Andrey Fursov is a historian at the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The following video was recorded just after Barack Obama was inaugurated in 2009. In it Mr. Fursov discusses what was to be expected from an Obama presidency. Compare what he had to say back then with what has happened since, and see what you think of his evaluation.
Many thanks to Russkiy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Transcript:
| 00:00 | ||
| 00:05 | ||
| 00:10 | When we talk about any American president after Richard Nixon, | |
| 00:15 | I don’t think it’s worthwhile to actively personalise this figure. | |
| 00:20 | Practically all post-Nixon presidents | |
| 00:25 | are to greater or lesser extent a function of certain class and social interests. | |
| 00:30 | And the existence of the wild decade between 1963 and 1973, | |
| 00:35 | which could be considered a prolonged coup d’état | |
| 00:40 | in the US, that is, the assassination of Kennedy and impeachment of Nixon | |
| 00:45 | didn’t come about so that independent presidents were in power. | |
| 00:50 | Indeed, despite all the differences between Nixon and Kennedy, | |
| 00:55 | They share significant commonality. They were two presidents that tried to be independent. | |
| 01:00 | One was murdered, for the other impeachment was initiated. | |
| 01:05 | After 1973, if looking at any president, let it be Carter… | |
| 01:10 | Carter was a figurehead for the Trilateral Commission. An absolutely non-independent figure. | |
| 01:15 | Reagan was a figurehead for the oil interests, also not an independent figure, etc. | |
| 01:20 | If we talk about Clinton, we should note that Chalmers Johnson has described it very well in his trilogy about America | |
| 01:25 | during the last two decades; he showed that main result during Clinton’s presidency | |
| 01:30 | was the complete establishment of the military in power | |
| 01:35 | and the transformation of America into a military empire, in other words bye-bye republic. | |
| 01:40 | When we talk about Obama we shouldn’t over-personalise this character. | |
| 01:45 | We have to remember a very simple thing, that the richest | |
| 01:50 | billionaires of America voted for him. | |
| 01:55 | The poorer billionaires voted for McCain. All the financial elites voted for Obama. | |
| 02:00 | A seemingly paradoxical situation. | |
| 02:05 | Those who voted for Obama included black and coloured lower classes, sexual minorities who see in him a person | |
| 02:10 | of the same colour or a person who supports minorities, and from the other side | |
| 02:15 | the elites that order the music. That’s why to assume that Obama | |
| 02:20 | will be some kind of populist president like Huey Long could have become | |
| 02:25 | if he hadn’t been killed in 1936, let’s say it’s unlikely. | |
| 02:30 | Besides that, it is absolutely obvious based on the appointments he has made, | |
| 02:35 | it is clear that it is Clinton’s team, it is a team of financial capital | |
| 02:40 | which came to power in the environment of toughest financial crisis, | |
| 02:45 | in the environment when America is further losing to China in the world system, | |
| 02:50 | and under these circumstances, Obama no doubt | |
| 02:55 | will carry out a certain program which is already written for him, | |
| 03:00 | and for which the project Obama was created. | |
| 03:05 | If we talk about project Obama, than it is no doubt an improvement in the position of America | |
| 03:10 | in the global competition with China. It is very clear that this competition is increasing, | |
| 03:15 | and to this time we still don’t know the mechanics of this crisis which is unfolding. | |
| 03:20 | I am in agreement with people such as | |
| 03:25 | Vladimir Semenovich Ovchinsky who believes that this crisis is artificial, | |
| 03:30 | and one of the functions of this crisis is to hit China. | |
| 03:35 | And in this regard, America needed a president to represent interests of financial capital, | |
| 03:40 | and who will be solving financial problems. | |
| 03:45 | Obama reminds me of Carter from another point of view. Not just a president that we shouldn’t personalise, | |
| 03:50 | but also because prior to the election he was completely unknown. | |
| 03:55 | In other words it is a project which was moulded and launched to carry out a certain program. | |
| 04:00 | Carter was launched by the Trilateral Commission, which was actively formed by people such as Brzezinski. | |
| 04:05 | And Carter had certain objectives. | |
| 04:10 | Obama’s objective is first of all is pull the American elites | |
| 04:15 | the big corporations out of the financial crisis, | |
| 04:20 | And in doing so to insure that financial crises hit America’s competitors the hardest, | |
| 04:25 | In the first place China. | |
| 04:30 | I am very confident that during Obama’s presidency the pressure by America and by multinational companies will be | |
| 04:35 | significantly ramped up on Russia. | |
| 04:40 | It is very natural that Obama came to presidency with social justice slogans. | |
| 04:45 | And I think that we shouldn’t be surprised that a person comes with social justice message to save multinational corporations. | |
| 04:50 | I want to remind you that Franklin Roosevelt was elected prior to WWII promising that not a single American | |
| 04:55 | would take part in the war, even though Roosevelt knew perfectly well that America would enter the war, | |
| 05:00 | as it was the only way, rather the shortest way | |
| 05:05 | to achieve world hegemony. | |
| 05:10 | That’s why one thing is pre-election rhetoric. Can you imagine a president coming to power by saying, | |
| 05:15 | Guys! I will be saving transnational corporations, | |
| 05:20 | but for all blacks and coloured like myself I will do nothing | |
| 05:25 | Clearly he was supposed to come with this message (i.e. of social justice). | |
| 05:30 | As Stalin said, moving to the left will arrive at the right, such are dialectics. | |
| 05:35 | This is clearly a well-worked-out methodology, | |
| 05:40 | and there is nothing surprising in this. | |
| 05:45 | Moreover, I believe that the lower classes, if Obama stays for another term, | |
| 05:50 | can’t expect anything good from Obama’s presidency. | |
| 05:55 | Because one of the main problems in America is the sharp imbalance between the product | |
| 06:00 | produced by America, 20% of the world total, and the amount it consumes, | |
| 06:05 | which is 40%. This huge difference must be somehow reduced, | |
| 06:10 | and it can only be reduced | |
| 06:15 | at the level of lower classes. No body going to push the elites. | |
| 06:20 | And in this regard Obama, no matter what he says, as a person who carries out a certain program | |
| 06:25 | has to put into action certain unpleasant measures. | |
| 06:30 | I think the general course of Obama’s politics — more precisely not Obama, but those elites, groups that put him forward for presidency — | |
| 06:35 | can be characterised as | |
| 06:40 | export of instability. | |
| 06:45 | Now, after Americans successfully exporting the dollar, which is | |
| 06:50 | the only product which they are successfully exporting, I think in the current global environment | |
| 06:55 | the only product other than dollar which Americans can and have to export in order | |
| 07:00 | to solve their problems is the Instability. And because of that | |
| 07:05 | I really believe that they will leave Iraq, where on one hand they solved the problems | |
| 07:10 | they wanted to solve; on the other hand Iraq showed that | |
| 07:15 | America is not quite a paper tiger, but she is not capable of fighting seriously on the ground . | |
| 07:20 | Its not incidental that significant part of operations on the ground | |
| 07:25 | are carried out not by American forces, but rather this private organisation | |
| 07:30 | Blackwater. The further position of the USA with regard to the Middle East | |
| 07:35 | will strongly depend how the elites will agree on the issue | |
| 07:40 | of radical Islam. Because Brzezinski, the main adviser to Obama, | |
| 07:45 | is a big supporter of America’s alliance with radical Islam. | |
| 07:50 | Because this is, as we call it, three balls into a pocket. | |
| 07:55 | An alliance with radical Islam will allow active application of pressure on all, China, Russia and Europe. | |
| 08:00 | That is this strategy. It is almost without flaws. | |
| 08:05 | It only has a single flaw. Americans will have to either give up Israel, | |
| 08:10 | or give Israel significantly less help. | |
| 08:15 | The question is who will be more powerful? The pro-Israel lobby, | |
| 08:20 | and that part of the American elites referred to as Neocons, | |
| 08:25 | who for ideological reasons think that they have to support active Israel in the Middle East? | |
| 08:30 | Or the pragmatists like Brzezinski who believe that the Radical Islam solves many other problems? | |
| 08:35 | Depending on this, the foreign policy of the USA will be formed. | |
| 08:40 | But even now, some things are becoming clear. | |
| 08:45 | That if Americans are going to be leaving Iraq | |
| 08:50 | absolutely doesn’t mean that they are going to leave Afghanistan | |
| 08:55 | or reduce their presence in Pakistan. Because China has actively started to search for an exit | |
| 09:00 | into the area of the Persian Gulf through Pakistan. | |
| 09:05 | This is Port Gwadar. Which is likely what cost the life of Benazir Bhutto, | |
| 09:10 | who in reality agreed to give China permission to access Port Gwadar, | |
| 09:15 | and that’s why, following this, she was killed. Not necessarily because of that, but it’s likely. | |
| 09:20 | So Pakistan is very important area for the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan. | |
| 09:25 | So relocation from Iraq to the area of Pakistan/Afghanistan | |
| 09:30 | from my point of view something very obvious. | |
| 09:35 | The second reasoning for relocation from Iraq to the Pakistan/Afghanistan area | |
| 09:40 | Is making a target of Russia and China. | |
| 09:45 | And I think that those eight years, during the Bush presidency | |
| 09:50 | who represented the oil companies and who were interested in Iraq — | |
| 09:55 | Obama is representative of financial structures, | |
| 10:00 | who are much more interested in Russia and Russia’s problems, | |
| 10:05 | because Russia, during those eight years in which Bush was busy in the Middle East, | |
| 10:10 | Russia to some extent strengthened its positions. We shouldn’t overestimate these abilities, | |
| 10:15 | Russia’s abilities, but they are significantly greater than what US | |
| 10:20 | was prepared to accept. Of course the US even now very tightly controls Russia, its raw materials, | |
| 10:25 | and it absolutely clear that nobody going to return to us our stabilisation reserves, | |
| 10:30 | and it will disappear there, and, despite all of that, during eight years of Bush’s presidency, | |
| 10:35 | Russia in the global arena allowed itself significantly more than | |
| 10:40 | what Americans were prepared to accept. | |
| 10:45 | The last example is the events in South Ossetia where an American vassal got hit in the teeth, and the Americans | |
| 10:49 | couldn’t do anything about that, primarily because they didn’t expect such a reaction from Russia. | |
| 10:52 | That’s why I think during the period of the Obama administration, | |
| 10:55 | following four or eight years I expect that we will have very major problems with America. | |
| 11:00 | Hillary Clinton has commented on this in an interesting fashion. | |
| 11:05 | When she was in front of the Senate committee, | |
| 11:10 | and when her Democratic colleagues were questioning her, she said that | |
| 11:15 | we are going to cooperate constructively with Russia, but at the same time fight for American interests. | |
| 11:20 | Of course its clear what it means We are going to cooperate with Russia to the extent of our interests while pushing on Russia’s pain points. | |
| 11:25 |
Very interesting to get some informed Russian points of view.
Interesting, but the video strikes me as being 50% astute observation and 50% paranoid KGB talk. I think there are interests involved with getting Obama in, but it seems to be more a mutual interplay of the west hating left/democrat party and rich financial backers with their own interests rather than a strictly written agenda. Since the USSR had the same mind set, I don’t think it was hard for this guy to roughly lay out what Obama would do, but then again, I assumed the same things in 2008 watching his speeches and the back stories on conservative news outlets.
Edited sorry
One day soon Europe and US will be enemies…..
Ukraine proves my point..over gas supplies (and US sabotage of the pipline?)
In many ways we are already at war with her….an unmentioned “cold war” for now but that could change, especially as the EU and Euro gather strength and better polticians replace Ashton and Rompuy.
I get my “info” from “sympathetic insiders” and they say America is now an enemy. They are looking eastwards. What do US politicians expect with all the snooping on “allies” who deeply fear US CIA assassination?
sadly that may be true. it certainly looks like the west’s most reliable ally may well be China!
i think that is Obama’s intention.
What a disappointing analysis from start to finish. Who says that the Soviet propaganda/disinformation apparatus ever went away?
Obama is America’s Lenin. He is creating world chaos.
I had the same thoughts while watching the video. You can take out someone from a communist environment but more often than less he will carry the ideology in his circulatory system…I take my hat off for those who managed to get rid of the “ballast” but not this guy anyway.
“I think the general course of Obama’s politics — more precisely not Obama, but those elites, groups that put him forward for presidency — can be characterised as export of instability.”
This statement is accurate. Look at the Arab Spring countries and related turmoil. Look at ‘immigration’ to USA from South and Central America. Look at China eyeing Taiwan. Etc. Etc. Etc.