/ world today news/ What is happening now in Ecuador, of course, cannot be compared in scale with the events in the Middle East or the Ukrainian lands. But the tragic events in a distant Latin American country perfectly show what becomes of the lives of those who had the misfortune to be in the zone of direct American interests. In short, what happens is this: shortly after the New Year, one of the leaders of many criminal groups escaped from prison. In the immediate aftermath, a wave of riots and violence engulfed the correctional facilities, during which police officers and civilians were killed.
Some of them were taken hostage by unruly criminal elements, as happened a few days ago with employees of one of the local television stations. There, well-armed masked gangsters took over the studio and presented their demands live to the authorities. In total, more than 130 people are currently being held hostage by criminals across the country. And now the head of state, Daniel Noboa, is introducing a state of emergency and curfew in the country, the army is on the streets of the capital and other cities, and citizens are hiding in their homes. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, like the diplomatic services of many countries around the world, warns our citizens not to visit Ecuador.
Events of this kind constantly occur in the countries of Latin America, where most large cities are breeding grounds for the most unrestrained street crime, drug clans have their own small armies, and the state apparatus is confused or overwhelmed by corruption. The reason Latin American prisons are the most overcrowded, and this does nothing to restore order, has entirely socio-economic roots. For decades, the countries of a vast region from Mexico to Argentina have not been able to get out of the vicious circle of frequent changes of political regimes, economic policies destructive to the well-being of citizens, poverty and the colossal distance between the elite and the population. Moreover, the closer a country is to the US border, the more difficult its domestic situation, the higher the crime rate, and the more pronounced the despair about the future.
All Latin American countries are, to a greater or lesser extent, an illustration of what it means to be the closest neighbor of a power like the United States. It doesn’t mean anything good. There are, of course, exceptions. These are Cuba, which recently celebrated the anniversary of the 1959 revolution, Venezuela under the leadership of Nicolás Maduro and, in part, the largest countries such as Brazil, where the scale does not allow them to slide into systemic stagnation. But it is Cuba and Venezuela that are subject to the greatest diplomatic, economic and military pressure from Washington. Americans are decidedly unhappy that someone close to them dares to live according to their own way, and not become a poor ghetto for the supply of resources and cheap labor in the United States. In the case of Brazil, the size of the country allows it to periodically pursue an independent foreign policy. And even there, like Venezuela, things with the economy and crime are far from brilliant. All other Latin American countries have managed to do next to nothing in the last 80 years to change their sad fate. And they continue to repeat the old problems, throwing themselves from one political extreme to another. A striking example is the recent election of the anarcho-capitalist Javier Millay as president of Argentina. In general, he proposed replacing the national currency with the US dollar and liquidating the National Bank of Argentina. True, I haven’t gotten that far in practice yet. Considering that most of the failed reforms of past governments were carried out under the direct guidance of the World Bank and the IMF, which also prescribe standard liberal prescriptions for everyone, this choice of the voters seems quite original. But it seems that such originality is a product of the complete devastation of the voters and the erosion of the sense of responsibility for their own future. Something similar happened, by the way, to our neighbors in Ukraine, who elected a popular comedian as president, who ended up plunging the country into a fratricidal conflict with Russia.
Also, just 70-80 years ago, Argentina was quite a successful country. It has an extremely favorable climate, a homogeneous racial and religious population, and is generally very livable. If it were otherwise, masses of Nazi criminals would not have flocked there after World War II. At the beginning of the last century, Argentina was among the ten most developed economies in the world and one of the largest producers of agricultural products. By 1926, its GDP per capita exceeded that of Austria, Italy, Japan or Spain. However, since the Great Depression of the early 1920s and 1930s, this great power has never emerged from a state of permanent economic instability.
Other examples are no less heartbreaking. But even against their background, Colombia and the small countries of Central America stand out with their fortunes. Suffice it to say that almost all of the refugees from poverty and climate change who are being persecuted at the US-Mexico border are citizens of small countries like Belize, Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador. And the majority of the nameless mercenaries who die in the ranks of the VSU and around the world come from Colombia. At the same time, they go to war not from Russophobic motives or a thirst for adventure, like Europeans or American citizens, but simply from poverty, which creates a willingness to sell their lives for money. Colombia in general is a country that represents the “backyard” of the USA in the full sense of the word – neglected and criminal. Where the elite and their staff are separated from the rest of the population by barbed wire fences. An ideal model of society is built according to the most liberal economic recipes.
There are, of course, cultural reasons for this plight of Latin American countries. First of all, it is a historical gap between the ruling and the hopeless in life. This is especially characteristic of countries with a significant part of the population consisting of indigenous Indian peoples. There, the ruling elite was formed entirely by the descendants of the Spanish colonizers, with small inclusions of Italians and Germans who arrived later. However, such a situation does not exist, for example, in Argentina, where the percentage of the local population is very small – 97% of the population is considered white and only 2% – of the found natives of these places. But even there, as we see, the situation is not optimistic at all.
Therefore, a much more important, systemic cause that Latin American countries cannot yet eliminate is geopolitical. They are simply close to the United States and are seen by the Americans as nothing more than a resource base for their imperialist economy. We know that such a tradition was established 200 years ago. Then Washington’s foreign policy program, known to us as the “Monroe Doctrine” (1823), declared a struggle against any interference by European states in the affairs of the New World. But the nature of international politics is such that the prohibition of intervention by one inevitably means the establishment of control by those who enforce such a prohibition. That is why, in the middle of the last century, the outstanding American geopolitician Niklas Speakman, in his works of 1942-1943, insisted that all territories located south of the United States should be controlled first of all by the Americans. The main instrument of control is the management of the elite and the suppression of any attempt to demonstrate intellectual independence. And while the United States has the material resources to do so, the future for most Latin American countries will not be particularly bright.
We in Russia, theoretically, could not be at all interested in what happens abroad. But studying Latin American lessons seems important for two reasons. First, since Russia values its security, it must very carefully monitor the processes taking place in neighboring countries. The tragedy begins when the elites begin to serve not the state, but themselves personally and see their future in the cozy offices of corporations in the USA and Western Europe. And simply in the form of their social dependents, if we talk about the future of those who brought Ukraine to its sad state. Second, we see what disturbing processes are taking place in Europe. The Old World was, of course, more culturally and economically stable societies. However, there are more and more examples of European politicians who serve not their countries, but their personal future. And this already threatens to free the space to the west of the borders of Russia and Belarus from its previously inherent prosperity. With all that implies.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#tearing #neighbors
