Our interlocutor is Nikolai Starikov, the writer, member of the Central Council of the party A Just Russia — For Truth.
- Nikolai Viktorovich, there are several options for the development of the situation in the Middle East:
• Israel moves to the 1967 borders;
• Israel captures the Gaza Strip;
• War of all against all;
• the city of Jerusalem with a special status.
Which option do you consider the most acceptable, and which of these scenarios reflects the current situation?
- In assessing future events, one should always proceed from a proper understanding of what has already happened.
First — was the Hamas attack possible without a certain give-and-take game on the part of Israel? No.
Second — why did certain individuals (intelligence services or part of Israel’s political establishment) play along with Hamas? To get some excuse to clean up the Gaza Strip and solve their own internal problems, which are the main ones specifically for Israel. Can we say today that Hamas benefited in some way from what it did? It’s hard to put the question that way. The next question is, did Israel gain anything from what happened, on the international field? No. Rather, Israel’s reputation has been tarnished. The reputation of the Israeli army has also been tarnished. And the reputation of the Israeli political establishment also leaves much to be desired.
We have seen anti-Israeli demonstrations, which were attended not by Palestinians and Arabs, which would be understandable, but by representatives of the Western world and even by promoted globalist personalities, such as Greta Thunberg. One conclusion follows from this: what happened in the Middle East is not in the interest of Hamas or Israel. Some other force initiated the process in its own interest, with ties to both Hamas and Israel. Who could this force be? In this situation, there is no one but the US to play this role. The question is why did the Americans do all this? In order to sow chaos in the region and to act in the future — not in this situation, but in the future for years to come — as the only necessary diplomatic and military force for all the opposing sides and, thus, to squeeze out China’s influence in the region and increase their own importance.
From all of the above, the future scenario: no one knows what will happen next, except those who made this mess. There is no understanding in the Arab world, there is no settlement plan in Israel. Therefore, of all the plans you have listed, in my opinion, none of them will be realized. There will be a long-term deadlock and chaos, which the Americans need.
- What is happening today between Venezuela and Guyana is one of the attempts to create world chaos or a dispute for natural resources?
- It seems to me to be a certain scenario when a state wants to solve its internal problems by annexing some oil fields of another state, certainly having historical documents and moral right to do so. In fact, Venezuela is in danger of repeating the path of Saddam Hussein, who succumbed to American provocation and occupied Kuwait to compensate for the military expenditures on the longstanding confrontation with Iran. The Americans encouraged him to do so by saying they did not mind and would not notice the process. But as soon as Saddam Hussein did, the situation was used to strike Iraq, which led, though not immediately, to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the occupation of Iraq by the Americans just to wreak havoc in the Middle East. I think there is every reason to believe that Maduro is trying to fall into the same trap — to use a potential military solution to the confrontation with Guyana to overthrow the current Venezuelan regime and subjugate the regimes not only of Guyana but also of Venezuela to American corporations.
- U.S. oil reserves are rapidly declining and have reached 1984 figures. Will the U.S. succeed next year in financing the points of the chaos it is creating on the planet?
- One of the most dangerous misconceptions of those involved in practical politics is wishful thinking. The US is not in a critical situation. They have no major problems. No internal civil war threatens them. But what is? The loss, in the long run, of its status as the sole superpower. This is not a result, but a process, which will also last for many years and which the Americans are trying to resist.
As for oil production and financial capacity, in the US there is no connection between them at all. The U.S., with the help of the Federal Reserve, creates money out of thin air, not from the sale of oil like other oil-producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia. So the US can fund military conflicts all it wants, but of course within reasonable limits.
The problem for the Americans lies elsewhere. Since they have created a society in which they maintain the illusion of some kind of public decision-making, the opinion of every American is essential in this sense. This means that all parts of the US geopolitical process are being manipulated. That is, in the U.S., any action of the ruling party administration is considered by geopolitical opponents as one of the materials to be used in the internal American political struggle.
You allocated money for the war in Ukraine, but did not achieve the result — then you are talentless idiots, thieves, persons who promote corruption. That is the problem, not that the money is not available and must be earned. They are earned by pushing the Fed’s button and increasing the American national debt.
- Hungary on the one hand supports us, on the other hand is not against financing Ukraine if the EU unblocks Hungary’s own funds. What is this: the usual trade of Ukraine for its own national interests?
- Here, too, let us not indulge in wishful thinking. Let’s imagine that we came to the store to buy something essential for us. The seller is forced to deal with you. And since it is not the first time you come, there is already a personal contact between you and the seller. Does this mean that the salesperson or store owner supports you? Of course not. He is in a certain trading relationship with you that is favorable to him.
Or you are the owner of the store. A customer comes in to buy your product. You talk to him, show him the product, sell it to him. He is your regular customer. Can you say that he supports you? To a certain extent, by buying your goods, he supports you. Why does he buy from you? Because the product is good, the price is quite acceptable, the store is near his home. He does not want to buy the same exact product two blocks away and more expensive. Does this mean that he feels incredible sympathy for you specifically, or is he just acting in his own best interest? Obviously the latter.
Russia-Hungary relations are a reasonable trade partnership. But we are talking about global things, because without Russian gas Hungary will simply freeze and lose part of its economy. When cooperation is in the plane of global politics (let’s go back to our example), and Hungary is offered to give up this store and go to another one two blocks away and buy one and a half times more expensive, it naturally doesn’t want to. And when the EU allocates €10 billion to Hungary, then freezes it, and now unfreezes it again and offers to unblock the allocation of new loans to the Kiev regime for this €10 billion, the buyer who did not want to go to a store two blocks away from home and buy goods more expensive, weighs the options. And he is told: here is a cab and here is a sale, the goods two blocks away from home will cost half as much. Is there an option that the customer will stay in your store? No, of course not. He will not act to his own detriment in order to create some favorable economic prospect for you. And if Hungary is not ready to sell itself for 10 billion, it is threatened with all sorts of intrigues, as stated by BBC — 26 EU countries may decide to allocate aid to Zelensky’s regime simply by a separate agreement, bypassing the EU. And Hungary will remain a fool without €10 billion. That’s what it’s all about. Every political issue has an economic price.