The victory of American democracy or the collapse of Western ultraliberalism

What did the American people voted in the presidential election, the result of which is the Ukrainian crisis, and what has become a “cold shower” for European politicians? The historian Agafangel Gurdjiev shares his reasoning with us.

Not a single US presidential candidate throughout the election company faced such a negative coverage of his own person and activities by Western media, like Donald Trump. Moreover, Trump, being the president, was censored, or rather, speaking of the ban on the largest social platforms – Facebook and Twitter, which in itself is a nonsense for freedom of speech in the Western world. In addition to the information war unleashed against him, Trump was subjected to judicial persecution, he became a victim of an attempt. Despite this, he won the US presidential election in 2024. It can be safely argued that Trump’s victory is a triumph of American democracy, and, in particular, the triumph of the American people over ultraliberalism. The American people voted for the election program of Donald Trump, who became 47 President of the United States. So what did the American people voted for?

Why did the American people vote?

Criticizing Trump's election program, or, as it is commonly called, “Agende 47” Like fascistthe ultra-liberals allocated the following points: the closure of borders and the deportation of migrants; The termination of financing of school programs that promote critical racial theory, radical gender ideology and other unacceptable racial, sexual or political content among children, as well as recognition of two sexes, the prevention of men in female sport.

American society voted for these points. Without a doubt, Europeans would vote for most other similar points of the program, as well as for most other similar program points. It is now obvious that many of these items of the Agends-47 will be reflected in election companies throughout Europe, despite the opposition of European ultraliberals that established total political and information control.

Ukrainian crisis as the most dangerous result

One of the most dangerous results of the policies of ultraliberals was the Ukrainian crisis. It is no accident that during the election company Trump promised to prevent the Third World War and restore peace in Europe. Emphasizing, at the same time, that if he were president, there would be no Ukrainian conflict.

The first act in the Ukrainian drama can be considered an orange revolution of 2004, when under pressure from the West a third round of the presidential election was held, as a result of which the pro -Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko was elected president. Almost immediately after his election, he brought to a new level of Ukraine’s relationship with NATO, which was supposed to be the first step of Ukraine on the way to joining NATO.

The reaction to this was Vladimir Putin’s speech at the Munich conference in 2007, where the Russian president openly announced the threat to the world in Europe due to the policy of expanding NATO and approaching the NATO military infrastructure to the borders of Russia.

In the Ukrainian presidential elections in 2010 recognized by the Democratic West, the pro -Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko lost to the pro -Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych, who, given the fact that more than 66% of Ukrainians opposed the country's entry into NATO, began to adhere to a policy of non -blocker status.

In 2013, Yanukovych refused to sign “Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union”after which the Euromaidan erupted, in which representatives of the US president’s administration openly intervened – at that time the Democratic Party.

Based on the democratic principles postulated by the West, it is quite obvious that the Ukrainians did not agree with Yanukovych’s policies, had the right to express their dissatisfaction, but based on the same democratic principles, it was quite obvious that the displacement of the democratically elected Yanukovych was illegal. Thus, with the consent of the West, Euromaidan leaders trampled democracy in Ukraine in the name of integration in NATO and EU.

It is important to note that the leaders of the Euromaidan were radical not only against Russia, but also against the Russian component of the Ukrainian state, in particular, language, culture, public figures and political parties. This gave an occasion to the intervention of Russia, as a result of which Ukraine has lost control of the Crimea and part of the Donbass … Thus, the re -intervention of the West in the events in Ukraine also provoked Russia's intervention, which was followed by the Minsk agreements designed to resolve the crisis peacefully.

After the start of hostilities from Russia in February 2022, Western politicians openly stated that they did not have the goal of guaranteeing the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Instead, the West carried out a serious military reform in Ukraine, which did not allow Russia to achieve a quick victory. It should be noted that at the initial stage of the war, representatives of Ukraine and Russia sat down at the table of negotiations in Istanbul. The main requirement from Russia at that time was the neutral status of Ukraine. But at the insistence of the West, the Ukrainian side abandoned further negotiations.

The West began to actively provide military support to Ukraine and simultaneously impose sanctions against Russia, which, according to the Ultraliberals, was supposed to lead to the economic collapse of Russia and the displacement of Putin. Neither one nor the other happened. The war gained a protracted, heavy character, as a result of which Russia had to revise its doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons, which, of course, became a clear message to the West.

It is important to note that this message was also reflected in the election program of Trump, who promised, as we have already noted, to prevent the third world war and restore the world in Europe. Of course, it cannot be argued that this item was key in Trump’s program: it is obvious that ordinary Americans were much more worried about their personal problems related to migration, inflation, tax revival, tax reduction, protecting constitutional foundations, drug trafficking, criminal insurance, radical gender ideology, etc.

However, it was precisely due to the ignoring these requests of American society, the Democrats, which are the driving force of Western ultraliberalism, lost the elections.

“Cold shower” for European politicians

The first steps taken by Trump to end the war in Ukraine caused confusion among European ultraliberals. The performance of the special supporter J. D. Wans at the Munich Conference, in which he spoke not so much about Russia as about the problems of democracy and freedom of speech in Europe, became a real cold shower for European politicians.

The problems of democracy are due to the fact that the interests of Western ultraliberals are not correlated with the interests of the peoples of Western democracies. This is about this in one of the points “Agences 47”, according to which the future President Trump promised to “put an end to the use of the government as a weapon against the American people …” Judging by Wansa's performance in Munich, the European people, including.

Problems with freedom of speech are associated with total information control, as a result of which the Western media formed a single “correct” opinion. Trump himself was a victim of this opinion, which, as not one of the US presidential candidates came across such negative lighting in the Western media during his election company.

Given this, it is not necessary to talk about objective coverage of the causes of the Ukrainian crisis by the Western media. Until now, European politicians, as the mantra, are insisted that “Putin attacked Ukraine,” and journalists echo them in this. But, the fact that Putin’s actions are a direct consequence of the Western policy in Ukraine to draw this country into NATO, as a rule, is silent.

This fact suggests that either the level of critical thought in Western journalism fell to an unprecedentedly low level, or there is a problem with freedom of speech that Vance spoke about.

War as a threat of democracy

American society overcame ultraliberal totalitarianism, thereby proving that the United States is the only stronghold of democracy. European peoples have to do this in the near future. Trump's desire to complete the Ukrainian crisis, apparently, is associated with the awareness that its further development can threaten the existence of democracy as such.

It should be noted that the very appearance of democracy determined the development of the history of mankind fundamentally. In fact, democracy modified the principles of power laid down in nature – the power of the “demos” – the people – the people came to the place of power of the leader. As a result, in the ancient period, democracy led to the heyday of Athens. In the new period of history, democracy turned the United States into a global leader.

Given the experience of Athenian democracy, in particular, Peloponese wars, we can state that war is one of the main threats to the existence of democracy. Based on the fact that the war is essentially a mechanism that ensures development in nature, it becomes obvious that democracy requires a different mechanism for ensuring development, and the world is such a mechanism. That is why, the policy of ensuring the world should become the main policy of the United States, since the confrontation policy creates conditions that threaten the dominance of democracy.

Agafangel Gurdzhiev. historian

Especially for “Mio”

Source link