How America’s top spymaster sees the world and why that is rather disappointing — RT World News

Posted by William J. Burns wrote a long article in Foreign Affairs under the title: 'The art of espionage and the art of government. Transforming the CIA for the Age of Competition'. This article will likely be read with great interest, and perhaps even analyzed, not only by the American elite, but also abroad, in Moscow, Beijing, and New Delhi, for example, for several reasons. Burns is, of course, the head of the CIA, as well as a recognized heavyweight in American geopolitics – in the state. And Deep state versions.

Few publications rival Foreign Affairs' reputation as a forum and mouthpiece for the American establishment. Although Burns' link constitutes a call to appreciate the importance of human intelligence agents, his agenda is much broader: in fact, what he issued was a set of strategic policy recommendations, part and parcel of a global tour on the horizon. Last but not least, Burns is of course not the only author. Even if he had to write every line himself, this is a programmatic announcement from a powerful faction in America “siloviki”, The men (and women) who wield the enormous hard power of the American empire.

Incidentally, whether he notices it or not, Burns' intervention can't help but bring to mind another brilliant spymaster loyally serving a declining empire. Yuri Andropov, former head of the KGB (and then, briefly, the entire Soviet Union) had agreed with his CIA counterpart on the importance of “Human Origins” Especially in an age of technological advancement, he would also have appreciated the broad sweep of Burns' vision. The truth is that with Burns putting himself first, one cannot help but wonder whether he is not also, in principle, paving the way for one day to reach the presidency. In the United States, George Bush Sr. moved from head of the CIA to head of the entire agency as well.

There is no doubt that this CIA director is an intelligent, experienced man who is fundamentally capable of realism, unlike many others in the current American elite. It is known that he warned about this in 2008, when he was ambassador to Moscow “Ukraine’s accession to NATO is the most prominent red line for the Russian elite (not just Putin).” This makes the glaring flaws in this comprehensive survey even more apparent.

Burns was clearly right when he observed that the United States – and the world as a whole – is facing a historically rare moment of collapse. “Adult” Change in the world order. With one exception to which we will return, it is futile, and perhaps even a bit rude, to argue about his ideologically biased terminology. His incorrect classification of Russia as “My revenge” For example, it has a frivolous ring to it. “agonist” It would be a more civilized and more honest term, one that captures the fact that the country is simply returning to its normal, lower international status (for the last three hundred years at least), that is, that it is an unparalleled superpower.

However, Burns' agenda is more important than his terminology. Although the matter may be complicated, parts of it are as clear as can be: He is eager (perhaps desperate) to prevent Washington from ending its massive aid to Ukraine – a battle he is likely to lose. In the Middle East, he wants to focus Western aggression on Iran. He may get his way there, but that will not be a winning strategy because, in part thanks to multipolar trend setters like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, Iran's escape from long-time U.S. isolation is already possible. inevitable.

On China, Burns's real target is a rival faction of American hawks, or specifically those who claim frankly that Washington should write off its losses in Ukraine and focus all its firepower on China. Burns wants to convince his readers that the United States is capable of fighting its great battle against China and its proxy war against Russia.

He is also engaged in a massive CIA build-up, clearly intended to increase state influence within the already extraordinarily powerful state that he himself happens to be running. And last but not least, the spymaster has discovered one of the oldest tricks in the subversion and destabilization playbook: he loudly announces that his CIA is on a recruiting spree in Russia, and seeks to foster a little paranoia in Moscow. Good luck trying to pull that on the country that gave us the term “an agency.” Moreover, after the horrific terrorist attack on Crocus City Hall in Moscow, it is fair to assume that Burns regrets his boasts about the CIA expanding its work. “a job” In Russia. Not a good look, at all.

But what matters more than his verbal maneuvers and his direct, interesting, even explicit goals are three astonishingly egregious errors: First, Burns insists on reading the emerging outcome of the war in Ukraine as a surprise. “Failed on many levels” For Russia, it reveals, he believes, its economic, political and military weakness. However, as a recognized American economist james k. Galbraith As he recently emphasized, the economic war waged by the West against Russia has backfired. The Russian economy is now stronger, more resilient and independent from the West than ever before.

As for the army, Burns, for example, happily counts the tanks Russia has lost and fails to notice the tanks it is building. At a rapid rate unparalleled anywhere within NATO. In general, he failed to mention how concerned dozens of Western experts felt, realizing that Moscow was overseeing a massive and effective expansion of military production. Strange supervision of an intelligence professional. He also seems to miss how desperate the situation in Ukraine is on the ground.

And politics – really? The man serving Joe Biden, who will likely soon be replaced by Donald Trump, notes unpopularity and fragility in Moscow, and his main guide is Prigozhin and his doomed rebellion? This part of Burns' article is so divorced from reality that one wonders whether this is the same person who reported on Russian red lines in 2008. The larger point that Burns fails to understand is that Russia, historically, has a pattern of waging Wars over error. Foot – to learn, mobilize, focus and win.

The second major mistake made by Burns was his argument that only China could pose a serious challenge to the United States. This is astonishingly short-sighted for two reasons: First, Russia has just demonstrated its ability to defeat the West in a proxy war. Once this victory, a declining but still important part of the US empire, is complete, NATO/EU and Europe will have to deal with the consequences (no, not the Russian invasion, but the political backlash, division, and instability). If Burns believes that Europe's backlash does not pose a serious threat to US interests, we can only envy his indifference.

Second, his premise is completely misleading: it makes no sense to analytically divide Russian and Chinese potential, because they are now closely linked to reality. It is, among other things, an American attempt to strike Russia first and then deal with China that has just failed. Instead, their partnership became more solid.

Error number three is perhaps even stranger: as mentioned above, Burns's language is a strange mixture of analytical language and extreme jargon. The educated reader cannot help but feel embarrassed when he hears the CIA director complain about others. “animal” behavior. What's worse: the noise of the aquarium or the vibration of the greenhouse and stones? Mostly, though, it doesn't matter.

However, there is one instance where these bouts of verbal incivility reveal something worse than rhetorical bluster: describing the October 7 Hamas attack as… “massacre” Burns found nothing but 'Intense ground campaign' On the part of Israel. Let's put aside that this is a contemptible euphemism, when much of the world rightly sees genocide taking place in Gaza, with the support of the United States. It also demonstrates a stunning failure of strategic imagination: in the same article, Burns correctly points out that the weight of the Global South is increasing, and that the great powers will, in essence, be forced to compete for loyalties that no longer exist, as they do now. He puts it “single.” So good luck putting America's strange loyalty to Israel first. The CIA director should at least remain able to distinguish between his country's national interests and Tel Aviv's demands.

Burns's multifaceted jab at the world of elite public debate leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. It is truly disappointing to see so much harsh rhetoric and such fundamental errors in analysis on the part of one of the least dishonest members of the American establishment. It's also confusing. Burns is not an amateur like Antony Blinken, or a fanatic without self-control like Victoria Nuland. However, here he puts his name to a text that often seems ambiguous and transparent in its simple and myopic motivations. Has the American establishment deteriorated to the point that even its best and brightest individuals now seem sadly unimpressive?