“Having in mind the media history and the profound conflicts in the United States itself, it was a very special message to the world when Russian President Putin spoke very warmly and amicably of ‘Donald‘ at the conclusion of his meticulous opening statement, as he addressed President Trump. Europe got the measuring stick presented and held up. One will meet each other again and thus put everyone in the corner who did not understand the theorem of Trump up to the Uckermark [homeland of Merkel]: diplomacy is everything, ignorance is nothing. One had the reasonable impression with President Trump that one encounters an American head of state there again, who is about to earn the name ‚president’ and not to be regarded merely as a doll, which is pushed back and forth by Neo-cons. Helsinki was Champions League.“
Willy Wimmer after the press conference of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump on July 16, 2018 (excerpt)
(Translation Current Concerns)
Any attentive observer will have numerous thoughts pop up in his head when the two presidents are going to meet in the Finnish capital Helsinki on Monday July 16th. Firstly, regarding the two presidents themselves who will have the chance to talk together for the first time in a meeting dedicated exclusively to them. The symbolism of this event is stunning. Considering the Russian President Putin, who as far as political experience is concerned, may be regarded the senior of the two conversational partners – summits at this level are still associated with reminiscences of the Cold war. When heads of the two states had met back then they did so as the representatives of antagonistic blocks facing each other both armed up to their teeth. Today this is completely different. President Putin has essentially approached the NATO states with honest open-mindedness for years now. His problem was only that president Yeltsin had spoiled the entire West in the 1990ies. Russia’s fortunes had been yanked out to them and Westerners got used to Yeltsin’s cornucopian attitude. This, however, had changed completely under Putin and the West lost their track concerning Russia.
President Trump faced problems, too, when he took steps to approach the representative of Russia with honest open-mindedness. Since his inauguration he had declared he wanted to give reconciliation between the two major states of the Northern hemisphere a chance. Neither for the Democratic or republican branches of the Washington based war-alliance, nor for their European allies, this had been acceptable. In Washington, cans full of any political dirt available had been thrown at president Trump in order to prevent him from meeting the Russian president Putin. Actually the very fact of president Trump being physically able to fly to Helsinki is astonishing, in view of certain phenomena in the recent history of US political practice.
The European satraps of US hegemony have difficulties with president Trump’s openminded outreach towards his colleague from Moscow, too. They had consented to all US presidents from Bill Clinton, to George W. “the destroyer” Bush, to Barak Obama waging their own “presidential war”. The destruction of large parts of the world by these war presidents had been appreciated with apparent applause of cringing vassals from Europe without ever appealing to the international court in The Hague. One only needs to look at the statutes of the international court and compare them with the record of those above-mentioned US presidents to realize the dimension of European Kotau politics towards the American warmongers. Prime example is the still serving German chancellor Angela Merkel, who had the baton of international warmongering handed to her by the outgoing president Obama in Berlin.
One glance at this practice makes it clear that neither his own country nor its partners in Western Europe embrace president Trump and the apparent perspective towards reconciliation which he opens. Would they prefer presidents who waged one war after another in old-style globalist military tradition, such political surrogate proofs of their masculinity as the ones which eventually lead to the first and second world wars?
Several questions should be addressed to the United States and after the NATO summit of 12 July 2018 in Brussels they have been put on the international agenda in a rather dramatic way.
The central one of those questions is plainly, in whose name is president Trump acting when he meets the Russian president Putin? How many united or divided states of America are there and how should the world interpret the first news about declarations made after their meeting? Even in the person of president Trump things are drifting apart. In Helsinki he wants to demonstrate his policy of openminded deal-making. That way he can achieve results, imaginably even by-pass anti-Russians sanctions imposed by his own government to the detriment of his European partners. But even president Trump cannot by-pass one recent event – at the NATO summit in Brussels he fully endorsed the encircling strategy towards the Russian federation which had been implemented by all presidents from Clinton to Obama.
The aims of politics pursued from Washington regarding Russia have been rather plain for a long time. These include mainly
1) To deny the Russian Federation their equal seat at the table of European nations because that would diminish Anglo-Saxon dominance
2) To do whatever they could to challenge the authority of the Russian state over their own territory
3) To entertain such a level of continuous military confrontation at the borders of the Russian federation so that an outbreak of open hostilities might erupt any time
4) To separate the Russian Federation by an “Eastern limes” from their natural partners in the West and pursue a policy of disintegration of the Russian territory since the conference of Bratislava in May 2000
5) To give a card blanche to US American military commanders on European soil to prepare war against Russia.
These aims which have been pursued by US politics for decades in plain sight and which have been reiterated once again at the NATO summit in Brussels just before the Helsinki meeting show clearly two roadmaps of the American policies. On the surface we have the politics of the “deal” with president Putin but at the same time a permanent preparation of war with the same partner who is supposed to make the deal at the presidential level.
These are not just two Americas entering the stage here. There are even more as the stunned observer realizes. The inner American discussions which eventually lead to the international agreement with Iran being abandoned already proved the power of the US congress which seems to be dominated by warmongers. Has Trump even got a mandate for Helsinki?
Right now, the world watches in dismay how parts of the US political system attack each other by means of trials against Russian citizens. Sober analysis of the battleground between New York and Los Angeles points towards a possibility which is not entirely impossible: that during all these efforts to bring Russia down and smash it into many tiny Russias a process of American self-destruction might loom on the horizon. This applies both to the constitutional dimension as for the ethnic or civil war-like components.
How many states or power centres on the territory of today’s United States of America will the world suffer and will “Washington” turn into a political “black star”? The election of president Trump was the attempt of Americans in their majority to tie the power of the state to the will of the people again within their political system. Those political forces who under the slogan of “globalisation” pursued the Americanisation of the globe – propagating even such extremes as the total liberalisation of drugs and the annihilation of peoples’ cultural identities, will not just run for cover and let Trump do as he pleases. In a very detailed text which former chief strategist of the German foreign office Dr Frank Elbe released to the public he hinted at a certain political peer-group in the US who, as he alleges, use the power apparatus of the United States for their political return to the territory of the very state their ancestors had left more than a century ago. President Putin will have to bear that in mind when sitting down with his presidential colleague Trump. •
(Translation Current Concerns)
Unsere Website verwendet Cookies, damit wir die Page fortlaufend verbessern und Ihnen ein optimiertes Besucher-Erlebnis ermöglichen können. Wenn Sie auf dieser Webseite weiterlesen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies einverstanden.
Weitere Informationen zu Cookies finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
Wenn Sie das Setzen von Cookies z.B. durch Google Analytics unterbinden möchten, können Sie dies mithilfe dieses Browser Add-Ons einrichten.