Trump's war: a Russian perspective

THIRD WORLD WAR: THE BEGINNING?

Alexander Dugin

Geopolitica.ru,

7 February, 2017

What happened on April 7th, 2017 could be the beginning of a Third World War. As a rule, nobody wants war but, alas, wars happen, and sometimes world ones. Therefore, I posit that first and foremost, as in the case of any disaster, it is necessary to remain calm and gather one’s thoughts.

On April 7th, 2017, for the first time in the years since the beginning of the conflict in Syria, the US Air Force launched a massive Tomahawk missile attack at a Syrian airbase, i.e., at us. Why did we not use a missile defense complex? According to one theory, we we lack a sufficient number of them to repulse a full-fledged attack by US troops, as they are designed primarily against the missile attacks of other potential enemies. The second theory is that Moscow did not dare give the order since such would mean the irreversible beginning of war with the US. Washington dared to, and knew what it was doing. We didn’t. Before proceeding to forecasts, it is worth once again examining the context, the starting conditions of what might become (though still might not) the Third World War.

A pretext for US invasion

The pretext which Washington used for the strike was a chemical attack. The fact that Assad did not commit such an attack is obvious, since it would be highly unprofitable for him. Moreover, in the current situation, resorting to chemical weapons would be suicide for Assad. There is a very small chance that this was a tragic accident in which Syrian missiles hit a warehouse with chemical weapons belonging to ISIS, which the terrorists were probably taught how to hide by European inspectors. But such a coincidence, collapsing in an instant the complicated balance of forces on a global scale, is too surprising. Yet it is not difficult for the terrorists and their instructors representing the global World Government (the very same Swamp which Trump promised to drain) to arrange such. And it really is profitable for them. Dragging the US into war against Russia didn’t succeed with Hillary, so they thought: “we will act in other ways - through Trump”. The globalists apparently decided to do so and found a pretext.

The Swamp drained Trump

The formal decision to attack was taken by Donald Trump. In doing so, he stopped being Trump, and became Hillary disguised as a man, a kind of transvestite. Everything that Trump fought against over the course of the election campaign and which he promised to change - he put his signature underneath all of this today. Therefore, it was not he who took the decision. He simply showed that he is henceforth in no state to decide anything. Under the pressure of media and the Swamp’s politicians, he surrendered his small and devoted followers, those who represented not CFR, not the neocons, and not the Deep State, but “good old America.” This “good old America”, which elected Donald Trump as its president, has once again been left out in the cold, without Trump. What Trump did, by allowing himself to be “convinced” of Assad’s (in other words, Russia’s) involvement in the chemical attack means capitulation. 

Tellingly enough, just yesterday he easily let go of Stephen Bannon, perhaps the only real conservative without the prefix neo- in his circle. He wanted to drain the Swamp. This is commendable, but this is risky business. The Swamp drained Trump. What is happening now in Syria is strictly what the globalists, the Swamp, have been striving for. 

The Trump factor has vanished before our very eyes. He vacillated a little, and now he is a pawn in the game of more serious forces. He showed that he is no longer Trump. Maybe Trump will try to “become Trump again,” but this is unlikely.

In the American shadows

The story of Trump - his brilliant election campaign, his fight against the globalists - which was unexpectedly for everybody supported by the American people, has exposed the complex structure of American society which, as it turns out, is far from monolithic. 

First of all, there is the “good old America”, isolationist and conservative, which thought that it had elected its representative. In the very least, Trump perfectly played precisely this role. We actually forgot about “good old America,” which was eclipsed by a fanatical, frenzied globalist elite, but it turns out that she is still there. This is very important because, even though she wields no power and her nominee has turned out to be too weak, she can no longer be left out of consideration. This is the most important and most encouraging revelation in the story of Trump.

Moreover, “good old America” has a foreign policy platform which is realism, i.e., America First, which means that if the US is not directly affected, then the US should not get involved. Such isolationism dominated in the US until Woodrow Wilson, and partly after him during the period of three Republican presidents - Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. In fact, it is this realism in international politics - non-interventionism, focusing on domestic issues, rejecting imperialism - that Trump made the foundation of his program.

Secondly, behind Hillary and Obama stood the most powerful organization determining the course of US foreign policy: the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR. This structure plainly proclaims the need to create a World Government. The headquarters of globalism, like the Bilderberg Club or Trilateral Commission, as well as global financial institutions and transnational corporations like the Federal Reserve and World Bank -  are coordinated by none other than CFR. Trump called this the “Swamp”. The Swamp obviously did not like this at all. 

The CFR’s method of action is soft power, strangulation. The CFR does not rush, but gradually prepares its agents in practically all of the world’s countries, and promises and pretends to make concessions. In almost all countries, the political and economic elites that are outwardly loyal but internally oriented towards globalism, whom we call the Sixth Column, are tied to the CFR. 

CFR realizes not so much America’s as the transnational financial oligarchy’s interests. For them, the US is only one tool, albeit the most powerful one. Color revolutions, soft power, and infiltrating societies not yet directly recognizing the World Government - this is their speciality. The CFR are liberals and their goal is spreading liberalism on a global scale - globalism. Liberalism is their ideology. Trump quarreled with the CFR. This is a fact. And the CFR understood and reacted to this by putting in combat readiness the entire army of American liberals ganging up against Trump in the country - hence the feminist march, Madonna’s obscenities, and anarchist riots.

But CFR is not the only center of power in the US. There are also the neocons. In recent years, under Obama, they lost ground but nevertheless retained a certain influence. The neocons are open supporters of American imperialism. For them the international community is a burden. They are building a global American empire and they call it by its name. If CFR is constantly flirting with those whom it wants to enslave, then the neocons simply break the insubordinate. McCain is a typical neocon. The neocons support direct military interventions, overthrowing rebellious governments, coup d’etats, and annihilating the enemy. Trump opposed them, as is obvious in his feud with McCain.

Finally, there is the Deep State. This comprises the American security officials and state apparatchiks who represent the Military Industrial Complex, the intelligence community, and a number of other guardians of American identity in the form of Manifest Destiny. They have no ideology, but strive to maintain the continuity of American institutions. But, of course, they are not free from ideology. CFR has great influence on the Deep State, and in the 1990’s the neocons’ influence therein grew significantly.

A hundred years ago the American Deep State was dominated by realists and traditional conservatives, but they were gradually sidelined. This is precisely why the Deep State - in the face of the leaders of America’s intelligence and special services - have not expressed loyalty to Trump, but continued the ostentatious investigation of fictitious Russian interference in the electoral process. They’ve continued to support the liberal gang based on the en masse dissemination of fake-news. Thus, the Deep State has taken the side of Trump’s enemies in blackmailing him with the Russian factor.

This review shows that Trump’s presidency has had no institutional support. Even in the Republican Party (GOP), a minority supports him. In this situation, one could hope either for a miracle or genius on Trump’s part, or prepare for the Swamp in one of its three manifestations - CFR, the neocons, or the Deep State - to subjugate Trump. If such was unsuccessful, they would simply work together to eliminate him. 

On the morning of April 7th, it became clear that this has in fact already happened. The Trump that “good old America” elected is dead. The new “Trump” is doing precisely the opposite of what he promised. Trump the realist was not at all supposed to concern himself with what is happening in Syria, besides joining efforts with the Russians to eliminate ISIS. He promised to stop intervening. But he has acted otherwise. He suddenly believes in yet another globalist lie about “Assad’s chemical attack” and, without any clarifying of the circumstances, takes a “decision”, i.e., he signs off on a paper hurriedly slipped to him on a missile attack on a Syrian base. 

This is a reality check. Words are one thing, deeds another. Something went wrong. 

Who henceforth rules Trump? 

If this is not Trump, who was “eliminated”, then who took the decision on the rocket attack? Judging by its rapidity, this was most likely the neocons in tandem with the Deep State. CFR would have acted differently. They would have presented Russia with some kind of suffocating project and sent some kind of black mark (although the explosion in the St. Petersburg metro and the demonstrations of Navalny’s zombified schoolchildren were, in principle, such a black mark), and most importantly, they would have done such through their numerous agents in the Russian elite, and they would propose a compromise. How suddenly this provocation and blow were dealt to us shows that the avatar going under the name “Trump” is ruling as a conduit for the neocons. This was also evidently done in tandem with Israel, which plans to join in on the operation, as Israeli troops have been concentrated in full combat readiness on the border with Syria and Lebanon. After all, the Israelis’ closest allies in the US are none other than the neocons.

It turns out that Trump’s struggle with CFR, which he - while he was still Trump - waged in the name of “good old America” and realism, has been taken advantage of this time by the neocons, who have seized the control levers. Telling in this regard is the euphoria of the neocon Kirstol over Bannon’s removal. His Twitter feed exploded out of glee. 

Thus, the neocons hijacked Trump. 

This means that war is more than likely.

But with whom, against whom, when, and where?

War with whom?

Unlike Trump, who I think is not aware of the existence of geopolitics, the neocons are Atlanticists. For them, as for their direct predecessors, the Trotskyites, the main enemy is the civilization of Land, i.e., us. For the Deep State, this has also been customary since the Cold War era and McCarthyism, and even some of the CFR hawks like Zbigniew Brzezinski share this dualistic vision of Sea vs. Land. CFR, as a rule, tries to reassure Moscow in saying that there is no such thing as geopolitics and that the “war of continents” is nonsense, but they themselves are guided by geopolitics and are waging against us this very war of continents. Of course, it is better when an enemy does not know that war is being waged against him - let him believe that he is peacefully sunbathing on the beach. Then it will be a surprise when a nuclear submarine emerges by his sun chair. Bingo! 

Thus, the neocons understand the American missile attack on the Syrian base as what it really is: a military attack on the Russians. Trump expressed this more softly: “Assad’s friends will be disappointed”. This is the rhetoric of a delusional parrot, not a victorious realist who decided to make America great again. The Swamp applauds. 

One thing is clear: this is a war against us. 

But this war will be dressed up as a war against our friends and allies, against Assad (of course), against Iran, against Shiites and Hezbollah in particular. As a bow-out - here once again CFR’s networks come in - Moscow will be offered to join operations against Assad and Tehran on the side of the US and its allies: “Trump changed his position overnight. Come on, you guys. You’re supposed to be ‘realists.’” Someone will calculate that if we surrender, then we can avoid a Third World War. But we cannot. It is being waged against us, and our friends are only a secondary, local target, the main test of our endurance. If we surrender them, they can do whatever they want with us. 

But if the neocons are the ones manipulating Trump’s avatar, then they will not insist on coaxing Russia. They will simply and toughly move down their line. They have a plan. And if they managed to seize the levers of power over American hardware, which they almost lost hope of doing under Obama, then they will act as quickly as possible and try to not lose any time.

Therefore, the Third World War will be waged by the Swamp, the Atlanticists, and supporters of American imperialism against us. Formally, Assad and Shiites will be designated as the enemy. The European Union, which is completely controlled by the Swamp, will join the coalition. Pressure might even be put on Erdogan, bringing him back into the American playing field.

War where? 

The main front of this war will obviously be the Middle East, i.e., Syria and the surrounding region. The prophecies of the Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims boil down to Armageddon happening in the vicinity of the Holy Land.

But clearly the enemy will open up other fronts against us as well - through proxies. First and foremost, an attack should be expected in Donbass with a parallel invasion of Crimea. Neocon spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, the wife of the major neocon Robert Kagan, is in Ukraine. This says something.

This will be followed by a simultaneous series of terrorist attacks in Russia’s capital and large cities, and the activation of militants in the North Caucasus. 

The Karabakh conflict will likely be unfrozen. 

Against this background, protest moods will raise their heads and the fifth column will go out into the streets. We’ve seen a repetition of this all before.

Finally, the enemy will try to carry out a coup d’etat to dump Putin, on whom all of Russia as an independent, sovereign state rests today. This will be the work of the sixth column. The leitmotif of this conspiracy might be the liberal saying of “look at what this sovereignty, ‘Crimea is ours’, and conservatism, etc. brought us” or even some kind of ultra-patriotic rhetoric in the likes of: “look how he hesitates” or “look at our losses - they’re all because of his indecision.”

It cannot be ruled out that other territories as well will become arenas of this war. 

War when? 

When will the Third World War start? In some sense, it has already begun. But it could quickly end. How? For example, by us recognizing defeat. Then there would be no need to fight, since the aim of war is establishing control over an enemy, his territory, his institutions, and his consciousness. The West has already established partial such control over Russia. The only thing that they do not entirely control is Putin himself. Therefore, the Third World War will be in some sense directed against him.

But what does it mean that “war has already begun”? This means that if Russia reacts harshly, then a series of irreversible actions of a dramatic nature characteristic of war will be set into motion and, given the direct involvement of two nuclear world powers, this war will be by definition a world war.

If we retreat, the war has all the chances of ending quickly and with minimal losses. but this would mean our surrender with all the consequences. Not to mention Crimea, which is ours only as long as we are ourselves. We only have to back up a step for our solipsistic picture to collapse.

If we respond, then the beginning of the war could be delayed and the war could even be postponed. If we fail to resolve the matter sharply and quickly, Washington will dispatch CFR for negotiations and the matter will be dragged on. Follow Kissinger’s visit to Moscow - he is a first rank CFR negotiator. He comes not to stab, but to strangle.

Geopolitics can never predict the exact timing of processes, but geopoliticians perfectly understand what and where. But the “when” depends on too many factors. The process is open in this regard.

What is to be done?

I’ve noticed that ever analyst or, to be harsher, every moron knows what to do in today’s situation. All of them barge in with their advice and recommendations that sound loud and vulgar. One does not want to participate in this choir. Moreover, the government listens to nothing and no one. And maybe rightly so.

Therefore, it is worth limiting ourselves to such a preliminary analysis and be able to tread in place, correct something, clarify something, and rethink something. After all, in every war, almost everything depends on the starting conditions. They should therefore be analyzed as accurately as possible. A mistake at this level - even the most insignificant one - could later yield catastrophic results.