Paul Roberts, the founder of Reaganomics, an ex-assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy, deputy editor and columnist of Wall Street Journal, an ex-columnist of Business Week and Scripps Howard News Service, is confident that Russia remains an obstacle for U.S. hegemony. To neutralize Moscow, Washington violated the Reagan-Gorbachev agreement, expanded the NATO to post-Soviet territories and wants Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. Roberts describes his vision of the situation in the Caspian Region in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.
- How important is the Caspian Region for the U.S., Russia and the world as a whole?
- It is a very serious issue for Washington. Most Americans know nothing about the Caspian Region. It is an additional opportunity to conduce the disintegration of the Russian Federation and adjoining former parts of the USSR and Russia itself to the Western anti-Russian union. That is why the U.S. is working actively to gain the support of the countries. I think that such work is a serious problem for the Russian government, because Washington is carrying out active sabotage on Russia's borders. That is why the strategic importance of the region for Russia is in the fact that Washington challenges Russia on territories that used to be in the orbit of Russia’s influence.
- Do you think Washington is successful in this course?
- I suppose so. Not in everything, but in certain cases it is very successful. The U.S. has already subjugated Ukraine, which is beyond the region. They have subjugated Georgia and are making plans for post-Soviet republics in Central Asia where, I think, their policy will be successful because money does wonders. It is a weapon Washington uses quite successfully.
- What do you think would be better for the countries of the region? Maybe they would be better under U.S. protection?
- Better in what sense? They will be mired in a conflict with Russia, involvement in conflict will not benefit anyone. American interests in the region are about weakening Russia. Splitting the Russian Federation is the goal of American foreign policy.
- It seems that all countries in the modern world, not only countries of the former USSR, should make a choice whether to be with the U.S. or Russia. Can there be any intermediate variant?
- I do not think that the Russian government gives other countries such a choice. It is the position of Washington. Washington says: “You are either with us or against us.” I doubt that the Russian government wants the disintegration of the U.S. The problem is that American foreign policy is based on the Wolfowitz Doctrine [Paul Wolfowitz was the under secretary of defense in 2001-2005, Dick Cheney’s deputy in 1989-1993. He is the author of the Defense Planning Guidance of 1992, where he described the principles of American hegemony in a unipolar world. The document became the foundation of the National Security Strategy. According to the doctrine, the U.S. needs to stop revival of Russia because Russia is quite big and has enough resources to challenge American domination in the world. The U.S. cannot allow its leadership to limited by anything. Washington takes an aggressive, hostile position towards Russia. I think Russia is partly responsible for that.
- What about the frozen conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan that cannot be resolved? Is it really that hard or is one of the sides involved in the conflict, is Russia or the U.S. interested in preserving the status quo?
- Russia is not interested in a conflict on its borders. It gets no advantage from. At the same time, it is beneficial for the U.S. I bet Washington is behind it.
- Recently, many journalists are trying to collide Russia and Azerbaijan, the relations between which are good-neighbourly. Newspapers are making many articles on the problem of human rights in Azerbaijan. Someone is trying to escalate the situation. Why is it being done? Why is someone trying to bring up Russia against Azerbaijan?
- I have already described this strategy of Washington. It is about creating discord in the RF, to create many problems for Russia so that the Russian government would not hinder realization of U.S. ambitions in any other parts of the world. You should bear in mind that the Russian government and the British parliament blocked the American initiative to invade Syria. The Russian government prevented realization of the American initiative to attack Iran, proposing a diplomatic solution for uranium enrichment in the region. Thus, Russia has stopped the U.S. plans twice, using its influence. It outraged Washington and they concentrated on ousting the Ukrainian government to create serious problems for Russia on its own territory. Ukraine has been a part of Russia for centuries. They also concentrated efforts in other lines. For example, they are working in Stalin’s homeland, Georgia, a former part of the USSR and Russia. The U.S. will continue such activities everywhere. Russia will only get into more trouble.
Paul Craig Roberts, the “Father of Reaganomics”, was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy by President Reagan. Dr. Roberts later was associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service. Now Paul Craig Roberts is sure that Russia remains an obstacle to Washington’s hegemony. To neutralize Moscow, Washington violated an agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev, expanding NATO eastward, to the former territory of the Soviet Union. Dr. Roberts told VK about his vision of the situation in the Caspian region.What strategic importance does Caspian region have for the United States, Russia and world as a whole?That’s a big question. For the United States, let’s put it this way, for Washington, because I do not think the vast bulk of the American population has any idea whatsoever about the Caspian region; what Washington sees there is more opportunities to break up the Russian Federation and more opportunities to bring former constituent parts of the Soviet Union and, in some cases, Russia herself into a Western military alliance against Russia. So, the United States then works in those areas to build support for allying with those countries, and I think that this poses a serious problem for the Russian government, because it is being confronted by sinister American subversion, by Washington subversion on all of its borders. So, for Russia the strategic importance is that it is being confronted by Washington on those territories that once were part of its orbit.Do you think Washington does that successfully?Well, yes. Not wholly, but in some instances it has been very successful. It has now captured Ukraine, which is not in that region exactly, but it has captured Georgia and it is after the former Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union and it will have some success, because money talks. That is the tool that Washington uses and it is successful.What do you think is best for the countries of the region? Maybe it is better for them to be under the US wing, so to speak?Better for them in what way? They will be pulled into conflict with Russia and it is not better for anyone to be in conflict. The American interest in those regions is related entirely to Washington’s effort to deconstruct Russia. It is the main factor in Washington’s foreign policy – to break up the Russian Federation.It seems that in the world of today not only the countries of the former Soviet Union, but all the countries of the world have to make a choice whether they are with the United States or Russia. Can there be a compromise? Can one be a little bit with the US and a little bit with Russia?I do not think the Russian government is telling those countries that that is the choice. That is Washington’s view. Washington is the country that says you are with us or against. I do not think the Russian government is engaged in a competition to see if they can break up the United States. So I do not think this is the problem. The problem is that the basis of the United States' foreign policy is the Wolfowitz doctrine, which says that the United States must prevent the rise of Russia, because Russia is large enough and controls enough sources that it could act as a check on the application of American power. And American power cannot accept any restraint on its actions. What you see here is an aggressive, hostile position by Washington against Russia. So I do not think that Russia bears any fault in this.How about one of those dormant conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan which is being kept alive: is it really so hard to resolve it? Or is it done intentionally by one of the parties to the conflict, or the US and Russia?Russia has nothing to gain from a conflict on its border, it does not want that. The United States has a great deal to gain from a conflict on Russia’s border. So you can bet your life that Washington is behind that.Lately many [journalists] are trying to create conflict between Russia and Azerbaijan, which enjoy good neighborly relations. We can also see many articles in the newspapers talking about human rights in Azerbaijan, somebody is trying to disturb the situation. Why is it being done? Why are people trying to set Russia against Azerbaijan?This is the strategy of Washington I have already described: to break up the Russian Federation and to cause Russia so many problems that the Russian government can no longer get in the way of American ambitions elsewhere. You have to remember that the Russian government, together with the British Parliament, blocked the intended American invasion of Syria. You have to remember that the Russian government blocked the intended American military attack on Iran by coming up with a diplomatic solution to the enrichment of uranium in Iran. So, twice Washington was blocked by Russian influence and this angered Washington. And they turned to overthrowing the government in Ukraine in order to give Russia serious problems on its own former territory, and Ukraine was part of Russia for centuries. So, then they turned elsewhere. They began this in Georgia, the birthplace of Stalin, a former part of not only the Soviet Union but Russia, and they will continue this everywhere else. The troubles for Russia will continue, and they will get wors
