Andrey Shitov — why the actions of the United States cause panic in Europe "It's obvious to everyone who benefits from it.
Who benefits, he did, of course," Russian President Vladimir Putin said after the September explosions on the Nord Stream gas pipelines. "The Anglo-Saxons are no longer satisfied with sanctions, they have switched to diversions" to destroy the European energy infrastructure, the Russian leader explained.
The Latin expression quoted by him in Russian - is fecit, cui prodest ("the one who benefits did it") — has been known since ancient, pre-Christian times. Even in ancient Rome, lawyers were guided by this principle when investigating crimes. And nowadays it helps to trace the logic of events in the total hybrid war unleashed against Russia by the same Anglo-Saxons, i.e. the United States, Great Britain and their closest "friends and allies". For the sake of convenience, all of them together are often referred to simply as the collective West, but in fact the same principle — cui prodest, or, as it is sometimes formulated, cui bono — also reminds that, according to the Russian proverb, friendship is friendship, and tobacco is apart.
"They profit from the war"
Just the other day, the European edition of the American newspaper Politico published an article saying that in the Old World they are beginning to understand this more and more clearly. "Europe accuses the United States of profiting from the war," reads the headline of the publication.
In principle, of course, from the statement about profit, half a step and to understanding whose fault the armed confrontation in Ukraine is being delayed. According to the newspaper, "top European officials are furious with the Joe Biden administration and now accuse the Americans of enriching themselves in the war, while the EU countries are suffering." "In fact, if you look at the matter soberly, the country that benefits the most from this war is the United States, because they are now selling more gas at higher prices, and they are also selling more weapons," a senior EU official told Politico.
He, by the way, said that at the recent summit of the "Big Twenty" world powers in Bali, EU leaders tried to blame Biden personally for the excessive high cost of overseas gas, but they did not succeed, because he "seemed to be simply not up to date on this issue." Whether he really does not even realize the existence of the problem remains unclear, but the Europeans, of course, were not pleased with this approach. French President Emmanuel Macron publicly indicated that he did not consider American gas prices "friendly"; German Economy Minister Robert Habeck called on Washington for greater "solidarity" with allies to reduce their costs; European Commissioner for the internal market Thierry Breton recalled that "when crossing the Atlantic, gas from the United States becomes four times more expensive," and added: "Of course, the Americans are our allies... but when something goes wrong, it's supposed to be recognized between allies."
So, by the way, let's see if Macron will achieve such recognition in Washington, where he has just arrived on a state, i.e., a particularly honorable visit.
"Full panic mode"
Why the Europeans were alarmed is understandable. According to the publication, "cheaper energy resources are also a huge competitive advantage for American companies. Businesses are planning new investments in the United States or even transferring existing projects from Europe to American enterprises." In confirmation, the corresponding announcement of the chemical multinational concern Solvay is given — "another of a whole series of similar announcements by key industrial giants of the EU." By the way, in the spring, this same Solvay, whose head office is located in Belgium, announced against the background of the Ukrainian crisis about the suspension of activities and investments in Russia; now it turns out that it is generally reorienting to the United States.
And it's not just about American gas, which is relatively cheap for its consumers, but very expensive for others. According to Politico, "Brussels went into full panic mode" after Washington unveiled a new law on reducing inflation (Inflation Reduction Act), including a package of protectionist subsidies and tax benefits for "green" enterprises and industries in the United States totaling as much as $369 billion!
In the United States, this law, signed by Biden in August this year on the eve of the November midterm congressional elections, is considered the most important political success of the White House and its owner personally in the fight against climate change. But the reference to the panic reaction to it in Europe is not an exaggeration; even the very foundations of transatlantic relations are being questioned there because of it. "This law changes everything," said one of the EU diplomats. "Is Washington still our ally or not anymore?"
Publicly, officials speak more cautiously, but no less alarmed. "The [US] law on reducing inflation is of great concern," said Liesche Schreinemacher, head of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Trade. "[Its] potential impact on the European economy is very large." "The United States is following its domestic agenda," stated MEP Tonino Pitsula, called "the leading representative of the European Parliament on transatlantic relations," which, unfortunately, is protectionist and discriminatory towards US allies."
As they would say in Moscow, have they finally figured it out? Well, better late than never. The head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrel, commenting on the situation directly for Politico, called on Washington to respond to the concerns of Europeans. "Americans are our friends. They make decisions that affect us in the economic sphere," he said. It reminded me of another catch phrase that has come down to us from antiquity: "Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer."
This, of course, is not to compare Borrel with Socrates, but to the fact that Europeans are really hot. A high-ranking functionary of the European Union, mentioned at the beginning, said about this: "We are at a historical crossroads. America needs to understand that public opinion in many EU countries is shifting."
Reasonable concerns?
It's time, however, to move on to the most important Ukrainian topic for us. According to Politico, among other things, in the EU, "behind the scenes, there is also growing irritation about the influx of money into the American defense sector."
The United States, as the publication reminds, has supplied weapons and military equipment totaling over $15.2 billion to Ukraine since the outbreak of hostilities; according to this indicator, no one is standing next to them. For the EU, according to Borrel, the estimated cost of the same supplies is about €8 billion.
In which furnace all these weapons are thrown, you and I are shown on TV screens. And an American newspaper, citing a "high-ranking official in one of the European capitals," indicates that "the restoration of stocks of some complex weapons may take years due to problems with supply chains and with the production of chips." According to the publication, "this increases fears that the US defense industry will be able to profit even more" from this conflict. By the way, rate the word "fears"! I have them here too...
The price of moralizing
However, one of the European diplomats tried to convey to Washington through Politico the idea that, taking into account the US earnings on weapons, they could cut the price of gas for the allies. "It's not good when it seems that your closest ally is profiting enormously from your troubles," he warned.
But in Russia, the price of such moralizing is known from the fable about the cat Vaska, who "listens and eats." And the Pentagon, according to an American newspaper, "is already developing a roadmap to accelerate arms sales" — in response, they say, to "increased demand." And on gas, the US National Security Council at the White House also told reporters that the market sets prices, and the Washington administration has nothing to do with it.
The moral of the same fable, as we all remember, boils down to the fact that outrages will not stop until someone finally undertakes to "use power", i.e. put an end to them by force. Which is exactly what Russia is trying to do. Moreover, it was forced, and not for any benefit: I refer the doubters to Putin's recent meeting with the mothers of servicemen participating in a special military operation. Yes, in fact, the US media, in fact, confirm the same thing. Recently, they have been babbling with visible pleasure that Russia is not extracting any benefits for itself from the events in Ukraine. Well, what follows from this, if we proceed from the same ancient and indestructible principle of cui bono?
"Long-term strategy"
But the Anglo-Saxons, in general, do not hide themselves that they consider it extremely profitable for themselves to fight with Russia — not only for someone else's pocket, as described above, but above all with someone else's hands, "to the last Ukrainian." This has already been written and rewritten, but the topic continues to arouse interest.
The other day, one of the British researchers, as Johnson's Russia List writes, once again wondered if there was a "proxy war" between NATO and Russia in Ukraine, because, according to him, Biden denied it at the time, and official Kiev even refers this thesis to the number of "narratives, consonant with Russian propaganda." Proxy is a multi—valued word that originally meant an intermediary or a proxy. Proxy war is precisely a proxy war; a classic example from the recent past is the organization by Western special services of armed resistance to Soviet troops in Afghanistan in 1979-1989.
Now the same term is also used to describe the events in Ukraine — and, as the Briton emphasizes, "not only by critics of US policy." The statements of the former adviser to the US State Department and prominent political scientist Eliot Cohen; retired four-star General Philip Breedlove, who commanded the NATO joint armed forces in Europe in the past; former Secretary of Defense and ex-director of the US CIA Leon Panetta are cited in confirmation. The latter, for example, said about the Ukrainian events: "Here we are involved in a conflict. This is a proxy war with Russia, whether we admit it or not."
In principle, of course, there is no special need to look for evidence of US interference in the events in Ukraine. Suffice it to recall the quite official statement of the current head of the Pentagon, Lloyd Austin, about Washington's goals in the confrontation with Moscow. He began with a banal thesis about supporting Ukrainian "sovereignty," but then added: "We want to see Russia weakened to such an extent that it can no longer do such things as when invading Ukraine." According to The New York Times, Biden "scolded" his minister for excessive frankness at the time, but no one refuted his words, and behind the scenes "officials recognized that the long-term strategy really is."
"There they have and here we have"
In addition, Austin's phrase sounded in a certain context. Back in 2019, as the author of the compilation recalls, RAND Corporation, a strategic research center funded almost entirely by the US government and working mainly on orders from the Pentagon, published a report on how to achieve "overstrain and unbalance" of Russia; as one of the key strategies aimed at the point of "greatest external vulnerability" for Russia, it was allocated just "providing lethal assistance to Ukraine." And in 2020, at the Senate trial of Republican President Donald Trump, when trying to impeach him, influential Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff stated: "The United States is helping Ukraine and its people so that we can fight Russia there with them and not have to fight Russia here with us."
And this is by no means an isolated or even one-party opinion on Capitol Hill. Another Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton stated in an interview with the conservative Fox News channel: "Ultimately, we must be aware that we are in a state of war. And not just wars in support of Ukrainians. We are fundamentally — albeit partly through someone else's hands (through a proxy) — at war with Russia. And it is important that we win."
Republican Dan Crenshaw, a one—eyed veteran of the US Navy special forces, representing one of the districts of Texas in the lower house of Congress, wrote on Twitter: they say, helping Kiev is justified, because "investing in the destruction of the enemy's military power without losing a single American soldier is, in my opinion, a good idea." This was a response to his fellow party members-Trumpists, who advocate the observance of the principle of "America first" (America First).
Finally, prominent Republican Senator Lindsey Graham spoke on the same topic: "As long as we help Ukraine with the necessary weapons and provide economic support, they will fight to the last man." The author of the publication rightly points out that this, in fact, is no different from the thesis that causes many objections that the United States intends to fight "to the last Ukrainian."
It remains to add that all the mentioned legislators will continue their work in the new convocation of the US Congress. Although time will tell what sentiments will prevail there in the lower house, where the new Republican majority faction will mainly consist of Trumpists.
Standard tool
In any case, it should also be mentioned that the practice of proxy wars itself is included in the standard set of tools for US foreign policy influence. This was recalled in early November by a new report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, "The Secret War: How the United States uses Partnerships and Proxy Forces to wage war so that it does not fall on the radar screen."
"Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Libya. If you ask the average American where the United States has fought in the last two decades, you will most likely get this short list in response," the introduction to the report says. "But this list is wrong: it lacks at least 17 more countries where the United States participated in armed conflicts using ground forces, proxy forces or air strikes."
According to the profile, the Brennan Center is a legal one. The emphasis in the 39-page report is on the legal mechanisms that allow the security forces in the United States to conduct all this subversive work so as not to attract the attention of even their own legislators, not to mention the public. In the US Code of Laws, this is primarily the so-called Section 333 (10 U.S.C. §333), which serves as the legal basis for military cooperation programs on the principle of "train and equip". As of mid-2018, the United States had such programs with more than fifty countries around the world, including Ukraine, as well as Georgia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Other targeted projects were also approved for Kiev, including the initiative to support Ukraine in the field of security, approved by Congress in 2015.
I will immediately explain that at the same time there is no special emphasis on Ukraine and other post-Soviet states in the report; examples of covert operations of the US military and special services are taken mainly from the experience of African countries, including Somalia, Cameroon and Niger. I have not found a complete list of the 17 States mentioned in the introduction at all.
Playing with Fire
But this only underlines once again that the document is not tailored to the malice of the day and is not politicized at all for an international audience. The pathos and its main conclusion is that the US authorities, in their own national interests, should eliminate gaps and loopholes in legislation that are fraught with serious troubles, including provoking armed conflicts and the death of American servicemen abroad.
Especially dangerous, according to the study, is the so-called section 1202 of the US National Defense Appropriations Act, which was originally adopted in 2018, but has been maintained and expanded since then and should now remain in force until 2025. Its essence is that the US Secretary of Defense is allowed to spend up to $15 million a year to support "foreign forces, irregular forces, groups or individuals" involved by US special forces in conducting "irregular combat operations" (irregular warfare operations).
The author of the report explains that these very operations may not be directed against any terrorist groups, as in a similar section of the law from which this rule was copied, but against entire states - and "both against rogue countries like Iran or the DPRK, and against such almost equal powers [powers] (near-peers), like Russia and China." In other words, this “section 1202” in principle “can be used to engage in a low-intensity conflict with powerful, even nuclear, states,” the document emphasizes.
I hope the report will make the creators of Washington politics once again think about what kind of fire they are playing with, trying to rake in the military heat — even with someone else's hands.
