They see America’s state policy by those who really determine it.
There is an organization in the United States with the low-key name of The Heritage Fundation. Since 1973, he has been engaged in research work in the political field. In general, there are many similar offices in America, but this one stands out for its level. From the earliest days of its creation, the Heritage has worked at the request of the American government, the State Department, the Pentagon, the intelligence department of the Ministry of Defense and other law enforcement agencies of the country.
By its mission, the foundation calls the development and promotion of conservative state policy based on the principles of free enterprise, restriction of government power, individual freedom, traditional American values and strong national defense.
The merits of ‘Heritage’ include the formation of the idea of a ‘Strategic Defense Initiative’ for the Reagan administration and the concept that formed the basis of Operation Desert Storm against Iraq. The annual “Index of Economic Freedom”, often mentioned on the Internet and quoted by the leading Western media, is also their business. In general, we are talking about the organization for the formation of American politics is no less important than the analytical corporation RAND.
So, their report entitled The Six Key Objectives of American Policy in Europe for 2019 (U.S. Policy in Europe: Six Priorities for 2019) appeared in the press. Given the level of the office, there is every reason to expect their practical implementation in the near future, and therefore has the intention to pay some attention to the document.
Fund analysts designate the current year as the key year for the entire perspective of US-European cooperation. In contrast to previous periods, in 2019 in Europe a number of elections, ultimately fundamentally changing the entire political landscape. Special attention is paid to Greece, Moldova, Poland and Ukraine. It also says that the separation of Great Britain from the European Union will sharply reduce its value for the United States as an ally across the Atlantic. All this requires a fundamental revision of American foreign policy in Europe. Given its ongoing continuation in its previous form, it is no longer possible.
In this regard, Heritage experts designate six key issues, the degree of success of which will depend not only on the success of the current year’s results, but also on the US medium-term foreign policy outlook as a whole. When deciding, Washington should take into account three basic principles: first, deepen cooperation with the allies to promote common principles and counter aggression and subversive activities (without specifying who it is); secondly, the removal of barriers to the growth of general trade; thirdly, the fulfillment of obligations for joint defense, including the strengthening of deterrence in Eastern Europe.
The first of the six most important moments in 2019 is Brexit, which, in any case, the UK will face a serious economic crisis. It opens up for the United States the prospect of concluding a new comprehensive trade agreement with London canceling any tariffs and quotas for the United States. The idea of some kind of inclusion of Great Britain in the USMCA agreement, which replaced the former NAFTA agreement on the common trade zone between Mexico, the USA and Canada, is most likely implied.
Why do we need the British there is not very clear. In industrial terms, America has nothing to offer them. Is that become the market for ‘American’ goods. In this case, London actually prepared the role of a classic US colony.
The second key issue is the critical need to halt the implementation of the Nord Stream 2 project. The authors directly say that it is the main strategic obstacle for America to seize political dominance in Europe through the organization of critical dependence on US energy supplies.
Since the political factors of containment have now been exhausted, the authors of the document recommend extending opposition through the organization of any kind of sanctions against European companies participating in the project with Gazprom. In particular, OMV (Austria), Engie (France), Uniper and Wintershall (Germany), and Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands) are mentioned. The initiator of the sanctions should be the US Department of Energy. The goal of the impact should be both the companies themselves and their financial investments, especially in the United States.
The third issue seems to be a radical shift in the line of military confrontation from Greece, West Germany and Denmark further east. This refers to Poland and the Baltic States. It is recommended to consider the deployment in Poland of a permanent American military base with the deployment of a significant contingent of American military forces there. Such a move would provide significant advantages compared to the rotation on the effective projection of force. Air patrols of the sky over the Baltic States are also recommended to be transferred from joint NATO forces to the duties of the US Air Force deployed at a base in Poland.
The next key point is maintaining active participation in political processes in the Balkans. Especially their western part. Allegedly, because of the growing Russian political interference, there remains a high potential for the resumption of wars of a religious, ethnic and cultural nature. This requires strengthening the political activity of the United States to form and consolidate the western foundations of the world, as well as the inclusion of the Balkan states in Western international mechanisms.
In particular, to achieve the implementation of the program of visa-free entry into Croatia, the accession of Macedonia to NATO, as well as the prevention of an agreement between Kosovo and Serbia on the exchange of territories. The latter is especially amusing since such a move is indeed capable of reducing the intensity of the ethnic confrontation between Kosovo and Serbia. Even if you do not remember the strangeness of the legal status of Kosovo itself.
An important year will be for American politics in Ukraine, where presidential elections are expected in spring. It is noteworthy that the analysts of Heritage directly recommend the US government to prepare to establish relations with the brand-new government of Ukraine where to send the new special representative. This directly indicates the inevitability of the defeat of Petro Poroshenko.
Judging by the absence of any other strategic goals, including the resolution of the conflict in the Donbas, the puppeteers assign Ukraine the role of a mere irritant for Russia when Washington needs it. The fate of the inhabitants of Ukraine itself does not interest them at all. As, however, does not matter and the specific identity of the winner in the presidential election.
Whoever they are, he will have to continue economic and judicial reforms, as well as fight corruption. In other words, Ukraine, as an active factor, has worked its way in the American strategic line. Communication with her is maintained only because of the fact of its existence. In the event of any kind of internal problems there, including disintegration, the United States will simply dump the asset in the trash.
The last point of the US strategic program in Europe is the Black Sea, in which a large-scale strengthening of Russia’s influence took place after the ‘annexation of the Crimea.’ This thwarted the plans of the United States, as stated in the document, ‘to use the Crimea as a platform for launching and supporting naval operations in the Eastern Mediterranean.’
It is proposed to level the problem by expanding the American maritime presence in the Black Sea. Formally, within the framework of the Montreux Convention, but, although this is not explicitly said, but it only hints, it makes sense to reach an agreement with NATO partners having a coastline in the Black Sea to create a lease-based connection that would allow US ships be in the region outside the Convention.
From the above follow three fundamental conclusions.
First, the conservative strategic thinking factories of the United States clearly lag behind the actual global realities and continue to proceed from the absoluteness of American geopolitical and military superiority.
Secondly, although calling themselves conservative, they, in fact, profess a liberal worldview that is part of an ideological conflict with at least the current administration of America and the interests of a substantial part of its business. Trump throughout his presidency is implementing the strategy of biting the United States within the USMCA cluster and even considering the prospect of a country’s withdrawal from NATO membership.
Thirdly, with all the problems mentioned above, the current year is nevertheless regarded as strategically key, and therefore fundamentally important for the future of the United States, thereby leading to the idea of the necessity and relevance of even decisive actions to achieve the stated goals. Otherwise, Washington will not be able to keep control of Europe.
And of course the statement of the ‘end of Ukraine’ is noteworthy. For her, American strategic puppeteers simply do not have tasks. Totally. Even tactical. Apparently, Kiev also can not count on any substantial assistance. Then only himself, all by himself. How can it. And the United States completely Poroshenko written off. After the elections in their worldview it simply is not.