January 27, 2017

Who Are You, Donald Trump?

The Independent Analytical Centre for Geopolitical Studies “Borysfen Intel” allows analysts to express their views on specific political, economic, security, information situation in Ukraine and the world at large, based on personal research and geopolitical analysis.

 

Note that the authors' point of view
can disagree with the editor's one.

 

Valeriy Shvets,
Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Professor,
Academician of the Academy of Sciences of Higher Education of Ukraine

”Together we will make America great again,” — said in his inaugural speech the 45th President of the United States of America Donald Trump. These are strong and correct words for America. They are the words of hope for people around the world, connecting their hopes for a better life and a more just world with the USA's leadership in the world.

The USA's victory in the “Cold War” and the very existence of this economic and political superpower made possible the existence of the independent Ukrainian state for a quarter century. We, more than anyone else in the world, are interested in America's continuing its leadership. Especially because the alternatives are few: China — the second military spending after the United States, that even with a very strong desire cannot be called a democratic state, and Muscovy — the third in military spending country, which was a terror to the civilized world in the twentieth century, and remains the same in the twenty-first.

But why does Donald Trump speak about the possible greatness of America in the future tense? Is the United States no longer a great nation? The majority of ordinary people are absolutely convinced that America not only was great, but remains such today. To understand these words of Donald Trump's, let's compare the annual gross domestic product (GDP), that is the amount of wealth created within a year in the United States and, for example, in China.

Thus, the United States' GDP in 2016 amounted to 17 trillion 419 billion US dollars (22.37 % of the world's GDP), while in China it was only 10 trillion 355 billion US dollars (13 % of the world's GDP). It seems that the USA has no reason for great concern. But let's look at the structure of GDP in the USA in 2016: industry — 15 % of GDP, agriculture — 1 % of GDP. In China, the share of industry in GDP is about three times higher, and the share of agriculture is nine  times higher than the corresponding US figures. That is, today the cost of China's industrial production is more than one and a half times, and agricultural production is more than five times higher than the corresponding US figures. But then the USA's superiority over China in the total GDP is also illusory.

Let's consider an example. The fare in Kyiv Metro is 4 hryvnias, in Moscow Metro — 55 rubles, in London Tube to the maximum distance — 6 pounds. Having exchanged rubles for hryvnias, we will get 22 hryvnias, which is equivalent to four and a half trips by Metro in Kyiv. And having exchanged pounds for hryvnias, we get 200 hryvnias or 50 trips by metro in Kyiv. So, one and the cost of the same product or service is different in different countries. Therefore, the GDP in general does not determine the amount of goods or services that these numbers match.

Comparing United States and China by GDP

Comparing United States and China by GDP

A more objective indicator of the economic activity of the country is not GDP, but PPP — (the GDP, converted by purchasing power parity of various currencies against the US dollar). Since 2014, the GDP (PPP) of China has been higher than the GDP (PPP) of the United States of America. According to the IMF's data, in 2014 the GDP (PPP) of China reached 18 trillion 228 billion US dollars, while the US GDP (PPP) was only 17 trillion 393 billion US dollars; in 2015 — 19 trillion 696 billion and 18 trillion 37 billion, respectively. If these figures are counted in the physical volume of industrial and agricultural production, the gap between China and the United States will increase significantly in favor of China. That is, President D. Trump is right: today the United States is no longer the world's industry leader.

Again in Donald Trump's words: “Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves. These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public. But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential”. (This seems to have been said about Ukraine too). And again: “One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world”. (And this is almost about Ukraine, only that our factories were cut for scrap).

“Same years, but different weathers”. Soviet propaganda poster

“Same years, but different weathers”. Soviet propaganda poster

Doesn't this picture remind you of anything? It does to me. The Great Depression of the early thirties of the last century. From my point of view, the real reason for that Depression was the fantastically rapid modernization (industrialization) of the economy of the Soviet Union. Then US plants also were being taken off the foundations and exported to the Soviet Union. Then the American middle class was also reduced to a minimum, and a lot of skilled workers, engineers, representatives of the creative intelligentsia stood in line for free soup. Who had done it? The one who had power in America; not formal power, related to elected public offices, and not the manufacturers, for whom that depression had devastating consequences, but those who came to power with the money. Did Donald Trump mention those people? He did, but rather vaguely: “For too long, a small handful of people in the capital had been enjoying the laurels of power, and the people have been paying for it”. That is, even in the United States it is difficult to call a spade a spade.

For the sake of what was such a price paid? In my opinion, for the sake of creation in Eastern Europe of a heavily armed aggression centre directed against Western Europe. And it was created. At the beginning of World War II, the number of the most modern weapons in the Soviet Union was times greater than the number of arms the rest of the world had. Then why was the war so tragic for the Soviet Union? The country's leaders, who had only primary education, in other words did not know how to fight, and the people, who in its majority hated those leaders, did not want to die for them. (Stalin had only incomplete secondary religious education: four years of seminary, before that for six years he had studied at the four-year religious school. The school subjects were as follows there: the law of God and the sacred history, reading of secular and church books, writing, the first four steps of arithmetic, liturgical singing. I think he did not know actions with broken numbers. His favorite Marshal G. Zhukov had only three classes of a parochial school; his close associate Marshal S. Budyonny never attended school; his associate and member of the Politburo, the first Marshal of the Soviet Union K. Voroshilov had two classes of a parochial school).

The list is long. Even Stalin's heir as general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, N. Khrushchev did not go to school. That is, the words of the Party's anthem “Who was nothing — will become everything” were not just words.

At that time the civilized world had to pay a heavy price for the modernization of the Soviet Union. The forces which modernized and armed the Soviet Union before World War II, thirty years after it suddenly resorted to the same action, but in regard to China. China's modernization, in principle, could not have been possible without the assistance of the owners of world money, without the exports to China of that money and modern Western technologies. This time, China's industrialization allegedly did not have such disastrous consequences for the Western world. Just the fever shaking Europe and the United States in the early thirties, was spread over half a century. The USA's and other leading Western countries' GDP all that time was supposedly growing. But the moment the modernization of China in the seventies of the last century began, that growth became symbolic — within one or two percent. And was it real? But that alleged growth had to hide from the public the simple fact that actual production in the USA and some European countries over those years was rapidly decreasing. American and European plants have migrated en masse to China. In support of this let's again quote Donald Trump: “For many decades, we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military; we've defended other nation's borders while refusing to defend our own; and spent trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay. We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country have disappeared over the horizon”.

The rapid growth of China's economy since late 1970’s

The rapid growth of China's economy since late 1970’s

Why was this done? One answer is to deter the Soviet Union which after World War II did not reduce its aggressiveness, transferring it to the whole world. First, Japan was modernized, I think, for the same purpose. But Japan's stubborn refusal to become a military power of Asia, probably forced to consider other options. China seems to like the role of a military force not only of Asia but also of the whole world, and it is rapidly building up its military capabilities. At this, the growth of military spending (even according to official figures), is significantly higher than the GDP's growth. The Chinese army is now well equipped and is considered the largest in the world.

Officially, China's military spending is several times less than the US military spending, though much higher than the Russian one. But when did any communist country report on its actual military expenditures? It would be more correct to say that we know nothing about China's military spending. If its GDP is somewhere five times the GDP of Muscovy, the army — twice as big, mobilization potential — ten times, then about what balance of forces between China and Muscovy are we talking? To all this, the area of Muscovy, adjacent to the territory of China, is mainly economically depressed. How and with what to protect it? No matter how much Muscovy would like to avoid it, its fate will be decided in the East and most likely not in its favor.

Is today's Muscovy a threat to the United States of America? Of course, it is, and not only to the USA, but also to any country, being of a slightest interest for Muscovy or its rival. But is Muscovy the world's largest challenge to the United States? It is not customary to mention this, but the biggest challenge to the United States is, of course, China. It can deprive America of the role of a global leader by taking away its printing press for the world's money and leaving it alone with the remnants of the once colossal US material production.

In this regard, Donald Trump's desire to negotiate with Moscow is clear. However, not only the American President, but most of the leading western leaders and politicians do not want to admit that it is impossible to negotiate with Moscow. It is the country where the word traditionally is worth nothing, be it at the level of government officials, or at the level of ordinary citizens. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States had been trying to restrain it with the help of China, now it makes sense to try to contain China with the help of Muscovy. Because the remedy (China) has proved to be more dangerous than the disease (Muscovy), it is advisable to swap them around. Therefore, the United States is obviously not interested in further dismantling Muscovy into ethnically homogeneous new independent states. Besides, the USA invested too great material and political resources into that country in the twentieth century, to easily agree to its bankruptcy. I would also add that, in my opinion, today it is the United States that is the main guarantor of the territorial integrity and state independence of Muscovy. Establishing relations with the Kremlin — is not Donald Trump's invention. The previous White House's administration was not against Muscovy, or for its dismantling, it was against a particular leader of that country and its ruling elite, based on intelligence services and law enforcement agencies. It is this structure of power that was characteristic of the Horde, from which Muscovy originated. Now, I suppose, Muscovy has simply returned to its natural state.

Will the United States' position influence the fate of Muscovy? Did the USA's position influence the fate of Ukraine in 1991? After all, the 41st US President George Herbert Walker Bush in his address to the Ukrainian Parliament in 1991 called on the Ukrainian ruling elite and the Ukrainian people not go to the break with Russia, not to proclaim independence of Ukraine. But we felt our strength and did not take the advice. Ukraine became independent and now the USA is providing the largest economic, political and military support to Ukraine on this path. However, after the First World War, when the Entente countries led by the United States decided the fate of postwar Europe (led by US President Woodrow Wilson, to be exact) and created a number of new independent states on the principle of “one nation — one state”, there was no place for an independent Ukrainian state in the political map of Europe. I think that there would have been no place for an independent Polish state too, but the Poles managed to defend themselves in a war with Russia, while Ukrainians — did not. Actually, force is a decisive argument in all political conflicts, and the rest plays just a supporting role. Ukraine and Poland were economically and culturally the most developed parts of the Russian Empire.

The First World War. The Fall of the Empires

The First World War. The Fall of the Empires

The First World War destroyed the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. It was easy enough to put an end to the existence of the Russian Empire. To do this, it was enough to create independent states of Ukraine, Belarus, to grant independence to the peoples of the Caucasus and Central Asia. And we all would have forgotten about the empire, which with the Bolsheviks coming to power in it, turned, in the words of US President Ronald Reagan, into an evil empire. And into the curse of humanity — in my words. It is in order to keep the economic power of the Empire, it retained its economic heart — Ukraine. So I think. And for you to understand such an attitude to the bolshevized Russian Empire, I will quote the outstanding representative of American business quite typical in his vision of Muscovy. “Dear Mr. President, I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government, as the best suited for the Russian people” — from a letter to US President Woodrow Wilson of October 17, 1918, i.e. on the eve of the postwar reconstruction of Europe, from William Lawrence Saunders, President of the corporation “Ingersoll-Rand”, Director of the corporation “American International” and Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The bank, without which the industrialization of the Soviet Union, in my opinion, would have been impossible.

The second opportunity to help the Soviet Union's turning into a normal state would have been non-participation of the Western world in the industrialization of the Soviet Union. The latter would have been impossible in the inhuman forms in which it was carried out, without the assistance of the Western world's financial capital, without information covering of the Soviet Union by Western media (except for Germany's media). In particular, Western media concealed from the world community the truth about the Holodomor in Ukraine and mass terror in the Soviet Union. Note that those media are not controlled by the government in any country of the Western world. And for this reason the responsibility for their information policy should not be laid on the states.

The industrialization was not the only contribution to the creation of a military superpower of the Soviet Union. Well-known American scientist Antony C. Sutton in his book “National Suicide” quotes a document of the US State Department under number 800.51 W89 USSR/247. The document is Ambassador Joseph E. Davies' report of January 17, 1939 on the completion of the preparation of the secret agreement. The document found by Antony C. Sutton has never been refuted or even questioned. But to avoid any slightest doubt, Antony C. Sutton provides the reader with a lot of related agreements, starting with the US State Department's document N 711.00111 — the agreement signed in March 1939, on the USA's participation in the construction of Soviet submarines. Then he brings endless lists of the US strategic supplies to the Soviet Union. The list of pre-war US strategic supplies can only be compared with an endless list of strategic supplies in times of war.

This leads to the assumption that the pre-war Soviet Union was fostered by the United States of America. Therefore, we should not expect that the United States will now consciously betray its pet project. But we may be quite sure that the United States will never betray its main ally — the united Europe either. If we continue to strive to Europe, it is not necessary to be in it formally, the USA will not betray us either. I guess the United States will never let move forward the borders of the so-called “Russian world” further to the West.

Donald Trump said in his speech: “We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow”. Wonderful words of the right leader of the right forces and what a contrast they are to the actions of the leader of the state, who is trying to push the boundaries of the “Russian World” with tanks and multiple rocket launcher systems, and at this vows of love to the brotherly people.

Donald Trump did not say a word of flirtation with America's ethnic minorities. Instead, he said simple and confident words: “whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag. And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator”.

And his next words could have sounded from the lips of our President — as the program of his actions as a guide for Ukraine: “I will fight for you with every breath in my body — and I will never, ever let you down. America (Ukraine — author) will start winning again, winning like never before. We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams. We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation. We will rebuild our country with American (Ukrainian — author) hands and American (Ukrainian — author) labor. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. Today we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the People”.

Could such a president betray Ukraine? My answer is no!