Igor Shishkin

Editor's note: The following is a translation from the Russian of an article that originally appeared in the online magazine Regnum. I probably speak for most AltRight readers when I write that I find American foreign policy to be "chaotic" (in the common sense of the word.) Lacking a conservative ruling order, the American state has been a mere tool to be used, in contradictory and self-defeating ways, by various political factions, all of which are semi-united by a post-Trotskyist embrace of "democracy." The American political system itself seems ill suited to any kind of coherent strategy, with the short attention spans of the public and media and the constant turnover of elected officials. Articles such as this one, however, challenge us to find a method in the madness, that is, a deeper Grand Strategy lying behind what appears at first glance to be incompetent and unwise policy-making.  ~RBS

Coups in Tunisia and Egypt, mass rallies in nearly all Arab countries, armed rebellion and foreign aggression in Libya, all of these events led to lively discussions about the relationship between the internal and external factors of the crisis [in the Greater Middle East]. Undoubtedly, the root cause of revolutions and rebellions lies within the state.

{snip}

The cover-up operation had failed

From the beginning of turbulence in the Greater Middle East, the world MSM and Russia's liberal and semi-official media right behind them persistently hammered the thesis about the complete lack of involvement on the part of the United States into the consciousness of their readers, viewers, and listeners. Moreover, the United States were portrayed as the victim and the main loser. If the MSM were to be believed, we must not sympathize with the Libyans, perishing under NATO bombs, but rather the unfortunate Americans and their idealistic president, who was unexpectedly drawn into the fatal whirlwind of events.

{snip}

Let's start with the fact that Obama's entire Nobel-Prize acceptance speech was dedicated to the rationalization of the "just war" principle and the justification of the right to use military force, including "humanitarian interventions." Therefore, the U.S. president was amazed by the demands to take away his prize when the bombing of Libya began. "Americans see no contradiction" between the status of a peacemaker and the order to bomb, said Obama.

As with the Nobel Prize, the transition of command of the operation from American generals to NATO also does not prove the lack of involvement in the crisis on the part of the United States. Americans initiated these problems, but the end result will be cleaned up by the allies. This is perfectly normal and natural politics. Or does anyone think of NATO as a separate entity, independent of the U.S.?

Furthermore, it became clear rather quickly that the “Twitter technology” of accumulating protest energy was developed by the NGOs directly related to the State Department, and the democratic activists in Tunisia and Egypt (by strange coincidence) were interns or members of these institutions. Well publicized was the fact that in August of last year, a secret analysis of the possibility of revolutions in the Arab world was conducted on behalf of Obama; the policy to support this process was adopted at the same time. A purely rhetorical question is who was behind the adoption of the two UN Security Council resolutions on Libya.

{snip}

America was first to become aware of the power of information and to master the art of information warfare. No other country is currently able to conduct a massive and pervasive information operations at the global level (although, so far only in the short-term). The maximum possibility for other countries is at the state-, not even the regional level. The U.S. dominance in this area is absolute, which gives them a huge advantage, but it also greatly exposes them. Deficiencies are often a continuation of the merits.