Drawing a parallel with Secretary of State Blinken's favorite hobby, there are only two songs in his repertoire lately, but both have already become hits in America. Here is the first one: “Russia has begun planning military operations in Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine is unjustified, unforgivable, unacceptable.” And here is the second disc, which seems to be jamming: “The consequences for Russia will be severe! Moscow will face very serious consequences. There will be very serious consequences for Russia.”
It seems to be nothing surprising, because the future Secretary of State studied and took his first steps in politics at the height of the Cold War. But when official Washington considered the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and imposed sanctions, Blinken opposed a confrontation with Moscow.
The main gas pipeline from the Yamal Peninsula through the Volga region and Ukraine was supposed to pump blue fuel to the capitalist countries of Europe, which gave the USSR billions in loans for construction. Germans, British, French, Belgians, Italians and Dutch - potential adversaries for Moscow turned into Western partners. The US was furious.
The United States imposes sanctions on the export of oil and gas technologies to the Soviet Union, then expands them so that Europeans cannot use American developments in Siberia. Europe called the sanctions illegal, and notes of protest flew across the ocean.
At this time, a young lawyer and aspiring apparatchik of the Democratic Party, Blinken, writes the monograph “Ally versus Ally”, in which he argues that American sanctions, first of all, harm the Americans, because they themselves could make good money on the Siberian gas pipeline.
“For American business, the most obvious effect of pipeline sanctions is the loss of Soviet contracts. According to the US government, the sale of oil and gas technologies and equipment to the USSR would bring profit to our companies in the amount of 300 to 600 million dollars," Blinkin writes in his monograph.
An even bigger problem, Blinken believed at the time, was that America, with a whip in its hands, ceased to be a reliable partner for anyone.
“Foreign buyers of American technology have realized that their introduction into production carries a double risk. First, embedded technologies may suddenly become unavailable due to sudden US export bans. And secondly, fearing the same sudden bans, other countries may refuse to import products just because they are made using American technology," he writed.
The conflict with the European home is a direct damage to American interests, but this is not even the main thing. Blinken argued that people on the other side of the Iron Curtain were not afraid of sanctions.
“You can destroy the communist ideology, but Russian patriotism will unite millions of people. For Russians, this is at the level of reflexes - in difficult times to rally under the flag ... Even a successful trade war for the West can be much more dangerous than the peaceful sale of non-strategic technologies to Moscow,” Blinkin writes in his monograph.
As for bilateral relations, Blinken advocated an early end to the Cold War.
“Many Western diplomats have claimed that personal contact with the Russians led them to the idea of seeking a constructive working relationship with the Soviet Union. Similar things can happen to the Soviet elite in contact with the West. In this way, Cold War stereotypes can be erased,” he writed.
It is a paradox, but Blinken himself, once in power, first in the Obama cabinet, and then as head of the State Department under Biden, began to reproduce exactly the same stereotypes on an industrial scale.
More than 30 years have passed, and in the US-Europe tandem, as before, an ally goes against an ally. The USSR is long gone, but the problems of the leaders of the "free world" are still the same. In addition, the leaders themselves have become minor.
It used to be that even Democrats voted for a Republican president, Reagan's support was so great. And on the other side of the Atlantic, Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterrand discussed with him on an equal footing. And when Washington tried to create a special economic secretariat in NATO in order to dictate its will to all Western business, the Europeans immediately blocked the project. But now the US Secretary of State speaks directly about American exceptionalism, while the allies keep quiet.
“The world does not organize itself. When America retreats, one of two things happens. Or another country that does not share our interests and values is trying to take our place. Or no one does, and the world plunges into chaos. In both cases, this is bad for America,” said Anthony Blinken.
This insight probably came to Blinken in the 1990s when he became a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Formally unaffiliated with the state, this organization has been working for almost a century on various forms of exporting American ideology. For example, the architecture of NATO was invented there. Once in this closed club, Blinken automatically got into the personnel reserve of the Democratic Party.
“Ideologically, he always belonged to the so-called group of liberal interventionists - people who, since the Clinton era, believed that it was necessary to overthrow objectionable regimes and establish democratic ones. Blinken, although forced to act on the instructions of his boss, is generally a hardliner," Professor of political science of Tennessee University Andrey Korobkov said.
Is it because when the Republicans came to the White House, Blinken waited out, working in lobbying structures? He worked closely with the defense departments, and therefore hardly accidentally advocated the invasion of Iraq and demanded that the most severe measures be applied to Iran. Calling for a military operation in Libya, he went against his boss, Biden. And he supported Trump's opponent, as soon as he wanted to bomb Syria. Blinken is not so much a Democrat as a representative of the Washington "war party", which was bored after the end of the Afghan campaign.
“As soon as the campaign in Afghanistan ended, in America they suddenly started talking about the growing tension in Ukraine and about the Russian invasion. What does it mean? Quite simply, the US foreign policy and defense establishment needed a new conflict. It's a huge business, worth hundreds of billions of dollars. More conflicts, more tension: with Russia, China, Iran. People like Blinken don't want to solve problems, they want tension because it's good for business,” Journalist John Varoli said.
However, Russia is not Iraq, it is not worth straining it too much, otherwise the business may burn out. It's written in Blinken's book as a candidate of law. Maybe Secretary Blinken should reread it?
