عقوبات ترامب لن تغيّر الموازين وأميركا تفقد الهيمنة على العالم

أكتوبر 18, 2019

محمد صادق الحسيني

كل المؤشرات الميدانية بالجغرافيا كما بالسياسة تفيد بأن أميركا تفقد السيطرة على النظام العالمي رويداً رويداً والبداية من برّنا وبحرنا..!

وان قيام الرئيس الأميركي بفرض عقوبات على العديد من دول العالم لن يحوِّل الهزيمة الاستراتيجية الأميركية المدوية في غرب آسيا والتي كانت السبب الرئيسي وراء ذلك الى نصر. وذلك للأسباب التالية:

1- إن المشهد الذي نراه الآن، في شمال شرق سورية، ليس نتيجة لعدوان أردوغان على سورية ولعبه على الحبال، وإنما هو جزء من دلالات الهزيمة، التي تلقاها المحور الصهيوأميركي في مسرح عمليات الشرق الاوسط والذي يعتبر أردوغان حلقة من حلقاته. فلا ننسى أن جيش أردوغان ومرتزقته يستخدمون دبابات / إم 60/ الأميركية التي تم تحديثها في إسرائيل ومجموعها 460 دبابة.

2. إن الانسحاب الأميركي من شرق سورية هو أيضاً لم يكن نتيجة لقرار مزاجي اتخذه الرئيس الأميركي، وإنما هو قرار مدروس وانعكاس للهزيمة الاستراتيجية نفسها، المشار إليها أعلاه، ويندرج في إطار توجّهات ترامب لخفض الإنفاق العسكري الأميركي، على صعيد العالم.

وهذا يعني أن الانسحاب من سورية هو الخطوة الأولى لاستكمال الانسحاب من قواعد الجيش الأميركي كافة في المنطقة كلها، بما في ذلك تفكيك القاعدة العسكرية المقامة على أرض فلسطين والمسماة إسرائيل أو التخلي عنها في حال تعرّضها لهجوم مدمر .

1. وفِي هذا الصدد يجب التأكيد على ان الجانب الأميركي لم ولن يقدم أي ضمانات جديدة لـ إسرائيل بعد كل التطورات الدراماتيكية في شمال شرق سورية على وجه الخصوص، ذات البعد الاستراتيجي الدولي، والتي تؤذن ببدء عصر جديد، غير العصر الأميركي، يقوم على قاعدة العالم متعدّد الأقطاب.

2. وخير دليل على الهزيمة الاستراتيجية الأميركية في غرب آسيا هو ما نشرته صحيفة الإندبندنت البريطانية حول قيام الولايات المتحدة بسحب 50 قنبلة نووية / طراز B61 / من قاعدة انجرليك التركية، ونقلها الى قاعدة بوفيدزPowidz في بولندا /200 كم غرب وارسو / وقاعدة كونغالنيسيانو Michail Kongalniciano الرومانية الواقعة على بعد 30 كم إلى الشمال من ميناء كونستانسا الروماني الواقع على الساحل الغربي للبحر الأسود، حسب مصادر استقصاء صحافية متخصصة في هذا المجال.

3. اما دواعي ومسببات هذه الهرولة الأميركية، الى سحب قواتها من غرب آسيا وخفض نفقاتها العسكرية في هذه المنطقة من العالم، فتعود الى المأزق الاستراتيجي الأميركي الحقيقي والمتمثل في التحدي الاقتصادي والعسكري السياسي الصيني الروسي – وقريباً ستنضم إليهما الهند أيضاً – والمتمثل ليس فقط في النمو الاقتصادي الصيني الهائل وإنما في التقدم المرعب لصناعة السلاح الصينية الروسية ومعهما الهندية، والتي تستند الى قاعدة علمية – تكنولوجية تفتقر لها الولايات المتحدة، بسبب إهدار مواردها المالية في جبال طورا بورا افغانستان ورمال الكويت والعراق، في حروب عبثية بينما استثمر الثلاثي أعلاه موارده المالية في التطوير المعرفي العلمي التكنولوجي والذي هو قاعدة الصناعة الحديثة وعالم المستقبل.

وما إيران إلا مثال على نجاح هذه الاستراتيجية، العلم والمعرفة، والتي حوّلت الدولة الى دولة صناعية هامة وعملاق إقليمي في أربعين عاماً فقط.

1. كما لا بدّ أن نتذكر، في هذا السياق، أن أسباب القلق الأميركي من مواجهة العملاق الاقتصادي الصيني، ومعه روسيا والهند مستقبلاً، لا تقتصر على مظاهر القوة الاقتصادية الصينية الروسية الهندية الحاليّة وإنما تصل الى الخوف من الإمكانيات المستقبلية وعدم وجود أي فرصه، لا للولايات المتحدة ولا للاتحاد الأوروبي للإبقاء على سياسة الهيمنة على مقدرات العالم، كما كان عليه الوضع حتى الآن. اذ ان روسيا تمتلك 40 من احتياطات العالم اجمع من كل شيء، سواء النفط او الغاز او المعادن او الثروات الطبيعية الأخرى مثل الخشب… فإذا أضفنا الفائض المالي الصيني وما يعنيه ذلك من إمكانات استثمار هائلة مضافة اليها العقول والأسواق الهندية الى الثروات الروسية، فإننا لا بد ان نصل الى الحقيقة القائلة، بأن استمرار الولايات المتحدة في إنكار الهزيمة والحفاظ على مستوى انتشارها العسكري الحالي، على صعيد العالم، سوف يؤدي الى نهاية الولايات المتحدة بالضربة القاضية وليس بالتفكك التدريجي الذي توقعته مجلة ذي ناشيونال انترست الأميركية، قبل ايّام على موقعها الالكتروني، بتاريخ 12/10/2019، إذ توقعت أن يحصل ذلك في حدود عام 2045.

2. اذن فالأزمة أعمق من أن يحلها نائب الرئيس الأميركي، في زيارة عابرة الى تركيا، ولا هي قابلة للحل من خلال عدوان أردوغان على شمال شرق سورية، والذي من أهم مسبباته محاولة اردوغان إشغال جنرالات الجيش التركي في مشاكل حدودية للتغطية على قيامه باعتقال المئات من زملائهم والزجّ بهم في السجون خلال السنوات الثلاث الماضية.

وهذا يعني أن جوهر المأزق الأميركي هو جوهر بنيوي انعكس في صورة سلسلة هزائم، منذ بداية القرن الحالي وحتى اليوم، وكذلك الأمر في موضوع العلاقة الأميركية. فطبيعة الأزمة اكثر بنيوية من ان تكون أزمة او خلافاً بسبب موضوع محدد، مثل العدوان الأردوغاني على سورية او شراء منظومات الصواريخ الروسية او غير ذلك.

إنها أزمة خيارات تشير الى أن تركيا قد تكون بدأت تخط استراتيجية جديدة لتنجو بجلدها وتضمن مستقبلها بعيداً عن النهاية القاتمة للمعسكر الذي تنتمي له. وقد يكون هذ اهو السبب بالذات، الذي جعلها لم تعد محل ثقة الولايات المتحدة، التي ترى في التوجهات التركية الجديدة التفاهمات مع روسيا وايران حول سورية والسيل الجنوبي للغاز الروسي وشراء منظومات الصواريخ الروسية… قرائن وأدلة على أن تركيا لم تعد محل ثقة ولا بد من تدميرها.

وهذا ما يفسر سيل التهديدات الأميركية لها بفرض أقسى العقوبات عليها.

إنها السنن الكونية للتغيير.

ولن تجد لسنة الله تبديلا.

بعدنا طيبين، قولوا الله.

Related

World at a Crossroads and a System of International Relations for the Future

Source

September 21, 2019

World at a Crossroads and a System of International Relations for the Future

World at a Crossroads and a System of International Relations for the Future” by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for “Russia in Global Affairs” magazine, September 20, 2019

These days, the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly opens up. So does a new international “political season”.

The session begins at a highly symbolic historical moment. Next year we will celebrate two great and interconnected anniversaries – the 75th Anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic and Second World Wars, and the establishment of the UN.

Reflecting on the spiritual and moral significance of these landmark events, one needs to bear in mind the enormous political meaning of the Victory that ended one of the most brutal wars in the history of mankind.

The defeat of fascism in 1945 had fundamentally affected the further course of world history and created conditions for establishing a post-war world order. The UN Charter became its bearing frame and a key source of international law to this day. The UN-centric system still preserves its sustainability and has a great degree of resilience. It actually is kind of a safety net that ensures peaceful development of mankind amid largely natural divergence of interests and rivalries among leading powers. The War-time experience of ideology-free cooperation of states with different socioeconomic and political systems is still highly relevant.

It is regrettable that these obvious truths are being deliberately silenced or ignored by certain influential forces in the West. Moreover, some have intensified attempts at privatizing the Victory, expunging from memory the Soviet Union’s role in the defeat of Nazism, condemning to oblivion the Red Army’s feat of sacrifice and liberation, forgetting the many millions of Soviet citizens who perished during the War, wiping out from history the consequences of the ruinous policy of appeasement. From this perspective, it is easy to grasp the essence of the concept of expounding the equality of the totalitarian regimes. Its purpose is not just to belittle the Soviet contribution to the Victory, but also to retrospectively strip our country of its historic role as an architect and guarantor of the post-war world order, and label it a “revisionist power” that is posing a threat to the well-being of the so-called free world.

Interpreting the past in such a manner also means that some of our partners see the establishment of a transatlantic link and the permanent implanting of the US military presence in Europe as a major achievement of the post-war system of international relations. This is definitely not the scenario the Allies had in mind while creating the United Nations.

The Soviet Union disintegrated; the Berlin Wall, which had symbolically separated the two “camps,” fell; the irreconcilable ideological stand-off that defined the framework of world politics in virtually all spheres and regions became a thing of the past – yet, these tectonic shifts unfortunately failed to bring the triumph of a unifying agenda. Instead, all we could hear were triumphant pronouncements that the “end of history” had come and that from now on there would be only one global decision-making center.

It is obvious today that efforts to establish a unipolar model have failed. The transformation of the world order has become irreversible. New major players wielding a sustainable economic base seek to increase their influence on regional and global developments; they are fully entitled to claim a greater role in the decision-making process. There is a growing demand for more just and inclusive system. The overwhelming majority of members of the international community reject arrogant neocolonial policies that are employed all over again to empower certain countries to impose their will on others.

All that is greatly disturbing to those who for centuries have been accustomed to setting the patterns of global development by employing exclusive advantages. While the majority of states aspire to a more just system of international relations and genuine rather than declarative respect for the UN Charter principles, these demands come up against the policies desighned to preserve an order allowing a narrow group of countries and transnational corporations to reap from the fruits of globalization. The West’s response to the ongoing developments reveals true worldview of its proponents. Their rhetoric on liberalism, democracy and human rights goes hand in hand with the policies of inequality, injustice, selfishness and a belief in their own exceptionalism.

“Liberalism”, that the West claims to defend, focuses on individuals and their rights and freedoms. This begs the question: how does this correlate with the policy of sanctions, economic strangulation and overt military threats against a number of independent countries such as Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea or Syria? Sanctions directly strike at ordinary people and their well-being and violate their social and economic rights. How does the bombing of sovereign nations, the deliberate policy of destroying their statehood leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and condemning millions of Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians and representatives of other peoples to innumerable suffering add up to the imperative of protecting human rights? The reckless Arab Spring gamble destroyed the unique ethnic and religious mosaic in the Middle East and North Africa.

In Europe, the proponents of liberal concepts get along quite well with massive violations of the Russian-speaking population rights in a number of EU and EU-neighboring countries. Those countries violate multilateral international conventions by adopting laws that infringe language and education rights of ethnic minorities.

What is “liberal” about visa denials and other sanctions imposed by the West on residents of Russia’s Crimea? They are punished for their democratic vote in favour of reunification with their historical homeland. Does this not contradict the basic right of the people to free self-determination, let alone the right of the citizens to freedom of movement enshrined in international conventions?

Liberalism, or rather its real undistorted essence, has always been an important component of political philosophy both in Russia and worldwide. However, the multiplicity of development models does not allow us to say that the Western “basket” of liberal values has no alternative. And, of course, these values cannot be carried “on bayonets” – ignoring the history of states, their cultural and political identities. Grief and destruction caused by “liberal” aerial bombings are a clear indication of what this can lead to.

The West’s unwillingness to accept today’s realities, when after centuries of economic, political and military domination it is losing the prerogative of being the only one to shape the global agenda, gave rise to the concept of a “rules-based order.” These “rules” are being invented and selectively combined depending on the fleeting needs of the people behind it, and the West persistently introduces this language into everyday usage. The concept is by no means abstract and is actively being implemented. Its purpose is to replace the universally agreed international legal instruments and mechanisms with narrow formats, where alternative, non-consensual methods for resolving various international problems are developed in circumvention of a legitimate multilateral framework. In other words, the expectation is to usurp the decision-making process on key issues.

The intentions of those who initiated this “rules-based order” concept affect the exceptional powers of the UN Security Council. A recent example: when the United States and its allies failed to convince the Security Council to approve politicized decisions that accused, without any proof, the Syrian government of using prohibited toxic substances, they started to promote the “rules” they needed through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). By manipulating the existing procedures in flagrant violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, they managed (with the votes of a minority of the countries participating in this Convention) to license the OPCW Technical Secretariat to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons, which was a direct intrusion in the prerogatives of the UN Security Council. One can also observe similar attempts to “privatize” the secretariats of international organizations in order to advance interests outside of the framework of universal intergovernmental mechanisms in such areas as biological non-proliferation, peacekeeping, prevention of doping in sports and others.

The initiatives to regulate journalism seeking to suppress media freedom in an arbitrary way, the interventionist ideology of “responsibility to protect”, which justifies violent “humanitarian interventions” without UN Security Council approval under the pretext of an imminent threat to the safety of civilians are part of the same policy.

Separately, attention should be paid to the controversial concept of “countering violent extremism”, which lays the blame for the dissemination of radical ideologies and expansion of the social base of terrorism on political regimes that the West has proclaimed undemocratic, illiberal or authoritarian. This concept provides for direct outreach to civil society over the head of legitimate governments. Obviously, the true goal is to withdraw counterterrorism efforts from beneath the UN umbrella and to obtain a tool of interference in the internal affairs of states.

The introduction of such new concepts is a dangerous phenomenon of revisionism, which rejects the principles of international law embodied in the UN Charter and paves the way back to the times of confrontation and antagonism. It is for a reason that the West is openly discussing a new divide between “the rules-based liberal order” and “authoritarian powers.”

Revisionism clearly manifests itself in the area of strategic stability. The US torpedoing first the ABM Treaty and now the INF Treaty (a decision that enjoys unanimous NATO members’ support) have generated risks of dismantling the entire architecture of nuclear arms control agreements. The prospects of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (The New START) are vague – because the US has not given a clear answer to the Russian proposal to agree to extend the New START beyond its expiry date in February 2021.

Now we are witnessing alarming signs that a media campaign in the United States is being launched to lay the groundwork for abandoning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (which has not been ratified by the United States). This calls into question the future of this treaty, which is vital for international peace and security. Washington has embarked upon the implementation of its plans to deploy weapons in outer space, rejecting proposals to agree on a universal moratorium on such activities.

There is one more example of introducing revisionist “rules”: the US withdrawal from the  Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program, a multilateral agreement approved by the UN Security Council that is of key importance for the nuclear non-proliferation.

Yet another example is Washington’s open refusal to implement unanimous UN Security Council resolutions on the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the economic field, the “rules” consist of protectionist barriers, sanctions, abuse of the status of the US dollar as the principle means of payment, ensuring competitive advantages by non-market methods, and extraterritorial use of US laws, even towards the United States’ closest allies.

At the same time, our American colleagues are persistently trying to mobilise all of their foreign partners to contain Russia and China. Simultaneously they do not conceal their wish to sow discord between Moscow and Beijing and undermine multilateral alliances and regional integration projects in Eurasia and Asia-Pacific that are operating outside of the US oversight. Pressure is exerted on those countries that do not play by the rules imposed on them and dare make the “wrong choice” of cooperating with US “adversaries”.

So, what do we have as a result? In politics, erosion of the international legal basis, growth of instability and unsustainability, chaotic fragmentation of the global landscape and deepening mistrust between those involved in the international life. In the area of security, blurring of the dividing line between military and non-military means of achieving foreign policy goals, militarization of international relations, increased reliance on nuclear weapons in US security doctrines, lowering the threshold for the use of such armaments, the emergence of new hotbeds of armed conflicts, the persistence of the global terrorist threat, and militarization of the cyberspace. In the world economy, increased volatility, tougher competition for markets, energy resources and their supply routes, trade wars and undermining the multilateral trade system. We can add a surge of migration and deepening of ethnic and religious strife. Do we need such a “rules-based” world order?

Against this background, attempts by Western liberal ideologues to portray Russia as a “revisionist force” are simply absurd. We were among the first to draw attention to the transformation of the global political and economic systems that cannot remain static due to the objective march of history. It would be appropriate to mention here that the concept of multipolarity in international relations that accurately reflects emerging economic and geopolitical realities was formulated two decades ago by the outstanding Russian statesman Yevgeny Primakov. His intellectual legacy remains relevant now as we mark the 90th anniversary of his birth.

As is evident from the experience of recent years, using unilateral tools to address global problems is doomed to failure. The West-promoted “order” does not meet the needs of humankind’s harmonious development. This “order” is non-inclusive, aims to revise the key international legal mechanisms, rejects the principle of collective action in the relations between states, and by definition cannot generate solutions to global problems that would be viable and stable in the long term rather than seek a propaganda effect within an electoral cycle in this or that country.

What is being proposed by Russia? First of all, it is necessary to keep abreast of the times and recognise the obvious: the emergence of a polycentric world architecture is an irreversible process, no matter how hard anyone tries to artificially hold it back (let alone send it in reverse). Most countries don’t want to be held hostage to someone else’s geopolitical calculations and are determined to conduct nationally oriented domestic and foreign policies. It is our common interest to ensure that multipolarity is not based on a stark balance of power like it was at the earlier stages of human history (for example, in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century), but rather bears a just, democratic and unifying nature, takes into account the approaches and concerns of all those taking part in the international relations without an exception, and ensures a stable and secure future.

There are some people in the West who often speculate that polycentric world order inevitably leads to more chaos and confrontation because the “centers of power” will fail to come to terms among themselves and take responsible decisions. But, firstly, why not try? What if it works? For this, all that is necessary is to start talks on the understanding that the parties should seek a balance of interests. Attempts to invent ones’ own “rules” and impose them on all others as the absolute truth should be stopped. From now on, all parties should strictly comply with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, starting with the respect for the sovereign equality of states regardless of their size, system of government or development model. Paradoxically, countries that portray themselves as paragons of democracy actually care about it only as they demand from other countries to “put their house in order” on a West-inspired pattern. But as soon as the need arises for democracy in intergovernmental relations, they immediately evade honest talk or attempt to interpret international legal norms at their own discretion.

No doubt, life does not stand still. While taking good care of the post-WWII system of international relations that relies on the United Nations, it is also necessary to cautiously though gradually adjust it to the realities of the current geopolitical landscape. This is completely relevant for the UN Security Council, where, judging by today’s standards, the West is unfairly overrepresented. We are confident that reforming the Security Council shall take into account interests of the Asian, the African and the Latin American nations whilst any such design must rest upon the principle of the broadest consensus among the UN member states. The same approach should apply to refining the world trade system, with special attention paid to harmonizing the integration projects in various regions.

We should use to the fullest the potential of the G20, an ambitious, all-encompassing global governance body that represents the interests of all key players and takes unanimous decisions. Other associations are playing a growing role as well, alliances projecting the spirit of a true and democratic multipolarity, based on voluntary participation, consensus, values of equality and sound pragmatism, and refraining from confrontation and bloc approaches. These include BRICS and the SCO, which our country is an active member of and which Russia will chair in 2020.

It is evident that without collective effort and without unbiased partnership under the central coordinating role of the UN it is impossible to curb confrontational tendencies, build up trust and cope with common threats and challenges. It is high time to come to terms on uniform interpretation of the principles and norms of international law rather than try to follow the old saying “might goes before right”. It is more difficult to broker deals than to put forward demands. But patiently negotiated trade-offs will be a much more reliable vehicle for predictable handling of international affairs. Such an approach is badly needed to launch substantive talks on the terms and conditions of a reliable and just system of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasia. This objective has been declared multiple times at the top level in the OSCE documents. It is necessary to move from words to deeds. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) have repeatedly expressed their readiness to contribute to such efforts.

It is important to increase our assistance to the peaceful resolution of numerous conflicts, be it in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America or the post-Soviet space. The main point is to live up to the earlier arrangements rather than to invent pretexts for refusing to adhere to the obligations.

As of today, it is especially relevant to counter religious and ethnic intolerance. We urge all the nations to work together to prepare for the World Conference on Interfaith and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue that will be held in Russia in May 2022 under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the UN. The OSCE that has formulated a principled position condemning anti-Semitism should act with equal resolve toward Christianophobia and Islamophobia.

Our unconditional priority is to continue providing assistance to the unhindered formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership, a broad integration framework stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific that involves the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and all other countries of the Eurasian continent, including the EU countries. It would be unwise to contain the unifying processes or, worse still, to put up fences. It would be a mistake to reject the obvious strategic advantages of the common Eurasian region in an increasingly competitive world.

Consistent movement towards this constructive goal will allow us not only to keep up the dynamic development of the national economies and to remove obstacles to the movement of goods, capital, labor and services, but it will also create a solid foundation of security and stability throughout the vast region from Lisbon to Jakarta.

Will the multipolar world continue to take shape through cooperation and harmonization of interests or through confrontation and rivalry? This depends on all of us. Russia will continue to promote a positive and unifying agenda aimed at removing the old dividing lines and preventing the appearance of new ones. Russia has advanced initiatives to prevent an arms race in outer space, establish efficient mechanisms for combating terrorism, including chemical and biological terrorism, and to agree upon practical measures to prevent the use of cyberspace for undermining national security or for other criminal purposes.

Our proposals to launch a serious discussion on all aspects of strategic stability in the modern era are still on the table.

There have been ideas floated recently to modify the agenda and update the terms. The proposed subjects for discussion vary between “strategic rivalry” and “multilateral deterrence.” Terminology is negotiable, but it is not terms but the essence that really matters. It is now much more important to start a strategic dialogue on the existing threats and risks and to seek consensus on a commonly acceptable agenda. Yet another outstanding statesman from our country, Andrey Gromyko (his 110th birth anniversary we mark this year) said wisely: “Better to have ten years of negotiations than one day of war.”

—-

العالم في مفترق طرق ونظام العلاقات الدولية من أجل المستقبل

Putin’s Multipolar Offer to Saudi Arabian Exceptionalism

Image result for Putin’s Multipolar Offer to Saudi Arabian Exceptionalism
Tim Kirby
September 18, 2019

Global Islamic Terrorism is universally recognized as today’s big threat and has been the justification for all sorts of changes, especially to life in the West after 9/11. The Islamic terrorists whom we are supposed to fear on a daily basis more or less believe in some form of Wahhabism, which grew up in and is spread from Saudi Arabia. Surprisingly the US and the Saudis have been and still are staunch allies. This makes little sense on the surface but Saudi exceptionalism extends to Russia as well. Russia and former parts of its territory have been some of the biggest victims of Wahhabism and still fight it to this day and yet President Putin just vowed to protect them from air threats via Russia’s top of the line equipment. So this raises the question by what logic would Russia want work with the Saudis who prop up the ideas that murder their citizens? The short answer is Multipolarity.

During the Cold War we saw two great powers with massive spheres of influence dividing the planet between themselves. This Bipolar (in the literal sense) structure forced everyone on America’s side to be Capitalist / Western-style Democratic and everyone on the USSR’s side to be Communist. So for every Communist revolution that succeeded Moscow’s sphere of influence grew while Washington’s shrank.

Now in the 21st century this dynamic is much different as the sole Hyperpower is fighting against any upstarts who challenge its status, which means that every nation that succumbs to the Washington status quo is a victory for Monopolarity, while any nation that begins to act on its own or under the influence of anyone besides the US/NATO/The West is a victory for Multipolarity.

This is why today, unlike during the Cold War Russia has a policy of being open to working with anyone who is willing to work with them regardless of ideology. Of course during the Cold War the US and the Soviet Union would work with countries outside their political theory of preference to some degree, but now Russia is free from the burdens of Communist ideology and is thus free to associate with anyone and Moscow is willing to work with anyone because any nation that rises up to a high level of sovereignty creates another crack in the monolith of Monopolarity.

This is why Moscow has been cooperating with Turkey who at times has been very aggressive towards them, shooting down a Russian planeforcing their way into Syria and working against Assad’s and Russia’s interests in the region, and opening Turkish Universities across parts of the Former USSR challenging Russian cultural influence. These all sound bad, but Moscow has a bigger fish to fry and the upstart Turks, despite being in NATO are beginning to push for a more powerful sovereign pro-Turkish foreign policy, which is bad for Russia in doses, but on the whole is a huge stride towards a Multipolar World that Russia so desperately needs.

And this is the logic that applies to the Saudis. True the Saudi Wahhabism and loud inaction in terms of containing Wahhabism have lead to the deaths of many Russian-speaking people the world over, but the Multipolar mission takes precedence, thus Putin offered the Saudis to buy Russian S-400 systems because “Our (Russian) air defenses can protect you, like they do Turkey and Iran” and that “These kinds of systems are capable of defending any kind of infrastructure in Saudi Arabia from any kind of attack.”

Syria and Turkey are both major Multipolar victories so perhaps in Putin’s words there is a hint that Saudi Arabia could jump on the Other World Order’s boat by buying these defense systems. The S-400s in question could be used to defend against a local neighbor, but we could suppose that a massive surface-to-air set up would best be used to defend against NATO, who is the only serious missile launching threat.

To an extent it is very possible that this offer by President Putin to the parties indirectly responsible for a great deal of suffering in Russia could actually be an invitation to the Multipolar World.

Saudi Arabia has been very much the exceptional Arab nation in the Middle East when it comes to NATO’s actions, but nothing lasts forever. The Saudis have oil and little means to defend it, while at the same time maintaining an ideology that has been demonized by the Mainstream Media for almost 20 years, prepping the West with a casus belli when the time comes. The fear of Monopolar aggression could force the Saudis to buy into team Multipolarity.

See Also

Turkey’s Multipolar Turn: Ankara and Beijing Come to Terms on Uyghurs Issue

Global Research, July 23, 2019

China’s relationship to its ethnic minority Uyghur population has been the central issue driving a wedge between China and the Muslim world in recent years. However, the situation is already beginning to change before our eyes – Pakistan, Turkey and many nations throughout the Middle East have suddenly stopped calling the Uyghur education centers in Xinjiang “concentration camps,” while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently said that the Uyghurs live “happily” in Xinjiang. These are all indications of large-scale changes on the geopolitical map and the formation of new poles of cooperation.

Context

The Uyghurs (the second largest Muslim population in China after the Hui (回族) who number around 11 million) live in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) in northwest China. The area became a part of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, after Mao Zedong led the country’s communist movement to victory over the Guomindang; Xinjiang has been a zone of political instability ever since.

The Uyghurs are indigenous Turkic people of Eastern Turkestan and Sunni Muslims. Western human rights organizations have recently been paying a great deal of attention to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang (e.g., Amnesty International’s 2013 report, Human Rights Watch’s 2018 report, reports from the Munich-based human rights organization World Uyghur Congress), while leading Western publications (CNN, BBC, Foreign Policy) have systematically criticized China’s policies in relation to the ethnic minority group.

The emergence of a number of articles criticizing China’s Xinjiang policies during the escalation of U.S.-China trade relations in 2018 can hardly be seen as a coincidence. For China, Xinjiang is a source of constant risk, since it has become a hub for radical Wahhabist strains of Islam [supported by foreign governments] which have begun to spread among the Muslim population. Most of the recent terrorist acts in China were committed by radicalized Uyghurs.

Assimilating the Uyghurs into Chinese society has been a very difficult process: their writing is based on the Arabic alphabet and their religion is rooted in Sunni Islam. While Sufism had traditionally been the central strain of Islam throughout Central Asia, in recent decades it has increasingly come under the influence of Salafist and Wahhabi tendencies under the influence of Saudi Arabia and in accordance with the USA’s plans to destabilize the region. The efforts of these countries have created a breeding ground for extremism and terrorism.

During the Arab Spring, Chinese authorities were seriously concerned about the possibility of regional destabilzation in Xinjiang as a result of the spread of radical Islam – at that time, Uyghur social networks were brought under direct control (This was accomplished via tools such as the JingWang Weishi app, which monitors photos, audio messagers and video materials online, and also has access to users private messages on WeChat). The Xinjiang region also has 20 million video cameras that can identify any person in the area in a remarkably short time (no more than 7 minutes). While all of this might seem draconian, such security policies are undoubtedly justified – over the past decade, a large number of Uyghurs have come under the influence of radical Islam, such as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement  (ETIM).

To fight the spread of this dangerous ideology and to better integrate the Uyghurs into Chinese society, the Chinese authorities opened special education centres that teach the basics of Chinese political culture, Chinese language and conduct a course on the history of the People’s Republic of China. The process is called “transformation through training” or “counterterrorism training.”

The Western media, using an investigation by Human Rights Watch as a basis, has called the centers “concentration camps” (seemingly confusing them with prisons for offenders in the province). Moreover, the Western media and various human rights reports have accused the Chinese authorities of resorting to torture in these institutions, although there is no clear distinction between prisons for criminal offenders and the education centres in the reports. There is the information in these reports that Uyghurs in the education centres are allegedly being forced to renounce Islam. In September 2018, the U.S. government was considering the possibility of imposing sanctions against high-ranking Chinese officials and companies over the alleged violations of the Uygher’s rights and the supposed detention and restriction of freedoms in the “camps.”

More than 20 countries, including Japan and the United Kingdom, have recently issued a joint statement condemning China’s mass detention of Uyghurs and other minorities in the Xinjiang region. In a letter to Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, these 22 countries called for an end to “mass arbitrary detentions and related violations” and demanded Beijing grant UN experts access to the region.

The Conversation

@ConversationUK

Chinese officials have repeatedly termed the criticism of their treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang region as Western media politicising the issue.

37 countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE, seem to agree with China’s position. http://bit.ly/2JSLdnR 

China is building a global coalition of human rights violators to defend its record in Xinjiang –…

A group of 37 countries, including North Korea, Russia and Saudia Arabia, signed a letter in support of China’s human rights record.

theconversation.com

See The Conversation’s other Tweets
The mass media has devoted numerous articles to the issue, describing how the Chinese authorities do not allow Uughurs to perform religious pilgrimage (hajj), and preventing them from fulfilling their obligations during Ramadan.

Concentration camp, prisons or education centers?

The training has only one purpose: to learn laws and regulations…to eradicate from the mind thoughts about religious extremism and violent terrorism, and to cure ideological diseases. If the education is not going well, we will continue to provide free education, until the students achieve satisfactory results and graduate smoothly.
—Speech by Chinese Communist Youth League Xinjiang Branch, March 2017

Human Rights Watch’s report of 9 September 2018 published a report entitled “Eradicating Ideological Viruses’, which describes the Chinese authorities’ policy on Uyghurs as a policy of destoying the and violating ‘fundamental rights to freedom of expression, religion, and privacy’, practicing  ‘torture and unfair trials’. HRW note that China’s policy is a violation of international law prohibiting discrimination.

The Human Rights Organization report recommends western governments impose sanctions against the secretary of the party, Chen Quango, and other high-ranking officials. “Party Secretary Chen Quanguo and other senior officials responsible for the Strike Hard Campaign should face targeted sanctions – through tools such as the US Global Magnitsky Act and visa protocols.”    The organization also concludes that in order to address the situation in Xinjiang, countries should tighten export control regimes to prevent the development of Chinese technology.

It is important to note that the materials devoted to the issue of the Uyghur population in China began to be actively published in Western media during the escalation of the ongoing trade war between China and the United States. Interestingly, Trump’s protectionist policy against the PRC was joined by globalist corporations and influence groups, which, unlike Trump, see China as a threat not only to the U.S. economy, but also to the liberal globalist doctrine. This has become particularly evident over the past two years as the relationship between Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin grows closer, while Beijing’s “Belt and Road” initiative has increasingly shown China’s commitment to multipolarism.

It should be noted that, for China, the main goal in building education centers for the Uyghurs is to prevent the emergence of a domestic strain of radical Islam. China is in many ways an excellent breeding ground for the development of radical Islamic ideology,  which is useful for China’s enemies who want to weaken China by fermenting internal destabilization. According to Chinese authorities, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement in China is responsible for more than 200 terrorist attacks which have killed more than 160 people and injured more than 400.

In the absence of countermeasures such as education centres, radical Wahhabi ideas could easily spread among the Uyghur population, gradually creating a situation in China similar to the one which tore apart Syria.

With the trade war between the U.S. and China raging for more than a year, such a development would undoubtedly play into the hands of globalists opposed to China’s rising power and influence. New geopolitical strategies have emerged that pose a serious threat to globalism’s enemies without the need to resort to outright military conflict, such as using proxies to destabilize regions. It is no coincidence that Syria, a country that had no external debt before the war, became a target for terrorism.

What is really China’s policy?

Assimilation of the Uyghurs into Chinese society is gradually taking place on a large scale – for the majority of Uyghurs – Chinese has become a second or even first/native language. The Uyghurs have been granted privileges when it comes to entering universities and Chinese schools, as well as in starting up private businesses.

Uyghur children: “The population that is not there.”

One of the peculiarities of Xinjiang’s demographic picture is the conflict between China’s birth control measures (until the end of 2015/beginning of 2016, the “one family, one child” demographic law was in force, today it is the “one family, two children” demographic law) and Islamic tradition, especially in regard to polygamy which is practiced among Uyghurs and the simplicity of divorce measures, which also do not restrict women from remarriage and having more children.

This has resulted in a significant proportion of Xinjiang’s population not having official registration, i.e. citizenship, which naturally severely restricts their rights, access to education, medicine, legal earnings and travel both within and outside China. This environment of an illegal and unrecorded population deprived of legal status has become the basis for recruiting terrorists, Salafist jamaats and the spread of extremist ideology.

Possible solutions

To address the problem, the PRC needs to establish Confucian schools to integrate Uyghurs into PRC culture. In addition, an important step would be to establish Islamic education schools for the Uyghurs, where mullahs would teach the basics of Islam, which could be an important step in China’s fight against international terrorism.

The creation of Uighur integration centres into Chinese society in the Uyghur language could also be extremely effective. Such centres could be a cultural bridge to establishing a dialogue between two cultures with centuries-old histories.

It is crucial to counter Salafi and Wahhabi teachings with traditional Islam, and Sufism in particular. Chinese leadership has so far failed to significantly utilize this approach, despite that these traditional Islamic structures have already helped to stabilize some regions outside China, such as Turkey, Iraq, Syria and the Northern Caucasus in the Russian Federation.

Between Turkey and China

Turkey had heavily criticized China’s Uyghur policy until February 2019. In 2009, during the Uyghur riots in Urumqi in July, the Turkish government stated its disagreement with the Chinese authorities’ assessment of the situation: a member of the Justice and Development Party resigned from his post in the China-Turkey Interparliamentary Friendship Group, and the Minister of Industry and Trade called for a boycott on Chinese goods as a result.  After a series of protests in Ankara and Istanbul, Erdoğan himself condemned China’s policy towards the Uyghurs, calling it “genocide”. The situation was resolved some time later, but tensions between Turkey and China on the Uyghur issue remained until this year.

Interestingly, Turkey’s Kemalist faction, who are close to the Turkish military, have condemned the anti-Chinese position of the Turkish leadership for years. During a speech in Ürümqi (Xinjiang), Doğu Perinçek, the leader of the Vatan Partisi, argued that “the propaganda and lies aimed at China over the Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region target Turkey as well, because China’s friendship with Turkey is necessary to both our security and economy. Clearly conscious of this fact, we immediately took a decisive stance against the torrent of lies concerning the Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region.”

In July 2019, during his official visit to China, Erdogan admitted that the Uyghurs live happily in China.This was a radical change of position for the Muslim leader who had long criticized China’s policies. Erdogan, who is known for his support of some rather radical Islamic movements, in particular the Muslim Brotherhood, described Erdogan’s unexpected change of heart as a “betrayal.” However, only representatives of the Western media seemed to agree, as Erdoğan’s approval was quickly mirrored by other representatives of the Muslim world.

The globalist mass media has claimed that the reason Erdogan changed his position on the issue was predominantly economic.

In the period from 2013 to 2018, China invested 186.3 billion dollars in the framework of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). According to Morgan Stanley, Chinese investments in the BRI project will reach $1.3 billion by 2027. It is important to note that Turkey’s participation in the BRI is not only economic, but also ideological, as the country also increasingly orients itself toward a multipolar outlook.

Chinese political scientist Eric Li, in an article in Foreign Affairs, noted that the death of “globalism does not mean the end of globalization.” Today, China is developing and offering its partners a new vision of globalization – dialogue and partnership. This vision of globalization is devoid of the liberal dimension of a hegemon mediating between different cultures and states.

Turkey is moving away from its historic cooperation with the U.S., in part due to their support of Muhammed Fethullah Gülen’s anti government putsch three years ago. Turkey is joining the fight against globalism, a movement which is predominantly led by China. This reorientation is vividly demonstrated in Turkey’s deal with the Russian Federation to buy S-400 missile defense systems against Washington’s will. Die Welt called Ankara’s acquisition of the S-400s a de facto “refusal to support their allies in the West.” The publication notes that Turkey is currently reaching a “point of no return”, which may result in sanctions from the EU and the U.S., as well as the impossibility of purchasing F-35 fighter jets from the U.S. as planned.

Today, Turkey has the prospect to become a key player in the Chinese Belt and Road project, which has become the primary movement fighting globalist hegemony. Their participation could represent a significant step forward in the creation of a new, multipolar world.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All images in this article are from UWI

British Hijack Iranian Ship: Another Day, Another Provocation

British Hijack Iranian Ship: Another Day, Another Provocation

July 17, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – Had Iran openly hijacked a vessel of any nation, for any reason, plying through waters anywhere on Earth, the US and its allies would immediately cite it as a provocation toward war.

In fact, even without evidence, suspiciously timed attacks carried out last month on tankers passing through the Persian Gulf were cited by Washington and London as a pretext for increased pressure on Tehran despite the attacks appearing staged by the West itself.

Now in a display once again illustrating just who the actual menace is to global peace and stability, the British have openly – even proudly – hijacked a ship carrying Iranian oil allegedly bound for Syria.

The Guardian’s article, “Iran fury as Royal Marines seize tanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria,” would report:

Royal Marines have helped seize an Iranian supertanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria off the coast of Gibraltar, escalating tensions between the UK and Tehran as the agreement aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear programme unravels.

A detachment of nearly 30 British troops working with the Gibraltarian police intercepted the vessel, believed to be carrying 2m barrels of oil, in a dramatic manoeuvre Spain said had been conducted at the request of the US.

The article would quote the British ambassador to Iran who claimed:

[The UK] welcomes this firm action by the Gibraltarian authorities.

As to why the UK believed it was justified to hijack the Iranian tanker – the article would cite “sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad” the UK and EU placed on Syria – which are in themselves illegal and an act of war.

Stealing Ships from Stolen Land to Enforce Illegal Sanctions 

The UK’s presence in Gibraltar itself is a point of contention between London and Madrid.

Spain does not recognize British claims over the tiny piece of land located at the furthest tip of the Iberian Peninsula. The British presence is one of its many holdovers from its imperialist past. The British presence gives the UK a choke point over the Strait of Gibraltar and all shipping passing through it.

The fact that the British are using the disputed territory of Gibraltar to hijack ships or that the London Guardian is trying to depict it as an operation undertaken while “working with the Gibraltarian police” – when the “Gibraltarian police” are nothing more than functionaries representing London itself – provide a clear illustration of how foreign policy, media, and crimes against international law are being coordinated, justified, and sold to the public by Washington and London.

While Iran has regularly threatened to impede shipping through the Stait of Hormuz in retaliation to Western military aggression – it has never acted upon these threats – reserving them as a means of last resort.

The British and Americans – on the other hand – have literally implicated themselves in disrupting “freedom of navigation.” 

The US and UK both pose as international arbiters and underwriters of what they call “the freedom of navigation” of the world’s seas. They regularly accuse nations like China of impeding such “freedom” in the South China Sea – using these accusations as an excuse to build up a military presence off China’s shores – thousands of miles from their own shores.

They have also regularly cited Iran’s “threats” to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz as another reason Iran should be further pressured, sanctioned, and its government ultimately removed from power.

Yet by hijacking Iranian ships, or likewise intercepting North Korean vessels, or the ships of any nation based on sanctions unilaterally and illegally imposed by Washington, London, and Brussels implicates the West themselves as the primary threat to the very “freedom of navigation” of the world’s seas they claim to uphold.

Provoking War 

From Western policy think tanks to policymakers and politicians themselves – the West has all but admitted it is trying to goad Iran into war.

Sanctions, Western-sponsored terrorism aimed at Iranian territory itself, and provocations – like the recent hijacking of an Iranian tanker – all aimed at Tehran – are moves seeking to trigger a response from Iran that will justify even wider Western economic sanctions and military aggression.

And if Iran fails to provide such a provocation, one might be staged and blamed on Iran anyway.

These are the actions of outlaw nations presiding over a fading international order – one fading specifically because it is so transparently unjust, lopsided, and disruptive toward global stability. It has persisted for so long solely through the maxim of “might makes right.”

The British stealing ships from stolen land to enforce illegal sanctions is a vulgar display of “might makes right,” but one that may possibility be reaching its expiration.

The countervailing multipolar order emerging across Eurasia has an opportunity to oppose this flagrant provocation – not merely on Iran’s behalf – but to erode the impunity that will allow the US and UK to target the ships of other nations in a similar fashion if afforded impunity to do so to Iran now.

For Tehran, it will need to continue exhibiting “maximum patience” while enduring Washington and London’s “maximum pressure” campaign – avoiding the traps both have laid out for Tehran as they attempt to bait the nation into war and change their failing fortunes in the Middle East and around the globe.

The British – still a thorn in the side of global peace and stability despite losing most of its empire – presents us with a preview of what to expect from America even long after it fades as sole global hegemon. Learning to put the UK’s recent provocations in check now will help develop the tools necessary to put in check its future provocations – and those the US will find itself also depending on more and more often in the future.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

The great fraud of National Zionism

The great fraud of National Zionism

March 21, 2019

[This article was written for the Unz Review]

The Defining Event for the USA

There is no doubt that the 9/11 false flag (now even admitted (by direct implication) by NIST!) was a watershed, a seminal event in our history. While millions (or even billions) watched in horror as the twin towers burned, a small group of Mossad agents stood nearby and danced in overwhelming joy. Why exactly were these Israelis dancing? Surely there was more than just Schadenfreude in this spontaneous expression of euphoria?  Considering that these three dancing Israelis were just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, we can rest assured that there were many more folks dancing in joy that day, especially in Israel.

Why were these Mossad agents so blissful?  The answer is obvious: 9/11 put the following notions front and center of the concerns of most people in the USA:

  • We are under attack and in grave, imminent, danger
  • Islam wants to destroy our way of life
  • Those who did 9/11 also want to destroy Israel
  • We need to ask the Israelis to share their “expertise” in dealing with Islamic terrorism
  • Draconian laws and new police powers need to be passed to protect us from mass murder
  • If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists

Almost a decade before 9/11, in 1992, Francis Fukuyama had explained to us that history itself was coming to an end while Samuel P. Huntington explained to us in 1996 that we were witnessing a “clash of civilizations.” This kind of “scholarly” research created the perfect political background to an already rather disquieting perception of the upcoming Year 2000. In 2001, when all hell broke loose, the general public was already well prepared for it (just like the AngloZionist elites who had already prepared the huge “Patriot Act” long before the Twin Towers came down).

9/11 was as much the culmination of a significant preparatory effort as it was the trigger for a decade or more of wars.

Still, all this immense effort into shaping the West’s perceptions was not good enough to hammer the sufficiently hysterical mindset into most people, in spite of the best efforts of the legacy Ziomedia to explain to us that Bin Laden decided that “we” were next in line for some kind of horrible (possibly nuclear) terrorist attack. Inside the USA the constant fear-mongering of the legacy Ziomedia did induce the suitable hysterical panic, while in the rest of the world things were not going quite as well. Especially not in Europe (which was vitally needed as a fig-leaf to pretend like the GWOT was not a US-Israeli thingie, but that there was a large “coalition of the willing” formed of the best and brightest countries out there). Something else, bigger and better, was needed and, sure enough, it was found: a mass exodus of poorly educated immigrants, the vast majority of them from Muslim countries.

While the (totally fictional and therefore totally unsuccessful) GWOT was petering out, the AngloZionists directed their stare at Libya and its leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi had warned that unless Europe was willing to pay Libya to contain the many millions of African refugees, a major catastrophe would happen. He explained that “Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black, as there are millions who want to come in“, “we don’t know what will happen, what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans” and “we don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.

The AngloZionists heard his message loud and clear and proceeded to immediately (and illegally!) overthrow and brutally murder Gaddafi (it is still unclear how many Israelis were dancing the day Col. Gaddafi was murdered).  Almost exactly a decade after 9/11 the Zionists finally had their “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor,” but this time the victim was the entire European continent.

The defining event for Europe

The effect of what can only be called an “invasion” of immigrants was huge, to say the least.  Even before this latest invasion began, Europe had already suffered many negative consequences from previous waves of emigres (Romanians, Gypsies, Albanians, Tunisians, Moroccans, Algerians, sub-Saharan Africans, Turks, Tamils, Kurds, Latin-Americans (during the US-sponsored terror years in Latin America), etc.  and even before them there were the Spanish, Portuguese and Italians (who, at least, all superbly adapted to their new place of residence).  But that new wave was much bigger and much more dangerous than any previous one.  A huge, massive, immigration crisis resulted in most European countries.

Can you guess what the Europeans felt?  They felt that:

  • We are under attack and in grave, imminent, danger
  • Islam wants to destroy our way of life
  • Those who did Charlie Hebdo and all the other terrorist attacks in Europe also want to destroy Israel
  • We need to ask the Israelis to share their “expertise” in dealing with Islamic terrorism
  • Draconian laws and new police powers need to be passed to protect us from mass murder
  • If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists

Sounds familiar?

If it does, it is because it is.

In terms of methods and means, 9/11 and the invasion of Europe by hordes of immigrants could not be more different. But in terms of results, they achieved very similar outcomes.

Russians and Muslims, which do you fear most?

The election of Trump was something so totally unexpected by the AngloZionists (and for Trump himself too!) that it caught everybody completely off-guard. In their typically infinite arrogance, the Neocons were darn sure that Hillary would win and they would be left in total control of the USA, but the American people decided to show them a big, collective, middle finger and vote for the “unthinkable” and “impossible” candidate. And since the Neocons could hardly blame Trump’s victory on Bin Laden or al-Qaeda, they quickly came up with the “Russian interference” canard which had the added beneficial side-effect that it could justify spending even more money on war against a very real and powerful Russia than on war against a rather nebulous “al-Qaeda”. The fact that Russia has no reason to attack anybody, least of all the USA made no difference here. All that was needed to “prove” (under the “highly likely” “Skripal standard of evidence”) that the Russians are a terrible threat was to come up with the absolutely ridiculous Skripal false flags combined with a few imaginary chemical attacks by “animal Assad.” And, of course, when the USA suffered it’s latest military debacle in Syria, the Neocons could also blame it all on Russia. As they say, “one hand washes the other.” Initially, the Russian boogeyman looked even sexier than the Islamist one, but then with Putin and Russia steadfastly refusing to take any of the many baits tossed at them, the “Islamic” threat became sexier again. After all, Russians are (mostly) White and (mostly) Christian, so they are not that scary. But Muslims?! Ask a typical westerner what he knows about Islam and you will be treated to a long list of evils, some based in reality, others entirely imaginary. Besides, the Muslim world is so big and so diverse, that it is effortless to find horrible things about it, even real ones! The lie here is primarily one of omission. Specifically, two things are never said:

  1. That Takfirism is a minority strain of Islam and long before killing all the “infidels” and “Christians” the Takfiris first want to kill any and all Muslims (the vast majority) who dare to disagree with their interpretation of Islam.
  2. That all the Takfiri terrorist groups are federated, organized, financed, trained and even protected by the AngloZionist Empire (as seen many recent times in Syria when the US protected, transported, treated, resupplied, and even coordinated the various al-Qaeda franchises in Syria). That was also true for Chechnia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

This last point is so important that I will repeat it again: to the degree that there is an “Islamic threat” to the West, it is a “threat” fully and totally created and controlled by the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire. You want proof? There are many, but my favorite one is the passports which are found next to the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers or the passport left in the car right before the Charlie Hebdo attack. How nice it is of the “Islamic terrorists” to make darn sure that they are quickly and “convincingly” identified! There is also the “minor” fact that all those “Islamic terrorists” apparently have ties with western security services (heck, some even traveled to Israel!). As for the lifestyle of these “Islamic terrorists”, in each case they are anything but Islamic (which the legacy Ziomedia and various Zionist “experts” always explain as part of a “deceptive tactic” not to be noticed in spite of the fact that every one of those so-called “Islamic terrorist” was, of course, not only “noticed” but even actively “developed” by western security services!).

The 21 century hydra

The real nature of the threat faced by mankind is rather well illustrated by this image which I found somewhere on the Internet.   Not convinced?  Try this thought experiment.  For a few minutes, simply assume that Wahhabism=Imperialism=Zionism and then see if the world we live in makes sense to you.  Next, assume that Wahhabism is sui generis, that imperialism is something the pesky Russians are guilty of, and that Zionism is absolutely wonderful.  Now see if the world we live in makes sense to you.

Unless you are severely challenged, the correct model is rather obvious, I think.

Of course, like all slogans or conceptual shortcuts, Wahhabism=Imperialism=Zionism grossly simplifies a much more complex reality and takes a few intellectual “shortcuts”. But at its core, it is a crude but fundamentally correct interpretation of the world we live in. The only thing I would add to that list would be an “=terrorism” at the end.

So what about Russia in all this?

Russia is self-evidently the only country on the planet which can turn all of the USA into radioactive ashes in just a few hours. But there is much more to Putin’s Russia than just military power. For one thing, what Russia can do to the USA, the USA can do to Russia. So there is an ugly, but so far stable, balance of terror between the two countries. In economic terms, Russia’s economy (soon to be roughly about the size of Germany’s) is dwarfed by the vast Chinese economy and Russia is not, therefore, a credible economic competitor. Politically, things are a bit more complicated: Russia is popular with many nations worldwide, but a majority of governments will bow to the World Hegemon every time Uncle Shmuel slams his fist on the table, right? Well, not really. The case of the US aggression against Venezuela is compelling as the US failed to get any legitimate regional or global organizations to back the attempt at overthrowing the Venezuelan government. True, this is primarily due to the genuinely fantastic incompetence of the Neocons who in their crazed zeal found nobody better to pick than Elliott Abrams to lead the attack against Venezuela (does that stupid choice also remind you of the time when the Neocons suggested Henry Kissinger as the head of the 9/11 Commission? The Neocons really don’t realize how offensive and even ridiculous they appear in the eyes of the rest of mankind…). Still, it is rather clear that under the Presidency of Donald Trump the US influence and power in the world have declined truly dramatically – so much for making anything at all “great again”. Well, except Trump’s ego, of course, which was already huge even before the election). Now let’s add it all up.

In military terms, while Russia has a much superior conventional capability, in terms of nuclear forces the USA and Russia keep each other in check by both having the capability of vaporizing the other side even after riding out a first strike (hence the redundancy of nuclear weapons systems).  Here we have a draw.

In economic terms, the US economy dwarfs Russia’s.  Advantage USA.

In political terms, Trump ain’t too popular (or credible), but neither is Putin (although he, at least, is taken seriously).  Another draw, but with another advantage for the USA.

So what’s the big deal with Russia?  Surely, nobody in the White House seriously believes that the Russians hacked the DNC, that they stole the elections, that they poisoned Skripal or that they plan to invade the Baltics and Poland.  That kind of nonsense is just the vulgar “political prolefeed” for those who still pay attention to the legacy Ziomedia.

No, the real threat posed by Russia is a civilizational one.

Putin’s Russia as a civilizational threat

I need to clarify why I speak of “Putin’s Russia.” The reason for that choice of words is that modern Russia is not the Russia of the 1990s or even the Soviet Union. And neither is modern Russia the same Russia as before 1917. Next, I want to stress that Putin’s Russia is a project, a moving target, a partially realized potential – but not yet a stable, finished “product” (in the past I wrote about these issues, herehere and here).  Still, we can see a number of very interesting phenomena taking place in Russia.

First, the overwhelming majority of the Russian people reject the Western-style “democracy” and its so-called “values.” After almost two decades of gross violation of every single norm, the West pretended for centuries to stand for the credibility and reputation of itself as a source of moral or political inspiration, and now it has become roadkill. Mind you – the Russians very much want real people power, real “democracy” if you will, just not of the western model. They want their own, uniquely Russian democracy.

Second, Russia is openly and systematically denouncing the absolute hypocrisy of the AngloZionist Empire.  The historical speeches of Putin in Munich or at the UN come to mind.

Third, Russia is at least partially a Muslim country too! She does not have a Muslim majority, and Islamic customs and traditions are mostly kept only by a minority of Muslims (just like Christian traditions are held by a majority of nominally “Orthodox” Christians). The point here is this: for Russians, Muslims are not some type of “scary aliens” who will invade your village and destroy your way of life. Historically, Russia has had terrible relations (including 12 wars) with Turkey, and rather bumpy relations with other Muslim countries (I think of Iran here). But Russians have also lived in peace with their Muslim neighbors for centuries, and they are acutely aware of that. Which means that Russians have a much broader spectrum of experiences with Muslims and Islam, some good, some bad and some absolutely horrible. But what Russians know and which makes them so dramatically different from most people in the West is that peaceful cohabitation with traditional Islam is very much possible. It all depends on the specific type of Muslim you are dealing with.

Finally, while Christianity is still struggling in Russia, there is no doubt that most Russians prefer the traditional values found in Christianity to the kind of “everything goes” or, even more so, the “everything has its price” which forms the “spiritual” core of the West’s post-Christian materialistic society. This is why most Russians are clearly “gender-differentiated” – men look and act like men, women look and act like women, and the various LGBTTQQIAAP_________ (add more letters if you are so inclined, that will be more “inclusive”) are told to hold their “pride parades” elsewhere.

These are some (there are many more!) reasons why Russia should not be considered part of Europe, at least not in a civilizational sense of the word. Of course, Russia is partially European geographically, and most Russians look “White” (albeit that whiteness hides a huge genetic diversity). Some particularly ignorant observers believe that Russia is European because Russia is Christian. This completely overlooks the “minor” detail that Latin (and later Reformed) Christianity had lost all connections with the rest of the Christian world during much of the Middle-Ages while the Christian Roman civilization continued to exist far away from barbaric Europe, first in Byzantium and later in Russia and other Orthodox countries.

Besides, the modern West is not Christian at all, not Latin and not Reformed, it is post-Christian and, I would argue, anti-Christian. Thus, even if Russia was a paragon of traditional, Patristic, Christianity – this would in no way affect the dynamics in the West, neither with the various Christian denominations (which, by Patristic standards cannot even be called “Christian” any more) nor with the overwhelming majority of atheist/agnostic materialists who have lost even a vague sense of right/wrong or even true/false.

There are, of course, millions of Russians who lost their original Russian cultural and spiritual roots. A person like that is called a “вырусь” (vy-rooss) in Russian. Thankfully, many (most?) of them have emigrated (to the West, of course) and they are therefore not very influential nowadays.  But we often see their hostile comments under pro-Russian or pro-Putin articles.  Many of these folks made good careers in the 1990s and are angry at Putin for terminating that bonanza.  Others hate Putin because they were found useless and ditched as soon as the Eltsin gang lost power.

True, the Russian elites (as opposed to the common people) have been profoundly westernized for the last 300+ years. With Putin in power this has dramatically changed. There is still a powerful 5th column in Russia, but the keys to real power are held by Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignist supporters in the armed forces, the security services and, most importantly, in the general public. And so far, they are holding firm, and while there are regular ups and downs, all in all, Russia is doing amazingly well and is headed in the right direction. I would even argue that theirs is the only viable direction!

So why do the western elites hate (and fear) Russia so badly?  Let’s look into what kind of values the West truly stands for today.

21st-century western values are not your grandfather values for sure!

Here we need to come back to 9/11 and the invasion of Europe by an immense flow of refugees.  These are just two instances in which the people in the West felt directly attacked and whether 9/11 was a false flag or not, or whether the Empire triggered the refugee crisis by militarily attacking the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (that was the official name of Libya) is irrelevant.

What matters is that the people in the West felt attacked by a vicious and most dangerous enemy: Islam.

There were other, no less significant “attacks” on the very core of Western identity. For example, I don’t believe that the term “cultural Marxism” makes any sense *at all*, but it does describe a real phenomenon. Ditto for the profusion of pushy and even aggressive “minorities” of all kinds who demanded not only equal rights but even special privileges. In the legacy Ziomedia, we saw an apparently never-ending hunting season against Whites, against men, against heterosexuals, against Anglos, and against Christians. Needless to say, the attack on White Anglo-Saxon Christian heterosexual males was (and still is) relentless. A majority of people in the West were told that they are guilty of this or that historical injustice or crime, that their traditions and beliefs were evil and that they out to be ashamed of their identity on all levels. Of course, there have been many horrible and outright disgusting chapters in the history of the western civilization, but unless you believe in collective and/or inherited guilt, that hardly justifies the kind of hatred and contempt which the (pseudo-) “liberal” elites constantly express against anything traditional.

If the election of Trump was a huge slap in the face of the Neocons, the reaction of the Neocons to this event was a massive slap in the face of the American people. What began with Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” soon turned into a long list of ridiculous accusations (including, my personal favorites: Ron Paul is a “Putin’s best friend,” Rand Paul a “Russian stooge” and Tulsi Gabbard a “Putin puppet“).

Frankly, this kind of constant bashing of everything traditional is nothing else but a type of mental rape of the western cultural identity. A reaction to this kind of onslaught was inevitable.  The only question was which form it would take.

Understanding National Zionism – a primer

It took the form of what the French philosopher Alain Soral called “National Zionism.” Here is how Soral explains this ideology:

There is a huge surge of what is called national-Zionism, that is, to bring nationalists to Zionism. For me, this is a fundamental contradiction in this amalgam of Muslims equal to Daesh, basically in France in Muslim equal to scum equal to Daesh equal to Palestinians and therefore the good Frenchman if he wants to get out of the shit in which these people have put him, must support Israel and not take offense and accept the disproportionate power that the Jewish community embodied by the CRIF has over France and that is the supreme scam.  This is politically unacceptable, morally unacceptable, strategically stupid. This is what I call national-Zionism and this is the fundamental struggle today. We must refuse this scam, refuse the nationalism in Kippa. And that’s not for that, all of a sudden, we would become pro-Muslim to come back to your question.

We must treat the issue of the world seriously, that is to say that immigration is very, very problematic today and the Muslim issue is a follow-up to the immigration issue. (…)  They do absolutely nothing against immigration. This is a certainty, so if we want to be against the Islamization of France, we must take the problem at the right end, that is, resolve the migration issue. To resolve the migration issue, we must regain political power over those who have the power and who have brought us to this point today and who have fought with all their strength, with all their strength, against our borders, against identity.

I would remind you that the last cover of Elisabeth Lévy’s magazine, Causeur, the title, is “anti-French ideology” which would also be favourable to Islam or Muslims. I would remind you that this is the opposite of the title of Bernard Henri Lévy’s book. So we have a Lévy that responds to a Lévy whose book was “The French ideology” which was at the time to say that French was intrinsically fascist and anti-Semitic.

So in 20 years, we have gone from the problem being Catholic French, French and today, no, finally the problem is Muslim immigrants. But those who declared war on the native French in the 70s and 80s are the same today who tell us, let us be friends to fire those who were put in your face and educated against you. Because that’s what national-Zionism is all about, making friends with the people who are the cause of all our problems and who for 2500 years have been systematic and fierce anti-nationalists except for their own nation called Israel. So that’s clear.

Another French author, Youssef Hindi, explained the role of the USA in this new ideological paradigm:

We see the return of the idea of “nation.” The EU is in a state of crisis. A part of the American Establishment, particularly Donald Trump, is trying to implement the implosion of the European Union. We are witnessing a resurgence of nationalism: like in the USA, Russia, GB and also in Italy. It is falling apart on all sides. Thus, the strategy is as follows: to always stay a step ahead, assert control over this new European patriotism and nationalism. Therefore, from the Right Jews elites’ perspective, it is absolutely essential to retain control over this European patriotism and nationalism by amalgamating it with the state of Israel.

I never believed that the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire were very intelligent, that is a Hollywood myth, but they indeed are clever, and when they realized that a nationalistic blowback was inevitable, they decided to simply take control of it. This is the brilliant simplicity of the logic of National Zionism. It goes something like this:

I, we, my family and my country are all under attack by rabid religious fanatics who will never cease until they kill all those who don’t agree with them and destroy our way of life. In this struggle for our very survival, we need to turn to those who fought that enemy for decades and who have developed the most sophisticated anti-terrorist methods and means: the Israelis. Furthermore, Israel is like a small island of European democracy in an ocean of violent and chaotic brutality. Heck, Israel is part of Europe, really, it even participates in the Eurovision! Unlike us, the Israelis are proud, and they don’t hesitate to defend their culture, religion, and values, why don’t we do the same? They even have the right to bear arms! Jews are White, like us, and we share a common Judeo-Christian heritage which places a duty upon us all to support Israel, especially against the Iranian Mollahs who have publicly sworn to kill all Jews and wipe Israel off the map. Last but not least, Islam is a threat to our civilization and Muslim immigrants must be either re-educated to fit into our society or sent back home. Those who disagree with any of the above are either anti-Semites, Putin agents, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, terrorist sympathizers or terrorists themselves.

Let’s take a few well-known US public figures associated with conservatism or the Alt-Right: Alex Jones, Paul James Watson, Jordan Peterson, Steve Bannon or even Donald Trump himself. Have you ever heard these “defenders” of western tradition or “Christian values” have anything critical to say about Israel, Israeli policies or Zionism? The exact same phenomenon can be observed in France where putatively “conservative,” and “patriotic” folks such as Eric Zemmour or Marine LePen are using the frustration of the French people with the regime in power to channel that frustration into a hatred of Islam and everything Muslim. These folks are also the promoters of what has become known as “Christian Zionism” which worships everything Jewish and/or Israeli and which believes that Christians and Jews have “almost” the same religion. Let’s take Steve Bannon as an example.

This is the face of the new “conservative West”…

Here is an article entitled “Steve Bannon drafting curriculum for right-wing Catholic institute in Italy” which sure makes Bannon look like some kind of very conservative and traditionalist Christian.  The same article also mentions Cardinal Raymond Burke, as “a leading Vatican conservative”. According to Cardinal Burke, this institute’s missions is “to promote a number of projects that should make a decisive contribution to the defense of what used to be called Christendom”.  This “right-wing Catholic institute” is run by a Christian Zionist, Benjamin Harnwell who declared that the younger generation across the Western world was on a “long slide” into darkness. His Institute is working to resist by “trying to prop up one of the major pillars of Western civilization – what used to be called ‘Christendom’ – and that’s the recognition that man is made in the image and likeness of God.” So far, this also looks very nice. The problem is that Bannon, Burke, and Harnwell have all sold out to Israeli interests and the ideology which they are promoting is not traditional Christianity at all, but this nonsensical and amorphous idea of “Judeo-Christianity.” This is why the Latin website “Media Catholiques Infos” correctly concludes by saying “Such a high place of Christianity deserves better than to serve as a springboard for National Zionism under the guise of an “academy for the defense of the Judaeo-Christian West.”

The sad truth is that these pretend-traditionalists have all been co-opted by the Israel lobby and that they are being used to brainwash the folks in the West to see Islam as a foe when, in reality, the real foe of the West is Zionism as Zionism is the force which is responsible for both 9/11 and the massive flow of immigrants into Europe. As for the Papacy, it has been in bed with Talmudic and Kabbalistic rabbis for many centuries (just read Michael Hoffman’s superb book, the 700 pages long “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”) and not just since Vatican II (as some Latins naively believe!).  It is therefore not surprising that Bannon says about “Catholic” universities that they are “the foundational institutions of the Judeo-Christian West.”

Marine le Pen tells the Israeli media that the National Front is like a “shield” protecting French Jews

France does not have the equivalent of a Steve Bannon.  But it does have a functional equivalent in the person of Renaud Camus whose very politically-correct biography you can read on Wikipedia.  Even a cursory read-through that entry will immediately reveal the profoundly Zionist worldview of Camus which can be further established, if needed, by reading about Camus’ “Great Replacement” theory; you might also want to compare this to the “Eurabia” theory of the Israeli author Bat Ye’or (aka Gisele Littman).

All this paranoid and racist nonsense can be summed up in a short sentence: led by Zionists the White Christian West will rise again!

If it weren’t so ugly and tragic, it would actually be funny (especially to see the Latins and the Talmudists in bed with each other after centuries of mutual hatred). But in reality, there is nothing funny about the colonization of the western minds by the Zionist parasite. It might even end up with a nuclear war.

The US Alt-Right and the French National Front as the useful idiots of AIPAC and CRIF

I am personally convinced that the entire Alt-Right movement has been created by the US deep state and that it is still run by it. The purpose of the Alt-Right and the National Front is to offer a nationalistic and pseudo-Christian alternative to any kind of real traditionalism or any kind of real Christianity. On the rank and file level you will find a lot of anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist and even anti-Jewish sentiments amongst Alt-Righters and National Fronters, but on the leadership level, it is wall to wall Zionist. To get a feel for this Zionist (pseudo-)patriotism just take a look at these propaganda images:

 A sample of Zio-patriotic propaganda

By taking control of the key nationalist movements in the West the Zionists have given themselves a “dream opposition”: that is an opposition which they fully control; which they can poke a little from time to time when there is the need for some kind of anti-Semitic incident; but which they can also mobilize against anybody daring to oppose Israel or Zionism.

In this context Russia becomes the ultimate threat for very good reasons:

First, Russia is completely rejecting the unipolar world model and, together with China, Russia wants a multi-polar world in which relations between states are ruled by international law.

Second, Russia cannot be militarily threatened and neither can China, by the way.  The RAND Corporation finally admitted that much.

Third, thanks to the various sanctions against Russia, Russia is gradually withdrawing from the AngloZionist controlled markets. You could say that the main effect of all the sanctions has been to make Russia stronger, more independent and closer to the goal of full sovereignty.

Fourth, Russia is not only openly rejecting the AngloZionist civilizational model, but she also denounces its absolute hypocrisy. In particular, the Russian people are rejecting the West’s materialism, in particular in its turbo-capitalist variant. While not officially endorsing socialism as such, Russia does declare herself a “social state.”

Fifth, Russia is taking the polar opposite approach to Islam, to what we see in the West.  Unlike the Empire, Russia is serious about killing as many Takfiris as possible no matter where they are.  But, unlike the Empire again, Russia sees traditional Islam as a vital ally against the Takfiri rot and Russians don’t think of Muslims as “aliens” at all.

Last but not least, Putin’s Russia has made patriotism (i.e., love for one’s country) a central element of the social and political culture while categorically rejecting any form of nationalism or, even more so, racism. “White Pride” is about as popular in Russia as “Gay Pride” would be.

You could say that the gradually emerging new Russian ideology is the polar opposite of National Zionism.  No wonder the Neocons hate Russia so much!

The French Yellow Vests got it right: National Zionism is anti-Russian!

Conclusion: National Zionism is a gigantic fraud

There is no other way of putting this: National Zionism is a gigantic fraud.  It is also the rising political ideology of the West, and that presents a major risk for our entire planet. I often hear naive folks saying “what is your problem with Zionism?!  all it wants is a safe homeland for Jews too!  What is wrong with that?!“.

I addressed this issue in some detail here, so I will simply say here that Zionism, whether of the national or the anti-national type, separates mankind into two qualitatively different categories: Jews and non-Jews (ironically, it shares this fundamental belief with National-Socialism. It’s just that the hierarchical scale is reversed, that’s all).  Next, it assumes that all non-Jews are at the very least potential “anti-Semites” and thus Jews need to do two things to remain safe. First, create a Jewish homeland and, second, secure enough Jewish power in literally all the countries on the planet to be ready should the goyim (literally “nations” but in the Talmudic context it carries exactly the same meaning as the German Untermensch: subhuman) come down with unpredictable (by definition) and unexplainable (by definition) cases of “anti-Semitism”.  In contrast, Jewish lives and, especially, Jewish blood acquire a profound soteriological meaning: Jewish life is infinitely precious because 1) Jews will “repair” the world (tikkun olam) and 2) because the Moshiach will be born from a Jew and become a world leader accepted by all nations. A (somewhat secularized) variation of this philosophy is that all Jews form a “collective Moshiach” and that all the “nations” will accept their power and rule with gratitude as this will usher the final and everlasting era of milk and honey. Finally, Talmudic/Pharisaic “Judaism” teaches that Jews “represent” mankind before God and God before mankind (yeah, modesty if not their forte). Next time you hear some Israeli politician going bonkers about spilled “Jewish blood” just remember this info, and it will all make sense. Ditto for when some other (or even the same) Israeli politician demands some gruesome revenge, terrible retribution or promises to kill some huge number of enemies. This kind of “Purim talk” only makes sense once you realize how deep and fundamental Talmudic/Zionist racism really is.

So what constitutes “enough power”? Simple: once the people of a country lose control of their government and the sovereignty of their country is gone, then the Zionists will feel they are safe. This theory is 1) racist 2) paranoid 3) sociopathic and, frankly, just plain silly. But this is what the Talmudic worldview produces in a secularized society. A critical assumption of this worldview is that any form of nationalism or even patriotism is dangerous (by definition) unless it is Jewish or Israeli, at which point it is laudable and benevolent (again, by definition). Thus, besides being many other things, Zionism is also a theory of power based on a zero-sum game. Of course “zero-sum” might sound benign until you remember that it implies a total struggle to the end, a total, absolute defeat of the other, a destruction of all your enemies. Not something helpful in a multi-polar world with lots of nuclear weapons.

National Zionism is a fraud and an extremely toxic and dangerous one. Any supposed patriot or nationalist who fails to recognize that, is at best poorly informed and, at worst, a useful idiot for the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire.

The Yellow Vests in France got it. Occupy Wall Street, or the Tea Party did not. I suspect that many Trump voters also got it, but they were betrayed by Mr. MAGA. Will Rand and/or Ron Paul recognize this danger? What about Tulsi Gabbard? Frankly, I don’t know. But if they don’t, other Americans eventually and inevitably will.

We might even see a US version of Yellow Vests one day, who knows?

The Saker

PS: for the latest National-Zionist induced stupidity, see here: https://www.rt.com/news/454428-us-israel-golan-recognize/

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine

FEDERICO PIERACCINI | 07.03.2019 | WORLD / AMERICAS

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine

The previous articles (firstsecond) examined what appears to be a coordinated strategy between Moscow and Beijing to contain the damage wrought by the United States around the world. This strategy’s effectiveness relies heavily on the geographical position of the two countries vis-a-vis the United States and the area of contention. We have seen how the Sino-Russian strategy has been effective in Asia and the Middle-East, greatly stemming American disorder. Moscow and Beijing have less capacity to contain the US and influence events in Europe, given that much depends on the Europeans themselves, who are officially Washington’s allies but are in reality treated as colonies. With the new “America First” doctrine, it is the central and southern parts of the American continent that are on the receiving end of the US struggling to come to terms with the diminishment of its hitherto untrammelled influence in the world.

South and Central American countries blossomed under the reign of socialist or leftist anti-imperialist governments for the first decade of this century. Such terms as “21st-century socialism” were coined, as was documented in the 2010 Oliver Stone documentary film South of the Border. The list of countries with leftist governments was impressive: Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Lula da Silva (Brazil), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Argentina), Fidel Castro (Cuba), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua) and Hugo Chávez (Venezuela).

We can establish a close correlation between Washington’s actions since 1989 and the political roller-coaster experienced in South America in the ensuing thirty years.

Washington, drunk on the experience of being the only superpower in the post-Soviet period, sought to lock in her commanding position through the establishment of full-spectrum dominance, a strategy that entails being able to deal with any event in any area of ​​the globe, treating the world as Washington’s oyster.

Washington’s endeavor to shape the world in her own image and likeness meant in practical terms the military apparatus increasing its power projection through carrier battle groups and a global missile defense, advancing towards the land and sea borders of Russia and China.

Taking advantage of the US dollar’s dominance in the economic, financial and commercial arenas, Washington cast aside the principles of the free market, leaving other countries to contend with an unfair playing field.

As later revealed by Edward Snowden, Washington exploited her technological dominance to establish a pervasive surveillance system. Guided by the principle of American exceptionalism, combined with a desire to “export democracy”, “human rights” became an enabling justification to intervene in and bomb dozens of countries over three decades, aided and abetted by a compliant and controlled media dominated by the intelligence and military apparatuses.

Central and South America enjoyed an unprecedented political space in the early 2000s as a result of Washington focusing on Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Georgia and Ukraine. The Latin Americans exploited this breathing space, with a dozen countries becoming outposts of anti-imperialism within a decade, advancing a strong socialist vision in opposition to free-market fundamentalism.

Both Washington and Moscow placed central importance on South America during the Cold War, which was part of the asymmetric and hybrid war that the two superpowers undertook against each other. The determination by the United States to deny the Soviet Union a presence in the American hemisphere had the world holding its collective breath during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As any student of international relations knows, the first objective of a regional power is to prevent the emergence of another hegemon in any other part of the world. The reason behind this is to obviate the possibility that the new power may venture into other regions occupied by other hegemonic powers, thereby upsetting the status quo. The second primary objective is to prevent access by a foreign power to its own hemisphere. Washington abides by this principle through its Monroe Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe, with the United States duly expelling the last European powers from the Americas in the early 19th century.

In analyzing the events in South America, one cannot ignore an obvious trend by Washington. While the United States was intent on expanding its empire around the world by consolidating more than 800 military bases in dozens of countries (numbering about 70), South America was experiencing a political rebirth, positioning itself at the opposite end of the spectrum from Washington, favoring socialism over capitalism and reclaiming the ancient anti-imperialist ideals of Simon Bolivar, a South American hero of the late 18th century.

Washington remained uncaring and indifferent to the political changes of South America, focusing instead on dominating the Middle East through bombs and wars. In Asia, the Chinese economy grew at an impressive rate, becoming the factory of the world. The Russian Federation, from the election of Putin in 2000, gradually returned to being a military power that commanded respect. And with the rise of Iran, destined to be the new regional power in the Middle East thanks to the unsuccessful US intervention in Iraq in 2003, Washington began to dig her own grave without even realizing it.

Meanwhile, South America united under the idea of a common market and a socialist ideology. The Mercosur organization was founded in 1991 by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. But it was only when Venezuela, led by Chavez, became an associate member in 2004 that the organization assumed a very specific political tone, standing almost in direct opposition to Washington’s free-market template.

Meanwhile, China and Russia continued their political, military and economic growth, focusing with particular attention on South America and the vast possibilities of economic integration from 2010. Frequent meetings were held between Russia and China and various South American leaders, culminating in the creation of the BRICS organization (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Brazil, first with Lula and then with Dilma Rousseff, was the unofficial spokesperson for the whole of South America, aligning the continent with the emerging Eurasian powers. It is during these years, from the birth of the BRICS organization (2008/2009), that the world began a profound transformation flowing from Washington’s progressive military decline, consumed as it was by endless wars that ended up eroding Washington’s status as a world power. These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have deeply undermined US military prestige, opening unprecedented opportunities for alliances and future changes to the global order, especially with the rise of Iran’s influence in the region as a counterweight to US imperialism.

China, Russia and the South American continent were certainly among the first to understand the potential of this political and historical period; we can recall meetings between Putin and Chavez, or the presence of Chinese leaders at numerous events in South America. Beijing has always offered high-level economic assistance through important trade agreements, while Moscow has sold a lot of advanced military hardware to Venezuela and other South American countries.

Economic and military assistance are the real bargaining chips Moscow and Beijing offer to countries willing to transition to the multipolar revolution while having their backs covered at the same time.

The transformation of the world order from a unipolar to a multipolar system became a fact in 2014 with the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation following the NATO coup in Ukraine. The inability for the US to prevent this fundamental strategic defeat for Brussels and Washington marked the beginning of the end for the Pentagon still clinging on to a world order that disappeared in 1991.

As the multipolar mutation developed, Washington changed tactics, with Obama offering a different war strategy to the one advanced during the George W. Bush presidency. Projecting power around the globe with bombs, carrier battle groups and boots on the ground was no longer viable, with domestic populations being in no mood for any further major wars.

The use of soft power has always been part of the US toolkit for influencing events in other countries; but given the windfall of the unipolar moment, soft power was set aside in favor of hard power. However, following the failures of explicit hard power from 1990 to 2010, soft power was back in favor, and organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) set about training and financing organizations in dozens of hostile countries to subvert governments by underhanded means (colour revolutions, the Arab Spring, etc.).

Among those on the receiving end of this soft-power onslaught were the South American countries deemed hostile to Washington, already under capitalist-imperialist pressure for a number of years in the form of sanctions.

It is during this time that South America suffered a side effect of the new multipolar world order. The United States started retreating home after losing influence around the globe. This effectively meant focusing once again on its own backyard: Central and South America.

Covert efforts to subvert governments with socialist ideas in the hemisphere increased. First, Kirchner’s Argentina saw the country pass into the hands of the neoliberal Macri, a friend of Washington. Then Dilma Rousseff was expelled as President of Brazil through the unlawful maneuvers of her own parliament, following which Lula was imprisoned, allowing for Bolsonaro, a fan of Washington, to win the presidential election.

In Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, the successor of Correa, betrayed his party and his people by being a cheerleader for the Pentagon, even protesting the asylum granted to Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London. In Venezuela following Chavez’s suspicious death, Maduro was immediately targeted by the US establishment as the most prominent representative of an anti-imperialist and anti-American Chavismo. The increase in sanctions and the seizure of assets further worsened the situation in Venezuela, leading to the disaster we are seeing today.

South America finds itself in a peculiar position as a result of the world becoming more multipolar. The rest of the world now has more room to maneuver and greater independence from Washington as a result of the military and economic umbrella offered by Moscow and Beijing respectively.

But for geographic and logistical reasons, it is more difficult for China and Russia to extend the same guarantees and protections to South America as they do in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. We can nevertheless see how Beijing offers an indispensable lifeline to Caracas and other South American countries like Nicaragua and Haiti in order to enable them to withstand Washington’s immense economic pressure.

Beijing’s strategy aims to limit the damage Washington can inflict on the South American continent through Beijing’s economic power, without forgetting the numerous Chinese interests in the region, above all the new canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific that runs through Nicaragua (it is no coincidence that the country bears the banner of anti-imperialist socialism) that will be integrated into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Moscow’s objective is more limited but just as refined and dangerous to Washington’s hegemony. A glimpse of Moscow’s asymmetrical military power was given when two Russian strategic bombers flew to Venezuela less than four months ago, sending an unmistakable signal to Washington. Moscow has the allies and the technical and military capacity to create an air base with nuclear bombers not all that far away from the coast of Florida.

Moscow and Beijing do not intend to allow Washington to mount an eventual armed intervention in Venezuela, which would open the gates of hell for the continent. Moscow and Beijing have few interlocutors left on the continent because of the political positions of several countries like Argentina, Brazil and Colombia, which far prefer an alliance with Washington over one with Moscow or Beijing. We can here see the tendency of the Trump administration to successfully combine its “America First” policy with the economic and military enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, simultaneously pleasing his base and the hawks in his administration.

Leaving aside a possible strategy (Trump tends to improvise), it seems that Trump’s domestic political battle against the Democrats, declared lovers of socialism (naturally not as strident as the original Soviet or Chavist kind), has combined with a foreign-policy battle against South American countries that have embraced socialism.

The contribution from China and Russia to the survival of the South American continent is limited in comparison to what they have been able to do in countries like Syria, not to mention the deterrence created by Russia in Ukraine in defending the Donbass or with China vis-a-vis North Korea.

The multipolar revolution that is changing the world in which we live in will determine the rest of the century. One of the final battles is being played out in South America, in Venezuela, and its people and the Chavist revolution are at the center of the geopolitical chessboard, as is Syria in the Middle East, Donbass in Central Europe, Iran in the Persian Gulf, and the DPRK in Asia. These countries are at the center of the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world order, and the success of this shift will be seen if these countries are able to resist US imperialism as a result of Moscow and Beijing respectively offering military help and deterrence and economic survival and alternatives.

Russia and China have all the necessary means to place limits on the United States, protecting the world from a possible thermonuclear war and progressively offering an economic, social and diplomatic umbrella to those countries that want to move away from Washington and enjoy the benefits of living in a multipolar reality, advancing their interests based on their needs and desires and favoring sovereignty and national interest over bending over to please Washington.

%d bloggers like this: