the state, “to divert attention, to shift blame, and to channel frustration into controlled directions”. He claimed that their methods of choice – propaganda and misinformation – were usually effective. Britt noted that “Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly”, which is precisely what happens today in the US, where increasingly it occurs that challengers of the system are labeled as terrorists, even to the extent of those operating food banks being classified as ‘food terrorists’.

对于人民来说,这些(通常是想象中的)敌人不仅是法西斯国家的重要基石,也是他们捏造的民族身份的重要粘合剂。因此法西斯主义在定义和实践上都变得非常种族主义。这种选定敌人的妖魔化是如此强烈以至于和平主义或缺乏好战性等同于叛国因为同情敌人或者在今天的美国词典给予敌人援助和安慰。在法西斯主义的世界里分歧就是叛国。乔治·布什和迪克·切尼如果你不与我们站在一起是在反对我们美国国务卿约翰·福斯特·杜勒斯世界上只有两种人信仰资本主义基督徒和另一种这些政权的研究中布里特写道其中最重要的共同点其他民族妖魔化为国家的敌人转移注意力移责任并将沮丧情绪引导到受控方向。他声称他们选择的方法——宣传和错误信息——通常是有效布里特指出这些政权的积极反对者不可避免被贴上恐怖分子标签受到相应的处理这正是今天在美国发生在美国越来越多的系统挑战者被贴上了恐怖分子的标志甚至那些经营食品银行的被归类为食品恐怖分子

 

In 2026, New York City plans to close the VERNON C. BAIN, America’s only currently operating prison shipSource  Picture’s source

2026纽约市计划关闭美国目前唯一运营监狱船VERNON C.BAIN 来源  图片来源

 

No reasonable person can claim today that the US has any concern for human rights, certainly not any outside the continental US, and increasingly less within its borders. Except for Israel, the US has by far the worst record of human rights violations during the past several hundred years, far outstripping anything attributed to people like Stalin or Hitler, or even the Japanese. It is, after all, the US that built and still maintains the largest network of torture prisons and ships in the history of the world, even though the US media have removed this topic from the publishing list.

今天,任何理性的人都不能声称美国对人权有任何关注,当然在美国大陆以外也没有,在美国境内也越来越少。除了以色列,美国在过去几百年侵犯人权的记录是迄今为止最糟糕远远超过斯大林、希特勒甚至日本人。毕竟,尽管美国媒体已话题从出版名单删除,美国建造并仍然维护世界历史上最大酷刑监狱和船只网络

 

In terms of media control, the US government covers this not by ownership or direct censorship but by a cabal of closely-interwoven interests working on the same precise agenda, almost totally eliminating any necessity for overt acts.

在媒体控制方面,美国政府不通过所有权或直接审查掩盖这一点,而是通过一个密切交织利益集团在同一个确切议程上工作,几乎完全消除任何公开行为的必要性。

 

Corruption and cronyism are as alive and virulent in American government today as they have ever been in any society at any time in recent history. The lobbies alone, working with the secret government, are more than sufficient evidence of this, with corruption increasing noticeably each year. Americans may quarrel with the point of an integration of religion and government but, while religion is theoretically separated from the state, it is joined at the hip in practice.

腐败和任人唯亲在今天的美国政府中与近代历史上任何时候的任何社会一样活跃和恶毒。仅游说团体与秘密政府合作就足以证明这一点,腐败现象每年都在明显增加。美国人可能对宗教与政府融合的观点产生异议,但尽管宗教理论与国家分离在实践中紧密相连。

 

 

We have George Bush telling us God told him to invade and destroy Iraq, Obama telling us Christ’s redemption of him provides him with solace on a daily basis, and a long list of other nonsense indicating that evangelical hysteria is never far removed from the government, even if only to mislead an ignorant population. Britt noted that religion and the ruling elite were tied together in some way.

我们有乔治·布什告诉我们上帝告诉他入侵和摧毁伊拉克,奥巴马告诉我们基督对他的救赎每天都为他提供慰藉,还有一长串其他无稽之谈表明,福音派斯底里症从未远离政府,即使只是误导无知的民众。布里特指出,宗教和统治精英在某种程度是联系一起

 

“The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the ‘godless’.”

 统治精英的行为与宗教戒律不相容的事实通常被掩盖了。宣传让人误以为统治精英是信仰的捍卫者和无神论的反对者。

 

Fraudulent elections are more overtly creeping into the American electoral system every year. We had George Bush’s brother removing more than 50,000 persons from the voter lists in Florida, all of whom were legitimate voters, and sufficient to provide an election victory. Even then, when votes were finally counted accurately, Bush was proven to have lost the election, but the consequences could not be reversed. As well, the new digital voting machines have been condemned even by those who designed them, as wide open to electoral fraud and manipulation to the extent of changing the outcome of every vote. Moreover, it is openly admitted that even without manipulation, an accurate count is not physically possible. But the government continues to roll out these systems, one would have to assume for their manipulation potential.

欺诈性选举每年都在更明显地潜入美国的选举体系。我们让乔治·布什的兄弟从佛罗里达州的选民名单上删除了5万多人,他们都是合法选民,足以带来选举胜利。即便如此,当选票最终被准确计算时,布什被证明输掉了选举,但后果无法逆转。此外,新的数字投票机甚至受到设计的谴责,因为它极易受到选举欺诈和操纵,甚至会改变每次投票的结果。此外人们公开承认即使没有操纵也不可能进行准确的计数。但政府继续推出这些系统人们不得不假设它们的操纵潜力。

 

It is widely recognised the US has been dumbing-down education for decades, starving the educational systems of funds, using increasingly unqualified part-time and adjunct teachers and professors, increasing tuition costs to the point where education will soon be unaffordable. We don’t need an education to see that the only possible result is an increasingly uneducated and ignorant population. In his study, Britt noted that “intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed.” This forms a perfect description of the situation today in the US, certainly on the crushing of dissent. I have no observation to make on the arts, but the US appears to qualify solidly on every point in the above list, and I see no reason for Americans or indeed anyone else to take comfort in this. Is the US a fascist state? How do we avoid answering in the affirmative? 

人们普遍认识到,几十年来美国一直在降低教育水平使教育系统资金短缺,使用越来越不合格兼职和兼职教师和教授,增加学费以至于教育很快将负担不起。我们不需要接受教育就能看到唯一可能的结果是人口越来越没有受过教育越来越无知。布里特在他的研究中指出知识和学术自由被认为是对国家安全和爱国理想颠覆。大学受到严格控制政治不可靠教师受到骚扰或淘汰。非正统的思想或异议表达受到强烈攻击、压制或镇压。这完美描述当今美国的情况当然对异议的镇压我对艺术没有什么看法但美国似乎在上述列表中每一点上都有资格我认为美国人或其他任何人没有理由为此感到安慰。美国是法西斯国家我们如何避免回答肯定? 

 

To people of a country like the US, who are deprived of a clear national identity, fascism creates one by stoking the fires of a false nationalism though propagandising the pathologically false conviction that “the world’s greatest privilege is to be born or to live in this country”, that every citizen “belongs to the best people in the world”, all of whom are, by definition, “good”. US President Calvin Coolidge:

对于像美国这样被剥夺明确民族身份国家的人民来说,法西斯主义通过煽动虚假民族主义火,宣扬世界上大的特权是出生或生活在这个国家病态错误信念即每个公民属于世界上最好的人,而根据定义所有人都从而创造一个明确的民族身份。美国总统卡尔文·柯立芝:

 

“To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race”.

在美国宪法下生活是人类有史以来最大的政治特权

 

Michael Hirsh used the same jingoistic nonsense to justify American cannibalisation of the world by stating that American global domination was “the greatest gift the world has received in … possibly all of recorded history.” Britt noted the powerful propagation and displays of nationalistic expression,

迈克尔·赫什(Michael Hirsh用同样沙文主义胡说八道来为美国蚕食世界辩护,他说美国全球统治是世界在……可能所有有记录的历史收到最伟大礼物布里特指出民族主义表达的强大传播和展示,

 

“From the prominent displays of flags and ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism.”

从显眼的国旗和无处不在的徽章上,无论是政权本身还是陷入狂热的公民,表现爱国民族主义的热情都是显而易见的。表达这种民族主义的共同主题是口号、对军队的自豪感和团结的要求。

 

To underscore the above, Global Research published an article in March of 2015 titled “The End of Canada in Ten Steps: A Conversation with Naomi Wolf” (3), in which it was noted that she studied “the way open societies were crushed from within by authoritarian elements”, such as those existing in all Right-Wing countries today, and claimed there was “a ‘blueprint’ followed by all dictatorial rulers composed of ten steps” as follows:

为了强调情况Global Research20153月发表题为《加拿大的终结十步:与Naomi Wolf对话》的文章(3),其中指出,她研究开放社会被专制分子从内部摧毁方式,例如当今所有右翼国家存在的专制分子,并声称所有独裁统治者都循一个由十组成的蓝图,如下:

 
  • 引发外部和内部威胁 Invoke an external and internal threat
  • 建立秘密监狱  Establish secret prison
  • 发展准军事部队  Develop a paramilitary force
  • 监视普通公民  Surveil ordinary citizens
  • 渗透公民群体  Infiltrate citizen groups
  • 任意拘留和释放公民  Arbitrarily detain and release citizens
  • 针对关键个人  Target key individuals
  • 限制媒体  Restrict the press
  • 将批评视为间谍将异议视为叛国”  Cast criticism as “espionage” and dissent as “treason”
  • 颠覆法治  Subvert the rule of law
 

Global Research finally noted that “In her 2007 book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot‘, Naomi Wolf not only described this formula for fascism, she outlined how these repressive measures are in evidence in modern day America.”

Global Research最后指出,2007出版美国末日:给一年轻爱国者的警告信》一Naomi Wolf不仅描述法西斯主义的这公式,概述这些镇压措施在现代美国是如何显现

 

 

There is one other item pertaining to fascism in America that contains elements of all characteristics we’ve discussed, one which Hollywood and the media have taken great pains to develop though the ground was already very fertile indeed, and this category is heroes and super-heroes. The US has always glorified war and war heroes, describing American cannon-fodder as “sons of freedom giving their lives for democracy”, when they were simply massacring impoverished civilians to enrich the bankers. Eco noted that “In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Fascist ideology heroism is the norm”, with the fascist hero impatient to die, but who, in his impatience, “more frequently sends other people to death”.

还有一个与美国法西斯主义有关项目,它包含我们讨论的所有特征的元素,好莱坞和媒体已经费苦心开发了这个项目,尽管土地已经非常肥沃,这个类别是英雄和超级英雄。美国一直赞美战争和战争英雄美国炮灰描述为为民主献出生命的自由之子当时他们只是屠杀贫困平民以丰富银行家。生态指出在每一个神话中英雄是一个特殊存在但在法西斯意识形态中英雄主义是常态法西斯英雄急于死去但在他的不耐烦中更频繁地把其他人送去死亡

 

On March 9, 1945, Major General Curtis E. LeMay watched the first of more than 300 bombers lift off from Guam’s crushed coral runway for a midnight strike on Tokyo some 1,500 miles to the north. He planned to unleash his bombers armed with napalm incendiaries on downtown Tokyo’s crowded neighborhoods. One of the world’s most congested cities, the capital counted more than 100,000 men, women, and children per square mile, an area LeMay hoped to incinerate by dawn. This was no ordinary mission—and LeMay knew it. This was murder. Source

194539柯蒂斯·E·勒梅少将目睹了300多架轰炸机中的第一架从关岛破碎的珊瑚跑道起飞对北部约1500英里处的东京进行午夜袭击。他计划在东京市中心拥挤的街区释放装有凝固汽油弹燃烧弹的轰炸机。作为世界上最拥挤的城市之一首都每平方英里有超过10万名男女老少勒梅希望在黎明前将这一地区焚烧。这不是普通的任务勒梅也知道这是谋杀。来源

 

This black and white religious proto-fascism which has perhaps always existed in America was the seedbed for the worship of heroes and winners. Americans, in their desperate jingoistic desire to be “good” and to “win”, and in a bid to prove their overwhelming moral superiority, turned from reality to fiction and gave us Superman, Batman, Spiderman and Captain America. All are Christian proto-fascists engaged in fictional battles of good against evil, with the Americans living vicariously through these imaginary beings, sharing in their awesome power and moral righteousness, and whose costumes inevitably bear labels saying “Made in America”. And indeed we cannot watch an American movie without encountering this irritating white supremacist ideology. Think of movies like Avatar or Independence Day; their entire purpose is to fuel this ideological jingoism and make all viewers “proud to be American”. But it’s all a fiction. The real American heroes are not Superman or Spiderman but Curtis LeMay, Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan and Madeleine Albright, all criminally-insane psychopathic killers.

这种黑人和白人的宗教原型法西斯主义可能一直存在于美国,是崇拜英雄和胜利者的温床。美国人出于对善良胜利绝望沙文主义渴望,为了证明他们压倒性道德优势,从现实转向虚构,给我们超人、蝙蝠侠、蜘蛛侠和美国队长。他们都是基督教原始法西斯主义从事虚构的善与恶的斗争美国人通过这些虚构存在来替代生活分享他们令敬畏的力量和道德正义他们的服装可避免带有美国制造标签。事实上我们看一部美国电影必然会遇到这种令人恼火的白人至上主义意识形态。想想像《阿凡达》或《独立日》这样的电影他们的全部目的是助长这种意识形态沙文主义让所有观众自己是美国人自豪。但这都是虚构的。真正的美国英雄不是超人或蜘蛛侠而是柯蒂斯·勒梅、亨利·基辛格、罗纳德·里根和马德琳·奥尔布赖特他们犯罪精神杀手。

 

It is interesting that a fascist government, with its instinctive hatred of socialism, propagates “fascist socialism” which nurtures and feeds corporations while normal socialism nurtures the general population. What we might call “corporate socialism”, which is what exists today in the US, is a fairly precise definition of fascism.

有趣的是,法西斯政府出于对社会主义的本能仇恨,宣扬法西斯社会主义,培育和养活企业,而正常的社会主义则培育普通民众。我们可以称之为公司社会主义是今天在美国存在法西斯主义的一个相当精确定义。

 

Tax benefits that favor the rich either primarily or exclusively, a high income inequality, the dismantling of any social safety net, different laws for the rich and powerful than for the poor, corporate immunity for crimes, a lack of corporate regulation and oversight, are all typical characteristics. Britt noted that “Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The US government and elites, except for one brief historical period, have always strived to destroy labor to protect the profits of big business”. In Britt’s study, “the poor formed an underclass, (and) being poor was considered akin to a vice.” And in which nation today have color and poverty been criminalised? The world’s largest fascist state – America.

主要或完全有利于富人税收优惠、高收入不平等、任何社会安全网的拆除、富人和权贵与穷人不同法律、公司对犯罪豁免、缺乏公司监管和监督,这些都是典型的特征。里特指出由于组织劳工被视为一个可以挑战统治精英及其企业盟友的政治霸权的权力中心可避免地被粉碎或变得无能除了一个短暂历史时期美国政府和精英们一直努力摧毁劳工以保护大企业的利润布里特的研究中穷人形成一个下层阶级,(贫穷认为类似于一恶习今天哪个国家肤色和贫困定为世界上最大的法西斯国家——美国。

 

He also noted rampant cronyism and corruption between the political and corporate elites and stated that “With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.” Corruption and cronyism are as alive and virulent in American government today as they have ever been in any society at any time in recent history. The lobbies alone, working with the secret government, are more than sufficient evidence of this, with corruption increasing noticeably each year. Similarly, no reasonable person can question any longer the suppression of labor and the protection and enhancement of corporate power in America. We have already covered in detail the trashing of the social contract, the destruction of labor protections and the evisceration of the middle class. No further evidence is necessary.

他还指出政治和企业精英之间猖獗的任人唯亲和腐败现象,并表示随着国家安全机构受控制,媒体受到,这种腐败很大程度上不受约普通民众不太了解。腐败和任人唯贤在今天美国政府中近代历史上任何时候任何社会一样活跃和恶毒仅游说团体与秘密政府合作就足以证明这一点腐败现象每年都在明显增加。同样任何理性的人不能再质疑美国对劳工的压制以及对公司权力的保护和增强。我们已经详细介绍社会契约的破坏、劳动保护的破坏和中产阶级的掏空。不需要进一步的证据。

 

There is another alarming category that evidences even more strongly the threats to civil society from the authoritarian and fascist police-state mentality that is increasingly permeating all of the US, this involving trivial civil disputes that should in no case involve the police. In July of 2014, a Minneapolis man was ejected from a Southwest Airlines flight with his two children for questioning why he was qualified for priority boarding but his two children were not. He posted a Tweet that said, “Wow, rudest agent in Denver. Kimberly S, gate C39, not happy”. Southwest Airlines’ gate attendants saw the tweet, ejected Watson and his children from the flight, informing him he now qualified as a “safety threat”, threatening to have him arrested unless he immediately deleted his post.

还有另一个令人担忧的类别,更有力地证明了威权主义和法西斯警察国家心态对公民社会的威胁,这种心态正日益渗透到整个美国,这涉及琐碎的民事纠纷,在任何情况下都不应该涉及警察。20147月,一名明尼阿波利斯男子和他的两个孩子被西南航空公司的一架航班驱逐出境,原因是他质疑为什么自己有资格优先登机,但他的两个子女没有。他在推特写道丹佛粗鲁特工。金伯利S,C39不高兴。西南航空口服务员看到这条推文沃森和他的孩子们赶出飞机通知他现在符合安全威胁的条件威胁要逮捕他除非他立即删除己的帖子

 

Source

来源

 

In the US today, kindergarten teachers regularly call the police to arrest children who misbehave. A Chinese woman tourist in New Hampshire was tasered and assaulted by police when a clerk at an Apple store complained she wanted to buy two phones. In another case, a father in New Hampshire attended a parent-school meeting to protest the classroom use of sexually-explicit reading material provided to his teen-age daughter. When the man exceeded the arbitrary maximum of two minutes speaking time, the principal called the police and had the man arrested. In each case, no ‘law’ was violated so the police used generic charges of “causing a public disturbance” or some other such nuisance charge.

在今天美国,幼儿园教师经常报警逮捕行为不端的儿童在新罕布什尔州,中国女游客遭到警察电击和袭击当时一苹果商店的店员抱怨她想买两手机。在另一个案例中新罕布什尔的一父亲参加家长会抗议课堂使用提供给他十几岁女儿露骨性读物。当该男子超过任意规定的两分钟发言时间上限校长报警并逮捕该男子。在每种情况下都没有违反任何法律因此警方使用了扰乱公共秩序的通用指控或其他类似的妨害指控。

 

These false charges may well be dismissed by a court but still present a serious violation of civil rights and a gross exaggeration of the ability of individuals to create their own laws and of the police to enforce them. In the Southwest Airlines case above, had the man refused to delete his negative post, the agent would certainly have called the police who, cast from the same authoritarian mold, would have automatically arrested and charged him, probably with ‘Twitter Terrorism’. The man would likely have escaped in the end, but it would have been a long and expensive climb out from the bottom of that hole. In the case of the Apple store, the female customer was physically knocked to the ground and tasered by police immediately on their arrival. In neither case did the police make even minimal attempts to ascertain the facts. In fact, the only salient “fact” was that of a civilian challenging any kind of authority, even the kind that is so weak as to be invisible. No civilian has any practical defense against an airline agent or shop clerk who testifies that he “caused a public disturbance”, nor against police charges for having done so. The only immunity comes from wealth or political power.

这些虚假指控很可能被法院驳回,但仍然严重侵犯了公民权利,严重夸大了个人制定自己的法律和警察执行法律的能力。在上述西南航空案件中如果该男子拒绝删除他的负面帖子特工肯定会报警警察会按照同样威权模式自动逮捕并指控他可能推特恐怖。这男子最终可能会逃脱,但从那个洞的底部爬出来将是一个漫长而昂贵的过程在苹果商店的案例中,这女顾客在抵达立即被警察撞倒在地并用泰瑟枪扫射。在这两起案件中,警方都没有做出任何微小的努力来确定事实。事实上唯一突出的事实一名平民挑战任何形式的权威即使是那种软弱到看不见的权威。任何平民对航空公司代理人或店员证明其扰乱公共秩序进行实际辩无法对警方指控进行辩护唯一豁免权来自财富或政治权力。

 

There are countless similar cases which all have in common an implicit assumption that anyone, even in a position of minimal authority such as a KFC clerk, has the power to dictate imaginary rules that obtain the force of law with the police and which, if challenged, will result in arrest. Individual private citizens, as least those lacking obvious wealth or power, are increasingly relegated to the social trash bin. Incidents such as these may appear individually trivial and unconnected, but they are not trivial in bulk and are indications of a frightening authoritarianism infecting all of America, part of the widespread rush to fascism occurring in all politically Right-Wing nations, especially in the US. That this should be such a common experience is a frightening and almost terrifying development, where one now fears to enter any dispute with even the most minor employee or clerk, in almost any context, and regardless of the justification.

有无数类似案件它们都有一个共同隐含假设,即任何人,即使像肯德基店员这权力最小的有权制定想象的规则,这些规则在警方获得法律效力,如果受到质疑,将导致逮捕。个人公民,尤其那些缺乏明显财富或权力的人,越来越多地被扔进社会垃圾桶这样事件可能看起来微不足道,毫无关联但它们不是大的,表明一种可怕的威权主义正在感染整个美国,这是所有政治右翼国家尤其美国普遍出现法西斯主义浪潮的部分这应该是一普遍经历这是一个可怕、几乎发展人们现在害怕在几乎任何情况无论理由如何哪怕是最微不足道的员工或职员发生任何纠纷。

 

American fascist authoritarianism is based on Joseph Stalin’s motto: “A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”

 美国法西斯威权主义基于约瑟夫·斯大林的座右铭:一个人的死亡是悲剧;一百万人的死亡是统计数据。

 

When common citizens are afraid to challenge the most trivial injustices in civil society, when the people as individuals have been moved to the bottom of the priority list, when even store clerks have effective arrest authority, this is authoritarian fascism – a classic definition of a de facto fascist police state. In the US today there are so many similar examples where this, the most fundamental of civil rights the right to voice complainthas been converted to a criminal act. Those instances involved mostly the police badly exceeding their authority, but this category involves mere civilians with no actual invested civil authority of any kind, and yet in each case legal authority being presumed and exercised entirely at the whim of these same persons. While Americans please themselves by accusing China of being authoritarian, it is in fact the US that is both authoritarian and fascist. China is today a very human civil society compared to Transformed America.

当普通公民不敢挑战公民社会中最微不足道的不公正时,当人们作为个人被排在优先事项列表的底部时,当甚至店员都有有效的逮捕权时,这就是威权法西斯主义——事实上的法西斯警察国家的经典定义。在今天美国有很多类似的例子其中最基本公民权利——表达不满的权利——已被转化为犯罪行为。这些事件大多涉及警察严重越权但这一类仅涉及平民没有任何实际的民事权力但在每种情况下法律权力都是完全由这些人随意推定和行使的。虽然美国人通过指责中国独裁来取悦自己事实上美国既是独裁又是法西斯。与转型的美国相比今天的中国是一个非常人性化的公民社会。

    *

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 —Dealing with Demons).

罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成32种语言,他的文章在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站以及100多个英语平台上发布。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位,并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾是上海复旦大学的客座教授,为高级EMBA课程提供国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生现居上海,目前正在撰写十本与中国和西方有关的书。他是辛西娅·麦金尼的新文集《当中国打喷嚏》的撰稿人之一。(第2章——与恶魔打交道)

His full archive can be seen at

他的全部文章库可以在以下找到

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

他的联系方式是

2186604556@qq.com

 

注释 — Notes 

(1) Umberto Eco: “Eternal Fascism

(2) The 14 Characteristics of Fascism, by Lawrence Britt

(3) https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-end-of-canada-in-ten-steps-a-conversation-with-naomi-wolf/5438017

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

本文可能包含受版权保护的材料其使用未经版权所有者特别授权。此内容根据合理使用原则提供,仅用于教育和信息目的。此内容没有商业用途

 

本作者的其他作品Other works by this Author

王位背后的权力  

The Power Behind the Throne

们没有被告知的内 (美国战俘营 + 中情局 MK-ULTRA )

WHATWE ARE NOT TOLD (Prisoner of War Camps in America + CIA Project MK-ULTRA)

HASBARA— 犹太哈斯巴拉的荣耀

The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory

建立在谎言上的国家第一卷美国如何变得富有

Essays on China Volume One

关于中国的论文

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume Two

关于中国的论文 — 第三卷  

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume Three

生物战在行动  

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE IN ACTION

民主,最危险的宗教  

Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion

建立在谎言上的国家第一卷美国如何变得富有 NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — VOLUME 1 — How the US Became Rich

美国随笔

Essays on America

美国警察国家》第一卷免费电子书

Police State America Volume One

传与媒体  

PROPAGANDA and THE MEDIA  

     BOOKS IN ENGLISH

 

THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — VOLUME 2 — Life in a Failed State

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — VOLUME 3 — The Branding of America

False Flags and Conspiracy Theories

FILLING THE VOID 

Police State America Volume Two

BERNAYS AND PROPAGANDA

Kamila Valieva

 

 

 

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 警察国家美利坚 — 第11章恐吓媒体和颠覆媒体 — Chapter 11 — Intimidating the Media & Subverting the Press

0
 
  警察国家美利坚

第一章-警察国家的崛起 — CHAPTER 1-The Rise of the Police State

警察国家美利坚

第一章-警察国家的崛起 — CHAPTER 1-The Rise of the Police State

第二章联邦调查局 — Chapter 2 — The FBI

美国联邦调查局反情报程序 — CHAPTER 3 – COINTELPRO

第四章普遍公共监督 — Chapter 4 — Universal Public Surveillance

第五章其他监视 – Chapter 5 — Other Surveillance

第6章寻找无政府主义者,或者可能只是政治活动家 — Chapter 6 — Searching for Anarchists, or Maybe Just Political Activists

第七章赢得信息战 —  Chapter 7   — Winning the Information War

第八章任意和不负责任的执法 — Chapter 8 — Arbitrary and Unaccountable Law Enforcement

第9章警察的军事化 — Chapter 9 — The Militarisation of the Police

第十章占领华尔街 — Chapter 10 — Occupy Wall Street

第11章恐吓媒体和颠覆媒体 — Chapter 11 — Intimidating the Media & Subverting the Press

第12章捷径:民主走向法西斯主义 — Chapter 12 — The Short Road: Democracy to Fascism

第13章下一次美国革命?预期的内乱 — Chapter   13 — The Next American Revolution? Anticipated Civil Unrest

  警察国家美利

第11章恐吓媒体和颠覆媒体 — Chapter 11 –Intimidating the Media & Subverting the Press

作者:拉里·罗曼诺夫By Larry Romanoff 译者:珍珠

CHINESE    ENGLISH

 警察国家美国》第一卷免费电子书 

   

In all the world’s fascist states, increasing state criminality and civil rights violations are always accompanied by an extreme and even obsessive determination to control information and fact, as well as a surprising viciousness in pursuing those revealing embarrassing truths. This is precisely the situation today in the US and, contrary to all claims about a prevailing rule of law, American authorities increasingly trash civil rights on the fictitious grounds of defending national security.Instead of enacting legislation to curb abusive surveillance and the multitude of crimes and abuses by all levels of the state, they are obsessed with hunting down and punishing whistleblowers. It is abundantly clear the US has no intention of ceasing any of its illegal practices anywhere in the world, and the viciousness of its witch hunts is entirely to instill sufficient fear in American hearts that soon nobody will dare to report even the most egregious crimes or violations.

在世界所有法西斯国家,国家犯罪和侵犯公民权利行为的增加总是伴随着控制信息和事实极端甚至痴迷决心,以及在追求那些令尴尬的真相时令人惊讶恶毒。这正是当今美国的情况,与所有关于普遍法治的说法相反,美国当局越来越多地以捍卫国家安全为借口剥夺公民权利。他们没有制定立法来遏制滥用监控以及州各级的大量犯罪和虐待行为,而痴迷于追捕和惩罚举报人。很明显美国无意停止其在世界任何地方的任何非法行为,其恶毒的政治迫害完全是为了在美国心中灌输足够恐惧以至于很快没有人敢报告即使最恶劣的罪行或违法

 

At this early December 2010 summit in Kazakhstan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (center left) expressed her regrets to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (far left) for the leaked disclosures regarding US diplomats spying on the UN.

在2010年12月初于哈萨克斯坦举行的这次峰会上,美国国务卿Hillary Clinton(中左)Ban Ki-moon就美国外交官监视联合国的泄密事件向联合国秘书长(最左)表示遗憾。

 

When Wikileaks broke the news about Hillary Clinton’s astonishingly stupid directive ordering State Department staff to spy on UN officials and other foreign dignitaries, it was a foregone conclusion the woman wouldn’t rest until Julian Assange was dead or in prison for life.When Manning embarrassed the government with revelations of a widespread lust for killing, US officials acted with a Neanderthal vengeance simply to inflict as much lasting pain as possible. We can also expect that Edward Snowden’s life will be measurably shortened.

当维基解密爆料希拉里·克林顿令人震惊的愚蠢指令,命令国务院工作人员监视联合国官员和其他外国政要可以肯定女士在朱利安·阿桑奇去世或终身监禁之前不会休息。当曼宁揭露广泛杀戮欲望,政府感到尴尬时,美国官员采取尼安德特人的报复行动只是为了尽可能地造成持久痛苦。我们还可以预期,爱德华·斯诺登的生命将明显缩短

 

In 2021, we documented 142 assaults of journalists. For the second consecutive year, the majority of those assaults came during protests: 95 percent in 2020 and 77 percent in 2021. The year began with a protest that became a riot, as the US Capitol was stormed by a mob attempting to stop certification of election results. The Tracker documented at least 16 journalists assaulted in Washington, DC, while covering those events, many of whom were targeted. Source

2021 年,我们记录了 142 起袭击记者事件。连续第二年,大部分袭击事件发生在抗议活动期间: 2020 年为 95%,2021 年为 77%。今年年初,一群暴徒冲进美国国会大厦,试图阻止对选举结果的认证,抗议演变成了骚乱。追踪》记录了至少 16 名记者在华盛顿特区报道这些事件时遭到袭击,其中许多人都是袭击目标资料来源

 

The US media is not nearly so free as many people believe. Bernays’ mythology machine tells us the US is today and has always been the world leader in media openness, the fabled “freedom of the press”for which Americans believe they are so famous, but that has never been true. Reporters without Borders published a report stating that the US is very low and still falling on the list of press freedom, being about 50th out of 180 countries, below many dictatorships and axis of evil republics, and far below China and other civilised nations.In particular, the US is accused of employing an “overly broad and abusive” interpretation of the concept of national securityto restrict information. Ever since Lippman and Bernays got their hooks into the White House, there has been a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception, misusing the media as the main channel of misinformation. The falsehoods, fabricated news stories, biased and twisted reporting will never be exposed because the media are not only reading from the same script but are in a real sense part of the origination, due to their ownership. If the media’s own interest in promoting the agenda is not strong enough, US authorities have exerted tremendous pressure to report events in an appropriate manner. Reporters criticizing those in power may be smeared by the government and targeted for arrest. Indeed, the government treats real reporters as terrorists, and journalists are often targeted under counter-terrorism laws.

美国媒体并不像许多人认为那么自由。贝尔奈斯神话机器告诉我们美国今天是而且一直是媒体开放世界领导者,美国人认为他们以新闻自由闻名,但事实并非如此无国界记者组织发表报告称美国的新闻自由很低,仍在180国家中排名50,低于许多独裁政权和邪恶轴心国,远低于中国和其他文明国家。特别是,美国被指控国家安全概念采用过于宽泛和滥用的解释来限制信息。自从利普曼和伯奈斯进入白宫来,有一协调一致的策略来操纵全球认知,滥用媒体作为错信息的主要渠道谎言、捏造的新闻故事、有偏见和扭曲的报道永远不会被曝光,因为媒体不仅从同一个剧本中阅读,而且由于其所有权,在真正意义上是起源的一部分。如果媒体自身对推动议程的兴趣不够强烈,美国当局就施加了巨大的压力,要求以适当的方式报道事件。批评当权者的记者可能被政府抹黑并成为逮捕目标。事实上,政府将真正的记者视为恐怖分子,记者经常成为反恐法的目标

 

Migrants, journalists, and U.S. activists run from tear gas on Jan. 1, 2019, after U.S. authorities fired tear gas over the border wall in Tijuana, Mexico.Photo: Kitra Cahana. Source

2019年1月1日,在墨西哥蒂华纳,美国当局向边境墙发射催泪瓦斯后,移民、记者和美国活动人士在催泪瓦斯中奔跑: Kitra Cahana。资料来源

 

Not only has the government imprisoned media owners and reporters for criticisms, it also claims the power to indefinitely detain journalists without trial or access to an attorney. When prize-winning journalists Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and Daniel Ellsbergsued the government over the indefinite detention of Americans, the judge insistently asked the government attorneys five times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about official criminality. The government refused to promise that such journalists would not be imprisoned for life without any right to ever see a lawyer, a judge or a courtroom. How is this materially different from the oppression, civil repression and secrecy we find in totalitarian and fascist dictatorships?

政府不仅因批评监禁媒体所有者和记者还声称有权无限期拘留记者,而无需审判或聘请律师当获奖记者克里斯·赫奇斯(Chris Hedges诺姆·乔姆斯基Noam Chomsky娜奥米·沃尔夫(Naomi Wolf丹尼尔·埃尔斯伯格(DanielEllsberg就无限期拘留美国人一事起诉政府法官坚持问政府律师五次像赫奇斯这样的记者是否可以仅仅因为采访并撰写有关官方犯罪文章而被无限期拘留。政府拒绝承诺,这些记者不会被终身监禁没有任何权利见律师、法官或法庭这与我们在极权主义和法西斯独裁政权中发现的压迫、公民镇压和秘密有什么实质性的不同?

 

Secretive White House Surveillance Program Gives Cops Access to Trillions of US Phone Records. A WIRED analysis of leaked police documents verifies that a secretive government program is allowing federal, state, and local law enforcement to access phone records of Americans who are not suspected of a crime. Source

白宫秘密监控计划允许警察获取数以万亿计的美国电话记录。WIRED 对泄露的警方文件进行的分析证实,一项秘密的政府计划允许联邦、州和地方执法部门获取没有犯罪嫌疑的美国人的电话记录。资料来源

 

Leonard Downie, a former executive editor of The Washington Post, interviewed many reporters and editors and wrote in a 30-page analysis, “In Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. The Obama administration’s aggressive war on leaks and its determined efforts to control information that the news media needs to hold the government accountable for its actions are without an equal since the Nixon administration.”Since that time, many journalist sources have been prosecuted on felony charges for talking to reporters. Today,journalists and any of their sources who are even ‘suspected’ of discussing embarrassing information are investigated and forcibly subjected to lie-detector tests and scrutiny of their telephone and e-mail records.In late 2013 it was revealed that US Federal investigators had secretly and without notice seized the home, office and mobile phone records of more than 100 reporters and editors of the Associated Press.These records apparently contain detail of months of communication with confidential sources that the NYT claimed provided a road map to all the AP’s news gathering operations, activities and sources. This is part of an aggressive government policy to identify, intimidate and prosecute all those leaking information on the illegal activities of US government agencies. The Administration’s McCarthy witch hunts are taking a further distressing turn with the creation of the “Insider Threat Program”,a new internal surveillance program in every government agency whereby all co-workers spy on each other and report each other to the authorities.

华盛顿邮报前执行主编伦纳德·唐尼采访了许多记者和编辑并在一30页分析中写道:在华盛顿,政府官员越来越害怕媒体交谈。自尼克松政府以来奥巴马政府对泄密积极战争及其控制新闻媒体需要对其行为负责信息坚定努力无与伦比从那时起,许多记者消息来源因与记者交谈被指控重罪。如今,记者及其任何消息来源即使被怀疑讨论了令人尴尬信息,也会受到调查被迫接受测谎仪测试以及其电话和电子邮件记录的审查。2013据透露,美国联邦调查人员在没有通知的情况下秘密扣押美联社100多记者和编辑家庭、办公室和手机记录。这些记录显然包含与机密消息来源数月沟通的详细信息纽约时报声称这些信息为所有美联社新闻采集行动、活动和消息来源提供路线图。这是政府积极政策的一部分,旨在识别、恐吓和起诉所有泄露美国政府机构非法活动信息的人。随着内部威胁计划的创建麦卡锡政府的政治迫害正在发生进一步令人痛苦转变这是每个政府机构的一新的内部监控计划,所有同事都会互相监视并向当局报告。

 

Perhaps the single greatest scam ever devised is the way the US-centralized empire found that it can kill and displace people in geostrategically crucial and resource-rich regions under the guise of fighting terrorism, then when violence and extremism inevitably arises out of that mass-scale trauma they can use it to justify even more interventionism under the guise of fighting terrorism. We are ruled by monsters. Source

也许有史以来最大的骗局就是美国集权帝国发现,它可以打着打击恐怖主义的幌子,在地缘战略上至关重要且资源丰富的地区杀人越货,然后当暴力和极端主义不可避免地从这种大规模的创伤中产生时,他们就可以以此为借口,打着打击恐怖主义的幌子,实施更多的干涉主义。我们被怪物统治着。资料来源

 

Anything that might challenge the legality, wisdom or cause for the US so-called “war on terror” is treated brutally, with civil liberties not only being threatened but removed, and with some individuals losing their lives. Pulitzer Prize winning correspondent James Risen said, “The more direct part is to frighten people in the government from talking, to have a chilling effect on whistle blowers, to make them understand there is a big brother that will get them if they step out of line”.These widespread attempts to instill fear, appear to be having the desired effect. Jeff Cohen, a New York journalism professor said there have been many incidents in the US where journalists were arrested, harassed, and detained for political reasons. “What shocked me when I worked at cable television news, at MSNBC and elsewhere, is how timid journalists were in this country”. “In a survey performed by the Pew Research Center and the Columbia Journalism Review, it was documented that in the US there exists “a tremendous self-censorship by journalists”, with almost half of journalists and broadcasters claiming they have purposely avoided newsworthy stories or changed the tone, to serve the economic or political interests of other parties. These might be advertisers, politicians, or some of the more powerful lobby groups.”

任何可能挑战美国所谓的反恐战争的合法性、智慧或事业的事情都会受到残酷对待,公民自由不仅受到威胁,而且被剥夺,一些人甚至失去了生命。普利策奖获奖记者詹姆斯·里森说:更直接部分是恐吓政府中的人不要说话,对举报人产生寒蝉效应,让他们明白如果他们越界有一个大哥会抓住他们。这些广泛的灌输恐惧的尝试似乎正在产生预期的效果。纽约新闻学教授杰夫·科恩表示,美国发生了许多记者因政治原因被捕、骚扰和拘留事件。当我在有线电视新闻、MSNBC和其他地方工作时,让我震惊的是,这个国家的记者是多么胆小。皮尤研究中心和《哥伦比亚新闻评论进行的一调查显示,美国存在记者巨大自我审查,近一半的记者和广播司声称他们故意回避有新闻价值的故事或改变基调,以服务其他政党的经济或政治利益这些政党可能是广告商、政客或一些更强大游说团体

   

The Russian Embassy in the United States sent a note of protest to the State Department after police officers sprayed RIA Novosti correspondent Mikhail Turgiev with tear gas in the face in Minneapolis. Source

在明尼阿波利斯警察向俄新社记者米哈伊尔-图尔吉耶夫面部喷射催泪瓦斯后,俄罗斯驻美国大使馆向国务院递交了抗议照会。资料来源

 

Journalists and reporters in all parts of the US today are regularly threatened, roughed-up, beaten and injured, and often arrested and imprisoned by Federal agencies and local police, yet the mainstream US news media are both so indoctrinated and intimidated by US authorities that they almost never report these occurrences, preferring instead to sanctimoniously criticise journalistic disputes in other nations. The media in major cities like Washington, New York and Los Angeles complain that local police and federal authorities are consistently and increasingly hostile to reporters writing on government malfeasance or covering public instances of police brutality during protests and other such events. During the Occupy Wall Street protests, many dozens of media personnel were attacked by police, pepper-sprayed in their eyes, beaten with police batons, forcibly evicted from protest areas, and generally treated very aggressively. The police forces have become increasingly militaristic and belligerent with media personnel documenting that aggression against the public. In response to the publicity given their past brutalities, the police increasingly go to great lengths to identify journalists, demanding all reporters identify themselves and then physically transporting them far from the scene so they will be unable to see and report on police brutalities. In an article in the Huffington Post, police were quoted as claiming the rules were “to protect journalists from being harmed during the operation”.

如今美国各地的记者和记者经常受到威胁、殴打、受伤,并经常被联邦机构和地方警察逮捕和监禁,但美国主流新闻媒体都受到美国当局灌输和恐吓几乎从不报道这些事件而是更愿意伪善地批评其他国家新闻纠纷。华盛顿、纽约和洛杉矶等主要城市的媒体抱怨称当地警方和联邦当局对报道政府渎职行为或报道抗议活动和其他此类事件中警察暴行的记者一贯且越来越敌视。在占领华尔街抗议活动中,数十名媒体人员遭到警察袭击,眼睛喷胡椒,被警棍殴打,强行驱逐出抗议区,并普遍受到非常严厉对待。警察部队变得越来越军国主义和好战,媒体人员记录了对公众的侵略。为了回应公众对他们过去暴行的关注,警方越来越不遗余力地识别记者,要求所有记者表明身份,然后将他们运送到远离现场的地方,这样他们就无法看到和报道警察的暴行。《赫芬顿邮报的一文章援引警方话说,这些规定是为了保护记者在行动中免受伤害

 

Barrett Brown. Source

 

Barrett Brown, a well-known and well-published US investigative journalist is facing 105 years in prison for revealing US government secrets. Actually, he didn’t “reveal” anything. What he did do was post an article on the internet that contained a link to information the US government considered not “top secret” but simply “sensitive”. His sole “crime” was to post that link to information that was widely available on the Internet and that the public could have seen on many dozens of websites. Brown is now officially “an enemy of the state”, has been charged with a 17-count indictment, and Federal prosecutors applied for a gag order preventing Brown, his lawyers and anyone else from commenting on the case or even admitting it exists. What better way to silence a “dissident” than to put him in prison for more than 100 years? It is frightening to think that a government can arbitrarily and without prior notice proclaim virtually anything as ‘politically sensitive’, including but not limited to criticism of the government, regardless of how widely-available that information might be, and have the simple posting of a link result in life imprisonment. This vicious and widespread abuse, coordinated with government agencies, law enforcement and the courts, is the major weapon used by the US government to silence political activism, now standard procedure by US prosecutors to intimidate and silence those who criticise questionable or illegal activities by US government agencies. As always, the US media are totally silent, preferring to deflect public attention in the US writing by outrageous articles on a CIA-sponsored seditious anarchist being detained in some other nation. One thing the US desperately needs, but does not have, is a ‘free press’.

Barrett Brown是知名且出版良好美国调查记者因泄露美国政府机密面临105年监禁事实上,他没有透露任何东西。他所做的就是在互联网上发布一篇文章,其中包含一个链接,链接到美国政府认为不是绝密而是敏感的信息。他唯一的罪行是发布了互联网上广泛可用的信息链接,公众可以在几十个网站上看到这些信息。布朗现在正式成为国家的敌人,被指控犯有17罪名,联邦检察官申请禁言令阻止布朗、他的律师和其他任何人对此案发表评论甚至承认其存在。还有什么比把一个持不同政见者关进监狱100多年更好的方法来他闭嘴令人恐惧的是,一个政府可以在没有事先通知的情况下任意宣布几乎任何政治敏感的事情,包括但不限于对政府的批评,无论这些信息有多广泛,并且仅仅发布一个链接就会导致终身监禁。这种与政府机构、执法部门和法院协调的恶性和广泛的滥用行为是美国政府用来压制政治激进主义的主要武器,现在是美国检察官恐吓和压制那些批评美国政府机构可疑或非法活动的人的标准程序。与往常一样,美国媒体完全保持沉默,更愿意通过发表关于中央情报局支持的煽动性无政府主义者在其他国家被拘留的离谱文章来转移美国公众的注意力。美国迫切需要但没有的一件事是新闻自由。

 

 

 

A group of well-known American journalists jointly published a book in 2002 that contained examples from their personal experiences that effectively destroyed the American myth of a free press. The book was titled ‘Into the Buzzsaw, and contains documented evidence of government intimidation, media suppression and control of news. Some of the stories involved massacres by US troops in North Korea, proof that the US abandoned many POWs in Vietnam, documented evidence of CIA direct involvement in trafficking cocaine and heroin, and the fraudulent ‘news’ that emanates from most US media newsrooms. Several wrote of government intimidation, loss of employment and their blacklisting, experienced when they either refused to back off on stories that almost certainly involved serious government crimes resulting in many deaths, or when they refused to falsify reports on the results of their investigations. Many were offered ‘consulting contracts’ of hundreds of thousands of dollars to cease their investigations, but refused and were terminated. Because these journalists challenged the US government and military on stories like the crash of TWA Flight 800, or threatened to expose discoveries about Monsanto and its GM seed or growth hormones in milk, they were not only harassed and threatened, but lost their jobs and careers.They are now what is termed “radioactive”, in that no media outlet will hire them and almost no publishers will accept their books or articles; they have been totally excommunicated from the journalistic world for daring to challenge and expose those with power. The book has won nearly every journalism award that exists but its authors are nevertheless subjected to character assassination and denigrated in the mainstream media as incompetent or crazy.The book provides a rare insight into both the power and the willingness of the US government and its secret handlers to suppress truth, control public information and cover up vast crimes. Mostly, they just did their job of investigative reporting a bit too well, and paid a heavy price for their integrity.

2002年,一群著名的美国记者联合出版了一本书,其中包含了他们个人经历中的例子,这些例子有效地摧毁了美国新闻自由的神话。这标题是《走进Buzzsaw其中包含政府恐吓、媒体压制和新闻控制的文件证据。其中一些故事涉及美军在朝鲜大屠杀,证明美国越南遗弃许多战俘,记录情报局直接参与贩运可卡因和海洛因的证据,以及来自大多数美国媒体新闻编辑室的欺诈性新闻。一些人写下了政府恐吓、失业和被列入黑名单的经历,他们要么拒绝放弃几乎肯定涉及导致许多人死亡的严重政府犯罪的报道,要么拒绝伪造调查结果的报告。许多人获得了数十万美元的咨询合同,以停止调查,但遭到拒绝并被终止。因为这些记者在环球航空800航班坠毁等事件上挑战美国政府和军方,或者威胁要揭露孟山及其转基因种子或牛奶中生长激素发现,他们不仅受到骚扰和威胁,还失去工作和职业。他们现在被称为放射性,因为没有媒体会雇佣他们,几乎没有出版商会接受他们的书籍或文章;他们因敢于挑战和揭露当权者而被完全逐出新闻界。书几乎赢得所有现有的新闻奖项但它的作者仍然受到性格暗杀并在主流媒体上被诋毁为无能或疯狂。书罕见揭示美国政府及其秘密处理者压制真相、控制公共信息和掩盖重大犯罪的权力和意愿。大多数情况下,他们只是调查性报道的工作做太好并为他们的诚信付出沉重代价。

 

More people have been prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act during the Obama-era than previous presidents combined. Photograph: Olivier Douliery/Olivier Douliery/Corbis. Source

在奥巴马时代,根据1917年《反间谍法》被起诉的人数超过了历届总统的总和。摄影:奥利维耶·杜利里/奥利维耶·杜利/科尔比斯

 

Obama campaigned on a promise of open and transparent government, but all credible sources condemn him for creating precisely the opposite, squeezing the media and civil service to severely restrict any leaks.And these are not leaks of damaging top-secret information, but revelations of serious crimes. Far from being open and transparent, the White House rushes to seize journalists’ records and files, with prosecution threats emerging seemingly everywhere. Yet the US still foolishly flaunts its “free press” mythology around the world while destroying that freedom at home and grossly interfering with that same freedom in other countries. David Sanger, the former chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times, described the Obama administration as “the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered”. A New York Times reporter described the Obama administration as “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation“, and the New York Times’s editor, Jill Abramson, called the Obama White House the “most secretive… that I have ever been involved in covering.”

奥巴马竞选时承诺政府开放透明,但所有可靠消息来源谴责他制造恰恰相反的局面,挤压媒体和公务员队伍,严格限制任何泄密。这些不是破坏性的绝密信息泄露,而是严重犯罪的揭露。白宫非但没有公开透明,反而急于扣押记者的记录和文件,起诉威胁似乎无处不在。然而,美国仍然愚蠢地在世界各地炫耀其新闻自由神话,同时在国内摧毁这种自由,并严重干涉其他国家的这种自由。纽约时报前首席华盛顿记者大卫·桑格奥巴马政府描述为我所报道过最封闭、控制欲最强政府纽约时报》的记者奥巴马政府描述为我们至少一代以来遇到的新闻自由的最大敌人纽约时报编辑吉尔·艾布拉姆森称奥巴马白宫我参与过的报道中最隐秘…”

   

And in yet another ‘black is white’ narrative, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said the administration is committed to “unprecedented openness“, with the government “more transparent and more accessible than ever”. And Arch Puddington, the director of psychiatry for the mental institution known as Freedom House, said The United States has the freest environment for the press in the world. Freedom of the press is the pillar of American democracy, thecornerstone of a free society.” How do we respond to lies that big?

白宫发言人埃里克·舒尔茨(Eric Schultz在另一个叙事中表示,政府致力于前所未有开放,政府比以往任何时候都更透明、更容易接近自由精神病院的精神病学主任阿奇·普丁顿说:美国拥有世界上自由新闻环境。新闻自由是美国民主的支柱自由社会的基石我们如何应对如此大谎言?

 

The Americans make huge waves in the media when China refuses to renew press visas for so-called journalists in China who are usually on the CIA or State Department payroll, but the US media are invariably silent when the US government cancels visas and deports foreign journalists from the US, an event which occurs more often than you might imagine. Al-Jazeera was one of the victims of this frequent ‘journalistic cleansing’, its reporters having made the mistake of telling truths the US didn’t want told. Al-Jazeera journalists were praised as “excellent reporters” and made very welcome in America when they criticised China, but when they produced negative reports about the US, their credentials were immediately revoked, their visas cancelled, and the individuals deported. The US media, of course, were silent on these events. It’s worth noting that China’s trouble with al-Jazeera began only after the US bought control of it and began using it as a political tool inside China.

当中国拒绝为通常在中央情报局或国务院工作的所谓中国记者续签新闻签证时,美国人在媒体上掀起巨大波澜,美国政府取消签证并外国记者驱逐出美国美国媒体总是保持沉默,这种情况比你想象的要频繁多。半岛电视台是这种频繁新闻清洗的受害者之一,其记者犯了说出美国不想告诉真相的错误。半岛电视台记者被誉为优秀的记者当他们批评中国时在美国非常受欢迎,但当他们对美国进行负面报道,他们的证件立即被吊销,签证被取消,个人驱逐出境当然,美国媒体对这些事件保持沉默。值得注意的是,中国与半岛电视台的麻烦是在美国买下其控制权并开始将其用作中国境内的政治工具之后才开始的。

Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen in the Collateral Murder video. Photograph: WikiLeaks. Source

Saeed Chmagh 和 Namir Noor-Eldeen 在 “附带谋杀 ”视频中。照片: 维基解密。资料来源

 

Numerous documented reports emerged from Iraq that the US military engaged in the unhesitating extermination of reporters attempting to broadcast the truth of the US invasion. In one case that received little media attention in the West, the military blew out most of a floor in a hotel in downtown Baghdad where reporters were staying. The military’s version was that the event was an accident caused by “bad intelligence”, a claim that was clearly a lie since the use of that hotel as a media residence had been well-known for many months. A large us battle tank navigated its way into downtown Baghdad, sought out a particular hotel, positioned itself with a particular orientation, then targeted and totally blew out one particular floor of that hotel – the floor where most of the journalists were located. Hardly an accident, and only one of many. A number of independent reports confirmed that the US had killed several hundred journalists in Iraq, in circumstances where only a very few might have qualified as non-deliberate.

伊拉克出现了许多有记录的报道,称美国军方毫不犹豫地消灭了试图报道美国入侵真相的记者。在一个西方媒体很少关注的案例中,军方炸毁了巴格达市中心一家记者下榻的酒店的大部分楼层。军方的说法是,该事件是由不良情报造成的事故,这一说法显然是谎言,因为将该酒店用作媒体住所已经众所周知好几个月了。一辆大型美国作战坦克驶入巴格达市中心,找到一家特定的酒店,按照特定的方向定位,然后瞄准并彻底炸毁了该酒店的一层——大多数记者所在的楼层。几乎不是意外,只是众多事故中的一个。一些独立报道证实,美国在伊拉克杀害了数百名记者,而只有极少数人可能符合非故意的条件。

 

Obama’s legacy ‘is one of near-total failure’, according to Harvard professor Stephen Walt. Source

哈佛大学教授Stephen Walt表示,奥巴马的遗产几乎完全失败了

 

During the height of the war, al-Jazeera in Qatar was one of the most vocal regional media decrying American brutalities and lies about Afghanistan and Iraq, so much so that the US government eventually eliminated the threat by forcing the Emir of Qatar to sell a controlling interest in al-Jazeera to the CIA and silencing forever its dissenting voice. It has since been documented that George Bushhad made plans to launch a large air assault on Al Jazeera’s head office in Qatar with the intent to bomb it to rubble, destroying the building and killing the people.Prior to that, the US had bombed and put missiles into Al-Jazeera’s bureau in Baghdad, destroying the building, killing the staff, and warning other reporters of the dangers of telling the truth.The US claimed it was yet another “mistake”, but Qatar had supplied the US with precise map coordinates of its office precisely to prevent such an accident. There are documented reports that the US military has deliberately killed reporters in almost every nation where it has launched its ‘wars of liberation’or where it was ‘protecting American interests’.

在战争最激烈的时候,卡塔尔的半岛电视台是谴责美国对阿富汗和伊拉克暴行和谎言最直言地区媒体之一以至于美国政府最终通过迫使卡塔尔埃米尔将半岛电视台的控股权出售给中央情报局并永远压制其反对声音消除威胁此后有记录显示乔治·布什计划对卡塔尔半岛电视台总部发动大规模空袭意图其炸成瓦砾,摧毁大楼并杀害人民。在此之前,美国轰炸并向半岛电视台驻巴格达分社投掷导弹,摧毁大楼,杀害工作人员,并警告其他记者说实话的危险。美国声称这是另一个错误,但卡塔尔美国提供其办公室的精确地图坐标以防止发生此类事故。有记录在案的报道称美国军方在几乎所有发动解放战争保护美国利益国家故意杀害记者

 
*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 —Dealing with Demons).

罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成32种语言,他的文章在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站以及100多个英语平台上发布。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位,并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾是上海复旦大学的客座教授,为高级EMBA课程提供国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生现居上海,目前正在撰写十本与中国和西方有关的书。他是辛西娅·麦金尼的新文集《当中国打喷嚏》的撰稿人之一。(第2章——与恶魔打交道)

His full archive can be seen at

他的全部文章库可以在以下找到

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

他的联系方式是

2186604556@qq.com 

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

本文可能包含受版权保护的材料其使用未经版权所有者特别授权。此内容根据合理使用原则提供,仅用于教育和信息目的。此内容没有商业用途

 

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2024

 

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 警察国家美利坚 — 第十章占领华尔街 — Chapter 10 — Occupy Wall Street

0
 
  警察国家美利坚

第一章-警察国家的崛起 — CHAPTER 1-The Rise of the Police State

第二章联邦调查局 — Chapter 2 — The FBI

美国联邦调查局反情报程序 — CHAPTER 3 – COINTELPRO

第四章普遍公共监督 — Chapter 4 — Universal Public Surveillance

第五章其他监视 – Chapter 5 — Other Surveillance

第6章寻找无政府主义者,或者可能只是政治活动家 — Chapter 6 — Searching for Anarchists, or Maybe Just Political Activists

第七章赢得信息战 —  Chapter 7   — Winning the Information War

第八章任意和不负责任的执法 — Chapter 8 — Arbitrary and Unaccountable Law Enforcement

第9章警察的军事化 — Chapter 9 — The Militarisation of the Police

第十章占领华尔街 — Chapter 10 — Occupy Wall Street

第11章恐吓媒体和颠覆媒体 — Chapter 11 — Intimidating the Media & Subverting the Press

第12章捷径:民主走向法西斯主义 — Chapter 12 — The Short Road: Democracy to Fascism

第13章下一次美国革命?预期的内乱 — Chapter   13 — The Next American Revolution? Anticipated Civil Unrest

  警察国家美利

第十章占领华尔街 Chapter 10 — Occupy Wall Street

作者:拉里·罗曼诺夫 — By Larry Romanoff 译者:珍珠

Occupy Wall Street protestors march down Fifth Avenue towards Union Square during a May Day rally in New York City. Photograph: Monika Graff/Getty Images

在纽约市五一集会期间,占领华尔街抗议者沿着第五大道向联合广场游行。照片:莫妮卡·格拉夫/盖蒂图片社

CHINESE    ENGLISH

 警察国家美国》第一卷免费电子书 

   

Most people know about the massive “Occupy Wall Street” protests that occurred in the US during 2011 and 2012. Briefly,these were spontaneous protests that began in the US and spread to other Western countries, involving hundreds of thousands of people in the US and attracting tens of thousands in cities in other nations.These protests arose not so much because of the US banker-caused financial crisis, but when it became clear the US government planned no action either to punish those responsible or to initiate reforms to prevent such disasters from recurring, but instead to protect and reward the perpetrators.The main issues raised by this civil society movement were social and economic inequality in America, the institutionalised greed and corruption of US multinational business,and the enormous influence of corporations on the US government, especially from the large banks and financial companies.

大多数人都知道2011年和2012年在美国发生的大规模占领华尔街抗议活动。简而言之,这些是自发的抗议活动,始于美国并蔓延到其他西方国家,涉及美国数十万人吸引其他国家城市的数万。这些抗议活动的发生因为美国银行家引发的金融危机,而是因为明显美国政府没有计划采取任何行动来惩罚责任人或启动改革以防止此类灾难再次发生,而是为了保护和奖励肇事者。公民社会运动提出的主要问题是国的社会和经济不平等美国跨国企业的制度化贪婪和腐败,以及公司对美国政府的巨大影响,尤其来自大型银行和金融公司的影响

 

 

In 2012, American police harshly, and often brutally, dispersed protesters of the Occupy Wall Street movement that had been proceeding for nearly two months, the extremely harsh actions of law enforcement agents causing first outrage on the Internet, and then in the streets. The campaign spread across other cities in the US, then to dozens of other nations, culminating in bloody riots and widespread fires in the UK. Despite the fact that the protesters were supported by almost half of the US population, the authorities had no dialogue with them, preferring the language of batons and clubs, water cannons and tear gas. Newly-released documents show that the violent crackdown on the Occupy movement was coordinated not only by the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and local police, but was coordinated with the big banks themselves. The evidence reveals a terrifying network of coordinated activity by US government agencies “working for and with the big banks”to silence and politically disable the protestors. It is now apparent that plans had been made months in advance by the banks, the FED, state and local police departments, and FBI officials to share information and crush all public opposition to the banks that had engineered one of the greatest social disasters in US history.

2012年,美国警方严厉、经常是残酷驱散持续了近两月的占领华尔街运动抗议者,执法人员的极端严厉行动首先在互联网上引起愤怒,然后在街头引起愤怒。运动蔓延到美国的其他城市,然后蔓延到其他几十个国家,最终在英国爆发血腥骚乱和大火。尽管抗议者得到近一半美国人口的支持,当局没有与他们对话,喜欢使用警棍和棍棒高压水枪和催泪瓦斯语言。最新公布的文件显示,占领运动暴力镇压不仅由联邦调查局、国土安全部和当地警方协调,还与大银行本身协调。证据显示美国政府机构为大银行工作并与之合作通过协调活动形成了一个可怕的网络使抗议者沉默并政治失去能力现在很明显,银行、美联储、州和地方警察局以及联邦调查局官员提前几个月制定了计划,以共享信息,粉碎所有公众对银行的反对,这些银行策划了美国历史上最大的社会灾难之一。

 

ACLU: FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that FBI agents surveilled Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protestors, questioned activists about an OWS organizer, and in one internal memorandum listed the peaceful protest movement as domestic terrorists. Government agencies such as DHS, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Domestic Security Alliance Council, the Federal Reserve are all included in FBI correspondences concerning OWS. Source

美国公民自由联盟 根据《信息自由法》公布的联邦调查局文件显示,联邦调查局特工对占领华尔街(OWS)的抗议者进行了监视,对一名占领华尔街的组织者进行了询问,并在一份内部备忘录中将和平抗议运动列为国内恐怖分子。国土安全部、联合反恐特遣部队、海军刑事调查局、国内安全联盟理事会、美联储等政府机构都被列入联邦调查局有关 OWS 的通信中。资料来源

 

In a truly frightening event, the FBI broadcast a letter to various law enforcement agencies, titled: “International Terrorism Matters”,to inform these agencies that the Occupy Wall Street movement “has been determined to be an organisation which is opposed to the US war with Iraq”, i.e., they were now officially classified as “low-level terrorists”, and that this information could be used to justify “any action deemed appropriate”. And you know what that means.

在一个真正可怕事件,联邦调查局向各执法机构广播题为国际恐怖主义问题信,通知这些机构占领华尔街运动已被确定为一个反对美国与伊拉克战争组织即他们现在正式归类低级恐怖分子这些信息可用于为任何认为适当行动辩护。你知道这意味着什么。

 

I have discussed elsewhere the many US financial crises. Our focus here is not the 2008 crisis nor the protests against those responsible, but rather the response of the US government – which was not focused on either those who caused the social and economic collapse or on remedial regulation and legislation,but entirely on containing protests by the public who had been financially devastated.While the American public waited patiently for several years for their government to take some leadership action, the government itself wasted no time in taking action against its own public who were the victims of the collapse. In the background, recently-released government documents revealed that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had not only been monitoring these civil movementsbut had classified them as domestic terrorist organisations and targeted them for severe treatment.The FBI launched a massive espionage campaign meant to infiltrate and disrupt these movements. The latest photo identification technology was applied, searching all government database records including medical, military and even driving licenses in attempts to identify the leaders and specifically target them for intimidation and violence. Not only that, these agencies shared their collective information with the very bankers and other corporations against which the public was protesting.

我在其他地方讨论过美国的许多金融危机。我们这里关注不是2008年危机也不针对责任人抗议活动而是美国政府的回应——美国政府既没有关注那些造成社会和经济崩溃没有关注补救性的监管和立法,而是完全关于遏制经济遭受重创的公众抗议活动当美国公众耐心地等待政府采取一些领导行动几年时,政府本身也没有浪费时间对自己的公众采取行动,他们是崩溃的受害者。在此背景下,最近公布的政府文件显示,联邦调查局和国土安全部(DHS)不仅一直监视这些民间运动还将其归类为国内恐怖组织并针对他们进行严厉治疗。联邦调查局发起了一场大规模的间谍活动,旨在渗透和破坏这些活动。应用了最新的照片识别技术,搜索所有政府数据库记录包括医疗、军事甚至驾驶执照试图识别领导人并专门针对他们进行恐吓和暴力。不仅如此,这些机构与公众抗议银行家和其他公司分享他们的集体信息。

 

Source/来源

 

It is now apparent that a great amount of collusion existed between the government, the Wall Street Bankers and the FED, various police and enforcement agencies, the media, and many local governments as well, producing coordinated attempts to intimidate, silence and suppress public disaffection and protests against the US government and its “friends”.The FBI and DHS arranged conferences with the mayors of large US cities, where suppression of public discontent was discussed, the consensus being that these widespread public protests could “not be allowed to gain any credibility”.After these organised meetings, the US government began orchestrated and systematic waves of attacks on the protesters, many of them involving substantial violence. These concerted actions by the FBI and related agencies fell firmly under the definition of “domestic terrorism”. In other words, the government had classified a peaceful civil society movement as terrorism and then itself moved to apply genuine terrorism against these people, using physical force and violence against a civilian population for purposes that were purely political. Many foreign media commented on the fact that the US mainstream media failed to cover this massive movement adequately, in many cases ignoring the protests altogether even though they continued for over a year. Many single protest events that involved as many as 100,000 individuals passed virtually unnoticed due to a media conspiracy of silence.

现在很明显,政府、华尔街银行家和美联储、各种警察和执法机构、媒体以及许多地方政府之间存在大量勾结他们协同努力恐吓、压制和镇压公众对美国政府及其朋友不满和抗议。联邦调查局和国土安全部安排与美国大城市市长的会议,讨论压制公众不满的问题,共识是这些广泛公众抗议活动不能被允许获得任何信誉在这些组织会议之后,美国政府开始对抗议者进行精心策划和系统的袭击,其中许多袭击涉及实质性暴力。联邦调查局和相关机构的这些协同行动完全符合国内恐怖主义的定义换言之,政府将和平的民间社会运动归类为恐怖主义然后自己开始对这些人实施真正恐怖主义,出于纯粹政治目的对平民使用武力和暴力。许多外国媒体评论说,美国主流媒体未能充分报道这场大规模运动,在许多情况下,即使抗议活动持续了一年多,也完全忽视了抗议活动。由于媒体的沉默阴谋许多涉及多达10万人单一抗议活动几乎没有注意

 

But President Obama comments serve only to highlight that US politicians, including the President, have almost totally lost control of the government of the nation, and that it is the major private interests – the banks, the owners of the FED, the large corporations, and the CIA/military that control the country.

但他的言论只突显出,包括总统在内的美国政客几乎完全失去了对国家政府的控制,而控制国家是主要的私人利益集团——银行、美联储的所有者、大公司和中央情报局/军方

 

Even President Obama noted that, in the wake of the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression, with huge social and financial damage throughout the country, the same people who acted irresponsibly in causing the crisis were now acting irresponsibly in preventing protest against those same abusive practices. But his comments serve only to highlight that US politicians, including the President, have almost totally lost control of the government of the nation, and that it is the major private interests – the banks, the owners of the FED, the large corporations, and the CIA/military that control the country. In any case, the powers in control did indeed launch a major military-style offensive against these civil society groups in a manner that would do credit to an axis of evil dictatorship. In addition to the espionage, the intimidation, and the widespread use of force, US government agencies arrested more than 10,000 individuals who were considered leaders, and initiated widespread violent assaults on many tens of thousands more.Most of this was quietly ignored by the US media.

就连奥巴马总统指出,在大萧条以来最大的金融危机之后,全国各地遭受巨大社会和金融损失,导致危机那些不负责任人现在也在不负责任阻止对这些虐待行为抗议。但他的言论只突显出,包括总统在内的美国政客几乎完全失去了对国家政府的控制,而控制国家是主要的私人利益集团——银行、美联储的所有者、大公司和中央情报局/军方。无论如何,掌权者确实对这些民间社会团体发动了大规模的军事式进攻,这将归功于邪恶独裁轴心。除了间谍活动、恐吓和广泛使用武力,美国政府机构逮捕10000多被视为领导人的人,并对数万发动广泛暴力袭击。其中大部分被美国媒体悄悄忽视。

 

So much for fabled democracy and freedom of assembly. Leading media outlets of the country tried to ignore the campaign for a long time, preferring to talk about the “march of democracy” in Libya and Syria, or the “bad policy” of Russia, China or Venezuela in dealing with political unrest.According to Americans, protests in other countries are cries for freedom and good government, but these same protests in the US are caused by criminals and terrorists fully deserving of police abuse.In the meantime, of course, the US spends huge amounts of money and effort to sponsor these dissidents in other countries, solely for the pleasure of being able to point an accusing finger at the ‘unfair’ treatment they receive at home.

传说中的民主和集会自由到此为止。该国主要媒体长期以来试图忽视这运动愿意谈论利比亚和叙利亚的民主进程,或者俄罗斯、中国或委内瑞拉在应对政治动荡方面坏政策据美国人,其他国家的抗议活动是对自由和善政呼声,但美国的这些抗议活动是由完全应该受到警察虐待的罪犯和恐怖分子引起当然,与此同时,美国花费大量资金和精力支持其他国家的持不同政见者仅仅为了能够指责他们在国内受到不公平待遇。

 

         

Medical attention: Cecily McMillan collapsed at the Occupy protest on March 17 in Zuccotti Park after reportedly being dragged by police.

医疗护理:据报道,3月17日,Cecily McMillan在祖科蒂公园的占领抗议活动中被警方拖拽后昏倒。

 

Cecily McMillan, a 25-year-old student was attending an Occupy Wall Street demonstration in Manhattan when she was seized by police, beaten so ferociously that she was black and blue on her ribs and arms and went into a seizure.Media photographs show a policeman grabbing her breast from behind, and McMillan instinctively throwing up an elbow to protect herself, catching a policeman under the eye. After being beaten, she was arrested and is now slated to serve a seven-year prison term for “assaulting a police officer”. She was only one of more than 700 protestors brutally treated and arrested in what was described in the media as “an orgy of police misconduct”. Professors from two New York law schools produced a scrupulously detailed report of the police routinely using excessive force to crush the protest movement, and New York was by no means the only city where this occurred. Los Angeles was far worse, but the media and all outsiders were prohibited from viewing the police violence, and no charges have ever been laid against the officers. In one case, the Oakland Policeintentionallyshot US Marine veteran Scott Olsenin the head during a protest.

25岁学生Cecily McMillan在曼哈顿参加占领华尔街示威活动时被警方抓获,遭到毒打肋骨和手臂上青一块一块,随后癫痫发作。媒体照片显示,一名警察从后面抓住她的乳房,麦克米兰本能地伸出一只手肘保护自己,从眼睛下面抓住了一名警察。在遭到殴打后,她被捕,现在因袭击警察被判处七年监禁。她只是700多抗议者中的一员,他们在媒体上被描述为警察不当行为的狂欢中遭到残酷对待和逮捕来自纽约两所法学院的教授们制作了一份详尽的报告,报告称警方经常过度使用武力镇压抗议运动,而纽约绝不是唯一发生这种情况的城市。洛杉矶的情况要糟糕,但媒体和所有外人被禁止观看警察暴力行为,也没有对警察提出任何指控。在一抗议活动奥克兰警方故意美国海军陆战队老兵斯科特·奥尔森头部开枪

 

Photojournalist Kristyna Wentz-Graff, her Journal Sentinel ID badge clearly visible, is handcuffed Wednesday while covering a protest. Credit: Lita Medinger. Source

摄影记者克里斯蒂娜-温茨-格拉夫(Kristyna Wentz-Graff)周三在报道一起抗议活动时被戴上了手铐,她的《期刊哨兵报》身份徽章清晰可见。图片来源:Lita Medinger。资料来源

 

Almost all reporters covering the protests were immediately arrested and thrown into prison, to prevent public knowledge of the police violence. Anyone with a camera or mobile phone, especially those attempting to photograph the many instances of police brutality, was arrested or threatened with arrest and the device seized and destroyed. Reporters were often arrested on falsified charges that would later have to be dismissed for lack of evidence, but the arrests served to intimidate the media into silence. Many reporters, and those with cameras, were physically attacked by the police, thrown to the ground, pepper-sprayed, beaten and kicked, and then arrested on trumped-up charges of “civil disobedience, disorderly conduct, criminal trespassing, unlawful assembly, and even public drunkenness”.Any journalists covering the police brutality toward the protesters were specifically identified and targeted by the police. Many demonstrators attempted to use video recording of the many instances of police violence and brutality as a way to document and to deter this behavior, but the position of the US government and its law-enforcement agencies was that“the public use of cameras to document police brutality is an illegal act”.

几乎所有报道抗议活动的记者都立即被捕并被投入监狱,以防止公众了解警察的暴力行为。任何携带相机或手机的人,尤其是那些试图拍摄警察暴行的人,都会被逮捕或受到逮捕威胁,设备也会被没收并销毁。记者经常因伪造指控捕,这些指控后来因缺乏证据被驳回,但这些逮捕为了恐吓媒体保持沉默许多记者和那些带着相机的人遭到警察身体攻击,扔到地上,胡椒喷雾、殴打和踢打,然后以公民不服从、行为不检、非法侵入、非法集会,甚至公共场合醉酒的莫须有指控捕。任何报道警察对抗议者施暴记者被警方明确指出并为目标。许多示威者试图用警察暴力和暴行的视频记录来记录和阻止这种行为,但美国政府及其执法机构的立场是公众使用相机记录警察暴行是一非法行为

 

ACLU: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 gives the president absolute power to decide who is an enemy of our country and to imprison people indefinitely without charging them with a crime. Source/来源

美国公民自由联盟 2006 年《军事委员会法》赋予总统决定谁是我国敌人的绝对权力,并在不指控他们犯罪的情况下无限期地监禁他们。Source/来源  

It is in this light that the US government labeled as terrorists anyone active in this movement or even supporting the movement.It is astonishing that Americans will still attempt to defend their so-called ‘freedoms’, claiming particularly of speech and assembly, in direct contradiction to the facts on the ground. One government official quoted the US Military Commissions Act, which states that, “Anyone who speaks out against the government’s policies can be declared an “unlawful enemy combatant”and imprisoned indefinitely (without trial or recourse).That includes American citizens“. How do we reconcile this statement with claims of freedom of speech?

正是在这种情况下,美国政府将任何活跃在这运动甚至支持这运动的人称为恐怖分子。令人惊讶的是,美国人仍然试图捍卫他们所谓的自由,特别是言论和集会自由,这与实地事实直接矛盾。一政府官员援引了《美国军事委员会法,该规定,任何公开反对政府政策可以被宣布非法敌方战斗人员并无限期监禁(无需审判或追索)。这包括美国公民我们如何将这一说法与言论自由的主张相协调?

 

FBI DOCUMENT ‘[DELETED’] PLOTS TO KILL OCCUPY LEADERS BY SNIPER RIFLES ‘IF DEEMED NECESSARY’

联邦调查局文件'[删除’]计划’在认为必要时’用狙击步枪杀害占领区领导人

 

But it’s much worse than this. Documents were obtained from the FBI office in Houston, Texas, that outlined a plan to use mercenaries to kill the leaders of this Occupy Wall Street movement if it progressed much further.In that city as in many others, official reaction to the demonstrations involved violent assaults by police on the activists, and this is where the assassination plot was hatched.To quote the FBI document, “(An organisation) planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors in Houston, Texas . . . planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles”. The FBI confirmed that the document was genuine and that it originated in the FBI’s Houston office. It offered neither explanation nor apology. It appears that the organisation involved was an FBI/CIA-linked mercenary-for-hire organization called Craft International, which has a contract funded by the US Department of Homeland Security. This is America today, where Hollywood and the media daily pump out propaganda on the treasured democratic values of freedom of expression and assembly.

但比这更糟糕。克萨斯休斯顿的联邦调查局办公室获得文件概述计划,如果占领华尔街运动更大进展,将使用雇佣军杀害其领导人在那个城市其他许多城市一样,官方对示威活动反应警察对活动人士暴力袭击,是暗杀阴谋地。引用联邦调查局文件,(一个组织)计划对克萨斯休斯顿抗议者进行狙击手袭击……计划收集针对抗议团体领导人的情报并获取照片,然后制定一计划,通过压制狙击步枪杀死领导层联邦调查局证实,该文件是真实的,来源于联邦调查局休斯顿办事处。它既没有解释也没有道歉。该组织似乎是一个邦调查局/中情报局有联系雇佣兵组织名为Craft International,其合同由美国国土安全部资助。这就是今天的美国,好莱坞和媒体每天都在宣传言论和集会自由这一宝贵的民主价值观。

 

Protesters affiliated with Occupy Wall Street march down Broadway in Manhattan towards Wall Street on May 1, 2012 in New York City. Occupy Wall Street has joined with unions during the May Day protests, a traditional day of global protests in sympathy with unions and leftist politics. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

2012 年 5 月 1 日,在纽约市,隶属于 “占领华尔街 ”组织的抗议者沿着曼哈顿百老汇大街向华尔街行进。占领华尔街 “与工会一起参加了 ”五一 “抗议活动。”五一 “是全球同情工会和左派政治的传统抗议日。(摄影:马里奥-塔马/盖蒂图片社)
 
  *

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 —Dealing with Demons).

罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成32种语言,他的文章在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站以及100多个英语平台上发布。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位,并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾是上海复旦大学的客座教授,为高级EMBA课程提供国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生现居上海,目前正在撰写十本与中国和西方有关的书。他是辛西娅·麦金尼的新文集《当中国打喷嚏》的撰稿人之一。(第2章——与恶魔打交道)。

His full archive can be seen at

他的全部文章库可以在以下找到

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

他的联系方式是

2186604556@qq.com 

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

本文可能包含受版权保护的材料其使用未经版权所有者特别授权。此内容根据合理使用原则提供,仅用于教育和信息目的。此内容没有商业用途

 

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2024