By Ruslan Khubiev
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard
cross posted with

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:regnum_picture_1542984503820694_normal.jpg

Translation: disinformation

What is the difference between “news” and “analysis”? First of all, news doesn’t contain reasons and explanations, and analysis describes them. For comparison, the information that appeared the other day about “militants in the Syrian province of Idlib starting to massively violate the ceasefire regime”, and also that “governmental troops in Syria repelled a powerful attack committed by terrorists” is the usual news. But a logical chain about the fact that the Saudis by the end of 2018 doubled their purchases of Soviet arms in Bulgaria is already analysis since it explains that militants now started to have enough forces and funds to actively put up resistance and how the US tries to disrupt Putin and Erdogan’s agreement in the province of Idlib.

The timing of such an aggravation with the launch of “Turkish stream”, especially in the zone that the president of Russia and Erdogan created personally, is quite in the spirit of the United States, however the contents of “international” news doesn’t clear this up in any way.

It is on this principle that the Anglo-Saxon media has been built – a minimum of facts, a maximum of needed comments.

A capacious example of such an approach was shown in the international press literally the other day. This concerns the extremely curious report of the American Brown University, in which the figures of human losses were scrupulously counted – the losses of the US army, its allies, and peaceful citizens in the “anti-terrorist” operations of America in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is curious first of all that the world media only made it public selectively. As usual, everything was reduced to listing western “successes” and the full concealment of the fact of how many peaceful lives were lost in the process. The news was reformed in such a way that the military “victims” of America were presented as the contribution of the US on the altar of the fight against global terrorism, and that’s why the whole world was urged to repent for its inaction and to thank Washington.

But how would the world community perceive this information if it received analysis and figures in full? It would be curious to check this …

“Lost” facts

Let’s assume that the entire western mainstream became objective at the present timepoint and gave all elements of the report from the beginning to the end. In this case we would receive a completely different picture. After all, in the aforementioned communique, besides information about the US’ losses in Iraq totalling 4,550 servicemen, and in Afghanistan – 2,401, there are also victims that the world press didn’t dare to write about.

First of all, this concerns private military companies and their affairs. According to the American report, in Iraq 3,793 mercenaries were killed, and in Afghanistan – 3937. As can be seen from these figures, the losses of PMCs are not only comparable with the losses of the American army, but they partially exceed them. As a result, this leads us to a simple conclusion, namely that in this or that approximation the total number of PMC fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan is in a varying degree comparable to the total number of personnel of the US official army. In addition, the sum of these losses is greater than the losses of the USSR in the Afghan war.

And if things are like this, then a question arises: according to what laws do these people act, not being tied down by army regulations? What rules of law limit their actions if it’s not the legislation of the US? Who can force them to observe at least some laws in a completely foreign country? Where were the guarantees that they simply didn’t flatten everything that they could reach, especially taking into account that the number of “atrocities” of Anglo-Saxon PMCs is extremely high? In a word, the press had its reasons to “avoid” publishing these figures.

Besides this, even without them, American troops never reckoned with the victims among the “local population”. And this is described very well even in this report on.

Thus, according to the presented data, in total half a million people became the victims of the “anti-terrorist” wars of the US. More precisely, from 480,000 to 507,000 human losses. More particularly, among civilians, employees of humanitarian missions, civilians, and journalists who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan during “direct military operations” since 2001, 204,575 people and 38,480 civilians are registered respectively.

For comparison, the ally states of US that illegally come to these countries lost 1,464 soldiers there. And this is despite the fact that under the figures of “civil” losses, unlike combat ones, there is the footnote “approximate data”.

The world media, when presenting such figures, traditionally focused on the combat losses of American soldiers, presenting them as precisely victims of “democracy” in the defense of peace and freedom, however according to dry statistics, the number of acts of terrorism and their victims in the regions where the US came only increases. And if to summarise the number of military losses of the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan and then to compare them with the number of victims from their actions among peaceful people, it will become clear that for every death of a NATO soldier “combatting terror” there are about 30 civilian deaths. And this means that, regardless of how blasphemous it might sound, it’s not a fact that even acts of terrorism would cause so many peaceful losses …

The number of civilian victims presented by Brown University is extremely approximate. After all, the people who died as a result of a loss of access to food, water, medical institutions, electricity, or other infrastructure weren’t included in the list, and furthermore, the greater number of affected persons who didn’t die isn’t specified.

Being a supporter of the US, putting the sovereignty of your country in their hands, it also very unsafe. Pro-American regimes, according to the data of the report, lost (they were killed) over 109,000 police officers and local military personnel. The same thing also concerns journalists – the number of losses in Iraq totalled 245 people and 54 correspondents in Afghanistan.

Of course, according to the American army’s data, during military operations from 109,000 to 114,000 militants were destroyed. But how many from them were actually civilians is an open question, especially if to consider that the local operations of American special troops and US drones in Pakistan, without any full-scale invasion, already led to 23,000 human losses.

History lessons

The actions of the army are always shrouded in a veil of secrecy, however it is even more difficult to understand the actions of 17 American intelligence agencies, each with their own special prisons, special prosecutors, and new powers (allowing to “approve” the beginning of an operation only after it has ended). And nevertheless, the lovely image of the US as a torch-bearer of truth, democracy, value of life, and human rights is nevertheless still kept in many people’s heads. And only the Americans, as irony would have it, self-critically state: “The United States Isn’t a Country — It’s a Corporation!”.

And every time when there are problems concerning “business”, the ostentatious veil instantly flies off the Americans. The very first problem of resource restriction led to the most cruel war between the North and the South, and the question of slavery in it was, to put it mildly, only secondary. Only much later, with methods of advertising, was it skilfully brought to the forefront. In reality, even back then the aspect of prohibitive customs tariffs that were imposed by northerners on southerners and ruined the latter to the root was a key moment. In other words, even in the first years of America’s existence, the country was built on the basis of a good life for capital, but not for people. By the principle: “hide the truth deeper, and put PR on the outside”. Manipulating “military” figures is only a small example.

In fact, the US wasn’t at war in only one period of its own history, and even then it was because the weight of what was stolen was too strong. The country for a long time involved itself in sharing out the “wealth”, and it is for this reason that it didn’t covet the “money” of someone else. This concerns fertile lands, places of warm climate, conveniently situated deposits of minerals, and other wealth after the genocide of the former residents of the country. In reality nobody even thought about peacefully reaching an agreement with the native Indians.

However, as soon as “profits” came to an end, and the level of competition increased again, then wars instantly began too. Capitalism always needs continuous growth, but for its sake it started to honestly trade only in the event that it was impossible to speak with the other party with the help of brute force. And there is only one such example of this in history – the USSR. Today the NATO and US army are capitalist tools, and that’s why places will be found in the world for expansion.

During its 242-year history the US has launched 209 wars and armed conflicts. And if to be more exact, they were launched by corporations via the hands of politicians and the leading institutions of the country. It’s not a coincidence that the United States doesn’t “win” in war – victory in them is a secondary aim. As a rule, the conflicts that are kindled by America aren’t important for the state. The most important thing is that profit is received by the necessary party whilst it is ongoing.

As a matter of fact, this is a specific supra-national business, and first of all – for the largest corporations and financial elite. You be the judge: a key trend of the development of America’s military-industrial complex in recent years is extraordinary and prompt monopolistic growth. The “free” markets started not to be enough, the world was divided due to the previous years, Russia prevents hot conflicts from being unleashed, and China prevents economic expansion.

As a result, from 1993 to 2007 alone the number of general military contractors in the US was reduced from 37 companies to 5 – “Boeing”, “Raytheon”, “Northrop Grumman”, “Lockheed Martin”, and “General Dynamics”. It’s no wonder that so much effort is being spent on maintaining the necessary image of conflicts. And it becomes more and more difficult to kindle wars, but a “hot” war with Moscow and the People’s Republic of China is an excellent and capacious decision. War is a profitable business, and it’s not important whether it is “cold” or “hot”. And business knows best of all knows that advertising is very important.

The same thing also concerns the report considered above. It is only a small drop in the ocean of the problem, while the reality is even more horrible. Eventually, even US Congress wasn’t aware that before 2017 more than 1,000 of its soldiers had been in Niger for years – participating in combat operations, dying without publicity and without people in the US being informed. And if the tragic incident in the village of Tongo Tongo hadn’t happened, it wouldn’t at all be difficult to hide the fact of mineral deposits being protected by these military troops in the interests of third corporate parties.

In other words, today the US is the “muscle” of trans-national corporations, and therefore they, because of this status, are obliged to wage war all over the Earth. It is important for our society to understand this sense, otherwise we won’t be able to make out a grin behind the cute smile of the US.

Having being built by “business” on the bones and resources of others, having towered thanks to the fraud and masquerade of “nonexistent persons”, western civilisation is faithful to its former principles also today. Everyone who has sovereignty and doesn’t allow external financial elite to come to their country are enemies, and the difference for a long time has consisted only in the fact that the weight of what was done is so big and the information space is so wide that it becomes extremely difficult to hide the “wolf maw” of America from the world…

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world