India’s Ambassador To Russia Lied About Rejecting International Mediation

By Andrew Korybko
Source

The Chinese Foreign Ministry, the Emirati Ambassador To India, and several unnamed US diplomatic sources all released statements around the same time disproving the Indian Ambassador to Russia’s previous on-the-record statement that “no country has offered to mediate between India and Pakistan” and that his government “will not accept” any such offer even if it was made, making one wonder whether New Delhi’s highest-ranking diplomat in Moscow lied as shamelessly as he did in a desperate attempt to “save face” for shockingly shooting down Russia’s mediation interest despite secretly accepting other countries’ diplomatic assistance in this respect instead.

America Cracks The Whip

The Indian Ambassador to Russia was just caught red-handed shamelessly lying to his host country after he went on record a few days after Foreign Minister Lavrov expressed his interest in having Russia mediate between India and Pakistan to shockingly shoot down the peacemaking proposal by what his government misleadingly portrays as its closest international partner, saying in no uncertain terms that “no country has offered to mediate between India and Pakistan” and that his government “will not accept” any such offer even if it was made. It’s now been revealed that Ambassador D. Bala Venkatesh Varma wasn’t telling the truth after Reuters released a report this weekend citing several unnamed US diplomatic sources who alleged that Washington intervened to crack the whip and get its new military-strategic ally to back down from its threat to launch missiles against Pakistan and escalate the unprovoked crisis with its neighbor to the dangerous level of risking a nuclear war.

India’s Secret Diplomacy Deliberately Snubbed Russia

Evidently, it seems that while the US probably greenlit India’s dramatic but ultimately fake “surgical strike” stunt against Pakistan in a bid to improve Modi’s reelection prospects and send negative fake news signals about the viability of CPEC, it didn’t approve of New Delhi responding to the epic humiliation of the Pakistan Air Force shooting down one of its counterpart’s “vintage” (but possibly upgraded) Russian jets by irresponsibly taking tensions to the next level, suggesting that Modi might have “gone rogue” from even his American handlers and seriously considered starting World War III for a brief moment. Before National Security Advisor Bolton’s reported intervention, it’s now known from the Emirati Ambassador to India that Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed “had a telephonic conversation with Prime Minister Modi and the Pakistani PM Imran Khan” “on the day of the huge escalation”, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry officially said that it “pro-actively promoted peace talks” between the two nuclear-armed rivals.

All of this proves beyond any credible doubt that the Indian Ambassador to Russia was lying when he said in early March a day after Wing Commander Abhinandan’s release and the consequent de-escalation of the crisis that “no country has offered to mediate between India and Pakistan” and that his government “will not accept” any such offer even if it was made despite it now being known that New Delhi had secretly accepted other countries’ diplomatic assistance in this respect instead, even including its chief geopolitical rival China’s though stunningly not its “bhai” (“brother”) Russia’s. This suggests an attempt on the part of India’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) to deliberately snub Russia after Lavrov unintentionally “offended” them by challenging the ruling BJP’s self-assumed supremacist stance against Pakistan by treating the two countries as international equals by expressing an interest to mediate between them. Curiously, New Delhi seemingly didn’t care that others did this too and only singled out Russia.

Bhadrakumar’s Insight Into The Indian “Deep State”

The reason why it was “unforgivably offensive” for Russia to hold this implied position as opposed to any other country doing the same is because India assumed that it could “buy off” Russia’s support through multibillion-dollar arms deals and therefore get it to sacrifice its geostrategic interests in the global pivot state of Pakistan as a result. This isn’t just the author’s own interpretation but it also reflects the one that career diplomat, Indian “deep state” insider (especially regarding the attitude of his government’s multipolar-leaning faction towards Russia), and well-known columnist on international affairs Mr. M.K. Bhadrakumarrecently wrote in his article for The Tribune about “The big let-down”. This highly respected expert has an extensive track record of Russian-friendly analyses but suddenly switched his tune in the aftermath of “The Latest Kashmir Crisis Proving That India, Not Pakistan, Is The Real Rogue State” by lashing out against the Russian people for what he disrespectfully described as their “notorious avarice”:

“What comes as a total surprise is in regard of the Russian attitude. Moscow’s mediation offer is not the point here, but its demonstrative attempt to be ‘neutral’. The mega multi-billion dollar arms deals that the Modi government presented to Russian vendors, defying the threat of US sanctions, have apparently not placated the Kremlin. Curiously, the Kremlin-funded news channel RT featured a half-hour interview only last week with former Pakistani foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar fulminating against Modi, Indian media and politics, and Hindutva meta-nationalism. Why are Russians so mighty upset? It must have something to do with money. Is it about Essar Steel not going to the Russian bidder? Or, about Saudi Aramco likely trumping Gazprom in the race for the highly lucrative Indian retail energy market? Or, about some pending arms deal? No matter the notorious Russian avarice, Moscow’s choice to ‘balance’ between India and Pakistan when Delhi needed its support most is the unkindest cut of all.”

Mr. Bhadrakumar’s ad hominem attack against the same people with whom he spent a large portion of his entire career building bridges was apparently triggered by his “total surprise in regard” to “[Russia’s] demonstrative attempt to be ‘neutral’” in spite of “the mega multi-billion dollar arms deals that the Modi government presented to Russian vendors”, which actually shouldn’t have been unexpected at all for a man who served in Russia for slightly less than half as many years as I am old had he been following the many articles that I’ve written about this topic and which I compiled in my recent piece about how “Russia Officially Returns To South Asia By Offering To Host Indo-Pak Peace Talks” that was released a full half-month before his “big let-down” article. It’s not that Mr. Bhadrakumar isn’t aware of my work either since he wrongly speculated about the intention of one of my older pieces, which I clarified last year.

“The Unkindest Cut Of All”

Mr. Oleg Barabanov – a programme director at the Valdai Club (Russia’s most prestigious think tank), a professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO, which is run by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), and a professor at the Russian Academy of Sciences – raised a very relevant point earlier this month in his recent analysis about “Russia and the Search for Balance Between India and Pakistan” when he wrote that “Sometimes the Indian expert community expresses mistrust of Russia because of what they consider the excessively close Russia-China partnership, as a result of which Russia is losing its independent political image in India. Obviously, viewing Russia exclusively through the prism of Indo-Chinese divergences does not promote trust. Thus, US policy in the region (and probably the potential Indo-US link) serves as an additional external impetus for Russia-Pakistan dialogue.” As Mr. Bhadrakumar’s words prove, Mr. Barabanov was entirely right, but even more so than he could have imagined.

Bearing in mind the Valdai Club expert’s piercing insight into one of the many recent US-encouraged problems plaguing Russian-Indian relations and recalling how “Russia Regards The ‘Indo-Pacific Region’ As An ‘Artificially Imposed’ Pro-US Concept” to “contain” China, “the unkindest cut of all” (to channel Mr.Bhadrakumar) is that the Indian Ambassador to Russia shamelessly lied to his host country about the apparent absence of any previous mediation proposals when shooting own Moscow’s own informal one despite having already secretly relied upon the diplomatic services of the US, the UAE, and even India’s chief geopolitical rival China. There couldn’t be any stronger signal from India to Russia that their Soviet-era “brotherhood” is over and that their strategic partnership is now purely transactional after losing the “romantic allure” that it once held for decades in the minds of both of their “deep states” (contrary to whatever “feel-good” rhetoric they might each espouse during this “sensitive” time).

Concluding Thoughts

There’s no doubt that India will continue to be one of Russia’s priority partners for the indefinite future by virtue of its enormous market size and the billions of dollars’ worth of military deals that they agreed to in the past six months alone, but the mutual trust that they enjoyed during the Old Cold War days of “Rusi-Hindi Bhai Bhai” (“Russians and Indians are brothers”) is forever lost after New Delhi succumbed to the pressure of its new American patron by deliberating snubbing Russia from the international mediation process with Pakistan. Even worse, the Indian Ambassador to Russia flat-out lied about the secret diplomatic assistance that his country received from others in this respect, with it later being revealed that even India’s chief geopolitical rival China played a role in the same process that New Delhi denied its “bhai” Moscow a chance to participate in. In response, Russia is expected to “recalibrate” its regional “balancing” strategy in the direction of its newfound Pakistani strategic partner.

Advertisements

سورية تواجه الترك وعينها على الأميركيين في الشرق

مارس 15, 2019

د. وفيق إبراهيم

تعرف الدولة السورية أنها قضت نهائياً على المشروع الإرهابي الذي حاول انشاء خلافة متطرفة على أراضيها في السنين الست الفائتة.

وتعرف أكثر أنها تنتقل الآن من مرحلة قتال الإرهاب الإسلاموي إلى محاربة القوى الخارجية التي تغطيه، وتواصل احتلال أراضِ سورية.

من أهم هذه القوى، الأتراك الذين يطرحون أسباباً ملفقة لمواصلة نشر قواتهم في مناطق سورية من الحدود مروراً بعفرين وإدلب إلى جانب هيمنة التنظيمات الإرهابية الموالية لها على امتدادات واسعة.

هناك أيضاً الأميركيون المدركون أن المشروع الكبير بإسقاط الدولة السورية ولىّ إلى غير رجعة.. حتى وجدوا أن تغطيتهم لهذا الإرهاب أصبحت عائقاً يحول دون استمرار دورهم، فالإرهاب خسر وخسروا معه.

وما شجّعهم على إسناد مهمة القضاء على بقايا الإرهاب في الفرات إلى قوات«قسد» الكردية المعززة بقوات أميركية ـ أوروبية، وغارات جوية متواصلة.. حتى بدا أن الهدف الأميركي أكبر من مجرد إنهاء الإرهاب بات محاصراً ومن غير اسناد أو تغطية..

ماذا يريد الترك وتمسكهم بالشمال السوري والشمال الغربي؟ وما هي الأهداف الأميركية في شرق الفرات؟ وكيف تتعامل سورية وحلفاؤها مع هذا الجزء الأخير من الأزمة السورية؟

للأتراك صلتان استراتيجيتان يحاولون استغلالها لتمتين دورهم في سورية. الأولى هي علاقتهم التاريخية بالأميركيين وحلفهم الأطلسي المنتسبين إليه.. والثانية عضويتهم إلى جانب إيران وروسيا في مؤتمر آستانا وسوتشي.. الذي يقدم نفسه آلية لتنظيم تدريجي للحل السياسي في سورية.

هناك سبب ثالث لا يقل استراتيجية، فتركيا تمتلك حدوداً واسعة مع سورية بطول لا يقل عن الألف كيلومتر ولديها مواطنون سوريون من أصول تركمانية، إلى جانب سيطرتها على«الاخوان المسلمين» السوريين الذين يشكلون مع حزب العدالة والتنمية التركي جزءاً من فدرالية الاخوان المسلمين في العالم… الأمر الذي يمنح تركيا تأثيراً شبه دائم في الأزمة السورية.. إلا أنّ المشروع الكردي في الشرق يؤرقها بشكل فعلي لاتصاله الجغرافي بنحو 15 مليون كردي تركي لديها.

بالإضافة إلى أن روسيا لا تقبل باحتلالهم أراضي سورية حتى ولو كان هدفها هو الاستفادة الحصرية من تصاعد الخلاف الأميركي ـ التركي حول المشروع الكردي المغطى أميركياً لتقريب انقرة من موسكو بمعدل أكبر.

ويحاول أردوغان إرجاء تحرير الدولة السورية لإدلب بأبداء تخوف بلاده على مصير مليوني مدني مقيمين في إدلب وفي ضواحيها ولتعقيد أكبر لهذه المشكلة يطلق اردوغان تساؤلات أن بلاده لا تعرف إلى أين يتشرّد أهل إدلب إذا هاجمهم الجيش السوري؟ مبدياً قلقه من انتقالهم إلى اوروبا!!

أما الأهداف التركية فأصبحت جلية ولا تبتعد عن السيطرة على منطقة على طول الحدود السورية قد تصل مساحتها إلى 11 ألف كيلومتر مربع من الأراضي السورية، وتريد على المستوى السياسي اشتراك المعارضات الموالية لها من الاخوان والتركمان في المؤسسات السياسية السورية.

كيف ردت الدولة السورية؟

بدأ الجيش السوري بقصف عنيف على مواقع الإرهاب في إدلب بمواكبة غارات جوية استهدفت بدورها مواقع الأعداء والتخزين للإرهاب المتحالف مع تركيا في تلك المنطقة.

فبدأ هذا القصف على شكل رسالة سورية إلى الأتراك بأن أهدافهم في سورية لا قيمة لها عند دولتها.

والنتيجة الآن عند الحلفاء الروس، فإما أن يتواصلوا مع الأتراك حول ضرورة اخلاء إدلب من القوات التركية والتنظيمات الإرهابية المتعاونة، أو أن الجيش السوري بمعونة من حلفائه الإيرانيين والروس وحزب الله مستعدون لشن هجمات عسكرية دقيقة تؤدي إلى تحرير المدنيين في إدلب من هيمنة الإرهاب والترك معاً. وهذا موعده لم يعد بعيداً إذا لم يكن قد بدأ فعلياً.

أما بالنسبة للأميركيين فيعلمون أن المراهنة على الإرهاب سقطت. وهوى معها مشروع السيطرة على الدولة.. ما دفعهم إلى الاندفاع نحو تفتيتها بواسطة الطموح الكردي من جهة والاحلام العثمانية من جهة ثانية، لذلك دعموا هجوماً كردياً بقواتهم الجوية والبرية والأوروبية في مناطق للإرهاب منعزلة عن بعضها بعضاً في شرق الفرات.

استفاد الكردي من نقاط عدة: التباعد بين بؤر الإرهاب في شرق الفرات.. وقف عمليات دعمهم الذي كان الأميركيون يوفرونه لهم بوسائل جوية أو من خلال الحدود التركية والعراقية، انسداد طرقهم نحو غرب الفرات حيث الدولة السورية وحلفاؤها.

لكن سيطرة الأكراد على مناطق واسعة للسوريين العرب، جعلت الأميركيين يتنبّهون لصعوبة بناء كانتون كردي يُصرّون على وصوله إلى الحدود العراقية ـ السورية جنوباً، وإلا فإن لا قيمة له بالنسبة للأهداف الأميركية. باعتبار أن حصرهُ في مناطق محاذية لكردستان لا تفيد الأميركيين لأن الجهات المسيطرة على كردستان العراقية موالية لهم.. وهم يريدون كانتوناً يسيطر على الحدود مع العراق ويعرقل التنسيق العراقي ـ السوري المرتقب لذلك وجد الأميركيون حلاً لهذه المعضلة، فدمجوا بضع مئات من أبناء العشائر العربية في جنوب سورية مع قوات«قسد» الكردية، وأخذوا يروّجون في الإعلام أن قوات قسد هي سورية تدمج فريقين متحالفين: سوريون عرب وسوريون أكراد، فهذا يعطي برأيهم مشروعية سياسية لكانتون يمتد من مناطق القامشلي والشمال السوري حتى أبو كمال والحدود العراقية.

هذا ما يحض الأميركيون على التمهيد لثلاث مناطق مستقلة تبدأ بكانتون حدودي تسيطر عليه تركيا مع قوات شرطة روسية إذا قبلت بذلك موسكو. تليها منطقة أميركية ــ أوروبية تفصل الترك عن الكانتون الكردي الكبير.. هذا عن الطموح التركي وخطط الأميركيين التي تجهر بأن مشروعها الجديد لتفجير الشرق السوري، قابلة للتنفيذ سلماً أم حرباً… معتقدين حسب تحليلاتهم أن إيران ذاهبة نحو تصدع داخلي يؤدي إلى تفجيرها وإنهاء دورها، أو بواسطة حرب يقول الوزير السعودي الجبير إن السيناريو الخاص بها ينتظر التنفيذ فقط.

فهل هذا ممكن؟ اختراق الرئيس الإيراني الشيخ روحاني الحصار الأميركي على بلاده بزيارته الأخيرة للعراق هي الإجابة الساطعة على المزاعم الأميركية. وبدورها الدولة السورية لن تتوانى عن التحرير التدريجي لمناطقها المحتلة في الشمال والشرق… أليس هذا ما تفعله منذ سبع سنوات.. كما أن لروسيا مصلحة كبرى بدعم الخيارات السياسية والعسكرية للدولة السورية فالعدو الأميركي واحد، وصمود الدور الروسي العالمي يبدأ من دولة سورية محرّرة، يؤمن ميدانها العسكري ومصالح سورية أولاً وأهداف حلفائها الإقليميين فيه، مقاومة الإمبراطورية الأميركية العدوانية ثابتاً.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Neo-Empire: Russia in the Modern World

Source

March 09, 2019

Neo-Empire: Russia in the Modern World

Neo-Empire: Russia in the Modern World, by Rostislav Ishchenko 

Translation by Scott Humor

Source

Various historical epochs have not only seen the different internal structures of Russian state (Pre-Mongol Russia is not identical to the Moscow Kingdom Russia of the XVI-XVII centuries, and in turn, had little in common with Russia of the XVIII-early XX century, or the Russian Empire, which was fundamentally different from the Soviet Union,) but also different forms of state protection of its external interests. At the same time, such internally different organisms as the Moscow Kingdom, the Russian Empire, and the USSR in the first half of the twentieth century employed identical forms of actions in the international arena, seeking to solve the same problems by the same means and methods.

With time, the forms of interaction between states in the international arena begin to change critically.

Moving at the direction of the “last sea” Genghis Khan’s warriors practiced genocide of the conquered population and the establishment of direct Mongolian rule over the occupied territories.

Europeans of the colonial era preferred remote military and political control over local authorities, avoiding the introduction of direct mechanisms of control over the colonies when possible. Since the second half of the twentieth century, the formal sovereignty of dependent states has been scrupulously observed in the post-colonial era. The center of gravity of control has moved to the financial, trade, and economic spheres.

In our time, the most important role is played by the control of resources. At the same time, when we talk about the resource base, we mean not only and not primarily natural resources (although their availability is also important). We are talking about a complex of resources of raw materials, industrial, agricultural, financial, political, diplomatic, military, demographic, etc. And not only those resources that are owned by the state are taken into account. The most important factor is the control of resources beyond the own borders. It can be direct, through investments, purchase of the corresponding companies, etc., or it can be indirect, at the expense of use in the interests–it is desirable on a mutually beneficial basis–of allied and friendly states. The highest acrobatics is the use of resources and efforts of the geopolitical enemy and its allies and satellites for the realization of you own goals.

For a modern empire, the size of its territory and population is important, but with a certain value (providing military and political security) is not fundamental. The stronger and more dynamically developing modern empire would have greater inflow of resources produced by each invested unit. Just like in business, if your profit is equal to one hundred rubles per one invested ruble, then you have more potential than someone who produces only one ruble of profit per each ruble of investments. Hence, the desire of the mired in debts United States, and of quite prosperous in the financial sense Russia to maximize efficiency of foreign policy operations. They should not be placed on a list of expenditures and losses. After the first investment, foreign policy shares should begin to make a profit as soon as possible.

I would like to emphasize that this profit is not measured exclusively in billions of dollars coming to the Treasury. The end game of modern foreign policy operations is to establish control over the main resource flows, their intersection points, their direction, and closure to their territory. Under these conditions, old relationships often become irrelevant, supported by inertia, and the tendency to transfer them into self-sufficiency prevails.

The era during which the junior allies were sustained by dominant powers is over. Very clumsily, this transfer towards more pragmatic relations with allies was made by the USSR, which resulted in failure due to the low quality of the performers who made this attempt. Nevertheless, 25 years after the partition of the Soviet Union, both Russia and the United States are almost simultaneously declared a transition to pragmatic relations with their allies. Both empires offer no pay for being in a union with them. In the union framework, Russia offers to work together to make profit, and the United States offers to rob together.

This approach causes hysteria among both groups of states. They threaten Washington with “the loss of Europe,” while Russia is being blamed for “the loss of Ukraine, the loss of Belarus” (Kazakhstan, Armenia are further down the list). To avoid “losses,” both Washington and Moscow are asked to continue paying for loyalty to them by their respective allies, regardless of the cost.

These ideas are expressed not just by the “fifth column” or “enemies of the Fatherland.” Certainly, they are also present in the choir and among the speakers, but mostly the idea of a “payment Union” is being promoted by those who sincerely care about the greatness of the homeland. They are divided into two large groups. The first is made up of elites and the citizens of allied nations (or potential allies), as well as the business associates of these countries, earning on the benefits of being allies. They just don’t understand why to demolish something that works well for them, because they don’t separate the good for themselves from the good for Russia. They sincerely threaten “to be offended,” believing that their personal reaction is equal to the reaction of entire nations, which it is not, with some exceptions.

The second group of those calling for payments are patriots living in yesterday and preparing for yesterday’s wars. They, no less sincerely, consider it necessary to resolve any dispute on the battlefield, sending the army to war “to protect national interests” anywhere in the world where the United States received a temporary advantage. They have been waiting for twenty years for “the US missiles near Kharkov” and ” NATO tanks near Chernigov.” Any past defeats (including Afghanistan) they associate exclusively with “betrayal of the top” (though many occurred for objective reasons). Any potential war they see only as a Russian blitzkrieg, “a little blood on foreign soil.” Such problems as an overstrain of the economy, falling living standards, stagnation of trade, problems in the financial system (the inevitable consequences of even a victorious war) do not interest them at all. They see allies only as means to protect Russia from direct enemy attack. They must die, while giving Russia time to mobilize forces and means. In this paradigm, funds invested in allies don’t seem to be a pointless waste, but the cost of sacrifice. Just like with pigs fattened not for humanitarian reasons, but so that when the time comes to harvest them for food or trade.

These people simply do not understand that each era corresponds to its format of Empire and her military actions. If you continue to fight in the past format, then you get smashed, as in the Crimean or Russian-Japanese wars or in the summer of 1941. And no investment in the army or in the allies will help. The state and the army of the past are always inferior to the state and the army of the future.

The modern war has already started yesterday. It is a permanent war, that’s why is it called a hybrid. The parties are trying to do it without military clashes at all, since the use of the military is an extremely costly way to clarify relations. The disputes are being resolved in the information, political, and diplomatic spheres. The army is needed as a safety net in case our enemy, seeing that he is failing in the chess game he plays, will try to smash a two-by-four over your head and go to fight without the rules.

Simultaneously, you have to not only finance the fighting on the invisible fronts of the hybrid war, but also to ensure that the standard of living of your population, at least did not fall, but better would grew, as any economic and social problems will be immediately used by the enemy. And the modern army, as mentioned above, also needs to be funded, otherwise no one will compete with you in the intellectual field, and they will do to you what they did with Serbia and Iraq. In general, there are so many items on the expenditure list that it’s prohibitively expensive to buy loyalty and to finance the “allies” for fear that they will run over to the enemy and in exchange for them periodically making statements indicating their loyalty.

This is an unreasonable waste of resources, which means a direct path to defeat. In recent years, the superpowers, not being able to enter into a direct military clash with each other, but not willing to abandon the practice of global confrontation, are trying to force their enemy to waste resources unproductively. The more of these political black holes that consume resources, the more certain defeat.

Russia is pursuing a normal neo-imperial policy, for only this way she can protect national interests and sovereignty from the encroachments of the United States, conducting the same neo-imperial policy. If the actions of the United States, designed in the form of a strategy for the XXI century are responded with the strategy of the second third of the twentieth century, a rapid and catastrophic defeat would be inevitable, even despite the fact that Moscow is now much closer to victory in the global confrontation than Washington.

If you understand this simple point, you will understand the reason for Russia’s sluggish reaction to the protracted Ukrainian crisis. Moreover, the prospects for the development of relations between Russia and the territories that are now part of the Ukrainian state, as well as other post-Soviet States, will become clear.

Russia is not seeking a mechanical reunification of territories, even if they are home to “the same people” or “fraternal people.” In order to achieve inclusion into Russia (to achieve it, not just to agree to it favorably), the territory must have strategic importance (like Crimea) or its population must create conditions under which Moscow’s refusal to join the territory of its residence would entail greater moral and political costs than the possible material costs of integration. Donbass went this way, and almost solved its problem. The question now is not whether Donbass will be part of Russia, but when it will be, in what borders, and how will it happen. Just after five years of war, life under fire in a state of humanitarian disaster for the majority of the population of the region, Russia cannot, without prejudice to its international authority and the authority of the authorities in the country, abandon the reintegration of Donbass.

In all other cases, Moscow in neighboring countries is satisfied with any government that provides full-scale economic cooperation. This approach provides a serious geopolitical advantage is based on the strategy of “the thrifty Empire”. On one hand, a larger, more technologically advanced and more efficient economy always suppresses the smaller ones if it is put in conditions of equal competition with them. On the other hand, the local authorities are responsible to the population of allies for their standard of living and any other problems. The more independence this power demonstrates, the more convenient it is for Russia

Over decades of post-Soviet integration, “pro-Russian” Lukashenka squeezed out of the Kremlin many times more benefits and concessions than “multi-vector” Nazarbayev. At the same time, translating his language to the Latin alphabet from Cyrillic, the Kazakh leader Nazarbayev was an initiator of integration processes in the post-Soviet space in contrast to preserving the commitment of the Belarusian Cyrillic Lukashenka, who is blackmailing Moscow with his “turn to the West”.

Despite the growth of Kazakh nationalism and the lack of projects for the “Union state” of Moscow and Astana, the real integration of Kazakhstan into joint projects is much deeper, because it is based not on an emotional ideology, but on a mercantile economic basis. Kazakhstan is sovereign in its relations with Russia as much as its economic contribution to the common Treasury. Belarus is trying in exchange emotionally fraternal statements for more and more economic preferences, which significantly exceed its real weight in the implementation of joint projects.

Of course, nothing lasts forever, and Kazakhstan, under a new government, can change its foreign policy orientation. In any society there are always groups that are diametrically opposed in their views on the prospects for the development of their country and its foreign policy priorities. They can replace each other and the authorities, respectively changing policies. But it is far more difficult to turn a country connected with millions of economic threads, than the state emotionally declaring brotherhood in exchange for financial preferences.  It took 30 years to turn Ukraine away from Russia, and it was finally accomplished only by completely destroying its economy.  In any case, the brotherhood usually ends with preferences (as it did with the socialist Commonwealth of the states, and the Soviet Union).

This is not to say that Russia does not need an additional population. Territories beyond the Ural Mountains already require 30-40 million additional inhabitants. But we must understand that if Russia would absorb her historical territories somewhere in Europe or Asia, the local population won’t be sent in joyful columns to develop Siberia, but rather would stay where they are and begin to demand raising their standard of living to the all-Russian right in their place of residence (because they automatically acquire Russian citizenship by right of birth on those  lands). In this regard, the state benefits from migrant workers who do not have to choose where to live, they move to live where there are jobs for them.

Moreover, judging by the fact that in recent years the adoption of Russian citizenship is limited to about two hundred thousand people a year–this is a number of people that Russia is able to integrate into society without overstrain, not just giving them all the rights and benefits available to natural citizens, but providing a material basis for their implementation. As in reality, the country employs up to ten million legal and illegal migrants who do not have citizenship (about half of them do not apply for it, and plan to earn extra money to return home), this means that Russia’s needs for additional labor significantly exceed its material capabilities for the integration of this labor force into Russian society on the rights of full citizenship.

The modern pragmatic empire looks cynical, but the romantics who tried to build a state policy on emotional and fraternal grounds, ended up destroying their own states, and with them the habitat of tens or even hundreds of millions of citizens of these dead states. By the way, Stalin, whom supporters of emotional and fraternal politics like to refer to, was the most pragmatic of the Soviet leaders. When he helped his allies, he always knew what he would get for it, or he realized that by not helping he would lose more than he would save.

We must understand that the global confrontation will not stop as long as there are at least two states in the world. If there are different countries, then will be a difference of interests, and if there is a difference of interests, then the transition of at least one of them from the regime of fair competition to the regime of power suppression of a more successful competitor is a matter of time, not principle. To successfully fight for their interests, in circumstances when the war (hybrid, which can be more destructive than hot) has become commonplace, the state needs a high stability. This stability is achieved through a balance of desires and opportunities, ideals and interests, objectives and resources.

Any state strives for the ideal, that is, to extend its power to the entire inhabited world (even if it does not realize this). However, the achievement of this ideal is a matter of the infinite future. It’s not even the fact that it is at all possible, because this contradicts the law of the unity and the conflict of opposites. if a political system is not balanced by anything outside, it is degenerating. Therefore, the state of war (in different forms) is the normal state of society for the foreseeable future. Therefore, we witness an appearance of current policy of saving resources that characterizes today’s successful neo-imperial formation. Own citizen has become a very expensive resource. An attempt to reduce its costs leads to a fall in living standards and threatens the stability of the state, which in turn is a necessary prerequisite for the successful conduct of a hybrid war. At the same time, the world around is full of cheap human resources that can perform the same functionality as their own citizens, but without any social guarantees and at times lower pay.

Neocolonial empires of the second half of the twentieth century moved production to states with cheap human resource. This, however, was contrary to the principle of resource concentration, as it weakened control over economic resources. Roughly speaking, a significant part of the industry and the economy controlled by the neocolonial empires began to work for the interests of the host states. Today, the neo-Empire has found another way out–the movement of cheap human resources to the regions that needs additional labor. And those States that do it on an ad hoc basis, benefit more than those who take the labor force on a permanent basis. “New Europeans” work much less and require much more resources than illegal migrants in the United States.

However, formation of the neo-imperialist attitude to a person as to an additional burden for the state is a weak link for any neo-empire. States are created to serve people. When a state starts to reject this function, then people lose their obligation to remain loyal to the state. Today, the ideology of dehumanization of a state, not just the priority of its interests over the interest of the individual, but the priority over the society of its citizens and even over all mankind, has not yet been formed completely. And it is in Russia that attempts are made to get away from the bad dependency of a thrifty empire on the theory of dehumanization of state. It is difficult to say whether they will be successful. In the end, not only the economic, but also the ideological model of a state is formed based on the needs of the real world. Better adapted to reality state survives, less adapted dies, the rest are trying to adapt, reforming their political system, in accordance with the requirements of the time and the changed world.

If dehumanization is a necessary condition for the survival of the state in the new conditions, sooner or later it will be recognized. But in this possible temporary victory will be laid its final defeat as a government without people cannot exist, disappears the meaning of its existence, as it makes no sense as existence of a car or plane in a deserted world. But, if in order for material values to become meaningless, the world must become really deserted, in order for the need for a state to disappear, it must only accept the principle of dehumanization as the basis of its activities.

If “extra people” are not needed, sooner or later this principle will be extended to its own population:  first to one social group, then to another, and then to all. The Bolsheviks, having started to execute in the 1917 their class and ideological enemies, ended up to 1939 executing a large number of themselves, a fact that  (with a small temporary backlash) was reflected in the renaming in 1952 of their party from the CPSU(b) to the communist party (since the Bolsheviks came to their end, so and the party of the Bolsheviks came to its end).

Russia’s task in the “beautiful new world” of neo-empires is non-trivial. It is necessary to walk between the Scylla of efficiency while fighting against the constant external threat and the Charybdis of dehumanization for the sake of efficiency, which undermines, however, the very foundation of the state. Our advantage over competitors (US, China, EU) is that we at the very least acknowledge this task and try to solve it, while other neo-empires are about to bring the meaning of their existence (representation of people) to Molek of abstract efficiency.

Kashmir: Theatre of Unspeakable Violence — futuwwa

By Syed Rabia Bukhari Kashmir is the real theatre of unspeakable violence and moral corrosion that can spin us into violence and nuclear war at any moment. To prevent that from happening, the conflict in Kashmir has to be addressed and resolved. That can only be done if Kashmiris are given a chance to freely […]

via Kashmir: Theatre of Unspeakable Violence — futuwwa

Lies, Lies and More Lies

See Behind The Veil

She sent airplanes.  And then told the world what the world likes to hear in the language that the world understands – almost making me think perhaps these war mongers have a common cheat sheet with the most effective keywords to form a narrative following all such futile cowardly ‘pre-emptive attacks’ – all statements of the sorts below seem to have a weird similarity of content and spirit.  I say ‘spirit’ because I believe words talk other than saying what they are intended to say.  So here is what the Indian Foreign Secretary said following the incident:

“A very large number of JeM terrorists, trainers, senior commanders and groups of jihadis who were being trained for fidayeen action were eliminated.  The government of India is firmly and resolutely committed to taking all necessary measures to fight the menace of terrorism.  Hence this non-military pre-emptive action was specifically targeted at the…

View original post 512 more words

Israel lobby proves Ilhan Omar’s point

The U.S. Is a Political Prison, Kamala Harris Is a Prison Guard

By Daniel Haiphong
Source

Haiphog 845x400 1 05b96

Harris protects police unions, the courts, and the stakeholders of the mass incarceration state.”

Black Agenda Report and other independent media sources have repeatedly been called “fake news” or “Russian propaganda” by the political gatekeepers of the U.S. empire. Trump has been used as a convenient excuse for the ruling elites to discredit those who tell the truth about the ruthlessness of the system. This became even more evident after journalist Marzieh Hashemi was indefinitely detained for over a week by the U.S. government without any formal charges against her. Last week, I wrote that Hashemi’s incarceration and treatment is a product of the U.S. imperial war on independent journalism. The crime committed against her is also a reminder that the U.S. itself is a political prison.

Mumia Abu-Jamal, the U.S. empire’s most famous political prisoner, was recently granted the right of appeal after the courts ruled that his trial was rife with judicial bias. Several boxes labeled “Mumia” were found in the District Attorney’s office soon afterward, although the boxes reportedly did not possess exculpatory evidence. Despite these positive developments, the fact remains that Mumia Abu-Jamal has been in prison for thirty-seven years for a reason. District Attorney Larry Krasner caved to pressure from the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and appealed the favorable ruling on Abu-Jamal’s case. A potential retrial for Abu-Jamal will now be delayed by a time-consuming legal process.

Once again, Mumia Abu-Jamal shows that the U.S. is a political prison from which the police are treated as a protected class. Police officers and their unions occupy a status in society that reigns above the humanity and rights of the people they supposedly “protect and serve.” Police departments murder nearly 1,000 people per year in the U.S. without political or legal consequence. It wasn’t until the Black Lives Matter insurgency arose that police departments began to come under fire for the near daily homicides that they commit against Black Americans. Even then, the Obama Administration and both political parties united to protect the police from federal investigation.

The U.S. political prison has placed 2.3 million people in cages and twice that many under “correctional control.”Forty percent of prisoners and close to fifty percent of those placed in solitary confinement, an internationally recognized form of torture, are Black American. Solitary confinement is the prison state’s weapon of choice when it comes to its political prisoners. Political prisoners such as Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier of the American Indian Movement, and Russell Maroon Shoatz of the Black Liberation Army have endured decades upon decades of solitary confinement. New research on solitary confinement indicates that the practice permanently damages the hippocampus structure of the brainand imposes a form of social death onto prisoners.

The conditions faced by U.S. political prisoners reveal the true face of the U.S. political prison. This prison has draped itself in grand narratives of exceptionalism to hide the fact that it is the most repressive and exploitative system in human history. Prisoners in the U.S. represent a disposable class of the poor, mainly the Black poor, whose existence has been relegated to the margins by the nation’s exceptionalist tales. The racist criminalization of Black Americans and the explosive growth of the prison population beginning in the 1980s in the U.S. share both political and economic origins. Economically, the U.S. system of capitalism that sustains the prison fell into a permanent state of overproduction and lost the ability to raise the standard of living for any section of the working class. Politically, Black American resistance was targeted by the state to make way for the imminent neoliberal disaster to come. And out of the ashes of repression, political prison guards such as California Senator Kamala Harris were born.

Kamala Harris announced her bid for the Democratic Party presidential ticket in the upcoming 2020 election on the Martin Luther King holiday. The Howard alum has served as the political prison guard for the U.S. prison regime as District Attorney, Attorney General, and Senator of the California state gulag. Harris has championed herself as “for the people.” What she hasn’t mentioned is that she is for only a certain class of “people” in the U.S. political prison. That class of people includes the police unions, the courts, and the stakeholders of the mass incarceration state.

Under Kamala Harris, California saw an exponential increase in the number of drug convictions. Harris also punished Black families for truancy and appealed a federal judge’s decision to eradicate the death penalty. She has furiously protected the police from prosecution and refused to investigate police officer abuse, violence, and murder perpetrated mainly against poor Black Americans. Harris is a cop for the U.S. political prison, as are most members of the self-serving Black misleadership class. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) voted in favor of the 1033 program that arms police departments with military weaponry from the Department of Defense in 2014 and followed up this vote in 2018 by supporting a federal “Blue Lives Matter” bill.

As part of the CBC, Harris certainly possesses credentials that the ruling classes desire. Not only has Harris played an instrumental role in the mass Black incarceration state, but she has also been paid handsomely to protect the banks. As Attorney General, Harris refused to prosecuteTrump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s former corporation, WestOne, for imposing illegal foreclosures. Mnuchin awarded Harris with a generous contribution to her political campaign in 2016. And if that weren’t enough, Harris is sure to project U.S. imperial interests abroad given her numerous speaking engagements with the powerful Israeli lobby AIPAC and her cozy relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. Harris, in other words, is Obama personified as a self-identified Black woman.

Kamala Harris’ bid to become the commanding prison guard of the U.S. comes amid a crisis within the entire prison system. The U.S. prison economy, capitalism, is in a state of decay and stagnation. Finance capital and high-tech, globalized production has placed downward pressure on wages to make up for the rising costs associated with technological advances. Fewer and fewer jobs are required to maximize profitability. The combination of a growing “surplus army of the unemployed” and low-wages has led to a crisis of overproduction and a fall in the rate of profit that credit and debt cannot relieve, no matter how many millions of Americans are forced into the red. What has ensued is near poverty for eighty percent of the U.S. population and an intensified thirst for austerity on the part of the rich.

Of course, austerity in the U.S. political prison does not apply to the military state. The U.S. spends trillions to fortify its military hegemony worldwide at the expense of the self-determination of oppressed nations. With over 800 military bases around the world and potentially hundreds more uncounted, the U.S. political prison is in possession of the largest military empire in history. As more and more Americans demand policies such as Medicare for All, the U.S. political prison will continue to extend its global military reach without hesitation. This will inevitably mean more destruction and death for the Global South and more austerity and repression for workers and poor Blacks.

Kamala Harris in the 2020 election is vying for Trump’s presidential seat in order to quiet the potential rebellion to come. However, it is quite clear that no relief can be expected from the prison guard Kamala Harris. The Democratic Party apparatus is a legion of prison guards holding Black and other progressive constituencies in political captivity. The best hope for the masses lies in the destruction of the Democratic Party, which can only be realized by another DNC attack on the likes of Bernie Sanders. Expect Kamala Harris to participate in that attack when Sanders finally announces his decision to run if doing so will increase her chances at the nomination. Leftists must avoid falling into the pressure of supporting another Democrat and instead take up the fight to expose those who keep political prisoners such as Mumia Abu-Jamal locked up indefinitely. Out of this struggle should come the recognition that the U.S. itself is a political prison which cannot be elected or reformed out of existence.

%d bloggers like this: