Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is ‘Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak Out.’ His other books include ‘My Father Was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth.’ Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net
The distance between Gaza and Namibia is measured in the thousands of kilometers. But the historical distance is much closer. This is precisely why Namibia was one of the first countries to take a strong stance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
Namibia was colonized by the Germans in 1884, while the British colonized Palestine in the 1920s, handing the territory to the Zionist colonizers in 1948.
Though the ethnic and religious fabric of Palestine and Namibia differ, the historical experiences are similar.
It is easy, however, to assume that the history that unifies many countries in the Global South is only that of Western exploitation and victimization. It is also a history of collective struggle and resistance.
Namibia has been inhabited since prehistoric times. This long-rooted history has allowed Namibians, over thousands of years, to establish a sense of belonging to the land and to one another, something that the Germans did not understand or appreciate.
When the Germans colonized Namibia, giving it the name of ‘German Southwest Africa,’’ they did what all other Western colonialists have done, from Palestine to South Africa to Algeria, to virtually all Global South countries. They attempted to divide the people, exploited their resources and butchered those who resisted.
Although a country with a small population, Namibians resisted their colonizers, resulting in the German decision to simply exterminate the natives, literally killing the majority of the population.
Since the start of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, Namibia answered the call of solidarity with the Palestinians, along with many African and South American countries, including Colombia, Nicaragua, Cuba, South Africa, Brazil, China and many others.
Namibia rejects Germany’s Support of the Genocidal Intent of the Racist Israeli State against Innocent Civilians in Gaza
On Namibian soil, #Germany committed the first genocide of the 20th century in 1904-1908, in which tens of thousands of innocent Namibians died in the most… pic.twitter.com/ZxwWxLv8yt
Though intersectionality is a much-celebrated notion in Western academia, no academic theory is needed for oppressed, colonized nations in the Global South to exhibit solidarity with one another.
So when Namibia took a strong stance against Israel’s largest military supporter in Europe – Germany – it did so based on Namibia’s total awareness of its history.
The German genocide of the Nama and Herero people (1904-1907) is known as the “first genocide of the 20th century”. The ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza is the first genocide of the 21st century. The unity between Palestine and Namibia is now cemented through mutual suffering.
However, Namibia did not launch a legal case against Germany at the International Court of Justice (ICJ); it was Nicaragua, a Central American country thousands of miles away from Palestine and Namibia.
The Nicaraguan case accuses Germany of violating the ‘Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.’ It rightly sees Germany as a partner in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians.
This accusation alone should terrify the German people, in fact, the whole world, as Germany has been affiliated with genocides from its early days as a colonial power. The horrific crime of the Holocaust and other mass killings carried out by the German government against Jews and other minority groups in Europe during WWII is a continuation of other German crimes committed against Africans decades earlier.
The typical analysis of why Germany continues to support Israel is explained based on German guilt over the Holocaust. This explanation, however, is partly illogical and partly erroneous.
It is illogical because if Germany has, indeed, internalized any guilt from its previous mass killings, it would make no sense for Berlin to add yet more guilt by allowing Palestinians to be butchered en masse. If guilt indeed exists, it is not genuine. It is erroneous because it completely overlooks the German genocide in Namibia. It took the German government until 2021 to acknowledge the horrific butchery in that poor African country, ultimately agreeing to pay merely one billion euros in ‘community aid,’ which will be allocated over three decades.
The German government’s support of the Israeli war on Gaza is not motivated by guilt but by a power paradigm that governs the relations among colonial countries. Many countries in the Global South understand this logic very well, thus the growing solidarity with Palestine.
A photo titled “Captured Hereros,” taken circa 1904 by German colonists in Namibia. Photo | German Historical Museum
The Israeli brutality in Gaza, but also the Palestinian sumud, resilience and resistance, are inspiring the Global South to reclaim its centrality in anti-colonial liberation struggles.
The revolution in the Global South’s outlook—culminating in South Africa’s case at the ICJ and the Nicaraguan lawsuit against Germany—indicates that change is not the outcome of a collective emotional reaction. Instead, it is part and parcel of the shifting relationship between the Global South and the Global North.
Africa has been undergoing a process of geopolitical restructuring for years. The anti-French rebellions in West Africa, demanding true independence from the continent’s former colonial masters, and the intense geopolitical competition involving Russia, China and others are all signs of changing times. And with this rapid rearrangement, a new political discourse and popular rhetoric are emerging, often expressed in the revolutionary language emanating from Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali and others.
But the shift is not happening only on the rhetorical front. The rise of BRICS as a powerful new platform for economic integration between Asia and the rest of the Global South has opened up the possibility of alternatives to Western financial and political institutions.
In 2023, it was revealed that BRICS countries hold 32 percent of the world’s total GDP, compared to 30 percent held by the G7 countries. This has much political value, as four of the five original founders of BRICS are strong and unapologetic supporters of the Palestinians.
While South Africa has been championing the legal front against Israel, Russia and China are battling the US at the UN Security Council to institute a ceasefire. Beijing’s Ambassador to The Hague defended the Palestinian armed struggle as legitimate under international law.
Now that global dynamics are working in favor of Palestinians, it is time for the Palestinian struggle to return to the embrace of the Global South, where shared histories will always serve as a foundation for meaningful solidarity.
Feature photo | Hon. Yvonne Dausab, Minister of Justice of Namibia, joined representatives of over 50 nations in presenting testimony to the International Court of Justice on the legality of the Israeli occupation. Photo | International Court of Justice
Nicaraguan lawyer and diplomat Carlos Argüello Gómez speaks to The Grayzone about his case against the German government for its facilitation of Israel’s genocide in the besieged Gaza Strip, its potentially historic implications, and its similarities to the successful case he argued for the ICJ in 1986 which brought massive penalties against the United States for its illegal dirty war on Nicaragua at the time.
A full transcript follows.
VIDEO: Nicaragua takes on Germany over Gaza genocide- an interview with Carlos Argüello Gómez
Max Blumenthal: Why did Nicaragua feel compelled to bring this case against Germany? And perhaps you can fill us in on the latest development?
Dr. Arguello: Yes, thank you. Well, naturally, the main state committing the crime is Israel. The main abettor of what is happening is the United States. But the next one is Germany.
In the first case, Israel, South Africa has brought a case against Israel, of genocide, and that case is pending. Israel has been ignoring so far the orders of the court. In the case of the main abettor, the United States, we don’t have any jurisdiction to bring the United States to the court.
The United States not only does it accept the jurisdiction, but even when it became part of the Genocide Convention, which was 40 years after the convention from 1948 — it wan’t until 1988, that they became a party, with a lot of reservations, saying that they couldn’t be taken to the court, and that it [was] only genocide according to a decision by a court in the United States — with a lot of reservations that make it impossible to go against the United States.
But Germany doesn’t have that type of reservation, and Germany is the second [largest] supplier of weapons to Israel. So our position was a question of principle, beginning with: that it was very important to sit down and to make countries clear that there is an international obligation to prevent these types of situations.
The Genocide Convention specifically says in its first article that all countries have the obligation to prevent and punish genocide. We have the obligation to prevent — that doesn’t mean that the genocide has to have been completed already, that it has to have been determined by a court that there has been genocide. You have the obligation to prevent [it].
So what we have stated in the court, and have proven, is that Germany has had all notice, beginning from the Secretary General of the United Nations from the ninth of October, saying that genocide was possibly being committed. Even the International Court said that genocide was being committed.
Now, you have to understand also that if genocide is being committed, obviously, international humanitarian law is being [violated]. If you are massacring a population, the difference is, if you aren’t massacring with the intention of destroying it completely, which is genocide, you are still violating international humanitarian law.
Now the problem — to divide the situation — is Israel only accepted jurisdiction on the basis of the Genocide Convention. So you can’t claim against Israel violations of international humanitarian law, only genocide. And so that was another of the points that I’ll get to.
But first, going back, the principle involved here is all states have responsibility to prevent these type of crimes, international crimes. The court had already given indication of this 20 years ago, in an opinion that the International Court had given on the construction of a wall in Israel. The Court itself had felt that all states had the obligation to prevent what was happening. All states had the obligation to enforce the humanitarian law conventions, but nobody paid attention.
Germany never paid any attention to what was happening. The court even said that the Palestinians had the right to self-determination in that case. Nobody paid attention. So now we come to when the most crucial genocide is being evidenced — because genocide has been committed for many years. It’s not a question of just the past few months. But it is absolutely in evidence, and the countries continue as if it wasn’t. As if the Genocide Convention and all the international laws had nothing to do with them.
So we thought that as a matter of principle, we had to bring before the court this question. Now, I wish to clarify, because I have been asked: ‘why Nicaragua?’ Well, with Nicaragua, we have a lot of experience in the court. We came to the court forty years ago against the United States, on a question of principle also. It was the principle of non intervention… of the state. In that we made a very important contribution to international law.
And since then we have been in the court many times. We have been in the court more than twice as many times as Germany. So it’s not that we are discovering the court in this situation. We have experience and that’s why, this experience, we wanted to put it to the benefit of the Palestinian people that are being massacred, at the very least, if not committing genocide against them.
Now, another situation, and this is on a personal level: after South Africa brought the case against Israel — and that was at the end of December last year — then in January, I was just listening to interviews, by very important commentators, very important lawyers. Everybody was saying, ‘Well, no, genocide is possible… it’s very difficult to prove that,’ and whatever.
So I think the whole understanding of people who were watching what was happening was: well, obviously, then nothing is happening. It’s very difficult to prove. I mean, that wasn’t the issue. Israel was massacring everybody. It was violating all international humanitarian law. The only thing was that only genocide could be brought against them directly.
So the fact of bringing this case against Germany, which includes not only genocide, but also its obligations, German obligations, to also help prevent the violation of international humanitarian law. All that is on the table with Germany. Against Israel, only the genocide. Against Germany, we have all international law, humanitarian law also on the table. So I mean, that aspect is also very important.
Part of the reason, right, but obviously, Germany will try to avoid [it] and say that, as they said in the court, that we can continue in this case without the presence of Israel. But independently of what is happening, each country in the world, all countries in the world, have the obligation to prevent [genocide]. It’s an independent obligation.
So, I mean, this is more or less where we are. And hopefully, the court will order. There are no third states, I’m sorry, there are no other parties, but Germany and Nicaragua involved in this. There is no reason why the court can not simply order that Germany cease supplying weapons to Israel, which is what we hope will happen.
Wyatt Reed: So the Germans are offering kind of a novel legal defense here. The legal director for the German Foreign Office, Tania von Uslar-Gleichen, said recently that, “Our history is the reason why Israel security has been at the core of German foreign policy.” So the point here seems to be that given that Germany carried out the Holocaust, it’s now compelled to do whatever it takes to defend the so-called ‘Jewish state,’ and apparently, including even facilitating the mass extermination of Palestinians. Is that an accurate reading of the German position here? And if it is, how do you expect that to hold up in court? Are you optimistic about the outcome here?
Dr. Arguello: Well, frankly, in court… Let me make two comments on that. Even before the Germans spoke — when we presented our case on Monday, the Germans responded on Tuesday — we’d already made the distinction. We told them, because I think Germany has always been saying that it is their raison d’etre that they have: the defense of Israel.
So one of the things we told them on Monday is that we understand and that it is a praisable situation, a very laudable situation, that they feel responsible for the Holocaust, and the barbarities that were committed in the Second World War against the Jewish people. But a distinction should be made, Israel is not the Jewish people. What they’re helping is a state that is committing genocide.
That’s one point and a very important distinction. But in the long run, what they are doing is, they are going against the Jewish people, because Israel is causing enormous prejudice to the Jewish [court], the world around. It’s incredible. Frankly, I don’t know how we can understand that position of Germany. If they’re really worried about what they did, or what happened, of their ancestors or the Nazis, or whatever we want to call them. Well, I think the first thing should be, their heart should tell them that they should be helping the Palestinians in this situation. I mean, those are the guys that are suffering. I mean, Israel is not suffering. If they want to really have compassion, or they feel compassion to those that are suffering, Israel is not suffering. Israel is a superpower.
Max: Ambassador Arguello, you mentioned earlier the case that you brought at the International Court of Justice or that the Nicaraguan government brought back in 1984. In 1986, you received a favorable ruling from the ICJ. And this was a case against the United States for its violation of international law, through the CIA’s backing of the Contra death squads, as well as its mining of Nicaragua’s Harbor. The US did not abide by the decision. It simply sat on its hands and waited until its preferred candidate, Violeta Chamorro, won in 1990, and proceeded to withdraw the case. Do you see any similarities between that case and the case you’re bringing now against Germany for its participation in Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people? And how do you expect the ICJ or the international community to enforce a decision in the current case, given the brazen attitude of Israel in the United States towards international law?
Dr. Arguello: Well, that’s a very important consideration, and thank you for the comment on the historical background. Yes, I mean, the case we brought against the United States has certain similarities. Some we pointed out during our intervention — the most obvious is that one of the main things we’re requesting [from] the court right at the beginning, was that the United States should cease its supply of weapons in support to the Contra forces that were fighting the government of Nicaragua. And they were, in this case, they were created and supplied entirely by the United States.
Obviously, the State of Israel wasn’t created and doesn’t depend entirely on Germany, but Germany is also supplying weapons and maintaining politically, diplomatically, giving all the efforts in helping possible to Israel. So what we are asking the court, in a certain sense, and we repeated that, was exactly what we were asking against [the] United States forty years ago: to cease this assistance to Israel, in the same way that you will cease the assistance to the illegal forces fighting Nicaragua.
Now, of course, the United States didn’t comply. The United States, in my experience, even before we came before the court — and I don’t want to go lengthy discussion on that, [but] in my opinion, the United States has never respected international law. Any treaty with the United States, any third country that thinks that they are ‘armor’ against anything because they have a treaty, that treaty will only be respected as long as it’s in the interest of the United States. The United States does not respect international law, unless it’s in its benefit.
They want to go: ‘The United States has accepted the jurisdiction of the court.’ But when it became against them, that was it. They didn’t comply, said goodbye to the court. Israel, obviously, is following the example of the United States. Not the example — it’s covered by the same forces of the United States. Israel is the local bully in that area, but it has the big brother bully behind it. So they feel completely armored against anything. But we have the feeling — and… perhaps we’re wrong, I don’t know — But I don’t think that Germany will have the same attitude with a judgment of the court.
I think the United States, obviously, any order of the court, they simply ignore it. And not only the government, but probably even the media, all the traditional media in the United States would probably also ignore it. But I think in Germany, it would be different. I think a judgment by the court order in Germany to stop is going to have a lot of effect. And apart from that, world opinion at this moment, I think, has been mobilized. In that respect, perhaps even these cases before the court are also helping this mobilization. But people, even in German, there’s a lot, currently, of people that are also very, very worried and very ashamed of what’s happening. So I think, I think it will be very difficult. And that’s why I’m hopeful that if the court orders it, it will be an effective order. It’s not going to be ignored completely.
Wyatt: So in recent months after South Africa brought its case against Israel, we saw some attempts in the United States government, specifically the Congress, to pursue some kind of bilateral relations review, effectively implying the threat of sanctions or decreased economic trade activity with South Africa — kind of an implicit threat. So I’m wondering whether Israel has tried to interfere with this case, or whether the US itself has attempted to retaliate beyond the sanctions that it’s already imposing and plans to impose on Nicaragua?
Dr. Arguello: Well, I am not aware at this moment of any particular additional sanctions, or additional positions against Nicaragua. I mean, the United States has been already doing — with different governments — has been doing everything possible to destroy the government of Nicaragua. So it’s nothing, it’s nothing new. They attempted a coup d’etat when Mr. Bolton was in charge of these operations in 2018. We have been sanctioned constantly. So I mean, if that happens, it’s going to happen. I mean, I don’t know what more they can do against us.
We have our moral obligation we feel. As I said at the beginning, I mean, what can we contribute to the Palestinian people? Among the few things we can do — we can’t give them money because we’re not a rich country, we can’t give them weapons. How can we help them? And one of the few things that we have is experience, and we have something, which is the International Court. So when this case began, we said let’s go wholeheartedly here. And I received instructions from my bosses that we should go immediately, and do everything possible. That’s what we’re trying, that’s what we try to do.
Max: And then just on the theme of your moral obligation: the Sandinista municipality in Managua has renamed a street ‘Pista Gaza,’ a major thoroughfare in Managua. The Sandinista party has a traditional affiliation or solidarity with the Palestine Liberation Organization, how does this case fit into the ethos of the Sandinista front and its support for oppressed people and working people around the world?
Dr. Arguello: We had, I mean, right from the beginning, from the birth of the Sandinista party or movement, even before the triumph of the revolution, there’s always been enormous sympathy from both ways — from the Palestinians toward our cause, and from, obviously, our cause to them. And what is happening to Palestine is something that has hurt us enormously, and we have been feeling it for a very long time. When, some years ago, there was this convoy of help that was going from Turkey to Israel, which was intervened, and there was an attack from Israel to stop it, we broke relations with Israel completely. We initiated relations with Israel just a few years ago again, in the hope that things would try to be normal.
But the reality is that Israel has been acting this way. This is among the more blatant – obviously, it’s something that now is indisputable, it’s being watched by even children all over the world. Everybody in the world knows what’s happening. And everybody now sympathizes.
Perhaps 50, 60 years ago, there was less common knowledge of everything that was happening. The media was more controlled by certain groups of states. But now, I think that the sympathy that we originally felt with the Palestinian people, since way back, is now something that is shared with a lot of humanity. So that’s also a hope, a hope we have.
Max: And I guess my last question would be a more general question about international law. It’s clear that the rules based order that the Biden administration in Washington preaches has suffered an enormous blow to its credibility, through the Biden administration’s support for Israel’s assault on Gaza and all the violations that we’ve seen. But we’ve also seen institutions, multilateral institutions, like the United Nations Security Council, or the World Court, the ICJ be unable to enforce decisions like the acceptance of the South African case or calls for a ceasefire. So what are your thoughts on the future of international law and these institutions born out of the kind of post World War Two order and their ability to enforce it in the face of these brazen, unilateral — and still very powerful — forces like Israel in the United States? Is there really a future for international law?
Dr. Arguello: If you permit me, I mean, I remember, I have made this comment many times in my career. 40 years ago, when we began, or 38 years ago, with the judgment of the court, the case against the United States — when the United States had already said goodbye to the court and that it wasn’t going to pay any attention to what was happening. That question was always coming up. I mean, what can you do? And what can the court do? I mean, ‘you’ve been wasting your time, coming to the court, the court doesn’t have nuclear weapons to force the United States to obey.’
There was an expression that I took from a French tourist that was, many years ago, wondering: what can you do if a big power doesn’t compile? The only thing left is the mobilization of shame. And if we break that down, this mobilization of shame, even in the United States, the amount of people now informed of what’s happening is increasing. And, Mr. Biden, politicians like him, have no real principles or no real belief in international law. But they believe in their posts. And if people in the United States are changing their opinion, they’re being informed and this shame is mobilizing them, then eventually they will have to mobilize the immovable objects like Mr. Biden. So that’s, that’s the hope with this. Perhaps being too idealistic, but it’s the only weapon we have.
Max: Okay, well, Ambassador, is there anything you wanted to add or touch on? Before we go?
Dr. Arguello: Well, just to thank both of you, your program. I think we’ve more or less covered [everything]. Obviously, we could talk for hours and hours about different things but I think we basically touched base on the main points.
Max: I guess I do have one more question. I guess I have one more question, something I’ve been thinking about, and we’ve been covering a lot at The Grayzone. But when you first brought your case against the United States, at the ICJ, the world was in a different place. The Cold War was still taking place. But now we see the emergence of the Global South and a kind of multipolar order. We see the rise of BRICS, China and Russia are beginning to ally themselves. And Nicaragua is forming new alliances as well. To what extent does this case and the South African case represent the Global South asserting its power in a new way against a declining global hegemony?
Dr. Arguello: Well, I think there must be, there’s an element of that, obviously. In the case of Nicaragua, since we began 40 years ago, as you said, during the height of the Cold War, that wasn’t the main reason for our doing it. Although, I don’t want to be very presumptuous on this, but perhaps that case, at least in the International Court, was the beginning of, let’s say, a movement, that has been followed up and that we are in 40 years later, still continuing. In that respect, that’s what I have told some people in Nicaragua that I feel, even forty years later, that again, we are simply continuing. And, unfortunately, to cite a Nicaraguan poet, he was supposedly a Nicaraguan Patriot in the 1850s against an American, North American invader, taking over the country. He killed one of the soldiers, throwing a rock. So this Nicaraguan poet, 100 years later in the 1930s, wrote a poem that ended something like saying, you know: ‘Andrés, 100 years later, throw the rock. The enemy is still the same.’ Now, forty years later, I feel that I still have the rock in my hand, and the enemy is still the same. Anyway, we still have the rock and we still have the energy, and we have to go on.
Wyatt: David continues the fight against Goliath.
Max: Ambassador Carlos Arguello Gomez, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with us. And thank you for your contribution to humanity.
Dr. Arguello: Oh, thank you. Thank you for having me on your program and your contribution to humanity. I told you, I have enjoyed many of your programs and will continue to do so. Ok, thank you very much.
Max: Thank you, and we’ll be following up after the decision.
Germany and the United States along with other Western powers are continuing deep-seated historical crimes by way of their proxy war against Russia.
The repeating of history might seem tragic, even farcical. One may wonder how such apparent madness can be repeated. But the explanation is straightforward when it is understood that the motive force is the same.
The charge against Germany at the International Court of Justice this week of aiding genocide in Gaza is truly shameful. Germany was brought to court by Nicaragua for facilitating Israel’s genocide in Gaza in breach of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
That convention was created in the aftermath of Nazi Germany’s mass murder of six million Jews during World War Two. Only 79 years after the end of that war, the German state is again in the dock for complicity in an ongoing genocide in Gaza committed by a self-declared Jewish state of Israel.
It seems a shocking and deplorable twist in history. Within living memory, Germany stands accused again of abominable crimes against humanity.
What is even more disgraceful, the German authorities are denying that Israel is committing genocide and that Germany is nobly defending Israel’s security out of a special obligation owing to its heinous World War Two holocaust.
Germany’s supposed rationale for supporting Israel is an astounding perversion of history.
The case against Germany this week is incontestable as was the earlier case brought against Israel by South Africa in January before the same United Nations court at The Hague. A definitive ruling by the court on both cases is pending.
Nevertheless, already world public opinion is in concurrence with numerous international legal and human rights experts that Israel’s military siege of the Gaza Strip amounts to genocide and incorporates multiple violations of international law. Ergo, Germany’s culpability.
Over the past six months, Israel’s wanton destruction of the Palestinian territory has resulted in over 33,000 deaths, including more than 14,000 children and 10,000 women among the victims. The actual death toll is probably more than 46,000 given that 13,000 people are missing under rubble or buried in unmarked graves. It is feared that there will be up to 100,000 dead in the coming months as famine and disease intensify.
Germany is the second biggest supplier of weapons to Israel after the United States. Germany accounts for nearly one-third of all Israeli arms imports.
Israel’s murderous, indiscriminate siege of Gaza involving a deliberate policy of mass starvation of more than two million people would not be happening if it were not for crucial military support from the United States and Germany.
But just as important as the killing machines and ammunition is the unwavering political support provided by Germany, the United States, and all of their Western allies. Unbelievably, Berlin, Washington, London, Paris, and other Western capitals continue to assert that Israel is not committing genocide. Like U.S. President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz repeats the cynical and mendacious mantra about Israel’s right to self-defense.
What is going on in Gaza is a bloodbath enabled by Western imperialist powers. The U.S. and all its Western allies are accomplices in egregious war crimes. Live on television every day, and yet the contemptible Western media assiduously sanitize and mitigate the horror. In any sane world, the Western governments and their corporate-controlled “news media” should be irredeemably condemned for their complicity.
However, Germany’s culpability takes on a profoundly disturbing and disgraceful significance, as does the Zionist regime’s. In the name of millions of victims of Nazi Germany, the genocide in Gaza is being perpetrated with a truculence and self-righteousness that is despicable beyond words. It is utterly diabolical that the historic mass murder of Jews by Germany is now being repeated on others by a state that claims to be Jewish – and enabled by Germany. You could hardly make this obscenity up.
It should be understood too that the horror being perpetrated in Gaza is but one element in a toxic eruption of imperialist crimes currently underway across the globe.
In Ukraine, the Western imperialists in the NATO axis are waging a proxy war against Russia utilizing a corrupt NeoNazi regime headed up by a nominally Jewish puppet president who is up to his eyes in money laundering, fraud, and swindling. Germany is the second biggest supplier of weapons to the Ukrainian regime after the United States.
Eight decades ago, Nazi Germany deployed Ukrainian fascists to exterminate Jews and Slavs with a death toll of up to 30 million Soviet citizens. The contemporary Ukrainian regime glorifies these Nazi collaborators. The United States deployed the same Ukrainian fascists after the Second World War to wage covert war against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Thus, Germany and the United States along with other Western powers are continuing deep-seated historical crimes by way of their proxy war against Russia.
The same imperialist rogue states are enabling Israeli aggression against Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Israel’s deadly bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus earlier this month was a particularly brazen violation of international law. The barbarity of the Israeli fascist regime is fully enabled and incentivized by its Western patrons. The bitter irony is Washington and Berlin remonstrating with Iran to exercise “maximum restraint” while Israel openly attacks its sovereignty and assassinates its citizens.
Meanwhile, the United States, Australia and Britain are cajoling Japan to join their military alliance to provoke China. Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida was feted in Washington this week where he signed bellicose new military measures aimed at China and Russia. Kishida linked Ukraine with Asia, claiming that if Russia were to win the war in Ukraine, then China would take over East Asia. The Japanese minion gets its half right. The regions are indeed linked, not by alleged Russian and Chinese misconduct, but by the U.S.-led imperialism that Japan is cravenly serving.
Western imperialism and fascism have come full circle in a staggeringly short span of history. Nearly 80 years after Japan was defeated in the Pacific War in which it was responsible for up to 20 million deaths in China, Tokyo is at the forefront of new plans to wage a potential nuclear war on China. The perversion of Japan joining with the United States in this venture after the latter dropped two atomic bombs on its people in 1945 is yet another sickening twist in history.
The monstrous crimes of Nazi Germany and fascist Japan are today rehabilitated because the same forces serve the imperialist geopolitical interests of today.
The twists and contradictions of history are, however, crystallized in one historical force. All the crimes, barbarity, bloodshed and danger of catastrophic world war are the cause of imperialist powers – chief among them the United States and its insatiable quest for hegemonic domination.
Historic failure and systemic collapse of Western capitalism is the motive engine driving the world to war again, as it was in previous periods of the modern age. Colonialist genocide, World War One, World War Two, and now the abyss of World War Three.
Germany in the dock for genocide with Israel is not as incongruous as it might seem. Because imperialism and fascism are on the rampage again across the world. Both Germany and Israel are gang members in the crime syndicate, each with their specific justifying myths and alibis.
Russia and China are arguably the two nations that suffered the most in history from fascism. It is entirely consistent – if not lamentable – that Russia and China today are once again confronted by the same forces.
Germany is once again on the wrong side of history. And so too are the United States and all its Western vassals. Eternal shame on them.
The UN Human Rights Council issues a strongly worded call for an immediate cessation of all arms sales to “Israel”, citing grave concerns over potential genocide in the Gaza Strip.
The resolution, approved with 28 out of 47 member states of the council voting in favor, six against, and 13 abstentions, signifies the first instance of the United Nations’ primary human rights body taking a stance on the deadliest Israeli aggression on Gaza.
Meirav Eilon Shahar, Israeli ambassador to the UN in Geneva, denounced the resolution as “a stain for the Human Rights Council and for the UN as a whole.”
The strongly worded statement urged nations to “cease the sale, transfer, and diversion of arms, munitions, and other military equipment to Israel… to prevent further violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights.”
It emphasized that in January, the International Court of Justice determined “that there is a plausible risk of genocide.”
The resolution presented on Friday, initiated by Pakistan on behalf of all member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) except Albania, also demanded an “immediate ceasefire” and urged for urgent humanitarian access and aid.
‘Wake up and stop the genocide’
Before the vote, Palestinian Ambassador Ibrahim Mohammad Khraishi addressed the council saying, “We need you all to wake up and stop this genocide, a genocide televised around the world.”
Despite acknowledging the unbearable civilian death toll in Gaza, Washington, a key ally, voted against the resolution, along with Germany, Argentina, Bulgaria, Malawi, and Paraguay.
It is worth noting that US Ambassador Michele Taylor highlighted “Israel’s” insufficient efforts to minimize civilian casualties. However, she claimed that Washington couldn’t endorse the resolution due to its perceived flaws. The vote occurred after the UN Security Council in New York recently approved a ceasefire resolution, partly due to Washington abstaining from voting.
UNHRC resolution warns of Rafah invasion
The resolution from the rights council consistently referred to “Israel”, calling on the entity to cease its occupation of Palestinian territories entirely and to promptly remove its blockade on the Gaza Strip, as well as any other types of collective punishment.
The revised version of the text, updated late, on Thursday, to eliminate various mentions of genocide, still conveyed deep apprehension regarding statements from Israeli officials that could be construed as incitement to genocide.
Furthermore, it called on nations to intervene to halt the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinians from both within and outside Gaza. Specifically, it cautioned against extensive military actions in Rafah city, situated in the southern region of the densely populated Gaza Strip, where more than one million civilians are seeking refuge, emphasizing the potential dire humanitarian outcomes.
The resolution additionally denounced the tactic of using starvation against civilians as a form of warfare in Gaza, where the United Nations has issued warnings of an imminent famine.
It emphasized the urgent need for credible, prompt, and thorough accountability for all breaches of international law in Gaza. The resolution urged UN investigators of war crimes, who were assigned to examine the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories prior to October 7, to investigate all direct and indirect transfers or sales of arms, ammunition, components, and dual-use items to “Israel”. Furthermore, it called for an analysis of the legal ramifications of such transfers.
Germany calls on NATO to oppose UN arms embargo on ‘Israel’: Exclusive
In a different yet related context, diplomatic sources informed Al Mayadeen, on Thursday, that German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock urged NATO allies to block a draft UN resolution calling for an immediate cessation of arms exports to “Israel”.
According to the sources, Baerbock reportedly told her counterparts during a meeting of NATO foreign ministers at its headquarters in Brussels to pressure their governments into voting against the arms embargo resolution, which was submitted to the Human Rights Council on Wednesday.
Pakistan proposed the draft resolution on behalf of 55 of the 56 UN member nations in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), except Albania, Bolivia, Cuba, and the Palestinian Mission in Geneva have all co-sponsored the document.
Germany’s move comes after information indicated that several European countries, including France, Belgium, and Spain, are planning to vote in favor of the resolution, while others may abstain from voting, which could potentially lead to the resolution being adopted by a comfortable majority.
It is worth noting that the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) annual study issued in March revealed that sixty-nine percent of “Israel’s” arms acquisitions in 2023 came from US corporations, 30% came from Germany, and 0.9% from Italy.
Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video
Farmers have clashed violently with police in the European quarter of Brussels, spraying officers with liquid manure and setting fire to mounds of tyres, while the EU’s agriculture ministers met to discuss the crisis in their sector.
As farmers also protested in Madrid and on the Polish-German border, at least 900 tractors jammed streets in the centre of the Belgian capital, police said, with protesters throwing bottles and eggs and setting off fireworks while riot police fired water cannon.
Farmers from Spain, Portugal and Italy joined their Belgian counterparts for the latest show of force by a months-long, Europe-wide movement demanding action on high costs, low product prices, cheap non-EU imports and strict EU environmental rules.
Farmers blocked the streets of central Brussels by bringing at least 900 tractors into the city. Photograph: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images
The rolling protests, which on Saturday led to the French president, Emmanuel Macron, being heckled by furious farmers at the Paris agricultural fair, have unnerved leaders before European elections in June that are likely to produce major gains for far-right populist parties.
Ministers were meeting to debate European Commission proposals to ease the pressure on farmers, including simplifying the bloc’s common agricultural policy (CAP) by reducing farm inspections and exempting small farms from some green rules.
“We need something practical, something operational,” said the French agriculture minister, Marc Fesneau, adding that while there was room for “adjustments within the current rules,” meeting some demands “would require changing the legislation”.
Some protesters in Brussels threw bottles and eggs at riot police, who responded by firing water cannon. Photograph: Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images
Fesneau said it did not matter whether the changes were made before or after the European parliament elections, but “what matters now is moving forward. We need to set a goal, lay the foundations of a CAP that reassures people.”
Germany’s agriculture minister, Cem Özdemir, said the EU needed to ensure farmers could make a fair living if they opted for biodiversity and environmental measures. He said the average farmer “spends a quarter of their time at their desks” because of the EU’s “bureaucracy monster”.
David Clarinval, the Belgian agriculture minister, said farmers’ complaints had been “clearly heard” but urged them to refrain from violence, while the Irish agriculture minister, Charlie McConalogue said the priority must be to slash red tape.
A farmer spraying manure at riot police in Brussels on Monday. Photograph: Harry Nakos/AP
The EU should ensure that policies were “straightforward, that they’re proportionate and they’re as simple as possible for farmers to implement”, he said, underlining that “we do respect the massively important work that farmers carry out every day in terms of producing food”.
The EU has already rowed back on several parts of its flagship green deal plan in an effort to appease farmers, scrapping references to farming emissions from its 2040 climate roadmap, withdrawing a law to cut pesticide use and delaying a target for farmers to leave some land fallow to improve biodiversity.
The bloc has also introduced safeguards to stop Ukrainian imports flooding the market under a tariff-free scheme introduced after Russia’s 2022 invasion.
Riot police out in force at an agricultural show in France on Saturday where the president, Emmanuel Macron, was heckled. Photograph: Chesnot/Getty Images
The protest was farmers’ second in Brussels in recent weeks.
“We are getting ignored,” said Marieke Van De Vivere, a farmer from Belgium’s Ghent region. She said ministers should “be reasonable to us, come with us on a day to work on the field, or with the horses or with the animals, to see that it is not very easy … because of the rules they put on us”.
Morgan Ody, from La Via Campesina small farmers’ organisation, said that for most farmers it was “about income. It’s about the fact that we are poor, and that we want to make a decent living,” Ody said.
She called on the EU to set up minimum support prices and exit free trade agreements that enable the import of cheaper foreign produce. “We are not against climate policies. But we know that in order to do the transition, we need higher prices for products because it costs more to produce in an ecological way,” she said.
Spanish farmers protested in Madrid on Monday. Photograph: JJ Guillen/EPA
Farmers also protested on Monday in Madrid, blowing whistles, ringing cowbells and beating drums as they demanded that the EU cut red tape and drop some of the CAP. “The new CAP is ruining our lives,” said Juan Pedro Laguna, 46.
Roberto Rodriguez, who grows cereal and beetroots in the central province of Avila, said it was “impossible to stand these rules, they want us to work on the field during the day and deal with paperwork at night – we’re sick of the bureaucracy”.
Polish farmers protesting against EU regulations and cheap food imports from Ukraine blocked a motorway at a busy border crossing with Germany on Monday and plan to protest in the Polish capital, Warsaw, on Tuesday.
Polish farmers blocked a busy motorway crossing at the border with Germany on Monday. Photograph: John MacDougall/AFP/Getty Images
Adrian Wawrzyniak, a spokesperson for the Solidarity farmers’ union, said that as far as he knew “there are also German farmers on the German side – the crossing is blocked from both sides. This is a show of joint solidarity.”
Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Monday that farmers’ problems needed fixing at an EU level. “Poland is the first EU country [on the border with Ukraine], but in fact it is a problem of the EU as a whole, of EU agriculture as a whole, and it should be considered in this context,” he told a press conference.
No more shadow play. It’s now in the open. No holds barred.
Exhibit 1: Friday, March 22, 2024. It’s War. The Kremlin, via Peskov, finally admits it, on the record.
The money quote:
“Russia cannot allow the existence on its borders of a state that has a documented intention to use any methods to take Crimea away from it, not to mention the territory of new regions.”
Translation: the Hegemon-constructed Kiev mongrel is doomed, one way or another. The Kremlin signal: “We haven’t even started” starts now.
Exhibit 2: Friday afternoon, a few hours after Peskov. Confirmed by a serious European – not Russian – source. The first counter-signal.
Regular troops from France, Germany and Poland have arrived, by rail and air, to Cherkassy, south of Kiev. A substantial force. No numbers leaked. They are being housed in schools. For all practical purposes, this is a NATO force.
That signals, “Let the games begin”. From a Russian point of view, Mr. Khinzal’s business cards are set to be in great demand.
Exhibit 3: Friday evening. Terror attack on Crocus City, a music venue northwest of Moscow. A heavily trained commando shoots people on sight, point blank, in cold blood, then sets a concert hall on fire. The definitive counter-signal: with the battlefield collapsing, all that’s left is terrorism in Moscow.
And just as terror was striking Moscow, the US and the UK, in southwest Asia, was bombing Sana’a, the Yemeni capital, with at least five strikes.
Some nifty coordination. Yemen has just clinched a strategic deal in Oman with Russia-China for no-hassle navigation in the Red Sea, and is among the top candidates for BRICS+ expansion at the summit in Kazan next October.
Not only the Houthis are spectacularly defeating thalassocracy, they have the Russia-China strategic partnership on their side. Assuring China and Russia that their ships can sail through the Bab-al-Mandeb, Red Sea and Gulf of Aden with no problems is exchanged with total political support from Beijing and Moscow.
The sponsors remain the same
Deep in the night in Moscow, before dawn on Saturday 23. Virtually no one is sleeping. Rumors dance like dervishes on countless screens. Of course nothing has been confirmed – yet. Only the FSB will have answers. A massive investigation is in progress.
The timing of the Crocus massacre is quite intriguing. On a Friday during Ramadan. Real Muslims would not even think about perpetrating a mass murder of unarmed civilians under such a holy occasion. Compare it with the ISIS card being frantically branded by the usual suspects.
Let’s go pop. To quote Talking Heads: “This ain’t no party/ this ain’t no disco/ this ain’t no fooling around”. Oh no; it’s more like an all-American psy op. ISIS are cartoonish mercenaries/goons. Not real Muslims. And everyone knows who finances and weaponizes them.
That leads to the most possible scenario, before the FSB weighs in: ISIS goons imported from the Syria battleground – as it stands, probably Tajiks – trained by CIA and MI6, working on behalf of the Ukrainian SBU. Several witnesses at Crocus referred to “Wahhabis” – as in the commando killers did not look like Slavs.
It was up to Serbia’s Aleksandar Vucic to cut to the chase. He directly connected the “warnings” in early March from American and British embassies directed at their citizens not to visit public places in Moscow with CIA/MI6 intel having inside info about possible terrorism, and not disclosing it to Moscow.
The plot thickens when it is established that Crocus is owned by the Agalarovs: an Azeri-Russian billionaire family, very close friends of…
… Donald Trump.
Talk about a Deep State-pinpointed target.
ISIS spin-off or banderistas – the sponsors remain the same. The clownish secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Oleksiy Danilov, was dumb enough to virtually, indirectly confirm they did it, saying on Ukrainian TV, “we will give them [Russians] this kind of fun more often.”
But it was up to Sergei Goncharov, a veteran of the elite Russia Alpha anti-terrorism unit, to get closer to unwrapping the enigma: he told Sputnik the most feasible mastermind is Kyrylo Budanov – the chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence at the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense.
The “spy chief” who happens to be the top CIA asset in Kiev.
It’s got to go till the last Ukrainian
The three exhibits above complement what the head of NATO’s
military committee, Rob Bauer, previously told a security forum in Kiev: “You need more than just grenades – you need people to replace the dead and wounded. And this means mobilization.”
Translation: NATO spelling out this is a war until the last Ukrainian.
And the “leadership” in Kiev still does not get it. Former Minister of Infrastructure Omelyan: “If we win, we will pay back with Russian oil, gas, diamonds and fur. If we lose, there will be no talk of money – the West will think about how to survive.”
In parallel, puny “garden-and jungle” Borrell admitted that it would be “difficult” for the EU to find an extra 50 billion euros for Kiev if Washington pulls the plug. The cocaine-fueled sweaty sweatshirt leadership actually believes that Washington is not “helping” in the form of loans, but in the form of free gifts. And the same applies for the EU.
The Theater of the Absurd is unmatchable. The German Liver Sausage Chancellor actually believes that proceeds from stolen Russian assets “do not belong to anyone”, so they can be used to finance extra Kiev weaponizing.
Everyone with a brain knows that using interest from “frozen”, actually stolen Russian assets to weaponize Ukraine is a dead end – unless they steal all of Russia’s assets, roughly $200 billion, mostly parked in Belgium and Switzerland: that would tank the Euro for good, and the whole EU economy for that matter.
Eurocrats better listen to Russian Central Bank major “disrupter” (American terminology) Elvira Nabiullina: The Bank of Russia will take “appropriate measures” if the EU does anything on the “frozen”/stolen Russian assets.
It goes without saying that the three exhibits above completely nullify the “La Cage aux Folles” circus promoted by the puny Petit Roi, now known across his French domains as Macronapoleon.
Virtually the whole planet, including the English-speaking Global North, had already been mocking the “exploits” of his Can Can Moulin Rouge Army.
So French, German and Polish soldiers, as part of NATO, are already in the south of Kiev. The most possible scenario is that they will stay far, far away from the frontlines – although traceable by Mr. Khinzal’s business activities.
Even before this new NATO batch arriving in the south of Kiev, Poland – which happens to serve as prime transit corridor for Kiev’s troops – had confirmed that Western troops are already on the ground.
So this is not about mercenaries anymore. France, by the way, is only 7th in terms of mercenaries on the ground, largely trailing Poland, the US and Georgia, for instance. The Russian Ministry of Defense has all the precise records.
In a nutshell: now war has morphed from Donetsk, Avdeyevka and Belgorod to Moscow. Further on down the road, it may not just stop in Kiev. It may only stop in Lviv. Mr. 87%, enjoying massive national near-unanimity, now has the mandate to go all the way. Especially after Crocus.
There’s every possibility the terror tactics by Kiev goons will finally drive Russia to return Ukraine to its original 17th century landlocked borders: Black Sea-deprived, and with Poland, Romania, and Hungary reclaiming their former territories.
Remaining Ukrainians will start to ask serious questions about what led them to fight – literally to their death – on behalf of the US Deep State, the military complex and BlackRock.
As it stands, the Highway to Hell meat grinder is bound to reach maximum velocity.
A brochure titled ‘Mythos Israel 1948’ has been distributed at schools in Germany, aiming at downplaying the forced displacement during the Nakba and deeming criticism of settlements as “antisemitic”.
As the Israeli genocide against Palestinians in Gaza persists and amid escalating fears of a new Nakba, local schools in Germany’s Berlin have been instructed to distribute leaflets referring to Nakba Day as a “myth”.
Today the Berlin district assembly decided to distribute a brochure *in schools* boasting right-wing revisionist historiography on I/P. Germany remains impervious to warnings of intellectuals from all corners, instead patting itself on the back for its neverending smallmindedness https://t.co/mioxwkN40N
The Social Democratic Party (SPD), Germany’s leading political party, led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and the opposition Christian Democratic Party (CDU) have mandated high schools in Berlin’s Neukolln borough to disseminate brochures titled “The Myth of Israel 1948.”
In Neuköllner Schulen wird nun die Broschüre "Mythos Israel 1948" verteilt. Die Broschüre leugnet die Vertreibungen der Nakba, in deren Rahmen meine Familie Anfang 48 vertrieben wurde, und verharmlost den israelischen Siedlungsbau und dämonisiert jene, die ihn kritisieren.
A motion that received approval during a public meeting of the council in the borough last Wednesday indicated that “the district office is asked to advocate the use of the brochure ‘Myths#Israel1948’ in Neukolln’s secondary schools” to allegedly confront what they called “anti-Semitic narratives within the educational framework of the school.”
“The expanded definition of anti-Semitism of the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) and the German government should also be communicated,” it further added.
Dive deeper
Zionist gangs forcibly displaced over 750,000 Palestinians from their ancestral homes in Palestine, leading to the destruction of 500 villages and towns before the illegal establishment of the Israeli entity between 1947 and 1949 in what later became known as the Nakba.
“They walked for an entire day with my mom bleeding…”
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) May 20, 2023
Known as the Day of Nakba, Palestinians annually commemorate this incident on May 15. Despite ample credible evidence supporting the occurrence of this historical tragedy, a leaflet distributed among high school students in Berlin’s Neukolln borough unequivocally rejects it as a “myth”.
"Israel" is celebrating the day when it murdered thousands of #Palestinians and forcefully displaced dozens of thousands of families. The number of massacres that the Israeli occupation has committed and is still committing reveals one truth: The #Nakba never ended.#Palestinepic.twitter.com/GDlYk2k0Ju
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) May 14, 2022
Back in May of last year, the United Nations, recognizing the compelling evidence, observed the 75th anniversary of Nakba Day for the first time in its history. The UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) orchestrated a significant special meeting presided over by Ambassador Cheikh Niang of Senegal, the committee’s chairman.
Germany’s adamance in supporting genocide
Germany remains a fierce and avid supporter of the occupation and mass suffering of Palestinians.
Last month, the German Der Spiegel magazine reported that the German government is considering delivering tank shells to “Israel” to support its genocidal war against Gaza.
The magazine stated in a report that “Berlin received a request to supply [Israel with] about 10,000 precision shells of 120mm caliber to the Israeli army in November last year,” stressing that “the relevant authorities have already approved the request preliminary.”
Der Spiegel added that Berlin is considering supplying the IOF from the stocks of the German army to respond to the request urgently as the military industry cannot provide the required amount of precision ammunition immediately.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had previously voiced his opposition to an “immediate” ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, amid increasing global pleas to end the war on Gaza and Israeli massacres.
He also said that “Israel’s” purported right to “self-defense” must “not be called into question.”
Nevertheless, the perspective among Germans differs. A recent poll conducted by the foundation Forschungsgruppe Wahlen found that anti-Israeli genocide sentiments have been on the rise among German voters.
The results of the poll showed that 61% of voters are critical of and oppose “Israel’s” genocide in Gaza due to the colossal Palestinian death toll, slamming Israeli military conduct as “unjustified”. In contrast, a diminishing 25% of voters support the genocide.
Last month, Deutsche Welle reported mass pro-Palestinian rallies that swept the German capital, Berlin. Protesters could be heard chanting slogans such as: “No to genocide in Gaza” and: “All together against fascism” while lighting candles as a tribute to Gaza’s martyrs.
The protest was triggered by Germany’s decision to declare its support for the Israeli occupation in the case raised against it by South Africa at the International Court of Justice.
In the UN’s top court hearing, the World Court stated that it would not dismiss the case despite the Israeli request, calling on the occupation to halt all military action that aligns with genocide.
The United Nations’ highest court meets on Friday to announce its decision on the request presented by South Africa to enforce emergency measures against “Israel” for its war on Gaza, on January 26, 2024. (Illustrated by Arwa Makki; Al Mayadeen English)
The United Nations’ highest court asserted its jurisdiction to act on the emergency measures sought by South Africa in its lawsuit against “Israel’s” actions in the Gaza war.
Despite the Israeli request for dismissal, the World Court stated that it would not dismiss the case.
On Friday, the UN’s top court ordered that some rights presented by South Africa in its genocide case against the Israeli war on Gaza are plausible.
As the reading proceeded, the court recognized the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide, adding that the Palestinians are a protected group under the genocide convention. However, the ruling does not deal with the core accusation of the case – whether genocide occurred – but focuses on the urgent intervention sought by South Africa.
Among the measures South Africa requested was an immediate halt to the Israeli military operation, which has laid waste to much of the enclave and killed more than 26,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities.
‘Israel’ expected to take measures against genocide acts
The Court ordered “Israel” to take all measures to prevent genocide acts in Gaza, ensure its forces do not commit genocide, and take measures to improve the humanitarian situation.
“Israel” is required to submit a report to the court within a month, detailing its actions to comply with the order. Furthermore, it must implement measures to prevent and punish direct incitement of genocide in the context of its war on Gaza.
“The state of Israel shall…. take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the Genocide Convention,” the court said.
In a comprehensive decision, 15 of the 17-judge panel of the ICJ voted in favor of urgent measures, addressing most of South Africa’s requests, though notably excluding an order for “Israel” to cease military actions in Gaza.
S. Africa takes ‘Israel’ to court
Last year, South Africa submitted a motion to the International Court of Justice on December 29, 2023, accusing Israeli forces of violating the UN’s Genocide Convention. South Africa’s submission to the Hague-based court reads that the Israeli occupation forces [IOF] operations “are genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial, and ethnical group.”
The International Court of Justice has the authority to issue “provisional measures,” emergency orders aimed at safeguarding Palestinians in Gaza from potential breaches of the convention. These orders are legally binding and cannot be appealed, though enforcing them poses a challenge.
On December 29, “Israel” rejected South Africa’s launch of a genocide case against it at the ICJ. Despite the sea of war crime evidence, the occupation labeled the case as groundless blood libel lacking legal merit and asserted that its army was adhering to international humanitarian law.
On that note, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted that his government might not adhere to any ICJ order, stating, “No one will stop us – not The Hague, not the Axis of Evil, and no one else,” in reference to the Axis of Resistance.
First ICJ hearing
South Africa’s legal team stated on January 11th – in its opening statement at The Hague – that South Africa has recognized the ongoing Nakba of the Palestinian people through “Israel’s” colonization since 1948, “which has systematically and forcibly dispossessed, displaced, and fragmented the Palestinian people, deliberately denying them the internationally recognized inalienable right to self-determination and their internationally recognized rights of return as refugees to their towns and villages in what is now the state of Israel.”
The team emphasized that South Africa is particularly mindful of “Israel’s” “institutionalized regime of discriminatory laws, policies, and practices designed and maintained to establish domination, subjecting the Palestinian people to apartheid on both sides of the Green Line.”
They also pointed out that the decade-long impunity for widespread and systematic human rights violations has emboldened “Israel” in its recurrence and intensification of humanitarian crimes in Palestine, while simultaneously acknowledging that “the genocidal acts and omissions” by “Israel” “inevitably form part of a continuum of illegal acts perpetrated against the Palestinian people since 1948.”
The ICJ’s limited enforcement capabilities were exemplified when it ordered Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine, a directive that went unheeded. If the court rules against “Israel”, it could intensify political pressure, potentially leading to sanctions.
“Israel’s” legal adviser argued that halting the genocidal campaign would leave the regime defenseless, citing a cross-border raid by the Palestinian resistance on October 7.
Minister Lamola countered, stating that self-defense is not a valid response to genocide.
Despite South Africa presenting a comprehensive document citing Israeli top military and political officials calling directly or indirectly for genocide in Gaza, “Israel” urged judges to dismiss the case, claiming that the calls to cease its aggression lacked merit.
The Israeli position was aggressively backed by the United States, which was later joined by Germany which announced it would get involved as a third party in favor of “Israel.”
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova gestures during Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s annual news conference in Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, January 18, 2023. (AP)
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova says unconditional support for the Israeli occupation is a prerequisite for partaking in Washington’s “rules-based international order” club.
Zakharova lashed out at Berlin, saying it has established itself as an expert in the mass extermination of people, highlighting the consistency between Berlin’s Nazi past and the Zionist present.
Zakharova also pointed out that such a stance is natural for Germany, as unconditional support for the Israeli occupation is a pre-requisite for partaking in Washington’s “rules-based international order” club.
What to do with the crimes against humanity committed by Germany against other peoples and nationalities during the Second World War?” she asked.
“History knows many examples when criminals who committed serious offenses took the path of correction, using their knowledge of illegal experience, they helped prevent similar atrocities,” Zakharova noted, adding “But this was always possible only in the presence of active repentance and unconditional recognition of one’s own guilt without the slight hint of attempts to justify one’s own crimes, much less repeat them.”
‘Israel’ seeks ethnic cleansing under US cover, Russia says
Earlier this month, the Russian representative to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, attacked Western members of the United Nations Security Council, accusing them of “wasting the council’s time in sessions far from what is happening in the Middle East, especially Gaza.”
Nebenzia, speaking in an open debate, stated that “Israel” was seeking the “ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people in Gaza with American cover from top to bottom.”
The Israeli occupation has been facing accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing ever since the start of its brutal bombing campaigns and subsequent invasion of Gaza, with numerous international figures condemning its actions as such.
Mohamed Sweidan is a strategic studies researcher, a writer for different media platforms, and the author of several studies in the field of international relations. Mohamed’s main focus is on Russian affairs, Turkish politics, and the relationship between energy security and geopolitics.
Germany ostensibly supports Israel to pay for the sins of its Nazi past, yet Berlin’s support of ethnocentric, exclusivist Zionism is the very essence of Nazism.
Since the 7 October Al-Aqsa Flood operation tore to shreds Israel’s security delusion, the west has rallied staunchly behind Tel Aviv, offering unwavering support across political, military, media, intelligence, and other domains.
Amid this display of western unity, Germany has distinguished itself, standing prominently at the forefront of the EU as a fervent advocate for Israel and a solid opponent of any form of assistance to Palestinians, even the children among them. This, despite that the Israeli army has killed over 10,000 infants and children in Gaza since the start of its air and ground assault two months ago.
Less than a week after Al-Aqsa Flood, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz offered up military aid toward Israel’s Gaza campaign, saying:
“At this moment, there is only one place for Germany — the place at Israel’s side … Our own history, our responsibility arising from the Holocaust, makes it a perpetual task for us to stand up for the security of the State of Israel.”
According to Scholz and his ilk, Germany must constantly redeem itself by shielding the Jewish generations that followed World War II. But then why does Berlin not feel a similar obligation to protect the non-Jewish Slavic civilians, whose numbers killed by Nazi Germany equal those of the Jewish victims?
Germany’s ‘guilt complex’
The German “guilt complex” has manifested itself through annual payments exceeding $1 billion since the end of WWII in 1945. These reparations, totaling approximately $86.8 billion to Israel between 1945 and 2018, were recently extended until 2027.
While these funds are ostensibly meant to compensate Jews for the horrors inflicted by Nazi Germany, a closer examination of the historical figures raises doubts about the coherence of the German narrative.
The enormous death toll of 17 million people at the hands of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945 includes 6 million Jews and 5.7 million Soviet civilians. Yet other sources claim that the number of ethnic Slavic deaths far surpasses that of Jews. Shockingly, Nazi Germany, driven by radical ideological policies, is documented to have killed 10,547,000 ethnic Slavics compared to 5,291,000 Jews.
If we look closer, we find that the majority of the Slav civilians killed were from Poland, Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, predominantly from Orthodox Christian backgrounds. Why, then, are they not receiving reparation payments out of a similar sense of German guilt, which weighs on the conscience of Germany’s leaders?
This, in turn, raises questions about the true motivations behind supporting and financially aiding Israel – whether it is a principled stance as Berlin outwardly promotes, or merely a political maneuver.
Hitler’s hostility to non-Jews
Historical records reveal a lesser-explored dimension of Adolf Hitler’s hostility, namely that his animosity toward Eastern Christians was not markedly different from his hostility toward Jews.
This aspect of his reign of terror is often overlooked for political expediency. The Nazis propagated a warped vision where the “superior” German race was destined to rule over the supposedly “inferior” Slavic peoples, framing it as a crusade to rescue western civilization from these so-called eastern barbarians.
Numerous historical references attest to the atrocities inflicted upon Orthodox Christians by the Nazis, yet this suffering is often overshadowed by more widely acknowledged war crimes.
In the aftermath of WWII, the US extended crucial material support to European allied forces through the Marshall Plan, a comprehensive initiative designed to facilitate the reconstruction and resurgence of war-torn Europe. Notably, former West Germany emerged as the third-largest beneficiary of this aid package.
However, this assistance came with a tacit expectation from Washington for Berlin to align itself closely with US interests, a path Germany has adhered to ever since. Crucially, this created a trajectory that transformed Germany into an ardent supporter of Zionism, ironically, an ethnocentric political ideology that idealizes both supremacy and exclusivity.
The ongoing Ukraine war reveals the extent to which Germany has slavishly prioritized US interests over its own. Although German and Russian interests have converged often in recent times, this rapprochement did not cross US red lines until their joint NordStream2 pipeline project came online in early 2022. When German allegiances were tested, as during the US-fueled Ukraine war, Berlin proved to be utterly loyal to Washington – despite the accute blowback to its own economy.
Germany’s alignment with Zionism
Germany – like much of the west – treats the global community with a perceptible air of superiority, framed as the “democratic” preeminence of the west over the rest.
When the Global South masses, who form most of the “international community,” voiced their opposition to Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, Chancellor Scholz nonchalantly insisted that “Israel is a democracy – this has to be said very clearly.”
In fact, in Berlin’s view, the battle today is between the “western democracies” represented by Israel and others who “do not deserve to live.” This is the essence of Nazism, which has clearly never left Germany.
Modern echoes of Nazi thought are still present in Germany’s exceptional positions, exemplified by a notable surge in weapon exports to the occupation state. According to the German Economy Ministry, from the beginning of the current year until 2 November, Berlin approved exports totaling about 303 million euros ($323 million) to Israel, a staggering tenfold increase from 2022 trade data.
According to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), between 2018 and 2022, the vast majority – 99 percent – of Israel’s arms imports came from the US (79 percent) and Germany (20 percent).
Moreover, the German state of Saxony-Anhalt recently announced that recognition of Israel’s existence through a written letter has become a prerequisite for obtaining German citizenship.
Berlin’s faith in western supremacy
In blind support of its pro-Israel stance, Germany takes a hardline approach against any form of solidarity with Palestinian civilians. Pro-Palestine demonstrations have been banned, and individuals advocating for the rights of Palestinian children have faced arrest.
This posture is not just in response to the current Gaza war but instead aligns with the enduring principles of German foreign policy, as outlined in its national security strategy, which emphasizes in its opening paragraphs a permanent commitment to Israel’s right to exist.
Chancellor Scholz, in the wake of the Ukrainian conflict, characterized the global situation as a “turning point,” while stressing Germany’s obligation to stand on the right side of history. His statements reveal that Berlin sees itself as a vanguard defender of western hegemony at a time of transformative shifts in the global order.
The German authorities’ approach to the Gaza conflict should be viewed through their increasingly bipolar worldview. Like all Atlanticists, Berlin sees Gaza as a battlefield between advocates for western hegemony in West Asia – necessitating a robust, empowered Israel – and those actively challenging the western role in the emerging multipolar order.
Berlin’s stance becomes a manifestation of faith in the supremacy of the western axis and a perceived necessity to eliminate those who pose a challenge to this “prestige,” which is the essence of Nazism.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Now into its second month, Israel’s war on Gaza has left the strip’s northern section in shambles and killed over 14,000 Palestinians, with the majority being women and children. While Israel is launching the attacks on Gaza, several Western powers are also involved in the assault behind the scenes. MintPress News takes a deep dive into the countries sustaining Israel’s war.
WHO IS SENDING ISRAEL WEAPONS?
Since Israel’s war on Gaza began in October, several rights groups have initiated legal proceedings regarding arms exports to Israel.
On Nov. 6, Palestinian human rights organizations, Al-Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights launched legal action in the Federal Court of Australia to access all arms export permits that have been granted to Israel since Oct.7.
“We know that hundreds of permits have been issued in recent years, but the Australian government keeps the basic details secret: what items are being exported, who is making them, what are they used for?,” Rawan Arraf, executive director of the Australian Centre for International Justice, whose organization is supporting the Palestinian groups’ application, said in a press release.“
Australia’s arms exports are shrouded in secrecy and have come under additional scrutiny after a Senate hearing in October found that 52 defense permits were granted to the Israeli government in 2023, with more than 350 being granted since 2017.
On Nov. 13, Palestinians sued United States President Joe Biden for failing to prevent genocide in Gaza and to stop the administration’s military and diplomatic support. Three days later the plaintiffs filed an urgent motion to immediately halt U.S. support for Israel.
“Palestinian children in Gaza are undoubtedly targets as repeated Israeli military offensives destroy their homes, schools, and neighborhoods, as Israeli forces use U.S.-made and funded weapons to kill them and their families with impunity,” Khaled Quzmar, general director at Defense for Children International – Palestine, and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a press release.
Bloomberg revealed a U.S. Defense Department document entitled “Israel Senior Leader” requests, dating to late October, listing the weapons Israel is seeking for its ongoing war on Gaza. According to Bloomberg, the weapons arsenal is already being shipped. The arms are listed below:
2,000 Hellfire missiles for Apache attack helicopters manufactured by U.S. weapons firm Lockheed Martin
30mm chain gun ammunition for Apache attack helicopters manufactured by U.S. arms corporation General Dynamics
57,000 155mm shells for artillery guns
400 120mm mortars
PVS-14 night vision monoculars from U.S. manufacturer Night Vision Devices
M141 shoulder-fired bunker-busters
75 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, manufactured by U.S. firm Oshkosh Defense
More than 300 Tamir interceptors for Israel’s Iron Dome system, and made by U.S. arms manufacturer Raytheon
As previously reported by MintPress News, photos have shown that U.S.-manufactured weapons containing white phosphorus are being used in Israel’s assault on Gaza. These artillery shells were made by Pine Bluff Arsenal, an army facility based in Arkansas known for supplying white phosphorus ammunition. The U.S. army did not respond to requests verifying if Pine Bluff Arsenal artillery is being used in Gaza.
On Telegram and LinkedIn, the Defense Ministry mentioned how its Mission to the U.S. based in New York City helped procure the arms and equipment.
Open-source data has also indicated Western military aircraft and warships in the Eastern Mediterranean region over the last month.
.@TheCVN69 & the #IKESCSG transited the Strait of Gibraltar into the Mediterranean Sea, Oct. 28.
As a part of the @USNavy's 🇺🇸 globally-deployed forces, IKECSG will join the @Warship_78 CSG in support of the defense of Israel and to deter aggression throughout the region. pic.twitter.com/DVAuqhfBu4
— U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet (@USNavyEurope) October 30, 2023
U.S. warships — the Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group and the Gerald R. Ford carrier strike groups — sailed to the Mediterranean in October to support Israel’s military. The Eisenhower carrier is last known to be in the Red Sea while the U.K.’s navy’s Argus ship is docked in Cyprus.
At least six German Air Force planes have arrived at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport in the last week along with two planes from the British Air Force and aircraft from the Polish Air Force and U.S. Navy.
In the last month, military aircraft from France and Australia have also all traveled to Tel Aviv. Australia’s Defense Department acknowledged its in deployed aircraft to the region in press releases.
The deployment of Australian aircraft and supporting Defence personnel is a precautionary measure to support whole-of-Australian Government contingency planning and delivery of support to Australian citizens and approved foreign nationals, in the region, if required.
Several British Air Force planes have traveled to Tel Aviv from the U.K.’s Akrotiri military base in Cyprus in the last week. A plane belonging to arms manufacturer BAE Systems also arrived to the airbase recently.
The aforementioned militaries did not respond to MintPress News’ requests for comment on why their aircraft landed in the region and what kind of cargo or personnel it was transporting. Only Australia’s Defense Department responded, referring MintPress News to its previous press releases on the matter.
New from @CAATuk: "Israel is using UK arms exports in a genocide against the Palestinian people. The UK government is complicit in these crimes not just by supplying these weapons for decades, but by repeatedly inciting Israel to commit war crimes against Palestinian civilians". pic.twitter.com/zbO7WE2NVp
While it remains unclear the exact kind and amount of equipment Western governments are sending to Israel during this time, activist groups have deemed these states complicit in Israel’s ongoing war against Gaza.
“Since 2018, Britain has approved arms exports to Israel worth at least £147 million (or roughly $183 million),” the U.K.-based Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) said in a statement to MintPress News. “Because of the nature of Britain’s arms export licensing, the true value is likely to be substantially higher. This includes exports for military aircrafts, helicopters and drones. It also includes components for armored vehicles and bombs.”
“The British government is therefore providing material support for Israel’s relentless bombardment of the Gaza Strip,” PSC said.
According to U.K.-based Campaign Against Arms Trade, British companies provide 15% of the materials for the F35 stealth combat aircraft, which Israel is currently using to bomb Gaza. Suppliers for the F35 stealth fighter jets also include: U.S., Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Australia, Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Netherlands, and France.
Also sections on Spain, Belgium, and South Africa! Plus a spreadsheet of the international supply chain for the US F-35 stealth fighter, one of the aircraft Israel is using to bomb Gaza. https://t.co/qgPMhSIksT
Lockheed Martin’s MLRS M270 rocket launcher, which was used inside Gaza for the first time since 2006, was built in Europe by an international consortium of companies from France, Germany, Italy, and the U.K.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute provided data on arms sales from Europe to Israel between 2013 to 2022 to EuroNews, showing Italy and Germany had supplied Israel’s military with weapons now being used on the ground in Gaza. It also said Germany had sent more than 1,000 tank engines to Israel. As of Nov. 2, Germany’s government has exported $323 million in arms to Israel — nearly 10 times more than it sent to Israel last year.
During a NATO meeting in Brussels in October, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius confirmed that Israel was also requesting munitions for its navy.
“We will discuss with the Israelis how exactly that will now proceed,” Pistorius said, suggesting the weapons pipeline to Israel may increase.“
WHO IS SENDING TROOPS?
Media reports have suggested that foreign soldiers are assisting in Israel’s current war operations.
Spanish newspaper, El Mundo, revealed that a Spanish mercenary is assisting Israeli forces in Gaza. Pedro Diaz Flores has been pictured there with the Israeli occupation forces. He previously fought in Ukraine, having become involved in the war through the neo-Nazi Azov Brigade.
Through his involvement with the neo-Nazi Azov Brigade, Pedro was absorbed in to the Charlie One Unit of Ukrainian Military Intelligence. pic.twitter.com/Ah9SwghOoT
“So I came for economy, for money. They pay very well, they offer good equipment and the work is calm. It is 3,900 euros [$4,187] per week, complementary missions aside,” Flores told El Mundo.
In October, British newspaper Socialist Worker — along with other publications — received an “advisory notice from the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee to not publish information related to British special forces operating in the Middle East.
“Reports have started to appear in some publications claiming that UK Special Forces have deployed to sensitive areas of the Middle East and then linking that deployment to hostage rescue/evacuation operations,” the D-notice said.
The Socialist Worker noted how the Daily Mail reported that the U.K.’s Special Air Service is on “standby in Cyprus” to rescue British hostages held captive in Gaza.
Additionally, Palestinians in Gaza have disclosed they’ve encountered soldiers with American flags on their uniforms. In the below video clip from Quds News Network, a Palestinian man tells an Al Jazeera reporter that his brother spoke in English to a male soldier donning an American flag on his uniform while trying to flee the strip. These claims remain unsubstantiated and it’s possible that soldiers with dual Israeli-U.S. citizenship are wearing an American flag patch without the Israeli military’s permission.
This is just one of a growing number of accounts and reports that US troops are directly participating in the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
Last week, Bloomberg reported discussions of “a multinational force that may involve American troops." pic.twitter.com/ruAUTYShlY
Forward Observations, a volunteer group founded by former U.S. infantry soldier Derrick Bales, who fought in Afghanistan, has posted footage from Gaza and southern Israel on social media.
In one Instagram post, Forward Observations is seen in Be’eri, a community attacked by Hamas on Oct. 7, being guided by members of the Israeli military’s Lotar unit which responded to the violence.
According to Foreign Policy, Forward Observations began as a lifestyle brand selling tactical gear. Then, the group traveled to Ukraine, where it started sourcing medical supplies, gear, and money for Ukrainian soldiers. Bales has been criticized for associating with Vadim Lapaev, a member of the far-right Azov Battalion. He apologized for his connections to Lapaev but said the brigade isn’t as radical as alleged.
Forward Observations did not respond to MintPress News’ inquiries to verify if its personnel are indeed in Israel and what it’s doing there.
U.S. Department of Defense official (DoD), Christopher P. Maier, told The New York Times this month that U.S. special operations forces are stationed in Israel and “actively helping the Israelis” with various efforts including to “identify hostages, including American hostages.”
While Maier declined to tell the Times how many Special Forces are currently in Israel, former Pentagon adviser, Douglas MacGregor, said in a television news interview that 2,000 Marines and 2,000 Special Forces have been deployed to the region. MacGregor also mentioned how U.S. Special Forces embedded with Israeli Special Forces entered the Gaza Strip in October to carry out reconnaissance but were then ambushed and suffered grave casualties.
On the television program Palestine Declassified, British sociologist David Miller told host Chris Williamson, a former U.K. parliament member, that this operation is “an indication that the American soldiers are directly involved in confronting the resistance.”
And a White House photo shared on Instagram and then subsequently deleted shows President Joe Biden meeting with members of the Delta Force during his Oct. 18 visit to Israel. A senior Arab source familiar with the Palestinian groups in Gaza told Middle East Eye — before Israel’s ground invasion — that Palestinians expected Israel to flood Hamas tunnels with a kind of nerve gas or chemical weapon under the supervision of U.S. Delta Force commandos. Israel has begun its ground campaign into Gaza, but there have been no reports of nerve agents being used as of yet.
Despite these reports, the Pentagon told MintPress News “the U.S. has no boots on the ground in Israel.”
So as Western populations continue to flood the streets for Palestine, their governments appear to be supporting the aggressor.
The only country that could possibly distract the west from Ukraine is Israel. But the US and its allies are walking into an existential trap if they think a West Asian victory will be more easily won than a European one.
The Russia-Iran strategic partnership – with China in the wings – is laying an elaborate, Sun Tzu-tinged trap for the Hegemon in West Asia.
Apart from Israel, there is no entity on the planet capable of switching the focus, in a flash, away from the west’s spectacular debacle in Ukraine.
The warmongers in charge of US foreign policy, not exactly Bismarckian stalwarts, believe that if Project Ukraine is unattainable, Project Final Solution in Palestine could instead be a – ethnic cleansing – cakewalk.
A more plausible scenario, though is that Iran-Russia – and the new “axis of evil” Russia-China-Iran – have all it takes to drag the Hegemon into a second quagmire. It’s all about using the enemy’s own, discombobulated flip-flapping to unbalance him and disorient him to oblivion.
The White House’s wishful thinking that the Forever Wars in Ukraine and Israel are inscribed in the same lofty “democracy” drive and essential to US national interests, has already backfired – even among American public opinion.
That does not prevent cries and whispers along the Beltway revealing Israel-allied US neocons increasing the tempo to provoke Iran – via a proverbial false flag that would lead to an American attack. That Armageddon scenario neatly fits Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s biblical psychopathy.
Vassals would be forced to meekly comply. NATO heads of state have made a beeline to visit Israel to demonstrate their unconditional support for Tel Aviv – including Greece’s Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Britain’s Rishi Sunak, Germany’s Olaf Scholz, the senile lodger at the White House, and France’s Emmanuel Macron.
Avenging the Arab “century of humiliation”
So far, Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah has shown extraordinary restraint by not taking any bait. Hezbollah supports the Palestinian resistance as a whole – and until a few years back, had serious issues with Hamas, with which it clashed in Syria. Hamas, incidentally, while partially funded by Iran, is not run by Iran. As much as Tehran supports the Palestinian cause, Palestinian resistance groups make their own decisions.
The big news is that all these issues are now dissolving. Both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) went to Lebanon to visit Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah in person this week. That spells out unity of purpose – or what the region’s Axis of Resistance calls the “Unity of Fronts.”
Even more eye-opening was Hamas’ visit to Moscow this week, which was met with impotent Israeli fury. The Hamas delegation was headed by a member of its Politburo, Abu Marzouk. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri came especially from Tehran and met two of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s key deputies, Sergei Ryabkov and Mikhail Galuzin.
That spells out Hamas, Iran, and Russia negotiating at the same table.
Hamas has called on the millions of Palestinians in the diaspora, as well as the whole Arab world and all lands of Islam, to unite. Slowly but surely, a pattern may be discerned: could the Arab world – and great swathes of Islam – be on the verge of significantly uniting to avenge their own “century of humiliation” – much as the Chinese did after WWII with Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping?
Beijing, via its sophisticated diplomacy, is certainly hinting at it to key players, even before the ground-breaking, Russia-China brokered Iran-Saudi rapprochement was struck earlier this year.
That by itself won’t thwart the perpetual US neocon obsession to bomb critical infrastructure in Iran. Worth less than zero when it comes to military science, these neocons ignore how Iranian retaliation would – accurately – target each and every US base in Iraq and Syria, with the Persian Gulf an open case.
Peerless Russian military analyst Andrei Martyanov has shown what could happen to those expensive American iron bathtubs in the Eastern Mediterranean in case of an Israeli-threatened attack on Iran.
Moreover, there are at least 1,000 US troops in northern Syria stealing the country’s oil – which would also become an instant target.
Ali Fadavi, IRGC’s deputy commander-in-chief, cut to the chase: “We have technologies in the military field that no one knows about, and the Americans will know about them when we use them.”
Cue to Iranian hypersonic Fattah missiles – cousins to the Khinzal and the DF-27 – traveling at Mach 15, and able to reach any target in Israel in 400 seconds.
And add to it sophisticated Russian electronic warfare (EW). As confirmed in Moscow six months ago, when it comes to military interconnection, the Iranians told the Russians at the same table, “whatever you need, just ask.” The same applies vice-versa, because the mutual enemy is one and the same.
It’s all about the Strait of Hormuz
The heart of the matter in any Russian-Iran strategy is the Strait of Hormuz, through which transits at least 20 percent of the world’s oil (nearly 17 million barrels a day) plus 18 percent of liquified natural gas (LNG), which amounts to at least 3.5 billion cubic feet a day.
Iran is able to block the Strait of Hormuz in a flash. For starters, that would be some sort of poetic justice retribution for Israel aiming to gobble up, illegally, all the multibillion-dollar natural gas discovered offshore Gaza: this is, incidentally, one of the absolutely key reasons for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Yet the real deal will be to bring down the Wall Street-engineered $618 trillion derivative structure, as confirmed for years by analysts at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, as well as independent Persian Gulf energy traders.
So when push comes to shove – and way beyond the defense of Palestine and in a scenario of Total War – not only Russia-Iran but key players of the Arab world about to become members of BRICS 11 – such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE – do have what it takes to bring down the US financial system anytime they choose.
As an old school Deep State higher up, now in business in Central Europe, stresses:
“The Islamic nations have the economic advantage. They can blow up the international financial system by cutting off the oil. They do not have to fire a single shot. Iran and Saudi Arabia are allying together. The 2008 crisis took 29 trillion dollars to solve but this one, should it happen, could not be solved even with 100 trillion dollars of fiat instruments.”
As Persian Gulf traders told me, one possible scenario is OPEC starting to sanction Europe, first from Kuwait and then spreading from one OPEC country to another and to all countries that are treating the Muslim world as enemies and war fodder.
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has already warned that oil to western markets could be put off because of what Israel is perpetrating in Gaza. Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian has already called, on the record, for a total oil and gas embargo by Islamic countries against nations – essentially NATO vassals – that support Israel.
So Christian Zionists in the US allied with neocon asset Netanyahu threatening to attack Iran have the potential to pull down the entire world financial system.
Forever War on Syria, remixed
Under the current volcano, the Russia-China strategic partnership has been extremely cautious. To the outside world, their mutual official position is to refuse to side with either Palestine or Israel; call for a ceasefire on humanitarian grounds; call for a two-state solution; and respect international law. All their initiatives at the UN have been duly sabotaged by the Hegemon.
As it stands, Washington has refused the green light for the Israeli ground invasion of Gaza. The main reason is the immediate US priority: buy some time to expand the war to Syria, “accused” of being the key transit point for Iranian weapons to Hezbollah. That also doubles as re-opening the same old war front against Russia.
There are no illusions in Moscow. The intel apparatus knows well that Israeli Mossad agents have been advising Kiev while Tel Aviv was supplying weapons to Ukraine under serious US pressure. That infuriated the siloviki, and may have constituted a fatal Israeli mistake.
The neocons, for their part, never stop. They are advancing a parallel threat: if Hezbollah attacks Israel with something else than a few sparse rockets – and that simply won’t happen – the Hmeimim Russian Air Base in Latakia will be “eliminated” as a “warning” to Iran.
This does not even qualify as children playing in the sandbox. After the serial Israeli attacks on the civilian Damascus and Aleppo airports, Moscow did not even blink before offering its Hmeimim facilities to Syria – complete with clearance for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) cargo flights, according to some Russian intel sources. Netanyahu will not exactly harbor a death wish by bombing a fully A2/AD (anti-access/area denial) Russian Air Base.
Moscow also clearly sees what those expensive American iron bathtubs in the Eastern Mediterranean might be up to. The response has been swift: Mig-31Ks are patrolling neutral air space over the Black Sea 24/7, equipped with hypersonic Khinzals, which would take only six minutes to visit the Mediterranean.
Amidst all this neocon-drenched madness, with the Pentagon deploying a formidable array of weaponry plus “undisclosed” assets to the Eastern Mediterranean, whether the target is Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Russia, or all of the above, both China and North Korea – part of the new American-concocted “axis of evil” – have indicated they will not be mere bystanders.
The Chinese Navy is for all practical purposes shielding Iran from a distance. Yet even more forceful has been a statement by Premier Li Qiang – something unusually blunt and rare in Chinese diplomacy:
“China will continue to firmly support Iran in safeguarding its national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national dignity, and will strongly oppose any external forces interfering in Iran’s internal affairs.”
Never forget that China and Iran are linked by a comprehensive strategic partnership. Meanwhile, Russian Premier Mikhail Mishustin has reinforced the Russia-Iran strategic partnership in a meeting with Iran’s First Vice-President Mohammad Mokhber.
Remember those rice eaters from Korea
Pro-Iran militias across the Axis of Resistance, are keeping a carefully tempered degree of confrontation against Israel, close to guerrilla hit-and-run. They won’t be engaged in massive attacks yet. But all bets are off if Israel invades Gaza. It’s clear the Arab world, for all its massive internal contradictions, will simply not tolerate the civilian massacre.
Bluntly, at the current incendiary juncture, the Hegemon has found the offramp from its Project Ukraine humiliation. They erroneously believe that the same old Forever War rekindled in West Asia can be “modulated” at will. And if two wars turn into an immense political albatross, as they will, what else is new? They will simply start a new war in the “Indo-Pacific.”
None of that fools Russia-Iran and their ice-cold monitoring of the flipping and flapping Hegemon every step of the way. It’s enlightening to remember what Malcolm X was already predicting in 1964:
“Some rice eaters ran him out of Korea. Yes, they ran him out of Korea. Rice eaters with nothing but gym shoes, and a rifle, and a bowl of rice took him and his tanks and his napalm, and all that other action he’s supposed to have and ran him across the Yalu. Why? Cause the day that he can win on the ground has passed.”
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
As Israeli officials proudly compare their bombardment of the Gaza Strip to the Allied firebombing of Dresden, the Associated Press has quietly removed a section noting US alarm over the historical comparison.
The Associated Press has quietly deleted a reference to official Israeli threats to subject the Gaza Strip to a Dresden-style firebombing campaign — the latest move in legacy media outlets’ ongoing push to downplay the impacts of Tel Aviv’s siege of over two million Palestinians.
“Four U.S. officials familiar with the discussions said American diplomats became increasingly alarmed by comments from their Israeli counterparts regarding their intention to deny water, food, medicine, electricity and fuel into Gaza, as well as the inevitability of civilian casualties,” the AP article previously stated.
— Frederick Deknatel freddydeknatel.bsky.social (@FreddyDeknatel) October 20, 2023
“Members of the Israeli security and political establishment told the U.S. diplomats that the eradication of Hamas would require methods used in the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II,” the AP originally wrote, adding that “Israeli officials have publicly made similar comparisons.”
The offending passages have since been deleted without explanation — a textbook violation of journalistic ethics. The decision is all the more baffling given that Israeli officials have made no secret of their desire to treat Palestinian civilians the same way Western Allies treated the Germans at the end of World War II.
In an October 16 interview, the Israeli ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, shrugged off concerns about the thousands of innocents killed in IDF strikes on Gaza, suggesting that because Allied powers killed tens of thousands of German civilians with relentless airstrikes in the 1940s, Israel is entitled to do the same.
“There were many, many civilians [that] got attacked from your attacks on German cities,” she told a Sky News anchor. “Dresden was a symbol, but you attacked Hamburg, you attacked other cities, and altogether it was over 600,000 civilian Germans that got killed.”
Comparing the militarily occupied Palestinian population to Nazis, Hotovley continued: “Was it worth it in order to defeat Nazi Germany? And the answer was yes.”
Media coverage of that exchange, however, largely centered on the Israeli ambassador’s repeated insistence that “there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” Addressing the uproar in a segment with Piers Morgan that same night, Hotovley returned to the Dresden comparison once again.
“600,000 Germans were killed in your attacks on Hamburg and Dresden,” she declared to the Talk TV host. “Why? Because you knew this was the only way you could defeat the Nazis,’ the ambassador insisted.
Israeli ambassador to the UK cites the firebombing of Dresden in 1945 (deliberate aerial incineration of civilian population centers by US and UK) as precedent for what Israel is about to do in Gaza pic.twitter.com/GFXuv5T2Lq
“We are giving the people in Gaza the opportunity” to flee that Israelis “were never given… they were slaughtered in their beds,” she concluded.
But she was not the only Israeli official who openly invoked the Allied attacks on German civilians to justify Israel’s assault on Gaza. In a heated exchange with another Sky News host, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett declared that “when Great Britain was fighting the Nazis during World War Two, no one asked what’s going on in Dresden.”
On October 12, the former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett also indignantly cited Dresden as a precedent for what Israel is about to do in Gaza pic.twitter.com/xo4iHqClD9
Designed to break the will of the German population as its military collapsed on the battlefield, the British-led campaign of firebombing Dresden left at least 30,000 civilians dead and an entire city in ruins in February 1945.
Historian Donald Miller wrote of the nightmare unleashed by the Allied aerial assault: “People’s shoes melted into the hot asphalt of the streets, and the fire moved so swiftly that many were reduced to atoms before they had time to remove their shoes. The fire melted iron and steel, turned stone into powder, and caused trees to explode from the heat of their own resin. People running from the fire could feel its heat through their backs, burning their lungs.”
Palestinians in Gaza have related a similarly hellish experience as the civilian death toll in less than two weeks of bombardment tops 4000. “The bombardment in Gaza tonight is the most intense ever,” wrote Ahmed Nehad, a resident of Gaza. “The scale of the attacks is crazy, to a level even unprecedented for Gazans. Yet, Gaza is without internet. People can’t even peer out their windows to see. Thus, there’s no media coverage.”
Arab states that have normalized relations with Tel Aviv are among the leading cash contributors to Israel’s military-industrial complex. These Arab billions are now flowing into the Occupation state’s senseless war on Palestinians in Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank.
Photo Credit: The Cradle
Mohamad Hasan Sweidan
Over the course of its short history, Israel has instigated atrocities against both the Palestinian people and neighboring Arab states, often using internationally banned chemicals such as White Phosphorus which has been deployed against Gaza and Lebanon in recent days.
In the midst of its ongoing war against the Gaza Strip, the occupation state has enjoyed considerable latitude, thanks in no small part to western support, notably from Washington, which proudly touts itself as a champion of global human rights. The glaring double standards of this western policy are exemplified by decades of documented abuses and war crimes in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Lebanon, and beyond.
But it is not just western states that underpin Israel’s military capabilities today. An in-depth analysis reveals that a significant portion of funding for Israel’s military industry now comes from Arab countries that have recently normalized relations with the occupation state. Who, then, are the financiers of Israel’s wars?
Israel’s defense industry growth
According to a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), between 2018 and 2022, the overwhelming majority – 99 percent – of Israel’s arms imports came from the US and Germany.
During this period, Israel imported $2.7 billion worth of weapons, with the lion’s share – a substantial 79 percent – originating from the US ($2.1 billion) and 20 percent from Germany ($546 million).
It goes without saying that the US is by far Israel’s biggest benefactor, having provided $246 billion in military and economic aid since the close of World War II. In 2016, Washington’s commitment to Tel Aviv was further solidified under the administration of former President Barack Obama with a 10-year memorandum (2019-2028), pledging an astounding $38 billion in military aid to Israel, equating to over $3 billion annually.
Human rights appear to be the last thing on the American mind. As Israeli behaviors worsen, the US is doubling down on its unwavering support for the Israeli war machine and its settler-colonial project, which has resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of Palestinian lives over the past seven decades.
In 2022, two years after the US-brokered Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and the US, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, the Israeli defense industry saw an unprecedented surge in exports totaling $12.5 billion, a record-breaking high since the establishment of Israel 75 years ago.
Leading the way were drone exports, constituting 25 percent of this staggering total, and a significant leap from 9 percent in 2021. Missiles and air defense systems followed closely behind, comprising 19 percent of Israeli arms sales, while radar and electronic warfare systems contributed 13 percent.
Arab states funding Israel’s war economy
A report released by the Israeli Ministry of Defense reveals the financial windfalls that normalization created for the occupation state’s arms industry: in 2022 alone, 24 percent (equivalent to $3 billion) of Israeli military exports found their way to Arab countries that had formalized relations with Tel Aviv. This marked a notable increase from 16.5 percent in the previous year. In 2021, Bahrain and the UAE alone accounted for 7.5 percent ($853 million) of Israel’s arms exports.
Geographically, the Arab signatory states to the Abraham Accords emerge as the third-largest group of countries importing Israeli weapons, following those in Asia-Pacific (30 percent) and Europe (29 percent).
This illustrates the significant role these Arab states play as major contributors to both Israel’s military-industrial complex and its economy. The backdrop to the financial involvement of Arab states, however, is the sobering reality that over4,137 Palestinian civilians, the majority of whom are women and children, have been killed, with over 13,000 others wounded, in just over a week as Israeli warplanes massacre Palestinians in Gaza.
In contrast to the Arab – and Turkish – complicity that bolsters Israel’s military sector, Iran stands as “the only [West Asian] country that supports the resistance in Palestine at all levels,” as stated by Muhammad al-Hindi, the Deputy Secretary-General of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). This resolute support has arguably contributed to the remarkable recent strategic victory for the Palestinian resistance – as opposed to Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank having to endure a second Nakba.
A milestone for Palestinian Resistance
Fifty years after the audacious 1973 surprise attack launched by Egyptian and Syrian-led Arab armies against Israel, 7 October will become a date etched in memory. This data will be significant not only for the daring Palestinian military gains in Operation Al Aqsa Flood but also as the moment when resistance forces delivered a resounding blow to western hegemony, dismantling the once seemingly impervious image of “mighty Israel.” In the region, this has not been seen since July 2006 when the Lebanese resistance, Hezbollah, thwarted Israel’s every military objective in its 33-day war on Lebanon.
This facade of a formidable Israeli state, financed and armed to the teeth to safeguard Washington’s regional interests, has been exposed for the first time in 17 years. Today, a much frailer Israel, forced to call for military aid in the face of determined resistance factions, has transformed into an international liability for its western sponsors.
Predictably, following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Israel opted for a brutal, disproportionate reaction against Gaza’s already-besiged civilian population instead of carrying out a targeted retaliation against the armed resistance.
Several wholesale massacres have now taken place, leveling entire Palestinian neighborhoods, hospitals, and religious sites within the besieged Gaza Strip. As these crimes against humanity escalate, it is no longer just the western world providing cover for Israel’s unhinged and illegal behaviors, but also the collaboration of Arab regimes who stealthily funded the Occupation’s military-industrial complex.
The genocide in Gaza may have curbed the US and Israeli normalization project for now. And perhaps Israel’s arms sales to Arab governments have been hampered temporarily because Tel Aviv needs these weapons.
For those raptly watching for the entry of the region’s Axis of Resistance into this battle, the goal will not simply be the defeat of Israel but also the unraveling of all Arab normalization with the Occupation state. In the final analysis, Arab states will be held accountable for the funding of Israel’s war on Gaza.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Israeli airstrikes on besieged Gaza continue. (Photo: Mahmoud Ajjour, The Palestine Chronicle)
Berlin has deployed several Special Forces units to Cyprus as it prepares for “all scenarios” in the Middle East, Bild reports.
The German government has decided to deploy some of the nation’s top Special Forces units to Cyprus as it prepares for potential crisis situations in Israel, Gaza, and the Middle East, the tabloid Bild reported on Wednesday, citing security sources.
The German Army’s Special Forces Command (KSK) has been deployed to the island nation in the Eastern Mediterranean, Bild said, adding that the Navy Special Forces (KSM) unit, also known as combat swimmers, was deployed to the area as well.
The federal police Special Forces unit specializing in rescuing hostages (GSG 9) was sent there as well, the tabloid reported.
According to Bild, Berlin is preparing for “all scenarios” amid a continued escalation between Israel and the Palestinian Resistance.
All the necessary equipment as well as several military transport aircraft, including the Airbus A400M Atlas and Lockheed C-130 Hercules, were transported to Cyprus as well, according to Bild.
The government had allegedly already informed the relevant parliamentary committees about its preparations, the media outlet said.
“We are ready for a cold start and prepared for all options,” Berlin said, according to Bild.
A “cold start” in the language of the German military means a high state of readiness that would allow the units to be immediately deployed to a relevant area and become operational without any additional preparations.
Amid rising tensions in the Black Sea, Ukraine’s desire for NATO membership, diminished US global influence, and Russia facing a potential quagmire, Turkiye must assert a balanced foreign policy to avoid a global military confrontation in the strategic waterway.
On 11 July 2023, NATO issued the 90-point Vilnius Summit Communiqué, at a summit widely seen as “a historic moment for the future of European security, and Ukraine’s in particular.” The take-away: Russia’s war in Ukraine will continue.
This reaffirmed NATO’s unwavering support for Kiev, as previously pledged at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, and emphasize that “We fully support Ukraine’s right to choose its own security arrangements. Ukraine’s future is in NATO.”
The NATO Summit culminated with leaders from 31 countries making a significant announcement: Ukraine had been offered an invitation to join NATO. The catch, however, was that Ukraine was not yet deemed ready for membership; “We will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree, and conditions are met,” it read. This has left the international community wondering about the timeline and specifics of Ukraine’s eventual participation in the Altanticist alliance.
US avoiding a global hot war
But beneath the surface, strategic machinations seem to be at play. Ukraine finds itself in a complex position: While NATO appears to be stalling Kiev’s membership, it simultaneously urges Ukraine to pursue its aspirations. The reason becomes apparent upon closer inspection: Ukraine’s entry into NATO could potentially ignite a larger conflict, the NATO-Russia War, which could spiral into World War III, and the ominous specter of nuclear weapons looms large.
Europe, particularly key players like Germany and France, hesitate to give the green light for Ukraine’s NATO accession. The US, too, has its reservations at this stage, as it seeks to avoid a global hot war. Instead, Washington aims to recalibrate its global stance, moving away from a previous globalization effort that failed to benefit its interests and inadvertently bolstered China.
The US appears to be opting for a long-term strategy, engaging in a war of attrition with Russia, thereby escalating a Second Cold War that was set in motion during the Donald Trump era, although his was more focused on Beijing.
In this intricate geopolitical dance, it appears unlikely that Ukraine will join NATO anytime soon. Equally, Russia may not meet the stringent requirements outlined in the Vilnius Summit’s communiqué. As a result, the war is set to endure.
Remarkably, the Ukraine War has already surpassed 17 months, and the parallels with the Soviet Union’s nine-year protracted conflict in Afghanistan are eerily striking. This war looms large for Moscow, with a much wider front to contend with. Barring significant improvements, it could span another 5 years or even longer – a timeline that seems to align with the US’s likely plan.
NATO expansion and Russia’s military challenges
The US may be banking on a shift in power or regime change within Russia during this protracted conflict. The continuous strain of a war economy on Moscow may eventually lead to public discontent, furthering internal turmoil.
To maintain its military manpower, Russia has even raised the maximum military conscription age from 27 to 30, highlighting the challenges faced in assembling a large pool of trained soldiers. This is why mercenary structures like Wagner are needed, even if they pose challenges themselves.
Meanwhile, the west, especially Europe, grapples with its own set of socio-economic problems. Escalating living costs, surging energy prices, inflation, economic contractions, an influx of Ukrainian refugees, rising unemployment, and growing public dissent against the war paint a grim picture.
France has experienced uprisings that nearly resemble a civil war, while Germany’s decision to distance itself from Russian energy has dealt a severe blow to its industries and economy.
Amidst all this, the US appears to be the sole benefactor in the ongoing conflict. Safeguarding its interests without risking the lives of its soldiers, the US deftly maneuvers in a global struggle. Through its actions, it both challenges Russia and strengthens NATO and Europe behind its cause.
Defense budgets of NATO countries are soaring, its arms and energy sector are revitalized, and its market share expands, culminating in an anti-Russian stronghold in the Baltic Sea, even securing the involvement of Finland and Sweden on NATO’s Northern flank.
Shifts towards multipolarity
Despite this, the US has faced challenges to its global hegemony. The situation in West Asia and China’s expanding influence are just a few examples of the changing dynamics. Traditional allies like Saudi Arabia are seeking cooperation with Beijing through projects like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), while Iran maintains resilience despite sanctions, forging ties with Persian Gulf states such as Qatar and the UAE.
Russia and Saudi Arabia’s increasing energy collaboration further underscores the shifting landscape, while India defiantly continues to buy weapons from Russia. These developments are contributing to a natural evolution towards multipolarity, with various countries asserting their interests and pursuing independent paths.
Efforts to reduce the reliance on the US dollar are indicative of this trend. Nonetheless, the US remains committed to fighting this struggle to preserve its global leadership and hegemony, aware that time may be working in China’s favor.
One notable development occurred on 22 July, 2022, when Russia, Ukraine, and the UN signed the “Black Sea Grain Iniative” with Turkiye’s mediation. The goal was to facilitate the safe export of cereals, foodstuffs, ammonia, and fertilizers from Ukrainian ports.
Simultaneously, Russia signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the UN Secretariat to support the sale of Russian food and fertilizer products to global markets. However, due to embargoes, SWIFT and insurance barriers, Russia was unable to export any grain and fertilizer.
But Russia withdrew from the agreement one year later. It turned out that in Africa, the claim that people are at risk of starving because Ukraine can’t access grain is not true. Only 12 percent of the grain exported from Ukraine in a year was sent to the continent, and 40 percent was instead directed to Europe.
Turkiye’s geopolitical tightrope
Turkiye, although a NATO member, has tried to maintain a relatively neutral stance since the start of the Ukraine War. This policy was influenced by several factors, including Ankara’s geopolitical position, energy dependence on Russia, trade relations, and Moscow’s support during a time when President Recep Tayyip Erdogan faced isolation from the west.
Under Erdogan, Turkiye has played a vital role in maintaining channels for Russia during the conflict, initially causing concern among US officials. However, the US eventually acknowledged Turkiye’s role as part of its long-term strategy for a war of attrition. Nevertheless, Washington remains cautious, knowing that it could potentially close such channels through various means if needed in the future.
The situation following Russia’s withdrawal from the Black Sea grain deal has the potential to significantly impact grain prices and food supply. As tensions rise in the Black Sea region, the NATO-Ukraine Council’s meeting on the security situation indicates that the waters may become increasingly heated in the weeks and months ahead.
The US and NATO are expected to play a more active role in the southern flank and the Black Sea, making it crucial for Turkiye to exercise caution and vigilance regarding these developments and the potential moves of the US and NATO in relation to the Ukraine War and the Black Sea.
Strategic options for Black Sea grain security
Considering possible moves of the US and NATO in the Black Sea and their potential demands from Turkiye, the following options are conceivable:
Option 1: Turkiye, with the largest naval power in the Black Sea, could form a maritime task group to protect ships carrying grain from Ukrainian ports to the Bosphorus Strait for international markets. This task group would be guarded against Russian submarine, surface, and air threats with intelligence support from NATO. While this option does not violate the Montreux Straits Convention, it may still lead to confrontation with Russia and provoke Russian intervention in response to the naval task group’s presence.
Option 2: Another possibility is a naval task force led by Tukiye and involving Bulgaria and Romania to safeguard ships transporting grain from Ukrainian ports in the Black Sea to the Bosphorus against potential Russian submarine, surface, and air threats. Like the first option, this approach avoids direct violation of the Montreux Straits Convention but carries the risk of escalating tensions and inviting Russian intervention in the task group’s operations.
Option 3: Alternatively, NATO could deploy a naval task group, including one or two US aircraft carriers, to protect grain shipments in the Black Sea. This formidable force might deter President Vladimir Putin from intervening, given the potential consequences of such action. However, this option would irreversibly breach the Montreux Straits Convention, necessitating a new agreement to regulate maritime passage through the Turkish straits.
Preserving the Montreux Straits Convention
During the First Cold War, the Montreux Straits Convention’s restrictions on the presence of warships from non-littoral states prevented the Black Sea from becoming a theater of confrontation between superpowers. This provided Turkiye with the opportunity to pursue a balanced foreign policy, which would have been challenging in a volatile and heavily militarized region.
Given the importance of the Convention, Ankara should resist attempts to undermine it and avoid actions that may escalate tensions and conflicts in the strategic waterway, possibly leading to a global war. Instead, Turkiye should advocate for reaching agreements and maintaining dialogue with Russia to ensure the smooth transfer of regional grain to the international market through the Black Sea.
Despite economic difficulties and pressure for short-term gains, Turkiye should prioritize long-term stability and peace in the region. It is essential to protect critical infrastructure, such as natural gas pipelines, from potential sabotage attempts, as they are vital for the country’s energy security. As such, Ankara should develop comprehensive plans and strategies to safeguard its interests, including exploration, surveillance, and monitoring activities in the air, on the surface, and underwater.
Ultimately, Turkiye’s approach to regional challenges should be guided by foresight, diplomacy, and a commitment to maintaining the Black Sea as a zone of peace and cooperation. By doing so, Turkiye can continue to play a crucial role in fostering stability and security in this strategically significant region.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Higher energy prices in times of economic slowdown raise consumer prices and make production more costly and less competitive. At first sight, the EU’s decision to enter the Ukraine war and pay higher energy prices at a time of stagflation appears irrational; but is it really?
The Eurozone entering recession was no surprise to anyone. The slowdown was anticipated as soon as the first Russia sanctions came into effect with Russia gaining back control over Crimea. Back then, the EU had enforced several sanctions targeting specific entities and individuals linked to the Russian State. Although limited in scope, these sanctions showed clear signs that relations between the EU and Russia were treading on a fine line.
What is certain however is that the conditions for non-belligerence between Russia and Europe never existed on account of structural power rifts. Russia is too big to handle and must come apart for the EU/US constellation to maintain global hegemony. The current lineup of European states against Russia is reminiscent of many such instances in history.
Of late, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s point that the Minsk Agreement was a cover-up to arm Ukraine, or her remark that “the Cold War never really ended,” are points on a historical continuum. The impoverishment of Ukraine and its deployment as a mercenary against Russia is an investment for some dollars, which will bear fruit once Russia implodes. The West grows by aggression and the current events are merely the fruits born out of the long-standing contradictions that history has so far failed to solve.
In a 2014 report titled “The EU’s Energy Security Made Urgent by the Crimean Crisis,” the EU Parliament outlined the challenges that lay ahead of enforcing sanctions on Russia. An interesting aspect of this report conveys salient aspects of the bloc’s decision-making. By contrasting both the short-term and long-term implications of anti-Russian sanctions on the bloc’s economy, we may discern the rationale for the EU’s decision: in the short-term, the EU would be faced with “several obstacles” linked to the construction of new import terminals, the conversion of electric plants to other energy sources, the substitution of Russian gas imports with those from Norway, Algeria, and Qatar which would result in external shocks and “recession effects” to the EU economy, while in the long-term, the sanctions promise to strengthen Europe’s security, forging trade alliances with “new countries,” increasing renewable energy production, and other means of reducing energy dependency to Russia.
The point remains that Europe restructures power balances by forcing countries into submission and drawing future resources for cheap costs. The principle governing the EU’s decision-making is that the temporary erosion of European welfare – the current security of Europe’s working classes — is meant to strengthen the bloc’s autonomy and boost European working class and capital security in the long run. The European working class continues to partner with capital since its colonial wars and it benefits from the power generated imperialist dividends. That rationale is the very same one being applied in the context of the Ukrainian conflict — that the temporary contraction of the Eurozone is meant to enhance Europe’s security and economy in the long run.
The German Renewable Energy Act 2023 is one instance of such a rationale – a program widely condemned for overlooking Germany’s most pressing needs in terms of solving inflation, restoring purchasing power, and answering manufacturers energy demands. Earlier in January this year, just a month after the amendment got approved by the EU in December 2022, Chancellor Scholz told Bloomberg that he was “absolutely convinced” Germany would not head into a recession. But once the numbers were released and the damage was made obvious: the country’s manufacturing power, which the economy has so relied on cheap Russian energy for the past 20 years, fell.
Prior to the start of the Ukrainian conflict, Russian oil had enabled the German economy to boom, fostering job creation, and growth in various sectors, and contributing to trade surpluses that further stimulated the business cycles. When sanctions on Russia were enforced and Nord Stream was blown up, Germany’s manufacturing PMI, which measures the performance of the manufacturing sector, fell to its lowest levels recorded since 2020, with an index of 40.6 in June 2023 dropping from 44.5 in April.
France has been more careful to manage its spending as it seeks to revamp its nuclear reactors and build pipelines stretching from Algeria to Spain. But the government has also faced some serious backlash over its pension reform scheme, another strategy aimed at averting a crisis of confidence in the French economy due to the energy issue. By raising the age of retirement from 62 to 64, workers are required to work two additional years and pay more contributions to the pension scheme, thus making younger people work for older ones and making the working classes bear full responsibility for the very existence of the pension scheme. In February this year, labor minister Olivier Dussopt said that it was necessary to start the reforms as soon as possible, because if not now then France will inevitably have to do it later. “Deficit does not take any breaks,” he said, adding that “If we want a reform, a more gradual entry into force, we have to do it very quickly, that’s what we are doing.”
Although not part of the Eurozone, the UK is also having its fair share of tough times as it faces a combination of inflation and a mortgage crisis that are likely to lead the country into a recession by the end of the year. Since last year, the Bank of England has been hiking interest rates in a bid to combat energy-crisis-induced inflation. But it has so far failed to stabilize price markets — prompting consumers to spend more on food and shelter yet receive less than pre-crisis levels. And worse, the country is now facing the prospects of a housing crisis as interest rates are nearing a 6 percent mark — a level that was last seen in 2008 when the housing crisis engulfed the economy.
Over the past decade and half, the UK has enjoyed near-zero interest rates, encouraging consumers to borrow money at low-interest rates. But that is soon to fire back on borrowers as the central bank has to keep hiking its rates, a process that is likely to affect the housing market and cause businesses to slow down even further.
Knowing well the consequences that bear upon its economy, namely the decoupling from Russian gas and Russian investments, it is instinctive to assume that the EU has beaten a new record for the most irrational decision-making. But arithmetic imposed on processes is misleading and considering the dynamic picture, more power garnered by Europe will resituate it at the helm of the international order. Once in power, Europe dictates to the world its terms of trade. When we consider the social aspects involved in the price formation of commodities — which in this particular context involves the sale of Russian gas for cheap prices, a decapitated Russia will sell its future gas for prices even lower than they were prior to the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict.
This is important to consider because price formation is relative to the structures of power, which emanates from the resultant of social or power relations. Market powers provide the social context in which people come to relate to one another, and thus, how the terms of exchange are legitimized. As a matter of fact, the reason why Russian gas became so cheap after the Soviet Union collapsed is owed to the ideological defeat of the Soviet ideology. The establishment of the petrodollar system in 1973 was a turning point in history which saw the US consolidate the dollar as the dominant global reserve currency, causing a severe drop in the Soviet Union’s income and affecting the bloc’s ability to sustain itself as a autonomous economy.
The history of Europe provides context to how the European working class relates to the capitalists of Europe. To a large extent, the working class of Europe has always been the soldiers of the Empire. By committing crimes against humanity, colonizing peoples, pillaging their resources, and carrying out genocides and ethnocides of immeasurable scale, the European working class reproduces itself by war just as capital does.
The EU has done well at washing the blood off its hands from centuries of looting and pillaging the South as it continues to vaunt its image of moral and cultural superiority and has done so by masterfully subjugating the discourse on human rights to serve its own ends. So much of Europe’s wealth was in fact generated by the relation of looting the South. The European working class makes a living out of killing by increasing its power and partnership with capital. But the presence of a strong Russia has always posed a threat to Western interests, especially as it holds sway over Eurasia.
With the ideological defeat of the Soviet Union and the ongoing expansion of NATO, this pattern continues to take hold in the 21st century. But with the US bearing a leadership role within the alliance, many come to view the EU as being dragged into a war that is not theirs. Whether the US is exerting pressure on the EU or not, it is a certainty that whatever decisions being made are meant to safeguard the rules-based order — an order characterized by the primacy of Western culture and civilization over that of the South, which in turn pays dividends to the European working class itself.
Simply put, it would be far off the mark to assume that the US bears full responsibility for a conflict that the EU has supposedly nothing to do with. Not only the Western alliance is all one and the same, but the imperialism-based order renders war as the only viable option against an autonomous Russia. Rivaling the primacy of the rules-based order is rivaling the terms of exchange as defined by the West, and rivaling the terms of exchange is rivaling US-EU military superiority.
The same applies in the context of waging a trade war with China. Reports have claimed that the US has been pressuring the EU to decouple from China. But neither the EU nor the US has thus far dared to initiate such a move. It is an indisputable certainty that doing so would wreak havoc on Western businesses that rely on Chinese supply chains and manufacturing power. But it is precisely this overreliance on China that the West is aiming to overturn.
Nevertheless, with resistance enacted by Russia and other global players, the prospects for a world where development would break off from waste accumulation — the production sphere of global industries that drive the destruction of the Global South — seem to be coming further in sight.
France has filed charges of money laundering against Marianne Hoayek, a former assistant of Riad Salameh, the governor of Lebanon’s central bank. Salameh himself is the subject of ongoing judicial investigations both within Lebanon and abroad.
In March 2022, France, Germany, and Luxembourg seized assets totaling 120 million euros ($130 million) in connection with an inquiry into Salameh’s wealth.
Accused of amassing a substantial fortune during his three-decade tenure, Salameh, once lauded as the guardian of Lebanon’s financial stability, is increasingly held responsible for the country’s severe economic crisis. Many believe his actions contributed to the precipitous collapse.
Salameh’s term is set to conclude in July. Marianne Hoayek, aged 43, was questioned in Paris on Friday and subsequently placed under investigation for criminal conspiracy and money laundering, according to a judicial source.
Governor of Lebanon’s Central Bank Riad Salameh.
“Marianne Hoayek disputes these accusations and intends to present evidence that the funds primarily came from donations made by her now-deceased father, a wealthy businessman,” stated her lawyer Mario Stasi in an interview with AFP.
Salameh, aged 72, vehemently denies any wrongdoing and asserts that he accumulated his wealth while working at U.S. investment bank Merrill Lynch before assuming the role of Lebanon’s central bank governor in 1993.
Salameh faces arrest warrants issued by judicial authorities in France and Munich, Germany, on charges of money laundering and fraud. Interpol subsequently issued Red Notices targeting him. It is important to note that an Interpol Red Notice does not serve as an international arrest warrant, but rather seeks provisional detention pending extradition or other legal proceedings.
European investigators have already questioned Salameh in Beirut, along with other individuals such as Hoayek, Salameh’s brother Raja, and central bank audit firms.
Although Lebanon does not extradite its citizens, Salameh may face trial within the country if local judicial authorities deem the accusations against him to be valid, according to an official who spoke with AFP.
Following the issuance of Red Notices, a local judge interrogated Salameh, confiscated his French and Lebanese passports, imposed a travel ban, and released him pending further investigation.
Europe must accept the fact that the world today is no longer the Western playground and that the growing anti-hegemonic sentiment among nations is irreversible.
It’s important to emphasize that Europe was not a victim in the current world order run by Washington, but rather a participant. Its contributions were destructive, filled with colonialism, theft, dismantling, and murder of nations that directly led to corruption, poverty, and injustice worldwide.
Europe’s bloody history
Despite Europe joining the global financial systems established by the US in the 20th century, such as the IMF and World Bank, the continent has used these tools to deepen its colonialism and expansion policies towards countries worldwide. It has even leveraged its position with bodies like the UN and UNSC to exploit weaker states and enforce its hegemonic agendas, including wealth looting and proxy wars against rivals politically and economically.
However, the rise of the Global South in recent years has allowed its nations to counter the hegemonic exploitation of international bodies by funneling their resources into their economies to advance in the new world order. By engaging with the Western coalition while shielding themselves from their malicious agendas, these nations can benefit in the long run.
Post-WW2 world order
After World War II, the United States emerged as an unrivaled superpower, untouched by the catastrophic destruction of the war and claiming a barely earned victory. Between 1944 and 1949, milestone events secured the unipolar order under the US and placed the EU under Washington’s direct influence for decades to come.
Bretton Woods in 1944 established the USD as the global reserve and trade currency, while the Marshall Plan in 1945 provided funding to Western European countries that agreed to follow America’s dictates to rehabilitate and rebuild their infrastructure and industrial capabilities (note that the plan’s funds were used to purchase American goods).
The establishment of the IMF and World Bank enforced the new world monetary and financial system crafted by Washington. The Truman Doctrine finally ensured that Western Europe became a follower of Washington’s foreign policies.
Establishing NATO, a war coalition under Washington’s direct control, was the highlight of that period. It served the interests of the United States and ensured that Europe did not attempt to create a sovereign military power but rather relied on the US for protection.
The final blows to Europe’s industrial complex in the 20th century were the Nixon Shock in 1971, where the bloc’s member states found themselves stuck with paper notes whose value was solely determined by Washington, and in 1974 when the United States and Saudi Arabia agreed to peg oil to the USD – establishing the petrodollar. This meant that Europe’s access to the world’s largest energy reserve was now controlled by Washington.
The petrodollar required Europe to maintain an abundance of USD reserves for oil purchases, resulting in increased investment in American treasury bonds and currency inflow to US markets. Despite partnering with the US in its bloody crusades over the past decades, the EU’s interests were not taken into consideration by Washington.
The US has used its European allies as tools in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the destruction of Libya and Syria, and relations with the Arab world (the world’s richest energy region). Although Europe faced similar political and public backlash, it was the US that acquired the real strategic interests.
Disregarding the changed world we live in, the EU continues to live under a WW2 mentality.
Despite warnings against militarily provoking Russia, the EU doubled down on the American-NATO illusion that being the strongest military coalition worldwide guarantees inevitable victory, and using force to impose the West’s worldview remains a viable option.
Self-destructive tendencies
After years of Russia sending signals and after many world vocal warnings, including from prominent Western figures like Kissinger, regarding NATO’s eastward expansion, European member states made the same mistake and adopted Washington’s doctrine on Moscow, leading to a conflict with Russia. Despite the historic failure of this approach, EU leaders repeatedly attempted to humiliate Russia and publicly claimed that the West aimed to bring Moscow to its knees since the beginning of the war in Ukraine until recently.
The conflict with Russia has deeper repercussions on the EU than just preventing mutually beneficial trade ties that would put both economies on a trajectory of development and growth. The United States aims to fight against the growing Global South, with China at the top, and to cut off any attempts by its European allies to further integrate with Asia’s rising powers.
Following the start of the war in Ukraine, Europe not only faced energy shortages, while US energy companies continued to extract oil from Iraq, Syria, and Libya but also realized how Washington was profiting from the very war they had incited. They were overcharged for LNG at three to four times the price sold within the domestic US market, which itself impacted their major industry’s capabilities to continue production.
On the other hand, the US led an international campaign to force its European allies mainly to adopt a price cap on Russian oil. But despite Washington’s push for this bill, Americans themselves were not affected nor were they directly part of the pressure campaign in Moscow, mainly since they did not rely on Russian oil, and with the petrodollar in place, it did not matter how much the EU paid for oil, as the currency used would go back to US banks.
Soon, Europe, left alone after countries such as Japan did not abide by the price cap, found that it still had to buy Russian Urals but with additional middlemen fees through countries such as India.
The EU witnessed firsthand the US tearing down their economies, which are under increased levels of deindustrialization, with industry giants moving to the US for lower energy prices and a more business-friendly environment crafted by Washington to lure companies mainly from its European allies.
As a result, Europe found itself seeking energy from African nations that it had previously colonized and destroyed. EU officials scrambled through countries like Algeria and Libya to secure gas and oil.
As the world order shifts towards a more multipolar one with a center of gravity shifting towards China, Europe has begun to become aware that the US-led model that has dominated the world order for decades has not brought the desired outcome for the bloc. Despite benefiting immorally from genocidal campaigns and being America’s partner in crime, Europe’s gains were short-lived.
With a history of self-destructive tendencies and after years of psycho-preparation and media propaganda, Europe was politically and economically prepared to repeat its historic mistakes in its approach to Russia and later to China.
The West quickly convinced its public that the rivalry with Russia was ideological and existential, that joining NATO and dropping neutrality (as with Finland and Sweden) was the only secure way to protect against the demons of the East, and that China is at the core of everything against the neoliberal values of the West.
Inevitable Multipolar world order
During a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York on April 18, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde noted that the world is becoming more multipolar, with a fragmentation of the global economy into competing blocs.
Lagarde stated that this new “global map” would have “first-order implications,” with the possibility of two blocs emerging, led by China and the US.
On many levels, Lagarde’s statement hits the core of the current world state of affairs.
The US reintroduced the political bloc mentality on a wider scale through the proxy war in Ukraine, pulling all its strings and employing all its accumulated influence to focus its power on obstructing a Eurasian uprising and realigning Europe’s foreign policy towards dismantling connections with China and Russia.
The post-WW2 era, characterized by bloc politics pushed by the US, is no longer feasible in the current period of deep integration, interest overlaps, and political complexity established by globalization, advanced trading networks, financial intertwining, and complementary production needs.
The West’s expansion of NATO forces to Russia’s border, followed by Moscow’s campaign to protect its national security, has put the global change on a pedestal.
The fallout of the Western-Russian war in Ukraine and the historic barrage of sanctions against Moscow has led to the fracturing of the financial system, and exposed the fragility of the West’s proclaimed “rules-based international world order”.
During an event hosted at Renmin University’s Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies last January to discuss the current state of world powers, the editor-in-chief of the Beijing Cultural Review (BCR) said that the fallout of the Western-Russian war in Ukraine led to events that could have never been imagined earlier.
“These [events] include the fracturing of the financial system, the expropriation and seizure of Russian private assets, and the freezing of Russian foreign exchange reserves. These are all abominable and unimaginable forms of confrontation,” Yang Ping said in his speech.
“The world is moving inexorably in the direction of decoupling. The phenomenon of politics affecting the economy and the capitalist political order no longer upholding the capitalist economic order is extremely striking.”
If not for the war in Ukraine, Ping’s statement regarding the world taking shape would have been shunned by Western experts as an illusion or merely a forecast, but now, and thanks to the West’s undivided efforts, the world is moving inexorably towards decoupling, and the phenomenon of politics affecting the economy is becoming strikingly apparent; a world with limited Western hegemony is on track to becoming an irreversible reality.
Europe’s amputated foreign policy
In recent months, top EU leaders including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock have visited China amid rising global tensions.
Their visits aimed to balance relations between the US and China as Washington’s hostility towards Beijing escalated, its sanctions against the Asian giant increased, and its provocative actions in the South China Sea intensified.
Macron’s visit, in particular, was noteworthy, as it seemed to reassure China of Europe’s distinct position from Washington’s policies against Asian giants. Despite announcing that the main reason for his visit was to push Beijing against arming Russia and push Moscow to end the war, behind the scenes, Macron’s visit aimed to assert Europe’s position.
He stated that Europe should not be caught up in a disordering of the world and crises that aren’t ours and that the government must build a “third pole.”
“We must be clear where our views overlap with the US, but whether it’s about Ukraine, relations with China, or sanctions, we have a European strategy,” the French leader said then.
“We don’t want to get into a bloc versus bloc logic.”
At first, many European leaders publicly announced or hinted at their support for Macron’s move, considering it a positive approach to their largest trading partner.
But later, some European leaders expressed their rejection of his statements, the most blatant of which was the finance minister in Scholz’s government, Christian Lindner, who said that Macron’s “Idea of strategic autonomy of the European Union,” is “naïve.” Of course, the statement was not objected to by the German Chancellor, signaling that the minister has also voiced Scholz’s opinion.
Following Lindner’s remarks, and after von der Leyen reaffirmed the bloc’s neutral position on the Taiwan Strait issue provoked by the US during an EU parliamentary hearing on April 18, Manfred Weber, who helms the Parliament’s largest group, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), accused Macron of “destroying” European unity with his trip to China, and that the French president “weakened the EU” and “made clear the great rift within the European Union in defining a common strategic plan against Beijing.”
To counter Macron’s position that the Taiwan issue is not a European concern, Weber also compared the matter to the war going on in Ukraine from Washington’s perspective.
“We shouldn’t be surprised if Washington starts asking whether Ukraine is a European issue,” Weber said. The question they may ask, he warned: “Why should American taxpayers do so much to defend Ukraine?”
His comments, of course, are nothing but shortsighted and delusional, given that the war in Ukraine was created and pushed forward by the US’ decades-long policies on NATO’s take against Russia.
From an outside observer, the contradicting statements – while also taking into account that the bloc members are dividing roles – can only be described as a political mess, a loss of strategic planning, and entails that the union is currently lacking the tools to form a united framework to establish a basis to approach the Global South as a whole, and especially China.
Is the EU’s policy being molded by an actual comprehensive overview of the world’s geopolitical shifts, or is it being dictated by a handful of US pawns that have served nothing but American hawks since they took office?
Blind Economic outlook as bloc
The disunity in Europe extends beyond just their political approach to China, as trade policies with their largest business partner also show division.
In 2020, China and the EU agreed on a trade framework, eliminating Chinese restrictions on European companies and investments in China. However, the deal was put on hold after the bloc sanctioned Beijing for alleged human rights abuses and China responded with sanctions of its own.
Just under two weeks after Macron’s and von der Leyen’s trip to China, the EU leaders said that they consider the deal with China as not applicable anymore, following the events since it was reached in 2020.
“We started negotiations around about 10 years ago and concluded the comprehensive agreement on investment two years ago. A lot has happened since then,” she said, adding that Europe’s “position is that we do have to reassess the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment,” she said earlier in April.
On his part, Macron considered that the agreement today is “less urgent,” and “just not practicable”.
On the other hand, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz lately has been pushing for “reactivating” the agreement and considered it was time to reinstate the deal and put it back on track.
It is understandable that this dynamic is not unusual between world powers, especially at a time when the globe is witnessing historic geopolitical shifts, and it is definitely not unusual considering that the American influence across Europe and its leaders is still very significant, and Washington’s sanctions sword is constantly raised against its allies.
However, the lack of a united foreign policy within the bloc may negatively impact its position in the emerging multipolar world order and lead to the weakening or collapse of the union. Europe’s incomplete and fragile relations with growing global pillars, especially China and the emerging Global South, may also be observed from Beijing’s perspective.
Losing post-WW2 against Global South
Europe’s lack of clear foreign policy extends beyond its position on China, as it also pertains to the US’s declared soft war on the Asian giant.
For decades, Brussels relied on the assumption of a long-term realm by Washington as the unipolar power, which led the bloc to neglect sustainable and strong relations with the Global South.
Since the start of the war in Ukraine, the Global South has made unexpected, unprecedented moves, guided by the goal of forming sovereign policies that are far from Western hegemony led by Washington. They declared historic political shifts, leading to the formation of a new and influential world pillar in the multipolar era.
Protectionist economic policies, accompanied by subsidization, act for vital sectors like electric vehicles and batteries.
More systems (such as BRICS and SCO) and countries are growing monetary bodies and alternative trade frameworks to those dominated and influenced directly by the United States. It has become clear that political global organizations such as the UNSC and the UN, which were long exploited by Washington and its European allies to extend their hegemony and colonialism, are slowly losing more relevance and impact on the global arena.
On April 16, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, in an interview with CNN, said that the United States economic sanctions imposed on Russia and other nations have put the dollar’s hegemony at risk as targeted countries seek out an alternative.
“There is a risk when we use financial sanctions that are linked to the role of the dollar that over time it could undermine the hegemony of the dollar,” she said then.
Financial global institutions and systems such as the IMF, World Bank, and SWIFT, are gradually declining as de-dollarization proceeds and countries are finding alternatives to bypass the West’s complete influence, including mutual lending and local currency trade, sovereign projects, in addition to domestic SWIFT alternatives such as China’s CIPS, Russia’s SFPS, and Iran’s SEPAM, to name some.
The movement today is driven by Beijing along with other powers including Brazil, India, Russia, Iran, and South Africa, among others.
Despite all signs in previous years of the emergence of the new geopolitical reality, Europe failed to form appropriate policies and outline a vision to engage and adapt to these drastic global shifts, nor did it take advantage of some of the outcomes that fall into its interest, such as de-dollarization and the end of the petrodollar. Instead, Europe insisted on following Washington’s agenda, further sidelining its world influence.
Sidelined
On March 10, Iran and Saudi Arabia agreed to restore diplomatic relations and reopen missions after seven years of strained ties.
Talks were brokered in Beijing under the auspices of Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Western role, especially that of Washington, in inciting dispute and rift between the two nations was criminal, leading to tens of thousands of deaths, mass destruction, displacement of hundreds of thousands, and feelings of hate among the people of the region.
China managed in just a few months to achieve what the United Nations and other international political bodies failed to do, marking Beijing’s first public political approach to the Middle East. The Beijing-brokered rapprochement between Tehran and Riyadh reveals Europe’s falling influence in the region and the growing tendency of countries to sideline the West in bilateral issues. It also highlights China’s rise as a peace-bringing and key power in the region.
Oppressed nations rejoice
Europe’s centuries-long history of producing global superpowers makes it a hybrid bloc with a combined cultural, political, social, economic, and institutional maturity that can quickly adapt to world geopolitical shifts and overcome emerging challenges.
However, it can be argued that the current world challenges are unprecedented, especially with the concept of globalization and the world’s interconnectedness.
Europe today has limited options that require a new approach and view of the world, with a humble and realistic policy that acknowledges the end of its hegemony and the adoption of sovereignty and mutual respect in bilateral relations.
The EU must also accept that the world is no longer a Western playground and that anti-hegemonic sentiment among nations is irreversible in a multipolar world. Regardless of Europe’s decisions, oppressed nations are watching the declining global influence of the colonial bloc with joy.
Hegemon hacks are spinning that the North Atlantic has relocated to South China. Goodnight, and good luck.
The collective cognitive dissonance displayed by the pack of hyenas with polished faces driving U.S. foreign policy should never be underestimated.
And yet those Straussian neo-con psychos have been able to pull off a tactical success. Europe is a ship of fools heading for Scylla and Charybdis – with quislings such as France’s Le Petit Roi and Germany’s Liver Sausage Chancellor cooperating in the debacle, complete with the galleries drowning in a maelstrom of hysterical moralism.
It’s those driving the Hegemon that are destroying Europe. Not Russia.
But then there’s The Big Picture of The New Great Game 2.0.
Two Russian analysts, by different means, have come up with an astonishing, quite complementary, and quite realistic road map.
General Andrei Gurulyov, retired, is now a member of the Duma. He considers that the NATO vs. Russia war on Ukrainian soil will end only by 2030 – when Ukraine would basically have ceased to exist.
His deadline is 2027-2030 – something that no one so far has dared to predict. And “ceasing to exist”, per Gurulyov, means actually disappearing from any map. Implied is the logical conclusion of the Special Military Operation – reiterated over and over again by the Kremlin and the Security Council: the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine; neutral status; no NATO membership; and “indivisibility of security”, equally, for Europe and the post-Soviet space.
So until we have these facts on the ground, Gurulyov is essentially saying that the Kremlin and the Russian General Staff will make no concessions. No Beltway-imposed “frozen conflict” or fake ceasefire, which everyone knows will not be respected, just like the Minsk agreements were never respected.
And yet Moscow, we got a problem. As much as the Kremlin may always insist this is not a war against the Slavic Ukrainian brothers and cousins – which translates into no American-style Shock’n Awe pulverizing everything in sight – Gurulyov’s verdict implies the destruction of the current, cancerous, corrupt Ukrainian state is a must.
A comprehensive sitrep of the crucial crossroads, as it stands, correctly argues that if Russia was in Afghanistan for 10 years, and in Chechnya, all periods combined, for another 10 years, the current SMO – otherwise described by some very powerful people in Moscow as an “almost war” – and on top of it against the full force of NATO, could well last another 7 years.
The sitrep also correctly argues that for Russia the kinetic aspect of the “almost war” is not even the most relevant.
In what for all practical purposes is a war to the death against Western neoliberalism, what really matters is a Russian Great Awakening – already in effect: “Russia’s goal is to emerge in 2027-2030 not as a mere ‘victor’ standing over the ruins of some already-forgotten country, but as a state that has re-connected with its historic arc, has found itself, re-established its principles, its courage in defending its vision of the world.”
Yes, this is a civilizational war, as Alexander Dugin has masterfully argued. And this is about a civilizational rebirth. And yet, for the Straussian neo-con psychos, that’s just another racket towards plunging Russia into chaos, installing a puppet and stealing its natural resources.
Fire in the hole
The analysis by Andrei Bezrukov neatly complements Gurulyov’s (here, in Russian). Bezrukov is a former colonel in the SVR (Russian foreign intel) and now a Professor of the Chair of Applied Analysis of International Problems at MGIMO and the chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy think tank.
Bezrukov knows that the Empire will not take the incoming, massive NATO humiliation in Ukraine lying down. And even before the possible 2027-2030 timeline proposed by Gurulyov, he argues, it is bound to set fire to southern Eurasia – from Turkey to China.
President Xi Jinping, in his memorable visit to the Kremlin last month, told President Putin the world is now undergoing changes “not seen in 100 years”.
Bezrukov, appropriately, reminds us of the state of things then: “In the years from 1914 to 1945, the world was in the same intermediate state that it is in now. Those thirty years changed the world completely: from empires and horses to the emergence of two nuclear powers, the UN, and transatlantic flight. We are entering a similar period, which this time will last about twenty years.”
Europe, predictably, will “whither away”, as “it is no longer the absolute center of the universe.” Amidst this redistribution of power, Bezrukov goes back to one of the key points of a seminal analysis developed in the recent past by Andre Gunder Frank: “200-250 years ago, 70 percent of manufacturing was in China and India. We are going back to about there, which will also correspond to population size.”
So it’s no wonder that the fastest-developing region – which Bezrukov characterizes as “southern Eurasia” – may become a “risk zone”, potentially converted by the Hegemon into a massive power keg.
He outlines how southern Eurasia is peppered by conflicting borders – as in Kashmir, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Tajikistan-Kyrgyzstan. The Hegemon is bound to invest in a flare-up of military conflicts over disputed borders as well as separatist tendencies (for instance in Balochistan). CIA black ops galore.
Still Russia will be able to get by, according to Bezrukov: “Russia has very big advantages, because we are the biggest producer of food and supplier of energy. And without cheap energy there will be no progress and digitalization. Also, we are the link between East and West, without which the continent cannot live, because the continent has to trade. And if the South burns, the main routes will not be through the oceans in the South, but in the North, mainly overland.”
The biggest challenge for Russia will be to keep internal stability: “All states will divide into two groups at this historic turning point: those that can maintain internal stability and move reasonably, bloodlessly into the next technological cycle – and then those that are unable to do so, that slip off the path, that bloom a bloody internal showdown like we had a hundred years ago. The latter will be set back ten to twenty years, will subsequently lick their wounds and try to catch up with everyone else. So our job is to maintain internal stability.”
And that’s where the Great Awakening hinted at by Gurulyov, or Russia reconnecting with its true civilizational ethos, as Dugin would argue, will play its unifying role.
There’s still a long way to go – and a war against NATO to win. Meanwhile, in other news, Hegemon hacks are spinning that the North Atlantic has relocated to South China. Goodnight, and good luck.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 
