U.S. plan to break Russia apart

The US State Department Openly Outlined Its Plans to Guarantee America’s Global Primacy

By Sergey Latyshev
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard

Speaking in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the assistant to the Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Wess Mitchell stated that the US punishes Russia because Moscow prevents Washington from establishing control over Eurasia in order to restore its world supremacy…

The US, at last, openly admitted why they fight against Russia, and that they won’t accept any other outcome in the current confrontation with Moscow besides its capitulation, because America’s world supremacy is impossible without total control over Eurasia, which so far they don’t have.

All of this isn’t the conjectures of “conspiracy theorists” or “Putin’s propaganda”, but the quintessence of the policy of the US stated the other day by the assistant to the Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Wess Mitchell in his speech in front of members of Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Mitchell explained to the Senators that the State Department’s financing depends on the essence of the US’ policy towards Russia. He named the “recognition that America has entered a period of big-power competition” as “the starting point of the National Security Strategy”, having emphasised that the previous administrations weren’t sufficiently prepared for this and didn’t prepare the country for victory in this competition.

The senior representative of the State Department further emphasised: “Contrary to the hopeful assumptions of previous administrations, Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest US primacy and leadership in the 21st Century”.

And after that Mitchell detonated a bomb. However, this will be a surprise only for those who don’t understand that Russia is already in a state of active hybrid war with the US:

“It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers”.

And here Mitchell detonated an atomic bomb, with terrible destructive consequences, and not just an ordinary bomb.

Firstly, establishing total control over Eurasia is declared as the most important task for the US. A claim is made for the clear victory of the civilisation of the Sea over the civilisation of Land, the center and the only pillar of support of which is Russia. Secondly, Washington openly declared a priority of the most strictest demands of geopolitics of the most catastrophic character (The Sea must flood the Land) over any human rights trivialities used in “public diplomacy”.

Thirdly, a challenge is laid down to the very existence of Russia – it can stop its domination in its own geographical area of existence only having become fragmented or being divided into small puppet states. Fourthly, Russia is called a “hostile” country. This implies that hybrid war was declared to it long ago, and that the Americans will try, as Mitchell noted earlier, to win. Thus, he recognised that Moscow’s attempts to reach an agreement with Washington can be welcomed only if it is a question of capitulation.

Well and, lastly and fifthly, Mitchell’s mention of “hostile powers” in plural can only mean that he meant the strategic ally of Russia – China, the only independent power on the periphery of Eurasia. The US considers China to be its main economic competitor and military threat, which in some respects is just as mighty as the Russian threat, and in the long term even more dangerous. Thus, “preventing the domination” also of China in the open spaces of Eurasia provides this same scenario as for Russia: dismantling the Celestial Empire into which that compete for the attention and favor of Washington, and which don’t lay down any claims concerning geopolitics.

That’s the scale of things.

Should we prepare for the third world war?

In general, whatever one may do, Mitchell declared that the US prepares for a universal conflict, a new world war, and “the central aim of the administration’s foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power”. The way to victory in it is the shattering of Russia, against which it is necessary, according to the plan of the State Department, to incline and unite its neighbors dancing to the tune of Washington and the American vassals in Europe.

Diplomacy, according to Mitchell, is a minor element in relations with Russia, which, by the way, influential circles in Moscow stubbornly refuse to recognise, cherishing the illusion to “agree” with Washington about something besides capitulation. The senior representative of the State Department clearly designated that “our Russia policy proceeds from the recognition that, to be effective, US diplomacy toward Russia must be backed by ‘military power that is second to none and fully integrated with our allies and all of our instruments of power'”.

Mitchell bragged that for the last one and a half years (when, we will add, the “Russian agent” Donald Trump was already sat in the White House) the US obtained from allies in NATO a $40 billion increase in military expenditure and “achieved virtually all policy objectives” in this direction, including the establishment within the framework of the North Atlantic alliance of two new Commands, the implementation of hybrid war preparations, and “major, multi-year initiatives to bolster the mobility, readiness, and capability of the Alliance”. Moreover, here it obviously means offense and not defense. And it is not only about NATO countries.

The language of Mitchell reveals that the US considers its policy towards Russia in military categories: “We have placed particular emphasis on bolstering the states of frontline Europe that are most susceptible to Russian geopolitical pressure. In Ukraine and Georgia, we lifted the previous administration’s restrictions on the acquisition of defensive weapons for resisting Russian territorial aggression”. The Caucasus, the Black Sea region, even Central Europe is called by Mitchell zones of geopolitical combat against Russia, competing “for hearts and minds”.

And here the US State Department according to him, finds itself on the front line: all 50 American diplomatic missions in Europe and Eurasia “develop, coordinate and execute tailored action plans for rebuffing Russian influence operations in their host countries”. In this regard the Balkans merited a special mention, where “American diplomacy has played a lead role in resolving the Greece Macedonia name dispute and is engaging with Serbia and Kosovo to propel the EU-led dialogue”.

It is unlikely that serious people had even the slightest doubts about who Russia and Greece owe for the crisis in their relations, that it’s not at all that Russian diplomats tried to disrupt mutual understanding between Athens and Skopje, and that they “bribed” someone, sometimes using for this purpose “spies in cassocks”. The official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova, for example, directly pointed a finger at the Americans as the creators of the diplomatic scandal, declaring: “we know”. And now it is also Mitchell who confirmed that it is the State Department that did everything, and not the despised by Greeks Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, who simply ran across to the side of Russia’s enemy.

Defeating Russia economically

“In tandem” with these efforts aimed at shattering Russia, according to Mitchell, the US carries out a whole series of events of an economic nature: 217 Russian physical and legal entities are under sanctions, six diplomatic missions are closed, “60 spies [were] removed from U.S. soil”, and the State Department “closely and effectively coordinated with European allies”. Here, by the way, Mitchell involuntarily admitted for what reason Anglo-Saxon intelligence agencies needed the “Skripal affair” and who organised this provocation.

The senior representative of State Department expressed satisfaction with the course of the economic war with Russia: “on average, sanctioned Russian firms” lose about a quarter of their operational revenue, the total asset evaluation of such a company falls by 50%, and it is thus compelled to reduce its staff by a third. According to the estimates of State Department experts given by Mitchell, “our sanctions, cumulatively, have cost the Russian government tens of billions of dollars on top of the broader impact on state-owned sectors and the chilling effect of U.S. sanctions on the Russian economy”. Mitchell gave the situation with the RUSAL company, and also attacks on the Russian ruble, which strongly lost weight for this reason, as an example of successful hybrid war against Russia.
 
We will crush them until they capitulate

However, if Russia stops resisting the US’ expansion in Eurasia – first of all, in Ukraine, stops countering the US’ policy in Syria – which Mitchell characterised as “Russian aggression”, and we will wave the white flag, then America will be ready to negotiate capitulation: “But in all of these areas, it is up to Russia, not America, to take the next step. Our policy remains unchanged: steady cost-imposition until Russia changes course”.

There are some more curious moments in Mitchell’s speech. By arguing about the policy of Russia, but without having the opportunity to know what it really consists of, he attributes American logic and its foreign policy methods to the actions of Moscow.

Self-exposure

Here are quotes:

“Our strategy is animated by the realization that the threat from Russia has evolved beyond being simply an external or military one; it includes unprecedentedly brazen influence operations orchestrated by the Kremlin (in reality – Washington – ed) on the soil of our allies and even here at home in the United States”.

“The threat from Russian influence operations existed long before our 2016 presidential election and will continue long after this election cycle, or the next, or the next. As the recent Facebook purges reveal, the Russian state has promoted fringe voices on the political left, not just the right, including groups who advocate violence, the storming of federal buildings and the overthrow of the U.S. government. Russia foments and funds controversial causes – and then foments and funds the causes opposed to those causes. Putin’s thesis is that the American Constitution is an experiment that will fail if challenged in the right way from within. Putin wants to break apart the American Republic, not by influencing an election or two, but by systematically inflaming the perceived fault-lines that exist within our society”.

Having accused modern Russia of using “Bolshevist” and “Soviet” methods in the geopolitical standoff with America, Mitchell made from Putin the “father” of the leading for quite some time US’ foreign policy doctrine – “a strategy of chaos for strategic effect”.

Thanks, Mr Mitchell, for your frankness

In general, it is worth being grateful to the prominent State Department employee. Mitchell not only outlined the purposes of the US’ foreign policy, but also revealed the methods that Washington intends to use to put them into practice, he showed everyone who is ready to look at the truth in the eyes what a frightening danger the US constitutes for the rest of the world and, first of all, for Russia.