Факты, которые подконтрольные ЦРУ СМ»И» в России скрывают...

Dictatorship USA – Run By A Plundering and Murderous Ruling Class — 2019 (358)

Америка надорвалась: почему у США ничего не получается
США - нашими глазами 27.04.2019


Соединенные Штаты теряют свои позиции на мировой арене из-за торговой войны с Китаем, а также злоупотребления санкционным инструментарием в отношении других стран. Кроме того, ослаблению позиций США способствует многовекторное расширение сотрудничества Москвы и Пекина, утверждают американские эксперты.

Соединенные Штаты теряют свои позиции на мировой арене – рассказал профессор по международным отношениям Гарвардского университета в США Стивен Уолт в статье для аналитического издания Foreign Policy.

По его словам, с приходом в администрацию президента США Дональда Трампа советника по небезопасности Джона Болтона и госсекретаря Майка Помпео власти страны заняли позицию, предполагающую, что США настолько могущественны, что могут решать многие вопросы единолично, а другие государства должны быть запуганы демонстрацией их мощи.

Автор заметки указывает, что нынешнее положение США позволяет им придерживаться такого подхода, но при этом за время нахождения Трампа у власти у страны не было серьезных успехов во внешней политике. Кроме того, такие государства, как Китай и Россия уже начали сотрудничать между собой для противостояния США.

Уолт подчеркивает, что в настоящее время США могущественны и находятся в привилегированном положении перед другими странами, однако у всякого доминирования есть предел. В конце статьи автор задается вопросом – возможен ли в ближайшем будущем провал политики США?

Тезисы Уолта, в целом выражающие настроения американского истеблишмента, нашли подтверждение несколькими часами ранее – когда президент России Владимир Путин, выступая на круглом столе форума «Один пояс — один путь» в Пекине, заявил о возможности состыковать Северный морской путь с китайским «Морским шелковым путем».

«Большое внимание уделяем развитию Северного морского пути. Рассматриваем возможность состыковать его и китайский «Морской шелковый путь», тем самым создать глобальный и конкурентный маршрут, связывающий Северо-Восточную, Восточную и Юго-Восточную Азию с Европой» — слова российского лидера.

Двумя неделями ранее министр иностранных дел Сергей Лавров заявил, что США остаются «ведущей экономической державой», однако усомнился в их умении «честно конкурировать» в бизнес-сфере. При этом, считает дипломат, «относительная роль США сокращается» из-за «бурного» роста других экономик, в частности Индии и Китая.

«И в экономике США, как мы наблюдаем в последние пару-тройку лет, уже честно конкурировать не в состоянии», — сказал глава российского внешнеполитического ведомства.

Дефицит торгового баланса США по итогам прошлого года достиг исторического рекорда и составил $891,3 млрд. Это удар по планам президента Дональда Трампа, обещавшего сократить торговый дефицит.

Этот результат стал отрезвляющим напоминанием о том, что законы экономики все еще применимы и к американскому лидеру, который пообещал увеличить экономический рост, одновременно сократив хронический торговый дефицит США.

Именно эти двойные обещания оказались несовместимыми, как и предсказывали экономисты. Новая статистика торгового дефицита стала отражением экономической политики Трампа.

…......................................
America Isn’t as Powerful as It Thinks It Is

ForeignPolicy April 26, 2019

Just how powerful is the United States? Is it still the unipolar power, able to impose its will on adversaries, allies, and neutrals, and force them—however reluctantly—to go along with policies they think are foolish, dangerous, or simply contrary to their interests? Or are there clear and significant limits to U.S. power?

The Trump administration has embraced the first position, especially since John Bolton became White House national security advisor and Mike Pompeo took over as secretary of state. Their arrival marked a return to the unilateralist, take-no-prisoners approach to foreign policy that characterized George W. Bush’s first term as president, when Vice President Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives held sway. A key feature of that earlier period was the assumption that the United States was so powerful that it could go it alone on many issues and that other states could be cowed into submission by demonstrations of U.S. power and resolve. As a senior advisor to Bush stated: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” Compromises and coalition-building were for wimps and appeasers; as Cheney himself reportedly said in 2003: “We don’t negotiate with evil; we defeat it.”

The Bush-Cheney approach produced a string of failures, but the same unilateral arrogance lives on in the Trump administration. It is evident in Trump’s decision to threaten (or in some cases, to actually begin) trade wars not just with China but with many of America’s economic partners. It was part and parcel of the impulsive decisions to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership and leave the Paris climate accord. It is the basis of the administration’s “take it or leave it” approach to diplomacy with North Korea and Iran, wherein Washington announces unrealistic demands and then ratchets up sanctions in the hope that the targets will capitulate and give the United States everything it wants, even though this approach to both countries has repeatedly failed in the past.

It is even more obvious in the recent decision to impose secondary sanctions on states that are still buying Iranian oil, a move that threatens to drive up oil prices and damage U.S. relations with China, India, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, and others. It is almost certainly true of the so-called peace plan that nepotist-in-chief Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, keeps promising to reveal, a proposal likely to make Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and fans of the concept of Greater Israel happy, but won’t advance the cause of peace in the slightest. A similar faith in America’s vast ability to control outcomes can also be seen in the premature recognition of Juan Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela and the strident U.S. demands that “Maduro must go.” But there is no idea how to bring that about.

The underlying assumption behind all of these policies is that U.S. pressure—what Pompeo likes to call “swagger”—will eventually force acknowledged adversaries to do whatever the United States demands of them, and that other states won’t find ways to evade, obstruct, divert, dilute, hedge, hinder, or otherwise negate what Washington is trying to do. It assumes we are still dwelling in the unipolar moment and that all that matters is the will to use the power at America’s disposal.

Perhaps most important, this approach denies that there are any real trade-offs between any of these objectives. If the United States is really all-powerful, then sanctioning China over oil purchases from Iran won’t have any impact on the trade talks that are now underway with Beijing, and Turkey won’t respond to the same pressure by moving closer to Russia. It further assumes that America’s NATO allies are so desperate to keep the U.S. military in Europe that they will accept repeated humiliations and follow the U.S. lead against China, despite the growing evidence that this is not the case. It sees no downsides to going all-in with Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf, and it sees little risk should relations with Iran or others escalate to war.

It is not hard to understand why hawks think they can get away with this approach to foreign policy, at least in the short term. Despite many recent missteps, the United States is still very powerful. Its active assistance is still something that some other states want, and its “focused enmity” is something no state can completely ignore. The United States is still a vast and valuable market, the dollar remains the world’s main reserve currency, and the ability to cut other states or financial institutions off from the infrastructure of global finance gives Washington unusual leverage. Many U.S. allies are accustomed to deferring to Washington and are understandably reluctant to do anything that might encourage the United States to withdraw support. Trump and company can also count on the support of authoritarian soul mates in the European right (including the present rulers in Poland and Hungary), as well as America’s morally compromised allies in the Middle East. Plus, most Americans don’t care all that much about foreign policy and are usually willing to go along with whatever the executive branch is doing, provided that it doesn’t prove too costly or embarrassing.

Nonetheless, there are even more potent reasons why this bullying approach has produced no major foreign-policy successes so far and is unlikely to yield significant success in the future. First of all, even much weaker states are loath to succumb to blackmail: Once you’ve shown you can be coerced, there may be no end to subsequent demands. Moreover, when the United States insists on complete capitulation (i.e., by calling for total North Korean disarmament or regime change in Iran), it gives the target state zero incentive to comply. And given Trump’s amply demonstrated dishonesty, why would any foreign leader believe any assurances he or Pompeo might give? Put all this together, and you have a perfect recipe for “no deal.”

Second, bullying nearly everyone makes it much harder construct powerful coalitions whose support can enhance America’s diplomatic leverage. This problem is perhaps most apparent in the administration’s haphazard approach to economic diplomacy with China. By leaving the Trans-Pacific Partnership and picking trade fights with other key partners, the administration missed an opportunity to organize a broad coalition of industrial powers united by a desire to get China to reform its own economic practices.

Much the same lesson applies to Iran. The Trump administration deliberately set out to kill the Iran nuclear deal, and it did it in plain sight. It is so focused on this goal that it is even willing to punish the other signatories in a vain attempt to get Iran to say uncle. Tehran has continued to abide by the terms of the agreement despite Washington’s reneging on the deal, but its patience is probably not infinite, especially when the administration has made it clear that regime change is its real objective. Should Iran eventually restart its nuclear weapons program—which has been in abeyance for more than a decade—the rest of the world is not going to suddenly line up behind the United States and support more forceful action. Why? Because everyone knows that it was the United States—not Iran—that killed the deal, and there won’t be a ton of sympathy for America when it starts bleating about Iran’s response. America’s Middle East clients will no doubt be happy if Washington decides to fight another war on their behalf, but don’t count on a lot of help from them or from anyone else.

Third, other states don’t like being beholden to the whims of others, and especially when others behave selfishly, erratically, and with ill-disguised contempt for others’ interests. Not surprisingly, therefore, other states are starting to develop workarounds designed to limit U.S. leverage, most notably by designing financial arrangements outside the network of institutions that Washington has been using to coerce allies and adversaries into compliance. Instead of leading states and businesses to minimize contact with the targets of U.S. sanctions,  the Trump administration’s strong-arm tactics may lead states and businesses to minimize their contact with the U.S.-led global financial system and to start to construct their own workarounds. Over time, those workarounds might even begin to accumulate into an effective alternative system.

Lastly, being a bully encourages adversaries to join forces out of their own self-interest, while giving potential allies more reason to keep their distance. It is no accident that Russia and China continue to move closer together and America’s same bullying impulses are going to push states like Iran even closer to them. Bolton and those of his ilk will probably come up with some trite new moniker for this group—“Axis of Evil” and “Troika of Tyranny” are taken, so perhaps “Triad of Troublemakers” or “Coalition of Chaos”—ignoring the fact that their own policies have helped push these powers together.
//////////////////////////////////////

Перед нами - коварный и опасный мошенник, расист, лжец и фашист Дональд Трамп, порочный Конгресс, нацистские ФБР - ЦРУ, кровавые милитаристы США и НАТО >>> а также и лживые, вредоносные американские СМ»И».

Нынешние киевские власти — фашистские агенты американского империализма... Именно то, чего хотят Трамр/ США и в Венесуэле!

/////////////////////////////////////////////

Правительство США жестоко нарушало мои права человека при проведении кампании террора, которая заставила меня покинуть свою родину и получить политическое убежище в СССР. См. книгу «Безмолвный террор — История политических гонений на семью в США» - "Silent Terror: One family's history of political persecution in the United States» - http://arnoldlockshin.wordpress.com

Правительство США еще нарушает мои права, в течении 15 лет отказывается от выплаты причитающейся мне пенсии по старости. Властители США воруют пенсию!!


ФСБ - Федеральная служба «безопасности» России - вслед за позорным, предавшим страну предшественником КГБ, мерзко выполняет приказы секретного, кровавого хозяина (boss) - американского ЦРУ (CIA). Среди таких «задач» - мне запретить выступать в СМИ и не пропускать отправленных мне комментариев. А это далеко не всё...

Арнольд Локшин, политэмигрант из США


BANNED – ЗАПРЕЩЕНО!!
ЦРУ - ФСБ забанили все мои посты, комментарии в Вконтакте, в Макспарке, в Medium.com... и удаляют ещё много других моих постов!