THIRD
WORLD WAR: THE BEGINNING?
Alexander
Dugin
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.
Posts
