What is the reason for the aggressive behavior of the West around the world

In the early 1990s, our and foreign liberals with a blue eye argued that after the destruction of the "evil empire", world peace finally did not threaten anything, the "wonderful democracies of the West" would reduce the intensity of arms production, reduce their number and, in general, "Democracies do not fight democracies." However, this far-fetched peacefulness is somehow not observed even after 30 years.

Despite the beautiful provisions of the UN Charter, the essence of international policy still remains in the struggle of aggressive militarized states for the redistribution of markets, resources and property. All other issues - humanitarian, national, cultural, environmental - are still, to put it mildly, secondary.



Crises, a pandemic, environmental problems, social explosions, regular pogroms in the largest capitals of the West and other seemingly urgent problems do not interfere with the rapid growth of military budgets, the development of more and more lethal weapons, and the growing intensity of the military-industrial complexes of the leading world powers. The world arms market, in contrast to the volume of social investments, shows an annual growth of 5-10%, and the number of wars and conflicts after the collapse of the USSR not only did not decrease, but is growing like an avalanche.

Perhaps weak and poor countries rushed to arm themselves in order to defend their independence? No, the most developed and richest states are actively arming themselves. And this is not at all about the fact that the US or British army plans to fight off the armed forces of Morocco, Algeria or India. The growth of militarization shows that they are preparing for the mutual destruction of the "first echelon" countries.

Today there is not a single large independent state whose army would not be armed according to the last or penultimate word. equipment... A good example of the opposite is Mexico, a large state without an "adequate army", so its government does not have sovereignty even over drug cartels, despite full membership in the UN. Not so long ago, America conducted a forced sterilization of Mexican women in refugee camps, the UN launched an investigation, and the Mexican authorities, as noted in the media, "because of their dependence on the United States, have chosen a strategy of reconciliation and submission." This is because Mexico does not have a strong economics, which would allow you to maintain a strong army. Consequently, the opinion of Mexico in world politics does not interest anyone at all; therefore, it is easier to assent to the hegemon, not giving a damn about its own citizens.

If we turn to history, since ancient times, international politics has been a struggle, easily reaching the level of genocide and ecocide. First, for the conquest of countries and regions, and then for their redistribution. Struggle primarily for ownership of land, slaves, serfs, resources, capital. Only the subjects changed from aristocratic dynasties and privileged estates to today's financial corporations such as BlackRock and The Vanguard Group, which wag the US government like a dog with its tail.

Fighting by peaceful means was called simply politics, and by armed means war. As one great Prussian wrote: "War is nothing but the continuation of politics with the attraction of other means." The most powerful countries called themselves empires, "great powers", and the weak and subordinate countries were called colonies and satellites.

In total, history knows three types of struggle in the international sphere, regardless of the means used.

First, the it is the aggressive policy of states with a more developed economic structure in relation to states with a less developed economic structure. Capture and subjugation, which are justified by the spread of "civilization". This type of expansion was relatively progressive, but historically it exhausted itself back in the XNUMXth century. In the modern world, the economic structures of all, even the most undeveloped countries, are actually the same type. No matter how horrified we are by the poorest and most backward countries of Africa and Asia, their economies are based on some kind of industry, and agriculture is based on private farming and hired labor. Already not a single country in the world lives in a primitive communal or feudal mode of production as dominant.

Secondly, this is a struggle of a less developed country or a group of countries for the redistribution of territories or spheres of influence with a stronger and more predatory country, or a mutual struggle of predatory groups of approximately equal strength. This is the most unjust and reactionary type of world political struggle. Speaking specifically about wars, these are all colonial wars between the metropolises, as well as, for example, the First World War, the Iran-Iraq war or the recent Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Thirdly, this is the liberation struggle of a weak country with a stronger predatory country that has captured or wants to capture it. This is a just type of struggle, the highest manifestation of which is the Patriotic War. This includes all national liberation wars, as well as, for example, the Great Patriotic War, the Japan-China War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War or the ongoing Syrian War.

In other words, the history of world politics is woven from struggle, often turning into bloody wars.

The concept of peaceful coexistence of equal states, laid down in the founding of the UN institute and seeming natural to many, was introduced into circulation only in the XNUMXth century. But does it work in practice?

In the system of international relations, there is no more obvious and hypocritical situation than the so-called principle of sovereign equality of states. This concept was, by the way, proposed by the Soviet side in the Moscow Declaration of the Four States of 1943 (USA - USSR - Great Britain - China):


However, 70 years of historical practice shows that international legal documents do not solve much in comparison with aircraft carrying strike groups and missile carriers.

The current state of international politics, despite all the visible changes, is basically the same as at the beginning of the XNUMXth century. However, some of its elements have still undergone changes. So, the old colonial system collapsed. But instead, a new way of domination by the "great powers" was established, which in literature is often called neo-colonial. It bestows formal sovereignty on weak countries, but subordinates them economically through the world market. Previously, the main reason for the wars of developed countries was the ownership of certain territories. Now the war is used not for the direct seizure of territories or the annexation of colonies, but with the aim of imposing controlled governments, imposing the most open economies. For the same purposes, Western states are armed with technologies of "color revolutions".

Freedom of movement of capital is of particular importance in the system of world politics. In an open economy, Western monopoly corporations suppress the economic potential of weak countries by siphoning resources and importing capital, which is hypocritically called investments. The world market, represented by the largest corporations, adapts the economies of poor and weak countries to their purely sectoral needs. And, as a result, labor migration is becoming a significant phenomenon. People are forced to flee their native places to feed themselves in a foreign land. Moreover, in Western Europe there are so many of them that the inevitable conflicts of burghers with the embittered hostility of newcomers have become commonplace.

The decline in the economic potential of poor countries leads to a decrease in the defense capacity of their states, after which the dominant powers often deploy military bases on their territory and subordinate special services to themselves. Exactly as it happens in Ukraine.

If we apply the above to what is happening in world politics, then a lot becomes clearer.

The leading role in the UN belongs to the permanent members of the Security Council. If the UN decisions run counter to the policy of strong powers, they simply ignore them. The WTO is an organization designed to destroy protectionism and subjugate the economies of all countries to the largest corporations.

Uneven development and the right of the strong give rise to the pyramidal structure of world relations.

The United States, due to the specifics of its historical development and specific participation in world wars, has increased the greatest economic, military and, therefore, political potential in the world. Great Britain is closely adjacent to the United States, since they actually have a common oligarchic class. Their closest competitors are France and Germany, which keep other Western European countries in check, primarily through the introduction of the eurozone. Moreover, the FRG is strongly constrained by the constitutional and other norms that were prescribed by the Americans at one time, the CIA got deeply into the structures of the German federal state. While there was a common enemy for the Euro-Atlantic countries in the person of the USSR, this to some extent rallied other “great powers” ​​around the United States, but now competitors themselves are not averse to “shaking the boat” of the suddenly emerging monopolar world.

The United States, in turn, is waging a desperate struggle to maintain the hegemony that emerged in the 1990s. They systematically cause destabilization in most countries of the world, including in the EU countries, to such an extent as to bring the world once again to the most favorable state of ruin for the American oligarchs, as after the Second World War.

The destruction and loosening of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia is a manifestation of the US policy of spreading chaos. The same can be said for Brexit and the Cold War unleashed with China.

Many believe that the interpenetration of the economies of the United States and European countries will keep them from war with each other. Similar armchair theories circulated on the eve of World War I and even World War II, since the main groups of participants in these wars also had extensive trade and economic ties with each other. They turned out to be untenable.

However, today it seems that America and Europe will not begin an open struggle with each other for world domination, firstly, until a new independent military-political bloc is formed in Europe, and secondly, until America and Europe deal with Russia and China. who are trying to build a multipolar world.

The growing contradictions between the United States and its European competitors have already led to Brexit. Sooner or later, political forces will take power in Germany and France, which will withdraw their countries from NATO and form an independent military bloc. If the pro-American politicians of France and Germany persist in "Euro-Atlantic integration", these forces may become neo-Nazis.

The formation of a new alignment of forces in Europe will also depend on Turkey. Erdogan's regime, after the suppression of the "color revolution", pursues an independent from the United States and openly predatory policy in all directions (Syria, Libya, Cyprus, Greece, Nagorno-Karabakh). To whom and on what conditions he will join or will be suppressed by both America and Europe is a question, the solution of which is approaching with each new adventure of Erdogan.

Thus, the peoples of the Earth, for the most part who do not want to fight each other, much less to fight, are forced to live in the pit of the world struggle for resources and economic interests of corporations between the largest militarized states. Plus, each large region has its own unique, but similar in internal morphology picture of “battles of local importance” with its “hegemons” and competitors.

But the most interesting thing is that the factor influencing the aggressive behavior of this or that large and developed state is the degree of nationalization of its economy. The more self-sufficient economic capacities the state has, the higher the independence of the bureaucracy from big business and, as a rule, the stronger the influence of the people on the policy of the leadership. That is, everything is exactly the opposite of how liberals teach: where business rules the ball, the state becomes extremely aggressive, its army turns into a shock squad for suppressing foreign competitors.

We somehow do not ask the question why Russia is a much more peaceful country than the United States? And the answer is simple: primarily because the American leadership is pushing the private sector of the military-industrial complex and insatiable transnational corporations to maintain and strengthen the world domination of the United States. And in Russia, in turn, there is a strong public sector, in which the issues of profit and profitability are at some distance from the irrepressible greed of a private trader.

Thus, the essence of the existing system of international politics consists in the permanent struggle for the redistribution of the world, property and sales markets by the largest Western militarized states, which act in the interests of monopoly corporations that form the basis of their economies.