Mikhail Delyagin Press Conference

Mikhail Delyagin, Director of Globalization Problems. Doctor of Economics. I have a feeling that we've already entered an epoch of great change, but haven't realized it yet. Later, we'll divide our past into the pre-Tunisia and post-Tunisia epochs, as with the *** of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo, Pearl Harbour, the June 22 fascist attack on Russia. Undoubtedly, everything happening has objective circumstances at its base. It was the lack of cereals in Egypt, remarkable elections in Tunisia (the ruling party allegedly received about 98.5% of the vote). I should mention that United Russia has about 70% of votes cast. In comparison to Tunisia, Russia is a very democratic state, having some resources for further advance. Unquestionably, the leadership of these countries showed a viciousness, a lack of competitive mechanisms for changing the authorities. The western model of democracy is not the only possible way. In China, for example, we can see that there is no democracy or general elections there, but the mechanism for leadership change is competitive. Iran is a country with an Islamic democracy, general elections and a competitive mechanism for leadership change. We see that these systems function successfully. On the other hand, if we have a leader ruling for life, like Mubarak did, if the power is inherited, like in Syria, a downfall of efficiency takes place, perfectly exploited by all external rivals. These problems have existed for a long time. They have been ripening for a long time. All these crises have been strongly influenced by the USA. The extermination of allies is a qualitatively new factor of this influence. Egypt has never had a more pro-American leader than Mubarak. Initially, Obama supported him and then secured the overthrow. The situation is virtually the same as the one with Russia and Shevardnadze. The military are more likely to win in the elections in Egypt than the Muslim Brothers. However, the military will treat the USA and Israel far worse than Mubarak did. In Libya, the situation is insane. Muammar Gaddafi hasn't been bad to the West. He entered into business relations. He paid for the Lockerbie bombing. He allowed foreign investment into his country, restricted social support. Nobody mentions his support for terrorism. He's paid. We see that the situation in Israel is incredible. Surely, Obama wasn't talking about the borders of 1967. He repeated Netanyahu's formula: a line of demarcation and then exchange of territories on the basis of the line of demarcation. The fact that he has officially had 1967 imputed upon him is a wonderful vengeance on Israel. There were things to avenge . Obama put Israel and Palestine on the same level for the first time in US history. In his speech, Obama virtually fixed their equality. Israel is losing its special status in relations with the USA. The boundary is not a matter of principle if Israel loses its status. We already see the activity of Israelis in Russia, because the question where to go in the strategic future is rather acute. Then, we see the situation in Yemen. It is quite an interesting place. I do not specialize in separate Arab countries, but the destabilization of Yemen is rather unpleasant for Saudi Arabia, firstly due to the fact that part of Saudi territory historically belonged to Yemen, secondly - due to the fact that social tensions in Saudi Arabia are substantial between the Saudis, who are sheikhs, and other tribes, which are just bought. However, when there is too much money, there is no use buying anybody, because nobody cares whether he has six Mercedes or nine. Political and historical ambitions still exist. Saudi troops brilliantly cope with the population of Bahrain, but in relation to the warlike tribes, being born with their hands around a Kalashnikov, they are inefficient. It is a plausible threat for Saudi Arabia, being the main strategic ally of the USA in the region. Everything is clear with Bahrain. Once it was a part of Iran, and they dont want it to become a part of Iran once again. The other thing we see is the striking alliance with al-Qaeda. In Eastern Libya, for every 1500 civilians, there is one al-Qaeda militant officially registered by the USA. Some militants have already been to Chechnya and secured their ties in the region. We have to pray that these ties are via the Taliban, not via the United States Department of State. Lastly, the disappearance of Osama bin Laden as a media personage. The real date of his *** doesn't matter. It was a good image. Why did the Americans have to give the image up? CIA operatives have described in detail how they made video clips with statements by bin Laden several years ago. Nobody refuted anything, nobody charged them. Bin Laden became unnecessary. If they are on friendly terms with Islamic fundamentalists, bin Laden becomes an over-irritating figure. The other fact is that international law has vanished. In the epoch of Iraq and Yugoslavia, international law was defied. Now it has vanished. What's the difference? What's happened to Libya? The United Nations Security Council decision was made with blatant violations of international law. The representative of Libya was not given the floor. If the UN conducts any military operations, a UN Military Headquarters must be created. The possibility of establishing any non-NATO joint headquarters started being discussed after the two weeks and is still in process. Nobody is indignant at this fact. Value or a phenomenon exists while there is one who can defend it. When somebody violates it with impunity, and at least somebody is indignant at this fact, it is a violation of international law. When international law is violated and no major players object to this, it means that there is no international law any more. So, Libya may be bombed freely. We see the dynamics of developments. I do not oppose or support the current Libyan authorities. I know that the Americans have fixed that their tactical task is to oust Russia from the Mediterranean via pressure upon Libya and Syria. A week ago I talked with a Ukrainian journalist, who decided to have a holiday in Syria. He travelled across Syria, in the backwoods. When he came to a hotel in Turkey, he went on the internet and knew that wide-scale insurrections were taking place in one city, 72 people were killed and the town was plunged into chaos. But he was in the town at the time of the alleged insurrections! And the town was peaceful and sleepy. It is an example of creating non-existent occasions. When Georgia attacked South Ossetia, we saw inadequate assessments of the events. Now, real bombardments are justified by alleged events. When the situation in Libya is brought to the desirable result, Syria will come under fire. Taking into consideration the situation and experience, we see that similar events almost took place in Algeria. Destabilization in Algeria means the immediate end of the European project. The destabilization in Libya is just an influx of migrants and some problems in the internal functioning of the Schengen Zone, destabilization in Algeria means interruptions in gas supplies, gas supplies for some EU members will be cut off. This will mean the end of the European project. In my opinion, the attitude of the US ruling elite has changed. They had the idea of forming the world in the American way. In Iraq, they realized that there are countries which cannot be bombed into democracy and some of these countries must even be left. It seems to me that they've changed their doctrine. The new doctrine may imply the necessity of maintaining chaos in many territories. The theory of self-maintaining chaos has been worked out for a long time in the USA. It is wise, beautiful and complicated. There is practical interest, too. In chaos one can control the necessary resources with substantially lesser means. How can the USA control oil in Libya during a time of any national government? It is difficult. In this case, it is necessary to bribe, negotiate, exercise pressure, maintain political parties and forces, these are considerable details. When Libya is brought to the situation of Somalia, two special mission regiments will suffice. These two regiments will be maintained by means of the state they will be deployed in. One should remember that there is a subterranean deposit of fresh water in Libya. It is not Baikal, but it is valuable for the desert region. Besides control over foreign resources on a shoestring, there is one more thing. The USA has maintained its economy by exporting instability. The creation of hotbeds of instability (such as Yugoslavia and Iraq), attempts towards Pakistan, Iran and North Korea have, on the one hand, drained them of funds and intellectual potential. On the other hand, instability necessitates a growth of military expenses and non-market stimulation of the economy. They reached a deadlock after Iraq, when there was nothing left to destabilize. All the remaining enemies were too powerful. However, a solution has been found. They started destabilizing their allies. However, there is one thing even more important. It is the coming of the new epoch. All these changes can be explained in terms of momentary tactical and strategic interests. These interests are forming the change in the rules. We are entering a new Dark Ages, when only the law of the sword matters. It is an unpleasant thing, but in my opinion this situation creates a threat to the Russian Federation. The strategy of creating chaos will be applied to Russia some day too.