70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

Source

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

NATO is a military and political alliance, a security community that unites the largest number of States on both sides of the North Atlantic. During its existence, NATO has expanded 2.5 times. It accounts for 70% of global military spending. It is rightfully considered the most powerful military association of States in the entire history of mankind in terms of combined armed power and political influence. The fact that this year NATO turned 70 years old, which is more than the independent existence of some of its member States, proves an incredible success of this project. However, while the Alliance has successfully resisted external enemies in its history, today it is experiencing significant internal divisions that threaten its existence more than ever.

The founding date of NATO is April 4, 1949, the day 12 countries signed the Washington Treaty. NATO became a “transatlantic forum” for allied countries to consult on issues that affect the vital interests of participating countries. The organization’s primary goal was to deter any form of aggression against the territory of any member state, as well as to protect against these threats. The principle of collective defense, enshrined in article 5 of the Washington Treaty, implies that if one NATO member state is the victim of an armed attack, all other member States of the Alliance will consider this act of violence an armed attack on all NATO countries and will take actions that the organization deems necessary. At the end of the 20th century, the real threat to the West was the Soviet Union.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question arose about the existence of NATO, as an Alliance created to protect against the Soviet threat. The disappearance of the external threat has led to a process of transformation that has been going on for 30 years. Each stage of transformation is directly related to the adaptation of the Alliance to certain changes taking place in the international arena and affecting the stability of the security system in the Euro-Atlantic and the world as a whole. In addition to the collapse of the Soviet Union, one of the key events that affected the development of the Alliance was the terrorist attack of 11.09.2001, which actually allowed the Alliance to be preserved, since then there was a common external threat to the member countries.

Traditionally, NATO’s transformations are considered in the following three areas: geographical changes, political transformations, and processes in the military-technical sphere.

Important political transformations are manifested in adapting to changes in the international arena, which are represented primarily by the disappearance of block opposition. The Alliance remains committed to the principle of collective defense, as set out in article 5 of the Washington Treaty. The main command structures also remain the same. The main transformations are expressed in the form of declarations of new NATO functions: maintaining peace and stability not only on the territory of the member States, but also outside the area of responsibility of the Alliance. The operations carried out in these territories are aimed at maintaining local and regional stability, eliminating ethnic and religious conflicts, maintaining respect for human rights and various national minorities, and, most importantly, fighting international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The “new NATO” is being transformed from a regional organization into a guarantor of global stability, taking responsibility for stability in regions outside its own territories and in situations not covered by article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Assuming global responsibility, NATO is forced to maintain the necessary level of military power, participate in collective planning for the organization of nuclear forces and their deployment on its own territories. New threats encourage NATO to expand geographically.

The expansion of NATO, which implies the inclusion of former members of the Warsaw Pact And the full-scale advance of military infrastructure to the East, represents a change in geography.

Changes in the military-technical sphere imply a General reduction of the Alliance’s collective military forces, their relocation, etc. The main form of transformation of the armed forces was the transition from ” heavy ” military associations to more flexible and maneuverable groups in order to increase their effectiveness in the fight against new threats. The beginning of the economic crisis in autumn 2008 revealed the urgent need for reforms. Member States were forced to reduce their military budgets, which meant abandoning programs involving the development and purchase of precision weapons. In 2010 the plan of the NATO Secretary-General A. Rasmussen’s plan to optimize the budget, and in 2012, the Chicago summit adopted the “smart defense package”, which implies a parallel reduction of funds and increased efficiency.

However, despite all the reforms carried out within the Alliance, today the new missions do not have the same clarity as during the cold war. Options for the purpose of NATO’s existence after the collapse of the USSR vary: the fight against terrorism, assistance in the spread of democracy, nation-building, “world police”, the fight against “soft threats”, the fight against a resurgent Russia. But the main problem of the Organization is that none of the options is universal for all member countries. None of the considered “enemies” unites NATO.

After various stages of transformation, NATO turned out that the condition for its perfect functioning was precisely the situation of structured confrontation. The current unstructured confrontation, which implies that all member countries have different primary threats, makes it meaningless to have a cumbersome and generally rather inert organization.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Illustrative Image

In 2014, NATO had another opportunity to create a common external enemy, the role of which was approached by Russia. The summit held in Wales in 2014 radically changed the agenda of the entire Alliance. The main topic of discussion was the Ukrainian crisis, which led to the conclusion about the need to contain Russia. The final Declaration of the summit notes that ” Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine have fundamentally called into question the vision of a whole, free and peaceful Europe”. “The illegal self-proclaimed annexation of Crimea and Russia’s aggressive actions in other regions of Ukraine” were highlighted as special threats among the spread of violence and extremist groups in North Africa and the Middle East.

The appearance of a ” dangerous external enemy ” entailed not only political transformations. There have also been reforms in the military sphere of NATO. Among the new security challenges were “hybrid wars”, that is, military actions involving an expanded range of military and civilian measures of an open or hidden nature. The adopted Action Plan, which includes the concept of “hybrid war”, was primarily aimed at countering the tactics of warfare used by Russia. Thus, a number of measures included in the Declaration were directed against Russia.

NATO was forced to return to the role of a guarantor against severe security threats, which significantly increased costs for the organization. At the 2016 NATO Warsaw summit, it was decided to further deploy 4 battalion tactical groups to existing military bases in Poland and the Baltic States. In addition, more than 550 tanks and an armored unit of the United States have been transferred to the region. These units are deployed on a rotational basis, which does not contradict the NATO-Russia Founding act of 1997. In the Declaration of the 2018 Brussels NATO summit it is recorded that the “enhanced presence in the forward area” of tactical groups includes a total of 4,500 military personnel, which is approximately equal to one brigade.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP

At the same time, it is clear that Russia does not pose a real threat to NATO. Real foreign policy practice proves that Russia will not threaten Western countries in the next 50 years. The only point of instability today is the Ukrainian conflict, which had no preconditions until 2014, and was in turn artificially created by the American establishment in partnership with Brussels. Russia, for its part, even in this conflict does not seek to expand its influence, and also observes the Minsk agreements that are unfavorable to It.

“The main reason why the United States has assumed the role of arbiter of the fate of Ukraine and its citizens is the allegedly increasing threat from Russia not only to Kiev, but also to Europe and the rest of the world. And this is despite the fact that it was with the help of the United States that mass protests were organized and the elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in 2013-2014, which led to the war that has now unfolded in the heart of Eastern Europe,” writes geopolitical columnist Tony Kartaluchi in the new Eastern Outlook.

In 2016, the RAND organization conducted a study that showed that in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, Russian troops can be on the approaches to the capitals of Estonia and Latvia within sixty hours. The study showed that NATO forces are not sufficient to repel the Russian attack. In an interview, NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller said that the main goal of deploying additional forces in Eastern Europe and Poland is to demonstrate the unity of the Alliance, and to maintain its members ‘ commitment to article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Thus, NATO adheres to the policy of declarative deterrence of Russia, in fact, its forces are not enough to respond to a potential attack from Russia. The NATO administration is well aware that the likelihood of a military conflict with Russia is minimal, but it continues to maintain the image of Russia as an aggressor in order to unite the member countries.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, leave at the end of a joint press conference in Warsaw, Poland, in June 2017. (Czarek Sokolowski/AP)

Moreover, maintaining the image of a dangerous enemy gives the United States the opportunity to promote its own interests in Europe and manipulate its “partners”.

On June 25, Donald Trump finally confirmed that part of the American military contingent in Germany would be transferred to Poland. In the end, the American contingent in Germany will be reduced from 52 thousand people to 25 thousand. According to official data, in Germany there are about 35 thousand US military personnel, 10 thousand civil servants of the Pentagon and about 2 thousand contract workers. Some of the US military will return to America, some will go to Poland to strengthen the deterrence of the “Russian threat”. In addition, according to media reports, Polish President Andrzej Duda and Donald Trump discussed the possibility of transferring 30 f-16 fighters.

“They [Germany] spend billions of dollars to buy Russian energy resources, and then we are supposed to protect them from Russia. It doesn’t work that way. I think this is very bad, ” said Donald trump, accusing Berlin of supporting the Nord Stream 2 project.

When asked whether the US administration is trying to send a signal to Russia, Donald Trump stressed that Moscow was receiving a “very clear signal”, but Washington still expected to normalize their relations. This only underscores the fact that the US is taking advantage of the perceived Russian threat to NATO.

The American leader, by undermining cooperation between Moscow and Berlin in the energy sphere, not only prevents Russia, as one of their enemies in the international arena, from developing a profitable project. The US is also interested in weakening the leading European industries, primarily Germany. The United States does not tolerate strong enemies, but it also does not accept strong allies. It is in the interests of the Americans to prevent the redevelopment of Europe as a self-sufficient and independent center of power in the international arena.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Defense spendings in relation to GDP of NATO member countries

Therefore, Donald Trump is strongly calling on Germany to reimburse the billions of dollars it owes the White House. Trump is dissatisfied with the fact that Berlin does not comply with the promise made by all NATO members to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP. At the same time, Germany has already followed this path, increasing funding to 1.38%. In its turn, the US spends 3.4% of the state budget on the needs of the Alliance.

The problem of NATO funding is very often the main criticism of Berlin. However, in addition to this issue, new problems are emerging in US-German relations.

Washington is very dissatisfied with Berlin’s interaction with Beijing. The White House, which has strengthened the anti-Chinese vector of its policy, blaming the PRC for the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and accusing the Chinese side of “controlling” the World Health Organization (WHO), did not receive sufficient support in Europe, and Germany criticized.

Moreover, Berlin does not support Washington’s sanctions policy on Chinese Hong Kong, which Beijing allegedly takes away its independence from.

The US is particularly dissatisfied with the EU’s desire for a major investment agreement with China. Germany is the main ideologue of this process and seeks to close the deal during its six-month presidency of the EU Council.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
“One Belt, One Road” Initiative

China today, of course, is the main competitor of the United States in the struggle for world hegemony. China also raises considerable concerns among European countries, which is primarily due to economic expansion and the successful development of the large-scale Chinese initiative “One belt, one road”. European leaders are also competing with China for resources in third world countries in Africa and Southeast Asia. In addition, there are ideological differences between the two world regions. However, China does not currently pose a military threat to Europe, which does not allow the use of NATO forces against it.

While Western countries see Russia and China as the main threats, strategically they are primarily concerned about Iran and North Korea. These countries are also a threat primarily to the United States, but their European partners are not ready to conduct active military actions against them at the moment.

The only real dangerous factor that unites almost all NATO member countries remains international terrorism, in the fight against which Western countries act as a united front.70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

The current military and political course of the European Union is determined by the clear desire of its leadership to transform the military and political organization into one of the world’s leading centers of power. The aggravation of political and economic differences with the United States is the main incentive for the implementation of this goal. Thus, the EU’s focus on increasing independence in crisis management in the area of common European interests has had a decisive influence on the development of the common security and defense policy. In order to reduce dependence on the United States and NATO for conducting operations and missions within the framework of “force projection”, the leadership of the Association has stepped up activities to develop its own military component.

France and Germany are the main engines of this process, and are promoting the initiative to create the so-called European Defense Union. However, despite active efforts to expand military and military-technical cooperation within the EU, the declared goals of creating a “European army” with collective defense functions that duplicate the status and activities of NATO seem difficult to achieve in the foreseeable future. This situation is due to the reluctance of the majority of EU member States to transfer control over their armed forces to the supranational level. Moreover, the US opposition to the process of forming the European Defense Union and the limited resources available due to the absorption by NATO structures of the major part of the defense potential of European countries, most of which are simultaneously involved in two organizations, do not allow the full implementation of EU political decisions on military construction. In this regard, it is only possible to talk about giving a new impetus to military cooperation in order to increase the collective capacity to protect the territory and citizens of the States of the region.

Given the lack of forces and resources for conducting operations and missions, Brussels is interested in the practice of involving military formations of third countries in its anti-crisis actions on the basis of bilateral framework agreements. Currently, such agreements have been reached with Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and a number of other States.

Currently, the European Union conducts 16 military and mixed operations and missions in various regions of the world, involving about 4,500 people. The greatest attention is paid to the “zones of instability” in North and Central Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and the post-Soviet space.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg

Thus, NATO today has to do everything possible to support the unity and coherence of actions of all its member countries, which are more than ever under threat. The main European leaders are no longer ready to support US policy and continue to sacrifice their own national interests. If in the case of Germany, this is manifested primarily in support of the Nord stream 2 project, despite the threats of the United States. France today supports its own interests in Libya, which contradict the interests of other countries-members of the Alliance: Turkey and Italy. Certainly, Turkey and Italy have different positions and aspirations in Libya. Italy was previously a traditional ally of France and does not actively intervene in the military conflict. However, now, given the current predominance of Turkey in Libya, Italy is trying to sit on two chairs. On the one hand, Italy, while supporting Tripoli, does not actively help them. On the other hand, in political terms, it clearly stands on the side of Tripoli and Turkey, thereby trying to ensure its share of participation in the next division of Libyan natural resources after the supposed victory of the Turkish-Tripolitan Alliance.

Summing up, today the imaginary Russian threat no longer allows US to unite the Alliance members, but only serves as a method of implementing US interests. The White House, which has always played a leading role in NATO and retains it thanks to the largest percentage of investment in the Alliance, allows itself to more openly abuse its leading position and promote its own national interests and the interests of its elites through the North Atlantic Alliance to the detriment of the interests of partner countries. Thus, article 4 of the Washington Treaty, which implies decision-making by consensus and is the basis of NATO itself, is of less and less importance in practice. The United States cannot renounce its membership in NATO and is interested in preserving it, because it is the Western Alliance that allows the US to give at least a small share of legitimacy to its military actions. A kind of neo-colonial policy, that the United States is used to employ in relation to European countries, and the current significant shift in the political paradigm within the US itself do not allow us to hope that the American leadership will be able to strengthen its position in Europe in the coming years.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

PHILIP M. GIRALDI: “RUSSIA-BAITING IS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN”

Washington again becomes hysterical

Source

PHILIP GIRALDI • JULY 7, 2020

There is particular danger at the moment that powerful political alignments in the United States are pushing strongly to exacerbate the developing crisis with Russia. The New York Times, which broke the story that the Kremlin had been paying the Afghan Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers, has been particularly assiduous in promoting the tale of perfidious Moscow. Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by delusional nonsense from former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks “Why does Trump put Russia first?” before calling for a “swift and significant U.S. response.” Rice, who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice President, certainly knows about swift and significant as she was one of the architects of the destruction of Libya and the escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations directed against a non-threatening Syria.

The Times is also titillating with the tale of a low level drug smuggling Pashto businessman who seemed to have a lot of cash in dollars lying around, ignoring the fact that Afghanistan is awash with dollars and has been for years. Many of the dollars come from drug deals, as Afghanistan is now the world’s number one producer of opium and its byproducts.

The cash must be Russian sourced, per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. The Times also cites anonymous sources which allege that there were money transfers from an account managed by the Kremlin’s GRU military intelligence to an account opened by the Taliban. Note the “alleged” and consider for a minute that it would be stupid for any intelligence agency to make bank-to-bank transfers, which could be identified and tracked by the clever lads at the U.S. Treasury and NSA. Also try to recall how not so long ago we heard fabricated tales about threatening WMDs to justify war. Perhaps the story would be more convincing if a chain of custody could be established that included checks drawn on the Moscow-Narodny Bank and there just might be a crafty neocon hidden somewhere in the U.S. intelligence community who is right now faking up that sort of evidence.

Other reliably Democratic Party leaning news outlets, to include CNN, MSNBC and The Washington Post all jumped on the bounty story, adding details from their presumably inexhaustible supply of anonymous sources. As Scott Horton observedthe media was reporting a “fact” that there was a rumor.

Inevitably the Democratic Party leadership abandoned its Ghanaian kente cloth scarves, got up off their knees, and hopped immediately on to their favorite horse, which is to claim loudly and in unison that when in doubt Russia did it. Joe Biden in particular is “disgusted” by a “betrayal” of American troops due to Trump’s insistence on maintaining “an embarrassing campaign of deferring and debasing himself before Putin.”

The Dems were joined in their outrage by some Republican lawmakers who were equally incensed but are advocating delaying punishing Russia until all the facts are known. Meanwhile, the “circumstantial details” are being invented to make the original tale more credible, including crediting the Afghan operation to a secret Russian GRU Army intelligence unit that allegedly was also behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury England in 2018.

Reportedly the Pentagon is looking into the circumstances around the deaths of three American soldiers by roadside bomb on April 8, 2019 to determine a possible connection to the NYT report. There are also concerns relating to several deaths in training where Afghan Army recruits turned on their instructors. As the Taliban would hardly need an incentive to kill Americans and as only seventeen U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2019 as a result of hostile action, the year that the intelligence allegedly relates to, one might well describe any joint Taliban-Russian initiative as a bit of a failure since nearly all of those deaths have been attributed to kinetic activity initiated by U.S. forces.

The actual game that is in play is, of course, all about Donald Trump and the November election. It is being claimed that the president was briefed on the intelligence but did nothing. Trump denied being verbally briefed due to the fact that the information had not been verified. For once America’s Chief Executive spoke the truth, confirmed by the “intelligence community,” but that did not stop the media from implying that the disconnect had been caused by Trump himself. He reportedly does not read the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), where such a speculative piece might indeed appear on a back page, and is uninterested in intelligence assessments that contradict what he chooses to believe. The Democrats are suggesting that Trump is too stupid and even too disinterested to be president of the United States so they are seeking to replace him with a corrupt 78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.

The Democratic Party cannot let Russia go because they see it as their key to future success and also as an explanation for their dramatic failure in 2016 which in no way holds them responsible for their ineptness. One does not expect the House Intelligence Committee, currently headed by the wily Adam Schiff, to actually know anything about intelligence and how it is collected and analyzed, but the politicization of the product is certainly something that Schiff and his colleagues know full well how to manipulate. One only has to recall the Russiagate Mueller Commission investigation and Schiff’s later role in cooking the witnesses that were produced in the subsequent Trump impeachment hearings.

Schiff predictably opened up on Trump in the wake of the NYT report, saying “I find it inexplicable in light of these very public allegations that the president hasn’t come before the country and assured the American people that he will get to the bottom of whether Russia is putting bounties on American troops and that he will do everything in his power to make sure that we protect American troops.”

Schiff and company should know, but clearly do not, that at the ground floor level there is a lot of lying, cheating and stealing around intelligence collection. Most foreign agents do it for the money and quickly learn that embroidering the information that is being provided to their case officer might ultimately produce more cash. Every day the U.S. intelligence community produces thousands of intelligence reports from those presumed “sources with access,” which then have to be assessed by analysts. Much of the information reported is either completely false or cleverly fabricated to mix actual verified intelligence with speculation and out and out lies to make the package more attractive. The tale of the Russian payment of bribes to the Taliban for killing Americans is precisely the kind of information that stinks to high heaven because it doesn’t even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and the New York Times. For what it’s worth, a number of former genuine intelligence officers including Paul Pillar, John KiriakouScott Ritter, and Ray McGovern have looked at the evidence so far presented and have walked away unimpressed. The National Security Agency (NSA) has also declined to confirm the story, meaning that there is no electronic trail to validate it.

Finally, there is more than a bit of the old hypocrisy at work in the damnation of the Russians even if they have actually been involved in an improbable operation with the Taliban. One recalls that in the 1970s and 1980s the United States supported the mujahideen rebels fighting against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The assistance consisted of weapons, training, political support and intelligence used to locate, target and kill Soviet soldiers. Stinger missiles were provided to bring down helicopters carrying the Russian troops. The support was pretty much provided openly and was even boasted about, unlike what is currently being alleged about the Russian assistance. The Soviets were fighting to maintain a secular regime that was closely allied to Moscow while the mujahideen later morphed into al-Qaeda and the Islamist militant Taliban subsequently took over the country, meaning that the U.S. effort was delusional from the start.

So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a “defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated incompetence of Donald Trump. The end result could be to secure the election of a pliable Establishment flunky Joe Biden as president of the United States. How that will turn out is unpredictable, but America’s experience of its presidents since 9/11 has not been very encouraging.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

Kazakhstan may hold the secret for Greater Eurasia

Source

July 06, 2020

Kazakhstan may hold the secret for Greater Eurasia

Submitted by Pepe Escobar – source Asia Times

The no holds barred US-China strategic competition may be leading us to the complete fragmentation of the current “world-system” – as Wallerstein defined it.

Yet compared to the South China Sea, the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Straits, India-China’s Himalayan border, and selected latitudes of the Greater Middle East, Central Asia shines as a portrait of stability.

That’s quite intriguing, when we consider that the chessboard reveals the interests of top global players intersecting right in the heart of Eurasia.

And that brings us to a key question: How could Kazakhstan, the 9th largest country in the world, manage to remain neutral in the current, incandescent geopolitical juncture? What are the lineaments of what could be described as the Kazakh paradox?

These questions were somewhat answered by the office of First President Nursultan Nazarbayev. I had discussed some of them with analysts when I was in Kazakhstan late last year. Nazarbayev could not answer them directly because he has just recently recovered from Covid-19 and is currently in self-isolation.

It all harks back to what was Kazakhstan really like when the USSR dissolved in 1991. The Kazakhs inherited a quite complex ethno-demographic structure, with the Russian-speaking population concentrated in the north; unresolved territorial issues with China; and geographical proximity to extremely unstable Afghanistan, then in a lull before the all-out warlord conflagration of the early 1990s which created the conditions for the emergence of the Taliban.

To make it even harder, Kazakhstan was landlocked.

All of the above might have led to Kazakhstan either dispatched to political limbo or mired in a perpetual Balkan scenario.

Have soft power, will travel

Enter Nazarbayev as a fine political strategist. From the beginning, he saw Kazakhstan as a key player, not a pawn, in the Grand Chessboard in Eurasia.

A good example was setting up the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building measures in Asia (CICA) in 1992, based on the principle of “indivisibility of Asian security”, later proposed to the whole of Eurasia.

Nazarbayev also made the crucial decision to abandon what was at the time the fourth nuclear missile potential on the planet – and a major trump card in international relations. Every major player in the arc from the Middle East to Central Asia knew that selected Islamic nations were extremely interested in Kazakhstan’s nuclear arsenal.

Nazarbayev bet on soft power instead of nuclear power. Unlike the DPRK, for instance, he privileged Kazakhstan’s integration in the global economy in favorable terms instead of relying on nuclear power to establish national security. He was certainly paving the way for Kazakhstan to be regarded as a trustworthy, get down to business neutral player and a mediator in international relations.

The trust and goodwill towards Kazakhstan is something I have seen for myself in my pan-Eurasia travels and in conversations with analysts from Turkey and Lebanon to Russia and India.

The best current example is Astana, currently Nur-sultan, becoming the HQ of that complex work in progress: the Syrian peace process, coordinated by Iran, Turkey and Russia – following the crucial, successful Kazakh mediation to solve the Moscow-Ankara standoff after the downing of a Sukhoi Su-24M near the Syria-Turkish border in November 2015.

And on the turbulent matter of Ukraine post-Maidan in 2014, Kazakhstan simultaneously kept good relations with Kiev and the West and its strategic partnership with Russia.

As I discussed late last year, Nur-sultan is now actively taking the role of the new Geneva: the capital of diplomacy for the 21st century.

The secret of this Kazakh paradox is the capacity of delicately balancing relations with the three main players – Russia, China and the US – as well as leading regional powers. Nazarbayev’s office boldly argues that can be even translated to Nur-sultan placed as the ideal venue for US-China negotiations: “We are tightly embedded in the US-China-Russia triangle and have built trusting relationships with each of them.”

In the heart of Eurasia

And that brings us to why Kazakhstan – and Nazarbayev personally – are so much involved in promoting their special concept of Greater Eurasia – which overlaps with the Russian vision, discussed in extensive detail at the Valdai Club.

Nazarbayev managed to set a paradigm in which none of the big players feel compelled to exercize a monopoly on Kazak maneuvering. That inevitably led Kazakhstan to expand its foreign policy reach.

Strategically, Kazakhstan is smack in the geographical heart of Eurasia, with huge borders with Russia and China, as well as Iran in the Caspian Sea. Its territory is no less than a top strategic bridge uniting the whole of Eurasia.

The Kazakh approach goes way beyond connectivity (trade and transport), two key planks of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), to get closer to the converging vision of BRI and the Russian-led Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU): a single, integrated Eurasian space.

Nazarbayev sees the integration of the Central Asian “stans” with Russia and with Turkic-speaking countries, including of course Turkey, as the foundation for his concept of Greater Eurasia.

The inevitable corollary is that the Atlanticist order – as well as the Anglo-American predominance in international relations – is waning, and certainly does not suit Asia and Eurasia. A consensus is forming across many key latitudes that the driving force for the reboot of the global economy post-Covid-19 – and even a new paradigm – will come from Asia.

In parallel, Nazarbayev’s office make a crucial point: “A purely Asian or Eastern answer is unlikely to suit the collective West, which is also in search of optimal models of the world’s structure. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative clearly showed that Western countries are not psychologically ready to see China as a leader.”

Nur-sultan nonetheless remains convinced that the only possible solution would be exactly a new paradigm in international relations. Nazarbayev argues that the keys to solve the current turmoil are not located in Moscow, Beijing or Washington, but in a strategic transit node, like Kazakhstan, where the interests of all global players intersect.

Thus the push for Kazakhstan – one of the key crossroads between Europe and Asia, alongside Turkey and Iran – to become the optimal mediator allowing Greater Eurasia to flourish in practice. That is the uplifting option: otherwise, we seem condemned to live through another Cold War.

Central Downtown Nur-Sultan: in center Bayterek tower

Foreign Election Interference: Who is to Blame?

Source

by MELVIN GOODMAN

Photograph Source: Bill Smith – CC BY 2.0

Ever since the Russian election interference in 2016, the New York Times  has been blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin for the new Cold War with the United States.  On July 2, it ran a front-page article that headlined the United States “stands on the sidelines” while the Kremlin conducts a “wave of aggression.” On July 1, the Times ran an oped article by former national security adviser Susan Rice, reportedly on the short list as a possible Biden vice presidential candidate, describing a White House run by “liars and wimps catering to a tyrannical president who is actively advancing our arch adversary’s nefarious interests.”  In view of the blame being assigned to Putin, perhaps it’s time to remind readers of the Times of the U.S. record of intervention in foreign elections.

The New York Times has always taken the view that U.S. election interventions have “generally been aimed at helping non-authoritarian candidates” whereas Russia has “more often intervened to disrupt democracy or promote authoritarian rule.”  Too bad the Times could not interview Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh, Chile’s Salvador Allende, or the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba, who were targeted by the Central Intelligence Agency and replaced by brutal regimes that ruled for decades.  Allende and Lumumba, moreover, didn’t survive the violence that the CIA orchestrated.  The revelations of assassination plots in Cuba, the Congo, the Dominican Republic, and Vietnam finally led to a ban on CIA political assassinations in the mid-1970s.

The grand master of election interference and regime change is, of course, the CIA, which was created in 1947 and immediately began to interfere in elections in Europe.  France and Italy were the primary targets as “bags of money” were “delivered to selected politicians, to defray their expenses,” according to F. Mark Wyatt, a former CIA operative.  The road got much darker in the 1950s, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953 and the installation of a brutal military regime in Guatemala in 1954.

The CIA released a small batch of records on the 1954 military coup in Guatemala, but it has not declassified materials on the CIA-assisted Guatemalan security forces responsible for the deaths of an estimated 200,000 Guatemalans since the coup.  The CIA trained and supported notorious security forces throughout Central America, particularly in Honduras, where the Battalion 316 operated brutal detention centers throughout the country.  The United States and the CIA were responsible for installing abusive authoritarians in Nicaragua and El Salvador as well.

American national interests were rarely at stake in any of these interventions.  Henry A. Kissinger, President Richard M. Nixon’s national security adviser, put it best when he facetiously described Chile as a “dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica.”  Kissinger simply could not see “why the United States should stand by and let Chile go communist merely due to the stupidity of its own people.”  The CIA’s installation of the Shah of Iran in 1953 was the original sin that continues to plague U.S.-Iranian relations.

A Carnegie Mellon scholar, Dov H. Levin, examined the historical record and determined that there were more than 80 overt and covert election influence operations by the United States from 1947 to 2000 as opposed to 36 Soviet and Russian operations in the same period.  The United States relied on various clandestine means, including breaking into political offices to steal codes.  In 1996, the Clinton administration intervened overtly and covertly in the Russian election to make sure that Boris Yeltsin was not defeated by an old-fashioned communist bureaucrat.  The United States engineered a $10 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund to Russia and assigned American political consultants to Yeltsin’s campaign.

The Russian intervention in the U.S. election in 2016 was merely a technological version of the kind of political influence operations that the KGB and the CIA conducted throughout the Cold War.  The digital interventions were far less costly and risky than the clandestine operations of the CIA and the National Security Agency over many decades.  We may lack a full understanding of the extent of U.S. intervention over the yearsm but we know a great deal about the Russian effort to use social media to attack Hillary Clinton, to boost Donald Trump, and to sow discord in the United States. We still lack information on the nature of the cooperation that existed between the Trump campaign and the Russian influence operation.  I’m sure that my former CIA colleagues would find nothing unusual in these Russian actions.

Too many opinion leaders in the United States still believe that several presidential administrations have failed to take advantage of the so-called U.S. victory in the Cold War.  Self-proclaimed liberals such as Susan Rice even share a point of view with neoconservatives such as John Bolton.  They appear to believe that the “shame of the West” is the failure to capitalize on the winning of the Cold War by not making sure that former Soviet republics such as Georgia and Ukraine be admitted to NATO and that recent events in Crimea and Hong Kong justify a new Cold War.  They have exaggerated the extent of Putin’s risk-taking and ignored Washington’s contribution to the sorry state of Russian-American relations.

Unfortunately, a presidential campaign in the United States doesn’t allow for the time or space to conduct a rational dialogue on the importance of restoring stable and predictable relations between the United States and Russia.

Join the debate on Facebook

More articles by:MELVIN GOODMAN

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent book is “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing), and he is the author of the forthcoming “The Dangerous National Security State” (2020).” Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

روسيا بين القيصريّة والسوفياتيّة على متن قطار الشرق الأوسط!‏

 د. وفيق إبراهيم

الاقتراع الروسي لصالح التعديلات الدستورية الأخيرة في دولتهم تختزن إصراراً شعبياً كبيراً على عودة بلادهم إلى التعددية القطبية!

هذا هو المضمون الفعلي لتأييدها من 78% من المواطنين الروس مقابل اعتراض 21% على تعديلات دستورية تُحدث تطويراً في القيم والمؤسسات، وشارك فيها 65% من مجمل شعوب روسيا، هذا رقم كبير في عالم الديمقراطيات الغربية لا تجب مقارنته أبداً بالاستفتاءات العربية التي تعطي رئيس البلاد 99% فقط! وتصل المخابرات ليلها بالنهار بحثاً عن 0.1% تغيّب عن الانتخابات شديدة الشكلية.أما السؤال القابل للمعالجة، فيتعلق بكيفية الربط بين هذه التعديلات ومكانة روسيا العالمية، علماً أنها لا تتطرق إلى هذا الأمر بشكل علني.أولاً تجب الإشارة إلى أن هذه التعديلات لها جانب كبير يتعلق بتعميم القيم الوطنية والولاء للمؤسسات وحقوق المواطن وأدواره في الدفاع عن بلاده سياسياً واجتماعياً واقتصادياً وصولاً إلى الدفاع الوطني.لكن جانبها «الكوني» يرتدي لبوس تعديلات دستورية تسمح للرئيس الروسي البقاء في ولايتين رئاسيتين متتاليتين ابتداء من تاريخ إقرار هذه التعديلات.وهذا يؤدي إلى «تصفير» العداد الرئاسي السابق وإعادة فتحه بموجب هذه التعديلات الجديدة على ولايتين رئاسيتين مدتهما اثنتي عشرة سنة.

وبما أن ولاية الرئيس الروسي الحالي فلاديمير بوتين تنتهي في 2024 أي بعد عشرين سنة من تنقله بين مجلس رئاسة الوزراء في بلاده، ورئاسة الجمهورية، فيكون بوتين مرشحاً لحكم روسيا 32 سنة متواصلة تشبه حكم القياصرة شكلاً والسوفياتية لناحية المضمون الاستراتيجي الذي يريد انتزاع دور عالمي يماثل الشكل السوفياتي إنما بمضمون معاصر يقترب من العالم الغربي.

من الواضح إذاً أن هذه التعديلات تخدم مباشرة التمديد لبوتين بآليات انتخابيّة ميزتها أنها قابلة للتجديد والتمديد.

فلماذا يريد الشعب الروسي بتنوعاته القومية والعرقية فتح الطريق أمام مَن يعتقدون أنه «بطل روسيا»؟

يقول التحليل التاريخي إن انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي في 1989 عكس التراجع الروسي المخيف بدءاً من الثمانينيات لانخراط الاتحاد السوفياتي في حروب تسلح وفضاء ودعم لمدى جيوبوليتيكي واسع.. منفرداً.. مما أدى إلى سقوط هذه الظاهرة الجيوبولتيكية الهامة التي أدت دوراً محترماً في عرقلة الهيمنة الأميركية على العالم منذ الخمسينيات وحتى أواخر الثمانينيات من القرن العشرين إنما بشكل نسبيّ طبعاً.

لكن روسيا وريثة السوفيات، استسلمت بين 1990 تاريخ إعادة تأسيسها وحتى مطلع القرن العشرين للهيمنة الأميركية وصولاً إلى حدود التبعية الكاملة لها، وهي المرحلة التي تسلم الرئاسة فيها بوريس يلتسن الذي قضى عهوده الرئاسية معاقراً للفودكا إلى حدود السكر والاغتراب عن هموم بلاده، حتى أصبحت روسيا في عداد الدولة المعدومة التأثير ومتراجعة اقتصادياً على مستوى الداخل ولا يهمها تلك التغيرات الجيوسياسية التي اتخذها الأميركيون لتطويقها في أوروبا شرقية كانت متحالفة معها، وإبعادها نهائياً عن الشرق الأوسط وجنوب شرق آسيا ورفع مستوى تناقضاتها مع أوروبا.

هذا ما تسلّمه بوتين في 2004 في رئاسة الوزراء ورئاسة البلاد، إلا أنه لم يقبل بهذه الوضعية الروسية المتقهقرة، فبنى خطة بدأت بتمهيد وضعية سياسية موالية لفكرة استنهاض روسي بمدى جيوبولتيكي، وهذا دعاه للتوطيد السياسي وإعادة دعم الممكن من الاقتصاد المنهار خارجياً. اعتبر يلتسن أن تحصين الحدود الروسية مع أوكرانيا «المتأمركة» وأوسينيا وبعض المناطق الأخرى بانياً شبكة أمان في جواره الإقليمي، لكنه سرعان ما أعاد الحيوية إلى علاقات بلاده بالصين على أساس اقتصادي بين البلدين وجيوبولتيكي خارجي للتعامل مع الحذر مع الهيمنة الأميركية.

للمزيد من التأمين الاقتصادي اخترق بوتين الحظر الأميركي على دور روسي في أوروبا، فأسس لمرور أكبر ثلاثة خطوط لأنابيب الغاز الروسي: واحد إلى ألمانيا مباشرةً عبر بحر البلطيق وآخر إلى أوكرانيا فأوروبا وثالث عبر البحر الأسود إلى تركيا فأوروبا أيضاً، مؤكداً بذلك على الدور المركزي الجيوسياسي للغاز الروسي في العالم، وهذا اختراق كبير للجيوبولتيك الأميركي الذي كان يعمل على تطويق روسيا اقتصادياً واستراتيجياً لمنعها حتى من مجرد التفكير والحلم بالقطبية العالمية.

لم يكتف بوتين بهذه الإنجازات بعد تأكده من عجزها عن استرداد الدور العالمي لبلاده.

هنا نراه أعاد تجديد دور قاعدة حميميم الروسية المنصوبة على الساحل السوري منذ زمن السوفيات.

لذلك كان الغبار يعتريها وتكاد تجسد ذكريات سابقة عن جيوبولتيك سوفياتي منهار.هنا نجح بوتين باتفاقات تمهيديّة مع إيران وحزب الله من تحويل حميميم إلى دور روسي عسكري وسياسي كبير بالتعاون العميق مع الدولة السورية.لقد بدت الحركة العسكرية الروسية في سورية واسعة النطاق وحاربت إلى جانب الجيش السوري وحلفائه على كامل الأرض السورية حتى أنّها نفذت مئة وعشرين ألف غارة جوية في مختلف المناطق من دون احتساب القصف المدفعي والصاروخي والعمليات البرية.لقد ظهرت مرامي بوتين من خلال إمساكه بآليّة أستانة وسوتشي مع الأتراك والإيرانيين وبمهادنته السعودية لأسباب تتعلق بضرورات التنسيق في أسواق النفط. فاتحاً علاقات مع العراق والجزائر ومصر محاولاً البحث عن عناصر للعودة إلى اليمن من بوابة العثور على اتفاق بين أجنحته المتقاتلة، مقدماً للبنان عروضاً في الاقتصاد والتسلّح وحاملاً معه إلى ليبيا ذكريات سوفياتية كانت على علاقات جيدة مع القذافي.

يتضح بذلك أن بوتين الممهّد لأدواره المتواصلة في رئاسة روسيا حتى العالم 2036 يتمتع بتأييد شعبي قوي، يؤهله لأداء دور قيصر أو حاكم سوفياتي بصلاحيات إمبراطورية، يريد العودة إلى الشرق الأوسط لأهداف تتعلق بحرصه على العودة إلى النظام القطبي المتعدد، بما يؤهله لتنظيم علاقات اقتصادية مع العرب والمسلمين وتوريد أسلحة لبلدان الشرق الأوسط والمساهمة في التنافس على الغاز في البحر الأبيض المتوسط، بذلك يجد الأميركيون أنفسهم مضطرين لتسهيل ولادة نظام قطبي جديد، يجسد فيه بوتين الروسي دور النجومية لأهمية بلاده من جهة وإمكاناته الشخصية المنسقة مع أدائه في المرحلة السوفياتية دور ضابط مخابرات ناجح.

Bridging China’s past with humanity’s future – Part 3

Source

July 01, 2020

Bridging China’s past with humanity’s future – Part 3

by Straight-Bat for the Saker Blog

This will be presented in 3 parts and in 3 different blog posts

Part 1

Part 2


PART – 3

2008 ONWARDS – PREPARATION FOR FINAL ACT

The financial crisis that started in USA in 2007 became global by 2008 which impacted countries and societies across the world. The year 2008 has already been identified as watershed moment for world economy. However, I would like to put forward a hypothesis stretching the arguments further on why 2008 will be remembered as historic moment that started new preparations:

a) Since 1990s, the latest version of capitalism – Financial capitalism – has been developing strong operations in Anglo countries USA-UK-Canada-Australia and west Europe on the back of Financial services-Insurance-Real estate (termed by economists as FIRE) sectors. That was in line with the political economy of ‘capitalism’ – capital, by definition, needs continuous expansion, the capitalists were/are always in search of new horizons which would provide them more profit that would continue the ‘endless accumulation of capital’.

Before the chapter on financial capitalism got initiated, the businessmen in USA and other Anglo countries carried out two rounds of well-planned outsourcing (by definition, outsourcing brings down the product cost on one hand, and on the other hand outsourcing relieves company management from mundane tasks to devote more time on core competences) of non-MIC non-Energy manufacturing activities: (i) in stage 1 during 1950s and 1960s, they outsourced such economic activities to Japan-South Korea-Taiwan in order to create an economic vassalage through which the living standards of the so-called east Asian tiger economies will be pulled upwards to show ‘miracles’ (happened due to western liberal capitalist democracy), (ii) in stage 2 during 1980s and 190s, they outsourced even larger part of such economic activities to China that in turn would provide massive employment opportunity in China (happened due to western liberal capitalism and technological superiority), which would entice the Chinese government to join the Zionist Capitalist camp.

During 2007 and 2008, all the financial engineering that designed and implemented the FIRE sectors came crashing down. Apparently, ‘financial capitalism’ wasn’t that fault-proof in the face of infinite greed of capitalists. The situation was salvaged through ‘socialising the losses’ suffered by the ‘too-big-to-fail’ banks and financial services companies in USA, and other Anglo countries – the government released trillions of USD to support the crisis-creators. But a much more significant incident was that, the Zionist Capitalist Deep State clique started introspection on how long they can depend on ‘financial capitalism’ to continue accumulation of capital, and as a natural corollary, it appeared to them that ‘industrial capitalism’ was a more secure version of capitalism that was sent abroad with much fanfare. Both the beneficiaries of outsourcing i.e. China and Japan-South Korea-Taiwan block were very well established in the nuances of complete business cycle of ‘industrial capitalism’. The Deep State headquarters (in USA) also remembered that most of the Zionist Capitalist elites of non-Anglo west Europeans were never very serious about outsourcing – as a result, even in late 2000s, Germany-France-Italy-Netherlands-Sweden could maintain a base of ‘industrial capitalism’ (though not a vibrant one under the competitive stress generated by east Asian industrialists)!

The fact that, the Chinese government steadfastly refused to carry out political reforms and to privatize state-owned enterprises came as addition of salt to injury for the Zionist Capitalist Deep State. There was unanimous consent – Chinese manufacturing ‘juggernaut’ would have to be rolled back, and along with that, the unfinished WW II task of destroying CPC would have to be completed.

b) If the Deep State elites were trying in vain, to create environment for Chinese top leadership to switch over to liberal capitalism, the same Deep State elites were dreaming about Russia being colonised by the London-based Zionist Capitalist businessmen and bankers. By the time when they woke up in 2008, Russia developed on all fronts including exports (USD 468 billion primarily from petroleum and natural gas) and Russian government was working all-out to improve the living conditions of the society. After 1991, the Russian capitalist-swindlers were in self-congratulatory mode about how they grabbed the resource extracting sector like petroleum, natural gas, aluminium etc. – with huge mineral and hydrocarbon reserves, using the Anglo-American technologies, the Russian capitalist-swindlers were confident to generate huge revenue and profit year after year. However, post-1991 ‘reformed political environment’ brought such a top leadership who would slowly but surely entrust the custody of most of the natural resources to the state-owned enterprises. Even more interesting event was that, Russian scientists and technologists were again engaged on research and development of military equipment. The military-industrial-complex of Soviet Union was decimated after 1991 mainly because no single successor country of Soviet Union had the entire production chain (it was distributed among different provinces like Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus etc.). Russian leadership intuitively developed the entire supply and production chain in their territory – as a result, very soon Russia became a potent force in arms export. It is not the total amount of export that mattered – the advancements in technology was far ahead in complexity and quality of armaments compared to the armaments owned by military forces of USA-5 Eyes-NATO, particularly in electronic warfare, missiles, and fifth generation military aircraft.

The writing on the wall was clear for the Zionist Capitalist Deep State – the resurgent Russia would utilise the energy export revenue to restructure its own military forces with such magnificent military machines, and Russia will curve-out a share of world-wide military arms export market. This entire cycle would create unwanted competition from technically strong Russia in energy sector and MIC sector, the only sectors of ‘industrial capitalism’ for which the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy still maintained their business portfolio. Again, there was unanimous consent – Russian energy export would have to be rolled back, and along with that, the Russian Federation would have to be dealt a decapitating blow to eliminate current leadership.

c) While all partners of the Deep State cabal were in agreement on the above mentioned points (a) and (b), there was complete lack of convergence on the long-term strategy and plan of action to achieve these objectives.

Such lack of strategic planning and coordination was evident after 2008. For the first time in five centuries the Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal thought that, they need to include more ethnic groups – Barack Husain Obama (representing Afro-Americans) was selected as the President of USA for two terms from 2009 to 2016. It is doubtful, if that action really increased the strength of the cabal. The Zionist Capitalist cabal made a half-hearted initiative to create political-economic supranational blocks (through signing of TPP, TTIP, and TISA) that will impair all-round security of China-Russia and few other countries where governments were being run by anti-imperialist political parties. Such exclusive trade blocks, if materialised, would have (i) impinged on ‘state’ sovereignty of all member states where MNC business entities took priority over state, (ii) created ‘captive market’ for goods and services produced by MNC business entities owned by Jewish, Anglo, Dutch, French, German oligarchy plus Japanese and Korean oligarchy, and (iii) maintained US fiat Dollar as global exchange currency.

[ Link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-ttip-would-abolish-europes-sovereignty-the-eu-would-become-a-us-colony/5417382 ]

If such trade blocks would have been superimposed with EU and NATO, the world would have seen the birth of largest directly controlled empire in history spanning across east and south-east Asia, Europe, North America, most of South America. It is doubtful, if the Deep State elites ever pondered over the absurdity of such planning.

Donal Trump burst into the centre-stage in 2016 end without getting selected by the Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal. But he was quick to get accustomed with the Deep State objectives and strategy – after all, the role of President of USA have been the façade of the Deep State since 1945 (replacing Prime Minister of UK who used to shoulder that ‘responsibility’ for previous couple of centuries). At the first place, Trump’s election as the President of USA itself showed the lack of coordination among the factions of Zionist Capitalist cabal. After Trump settled in, the policy appeared as ‘bring back the manufacturing industry from China any how’ without any arrangement for upstream and downstream supply chain. Any planning of this type of infantile disorder is bound to fail. On the other hand, Trump thinks that Russia would be immature enough to get mollycoddled by his words on how Russia is important in current world economy while maintaining the economic sanctions (which have been hitting Russian economy hard for past 6 years). Again, Trump alienated most of the west European partners through his repeated calls for increasing military budgets by west European NATO partners. Needless to say that, none of Trump’s action plans are backed by thorough study. Similar to immature strategic plans vis-à-vis China, the Deep State have been showing lack of ingenuity vis-à-vis Russia.

Across the world, the serious fact-based researchers and reporters are divided in their opinion – the larger group is of the opinion that the Deep State cabal is in deep crisis that have been brewing for decades (due to factors like ‘intrinsic crisis’ of capitalism, and ‘limitations’ of fiat US Dollar printing or QE, ‘limitations’ of imperial outreach etc.), while relatively smaller group feels that irrespective of such limitations, Deep State will continue to maintain its hegemonic hold over the world order through new tricks. I tend to side with the logic of the smaller group. Notwithstanding the obvious weaknesses of the Deep State cabal, they have wealth cumulatively built up for past five centuries and they have corrupted the educated group of people in all countries since the end of WW I – hence they would look to perpetuate their hegemonic world order in the foreseeable future.

d) Nevertheless the Zionist Capitalist cabal has made an impressive array of arrangements, even if that won’t be coherent enough to defeat either China or Russia:

i. USA Military forces through its regional commands across the world, along with the 5-Eyes military forces maintain high degree of military alertness and preparedness aimed at fighting at least two wars simultaneously at two different ‘theatres’. They have developed and deployed a ubiquitous comprehensive C4ISTAR system and standard operating procedure that will support ‘first strike’ to decapitate the adversary (with Hypersonic strike vehicles, Russia and China are the only countries that defy this). Among significant military assets, very strong naval force with 11 Carrier Strike Groups (CSG), largest fleet of nuclear submarines, largest fleet of ‘stealth’ multi-role military aircrafts, outdated Ballistic Missile Defence system (BMD) to strike down incoming (up to supersonic) projectiles through launching or midcourse or terminal stage, second largest stockpile of Nuclear warheads that can be delivered from land, air, and sea.

ii.  Apart from above mentioned weaponry (common across the world), USA possess highly sophisticated space based weapons like kinetic kill vehicle, and directed energy weapon which, apparently, can be launched by robotic orbital vehicle (X 37B); monitoring and surveillance of satellites sent by other countries to the high earth orbit (HEO) and low earth orbit (LEO) using four satellites of Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSSAP); special armaments researched by DARPA like robotic combat force, microsatellite-cum-drone, microbiological weapons, weather control techniques (HAARP etc.)

iii. USA (along with forces from Rest of 5Eyes, NATO, Israel, Japan) Deep State has been meticulously carrying out military encirclement of Russia and China around their geographical boundary for past two decades. Nuclear warheads in NATO bases in Turkey, Italy and other European countries, BMD system installation in at Poland, Romania, Japan, and South Korea, CSG in all the oceans, more than 700 military bases in Europe-Asia-Africa-Pacific Ocean-Indian Ocean-Atlantic Ocean, and agreements with dozens of non-NATO but pro-Deep State countries for sharing military facilities and logistics facility

e) The Zionist Capitalist oligarchy has been looking beyond the ‘industrial capitalism’ and ‘financial capitalism’. A set of new possibilities have appeared on the horizon – these are not completely ‘new’ because during past two centuries all of these formed a small segment of all-encompassing ‘industrial capitalism’. In the new century, however, any of these or a combination of these can grow into ‘opportunity’ of a new ‘version’ of capitalism:

  1. Exotic materials like Cobalt, Lithium, and Uranium etc.
  2. Genetic engineering and artificial life
  3. Climate engineering
  4. Artificial intelligence
  5. Surveillance and mind control
  6. Healthcare and medicine
  7. Space travel and settlement

Current geopolitical control-points of Deep State:

1. In East Asia, South-East Asia, South Asia, Pacific Ocean zone, Indian Ocean zone the key strategic control revolves around objectives like ‘All-round Containment of China’, ‘Military Partnership with India’ and ‘Creation of Indo-Pacific NATO’ through the programmes like:

  1. Installing Deep State followers as the ruling elites of Taiwan island who could declare formal independence from Chinese mainland
  2. Fomenting secessionist movements in Hong Kong, Xinjiang (East Turkestan), Xizang (Tibet) regions of China. The Deep State would utilize fault-lines of multi-ethnic and multi-religion society of China to tear apart the country into multiple vassal states
  3. Provoking trouble in South China Sea, East China Sea through mobilising the governments of littoral states like Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Japan and nudging them towards confrontational behaviour with China
  4. Keeping the ‘Korean problem’ alive by manipulating successive South Korean governments to take aggressive stance towards North Korean government so that peace agreement (as logical settlement of Korean War armistice) never happens
  5. Keeping the ‘Kuril Islands problem’ alive by co-opting successive Japanese governments towards taking an illogical stand towards proposals of Russian government so that peace agreement (as logical end of WW II) never happens
  6. Keeping the land boundary dispute between India and China alive through co-opting the Indian ruling party leadership and nudging them towards confrontation
  7. Provoking Salafist Islamic terrorism in India, and then cozying up to the Indian government with offer for ‘generous support’, if India joins the USA-led multi-country military block mainly targeted against China
  8. Manipulating Indian leaders and bureaucrats to play a hegemonic role in the south Asian neighbourhood, which would seek to get elite followers of the Deep State camp elected as top leaders of countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Maldives
  9. Forming an ‘informal’ naval alliance among India-Japan-Australia-South Korea which would keep navy of China and Russia under check, and if push comes to shove the ‘quad’ navy would block the Malacca strait to cripple Chinese trade
  10. Corrupting the political parties in Asia’s south-east and south region (countries like Vietnam, South Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka etc.) which had glorious anti-imperialist struggle for many decades to influence them against economic association with China and Russia
  11. Spreading concocted stories on global media identifying infrastructure projects under Chinese government’s BRI initiative as ‘debt trap’ and maligning Chinese manufacturing industry as ‘sweatshop’ to create a negative image

2. In West Asia, North-East Africa, North Africa zone, the key strategic control revolves around objectives like ‘Reorganize State boundaries’, ‘Turn the Region into Domain of Israel’, ‘All-round Containment of Russia and China’ through the programmes like:

  1. Destabilizing existing states through opposition political party (controlled by Deep State) who would manipulate the popular despair and anger against the autocratic rulers in North Africa, West Asia, North-East Africa;
  2. Creating multiple groups of Salafist terrorists by recruitment among the mostly unemployed and uneducated Arab youth from Sunni Islam communities living in the vast desert corridor stretching from Morocco to Afghanistan
  3. Portraying the army of Arab Salafist terrorists as army of ‘pan-Islamic Caliph’ through recruitment of non-Arab mercenary forces from Caucasus, Central Asia, South Asia to create a ‘legitimacy’ among the mostly unemployed and uneducated Asian and African Muslim population who have been brainwashed by religious preachers for generations about glorious ‘Islamic Caliphate’
  4. Mobilising multiple Salafist terrorist groups to bring down existing rulers and simultaneously creating as many fiefdoms by dividing the existing state boundary – thus existing ‘state’ would be converted into ‘statelet’ managed by the terrorist groups
  5. Positioning Israel as the de-facto politico-military leader for all governments in West Asia, North-East Africa, North Africa regions; Israel would act as coordinator entity for providing economic and military assistance to the series of satellite statelet
  6. Manipulating the Kurdish liberation forces spread over Turkey, Syria, and Iraq to break away from their parent countries and create new state of ‘Kurdistan’ that would be a NATO asset in west Asia
  7. Creating multiple power-centres within the Sunni Arab sheikhdoms which would be crucial to control the ambitious Saudi clan

Keeping Iran as a ‘pariah’ state in global affairs through sanctions and limited military strikes until the internal political situation would be ripe enough to be manipulated to overthrow the government of Shia Iranian revolutionaries

  1. Maintaining a high level of USA naval readiness in Persian Gulf through which would keep navy of Iran and Russia under check
  2. Spreading concocted stories on global media identifying Russian ruling party’s internal policies as corruption of ‘Putin faction’ to create negative image of Russian energy and defence industry

3) In Western Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa zones, the key strategic control themes have been ‘All-round Containment of China’, ‘Military Partnership with Nigeria’ and ‘Transform Military Foothold into Large Bases’ driven through programmes like:

  1. Destabilizing existing state apparatus by arming various tribal warlords who are divided among religious lines (Christian, Sunni Islam) in central and western regions of Africa; state like Rwanda and Burundi would remain hotbeds for ever
  2. Deploying military detachments by USA, France, Israel citing old Zionist Capitalist rhetoric of ‘maintaining human rights, democracy and governance’
  3. Corrupting the political parties in Africa’s southern region (countries like South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania etc.) where anti-imperialist struggle were in the global headlines for three decades (1950 to 1970) to influence them against economic association with China and Russia
  4. Building ‘client state’ in all regions of Africa where the entire spectrum of political leadership would follow the ideology and policies pushed by the deep State – countries like Malawi, Liberia, South Sudan etc.
  5. Keeping the ‘Katanga problem’ alive by manipulating the internal political parties, armed groups, neighbouring countries – either DR Congo would become satellite of the Deep State or Katanga would be curved out as ‘independent’ country
  6. Spreading concocted stories on global media identifying Chinese ruling party’s internal debates as ‘factional fight’ to create factionalism within the ruling party, and maligning Chinese manufacturing industry as ‘sweatshop’ to create a negative image

4. In West Europe, and East Europe zones, the key strategic control revolves around objectives like ‘All-round Containment of Russia’, ‘Every state under supranational EU’, ‘Create African-Germanic-Slavic Hybrid Society’, ‘Ruin the Slavic Civilization’ through the programmes like:

  1. Bringing all countries under ‘EU’ banner either as a direct member or as associate thereby diminishing the sovereignty of European states through shifting all governance and policy matters to EU – it ensures single point of contact for hegemonic empire run by Deep State
  2. Expanding NATO to the borders of current Russia through creating Deep State loyalist governments in ex-Soviet bloc countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary and creating USA army bases with nuclear missile installations
  3. Manipulating Turkey, Saudi, Libya political and bureaucratic leadership to mobilize millions of Arab Sunni Muslim low-skilled people into different countries of Europe
  4. Manipulating EU member states to take those ‘forced refugee’ and settle them in Europe to create a multi-ethnic multi-religion hybrid society in Europe – they will form the ‘working class’ people as well as form the backbone of a future European army
  5. Infiltrating the leadership of European political parties which profess ‘socialist’ ideologies (hence, ‘anti-imperialist’ but not Marxist) so that all these parties become ‘controlled opposition’ – in case Deep State supported elitist party loses election, the new government still maintain the capitalist and imperialist policies
  6. Staging false flag terrorist attacks in countries like France, Germany, Italy whenever the ruling leadership in those countries appear to deviate from policies of Deep State, particularly if these leaders try to develop economic relationship with China and Russia
  7. Spreading false propaganda in European media and academic institutions identifying fascist Germany’s territorial expansion and genocides as equivalent to communist Soviet Union’s defensive manoeuvres and administrative overbearingness, and vilifying present Russian government as authoritarian
  8. Provoking secessionist movements (using any fault-line – religion, language, ethnicity) in all geographical regions that come under erstwhile Yugoslavia and Soviet Union so that both these regions are destroyed beyond repair – thus, if ex-Yugoslavia now comprises of (say) 5 statelet, the Deep State would strive to make 10 splinters, similarly if ex-Soviet Union now comprises of (say) 15 statelet, the Deep State would strive to make 30 splinters
  9. Manipulating the political leadership and bureaucracy in all ex-USSR states towards taking government policy decisions/actions which will actively hurt Russian interests
  10. Creating hindrances for Russian access to deep sea ports in Baltic Sea and black Sea to not only restrict their economic activities but also to check the naval forces

5. In South America, and Central America zones, the key strategic control revolves around objectives like ‘All-round Containment of Russia and China’, ‘Creation of Latin American NATO’, ‘Keep Latin America as USA Playground’ through the programmes like:

  1. Bringing all countries under ‘OAS’ banner through which the Deep State will directly interfere in the governance and policy matters – in fact, this organisation coordinates the appointments to legislature, executive, and judiciary in all South American and Central American countries so that only Zionist Capitalist elites get into the top positions of political parties and bureaucracy
  2. Expanding NATO in South America so that the main anti-zionist anti-capitalist government of Venezuela can be directly invaded – to that effect, the Deep State has enrolled Colombia, Peru and Brazil governments to become host of the USA military bases
  3. Infiltrating the leadership of European political parties which profess ‘socialist’ ideologies (hence, ‘anti-imperialist’ but not Marxist) so that all these parties become ‘controlled opposition’ – in case Deep State supported elitist party loses election, the new government still maintain the capitalist and imperialist policies
  4. In case, political parties with Marxist ideology comes to state power through democratic elections, the Deep State will organise trouble within common people and Defence establishment and instigate them to seize power by overthrowing the elected government (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia etc.)
  5. Keeping Cuba under most severe economic sanction and blockade for over six decades – key objectives have been to wreck the Cuban economy and break the Marxist ruling party
  6. Creating a second ‘homeland’ for the Jewish elites and aristocrats, by acquiring very large tract of land and building townships in Patagonia region of Argentina – considering Israel, the first ‘homeland’ has been facing quite difficulty in accomplishing the target of direct control of the stretch of ‘Nile-to-Euphrates’ land, this move will ensure long-term control of Latin America
  7. Spreading concocted stories on global media identifying infrastructure projects under Chinese government’s BRI initiative as ‘debt trap’ and maligning Chinese manufacturing industry as ‘sweatshop’ to create a negative image

All dressed up, but nowhere to go!

As noted above, the Deep State has been making quite assiduous preparations for teaching China and Russia the final lessons on the consequences of violating the rules of “end of history” – the principles of capitalist market economy and electoral democracy. But nobody among the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy knows how such lessons will be taught – China and Russia together control the largest land area, together they house the largest population, together they store the largest reserve of natural resources, together they have most educated and most disciplined work force, together they process/ manufacture largest share of energy and manufactured goods, and together they deploy the largest and most sophisticated military forces. Considering only China, it has third largest land area, largest population, most educated and most disciplined work force, largest share of manufactured goods, and fourth largest military force.

The Deep State, within a span of 100 years forgot that, not only they became more sophisticated, but their biggest adversaries in ‘Eurasian Heartland’: Russia and China, also became more astute. This is not to conclude that Deep State would put to rest their final assault. They will, because ideology and political economy of the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy would compel them to do so. It is imperative that China (and Russia) plan and implement their strategy in the most opportune time.

8. ROAD AHEAD

Let me recall the first paragraph of the first section (INTRODUCTION) of this document. A question was put forward as “what would be the action plan of the global oligarchy who collectively own banking and industrial sectors and who maintain current unipolar world order through chosen members of the so-called Deep State”; most probable answer was “state policy and implementation of the same would be geared towards accumulation of capital in every country except the six countries”. If the global oligarchy remain busy in wealth accumulation, what would be the strategy and action plan of the local oligarchy (consists of industrialists, bankers, large landlords, leaders of main political parties, bureaucracy)? Answer to this question is complex – local oligarchy being directly integrated with the local society, they can’t act in a complete self-seeking manner like their global counterpart. Local oligarchy is bound to look after the arrangements for minimum subsistence of the citizens, and thereafter carry out wealth accumulation. Hence, there is a necessity of minimum economy and governance in every state in the world. With IMF, WBG, ADB banking institutions retreating into conservative procedures as well as USA, 5-Eyes, EU, Japan applying partial break on aids, at least 150 out of 194 UNO member countries would require loan, aid, other techno-economic help. China with largest GDP PPP, largest forex reserve, gigantic domestic market, and largest STEM pool of students would be in a position to fulfil this historic role, even if the leadership may not find it enviable.

Moreover, as noted in previous sections (CHINA IN DENG ERA, POST-DENG CHINA) China has been moving on a continuous journey initiated by Deng’s reforms and managed by successive leaders through tweaking some policy matters and effective coordination. Key statistical indicators during this entire period is given below:

[ Link: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/china-gdp-since-1980 ]

Chinese government would have to reach a ‘logical destination’ in near future – CPC leaders have set their targets on what figure of common socio-economic indicators would be construed as ‘successes. Hence, China will stay on current course till 2028/ 2030 CE impacting global capitalist economy in fundamental way:

  1. Chinese companies will design and develop wide range of consumer products using Chinese patented technology and receive wide acceptance across the world;
  2. China will cease from being ‘factory of the world’ and develop relationship with Asian/African/ South American countries to spread the manufacturing activities there. A mix economy driven by domestic consumption plus exports in China will be healthy for the entire world
  3. Chinese government (along with Russian government) will develop an ecosystem across Europe and Asia in which Banking-Finance and Industry-Economy are intertwined
  4. The system of ‘capitalist market economy through state-owned and private-owned enterprises’ developed in China will evolve as a ‘model’ for many African and Asian countries
  5. Chinese government will continue with the BRI programme as a framework for investments in railways, roads, ports, electricity generation, communication network, mining, manufacturing factory projects in Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America
  6. While making investments in China or in any other country Chinese government will give due importance to environment and take necessary actions so that ecosystem is well-preserved
  7. Chinese government (along with Russian government) will establish an international monetary system to ensure that interests of the non-European and non-5 Eyes countries are maintained This should also include replacement of US Dollar as world’s reserve currency by a basket of currencies of world’s top ten economies (GDP in PPP terms) backed by gold/valuables

The quest for world-wide Zionist capitalist democratic empire (as noted in section GEOPOLITICS 1930 ONWARDS) will never end unless the oligarchy and aristocracy take such decision against their five century old collective psyche. So, it can be safely presumed that the Deep State will continue to look for destroying all sorts of resistance to their hegemony – it is simply immaterial whether the antagonist country profess liberal capitalist (Russia) or socialist (Cuba, China) or Shia Islamic (Iran) or nationalist (Venezuela) philosophy. For the Deep State, complete subjugation is the only way forward. Let’s go back to the first section (INTRODUCTION) again where I mentioned that, China (because of its large landmass and huge population) would be in ideal position to resist the unipolar world order and roll back the onward march of global capitalism in order to build a more equitable society (with crucial support from Russia). Current world order (even when Russia-China-Iran are putting up a brave resistance to the hegemonic Deep State) is anything but equitable. It is one thing to struggle against Zionist Capitalist world order to establish an order with cosmetic change, and it is entirely different thing to struggle to establish an ideal order that brings fundamental transformation. Whichever path Chinese leadership follow, there has to be a detail planning for the same. Let me play the role of a candid analyst.

Looking forward – Option 1:

Option 1 of simulation considers that CPC wishes to struggle against existing Zionist Capitalist world order to establish a parallel world order with cosmetic changes around 2030 CE, and there won’t be any change in ruling party in China during this journey when CPC top leadership maintains their current road – this road would lead the world into the following state of affairs:

  1. China will continue to grow in the path of ‘capitalist market economy’ which will result in further evolution of the private capitalist businessmen class – share of capital asset owned by private enterprises will crawl upwards and share of output by private enterprises will rise faster in GDP. Government will control corruption-inflation-unemployment strictly, will implement new policies to control the capitalist class, and will provide welfare schemes to commoners in order to maintain legitimacy of CPC within the society.
  2. Confrontation in South China Sea, Taiwan and North Korean border will continue to increase to such a level that the Deep State will find it completely embroiled without an easy exit – a ‘hot’ limited war will be fought between two sides: USA-Japan-South Korea and China-North Korea, which will end with effective departure of USA military from Asia region, and Chinese unification with Taiwan.
  3. Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal would redefine their ‘territory’ by identifying core zone as Europe continent, North America continent, Australia-New Zealand-Japan (islands), and India-Israel (countries living with island mentality) – within these regions, the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be under sway of MNCs owned by the oligarchy clique.
  4. In Asia, Africa, South America continents, China will get accepted as the leader in economic and socio-cultural sphere, while Russia will evolve as the leader in military and energy sphere – within these regions, the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be more or less driven by the local political parties and local oligarchy who will have majority part of their business relationship with China and Russia; however the local oligarchy will also maintain minor trade and finance relationship with Deep State dominated regions.
  5. Fundamentals of capitalistic economy will remain intact in the China-Russia dominated regions with both state-owned and private-owned enterprises ruling the roost – the cycle of profit and endless accumulation of capital will continue, but under supervision of the state; also, general welfare and social security for all classes of citizens will be ensured by the state.
  6. 2050 CE onwards, the tussle between two ‘worlds’ will be reflected very badly in the realm of space and planetary exploration as well as environment of our planet – the Deep State-controlled ‘world’ will seek domination of space through advanced technology in the field of aerospace and defence, which may not become a priority for Chin-Russ civilizational combination.
  7. the Deep State-controlled ‘world’ will seek final revenge on the other ‘world’ by climate engineering during which weather manipulation in the form of substantial temperature rise, extreme cyclonic storm, long duration of drought, out of season rainfall etc. will be effected to destroy agriculture and urban society within a decade or so. Though the Deep State will attempt to become the uncontested hegemon the other world will continue to struggle independently as a block.

Looking forward – Option 2:

Option 2 of simulation considers that CPC wishes to struggle against existing Zionist Capitalist world order to establish a parallel world order with cosmetic changes around 2030 CE, and there will be unpredicted change in ruling party in China during which CPC will be replaced by a liberal capitalist political party supported by Deep State-led ‘democracy movement’ – this road would lead the world into the following state of affairs:

  1. China will continue to grow in the path of ‘capitalist market economy’ which will result in further evolution of the private capitalist businessmen class – share of capital asset owned by private enterprises will increase substantially and share of output by private enterprises will rise exponentially in GDP. Government will not be effective to control corruption-inflation-unemployment. The capitalist class will create political party with so-called nationalist ideology supported by local academia and media. CPC will move in the direction of legitimising such political party, which will seize power after election (it will be immaterial whether CPC really win or lose election – either way, the opposition will seize power).
  2. Confrontation in South China Sea, Taiwan and North Korean border will diminish after new political party form the government which will be completely under control of the Deep State. Without any ‘hot’ war mainland China and Taiwan will be unified – for USA Deep State this will be a revenge after a century. After all, Kuo Mintang was the favourite of Zionist Capitalist oligarchy from 1927 onwards when Chiang Kai-shek proved that he can fight against CPC ruthlessly. It has been USA’s economic and military support that kept Taiwan as viable ‘entity’ till now.
  3. Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal will find the entire world (except Russia) as their ‘territory’– the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs, essentially everything under the Sun would be under sway of MNCs owned by the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy clique.
  4. Entire world (except Russia) will accept USA (along with Israel and 5-Eyes) as the leader in military, economic and socio-cultural spheres – everywhere, the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be more or less driven by the local political parties and local oligarchy who will be directly appointed by the Deep State; however the local oligarchy will also maintain minor trade relationship with Russia for energy import.
  5. Across the world capitalistic economy will remain intact through the cycle of profit and endless accumulation of capital – however, due to mismanagement of resources and brutal exploitation of common people, there will be wide-spread hunger. Population in Africa and Asia will decline. This will conform to the Zionist ideology which portrays earth as a settlement for the ‘golden billion’ – one billion of Jewish and Anglo population and their flunkies. Automated robots will be utilised for industrial and agricultural production – they neither require food, shelter and healthcare nor do they demand justice and equality!
  6. 2050 CE onwards, the tussle between the ‘one world’ owned by the Deep State and Russia will turn into a serious ‘hot’ war. The Deep State will seek final revenge on Russia by complete obliteration using military technology that apparently will confine the radioactive ashes and dust within the destroyed land itself instead of moving upwards to cover the entire atmosphere of earth – thus the Deep State will attempt to become the uncontested hegemon and will succeed, albeit with major losses.

Looking forward – Option 3:

Option 3 of simulation considers that CPC wishes to struggle against existing Zionist Capitalist world order to establish a parallel but new world order based on basic Marxist philosophy around 2035 CE, and there won’t be any change in ruling party in China during this journey when CPC top leadership changes their current track – this road would lead the world into the following state of affairs:

  1. China will continue to grow in the path of ‘capitalist market economy’ with restrictions on further evolution of the private capitalist class – share of capital asset owned by state enterprises will increase substantially and share of GDP output by state enterprises will surpass the private enterprises by a multiplier of two. Government will control corruption-inflation-unemployment strictly, will chalk out policies on transformation of economy into a Marxist economy in which private-owned and state-owned enterprises will be transferred to community ownership by 2035. However, both private capitalists (local, foreigner) and state capitalists (central, provincial, local) will have marginal share in the enterprises earlier owned by them – such benefits will construe as long-term compensation against the asset transfer, apart from an immediate compensation paid to the erstwhile owners.
    1. By 2030, the technology-based modernisation of the forces of production in China will be complete which can be interpreted as ‘creation of material basis is done’. CPC can plan with earnestness for achieving their original objective of achieving a Marxism-based society through a SINGLE-STAGE TRANSFORMATION. As Stalin and Mao faced socio-economic reality, two stage transformation has immanent difficulties – with completion of stage 1 (during which Capitalist society with bourgeoisie democracy transforms into Socialist society with dictatorship of proletariat), increasingly detrimental geopolitical and economic factors imposed by the opposing forces of monopoly capitalism will not provide opportunity or time for further progress into stage 2 (Socialist society with dictatorship of proletariat transforms into classless Communist society). CPC may make a thorough plan of action for a single-stage transformation with as minimum shock as possible – a point to remember: people never plan to fail, they fail to plan.
    2. While the planning for a single-stage transformation is undertaken by CPC, they need to make the fundamental action – replacement of ‘private ownership’ by COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP. Neither any citizen nor State will own any means of production (land, natural resources, machinery, real estate and other infrastructure, financial capital etc.) apart from their living houses/flats/bungalows/vehicles. Military Industry will be required for production of military machinery which should be owned and managed by the state. Rest everything will be owned by community. Only when the entire world has decisively transformed into an ocean of humanity without any presence of ‘private ownership’ anywhere, the ‘State’ will relinquish its ownership of MIC, and ideally, there should not be any necessity of the same. The cycle of profit and endless accumulation of capital need to stop for the sake of humanity.
  2. Confrontation in South China Sea, Taiwan and North Korean border will continue to increase to such a level that the Deep State will find it completely embroiled without an easy escape – a ‘hot’ limited war will be fought between two sides: USA-Japan-South Korea and China-North Korea. With major losses on both sides, China will reap the benefit of being ‘son of the soil’ while USA will bite the dust by acting as an invader to east and south-east Asia. At the end of such conflict, two of the WW II ‘problems’ will get resolved in favour of socialist and workers parties of China and Korea. This will also initiate the complete retreat of the USA military from Asia continent, North Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean regions leaving Japan and India to reconcile itself with a new China.
  3. Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal would redefine their ‘territory’ by identifying core zone as North America continent, west European region, Australia-New Zealand-Greenland (islands), and Brazil-Argentina-Chile-Paraguay. By then, Patagonia in Argentina would have become the second homeland of Jewish oligarchy and aristocracy – it will secede from Argentina to become an independent corporation (i.e. democratic capitalist country). Most interesting change will be in Europe – Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia et. al will be left in the lurch by the Deep State. That action of the Deep State will be intelligent indeed – such ethnic groups who could be easily lured into any geopolitical activities that will finally result in their downfall, can’t be true ally! Since past three centuries the leaders of these countries proved time and again that, they will wreck their own economy and society (by unnecessarily fighting with Russian Slavic land) in lieu of hundreds of millions of Dollars credited into their offshore bank accounts. Within the ‘Anglo and Jewish enlightened world’ the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be under sway of MNCs owned by the oligarchy clique. A significant number of south Asians, Koreans, east Europeans will be given permanent citizenship because of their extraordinary greed, and socio-cultural servitude to the Zionist Capitalist ideology and Anglo/Jewish ethnicity.
  4. Across the world (excluding the zones of ‘Anglo and Jewish elite world’) China will get accepted as the leader in economic and socio-cultural sphere, while Russia will evolve as the leader in military and energy sphere – in these regions, the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be more or less driven by the local political parties and local oligarchy who will have majority of their business relationship with China and Russia; however the local oligarchy will also maintain minor trade and finance relationship with Deep State dominated regions. In the long run, most of the countries will follow the Chinese system of community-ownership of means of production within their country.
  5. 2040 CE onwards, the world will be the most safe and peaceful compared to the past five millenniums (during which conflicts used to be the rule rather exception). China and Russia will lead the way for research and development related to sustainable economy and environment. There will be significant use of technology in making the individual life and social life better and comfortable than before. New frontiers of space research and planetary exploration will open up. Human civilisation would proceed further in understanding the ‘reality’ of ‘universe’ – we will know how ‘life’ got created and what the ‘mystery’ of creation is!
  6. the Deep State-controlled ‘Anglo and Jewish elite world’ will seek final revenge on the ‘other world’ by complete destruction using military technology that apparently will confine the radioactive ashes and dust within the destroyed land itself instead of moving upwards to cover the entire atmosphere of earth. However, as history repeats itself, such research and development by the Deep State would be known to the leaders of ‘other world’ much before fruition – left with a choice between complete surrender and complete destruction, the Deep State will chose the former ‘to live and let others live’.

Conclusion:

China and CPC are fortunate to get Xi Jinping as the paramount leader. I’m not saying this because of his achievements and successes in governance or economy or defence or any other sphere. My point is – a top leader who remembers the origin and mission of his party and his ideology, can do wonders. In 2017, while visiting Shanghai and Jiaxing building/site where 1st National Congress of CPC was held in 1921, Xi stated “only by remaining true to our original aspiration, keeping our mission firmly in mind, and keeping on striving, could the Party stay young and live”. Such ideological plain-speaking is a sign of very rare honesty and sincerity. Hope, CPC leaders and core group of members will provide required strength and support to Xi.

I wonder, if top CPSU leaders in post-Stalin era ever remembered original aspiration and goal of CPSU. The ideological decomposition initiated by Khrushchev was so effective, that it wiped out all lofty ideals steered by none other than Lenin. Shouldn’t the true patriots in the land of Lenin start their journey once again and join forces with their Chinese comrades in the final stage of the long march?

China Communist Party tells members to celebrate 'political ...

Short profile:

By profession I’m an Engineer and Consultant, but my first love was and is History and Political Science. In retired life, I’m pursuing higher study in Economics.

I’m one of the few decade-old members of The Saker blog-site. Hope that this website will continue to focus on truth and justice in public life and will support the struggle of common people across the world.

An Indian by nationality, I believe in humanity.

RUSSIA’S NEW DEAL AND WESTERN REACTION

Russia's New Deal And Western Reaction

Russia is holding a national voting on amendments to its Constitution. Last Thursday kicked off one week in which Russians are asked to cast their votes on changes to the document. The formal date is July 1, but the polling stations were opened as early as June 25 in order to avoid too high turnout due to the so-called pandemic.

Vladimir Putin announced a set of amendments to the Constitution in his annual address to the Federal Assembly on January 15. The same day he ordered to form a working group to draft these amendments. The group was composed of 75 politicians, legislators, scholars and public figures and it submitted the proposals that formed the basis of the new Constitution. On March 11, the State Duma adopted the draft amendments to the Constitution in the third reading. On the same day, they were approved by the Federation Council.

The referendum was originally scheduled for April 22. The date coincided with Vladimir Lenin’s 150th birthday. It was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The draft amendments to the Constitution were submitted to a referendum in accordance with article 2 of the Law on Amendments to the Constitution adopted on March 16, 2020. Voters are given a yes-or-no vote on the full text of the new Constitution.

After Putin proposed constitutional changes, the amendments sparked significant debate both inside the country and beyond its borders. The proposed amendments to the Constitution affect various spheres.

The amendments, which can be described as ideological, received the great public response. According to a sociological study, the most important among them for Russians was the amendment to “on the protection of historical truth”:

“The Russian Federation honors the memory of the Fatherland defenders and protects the historical truth. Belittling the significance of the feat of the people in the defense of the Fatherland is not allowed.”

This amendment is extremely relevant in Russian society. This is due to various external factors. First of all, Russia’s neighboring states such as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland issue resolutions condemning Russia’s position in the Second World War. This is accompanied by the demolition of the monuments to Soviet heroes in large cities, what causes great indignation among Russians and arouses great controversy at the international level.

Moreover, this amendment is gaining popularity due to the ongoing unrest in the West. In the USA protesters demolish monuments to prominent historical figures who formed the American identity – Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jefferson, and so on. The Russian government tries to prevent this in its own country, believing that the Empire collapses when it loses its ideology. Today, the strengthening of Russia as independent conservative ideological center may contribute to the further strengthening of the Russian position on the international arena.

Russian servicewomen march during the Victory Day parade. They were among 14,000 troops from 13 countries who took part in the event. Soldiers taking part had been tested and placed in quarantine ahead of the parade.

If this amendment is primarily of concern to the countries of Eastern Europe and has received little coverage in the Western media, the following amendment to the Russian Constitution has aroused great interest in Western Europe and the United States.

The proposals to amend the Article 72 of the Constitution gained wide resonance in the West.  The article says (the changes are in bold):

“In the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and subjects of the Russian Federation are:

… the protection of family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood; the protection of the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman; the creation of conditions for worthy education of children in the family, as well as for adult children responsibilities to care for their parents…”

Despite the fact that today same-sex marriages are not recognized in Russia, if the amendment is approved by a vote, the marriage between members of the LGBT community will be excluded at the level of the Constitution. Currently, there are no special laws prohibiting same-sex relationships or gender reassignment surgeries in Russia. At the same time, since 2013, there is a Federal law prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality among minors, which criminalizes public manifestations of non-traditional sexual orientations.

Conservative views on homosexuality are widespread in Russia, and recent polls show that most Russians are opposed to accepting homosexuality in their society. In particular, intolerance of homosexuality is present in regions with persisting traditional way of life, such as Chechnya or Dagestan.

Covering the proposal to introduce this amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, The New York Times wrote in March:

“President Vladimir V. Putin has proposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in what political analysts suggest is an effort to raise turnout for a constitutional referendum that could keep him in power but has so far stirred little enthusiasm among Russians.”

The Guardian in the article «Putin submits plans for constitutional ban on same-sex marriage» claimed that “[t]he move, announced by Putin in January, was initially seen as a way for him to hold on to power after 2024, when as things stand he will no longer be able to serve as president because of term limits.

Moreover, a flag of the LGBT community was displayed on the buildings of the US Embassy in Moscow to protest the proposed amendments on the first day of the national voting. The US move was followed by embassies of Canada and the UK. This is a concerted political action in direct contravention of Russian law on responsibility for propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors.

US Embassy Helps Russians To Vote YES On Constitutional Amendments

The amendment to the Constitution excluding the possibility of same-sex marriage does not correspond to the newly imposed neo-liberal values labeled as the Wester-rooted. At the same time, believing its own values to be the only correct and universal, the collective West imposes them in various regions of the world, including in Russia. The promotion of liberal values is certainly necessary for the West to strengthen its world domination, but this often leads to negative consequences.

The reaction of the West to the amendment to article 72 primarily emphasizes that the introduction of changes to the legislation regarding LGBT communities serves as a distraction for the population, which will allow Vladimir Putin to remain in power after the end of his presidential mandate in 2024. Also, the Western community itself is much more concerned about the amendments to reset Putin’s terms than about the well-being of homosexuals in Russia.

By its ideological changes, Russia confirms the unacceptability of Western ideology for its society, while also making important changes to the country’s administrative apparatus itself, which will allow it to be strengthened.

Given that the West in general has a negative attitude to the figure of Vladimir Putin, primarily because of his success in governing the country and in strengthening Russia, the amendment to reset the terms of his rule is particularly frowned upon. Paragraph 3 of Article 82 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states:

“The same person may not hold the office of President of the Russian Federation for more than two consecutive terms.”

In this wording, it is proposed to remove the word “consecutive”, and to extend the effect of this amendment only to the current President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. This allows resetting the terms of Vladimir Putin’s presidency, and gives him the opportunity to run for the presidency in 2024.

Political analyst Nathaniel Reynolds wrote in a paper for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

“Putin’s use of more than 200 amendments was a “stunning trick” to mask the real purpose of the constitutional vote — allowing him to remain in office. It was a shocking exercise in political deception, even to the many regime insiders left in the dark.” Reynolds also noted: “A younger Putin recognized the dangers of such a precedent. He told a journalist in 2005 that if leaders change the constitution for their own purposes, there will be nothing left of the state.”

Moreover, Western media reproach that the attention of the population is not particularly focused on this key amendment. The Russian authorities are conducting a large advertising campaign of other amendments, primarily socially conservative ones such as protection of historical truth or a ban on dual citizenship for government employees. These principles, designed to unite Russians, are at the heart of the system of conservative Patriotic values of the head of the Russian state.

During his presidency, Vladimir Putin brought Russia to the international arena and significantly strengthened its position as a regional power center. Further strengthening of the country is unacceptable for the West that provokes strong criticism of this amendment. However, the abolition of the presidential term limit only increases the level of democracy in the country because people have a chance to vote for an actual president as many times as they want. The President can only be chosen through democratic elections, and allowing Putin to run in 2024 does not guarantee his victory. Moreover, most likely, the amendment to reset the time frame allows to stabilize the situation in the country for the next few years. If it is not accepted now, then a tough power struggle in Russia will begin today which will significantly destabilize the country.

On June 18, the Venice Commission criticized some amendments to the Russian Constitution initiated by Vladimir Putin.

The European Commission for Democracy through Law – better known as the Venice Commission as it meets in Venice – is the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters. It involves all countries that are members of the Council of Europe, including Russia, and some countries outside this organization. Its role is to analyze the laws and draft legal advices to its member states.

Russia's New Deal And Western Reaction

European experts expressed concern that the new Constitution proposes to include the possibility of dismissal by the Federation Council of judges of the constitutional court on the proposal of the President.

‘’The proposed innovations make the constitutional court more vulnerable to political pressure, since the powers of judges can be terminated on the proposal of the President,’’ experts say.

European experts also recommended the proposed amendment to Article 79 to be changed or completely deleted. It proposes to affirm the right not to execute “decisions of interstate bodies adopted on the basis of provisions of international treaties of the Russian Federation in their interpretation contradicting the Constitution of the Russian Federation”.

This amendment provides for the possibility of not complying with the decisions of international courts, including the European court of human rights. Experts of the Venice Commission in their conclusion point out that by joining the Council of Europe and ratifying the Convention on human rights, Russia is obliged to comply with the decisions of the European court of human rights, and with article 46 of the Convention, which indicates that the execution of court decisions is mandatory.

On June 25, the representative of the European Commission Peter Stano made a statement that the amendment on the priority of the Russian Constitution over international law violated the international obligations of the Russian Federation.

In response to criticism from Europe, the Chairman of the Committee on International Affairs of Russian State Duma, Leonid Slutskiy, emphasized that this practice is widely used by countries, including members of Europe, and the amendment does not cancel Russia’s international obligations.

We have consistently explained and continue to explain to our European partners: the amendments to Article 79 do not nullify the international obligations of the Russian Federation, Russia has fulfilled them and will continue to do so. It is an issue of establishing the primacy of the Constitution, which fully complies with foreign experience. For example, there is much stricter primacy of national legislation over international legislation in European states like the UK and Germany, not speaking about the United States,”

Russia in its foreign policy has always defended the rule of international law in the world system. This international law should be based on consensus, and first of all should be represented by international institutions such as the UN. Today, Russia recognizes that international law is not more presented by an international agreement but by American legislation that applies anywhere in the world. The adoption of the amendment on the supremacy of the Russian Constitution over international law strengthens the country’s position and underlines its frustration with the current destruction of the entire world system.

According to social research, the most important for Russians is the amendment on the protection of the country’s sovereignty at the constitutional level. This amendment suggested to Article 67 is one of the most criticized abroad:

 “The Russian Federation ensures the protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Actions (with the exception of delimitation, demarcation, redemarkation of the state border of the Russian Federation with neighboring States) aimed at alienating part of the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as calls for such actions, are not allowed.”

This amendment to the Constitution regarding the territorial integrity of the country caused a large condemnation by the United States.

Krista Wiegand, American expert on territorial disputes of the Center for Global Security Studies in Tennessee, claimed that “Russia does not want to play by international rules” and this is dangerous for Japan and Ukraine.

This statement is completely unjustified.

According to the Soviet-Japanese Declaration of 1956, ending the state of war between the countries, the USSR agreed to transfer the Habomai and Shikotan Islands to Japan on the condition that the actual transfer would be made after the conclusion of a Peace Treaty. Moscow’s position is that the southern Kuril Islands became part of the USSR, which Russia became the legal successor to, are an integral part of the territory of the Russian Federation legally based on the results of World War II and enshrined in the UN Charter, and Russian sovereignty over them, which has the appropriate international legal confirmation, is not subject to doubt. Today, it is not Russia that threatens Japan, but the opposite, as Japan claims “its northern territories” to be under Russian occupation.

A similar situation has developed on the Eastern borders of Russia. Since the accession of the Crimea to Russia is a fait accompli, Ukraine has no choice but to declare annexation and try to claim de facto Russian territories.

The amendment suggested to article 67 does not threaten any other state. First of all this amendment prevents separatism inside Russia.

The Guard of Honor of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army take part in the military parade marking the 75th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War on Red Square in Moscow, Russia, June 24, 2020.

The creation of the threatening image of Russia is beneficial for the Democratic American establishment. At the same time, countries with territorial disputes with the Russian Federation reacted with more restraint.

Japanese government Secretary General Yoshihide Suga noted that changes to the Constitution are an internal matter for Russia. Political expert Ikuro Nakamura noted that the Japanese government believes that the changes to the Constitution are aimed at increasing Patriotic consciousness in Russian society.

Former advisor to the Greek prime minister for co-operation with the Russian Federation and Eastern Europe, Dimitrios Velanis, said:

“Russia has many times throughout its history experienced an attack or an attempt by other powers to occupy its territory. It was in almost all wars. From all these wars Russia emerged victorious and lost none of its territories. This year marks the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory.”

Furthermore, the French Foreign Ministry proclaimed through its representative that “the constitutional change is a sovereign decision of the Russian Federation, which must fully comply with international obligations”.

It would be difficult to imagine the opposite reaction of the West to the proposed amendments to the Russian Constitution. They strengthen the country both insight and in the international arena, which causes fear in Western countries.

In response to criticism of the package of amendments to the Constitution, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev said:

“The West’s reaction to public discussions of amendments to the Russian Constitution is taking the form of an aggressive campaign bordering on interference in the country’s domestic affairs. The reaction of what can be described as ‘Collective West’ is taking the form of a hostile and aggressive campaign against Russia, which is bordering on interference in our domestic affairs.”

At the same time, Russian experts say that they expected a larger company from the West, and today’s criticism was much weaker than it could have been. Indeed, the US has demonstrated that it could lead strong anti-Russian companies, for example, by accusing it of interfering in the election of President Trump. The UK also conducted a strong informational campaign, which was called the “Skripal Case”. Today, Russia is faced with a choice, and its society is really experiencing great differences regarding the future development of the country. This moment is most favorable for external intervention and, if the West had the opportunity, it would be able to significantly influence the development of Russia in a way that would be beneficial to it. However, today the influence from outside is insignificant, which is primarily due to the weakness in the Western countries themselves. The crisis after the coronavirus epidemic, followed by large-scale protests in all countries do not leave the power for weakened world leaders. In addition, on a more global scale, while still maintaining the role of world hegemon, the US has never been so weak in relation to developing new centers, and it seems that it can no longer control the situation in various world regions, including Russia.

Collective West hostile campaign against Russia

The amendments to the Russian Constitution demonstrate that the current Russian leadership has tried to pass the period of reconstruction after the crisis of the 1990s and the period of the rise of the 2000s. The Constitution adopted in Russia in 1993 was essentially an ideal document that would allow Russia to reconcile with the market system world. It was mostly designed to satisfy interests of Western puppeteers of the new post-Soviet Russian ‘democratic’ elites. Russia was as an independent state and an international actor was weak in 1991. 30 years later, a stronger Russia is embarking on its own path of development, different from the Western one. And the gap between the Western way and the Russian one seems to be widening. Therefore, a chance exists that in the bright multicolored future there will be place not only for the neo-liberal minorities-ruled West and the radically-conservative Islamic East, but also for a balanced center in Eurasia.

Russia constitution amendment and West’s reaction

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Why Is This Even a Story: Russians Allegedly Paid Afghans to Kill US Soldiers?

Source

June 29, 2020 Arabi Souri

Taliban Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan - Russia USSR USA

The New York Times is pushing this story, denied by Trump and his war ministry the Pentagon and his ‘intelligence’ services publicly, that Russia is running a plot paying bounties to Afghan recruits of Taliban and others to kill US troops in Afghanistan.

What were the Afghan Taliban and most of the Afghan fighters doing all the past 19 years exactly? Maybe distributing flowers to the US occupation troops who were giving them chocolate in return!

The New York Times Russia bounty to Afghan fighters to kill US troops
The New York Times Breaking News on an alleged Russian bounty to Afghan fighters to kill US troops.
This comes after Trump made some vague announcement on troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

And, of course, the mainstream media jump to spread the explosive news that were uncovered by the ‘exceptional’ work of the New York Times:

Mainstream Media Hype on New York Times Russia bounty to Afghan fighters to kill US soldiers
Mainstream Media hype on New York Times Russia bounty to Afghan fighters to kill US soldiers story

That’s one side, what if Russia actually paid Afghan fighters to kill US soldiers? What’s wrong with that? Didn’t the US overtly arm the same Afghan fighters to kill Soviet troops in Afghanistan including with surface to air missiles paid for by the Saudis and the US taxpayers to shoot down Soviet planes and copters killing Russians?!

US President Ronald Reagan with Afghanistan Mujahideen plotting to kill Soviet Troops
US President Ronald Reagan with Afghanistan Mujahideen (later to be al-Qaeda) plotting to kill Soviet (mainly Russian) troops
Afghan Mujahideen al Qaeda US Surface to Air Missiles to Kill Russians and USSR Soldiers
Afghan Mujahideen al Qaeda US Surface to Air Missiles to Kill Russians and USSR Soldiers

Just a reminder to the USAians: Afghanistan was directly on the Soviet Union southern borders; the USA is across the planet, like literally on the other side of the planet, if you look at the globe and find the USA just look at the other side of the globe and you’ll find Afghanistan. Flat-Earthers: The USA is a 1 full day, that’s 24 hours trip from New York (the closest city on the eastern US coast) to Afghanistan!

The USA considers Venezuela and all of Central America and South America as their backyard and they share borders only with Mexico, Russia is 4 hours flight from Afghanistan and that’s from Kabul to Moscow, not the distance between two border cities and not the closest two points…

New York to Kabul flight - google search
New York to Kabul flight – Google search

Also a reminder to USAians, during her confirmation hearings Clinton bragged that the US created al Qaeda and armed al Qaeda and that this was a good idea.https://www.youtube.com/embed/Dqn0bm4E9yw

It’s only because the US presidential elections race has started and they want to confirm that Trump is a Russian asset, the thing they failed to prove in their lengthy costly ridiculous Muller investigations that revealed so many other things except this one. And this is not to defend Trump, he’s a lunatic war criminal, rather fearing he will impose more sanctions on Russia and push the already tense relations into further escalation to prove he’s not a Russian asset, just like how they played him all the past almost 4 years on every single subject they wanted him to act as tough on, remember his orders to withdraw from Syria?

image-A 70 Years Old President of the USA Donald J. Trump
A 70 Years Old President of the USA Donald J. Trump

Can we talk about the direct and indirect overt and covert aid the USA and all its stooges and lackeys (Turkey, Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Australians, Gulfies, Canada, Denmark, Israel…) gave to terrorists of Al-Qaeda and all its derivatives (FSA, Nusra Front, HTS, ISISFaylaq RahmanMaghawir Thawra, Khalid Army, Jaysh Al-Islam, Turkestan Islamist Party……..) to kill and maim Syrian soldiers and Syrian civilians in Syria? Iraqis in Iraq? Lebanese in Lebanon? Libyans in Libya? Iranians in Iran? …. in ….?

The Pentagon Threatening to Revive ISIS

Krampus is alive and well: How the myth of Soros paralyses the anti-imperialist struggle

Krampus is alive and well: How the myth of Soros paralyses the anti-imperialist struggle

June 27, 2020

By Ken Leslie for The Saker Blog

1. The making of a demon

Remember the days of your childhood—especially if you are German. If you even dream of being naughty or disobeying your elders and betters, Krampus will put you in his basket and take you to some swampy Germanic hell. Nothing will be heard from you ever again.

Krampus is a leftover from ancient pre-Christian times when he (and he is a he) consorted with witches and indulged in unspeakable acts with them. The idea of a horned demigod taking away and destroying that which is most precious survived all attempts at Christianising and remains to this day a well-known and dreaded member of the pantheon of early childhood monsters. The pedagogic value of Krampus is that he is so horrible looking and mean that the very mention of his name (frightening in itself) is enough to pacify the most recalcitrant toddler. He is a demon born at the dawn of time in a dark and cold Alpine redoubt with a single purpose—to frighten and torture naughty children. Many of us non-Germans knew of Krampus as children and although we had our own non-Germanic demons to defend against, somewhere far at the back of our minds, the Supreme Fear in the form of Krampus was just a few steps away.

How does the story of a scary childhood character relate to the present day? Am I being flippant in comparing a mythical demonic creature to a highly successful trader and philanthropist? Well, no. George Soros’s history of dirty deeds spanning decades and continents has been so destructive that he has created his own demonic myth within his lifetime. A mysterious character who refuses to shuffle his mortal coil and is kept in a semi-mummified semi-stasis by some miracle of “medical science” or another, Gyorgyi Schwartz of Budapest and a billionaire has become Krampus of our time. He is a demon of extreme power, cunning and devilry (he was called something not very dissimilar by Mahathir Mohammed). He is the eternal wanderer ever ready to profit from others’ misery who has been funding his destructive vision ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. He has become the synonym for a disruptive, meddling anti-national, neoliberal, “cosmopolitan” conspiracy. The point of these, allegedly, has been to weaken any indigenous patriotic forces in order to a) protect a particular group of people from possible persecution by diluting any nationalist urges and b) allow those same people to set the tone of the political discourse and capture the levers of power.

At the time, people marvelled at how someone can emerge from such obscurity to become a global player overnight—but like always, such success was ascribed to Soros’s genius and hard work.[1] Our modern-day Krampus has been compared to Jakob Schiff, the famous/notorious Jewish-American financier and philanthropist (word that is rapidly losing its positive connotation), whose anti-Russian animus found a fruitful outlet in financing all enemies of imperial Russia—from Japan to various ethnic nationalists and finally—and most importantly—the Bolsheviks. Another Schiff, the senator Adam, is the current torch bearer of Russophobia in US Congress. The analogy is mostly apt. While the target of Schiff’s wrath was mainly the Russian Empire, Soros has targeted both the dying Soviet Union and its capitalist successor.[2] He named his nebulous pseudo-philosophy “Open Society” (probably plagiarising another Russophobe—Karl Popper) as a counter to the still weak attempts by Russia to escape the death sentence handed down to it by the triumphant West. This was a time when prominent Soixante-huitards such as Joschka Fischer, Bernard Henry-Levy, Andre Glucksmann, Bernard Kushner, Alain Finkelkraut and other future war criminals ruled the European roost. These third-rate activists and intellectuals excelled in one thing only—hatred of Russia and Orthodox Christianity.

Soros wormed his way into the newly “liberated” countries via a network of well-funded “foundations”, “institutes”, “universities” and “human rights organisations”. In other words, Soros used a strategy known to all predators that aim to overrun a country. By pretending to care about the plight of refugees, minorities, LGBT population and generally—human rights—Soros undermined the self-governance of newly independent countries leaving them vulnerable to depredations by the US and EU intelligence-organised disruption operations. That Soros’s demonic project had nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with harming Russian interests is confirmed by the fact that he has targeted both socialist Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and a capitalist Russia, funded anti-Russian forces all over the world (in Chechenia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, EU, Africa, Middle East and USA) and fought a continuous ideological and cultural war against what he perceived as the menace of the rebirth of the Russian Empire.

He honed his destructive apparatus with the help of corrupt local politicians and quasi intellectuals. Offering grants, studentships and targeted subsidies to the members of national “elites” ready to betray their nations’ interests in exchange for participation in one of Soros’s fake “young leader seminars” or “human rights conferences”.

Here is a personal anecdote which demonstrates my long-term interest in Soros’s. In the mid-1990s, my wife wanted to do a PhD on the post-Soviet theatre in Eastern Europe and as part of a multi-country schedule, we visited an eastern European capital in 1996 and arranged an interview with the well-known “alternative” theatre practitioner and the then-director of the Soros-funded anti-government hub camouflaged as a cultural centre. The interview went well until my wife asked a question that I had inserted earlier—it was about Soros’s funding and support for the Centre’s anti-government activity. This is when things became interesting. The interviewee became irritated and suspicious and defended Soros’s meddling in Yugoslavia’s internal affairs by claiming unconvincingly he wasn’t involved in setting the editorial policy etc. Needless to say, the interview was terminated on the spot.

A detailed account of George Soros’s destructive crusade must await another time. What needs to be said is that Soros and his humanitarian hydra were behind a number of so-called colour revolutions—ritualised coups d’etat that resulted in bringing to power swaths of anti-Russian politicians and surrounding Russia with a ring of NATO satrapies (most of whom had been Nazi satrapies during WWII). One interesting detail is that Soros removed mainly moderate or left-leaning politicians and replaced them with anti-Russian nationalists. After many years of unconstrained criminality, rapine and harmful meddling, president Vladimir Putin decided to put a stop to Soros’s harmful activity at the moment when Russia was again existentially threatened by the West in 2015. “It was found that the activity of the Open Society Foundations and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation represents a threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation and the security of the state,” a translated version of the press statement read. All Soros’s activities were banned in Russia and from that day on, Russia redoubled its efforts to become economically and politically independent of its enemies. The kicking out of Soros from Russia was seen in the West as another manifestation of Putin’s antisemitism when it was nothing of the sort.

President Putin correctly assessed the threat of Soros’s machinations and in one fell swoop rid his country of possibly the greatest threat to its security. After this epic defeat, Soros fought a rear-guard action by focussing on the emerging nationalist and populist governments such as that of Victor Orban in Hungary. Here also, Soros experienced a defeat—Orban proclaimed Soros a threat to national security and after an epic battle, closed down the so-called Central European University presided over by Michael Ignatieff, the notorious Russophobe. The two campuses in Budapest and Vienna were supposed to embody the discredited idea of Mittel Europa (Central Europe), that jewel in the Austro-Hungarian crown and motive power for any anti-Russian Drang. By closing down the Eastern lobe of the CEU, Orban has in a sense destroyed the Russophobic symbolism of Soros’s crowning achievement.[3]

As the power of the neocon/neolib forces in Europe weakened, Soros’s political projects lost more and more ground until they became largely irrelevant. Soros was so deeply compromised and so completely exposed as a predatory fraud and agent of dark powers that he ceased to be an important player in international affairs (despite his money and influence). Even the ever-vigilant “Nazi hunters” of ADL have found it difficult to defend him. His brand became toxic with the ascent of populist and alt-right politics in Europe and US. It could even be said that his own strategy (securing “cosmopolitan” interests by fighting nationalism) backfired—the alt-right rebellion was largely the reaction to the excesses of the Sorossian surge of the 1990s. So, what was the mummified billionaire to do now that the steppes of Russia were out of reach? He could have done “a Berezovsky” (I like where this is going) by writing a contrite letter to president Putin begging his forgiveness. Or he could have tried to repent for his evil deeds by pursuing real philanthropy. He chose neither but doubled down on political meddling under the guise of a (tainted) pseudo-humanist brand.

Thus, Soros’s name has (justifiably) become synonymous with evil liberal cosmopolitanism. This is definitively a positive development because it ensures that Soros (or his currently groomed descendants) can never cause as much damage as he did to Russia, Eastern Europe or Middle East. The other side of the medal is that any mention of a left-wing, progressive, social or racial justice cause, however valid, has been scarred by the mark of Sorro. And this I believe is Soros’s true legacy—providing the Empire with a permanent and unassailable excuse to discredit any genuine critique of and rebellion against the inhuman and inhumane neolib/neocon system.

2. Back in the USSA

After a brief phoney skirmish with the European alt-right, Soros shifted his attention to the United States where a new president was elected on a conservative, isolationist and anti-neocon agenda. Many people irrespective of persuasion, greeted Donald Trump’s election victory with relief if not elation. (it would be more correct to say that most right-thinking people hailed the defeat of the warmongering hag Hilary Clinton). The hope was that the United States would abandon its empire which has been destroying it and focus on recovering and rebuilding peacefully in co-operation with other great powers. Many well-meaning people from across the world sent their good wishes—after all, many of us carried a small piece of America in our heads and hearts.

Unfortunately, it transpired very soon that most of what Trump had promised his gullible voting base would never be carried out. Like ruthless Lucy van Pelt who fools Charlie Brown every time, the Deep State pulled the ball from a large basketful (or was it bucketful?) of deplorables and moved on with its plan to keep the dying Empire alive as long as possible (there is an analogy here with Soros, Rockefeller, Kissinger and Lord Rothschild who seem very reluctant to depart this world, haunting instead the corridors of power in the guise of liver-spotted spectral mummies and reminding the world that money can’t buy love but can certainly buy young bone marrow and stem cells). Instead of “draining the swamp”, Trump surrounded himself with right-wing neocons and Roman Catholic zealots and promptly set out to renege on all of his election promises.

Here, I shall only focus on Trump’s actions as they concern Russia and China. In an attempt to stem the accelerating exsanguination of the American empire, Trump declared a total war on Russia and China that has thus far involved: propaganda and psychological warfare, sanctions, threats, assassinations, mass arrests of Russian and Chinese citizens, sabotage, theft of diplomatic property, bombing Russia’s allies, commandeering of commercial assets and wealth, tariffs, support for coloured revolutions, McCarthyite witch hunts, an offensive against the Russian Orthodox Church and its allies, abrogation of all important international treaties regulating the deployment and monitoring of nuclear weapons, moving nuclear-capable missile bases close to Russian border, using India, Japan, Vietnam et al. as tools against China, weaponizing fascist fiefdoms in Eastern Europe and giving the Ukrainian zhidobandera (Judaeo-banderite) regime hundreds of millions of pounds of military aid, provoking China and Russia with large-scale military exercises and all kinds of military brinkmanship, trade war, weaponizing Hindu nationalism against China, approving extra funding for anti-Russian activities, expanding NATO, boosting Israel’s right-wing regime, strangling Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba and almost provoking a war with Iran. Oh, fresh off the press—moving 10000 soldiers and dozens of aircraft from Germany to Poland. Did I miss anything?

To summarise, Trump has done everything in his power to bring the world shockingly close to an all-out conflict. None of his moves so far have been peace oriented except as cheap political stunts or admissions of defeat. It is not even about Trump. America has entered its terminal decay stage and any president worth their salt would do anything to slow down this process. Once it becomes clear that this cannot be achieved by peaceful means (e.g. investment in vast infrastructure projects a la New Deal), all that is left is war. And yet a large portion of the deluded blogosphere looks up to Trump as some kind of a saint whose idealism is constantly being thwarted by evil Democrats. The latter bunch of misfits are labelled “communists”, Marxists” etc. confirming beyond any reasonable doubt that the crude and uneducated American right is as stupid and as pernicious as its post-Trotskyite, warmongering “left”. Note that the so-called Democrats do not oppose any of the above crimes/transgressions and are even more strident in their Russophobia—if that were at all possible.

An often-heard argument used in the defence of Trump is that at least he hasn’t started a hot war with Russia (something they say, Hilary would have done without a doubt). But this argument falls flat straight away. Please re-read the above: Do you really think that Hilary would have been able to do more harm than Trump? If so, what—given Russia’s exceptional nuclear and non-nuclear arsenal that could turn America into a giant glass ashtray without so much as breaking a sweat? Second, one of the most destructive presidents in the US history (both for his country and the world), was a gaudy entertainer and a populist who brought the world to the brink of nuclear war without ever starting one (Grenada excepted). For the most part, the opposition to Trump is manufactured for internal political consumption and does not reflect his actions. In a way, this fake opposition strengthens Trump’s hand because in front of Lavrov he can defend his aggressive moves as forced by his enemies and use these to silence the Russophobic opposition inside the country.

The quiet despair I felt for years started to dissipate as soon as racial protests erupted inside the US not because I hate America (on the contrary) but because I have been so disgusted with its international conduct since 1945, that I couldn’t supress my Schadenfreude. Knowing the benighted history of this country quite well (a huge amount of genocide, slavery and oppression has been packed into an extraordinarily short time period), I started to hope that the doddering behemoth would focus its Sauron-like gaze inward and give the world a chance to take a breather. Great, I thought. Perhaps, after years of false accusations, the Russians or the Chinese have acted—carefully organised a nationwide rebellion by leveraging one of the most emotional issues in the USA, namely, race. Finally, a well-calculated act of revenge for the dozens of destructive “revolutions” on Russian borders. Although it did achieve some popularity among Black Americans and especially their leaders, the mighty Soviet Union failed to capitalise on this despite America’s dismal record on race. Perhaps, in a fit of creativity, the Russians turned Soros’s tactics on his bosses putting into motion a masterful plot worthy of KGB’s top hits. Alas, I soon awakened from my reverie only to realise that Russia has neither the will, nor means to engineer such a vast conspiracy and save itself from a nuclear confrontation. The Chinese perhaps? No way.

In my view, the Russians are too conciliatory and lack the vast soft power apparatus necessary for the coordination and execution of such an ambitious project. Never mind, the most important point is that anybody who cares about world peace and Russia should cheer the protests as a severe setback for the global hegemon—a clear sign of its decline and an opportunity to profit from its weakness. One immediate benefit of the protests was a body blow (blubber blow) that felled warmongering troll Mike Pompeo. The moment protests started, any American foreign policy based on enforcing human rights and democracy became unsustainable—forever. The myth of a democratic paradise in which a common man/woman benefits from hard work and pioneer spirit fell apart in a couple of hours. The Chinese were laughing at Phat Po while hundreds of hitherto timid Twitterati gleefully pointed out the rank hypocrisy of America’s position and beheld with a mixture of fascination and horror the absence of the junior emperor’s clothes.

A more disturbing consequence of my awakening has been the realisation that most of the political commentators in the West who had previously maintained a pro-Russian front started defending Trump and his version of American supremacy. Many moons ago, I remember watching the remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers starring Donald Sutherland. At the very end of the movie, the heroine turns to the ever-dependable Donald, hoping for a salvation, when he turns on her and emits an unforgettable blood-curdling scream—the symbol of ultimate betrayal and final triumph of an alien evil. I felt like the woman in the film who realised in a second that she was completely alone in the universe facing a fate worse than death. OK, I’m exaggerating a bit but you know what I mean. Russia has receded into the background and saving Trump is all that matters.

All of a sudden, people forgot that as late as the end of 1960s, African Americans were barred from country clubs and other “respectable establishments” and started finding reasons to exonerate the murderous cop. But never mind that. Overnight, these tribunes of anti-imperial struggle morphed into the staunchest defenders of Emperor Trump and “traditional family values” espoused by a lecherous pervert linked to Jeffrey Epstein. When asked how they can maintain such an anatomically impossible yoga position, most of the time the answer is: because… Soros. I still haven’t come to terms with this and have tried to explain it to myself ever since. Here are some tentative explanations.

3. Answers and questions

a) People have been so traumatised by Soros’s malfeasance (or is it maleficence) that they see him everywhere now—as a universal symbol of evil—a Krampus. As a consequence of a careful ploy by the Deep State, no criticism or protest is now allowed outside very clearly drawn boundaries—especially from the left. As soon as someone tries to protest various injustices, they are automatically labelled as agents of Soros intent on harming the HOMELAND. It is immaterial to the accusers that under most recent presidents America has become a cesspit of electronic surveillance and a home to a gargantuan military-intelligence-industrial-media complex which is swallowing everything in its path. America’s crumbling infrastructure, lack of common values and ghettoised cities are a testimony to its forthcoming demise. Here, Soros has become Krampus of the right, a monster evoked every time someone points out that America is mortally ill. In this, Soros has joined another Krampus of the RC and neocon right—Joseph Stalin. Although exact opposites in terms of ideology, both have been used in the West to suppress socially-conscious voices.

b) Many of the so-called “alternative” websites were never pro-Russian to start with (Saker has discussed this many times). Rather, they are US Deep State sleeper agents who were allowed, in exchange for their loyalty, to monetise their writings and expose dissidents by posing as critics of the US regime. Now that their true master is in danger, they feel obliged (or are gently reminded) to repay their debt. Although I dismissed this option initially, it has gained in credibility the more I sampled their wares. A less paranoid version of this explanation is fear—fear of the ubiquitous and Kafkaesque machine which can crush an individual without their knowledge leading to auto-censorship. Or the fear of the “barbarians”—those lower-caste humans who threaten further to disrupt our vicarious participation in the sense of exceptionality and achievement of our “race”. I am guilty of both.

c) The commentators are correct and I am deluded. Soros is so rich and powerful that he can confront and defeat the all-powerful system that created him. This is probably the worst nonsense of them all. Soros might be rich but he is a mere gnat in comparison with his supposed enemy. Second (and even more pertinent), why would the old CIA-spawned Hellboy bite the arm that feeds him? Because Soros, a billionaire several times over and notorious Russophobe hawk, is some kind of a communist and social justice warrior? If this is true, the implication is that all 17 powerful intelligence agencies that could swat Soros like a fly at a single wink of Trump’s rheumy eye are betraying “the constitution” and siding with the unruly anarchists. Balderdash.

The world is again separating into two broad and irreconcilable camps—imperialist and anti-imperialist. While the boundary is not completely clear, many conservatives will join fascists and racists in the defence of civilisation (Europäische Kultur), (Western) Christianity (Gott mit Uns), homeland (Vaterland), white race (arische Rasse), family values (Kinder, Küche, Kirche), unchallenged Western supremacy (Das tausend jährige Reich) and law and order (Ordnung muss sein). I am not interested in how these “ideals” are implemented as long as they are not used as an excuse to attack and enslave other countries—as they always are. A minority of conservatives will understand the danger of a revived fascism and side with Russia and its allies. The fascists will be joined in their struggle by right-wing Zionists and neocons who hate Russia more than they love peace and democracy. While agitating for human rights, they will be happy to see the destruction of Russia and China. As in WWII, most Central European Ruritanias will gladly join the imperialist side. Some large countries such as India might just remain neutral but the nationalist zeal of its current government (Aryanism and swastikas anyone?) is likely to push it into the imperialist camp. This would not be the first time. The great Indian politician and tribune Subhas Chandra Bose openly collaborated with Japan during WWII.[4]

I shall be joining the other side—the side that sides with the oppressed, dirty, helpless and weak. The anti-imperialist camp espouses a multi-polar world free from imperial diktat from the West (or elsewhere). It advocates peaceful coexistence and abolition of huge multinational corporations that have replaced states as agents of international politics.[5] This block is progressive in the sense in which the Trotskyite dogma isn’t. There is a lot of room for cultural differences and idiosyncrasies. The idea is that these differences enrich the world and allow individual nations to find their own way towards prosperity, without the constant sabotage by the US Empire and its pawns. Absence of interference into other nations’ affairs ensures a peaceful and sustainable growth. Crucially, there is no such thing as an exceptional or chosen nation or race. We are all equal in terms of God’s mercy and the world must be purged from the exceptionalist evil forever. If anybody is still confused about what’s going on, I’ll end with a few questions (some of which I’m trying to answer myself):

– If Trump is so good for Russia (an idiotic claim by the Democrats), why did Russia urgently rachet up its nuclear doctrine a few weeks ago?

– Do you really think that for this many decades Soros has acted independently of the US Deep state? Are you so naïve as to believe that a semi-anonymous trader with a dodgy past would be allowed to destroy British Pound and meddle in international politics, or god forbid, unseat Trump, without the blessing of the grey cardinals of Langley? Do you think that one of the ugliest swamp creatures known to man would risk upsetting his masters by launching crippling riots possibly leading to a civil war for no good reason? No, defeating Trump is definitely not a good enough reason. If Soros is indeed behind the turmoil (and this hasn’t been proved), he is either doing the humanity a favour for once—by crippling the Empire or (highly likely) is acting on behalf of the repressive apparatus set on discrediting and banning any and all protest.

– What does one need to do in order to defeat the CIA, FBI, NSA and the myriad of spying and political police agencies that underpin the Empire? Do you really think that you can get past the most monstrous, intrusive and comprehensive system of surveillance and oppression in history by being transparent and honest? If your aim is to drain the swamp, do you really believe that you can achieve this by laying all your cards on the table and asking the (metaphorically) black Jesuitical cabal to vacate its throne at the top of the world? If you understand that this is impossible, why expect the BLM movement and all the others to be transparent?

– Do you really believe that BLM and other similar movements (e.g. Occupy) have not been penetrated BEFORE THE PROTESTS and co-opted for FBIs purposes? If yes, you are completely naïve (not to use something nastier).

Wake up, Trump is not your friend and he is no friend of Russia. Soros is evil but he is just one of the many flavours of evil. Do not let your mental inertia render you blind to what is really going on.

If you prefer the global dictatorship of hyper-corporate capital protected by US weapons under the guise of “law and order” to peace and justice, why are you on this pro-Russian site?

Russia, whatever its political system, has and will always stand with the oppressed and in opposition to global bullies and criminals. YOU CANNOT SERVE GOD AND MAMMON BOTH. Choose wisely—I have.

  1. I had the displeasure of reading Soros’s scribblings a long time ago. I can assure the reader that he is no genius. 
  2. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/12/09/soros-and-his-cia-friends-targeted-ussr-russia-1987/. We cannot know what Jakob Schiff would have done to the USSR—he died in 1920. 
  3. A friend tells me that Orban used to receive large sums of money from Soros. I did not check this but it wouldn’t surprise me that the two were partners in the 1990s. 
  4. I am not criticising Bose who was a great leader in many respects but just pointing out that India has its own perspective which might not always agree with the Eurocentric or Anglocentric view of history. 
  5. It is amusing to watch fake nationalists and patriots get in a tizz when asked how they can support Amazon, Google and other corporate behemoths and how this takeover of a country by corporatist fascism can be compatible with “freem” and democracy. 

Bridging China’s past with humanity’s future – Part 1

June 27, 2020

Bridging China’s past with humanity’s future – Part 1

by Straight-Bat for the Saker Blog

This will be presented in 3 parts and in 3 different blog posts

PART – 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The world is tottering under the omnipresent virus covid19. Since January’2020, economic and sociological parameters went into a tailspin in one after another country across the globe. By end of year 2020, when the corona pandemic would be under control in all the top 25 countries (with GDP PPP more than 1 trillion $ in 2018, as per World Bank estimates), global economic fabric would have been torn apart with unheard of impact on society, few of which are:

  • millions of sick people will need medical care,
  • millions of unemployed people (and continuously growing) will need food and shelter,
  • at least one-third of the medium and large industrial and utility producing units will be financially sick, while close to half of the small scale units permanently closed down,
  • due to decline of overall purchasing power among the citizens, demand of manufactured products will decline dramatically with simultaneous upsurge of demand for medicines,
  • banking system will be under tremendous stress to renegotiate with their clients to reschedule loan repay and/or write-off loans,
  • Governments will be embarrassed with dwindling tax collection, large scale impoverishments which would accompany increasing unrest among common people

Under the above circumstances, what would be the action plan of the global oligarchy who collectively own banking and industrial sectors and who maintain the current unipolar world order through chosen members of the so-called (USA/5Eyes/Israel) Deep State? We need to remember that there exist nothing like ‘national capitalism’ – by virtue of its expansionary characteristic, ‘capitalism’ has always been global in outlook which resulted in ‘world system’ with industrially advanced society forming the ‘core’ and rest of the world forming the ‘periphery’. The global oligarchy has its interest in EVERY nook and corner of the globe. Deep State elites maintain strong economic and political alliances with almost all countries where, ALL significant political parties and large business houses of every hue and colours are joined through invisible covenant to continuously extend their support, and, in return get benefitted from the global oligarchy. (Cuba and North Korea are the exceptions owing to their overtly and fiercely ‘independent’ policy of governance; for past two decades, Russia-China-Iran-Venezuela governments are resisting the global oligarchy and their local partners with gusto.)

The answer to above question is – state policy and implementation of the same would be geared towards accumulation of capital in every country except the above mentioned six countries. Other than getting humongous sums as bailout packages from governments and share buy-back programmes through zero interest loan, the oligarchy (1% of the population) and flunky elites (5% to 15% of the population) has little interest in governance and support to common people in distress.

[ Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/american-billionaires-got-434-billion-richer-during-the-pandemic.html ]

A closer look reveals that, among those six ‘resistance camp’ countries, only China has both: landmass and population, that can be termed as ‘resources’ necessary to resist unipolar world order, roll back onward march of global capitalism, and simultaneously build a multipolar world order and more equitable society in close coordination with Russia. So it is natural to expect that China leads socio-economic rejuvenation of the world with full support from Russia. China is also well positioned to harness the strengths of Iran-North Korea-Cube-Venezuela. On behalf of peace-loving people who believe in truth-justice-equality, let me dig deeper into the proposition.

The journey will begin with review of Qing Chinese society as well as economy and industry of Qing era, then discuss the current Communist epoch, and end with future possibilities. Looking back is necessary, because a society which have a significant past would have a remarkable future as well.

2. CHINA IN QING ERA

While mentioning three successive empires: Yuan-Ming-Qing in late medieval and early modern China, it is often forgotten that, Yuan empire was divided into two parts: Ming and Northern Yuan empires, and most of the regions falling under these two empires were brought under control by Qing empire. Even though during the ‘century of humiliation’ starting from 1839 CE Qing empire gradually lost large territories in north-east, north, north-west as well as smaller tracts of land in the south and South China Sea, Qing empire should be given due credit for the following:

  1. Notwithstanding the preferential treatments meted out to the Manchu aristocrats, the Qing emperors transformed the Chinese empire as a multi-ethnic multi-language empire in official policy and procedures (in contrast to Ming era that was truly Han chinese in outlook), thereby creating a fundamental basis of a modern Chinese society. Starting in 1618 through renunciation of Ming overlordship and creating Manchu kingdom by Jurchen/Manchu tribal chief, by 1648 Qing dynasty formed by the Jurchen/Manchu tribal chief extended their control over most part of the erstwhile Ming empire through a military force in which Manchu Bannermen represented below 20% of the manpower while Han Bannermen made up more than 70%. This data amply represented the multi-ethnic character of Qing policies.
  2. The successive Qing emperors maintained warm relationship with all tributary states and protectorates until the onset of the ‘century of humiliation’ in 1839. Commentators and academicians who bring up Westphalian concept while discussing relationship between empires/kingdoms in pre-colonial Asia generally forget that Westphalian sovereignty was a concept that was necessary for and was derived under ‘feudal’ environment of medieval and early modern Europe. Except Japan, statecraft in Asian empires/kingdoms never introduced ‘feudalism’ in medieval and early modern Asia. Hence, the relationship between Qing empire and different categories of vassals had multiple vectors that can’t be seen through the Westphalian lens. Even though Qing empire didn’t lack manpower or military resources that would be necessary to directly rule over the vassals, they were comfortable with the tributary system (based on Confucian ideals) whereby different kingdoms surrounding the Chinese empire would accept Chinese emperor as the predominant authority of that part of the world, and the benevolent Chinese empire would guarantee the opportunity of peaceful trading and commerce across central, east and south-east Asia – this ensured continuation of the two millennium long exchange of goods-services-knowledge-culture between Asia and Europe.
  3. Continuation of the merit-based entry through examination system to the bureaucratic institutions and pre-eminence of Confucian family value system (both were adopted from earlier dynasties) ensured that Qing China stepped into the modern era keeping the fundamental socio-political basis of Chinese society intact. Both of these ancient Chinese practices are valued in all modern societies across world.

By the end of the 18th century, Qing empire commanded an area of around 14 million sq.km with estimated population of around 300 million. Qing society was divided into mainly five categories:

  • Bureaucratic Officials
  • Gentry elite aristocracy
  • Literati, scholar
  • Respectable “Commoner”
    • occupational group of farmers
    • occupational group of artisans
    • occupational group of merchants
  • Debased “Mean” people (slaves, bond-servants, entertainers like prostitutes, tattooed criminals, very low-level employees of government officials)

About 80% of total population were peasants. Landholding peasants were largest labour force with presence of insignificant number of hired (landless) labour. The state also recruited army personnel from rural population.

Agriculture and Land-use:

Agriculture sector was the largest source of employment in Chinese society. With private property rights over land, the farmers had natural incentive to produce more quantity and produce variety of crops. This resulted in increased factor productivity. Land owning peasantry also got benefitted from the state policy that supported hiring of labourers. On the other hand, tax from agriculture made up the largest share of state revenue. So, the landholding peasantry and fiscal-military state both had incentive for territorial expansion. And, the state often resettled farmers in new regions with material (seed and farming tools) and finance (free passage and tax holidays). By the 18th century the Han ‘refugees’ from northern China who were suffering from drought and flood were resettled in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia regions. The Han farmers farmed about 0.5 million hectares of privately owned land by Manchu elites in Manchuria and about 200,000 hectares of lands that were part of noble estates and Banner lands.

There were other innovative actions as well – introduction of maize and sweet potatoes, double cropping, fertilizer such as bean-cakes, re-introduction of early-ripening rice – that helped to increase productivity and conversion of marginal land into regular farm land. A system of monitoring grain prices helped the rulers to eliminate severe shortages, as well as to eliminate hoarding and price shock to the consumers.

The farmers on the basis of a high-yield agriculture produced a constant and sizeable ‘surplus’ that ensured development of market economy in (medieval and) early modern China. Historians estimate that up to one-third of China’s post-tax agricultural output was subject to market exchange. This surplus also became the basis of growth and development of other sectors in the economy.

Trade and Commerce:

For the first time, a large percentage of farming households began producing crops for sale in the local and national markets rather than for their own consumption or barter in the traditional economy. Surplus crops were placed onto the national market for sale, integrating farmers into the commercial economy from the ground up. This naturally led to regions specializing in certain cash-crops for export as China’s economy became increasingly reliant on inter-regional trade of bulk staple goods such as cotton, grain, beans, vegetable oils, forest products, animal products, and fertilizer.

Merchant class functioned within the state-imposed boundary. At the apex of the market structure, the state controlled key commodities like salt, wine, iron and steel etc. Qing state refused new mining rights to private merchants. Foreign trade was controlled by the state, participated by both state and private merchants. So the Chinese merchant class was left with unrestricted platform to engage in commercial transactions at village level (surplus-based market exchange with farmers) and at region level (estimated around 1,000–1,500 such regions in Qing empire). Trade between markets at the village level, region level, and province levels developed into a network covering much of Qing empire. Hence, the merchant class became very wealthy but lacked the strength (as a class) to influence the economy and state politics.

Merchant guilds proliferated in all growing cities in China who sourced manufactured items (by artisans and commoners) like textile, handicraft, ceramics, silk, paper, stationary, cooking utensils. More efficient administration of the Grand Canal created new opportunities for private merchants who could transport goods easily within Qing empire. It has been estimated that in the early nineteenth century, as much as one-third of the world’s total manufactures were produced by China. Though In 1685 the state opened maritime trade for the merchants along the coast by establishing customs offices in port cities like Guangzhou, Xiamen, Ningbo, due to internal political moves such trade arrangement was abandoned. By the time when maritime trade was again made legal, trade with west Europe grew to such an extent that, Canton alone housed more than forty mercantile houses. China primarily imported war horses (for the army), and metals (for currency). China exported silk, ceramics, textiles, metal products (made of iron, copper, bronze etc.), non-metal handicrafts, tea. Trade between China and Europe grew at an average annual rate of 4% between 1719 and 1806. Qing state established the Canton System in 1756 CE that restricted maritime trade to Canton/Guangzhou and gave monopoly trading rights to private Chinese merchants. European merchant ‘companies’ British East India Company and Dutch East India Company had been granted similar monopoly rights by their governments long ago. In the early modern era, demand in Europe for Chinese goods were met through import for which payments were made by silver (sourced by European colonial powers from western hemisphere colonies). Resulting inflow of silver expanded the money supply, facilitating the growth of competitive and stable markets. Thus China had gradually shifted to silver as the standard currency for large scale transactions and by the beginning of 18th century collection of the land tax was done in silver. Since China was self-sufficient in all types of consumer goods, very low import caused imbalance of trade vis-à-vis Europe, which in turn resulted in drain of silver from European powers. British East India Company started importing opium into China. Import of opium into China were paid for by silver – It is estimated that between 1821 and 1840, as much as one-fifth of the silver circulating in China was used to purchase opium. Alarmed with both over the outflow of silver and damage that opium smoking was causing to Chinese people, emperor ordered to end the opium trade, which started the conflicts with European powers in 1839 CE.

Apart from short-term credit systems, offering house and farm land as collateral to raise long-term money was also present. But, community and state interference with such contracts by blocking land transfers from debtors to creditors was one of the significant factors that displacement and dispossession (basis of ‘capitalistic’ primitive accumulation) never took root in China.

Due to ‘equal opportunity’ meritocracy and social mobility, the talented youth were generally drawn towards literati and officialdom (‘Pan’ family of Anhui transformed from one of wealthiest merchant family to powerful family of bureaucrats within two centuries). Merchant class was not considered as sufficiently suave which can attract talented people. They could not rival the influence of large landholding aristocracy notwithstanding localised influence of very rich merchants. Instead, the existence of factor markets for land allowed merchants to join the landholding class.

Some merchants with entrepreneurship zeal migrated to the European colonial outposts like Manila, Macau, Jakarta to avoid empire’s policies which were Confucian (assigning merchants and other commoners same level who deserved equal treatment from the state as a patriarch).

Early Banking:

Copper coins were used for everyday transactions, while silver was used for larger transactions as well as for payment of tax to the government. Apart from monetary conversion the money-changers also provided credit, and rudimentary banking services. Remittance banks evolved during this period that would take cash deposits from merchant in one place and issue remittance certificates, which the merchant could then take elsewhere to pay his supplier. That person would in turn go to bank in his vicinity and exchange the certificate for coins. By the 18th century there was a vast network of such banks which played a stellar role for development of commercial activity in China.

Development of Trade Towns:

Due to the commercialization of the surplus agricultural products as well as booming ‘cottage industry’ (if I may say so), merchants were involved in inter-region and inter-province trades with help of long-distance transportation network. Towns popped up as commercial centres to direct the flow of domestic trade. As more and more people travelled, ‘guild halls’ came up in market-towns for lodging and boarding of those people which included merchants, buyers, and sellers. It has been that about 45,000 market towns developed, some of which became home to some of the merchants.

During mid-17th century guild halls were introduced for more specific purpose – to facilitate craftsmen and artisans of specific sectors like textiles weaving, carpentry, medicine, iron and steel work. Thus those guild halls acted as nucleus of industrial-towns, which further developed into large cities with real estate, water supply, sewerage system etc.

Similarities & Dissimilarities with Western Europe:

In 18th century Qing era, the standards of living in south and east regions of China reached a high level which was comparable with wealthy regions of 19th century Western Europe. As per renowned Historians-cum-Sinologists key factors were ‘(1) the rationality of private property rights-led growth, (2) total factor productivity growth associated with China’s green revolutions from Han to Ming-Qing and the economic revolution under Song dynasty, and (3) China’s export capacity (hence China’s surplus output) and China’s silver imports (hence purchasing power of China’s surplus)’.

Ken Pomeranz showed that the core productive regions in China and West Europe both faced major bottlenecks in the form of land and energy constraints in the 19th century. A combination of domestic and international factors as well as much luck enabled England to overcome these challenges and embark on a capital-intensive path of industrialization. As per Pomeranz, two major factors here were ‘(1) the conveniently located coal reserves, which, being near the core areas helped Britain escape its energy constraints more easily, and (2) Britain’s coercive colonization of the western hemisphere, which served as a source of land-intensive goods such as cotton, sugar and grain, while at the same time providing a market for its manufactured goods. In China, where coal reserves were not as readily available, and a policy of coercive colonization, which could provide it with free land, was absent, ecological constraints led to a turn to labour-intensive agriculture.’

Yet another line of thought considers (1) families of ‘strong, urban, entrepreneurial class capable of concentrating the agrarian surplus to foster a capitalist-industrial’ were absent in China unlike in UK, (2) In both agriculture and cottage industry sectors the Qing emperors’ policy of conflict-containment (between landlord and tenant, between owner and labour) contained appeasing and accommodating attitude towards the tenants and labours (very much unlike the UK where merchants, landlords and entrepreneurs received unconditional support from state) which ultimately were detrimental to accumulation of capital.

Socio-economic indicators:

As per Maddison, percentage share of global GDP and GDP per Capita of China, West Europe, and USA:

YearChinaGDPChinaGDP per CapitaWest EuropeGDPWest Europe GDP per CapitaUSAGDPUSAGDP per Capita
150024.91.115.51.4
182033.00.920.41.91.81.8
19406.40.327.52.520.63.6

As per Allen, and Pomeranz, select socio-economic indicators in early-modern China and England:

CountryAverage Life Expectancy at Birth in mid-18th centuryAverage Calorie Intake/male/dayin 19th centuryLand Productivity 1806 to 1820 CE (Pound/Acre)Labour Productivity 1806 to 1820 CE (Pence/Day)
China35 to 39About 260026.151.3
England31 to 342000 to 35003.360.9

Significant observations on Qing China:

1. Even though Chinese society maintained a robust lead over rest of the world in science and technology (as conclusively shown by Joseph Needham) including metallurgy, porcelain, gunpowder, compass, silk, paper, block printing, water turbine, herbal medicines and many other areas, China was slow to catch up with the technology behind (a) industrial machinery, (b) transportation systems, (c) military arms developed in West Europe since mid-18th century

2. By end-18th century when territorial expansion stopped, population continued a healthy growth. Due to prevailing equal-inheritance practice, farm-owners started facing the problem of a shrinking farm that resulted in decreasing prosperity among farmer class, which finally reflected in less than expected tax realisation by the Chinese state. Combination of key factors like (a) the organised hooliganism and colonialism of European trading companies, (b) internal discontent and rebellion among the common people, and (c) territorial competition with Russian and Japanese empire, proved fatal after 1840 CE

3. With a thriving agriculture and a splendid cottage industry that catered domestic demands China mostly needed war horses and metals to be imported. This was in direct contrast to West European states who needed consumer goods to be imported from China but couldn’t offer goods to be exported to maintain somewhat balance in trade, so they brought in opium. Qing administration should have analysed this problematic trading relation beforehand to take necessary actions to forestall such developments

4. The debate among a large number of Historians and Sinologists about ‘why China couldn’t develop capitalism before West Europe’ continues till date. The fact of the matter is that, the social-economic-political checks and balances that existed in China since 1st millennium BCE (largely due to pervasive Confucian thought in Mandarin Chinese mainland as well as Buddhist thought in Mongolian-Tibetan dominated regions) were diametrically opposite to concept of the so-called ‘animal spirit’ of zionist capitalism. The wealthy landlord and merchant class in China could never pursue profit and endless accumulation of capital by controlling state super-structure. However, the hard-working and merit-based dynamic society of China allowed commercialization, trading, proto-industrialization, and urbanization in a big way since medieval Song era.

3. CHINA IN MAO ERA

Since mid-19th century, one-after-another onslaught by the west European colonialist powers, and Russian-Japanese empires devastated China: first the Qing empire up to 1911, then the Nationalist China up to 1945. Overcoming the ‘century of humiliation’, through armed struggle and huge loss of life, the Chinese Communist Party seized state power in mainland China in 1949. Mao Zedong lost his wife, a son, two brothers, and sister, Zhou Enlai lost all his children, while Zhu De found decapitated head of his pregnant wife nailed to the city gate. At the time, China was a backward agrarian economy with widespread poverty, lawlessness and illiteracy; of its five hundred million people, eight in every ten people were illiterate, one in every eight people was drug addict. It was a time when peasants had to give away two-thirds of their produce in rent/tax, and people sold themselves to avoid starvation.

One can only look back at 1949 China with bewildering awe about how the Peoples’ Liberation Army completed their task of liberation under Mao and his comrades, which culminated with CPC’s emphatic take-over of state power. No other revolutionary leader, anywhere in the world till date, could mobilise such vast number of his countrymen through such enormous hardships for decades. Initial acts were swift and effective. The banking system was nationalized and People’s Bank of China became the central bank for the country. The government tightened credit, established value of the currency, implemented centrally controlled government budgets – all of these ensured that inflation was under strict control. CPC undertook a land reform programme through which 45% of the arable land were redistributed to the 65% of peasant families who owned little or no land. These peasants were encouraged to form sort of mutual aid teams among 7-8 households. CPC also nationalised most of the industrial units as soon as they came to power. By 1952, 17% of the industrial units were outside state-owned enterprises compared to about 65% during Kuo Mindang government.

The First Five-Year Plan (1953–57) followed the Soviet Union model which assigned primacy to development of heavy industry. Government of China controlled about 67% as directly state-owned enterprise and 33% as joint state-private enterprise. There was no more privately owned company. Key sectors like Coal and Iron ore mining, Electricity generation, Heavy Machinery manufacturing, Iron and Steel manufacturing, Cement manufacturing etc. were modernised by construction of hundreds of new factories with help from engineers sent by Soviet Union. Growth of industrial production increased at average rate of 19% per year during this period. During this period, more than 90% of cottage/handicraft industries were organized into cooperatives.

The agricultural sector however didn’t perform as per expectation and only clocked average growth rate of 4% per year. From loosely constructed ‘mutual aid teams’, peasants were encouraged to form ‘cooperatives’, in which individual families still received some income on the basis of their contribution of land. In the next stage, ‘collectives’ were formed on which income was based only on the amount of labour contributed by each family. In addition, each family was allowed to retain a small plot to grow vegetables and fruit for their personal consumption. By 1957 the collectivization process covered 93% of all farm households.

Second Five-Year Plan (1958–62) was abandoned. The leadership introduced new set of policies, and decided to engage entire population to produce a “great leap” in production for all sectors of the economy at once. 3-tier Communes were built to spearhead quantum jump in agricultural produce – at the top level commune central administration, at the next level 20 or more production brigades represented by the old ‘collectives’, and the last tier production team that consisted of about 30 families of village. They attempted to build vast irrigation network by employing unemployed and underemployed farmers – final objective was to increase the agricultural output and employment. Similarly, surplus rural labour was also employed in thousands of small-scale, low-technology, industrial projects in rural areas – final objective was enhancement in industrial and agricultural output and employment. Such small scale industry (including steel making furnaces) were also run by communes. The communes proved to be too bulky to carry out administrative functions efficiently. As a result of economic mismanagement, and unfavourable weather for two years, food production in 1960 and 1961 plunged. As a result, China faced a famine – in 1960 the death rate was 2.54% compared to average death rate of 1.14% registered during 1957 and 1958.

In 1958 industrial growth was 55%, in 1961 it was 38%. By 1962 overall economic collapse propelled the leadership to devise a new set of economic policies. Agricultural taxes were reduced, supplies of chemical fertilizer increased, agricultural machinery were made available, procurement prices for agricultural products were raised, the role of the commune central administration was significantly reduced, and private farming plots were restored. In industry, planning was again emphasized, import of technologically advanced foreign machinery started, hydro-electric power plants were setup, old plants were refurbished, chemical fertilizer plants and agro-machinery plants were setup in large numbers. Between 1961 and 1966, average annual growth of industrial output surpassed 10% while agricultural output grew at an average rate more than 9% a year.

The Cultural Revolution, a political upheaval whereby Mao re-established control over the party by pushing aside the right-of-centre and left-of-centre factions of CPC. It didn’t produce major changes in official economic policies or the basic economic model. Nonetheless, the disturbances affected urban society which impacted about 14% decline in industrial production in 1967. By 1969 industrial sector returned to a normal growth rate. Fourth Five-Year Plan (1971-1975) saw resumption of systematic economic growth especially in industrial sector (with new plants setup for Petroleum Exploration and Refinery, Fertilizer, Steel, building materials, Chemicals etc.). Petroleum and Coal were exported since the beginning of 1970s. With industrial sector average rate of 8% and agricultural sector average rate of 3.8% it was clear that, contrary to popular image Mao era targeted industrial growth as the top priority.

CPC leadership re-evaluated the economic state of affairs and Zhou Enlai presented a report to the Fourth National People’s Congress in Jan’1975. He formulated the famous ‘Four Modernizations’ policy targeting agriculture, industry, defence, science and technology. By 1976, when both Mao and Zhou departed, foundation for a strong self-reliant country had been built, and mainland China had (1) a very large, and healthy labour force having basic education, (2) a huge battery of state-owned industrial enterprises across sectors, (3) infrastructure, power, communication required for further economic growth, (4) an economy burdened by extremely low external debt (2.99% of gross national income as of 1981).

Socio-economic indicators:

Except three interludes – Great Leap Forward (1958–60), Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966–69), and post-Mao political struggle (1976–78) – different sectors of the Chinese economy (agriculture, mining, manufacturing) experienced healthy growth, albeit with quite difficulty aroused out of frequent policy changes. Economists estimate that during the period 1952–1978, China’s real GDP per capita grew at a robust 4% average annual rate, the industrial share of GDP rose from 20.9% in 1952 to 47.9% in 1978 (as per Chinese National Bureau of Statistics), industrial labour productivity grew by 236.7% and agricultural labour productivity growth was only 25.5% over the same period, the fraction of the labour force in agriculture declined from 83% to 75% with the value added produced in agriculture declined from 78% in 1953 to 30% in 1977, household consumption grew by only 2.3% annually, retail prices for consumer goods grew at an average rate of 0.6% a year. Life expectancy at birth improved from 43.5 years in 1960 to 66.5 years in 1978, according to World Bank data.

YearGDP Nominal(Billion USD)GDP per Capita(USD)Population(Billion)
195230.55540.569
196059.72890.667
197092.601130.818
1977174.941850.943

Significant observations on Mao China:

1. Treading on the same path taken by Soviet Union, 1949 onwards China went on to implement a mode of production which was essentially ‘state capitalism’. Soviet Union as a state was the owner of the means of production and ‘commodity’ (which by definition is integrated with exchange-value i.e. ‘price’ in the ‘market’) that were produced. Following similar model, China created a new economy that also revolved around commodity production by state-owned enterprises, agricultural output production by state-owned communes and accumulation of capital by the state (through extraction of surplus from the rural agriculture and light industry). In Soviet Union and China, the ideologues termed it ‘socialist commodity’, however, socialism’ can’t theoretically accommodate production of ‘commodity’ that inherently refers to ‘market’.

In fact as Marxism suggests, the concepts of ‘commodity’, ‘market’, ‘capital’ and ‘surplus capital’ are intricately joined with ‘ownership’ of means of production. Marx and Engels were clear that these concepts don’t have place in socialist/communist society. It is not true that ownership pertains to only ‘private’ citizens, even ‘state’ can own assets to be used as ‘capital’ and the profits out of business gets appropriated by the state authority and close followers.  Undoubtedly, Stalin and Mao being the most committed followers of philosophy and ideology of Marx-Engels-Lenin, were well aware of the final destination of the Marxist journey. Why then both of them set out to accumulate capital in the state treasuries? We will come back to this question again in the last part of this hypothesis in section 5.

2. The central planning system initially adopted from Soviet Union, was the punching bag for CPC leaders whenever they reviewed the planned-vs.-achieved results and found variance (actual results were less than planned). The centralised economic planning as a concept was correct – there were shortcomings in the execution process. Firstly, sector-wise prioritization should have been done that reflects the reality in the society – Chinese society being overwhelmingly agrarian, the 1st Five Year Plan should have assigned primary importance to agriculture and next level of importance to light industry, heavy machinery being at the last layer of importance. Secondly, centralised economic planning needs accurate and complete set of data – China being a vast country with wide regional differences in weather, natural resources, social norms, demography, occupation, infrastructure etc., compilation of complete and correct and data for planning process 70 years back was much more complex than we can imagine today. Thirdly, in reality the central planning was a top-down process albeit with participation of all concerned ministries and departments. In a large country like China, bottom-up would have been a better approach.

3. Government introduced hukou system (originated in medieval China) in 1958 through which all rural households got registered through which the family members will get entitlement for housing, education, medical care in the place of their registered birthplace. In a way government controlled migration of rural population towards urban and semi-urban regions. Intellectuals who value human rights as inalienable natural right, termed this system as draconian. However, such arrangements were highly effective in controlling large-scale migration of unemployed rural people to urban areas causing socio-economic problem in both rural and urban areas.

4. The revolutionary spirit of Mao knew no bounds. Undoubtedly, he was right in emphasizing that, (a) not only economic sphere needs transformation from capitalism to socialism, but cultural sphere of society equally calls for such transformation, (b) the proletarian revolution has a long way to go. Time and again he became impatient with policies that were developed by him and his team earlier. Possibly Mao was oblivious of the fact that, frequent changes in political and economic policy would leave a trail of inefficiency, maybe he was not. During the second half of 1950s, the decisive rejection of Stalin’s achievements by CPSU, dampening of Leninist ideals, and withdrawal of all kinds of Soviet support from China made Mao deeply perceptive of the overall challenges on the way to build socialism in a country– this alone can explain Mao’s vacillation in policy issues and in-depth deliberations on socio-cultural aspects of socialist revolution (a territory, which was much less travelled by Lenin and Stalin). Thus Mao delved into too many intangible factors (apart from political economy) that would influence the final outcome of a complete communist transformation of any society.

4. CHINA IN DENG ERA

After a brief struggle for leadership, Deng Xiaoping took control of CPC in 1978. At the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC held in December’1978 in Beijing, the majority party leaders decided to undertake reform and opening up of economy. They repudiated the Cultural Revolution of Mao era. The reform, as Deng proposed, would develop productive forces through increasing role of market mechanisms and reducing role of government planning.

Agricultural production was stimulated by an increase of over 22% in the procurement prices paid to the peasants for farm produces. The commune system was decollectivized but the state still owned the land and household responsibility system was introduced in agriculture starting in 1979 – individual farming families would get ‘right to use’ on plots of land (divided from old ‘communes’) from government, earn profit by selling their products on the market in lieu of delivering a small contractual amount of produce to the state as taxes. This arrangement increased productivity through the profit incentives for the farmers, and about 98% of farm households were brought under this system by 1984. In 1985, by employing 63% of the country’s labour force the agricultural sector achieved 33% of the GNP, agricultural production got increased by about 25%. Among agricultural produces grains like rice, wheat, corn, barley, millet, cash crops like oil seeds, sugarcane, cotton, jute, fruits, vegetables, poultry and pigs were primarily produced by peasant families. Though efficiency of agriculture sector improved a lot with all arable plots producing at least one crop per year, and under favourable conditions two or three crops a year, fundamental problems remained as before – small farm size, and inadequate agriculture equipment.

Apart from a significant category of small handicraft/cottage industry, light industries formed second category while large industry category included Power plants, Petroleum Refineries, Petrochemicals, Chemicals, Fertilizers, Textile, Steel, Cement, and Automobile. Reforms targeted in urban industrial regions. In industrial sectors, state-owned industries received permission to sell production above the ‘plan quota’ at market at prevailing market prices, as well as received affirmation to experiment with the bonuses to reward higher productivity among employees. Industrial Responsibility System introduced in mid-1980s allowed individuals or groups to manage the state-owned enterprise by entering into contract with government. Private businesses (which almost disappeared after the Cultural Revolution) were allowed to operate and price flexibility was introduced, and gradually private ownership enterprises began to make up a greater percentage of industrial output. Bringing in modern business enterprise management process, government allowed managers to gain control over their business operation including recruitment and layoff (with approval from bureaucrats and CPC). Industrial sector generated around 46% of GNP in 1985 by employing only about 17% of the total labour force in China. Enterprises further got incentive when in 1985 the policy of retaining the net profit (after payment of tax-on-profit to government) within the enterprise was made across China. On banking and financing also there were policy changes – bank loans were made available to the enterprises at a very low interest which would have to be paid back to banks. Budgetary support by government was reduced. For industries, foreign trade procedures were made much easier; (soon special economic zones would be launched to be in the forefront of the boom in foreign trade). The effect of profit-driven competitive environment on working class people was that, many enterprises slowly replaced permanent employment with short-term contractual job as well as eliminated welfare packages for workers – this impacted industrial workers’ living standard and social security negatively.

Perhaps the most sweeping policy decision taken by Deng related to the open door policy for foreign investment. Starting in January’1979, Chinese government created initial 5 special economic zones (SEZ) in Shantou, Shenzhen, Zhuhai (all in Guangdong province), Xiamen (in Fujian province), and Hainan province where many additional infrastructure, fiscal incentives, and freedom from too many bureaucratic regulations were provided to foreign investors for setting up industry. Primarily geared to exporting goods, the five SEZs housed foreign joint ventures with Chinese companies as well as fully owned foreign companies. In 1984, China opened 14 coastal cities to MNC investment: Dalian (Liaoning province), Qinhuangdao (Hebei province), Tianjin, Yantai, Qingdao (both in Shandong province), Lianyungang, Nantong (both in Jiangsu province), Shanghai, Ningbo, Wenzhou (both in Zhejiang province), Fuzhou (Fujian province), Guangzhou, Zhanjiang (both in Guangdong province), and Beihai (in Guangxi province). Beginning in 1985, new economic zones were established in Liaodong peninsula, Hebei province, Shandong peninsula, Yangtze river delta, Pearl river delta, Xiamen-Zhangzhou-Quanzhou in southern Fujian province, and Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous region. In the post-Deng era, these regions became high-power engines of economic growth and technological breakthroughs for the Chinese economy.

The open door policy changed the landscape of foreign trade in China. Before the reforms, combined exports-imports in 1969 was 15% of GDP; with reforms in 1984 it became about 20% and in 1986 it reached 35% of GNP. Textiles, Petroleum, and foodstuff were main export goods while machinery, transport equipment, and chemicals were key import items. By 1986, Japan became the dominant trading partner accounting for 28.9% of imports and 15.2% of exports. During the same time, USA appeared on the horizon as the third largest overall trade partner, next only to Hong Kong which accounted for 13% of imports and 31.6% of exports. Under Deng, the SEZ and foreign trade became significant tools for both foreign direct investment (FDI) and modern technology. Most interesting part of China’s industrial drive was ‘technology transfer’. While historically China was always on the forefront of applied science and technology, as the 18th century was drawing to a close China was slowing down in the technology race compared to west Europe – hence Deng made it a point that following the ‘four modernisation’ programme China should rapidly close the technology gap by upgrading old mining and manufacturing plants as well as installing plants with sophistication.

Apart from huge coal reserves, China had substantial reserves of natural gas. With many rivers running across the country, hydroelectric potential was among the largest in the world. Large number of coal-fired thermal power plants and large hydroelectric projects were undertaken by the government to generate electric energy necessary for a thriving industrial economy.

Undoubtedly Deng’s overall reform programme accomplished very impressive success, but it also gave rise to several serious socio-economic problems – rise of factions attached to neoliberal free-market political economy within CPC, managerial autonomy in state owned and private owned enterprises, rampant corruption, economic crime, widening income disparities, uncontrolled inflation, and large scale moral deterioration. These concerns created huge storm within CPC and party general secretary Hu Yaobang was forced to resign in 1987. The left-of-centre faction of CPC stalled some of the reform programmes. Student leaders mainly based in Beijing and Shanghai who were fascinated by the neoliberal free-market ideology, pointed out to such socio-economic issues in the then Chinese society and built a movement (supported by the Zionist Capitalist Deep State) that aimed at toppling the CPC rule. The People’s Liberation Army was mobilised to break seize by protesting students at Tiananmen Square in Beijing in June’1989.

In November and December of 1990 Deng reopened the Shanghai Stock Exchange and established the Shenzhen Stock Exchange respectively. Party Congress in 1992 echoed Deng’s views while stating that China’s key task ahead would be to create a ‘socialist market economy’. And, in 1992 Deng undertook ‘southern tour’ during which he underscored the need to continue reforms to open up the economy. Through these actions Deng re-established control over the party (which was weakened in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square protests) by pushing aside the far-left and left-of-centre factions of CPC. Deng made Jiang Zemin the CCP’s new top leader. A new round of market reforms was initiated. Private enterprises and enterprises owned by the local governments took advantage of easy loans from state-owned banks to expand their business. This again caused inflation and fiscal deficit during 1993. New policy of floating exchange rate and convertibility for renminbi caused about 33% devaluation of renminbi. Foreign Direct Investment was further encouraged and capital inflows to China poured. Economy cooled down after enterprises owned by local governments transferred a larger portion of revenue to the central government, and bank credits were tightened. Exports surged due to devaluation. In 1996, the economy grew at around 9.5% accompanied by low inflation.

Working on the free trade and economic zone policy after 1990, the government opened the Pudong New Area in Shanghai and cities in Yangtze river delta to overseas investment. Since 1992 the government opened more border cities and capital cities of provinces and autonomous regions.

The total number of industrial enterprises rose from 377,300 in 1980 to nearly 8 million in 1990. During the Deng era, higher levels of inflation appeared with reduced government controls – in 1980 consumer prices rose by 7.5% while in 1985 the increase was 11.9% going down to 7.6% in 1986. In 1995 China exported 24.7 billion USD to USA and 149 billion USD to rest of the world. In 1997, the year when Deng departed, share of private consumption in GDP was only around 43% while share of exports in GDP was around 22%.

Changing socio-economic indicators:

Economists John Whalley and Xiliang Zhao estimated the impressive performance of Chinese economy (using Barro-Lee approach) between 1978 and 1999:

  • Output growth rate – 9.72%
  • Growth rate in Input
    • physical capital – 7.30%
    • labour – 2.03%
    • human capital (represented by average years of schooling) – 2.81%
  • Growth rate in Total Factor Productivity (TFP) – 3.64%
  • Contribution to GDP growth
    • physical capital – 36.35%
    • labour – 10.78%
    • human capital – 14.95%
    • TFP – 37.93%
YearGDP Nominal(Billion USD)GDP per Capita(USD)Population(Billion)
1980306.173120.98
1990394.573481.135
1997961.607821.23

Significant observations on Deng China:

1. The 14th National Communist Party Congress held in the year 1992 not only backed Deng’s continuous push for market reforms but they thought that China was on the way to create a ‘socialist market economy’. This was the official expression of CPC to document their push for reform using market forces. I doubt, if such terminology existed in pre-Deng China or in pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union.

Again, as the Marxist theory proposed, socialism would be antithesis to market-driven economy which had been propelled by capitalistic mode of production. In capitalist society the ‘factor of production’ would be sourced from ‘market’ and commodity would be sold in the ‘market’. In socialist parlance, concept of market shouldn’t exist irrespective of whether the concept is proposed by any faction within the communist party: ‘left’, ‘right’, or ‘centre’. It was, primarily, the inability of the then CPC leadership to reorganise and galvanize the rural and urban economy to unleash the productive forces; instead they got into the ‘market economy’ which was the engine of ‘mercantile’-‘agrarian’-‘industrial’ versions of capitalism that took root in west European societies since 16th century.

2. Deng was the great architect of what can be termed as the ‘Chinese juggernaut for export’. China’s market reform was undertaken much later compared to Japan and other Asian Tigers. Beginning in the 1980s the late-coming exporter did a splendid job of absorbing huge amount of investment and latest manufacturing technology. Relatively stagnant urban living standards and falling rural living standards resulted in massive transfer of rural labour into the growing export sector. Additionally, the state-owned enterprises already had disciplined, educated, and skilled labour force that made the entry of big Multi-National Corporations (MNC) easy into Chinese market – giants like Boeing, Toyota started their businesses in China through collaboration with Chinese state-owned enterprises who were in same sector of aircraft or automobile. This environment was another legacy of the Mao era. China’s attractiveness to global capital was further enhanced by persistently low level of workers’ wage compared to other Asian countries like Japan, Singapore, as well as the competitive pressure among local provinces who raced with one another to achieve high GDP growth by offering favourable terms possible to foreign investors (ranging from tax breaks to free industrial land).

While China went on to build world’s largest export-dependent economy in 2000s, unlike Japan and other Asian Tigers who built on the basis of private-owned enterprises, Chinese government depended on both: state-owned and private-owned enterprises to manufacture and to export an amazing range of consumer goods to every nook and corner of the world. Deng foresaw this economic boom that provided much needed upliftment of living standard of millions of educated Chinese. However, Chinese economy couldn’t avoid the short-term economic hardships unleashed by such rapid reforms to push export-oriented economy.

3. Far from being a follower of liberal capitalist political thought, Deng was a committed socialist unlike many top leaders of Soviet Union at that point of time. Researchers should remember that for Deng, ‘market economy’ was ‘a method of using black cat to catch mice instead of using a red cat’, and capability development in China would follow the policy ‘hide your strength, bide your time’. In my opinion, Deng didn’t have ever any doubt on the final outcome of the Marxist view that, the final history will be written by the classless communist society. Hence, his advice to build strength.

While authorising the deployment of PLA forces to remove the protesting student by force from Tiananmen Square in 1989, Deng was clear that the leadership of protesting students were liberal capitalist ideologues who was trying to bring down the CPC rule in China using the discontent among the people about corruption-inflation-nepotism. Had Deng and most other senior leadership believed an iota of liberal capitalist philosophy, by 1991, words like ‘socialism’, ‘communism’, ‘Marxism’ would have been completely erased from even the written history of civilization.

Part 2 – pending

Part 3 – pending


By profession I’m an Engineer and Consultant, but my first love was and is History and Political Science. In retired life, I’m pursuing higher study in Economics.

I’m one of the few decade-old members of The Saker blog-site. Hope that this website will continue to focus on truth and justice in public life and will support the struggle of common people across the world.

An Indian by nationality, I believe in humanity.

Ukraine’s Toe-hold in Europe

June 26, 2020

Ukraine’s Toe-hold in Europe

by Francis Lee for The Saker Blog

The open support given by the entire western media and political establishments to the regime now ensconced in Kiev should give cause for concern, but of course it doesn’t. After all it would not do to profess open backing for a staged coup by neo-nazi militants orchestrated and paid for by EU and US through non-government channels. Of course the CIA was involved but only in one of its various front organizations, to wit, the National Endowment for Democracy. This was the prototype ‘colour revolution.’ This process has been exhaustively delineated as follows:

In Ukraine, the demonically violent riots of 2014 were orchestrated by the US; that American agents in both private and public sectors were involved in organizing the “grassroots” campaign designed to destroy what was left of the country are now well known. The same exact script has been played out in Serbia, Georgia, Syria, Iran, Libya, the Gulf states, Turkey (briefly), China, parts of Central Asia and even Armenia. Not all were successful.

In Ukraine, State Department hack Geoffrey Pyatt brought US cash to begin the campaign against the democratically elected President, Yanukovic. Radio Free Europe and the western-controlled Ukrainian media (especially the Kiev Post) began promoting rumours of a “Russian invasion” based upon the obscure issue of Kiev’s desire to join the European Union. George Soros created the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” as both government and private cash went to building a protest movement. The veto of a European Union Association deal was important to the elites in New York, though probably almost totally unknown to Ukrainians, hence, the “spontaneous rebellion” began with that.

The method of public-private manipulation of media, imagery and even language in these cases is well known and several important monographs have been published about it. Yet, over and over again, the organizers of this claim that the “revolutions” are “spontaneous.” over and over again, academics and talking heads – the “instant experts” created by the System – repeat the official line.

In general, the western elite mobilizes urban, privileged elements of the population, uses their own organizers and media personnel, and create riots through the building of local organizations. They are granted cash, equipment, technology, ideology and even leaders with a script to follow. Violence is encouraged and all manner of suitable provocations are provided. A handful in the west point to the fact that a) the trajectory is identical in each case; b) way too many of the protest signs are in English and c) there is no clear ideological mission.

Corporate media then report that this obscure part of the world was run by a “terrorist” that also was a “tyrant.” For the left, the System will say that the government under siege was “conservative” and occasionally “a right-wing military regime.” For the right, they will say that the government in question was “opposed to American interests” or “harbouring terrorists.”

In many cases, hundreds or more are killed. Ostensible and official enemies of the US are financed and armed. A new government takes over that immediately “privatizes” all assets that made that country a target in the first place. Constitutions are rewritten and the penal code revised to ensure no US agent is prosecuted. Afterwards, the government in question is impoverished and without legitimacy. The assets of the state have been liquidated and bought up by western conglomerates based on the “principles of the free market and the rule of law.”

Strange people are seen in cabinet posts having names without much connection with the ethnicity in question. The IMF and World Bank give dire warnings about government policy and yet, give billions that they know will never be paid back or utilized properly. Within a few months, major media begin slowly leaking documents that in fact, the protest were organized by the CIA and that the “revolution” was a failure.

As more time goes by, stories related to this “revolution” nonchalantly speak of the “popular and spontaneous revolution against the tyrant” as if it is obviously true. After several years, almost everyone spouts the original line without criticism, almost with media reports that it was all staged. The American talking head and pseudo-intellectual then carries a conceptual conflict within him that makes any real rebellion against the system psychologically impossible.

This is precisely the nature of the “Colour Revolution” from Tienanmen Square to Kiev.’’ (1)

Thus the situation in Kiev by 2014 was ripe for a colour revolution. But politics in the Ukraine can only be understood by reference to its history and ethnic and cultural make-up – a make-up criss-crossed by lasting and entrenched differences. The country has long been split into the northern and western Ukraine, where Ukrainian is the official and everyday lingua franca, and the more industrialised regions of the east and south where a mixture of Russian speaking Ukrainians and ethnic Russians reside. Additionally, there has long been Hungarian and Romanian settlement in the west of the country, Transcarpathia and Bessarabia, and a particularly important Polish presence in Galicia, whose unofficial capital, Lviv, was once the Polish city of Lwow. The Russian Orthodox Church is the predominant form of Christianity in the East, – but this has recently broken up as a result of the Ukrainian branch which has seen fit to rebrand itself as the Ukrainian wing of the Orthodox church – generally speaking, however, in the west the Christian tradition tends towards Roman Catholicism.

Politically the Eastern and Southern Oblasts (Regions) which includes the cities and centres of heavy industry, Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhe, Nikolayev, Kherson, Simferopol (Crimea) and Odessa, have tended to tilt towards Russia whilst the western regions have had a more western orientation. This has traditionally been reflected in the electoral division of the country. There is no party which can be considered ‘national’ in this respect, except ironically, the old Communist party, which of course is now banned. The major regional parties have been the Fatherland party of Yulia Tymoshenko (since renamed) and the former head of government, Arseniy Yatsenyuk – now departed – as well as the ultra-nationalists predominantly in the west of the country, and the deposed Victor Yanukovic’s Party of the Regions in the East (now defunct) along with its junior partner in the coalition, the Ukrainian Communist Party.

However, what is new since the coup in February 2014 there has been the emergence, or rather the re-emergence, from the shadows of ultra-nationalist (fascist) parties and movements, with both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary (i.e., military) wings. In the main ‘Svoboda’ or Freedom Party, and the paramilitaries of ‘Right Sector’ (Fuhrer: Dimitry Yarosh) who spearheaded the coup in Kiev; these have been joined or changed their names to inter alia the Radical Party, and Patriots of the Ukraine; this in addition to the punitive right-wing militias, such as the Azov Battalion responsible for numerous atrocities in the Don Bass. It should be added that many of these militias have been integrated into the military and armed police, including the Azov Battalion.

Suffice it to say, however, that these political movements and parties did not emerge from nowhere.

This far-right tradition has been historically very strong in the western Ukraine, an area which was one-time part of the Polish empire but incorporated into the Ukraine by Stalin in 1945. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was first established in 1929 and brought together, war veterans, student fraternities, far-right groups and various other disoriented socially and political flotsam and jetsam under its banner. The OUN took its ideological position from the writings of one, Dymtro Dontsov, who, like Mussolini had been a socialist, and who was instrumental in creating an indigenous Ukrainian fascism based upon the usual mish-mash of writings and theories including Friedrich Nietzsche, Georges Sorel, and Charles Maurras. Dontsov also translated the works of Hitler and Mussolini into Ukrainian.

The OUN was committed to ethnic purity, and relied on violence, assassination and terrorism, not least against other Ukrainians, to achieve its goal of a totalitarian and homogeneous nation-state. Assorted enemies and impediments to this goal were Communists, Russians, Poles, and of course – Jews. Strongly oriented toward the Axis powers OUN founder Evhen Konovalets (1891-1938) stated that his movement was ‘’waging war against mixed marriages’’, with Poles, Russians and Jews, the latter which he described as ‘’foes of our national rebirth’’. Indeed, rabid anti-Semitism has been a leitmotif in the history of Ukrainian fascism, which we will return to below.

Konovelts himself was assassinated by a KGB hit-man in 1938 after which the movement split into two wings: (OUN-M) under Andrii Melnyk and, more importantly for our purposes (OUN-B) under Stepan Bandera. Both wings committed to a new fascist Europe. Upon the German invasion in June 1941, the OUN-B attempted to establish a Ukrainian satellite state loyal to Nazi Germany. Stepan Lenkavs’kyi the then chief propagandist of the OUN-B ‘government’ advocated the physical destruction of Ukrainian Jewry. OUN-B’s ‘Prime Minister’ Yaroslav Stets’ko, and deputy to Bandera supported, ‘’the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine, barring their assimilation and the like.’’

During the early days of the rapid German advance into the Soviet Union there were some 140 pogroms in the western Ukraine claiming the lives of between 13000-35000 people (Untermensch, in fascist terminology).

Below is what real anti-semitism looks like. The picture was taken in Lviv (Capital of Banderistan) In June 1941 shortly after the German invasion and during the pogrom which killed in excess of 2000 Jews in the city. The terrified half-dressed Jewish woman is running for her life being pursued by a cudgel-wielding mob of Banderist thugs.

In 1943-1944 OUN-B and its armed wing the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (Ukrainska povstanska armia – UPA) carried out large scale ethnic cleansing resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands; this was a particularly gruesome affair in Volhynia where some 90000 Poles and thousands of Jews were murdered.

The UPA were part of an ethnic cleansing operation carried out in Nazi Germanoccupied Poland by the North Command in the regions of Volhynia (Reichskommissariat Ukraine) and their South Command in Eastern Galicia (General Government) beginning in March 1943 and lasting until the end of 1944. The peak of the massacres took place in July and August 1943. Most of the victims were women and children. UPA’s methods were particularly savage and resulted in 35,000–60,000 Polish deaths in Volhynia and 25,000–40,000 in Eastern Galicia, for the total of between 76,000 and 106,000 casualties.

The killings were directly linked with the policies of the Bandera faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) and its military arm, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, whose goal as specified at the Second Conference of the OUN-B on 17–23 February 1943 (or March 1943 according to other sources) was to purge all non-Ukrainians from the future Ukrainian state. Not limiting their activities to the purging of Polish civilians, UPA also wanted to erase all traces of the Polish presence in the area. The violence was endorsed by a significant number of the Ukrainian Orthodox clergy who supported UPA’s nationalist cause. The massacres led to a civil conflict between Polish and Ukrainian forces in the German-occupied territories, with the Polish Home Army in Volhynia responding to the Ukrainian attacks.

The campaign of the UPA continued well into the 1950s until it was virtually wiped out by Soviet forces. It should be remembered in this context that also in play was the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)  which  was a World War II German military formation made up predominantly of military volunteers with a Ukrainian ethnic background from the area of Galicia  later also with some Slovaks and Czechs. Formed in 1943, it was largely destroyed in the battle of Brody, reformed, and saw action in SlovakiaYugoslavia and Austria before being renamed the first division of the Ukrainian National Army and surrendering to the Western Allies by 10 May 1945. The remnants of this force were given entry into both the US and more particularly Canada where they are a significant political force today.

It should be said that during this early period Bandera himself had been incarcerated by the German authorities up until his release in 1944, since unlike Bandera they were not enamoured of an independent Ukrainian state but wanted total control. Bandera was only released at this late date since the German high command was endeavouring to build up a pro-German Ukrainian quisling military force to hold up the remorseless advance of the Red Army. Also pursuant to this it is also worth noting that during this period the 14th Galizian Waffen SS Division, the military Ukrainian collaborationist formation established by none other than, Heinrich Himmler, which was formed to fight the Soviet forces, and yet another being the Nachtingal (Nightingale) brigade; this unit was integrated into the 14th Galizian in due course. It is also interesting to note, that every year, and up to 2014 a commemoration ceremony including veterans of this unit takes place with a march through Lviv. The flag of this unit is not dissimilar to the auto-car Peugeot logo, the standing lion, and can be seen at ultra-nationalist rallies as well as football matches involving Lviv Karparti FC, particularly fixtures in involving Shaktar Donetsk. There is also the annual torchlight demonstration through Kiev every 2 January in commemoration of Bandera’s birthday by some 20000 of his followers. This parade had all the makings of Nazi triumphalism, all very reminiscent of Leni Riefensthal German filmmaker and Nazi sympathiser. There are also numerous statues of Bandera across Ukraine, and since the 2014 coup even street names bearing the same name. Significantly the UPA was to receive political rehabilitation from the Kiev Junta, with Bandera declared a hero of the Ukraine and the UPA rebranded as ‘freedom fighters.’ One particularly splendid statue of Bandera stands proudly in Lviv, lovingly adorned with flowers.

Other novel attractions the capital of Banderestan – Lviv – include ‘Jewish themed restaurants’ one such is Kryivka (Hideout or Lurking Hole) where guests have a choice of dishes and whose dining walls are decorated with larger than life portraits of Bandera, the toilet with Russian and Jewish anecdotes. At another Jewish themed restaurant guests are offered black hats of the sort worn by Hasidim. The menu lists no prices for the dishes; instead, one is required to haggle over highly inflated prices ‘’in the Jewish fashion’’. Yes, it’s all good clean fun in Lviv. Anti-Semitism also sells. Out of 19 book vendors on the streets of central Lviv, 16 were openly selling anti-Semitic literature. About 70% of the anti-Semitic publications in Ukraine are being published by and educational institution called MUAP (The Inter-Regional Academy of Personnel Management). MAUP is a large, well-connected and increasingly powerful organization funded from outside anti-Semite sources, and also connected to White Supremacist groups in the USA and to David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

(It is perhaps one of the ironies of history that if the Zionists in AIPAC and the Washington neo-con think tanks, and the Labour Party Friends of Israel, were so concerned about anti-Semitism, they might try looking for it in Lviv. They wouldn’t have to search very far.)

Present day neo-Nazi groupings in Ukraine – Svoboda (Freedom) party and Right Sector – have been the direct descendants from the prior ideological cesspool. Heading Svoboda is Oleh Tyahnybok. Although these are separate organizations Tyahnybok’s deputy Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn is the main link between Svoboda’s official wing and neo-Nazi militias like Right Sector. The Social-Nationalist party as it was formerly known chose as its logo an amended version of the Wolfsangel, a symbol used by many German Waffen SS divisions on the Eastern front during the war who in 2004 a celebration of the OUN-UPA, stated in 2004, that ‘’they fought against the Muscovite, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state.’’ And further that ‘’Ukraine was ruled by a Muscovite-Jewish mafia.’’ Tyahnybok came under pressure from the then President, Yuschenko, to retract his inflammatory statements, which he did, but he then retracted the retraction!

Given the fact that Svoboda was, apart from its stamping grounds in the west, making little national electoral headway, it was essential to clean up its image and deny its Nazi past. But this was always going to be difficult since the members of such groups cannot help the unscripted outbursts and faux pas which they tend to make and which reveals their true colours. For example, following the conviction and sentencing of John Demjanjuk in 2011 to five years in jail for his role as an accessory to the murder of 27,900 people at the Sobibor death camp, Tyahnybok travelled to Germany and met up with Demjanjuk’s lawyer, presenting the death camp guard as a hero, a victim of persecution ‘’who is fighting for truth’’.

And so it goes on. We can therefore infer that this organization is inveterate fascist. More disturbing Svoboda has links with the so-called Alliance of National European Movements, which includes: Nationaldemokraterna of Sweden, Front Nationale of France, Fiamma Tricolore in Italy, the Hungarian Jobbik and the Belgian National Front. More importantly Svoboda held several ministerial portfolios in the Kiev administration, and Right Sector swaggers around Kiev streets with impunity, and/or are being drafted into a National Guard to deal with the separatist movements in the east, or to beat down anyone who doesn’t conform to their Ayran racial and political ideals.

One would have thought that this mutating revolution in the Ukraine would have drawn attention of the centre-left to the fact that fascism had gained a vital beachhead in Europe, and that the danger signals should be flashing. But not a bit of it; a perusal of the Guardian newspaper quickly reveals that their chief concern has been with a non-existent ‘Russian threat’. One of their reporters – our old friend, Luke Harding -described Right Sector as an ‘’eccentric group of people with unpleasant right-wing views.’’ Priceless! This must rank as the political understatement of the century. In fact, the Guardian was simply reiterating the US-imposed neo-conservative foreign policy. But naturally, this is par for the course. The bald fact of the matter is that there is a de facto alliance between the genuine anti-semites, not only in Ukraine but in the Baltics also, who are now allied with Zionists in the war against the emerging Eurasian bloc.

The Nachtingal (Nightingale) brigade, took part in a three-day massacre of the Jewish population of Lviv from 30 June 1941. Roman Shukhevych was the commander of the Nachtingal and later, in 1943, became commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the “Banderivtsy”) or UPA armed henchmen of the fascist Stepan Bandera, who after the war pretended that they had fought both Nazis and Communists. Members of the division are also accused of having murdered some 800 residents of the Polish village of Huta Pieniacka and 44 civilians in the village of Chłaniów.

Stepan Bandera statue in Lviv

Ukraine today is in a sorry state; the poorest country in Europe only kept alive by an IMF drip-feed. The economic and social ramifications of the 2014 coup will be observed insofar as the full weight of the neo-liberal economic policies has been foisted on the Ukraine, courtesy of the IMF. This was already apparent in the early 80s but the trend accelerated after the coup. The standard IMF/WTO Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) a package of ‘reforms’ and ‘fiscal consolidation’ (I just love these IMF euphemisms) consisted of cuts in government expenditure, accompanied by extensive liberalisation of product and labour markets, together with abandonment of exchange rate control and capital flows. These policies along with political instability have had, among other things, a disastrous effect on population growth. Ukraine’s population was 52 million in 1992 and the decline started in that year. By 2016, this figure had fallen to 42.5 million, its 1960 figure, and was accelerated since the coup of 2014. The current Fertility rate stands at 1.3. Any figure less than 2 will mean a shrinking population. The death rate has also increased, along with mass migration with some 2 million Ukrainian guest workers decamping to Russia and Poland in search of work. This is a slow-motion demographic calamity.

Moreover, none of the economic indicators carry any hope of a long-term revival. The fact of economic disaster as measured in various statistics is, however, unmistakable: 2018 figures indicate per capita income languishing at US$3113.00 (compared to Angola US$3437.00). Debt as a % of GDP minus-2.15 Angola 2.19. Trade Balance for Angola stands at 25.3% Ukraine’s trade balance stands at -7.41% as a percentage of GDP. Unemployment stands at (officially at least) 10%, and in terms of external trade the current account has not been positive since 2003, those glorious days which gave rise to the ‘Orange revolution’. Finally, there are the rating agencies who provide the following ratings for Ukraine’s sovereign bonds– Moody’s B3, S&P B, Fitch B. B means below investment grade if we are being polite, junk bonds if we are not. (3) The currency – the hryvnia, exchange rate against the British pound is £1 = 34, hyrvinia. When I was last in Ukraine (2012) you would get only between 8 and 12 hyrvnia for a £. Ukraine is now the poorest country in Europe being pushed down to bottom by the next basket case above, Moldova. Welcome to the Sunflower Republic.

All of this in spite of the IMF’s loans and its unilateral debt forgiveness of the Ukraine’s outstanding sovereign debt to Russia which had become due. In doing this the IMF infringed its own constitution. As Michael Hudson explains:

‘’The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine: (i) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the loan (the “No More Argentinas” rule, adopted after the IMF’s disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (ii) Not to lend to a country that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (iii) Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed, destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back the loan. Finally (iv), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF’s austerity “conditionalities.” Ukraine did agree to override democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted.’’

This was obviously a political decision made by an organization which is supposed to be politically neutral.

NOTES

(1) Matthew Raphael Johnson – Euro-Maidan – Liberal Capitalism – and the Ukrainian Fiasco – 08.06.2016

دروس التاريخ التي يجب أن نستخلصها من أجل المستقبل العادل

ألكسندر زاسبكين

في 22 حزيران 1941 بدأت الحرب الوطنية العظمى للاتحاد السوفياتي ضدّ ألمانيا الفاشية وحلفائها. واليوم نتذكر هذا التاريخ لنحيي بطولة الشعب السوفياتي الذي وقف صفاً واحداً ضدّ العدوان، مؤمناً بحتمية هزيمة المعتدي الذي كان يسعى إلى إبادة شعوب الاتحاد السوفياتي على اختلاف قومياتها والاستيلاء على أراضيها. كما نتمسك بالحفاظ على صدق الرواية والوقائع التاريخية لتطورات الأوضاع ما قبل الحرب وأثناءها وبعدها ولا نسمح بتزوير الحقيقة الذي يجري خلال الفترة الأخيرة في أميركا ودول أوروبية.

يحاول هؤلاء وضع ألمانيا الهتلرية والاتحاد السوفياتي في كفة واحدة لجهة تحميلهما معاً وعلى حدّ سواء المسؤولية عن الحرب. وفي الواقع إذ يشوّهون صورة الاتحاد السوفياتي التاريخية فهم يقصدون استهداف روسيا حالياً. والعودة إلى التاريخ تفيدنا أنه في عام 1932 وافقت الولايات المتحدة وإنكلترا وفرنسا على إعادة تسليح ألمانيا وفي عام 1938 تمّ «توحيد» ألمانيا والنمسا ووقعت بريطانيا وفرنسا معاهدة ميونخ مع ألمانيا التي أدّت إلى تقسيم تشيكوسلوفاكيا بمشاركة بولندا وتعزيز القطاع الصناعي العسكري الألماني، وكانت الفكرة الأساسية لكلّ هذه المناورات تشجيع ألمانيا الهتلرية للهجوم على الاتحاد السوفياتي. وتؤكد ذلك حالة «الحرب الزائفة» أيّ عدم تحرك قوات فرنسا وبريطانيا في بداية الحرب العالمية الثانية حتى شنّت ألمانيا هجوماً واسعاً على بلجيكا وهولندا وفرنسا في أيار 1940. أما الاتحاد السوفياتي فخلال سنوات بقي يطرح مبادرات خاصة بالأمن المشترك في أوروبا وتشكيل التحالف ضدّ هتلر، حتى وقع مضطراً في آب 1939 معاهدة عدم الاعتداء مع ألمانيا بعدما فشلت كلّ المبادرات لتحصين المواجهة بموقف موحد. وفرضت عقد هذه المعاهدة ظروف اندلاع الأعمال العسكرية بين الاتحاد السوفياتي واليابان وكانت بذلك خطوة ذكية حمت المصالح الوطنية للاتحاد السوفياتي بتأجيل الحرب مع ألمانيا.

لذلك كله كان من المهمّ جداً نشر الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين لمقال بعنوان «75 عاماً من النصر العظيم: مسؤولية مشتركة تجاه التاريخ والمستقبل» الذي يكشف معلومات عن مرحلة قبل الحرب ودروس يجب أن نستخلصها منها. وورد في المقال: «لم تحدث الحرب العالمية الثانية بين عشية وضحاها، ولم تبدأ بشكل غير متوقع أو فجأة. ولم يكن العدوان الألماني على بولندا من العدم. كانت نتيجة عدد من الميول والعوامل للسياسة العالمية في ذلك الوقت. وقعت جميع أحداث ما قبل الحرب في مكانها لتشكل سلسلة قاتلة واحدة. لكن، بلا شك، كانت العوامل الرئيسية التي حدّدت مسبقاً أكبر مأساة في تاريخ البشرية هي أنانية الدول والجبن واسترضاء المعتدي الذي كان يكتسب القوة وعدم استعداد النخب السياسية للبحث عن حلّ وسط».

نعتبر توضيح وقائع الأجواء السياسية وتصرفات الدول التي أدّت إلى اشتعال الحرب العالمية الثانية حاجة ملحّة لأننا نرى سلوكاً متشابهاً في الظروف الدولية الراهنة عندما تحاول الأوساط الغربية الحاكمة أن تفرض إرادتها على شعوب العالم وتحاول إسقاط الأنظمة الشرعية بذريعة «حماية حقوق الإنسان» أو «تأييد الثوار». وتستخدم هذه الأوساط استفزازات ودعاية كاذبة يشارك فيها السياسيون والخبراء والصحافيون الذين يخلقون عالماً افتراضياً موازياً لتضليل الرأي العام العالمي وذلك للحفاظ على الهيمنة بكلّ الطرق الممكنة بما في ذلك عدوان مباشر وتأييد مجموعات إرهابية ومراهنة على فتن طائفية وفوضى وتفكيك الدول وفرض العقوبات الاقتصادية التي تسفر عن تجويع الناس المدنيين.

في عصر أسلحة الدمار الشامل يحتاج العالم إلى تعزيز الاستقرار الاستراتيجي على أساس مبدأ عدم تجزئة الأمن ومشاركة الجميع على قدم المساواة. لكن الولايات المتحدة تنسحب من المعاهدات الرئيسيّة التي تشكل إطاراً قانونياً دولياً في هذا المجال. علاوة على ذلك يجري العمل التخريبي في المنظمات الدولية لوضع «نظام القواعد» التي يخترعها الغرب لمصلحته بديلاً للشرعية الدولية.

اليوم يكرّر الغرب أخطاء الماضي التي أدّت إلى الكارثة العالمية وما أشبه اليوم بالأمس، وقد شهدنا كيف كرّر الغرب خطأ الرهان على النازية مع ألمانيا الهتلرية بالرهان على الإرهاب، خصوصاً في ما شهدناه خلال الأزمة والحرب في سورية، معتقداً أنه سيبقى بمنأى عن الخطر، عندما يترك النيران تشتعل بثوب مَن يصنفهم خصوماً، وفي المرتين النتيجة ذاتها. فالنوم مع الشيطان في السرير ذاته لا يمكن أن يجلب الأمن ولا أن يحقق السلام .

اليوم وقد تزايدت مشاكل العالم وزاد تعقيدها، لا يمكن تجاهل مخاطر انزلاق إلى نهاية تاريخ البشرية نتيجة للنزاع العالمي بسبب تصرّفات غير مسؤولة للمغامرين والمهووسين بأوهام العظمة والتفوق والجشع وأشكال الفوبيا القديمة.

من المطلوب تكثيف الجهود لمواجهة هذا النهج الذي يهدّد مستقبل البشرية. وبهذا الصدد نشير إلى ضرورة توسيع دائرة الدول والقوى السياسية التي تسعى إلى نضج النظام العالمي المتعدّد والمتوازن الذي يؤمن الحقوق المتساوية لأعضاء المجتمع الدولي والالتزام بميثاق الأمم المتحدة. وإذ نتذكر تحالفاً معادياً لهتلر فتطرح روسيا مبادرات بناءة بخصوص جميع مواضيع الأجندة العالمية ابتداء من الاستقرار الاستراتيجي والتعاون في الفضاء والفضاء السيبراني وصولاً إلى تسوية النزاعات الإقليمية ومكافحة الإرهاب. من المعروف أنّ الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين وجه الدعوة لعقد لقاء لرؤساء الدول الخمس الدائمة العضوية في مجلس الأمن الدولي لمناقشة أهم القضايا الراهنة. ونأمل أن تمثل هذه الخطوة نقطة انطلاق لعملية تنقية الأجواء وانتقالاً إلى مرحلة الحوار والتعاون لأن ذلك حاجة ماسة للبشرية كلها التي تعاني من تراكم المشاكل.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

*سفير روسيا الاتحاديّة لدى الجمهورية اللبنانيّة.

A Meditation on President Putin’s Warning from History

Source

A Meditation on President Putin’s Warning from History

June 21, 2020

By Ken Leslie for The Saker Blog

1. The last warning…

In the middle of the current global turmoil, largely ignored by the Western media, President Vladimir Putin of Russia recently wrote an article for the National Interest magazine (the article is featured on this site). In it, he magisterially dissected and integrated one of the most disputed topics in contemporary history—the cause(s) and antecedent(s) of World War II. The article is long and very detailed, drawing on a rich historical and historiographic documentation and it leaves no stone unturned. The point I wish to elaborate on here is that far from being a historical dissertation, the article is a last warning to the enemies delivered in the form of a parable. Rather than expound on the precarious state of the world and the seemingly inexorable drift to war, Putin used the tragic landscape of the late 1930s Europe to shed light not only on the true causes of WWII but also on the causes of a rapidly approaching WWIII.

Although discussing all the principal players responsible for perhaps the greatest holocide in history, I had a feeling that the article was aimed particularly at the Anglo-Saxon part of the Western empire (which also includes the EU, Israel and some Arab and Asian countries). Although I can’t be certain, there is a sense that this is president Putin’s last appeal to the former allies in the struggle against Nazism, the last melancholy hand of friendship extended to the powers that almost ignited WWII and are busy repeating the same horrible ritual of a total war against Russia. There is something deeply Russian and Orthodox Christian about Putin’s appeal. Precisely because he is aware of the deep enmity that the Anglo-Saxon establishment harbours for Russia in all its manifestations, he is that much more grateful to the British and American soldiers and statesmen for that all-too-brief, almost miraculous interlude of friendship and co-operation, that even today 80 years later appears to many like an unfortunate tear in the yarn of history.

And yet, this interlude offered a glimpse of a new dawn. The people in the West saw with their own eyes how uniquely heroic the Soviet people were in the defence of their motherland. The workers and peasants of the Soviet Union realised that there were many good people in the West who did not bear the eternal grudge but were glad to have the USSR on their side. It is often assumed that this short détente lasted five years—from the start of the German invasion until say, 1946, but this would not be accurate. The mistrust between the almost-allies was such that it took a concerted effort by Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt as well as a number of well-disposed politicians (e.g. Harry Hopkins, Anthony Eden) to cement the bond which started to crack well before the end of hostilities.

The “weakest link” in the allied leadership chain was Winston Churchill. Not fond of Russians to say the least, he was an imperialist and anti-communist par excellence. The current anti-racism protests show that this side of Churchill is well known to the younger generation. Whose fault is it that those same younger people don’t remember that Churchill once suppressed his natural instincts and fought a good fight against the greatest menace the world has ever known? Here again, we see the results of a massive blowback caused by the unceasing attempts to diminish the international and anti-fascist nature of the war-time alliance and WWII. Instead of cherishing the values that were defended by the three great nations, modern historians and politicians (with few exceptions) have competed in ways of demonising the Soviet Union (and Russia), burying the existential threat of nazi-fascism and treating WWII as a bloody misunderstanding among otherwise friendly nations. Yes, Nazi Germany was dangerous, but the USSR and its successor have been much more pernicious.

Granted, Churchill’s leadership in WWII was not enough to secure him a prime ministership in 1945, but the overall positive role he played in allying himself with the Americans and Soviets and his reputation as an anti-fascist gradually withered and ultimately died by the end of the last century. In a way, his fate is more tragic than that of Stalin who was the first to experience the “awakening of the people”. Although Stalin has not been fully rehabilitated, his role in saving the Soviet Union and freeing the world from the fascist beast is slowly being recognised and re-evaluated.

It was Churchill who started undermining the war-time alliance long before the guns fell silent. He sabotaged the relationship between Roosevelt and Stalin, refused to consider giving independence to British colonies, undermined the prospects of a progressive US government via his intelligence apparatus in the USA (he sent Roald Dahl to spy on Henry Wallace) and in the ultimate betrayal of the good faith that was supposed to underpin the alliance, began planning an all-out attack on the Soviet Union as early as 1944. Named Operation Unthinkable, this plan envisaged a massive offensive against the USSR which would involve Polish troops and even re-armed German prisoners of war.

Many historical records note Stalin’s deep disappointment and a sense of hurt at the betrayal of the blood brotherhood by Churchill and Truman. Long after peace returned to the villages and cities of Europe, Stalin kept warning and beseeching his former allies not to throw away the legacy of friendship and co-operation. Despite the decades of cruel and inhumane attacks on the USSR that ensued, contributing substantially to its downfall, Soviet leaders and people never forgot the supreme sacrifice made by British and American soldiers and sailors who gave their lives in the struggle against the common enemy. This tradition of honouring the Western allies has been preserved and nurtured by President Putin. The campaign in the West to denigrate the great sacrifice of the Soviet people brought about an absurd situation in which the brave British sailors who took part in the war-time convoys that delivered badly needed supplies to the USSR were barred from receiving Soviet decorations by David Cameron.[1]

Perhaps the most hurtful and one could say evil blow that the former reluctant allies could deliver has been the attempt to re-write the history of WWII and treat Russia as a co-aggressor on the par with Germany. This is a red line for any Russian patriot and any right-thinking human being. The constant pressure to delegitimise the role of the USSR in freeing the world from the menace of fascism has led to the revival of fascist tendencies in some European countries including Croatia, the Baltic states, the Ukraine and others. These virulent forms of extreme nationalism (Chauvin-ism) were salvaged from the embers of the dying Nazi Reich, cultivated for decades in the satanic laboratories of the Western intelligence services (including Israel’s) and weaponised against Russia and its allies.[2]

A special role in the total war against Russia has been assigned to Poland—a Slav nation whose complex history has largely rested on a constant opposition to Russia and somewhat less, Germany. Briefly, Poland’s raison d’etre and geopolitical role has been to act as a spoiler in any attempts to bring about a peaceful co-existence in Europe. In the 1920s and 1930s, Polish extreme right-wing (it could be argued fascist) regime saw the country as a major power which by virtue of its religion and military prowess should rule over Central Europe.[3] The Vatican’s Intermarium (“between the seas”) project designed in the 19th Century aimed at countering the rise of the protestant Prussia in the West and Orthodox Russia in the East. It involved forming a federation from the (now former) Austro-Hungarian Slav provinces under the auspices of the Catholic Church. After the Bolshevik revolution, Poland put the plan into practice and awarded itself the leadership of the prospective “cordon sanitaire”. With the help of its Western patrons (especially Britain and France), it occupied the largely Russian-speaking regions of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. Under the doctrine of Prometheism, Poland started lighting “fires of freedom” all along the Soviet border. The rest of Poland’s nefarious role has been (belatedly) exposed by Russian historians. Far from being an innocent victim of Nazi expansionism, Poland wholeheartedly collaborated with Germany in plotting against the Soviet Union, planning the mass removal of the Jews, sabotaging any possibility of an anti-Nazi alliance and enslaving and converting their “heathen” Slav brethren.

It is this giant geopolitical déjà vu combined with an exponentially increasing risk of a global war that must have compelled president Putin to address the Western audiences—perhaps for the last time. As recently as 50 years ago, it would have been unthinkable for Western politicians and media to equate the USSR and Germany with regard to the culpability for the war. Yet, a concerted campaign in the Western media and chancelleries that accompanied the fall the of the USSR and the ramping up of a Russophobic campaign in the intervening years have led to the current dangerous impasse which leaves no room for diplomacy and negotiation. Largely unnoticed by the commenters, in his inimitable subtle and statesmanlike style, president Putin delivered to the western public what I believe to be the last appeal for peaceful co-existence. As I stated above, the appeal was directed primarily at the Anglo-Saxon powers which are currently at the forefront of the undeclared war against Russia.

He reminded his former allies of the dangers of using “running dogs” such as Poland or the Ukraine in order to destabilise Russia. He also informed them in no uncertain terms of Russia’s determination not to allow any further besmirching of its historic sacrifice. No more mollycoddling of petty fascist fiefdoms in the name of class or ethnic/racial solidarity. It was also a warning to the Poles that their state policy of siding with any country as long as it is inimical to Russia can only lead to ruin and renewed partition. I’ll paraphrase the notorious Russophobe Josef Beck, one of the chief architects of Poland’s pre-WWII foreign policy, who admitted after the war that Poland was destroyed because it had been acting in the interests of the Vatican and not the Polish people.

In other words, president Putin drew a line—if you wish to avoid a potential nuclear war, stop demonising and destabilising Russia and join us in creating a more equitable world. Russia will never abandon its unique civilisational path and any attempts at thwarting its legitimate claim to life and development will be punished harshly. Russian insistence on peaceful conflict resolution should not be confused for weakness. Having experienced one of the greatest genocides in history, Russia will never advocate war. But if war becomes inevitable, it will fight to the death. This stern warning was couched in the language of reconciliation. President Putin harks back to the war-time alliance with the USA and Great Britain to remind the modern audiences that confrontation is not the only way but that if attacked, Russia would defend itself to the last Russian and inflict terrible and (this time) unsustainable damage.

As noted by some commenters, his message might have been too subtle for the ignorant and ideologically blinded hacks posing as geopolitical experts in the West. So, let me enlighten them a bit by explaining the deeper meaning of president Putin’s message. Those who think that this has to do mainly with righting the wrongs of modern Western history are only partly correct. The main point is simple yet profound: Whichever form the Russian state takes, it will never be accepted as an equal by the racists, fascists and religious bigots in the West. The President is deeply aware of this but is hoping against hope that some form of détente is still possible. To elucidate the situation, he uses historical precedent to highlight the similarity between the geopolitical situations in 1941 and today and delivers a parable disguised as a historical treatise.

2. History doesn’t repeat…

A long time ago, there was a large and powerful country—let’s call it country X. Having gone through a decade of terrible convulsions and a series of civil wars which resulted in millions of deaths and a wholesale destruction of the country’s social and political systems, it began to grow and develop and this growth was perceived as a direct challenge to the Western imperialist system. The country was far from perfect. Years of suffering and neglect had taken their toll and large parts of the country needed rebuilding—especially the transport infrastructure. The people were traumatised and yearning for peace. Then, somewhat unexpectedly, a strong leader emerged who shunned the idea of imperial expansion and focussed on building up the country and preparing it for a possible war. In a famous speech, the leader warned that the country needed to catch up with the West and warned of the dangers of the attempts by the imperialist enemy to encircle and destroy it.

The leader knew that the accusations levelled at his country were mainly propaganda lies. While some Westerners were fascinated by the rapid development of the vast land, most were convinced that the ideas of suppression of rampant capitalism, development within one’s own borders, ending of imperialism and moving towards a multipolar world were seriously endangering the survival of the imperialist system. In order to curtail and extinguish the perennial enemy, the Western powers started inflaming extreme nationalism in their client states (combined with financial globalism) to encircle and destroy the only country that was a threat to their dominance. Although one country was preeminent in terms of military might, the strategy called for continental unity and this was achieved by co-opting smaller countries one after another and pushing the borders of the aggressive empire ever closer to those of country X. Hiding behind the enlightened principle of defending the Western civilisation against the peril from the East, the Empire’s aim was to surround and eventually destroy country X in order to plunder its natural wealth and human resources and forever extinguish its spirit.

The leader of X was desperate to avoid conflict. Through an international forum set up to prevent future wars, he reached out to Western governments time after time trying to convince them of his peaceful intentions and readiness to co-operate in building a peaceful multipolar world. All his attempts were in vain. The military machine of the West was moving inexorably towards his country. Not only that but a new threat emerged from a belligerent rapidly militarising island off the country’s Eastern coast whose militarist revival was supported by X’s principal enemy. The loudest and most vicious enemy of country X was a smaller neighbouring state whose rabid hatred of X and religious zeal ensured its preeminent position as the mailed fist of the Western aggression. With the help of Western intelligence services, this country encouraged and funded innumerable plots against country X and sabotaged its attempts to revamp the international security architecture.

The leader of X was demonised in the imperialist press as a ruthless butcher of various nations and ethnic groups within or outside his country, an autocrat whose ruthless grip on power was maintained by fear and whose removal of foreign agents from the political and economic apparatus was evidence of his genocidal bloodthirst. By means of a vicious propaganda campaign, a regime of harsh sanctions and an intelligence offensive, X was gradually turned into a pariah, isolated and despised. At the same time, X gave hope to many people around the world that a more just and fair society was possible. Poor countries still burdened by colonialism and imperialism looked especially favourably on X as a potential patron and protector.

Instead of folding under the ostracism and pressure of sanctions, X continued to develop rapidly and soon outpaced most of its Western competitors. The leader of X attempted to parry the concerted campaign of the imperialist enemy by reaching out to various Western countries trying to create a united defensive front. However, this was made impossible by a fascist feeding frenzy that led to a dismemberment and occupation of a previously neutral/friendly country.

In a belated attempt at creating a buffer zone against the merciless existential foe, X recaptured some of the territories it had lost previously. For this it was lambasted and chastised even more. The critical moment came when the enemy, emboldened by years of appeasement and dithering, breeched the old borders of X and quickly found itself about 450 km away from the capital of X. An erroneous perception of the enemy places all the blame for the aggression on a single country. Yet, with a couple of honourable exceptions, the entire continent contributed troops and logistical, financial, economic and propaganda support to the aggressor.

3. Guess who

The legerdemain I employed here to illustrate the peril facing the world might just work. If you toggle USSR/Russia, Germany/US-NATO, Czechoslovakia/Yugoslavia/Ukraine, you will realise that the similarities between that faithful summer of 1941 and the COVID-infected summer of 2020 are more than accidental. I leave it to you to fill in the names of other players. I am not claiming that the two situations are identical, but simply that the template of demonisation perseveres through centuries and political systems. If I’d tried harder, I could have fitted the Russian empire into this template but it is not worth the effort—not because the Russian empire does not matter but because the comparison between the USSR and modern Russia suffices for my purposes.[4] In the same way that Stalin used religion and tradition to strengthen the fighting spirit of the people, Putin is turning to the epic struggle of the Soviets to prepare the Russian people for what is likely to come. In a supreme irony (another one of these) in its attempt to suffocate the historical memory of Russia’s role in WWII the West has denigrated its own effort to the point where younger generations of Westerners have no knowledge of their ancestors’ just war. In a sense, this is the blowback of all blowbacks.

The rest of the story which now refers to WWII goes something like this: At this very last moment, when all hope was lost, the leaders of the three major powers overcame their suspicions and joined hands in an epic struggle against fascism and militarism. For president Putin (and many of us) this moment was magical—akin to the brief state of weightlessness induced by a freefalling aeroplane. Freed from the gravity of earthly power, the world could ascend to new hights of peaceful development. His plea/warning is unlikely to be heeded by the intended audience. Nevertheless, it is very necessary. The world cannot afford another summer of war because this one would be unbearably hot. Briefly, Putin is saying “Remember your brave ancestors who gave their lives in the joint struggle and honour them by embracing Russia as an equal and respected partner.” Putin’s essay is a wholesale repudiation of the canard that “countries don’t have friends, only interests”. Although he is appealing to the sound political interests of his Western “partners”, he is articulating something greater—a world based not on predation and profit but on humane and universally valid civilisational principles.

There is little hope that his hand will be grasped by the current lot of political clowns who are currently in power in the West. While pretending to be friendly to Russia, the Jesuitical fraud Trump has done more to damage the Russian-American ties than most of his predecessors taken together. The mendacious tapir Boris is doubling down on using the Ukraine to irritate and annoy Russia.[5] In that, he bears some similarity to his idol Churchill who spared no effort to criticise the Russian Empire and sabotage the Soviet Union. However, the comparison ends there. Unlike Churchill, who despite his despicable ideology and actions was a statesman of a great calibre, Boris is a Churchill wannabe who unlike his idol seems incapable of grasping the uniqueness of the present moment and the importance of not repeating historical mistakes.

  1. To my knowledge, president Putin has never publicly addressed the occupation of parts of Russia by the allied intervention forces in 1918. 
  2. Note similar attempts by the Anglo-Zionist empire to equate China with imperial Japan through the curriculum of Hong Kong schools 
  3. My criticism of Poland does not imply my fondness for Bolshevism. Needless to say, Poland has never changed its position vis-à-vis Russia irrespective of the latter’s system of government. 
  4. In the same way that Stalin and Putin have been accused of being the butchers of the Ukrainians, Chechens and Tatars, Nicholas II was being lambasted by the “progressive” Jews for the pogroms (which occurred mainly in the Western non-Orthodox areas of the Russian Empire). Despite saving the Jews from the holocaust and being the first to support and recognise Israel (also see The Jewish Autonomous Oblast), Stalin soon became the bete noire of the Zionists/Trotskyites and a synonym for antisemitism. Despite having excellent relations with the Russian Jews and Israel, Putin has been the target of Zionist wrath almost from the beginning. The reader should draw their own conclusions. 
  5. British involvement with the Ukrainian nationalism stretches back to the end of WWII when Sir Collin Gubbins took over from Abwehr as the runner of the Prometheus terrorist network. Of course, the links between the MI6 and Polish inspired anti-Soviet networks almost certainly existed before 1939. 

75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future

Source

75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future

June 18, 2020

Mr Putin wrote a comprehensive history on the 2ndWW, which surprisingly first appeared in the The National Interest and released today.  This writing leads to a further support for the request that Mr Xi Jinping, Mr Macron, Mr Trump and Mr Johnson – gather together to to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states, permanent members of the Security Council, with the focus being: ” a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet, for the sake of prosperity and well-being of all states. ”

Controversy is beginning to show .. with Foreign Policy saying he is rewriting history and the Moscow Times describing it as “Putin’s Latest Obsession: A New World War II Narrative”


from http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/63527

75 years have passed since the end of the Great Patriotic War. Several generations have grown up over the years. The political map of the planet has changed. The Soviet Union that claimed an epic, crushing victory over Nazism and saved the entire world is gone. Besides, the events of that war have long become a distant memory, even for its participants. So why does Russia celebrate the 9th of May as the biggest holiday? Why does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump rise in their throat?

They usually say that the war has left a deep imprint on every family’s history. Behind these words, there are fates of millions of people, their sufferings and the pain of loss. Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and the memory.

For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my two-year old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his hometown. He made the same decision as millions of Soviet citizens. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more years pass, the more I feel the need to talk to my parents and learn more about the war period of their lives. But I no longer have the opportunity to do so. This is the reason why I treasure in my heart the conversations I had with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.

People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure. They need to understand how their ancestors managed to persevere and win. Where did their sheer, unbending willpower that amazed and fascinated the whole world come from? Sure, they were defending their homes, children, loved ones and families. However, what they shared was the love for their homeland, their Motherland. That deep-seated, intimate feeling is fully reflected in the very essence of our nation and became one of the decisive factors in its heroic, sacrificial fight against the Nazis.

People often wonder: What would today’s generation do? How will it act when faced with a crisis situation? I see young doctors, nurses, sometimes fresh graduates that go to the ”red zone“ to save lives. I see our servicemen fighting international terrorism in the North Caucasus, fighting to the bitter end in Syria. They are so young. Many servicemen who were part of the legendary, immortal 6th Paratroop Company were 19–20 years old. But all of them proved that they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of our Motherland that defended it during the Great Patriotic War.

This is why I am confident that one of the characteristic features of the peoples of Russia is to fulfil their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for their home, their family and Fatherland remain fundamental and integral to the Russian society to this day. These values are, to a large extent, the backbone of our country’s sovereignty.

Nowadays, we have new traditions created by the people, such as the Immortal Regiment. This is the memory march that symbolises our gratitude, as well as the living connection and the blood ties between generations. Millions of people come out to the streets carrying the photographs of their relatives who defended their Fatherland and defeated the Nazis. This means that their lives, the ordeals and sacrifices they endured, as well as the Victory that they passed to us will never be forgotten.

We have a responsibility to our past and our future to do our utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence, I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic War. I have discussed this idea on several occasions with world leaders, and they have showed their support. At the summit of CIS leaders held at the end of last year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass on to future generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated first and foremost by the entire Soviet people and that representatives of all republics of the Soviet Union fought side by side together in that heroic battle, both on the frontlines and in the rear. During that summit, I also talked with my counterparts about the challenging pre-war period.

That conversation caused a stir in Europe and the world. It means that it is indeed high time that we revisited the lessons of the past. At the same time, there were many emotional outbursts, poorly disguised insecurities and loud accusations that followed. Acting out of habit, certain politicians rushed to claim that Russia was trying to rewrite history. However, they failed to rebut a single fact or refute a single argument. It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to argue with the original documents that, by the way, can be found not only in Russian, but also in foreign archives.

Thus, there is a need to further examine the reasons that caused the world war and reflect on its complicated events, tragedies and victories, as well as its lessons, both for our country and the entire world. And like I said, it is crucial to rely exclusively on archive documents and contemporary evidence while avoiding any ideological or politicised speculations.

I would like to once again recall the obvious fact. The root causes of World War II mainly stem from the decisions made after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of grave injustice for Germany. It basically implied that the country was to be robbed, being forced to pay enormous reparations to the Western allies that drained its economy. French Marshal Ferdinand Foch who served as the Supreme Allied Commander gave a prophetic description of that Treaty: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.”

It was the national humiliation that became a fertile ground for radical and revenge-seeking sentiments in Germany. The Nazis skilfully played on people’s emotions and built their propaganda promising to deliver Germany from the “legacy of Versailles” and restore the country to its former power while essentially pushing German people into war. Paradoxically, the Western states, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, directly or indirectly contributed to this. Their financial and industrial enterprises actively invested in German factories and plants manufacturing military products. Besides, many people in the aristocracy and political establishment supported radical, far-right and nationalist movements that were on the rise both in Germany and in Europe.

“Versailles world order” caused numerous implicit controversies and apparent conflicts. They revolved around the borders of new European states randomly set by the victors in World War I. That boundary delimitation was almost immediately followed by territorial disputes and mutual claims that turned into “time bombs”.

One of the major outcomes of World War I was the establishment of the League of Nations. There were high expectations for that international organisation to ensure lasting peace and collective security. It was a progressive idea that, if followed through consistently, could actually prevent the horrors of a global war from happening again.

However, the League of Nations dominated by the victorious powers of France and the United Kingdom proved ineffective and just got swamped by pointless discussions. The League of Nations and the European continent in general turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish an equitable collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact and a Pacific pact to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.

The League of Nations also failed to prevent conflicts in various parts of the world, such as the attack of Italy on Ethiopia, a civil war in Spain, the Japanese aggression against China and the Anschluss of Austria. Furthermore, in case of the Munich Betrayal that, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini, involved British and French leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken apart with the full approval of the League of Nations. I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike many other European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meeting with Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician and was a welcome guest in the European capitals.

Poland was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They decided together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories. On September 20, 1938, Polish Ambassador to Germany Józef Lipski reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Józef Beck on the following assurances made by Hitler: “…in case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand by Poland.” The Nazi leader even prompted and advised that Poland started to act “only after the Germans occupy the Sudetes.”

Poland was aware that without Hitler’s support, its annexationist plans were doomed to fail. I would like to quote in this regard a record of the conversation between German Ambassador to Warsaw Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Józef Beck that took place on October 1, 1938, and was focused on the Polish-Czech relations and the position of the Soviet Union in this matter. It says: “Mr Beck expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded to Polish interests at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict. The Government and the public [of Poland] fully appreciated the attitude of the Fuehrer and Chancellor.”

The partition of Czechoslovakia was brutal and cynical. Munich destroyed even the formal, fragile guarantees that remained on the continent. It showed that mutual agreements were worthless. It was the Munich Betrayal that served as the “trigger” and made the great war in Europe inevitable.

Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The fact that their countries once broke their commitments and supported the Munich Betrayal, with some of them even participating in divvying up the take, is not the only reason. Another is that it is kind of embarrassing to recall that during those dramatic days of 1938, the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up for Czechoslovakia.

The Soviet Union, in accordance with its international obligations, including agreements with France and Czechoslovakia, tried to prevent the tragedy from happening. Meanwhile, Poland, in pursuit of its interests, was doing its utmost to hamper the establishment of a collective security system in Europe. Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Beck wrote about it directly in his letter of September 19, 1938 to the aforementioned Ambassador Józef Lipski before his meeting with Hitler: “…in the past year, the Polish government rejected four times the proposal to join the international interfering in defence of Czechoslovakia.”

Britain, as well as France, which was at the time the main ally of the Czechs and Slovaks, chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandon this Eastern European country to its fate. In so doing, they sought to direct the attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white.

That was the essence of the western policy of ‘appeasement,’ which was pursued not only towards the Third Reich but also towards other participants of the so-called Anti-Comintern Pact – the fascist Italy and militarist Japan. In the Far East, this policy culminated in the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese agreement in the summer of 1939, which gave Tokyo a free hand in China. The leading European powers were unwilling to recognise the mortal danger posed by Germany and its allies to the whole world. They were hoping that they themselves would be left untouched by the war.

The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed.

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance to create an Anti-Hitler coalition. Despite – I will say it again – the double‑dealing on the part of the Western countries. For instance, the intelligence services reported to the Soviet leadership detailed information on the behind-the-scenes contacts between Britain and Germany in the summer of 1939. The important thing is that those contacts were quite active and practically coincided with the tripartite negotiations between France, Great Britain and the USSR, which were, on the contrary, deliberately protracted by the Western partners. In this connection, I will cite a document from the British archives. It contains instructions to the British military mission that came to Moscow in August 1939. It directly states that the delegation was to proceed with negotiations very slowly, and that the Government of the United Kingdom was not ready to assume any obligations spelled out in detail and limiting their freedom of action under any circumstances. I will also note that, unlike the British and French delegations, the Soviet delegation was headed by top commanders of the Red Army, who had the necessary authority to “sign a military convention on the organisation of military defence of England, France and the USSR against aggression in Europe.”

Poland played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want to have any obligations to the Soviet side. Even under pressure from their Western allies, the Polish leadership rejected the idea of joint action with the Red Army to fight against the Wehrmacht. It was only when they learned of the arrival of J. Ribbentrop to Moscow that J. Beck reluctantly and not directly, but through French diplomats, notified the Soviet side: “… in the event of joint action against the German aggression, cooperation between Poland and the Soviet Union, subject to technical conditions which have to be agreed, is not out of the question.” At the same time, he explained to his colleagues: “… I agreed to this wording only for the sake of the tactics, and our core position in relation to the Soviet Union is final and remains unchanged.”

In these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. It was practically the last among the European countries to do so. Besides, it was done in the face of a real threat of war on two fronts – with Germany in the west and with Japan in the east, where intense fighting on the Khalkhin Gol River was already underway.

Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them. They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country’s defences.

Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in connection with the Non-Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, and the Soviet period – with all its triumphs and tragedies – is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history. However, let me also remind you that the Soviet Union gave a legal and moral assessment of the so-called Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Supreme Soviet in its resolution of December 24, 1989 officially denounced the secret protocols as “an act of personal power” which in no way reflected “the will of the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion.”

Yet other states prefer to forget the agreements carrying signatures of the Nazis and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal or political assessments of such cooperation, including the silent acquiescence – or even direct abetment – of some European politicians in the barbarous plans of the Nazis. It will suffice to remember the cynical phrase said by Polish Ambassador to Germany J. Lipski during his conversation with Hitler on September 20, 1938: “…for solving the Jewish problem, we [the Poles] will build in his honour … a splendid monument in Warsaw.”

Besides, we do not know if there were any secret “protocols” or annexes to agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left to do is to take their word for it. In particular, materials pertaining to the secret Anglo-German talks still have not been declassified. Therefore, we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods – the way Russia has been doing it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians.

But let us go back to the events immediately preceding the Second World War. It was naïve to believe that Hitler, once done with Czechoslovakia, would not make new territorial claims. This time the claims involved its recent accomplice in the partition of Czechoslovakia – Poland. Here, the legacy of Versailles, particularly the fate of the so-called Danzig Corridor, was yet again used as the pretext. The blame for the tragedy that Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish leadership, which had impeded the formation of a military alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union and relied on the help from its Western partners, throwing its own people under the steamroller of Hitler’s machine of destruction.

The German offensive was mounted in full accordance with the blitzkrieg doctrine. Despite the fierce, heroic resistance of the Polish army, on September 8, 1939 – only a week after the war broke out – the German troops were on the approaches to Warsaw. By September 17, the military and political leaders of Poland had fled to Romania, betraying its people, who continued to fight against the invaders.

Poland’s hope for help from its Western allies was vain. After the war against Germany was declared, the French troops advanced only a few tens of kilometres deep into the German territory. All of it looked like a mere demonstration of vigorous action. Moreover, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council, holding its first meeting on September 12, 1939 in the French city of Abbeville, decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapid developments in Poland. That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britain and France did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.

Later, during the Nuremberg Trials, German generals explained their quick success in the East. Former Chief of the Operations Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command General Alfred Jodl admitted: “… we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions during our war with Poland remained absolutely idle.”

I asked for retrieval from the archives of the whole body of materials pertaining to the contacts between the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September 1939. According to the documents, paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939 stated that, in the event of territorial-political reorganisation of the districts making up the Polish state, the border between the spheres of interest of the two countries would run “approximately along the Narew, Vistula and San rivers.” In other words, the Soviet sphere of influence included not only the territories that were mostly home to Ukrainian and Belorussian population but also the historically Polish lands in the Vistula and Bug interfluve. This fact is known to very few these days.

Similarly, very few know that, immediately after the attack on Poland, in the early days of September 1939, Berlin strongly and repeatedly called on Moscow to join the military action. However, the Soviet leadership ignored those calls and planned to avoid engaging in the dramatic developments as long as possible.

It was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland and thus appear on the approaches to Minsk that the Soviet Union decided to send in, on the morning of September 17, Red Army units into the so-called Eastern Borderlines (Kresy), which nowadays form part of the territories of Belorussia, Ukraine and Lithuania.

Obviously, there was no alternative. Otherwise, the USSR would face seriously increased risks because – I will say this again – the old Soviet-Polish border ran only within a few tens of kilometres from Minsk. The country would have to enter the inevitable war with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of different nationalities, including the Jews living near Brest and Grodno, Przemyśl, Lvov and Wilno, would be left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices – anti-Semites and radical nationalists.

The fact that the Soviet Union sought to avoid engaging in the growing conflict for as long as possible and was unwilling to fight side by side with Germany was the reason why the real contact between the Soviet and the German troops occurred much farther east than the borders agreed in the secret protocol. It was not on the Vistula River but closer to the so-called Curzon Line, which back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as the eastern border of Poland.

As is known, the subjunctive mood can hardly be used when we speak of the past events. I will only say that, in September 1939, the Soviet leadership had an opportunity to move the western borders of the USSR even farther west, all the way to Warsaw, but decided against it.

The Germans suggested formalising the new status quo. On September 28, 1939 J. Ribbentrop and V. Molotov signed in Moscow the Boundary and Friendship Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, as well as the secret protocol on changing the state border, according to which the border was recognised at the demarcation line where the two armies de-facto stood.

In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals, started the process of incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Their accession to the USSR was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was in line with international and state law of that time. Besides, in October 1939, the city of Wilno and the surrounding area, which had previously been part of Poland, were returned to Lithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved their government bodies, language, and had representation in the higher government entities of the Soviet Union.

During all these months there was an ongoing invisible diplomatic and politico-military struggle and intelligence work. Moscow understood that it was facing a fierce and cruel enemy, and that a covert war against Nazism was already going on. And there was no reason to take official statements and formal protocol notes of that time as a proof of ‘friendship’ between the USSR and Germany. The Soviet Union had active trade and technical contacts not only with Germany, but with other countries as well. Whereas Hitler tried again and again to draw the Soviet Union into Germany’s confrontation with the UK. But the Soviet government stood firm.

The last attempt to persuade the USSR to act together was made by Hitler during Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November 1940. But Molotov accurately followed Stalin’s instructions and limited himself to a general discussion of the German idea of the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan in September 1940 and directed against the UK and the USA. No wonder that already on November 17 Molotov gave the following instructions to Soviet plenipotentiary representative in London Ivan Maisky: “For your information…No agreement was signed or was intended to be signed in Berlin. We just exchanged our views in Berlin…and that was all…Apparently, the Germans and the Japanese seem anxious to push us towards the Gulf and India. We declined the discussion of this matter as we consider such advice on the part of Germany to be inappropriate.” And on November 25, the Soviet leadership called it a day altogether by officially putting forward to Berlin the conditions that were unacceptable to the Nazis, including the withdrawal of German troops from Finland, mutual assistance treaty between Bulgaria and the USSR, and a number of others. Thus it deliberately excluded any possibility of joining the Pact. Such position definitely shaped the Fuehrer’s intention to unleash a war against the USSR. And already in December, putting aside the warnings of his strategists about the disastrous danger of having a two-front war, Hitler approved Operation Barbarossa. He did this with the knowledge that the Soviet Union was the major force that opposed him in Europe and that the upcoming battle in the East would decide the outcome of the world war. And he had no doubts as to the swiftness and success of the Moscow campaign.

And here I would like to highlight the following: Western countries, as a matter of fact, agreed at that time with the Soviet actions and recognised the Soviet Union’s intention to ensure its national security. Indeed, back on October 1, 1939 Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty back then, in his speech on the radio said, “Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest… But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line [meaning the new Western border] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace.” On October 4, 1939, speaking in the House of Lords, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax said, “…it should be recalled that the Soviet government’s actions were to move the border essentially to the line recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord Curzon… I only cite historical facts and believe they are indisputable.” Prominent British politician and statesman David Lloyd George emphasised, “The Russian Armies occupied the territories that are not Polish and that were forcibly seized by Poland after World War I … It would be an act of criminal insanity to put the Russian advancement on a par with the German one.“

In informal communications with Soviet plenipotentiary representative Ivan Maisky, British high-ranking politicians and diplomats spoke even more openly. On October 17, 1939, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R. A. Butler confided to him that the British government circles believed there could be no question of returning Western Ukraine and Belorussia to Poland. According to him, if it had been possible to create an ethnographic Poland of a modest size with a guarantee not only of the USSR and Germany, but also of Britain and France, the British government would have considered itself quite satisfied. On October 27, 1939, Neville Chamberlain’s senior advisor Horace Wilson said that Poland had to be restored as an independent state on its ethnographic basis, but without Western Ukraine and Belorussia.

It is worth noting that in the course of these conversations the possibilities for improving British-Soviet relations were also explored. These contacts to a large extent laid the foundation for future alliance and Anti-Hitler coalition. Winston Churchill stood out among responsible and far-sighted politicians and, despite his infamous dislike for the USSR, had been in favour of cooperating with the Soviets even before. Back in May 1939, he said in the House of Commons, “We shall be in mortal danger if we fail to create a Grand Alliance against aggression. The worst folly… would be to… drive away any natural cooperation with Soviet Russia…” And after the start of hostilities in Europe, at his meeting with Ivan Maisky on October 6, 1939 he confided that there were no serious contradictions between the UK and the USSR and, therefore, there was no reason for strained or unsatisfactory relations. He also mentioned that the British government was eager to develop trade relations and willing to discuss any other measures that might improve the relationships.

World War II did not happen overnight, nor did it start unexpectedly or all of a sudden. And German aggression against Poland was not out of nowhere. It was the result of a number of tendencies and factors in the world politics of that time. All pre-war events fell into place to form one fatal chain. But, undoubtedly, the main factors that predetermined the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind were state egoism, cowardice, appeasement of the aggressor who was gaining strength, and unwillingness of political elites to search for compromise.

Therefore, it is unfair to claim that the two-day visit to Moscow of Nazi Foreign Minister J. Ribbentrop was the main reason for the start of World War II. All the leading countries are to a certain extent responsible for its outbreak. Each of them made fatal mistakes, arrogantly believing that they could outsmart others, secure unilateral advantages for themselves or stay away from the impending global catastrophe. And this short-sightedness, the refusal to create a collective security system cost millions of lives and tremendous losses.

Saying this, I by no means intend to take on the role of a judge, to accuse or acquit anyone, let alone initiate a new round of international information confrontation in the historical field that could set countries and peoples at loggerheads. I believe that it is academics with a wide representation of respected scholars from different countries of the world who should search for a balanced assessment of what happened. We all need the truth and objectivity. On my part, I have always encouraged my colleagues to build a calm, open and trust-based dialogue, to look at the common past in a self-critical and unbiased manner. Such an approach will make it possible not to repeat the mistakes committed back then and to ensure peaceful and successful development for years to come.

However, many of our partners are not yet ready for joint work. On the contrary, pursuing their goals, they increase the number and the scope of information attacks against our country, trying to make us provide excuses and feel guilty. They adopt thoroughly hypocritical and politically motivated declarations. Thus, for example, the resolution on the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe approved by the European Parliament on September 19, 2019 directly accused the USSR – along with the Nazi Germany – of unleashing the Second World War. Needless to say, there is no mention of Munich in it whatsoever.

I believe that such ‘paperwork’ – for I cannot call this resolution a document – which is clearly intended to provoke a scandal, is fraught with real and dangerous threats. Indeed, it was adopted by a highly respectable institution. And what did it show? Regrettably, it revealed a deliberate policy aimed at destroying the post-war world order whose creation was a matter of honour and responsibility for the countries a number of representatives of which voted today in favour of this deceitful resolution. Thus, they challenged the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the efforts of the international community to create after the victorious 1945 universal international institutions. Let me remind you in this regard that the process of European integration itself leading to the establishment of relevant structures, including the European Parliament, became possible only due to the lessons learnt form the past and its accurate legal and political assessment. And those who deliberately put this consensus into question undermine the foundations of the entire post-war Europe.

Apart from posing a threat to the fundamental principles of the world order, this also raises certain moral and ethical issues. Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean. Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II mention all participants in the Anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union. Meanness can be cowardly as in the situation when monuments erected in honour of those who fought against Nazism are demolished and these shameful acts are justified by the false slogans of the fight against an unwelcome ideology and alleged occupation. Meanness can also be bloody as in the situation when those who come out against neo-Nazis and Bandera’s successors are killed and burned. Once again, meanness can have different manifestations, but this does not make it less disgusting.

Neglecting the lessons of history inevitably leads to a harsh payback. We will firmly uphold the truth based on documented historical facts. We will continue to be honest and impartial about the events of World War II. This includes a large-scale project to establish Russia’s largest collection of archival records, film and photo materials about the history of World War II and the pre‑war period.

Such work is already underway. Many new, recently discovered or declassified materials were also used in the preparation of this article. In this connection, I can state with all responsibility that there are no archive documents that would confirm the assumption that the USSR intended to start a preventive war against Germany. The Soviet military leadership indeed followed a doctrine according to which, in the event of aggression, the Red Army would promptly confront the enemy, go on the offensive and wage war on enemy territory. However, such strategic plans did not imply any intention to attack Germany first.

Of course, military planning documents, letters of instruction of Soviet and German headquarters are now available to historians. Finally, we know the true course of events. From the perspective of this knowledge, many argue about the actions, mistakes and misjudgement of the country’s military and political leadership. In this regard, I will say one thing: along with a huge flow of misinformation of various kinds, Soviet leaders also received true information about the upcoming Nazi aggression. And in the pre-war months, they took steps to improve the combat readiness of the country, including the secret recruitment of a part of those liable for military duty for military training and the redeployment of units and reserves from internal military districts to western borders.

The war did not come as a surprise, people were expecting it, preparing for it. But the Nazi attack was truly unprecedented in terms of its destructive power. On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilised and skilled army in the world with the industrial, economic and military potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also Germany’s satellites, military contingents of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.

The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Combat power and control had to be restored by extreme means, nation-wide mobilisation and intensification of all efforts of the state and the people. In summer 1941, millions of citizens, hundreds of factories and industries began to be evacuated under enemy fire to the east of the country. The manufacture of weapons and munition, that had started to be supplied to the front already in the first military winter, was launched behind the lines in the shortest possible time, and by 1943, the rates of military production of Germany and its allies were exceeded. Within eighteen months, the Soviet people did something that seemed impossible. Both on the front lines and the home front. It is still hard to realise, understand and imagine what incredible efforts, courage, dedication these greatest achievements were worth.

The tremendous power of Soviet society, united by the desire to protect their native land, rose against the powerful, armed to the teeth, cold-blooded Nazi invading machine. It stood up to take revenge on the enemy, who had broken, trampled peaceful life, people’s plans and hopes.

Of course, fear, confusion and desperation were taking over some people during this terrible and bloody war. There were betrayal and desertion. The harsh splits caused by the revolution and the Civil War, nihilism, mockery of national history, traditions and faith that the Bolsheviks tried to impose, especially in the first years after coming to power – all of this had its impact. But the general attitude of the of Soviet citizens and our compatriots who found themselves abroad was different – to save and protect the Motherland. It was a real and irrepressible impulse. People were looking for support in true patriotic values.

The Nazi ‘strategists’ were convinced that a huge multinational state could easily be brought to heel. They thought that the sudden outbreak of the war, its mercilessness and unbearable hardships would inevitably exacerbate inter-ethnic relations. And that the country could be split into pieces. Hitler clearly stated: “Our policy towards the peoples living in the vastness of Russia should be to promote any form of disagreement and split.”

But from the very first days, it was clear that the Nazi plan had failed. The Brest Fortress was protected to the last drop of blood by its defenders representing more than 30 ethnicities. Throughout the war – both in large-scale decisive battles and in the protection of every foothold, every metre of native land – we see examples of such unity.

The Volga region and the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia became home to millions of evacuees. Their residents shared everything they had and provided all the support they could. Friendship of peoples and mutual help became a real indestructible fortress for the enemy.

The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism. These were heroes who fought to the end surrounded by the enemy at Bialystok and Mogilev, Uman and Kiev, Vyazma and Kharkov. They launched attacks near Moscow and Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa, Kursk and Smolensk. They liberated Warsaw, Belgrade, Vienna and Prague. They stormed Koenigsberg and Berlin.

We contend for genuine, unvarnished or whitewashed truth about war. This national, human truth, which is hard, bitter and merciless, has been handed down to us by writers and poets who walked through fire and hell of front trials. For my generation, as well as for many others, their honest and deep stories, novels, piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark on the soul forever. Honouring veterans who did everything they could for the Victory and remembering those who died on the battlefield has become our moral duty.

And today, the simple and great in their essence lines of Alexander Tvardovsky’s poem “I was killed near Rzhev …” dedicated to the participants of the bloody and brutal battle of the Great Patriotic War in the centre of the Soviet-German front line are astonishing. In the battles for Rzhev and the Rzhev Salient alone from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army lost 1,342,888 people, including wounded and missing in action. For the first time, I call out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do it to honour the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes, who for various reasons were undeservingly, and unfairly little talked about or not mentioned at all in the post-war years.

Let me cite another document. This is a report of February 1945 on reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commission’s task was to define a formula according to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers. The Commission concluded that “the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet front is at least 10 times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft.” On the whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the Anti-Hitler Coalition. During the war period, the Red Army “ground up” 626 divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.

On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation: “These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together.” Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote that “it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine…”

Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the USA lost one in 320. Unfortunately, this figure of the Soviet Union’s hardest and grievous losses is not exhaustive. The painstaking work should be continued to restore the names and fates of all who have perished – Red Army soldiers, partisans, underground fighters, prisoners of war and concentration camps, and civilians killed by the death squads. It is our duty. And special role here belongs to members of the search movement, military‑patriotic and volunteer associations, projects like the electronic database ”Pamyat Naroda“ (Memory of the People), which contains archival documents. And, surely, close international cooperation is needed in such a common humanitarian task.

The efforts of all countries and peoples who fought against a common enemy resulted in victory. The British army protected its homeland from invasion, fought the Nazis and their satellites in the Mediterranean and North Africa. American and British troops liberated Italy and opened the Second Front. The US dealt powerful and crushing strikes against the aggressor in the Pacific Ocean. We remember the tremendous sacrifices made by the Chinese people and their great role in defeating Japanese militarists. Let us not forget the fighters of Fighting France, who did not fall for the shameful capitulation and continued to fight against the Nazis.

We will also always be grateful for the assistance rendered by the Allies in providing the Red Army with munition, raw materials, food and equipment. And that help was significant – about 7 percent of the total military production of the Soviet Union.

The core of the Anti-Hitler Coalition began to take shape immediately after the attack on the Soviet Union where the United States and Britain unconditionally supported it in the fight against Hitler’s Germany. At the Tehran Conference in 1943, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill formed an alliance of great powers, agreed to elaborate coalition diplomacy and a joint strategy in the fight against a common deadly threat. The leaders of the Big Three had a clear understanding that the unification of industrial, resource and military capabilities of the USSR, the United States and the UK will give unchallenged supremacy over the enemy.

The Soviet Union fully fulfilled its obligations to its allies and always offered a helping hand. Thus, the Red Army supported the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Normandy by carrying out a large-scale Operation Bagration in Belorussia. In January 1945, having broken through to the Oder River, our soldiers put an end to the last powerful offensive of the Wehrmacht on the Western Front in the Ardennes. Three months after the victory over Germany, the USSR, in full accordance with the Yalta agreements, declared war on Japan and defeated the million-strong Kwantung Army.

Back in July 1941, the Soviet leadership declared that “the purpose of the war against fascist oppressors was not only the elimination of the threat looming over our country, but also help for all the peoples of Europe suffering under the yoke of German fascism.” By mid-1944, the enemy was expelled from virtually all of the Soviet territory. However, the enemy had to be finished off in its lair. And so the Red Army started its liberation mission in Europe. It saved entire nations from destruction and enslavement, and from the horror of the Holocaust. They were saved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of Soviet soldiers.

It is also important not to forget about the enormous material assistance that the USSR provided to the liberated countries in eliminating the threat of hunger and in rebuilding their economies and infrastructure. That was being done at the time when ashes stretched for thousands of miles all the way from Brest to Moscow and the Volga. For instance, in May 1945, the Austrian government asked the USSR to provide assistance with food, as it “had no idea how to feed its population in the next seven weeks before the new harvest.” State Chancellor of the Provisional Government of the Austrian Republic Karl Renner described the consent of the Soviet leadership to send food as a saving act that the Austrians would never forget.

The Allies jointly established the International Military Tribunal to punish Nazi political and war criminals. Its decisions contained a clear legal qualification of crimes against humanity, such as genocide, ethnic and religious cleansing, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Directly and unambiguously, the Nuremberg Tribunal also condemned the accomplices of the Nazis, collaborators of various kinds.

This shameful phenomenon manifested itself in all European countries. Such figures as Pétain, Quisling, Vlasov, Bandera, their henchmen and followers – though they were disguised as fighters for national independence or freedom from communism – are traitors and butchers. In terms of inhumanity, they often exceeded their masters. In their desire to serve, as part of special punitive groups they willingly executed the most inhuman orders. They were responsible for such bloody events as the shootings of Babi Yar, the Volhynia massacre, burnt Khatyn, acts of destruction of Jews in Lithuania and Latvia.

Today as well, our position remains unchanged – there can be no excuse for the criminal acts of Nazi collaborators, there is no period of limitations for them. It is therefore bewildering that in certain countries those who are smirched with cooperation with the Nazis are suddenly equated with World War II veterans. I believe that it is unacceptable to equate liberators with occupants. And I can only regard the glorification of Nazi collaborators as a betrayal of the memory of our fathers and grandfathers. A betrayal of the ideals that united peoples in the fight against Nazism.

At that time, the leaders of the USSR, the United States, and the UK faced, without exaggeration, a historic task. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill represented the countries with different ideologies, state aspirations, interests, cultures, but they demonstrated great political will, rose above the contradictions and preferences and put the true interests of peace at the forefront. As a result, they were able to come to an agreement and achieve a solution from which all of humanity has benefited.

The victor powers left us a system that has become the quintessence of the intellectual and political quest of several centuries. A series of conferences – Tehran, Yalta, San Francisco and Potsdam – laid the foundation of a world that for 75 years had no global war, despite the sharpest contradictions.

Historical revisionism, the manifestations of which we now observe in the West, primarily with regard to the subject of the Second World War and its outcome, is dangerous because it grossly and cynically distorts the understanding of the principles of peaceful development, laid down at the Yalta and San Francisco conferences in 1945. The major historic achievement of Yalta and other decisions of that time is the agreement to create a mechanism that would allow the leading powers to remain within the framework of diplomacy in resolving their differences.

The twentieth century brought large-scale and comprehensive global conflicts, and in 1945, nuclear weapons capable of physically destroying the Earth also entered the scene. In other words, the settlement of disputes by force has become prohibitively dangerous. And the victors in the Second World War understood that. They understood and were aware of their own responsibility towards humanity.

The cautionary tale of the League of Nations was taken into account in 1945. The structure of the UN Security Council was developed in a way to make peace guarantees as concrete and effective as possible. That is how the institution of the permanent members of the Security Council and the right of the veto as their privilege and responsibility came into being.

What is the power of veto in the UN Security Council? To put it bluntly, it is the only reasonable alternative to a direct confrontation between major countries. It is a statement by one of the five powers that a decision is unacceptable to it and is contrary to its interests and its ideas about the right approach. And other countries, even if they do not agree, take this position as a given, abandoning any attempts to realise their unilateral efforts. It means that in one way or another it is necessary to seek compromises.

A new global confrontation started almost immediately after the end of the Second World War and was at times very fierce. And the fact that the Cold War did not grow into the Third World War has become a clear testimony of the effectiveness of the agreements concluded by the Big Three. The rules of conduct agreed upon during the creation of the United Nations made it possible to further minimise risks and keep confrontation under control.

Of course, we can see that the UN system currently experiences certain tension in its work and is not as effective as it could be. But the UN still performs its primary function. The principles of the UN Security Council are a unique mechanism for preventing a major war or a global conflict.

The calls that have been made quite often in recent years to abolish the power of veto, to deny special opportunities to permanent members of the Security Council are actually irresponsible. After all, if that happens, the United Nations would in essence become the League of Nations – a meeting for empty talk without any leverage on the world processes. How it ended is well known. That is why the victor powers approached the formation of the new system of the world order with utmost seriousness seeking to avoid repetition of mistakes made by their predecessors.

The creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major outcomes of World War II. Even the most insurmountable contradictions – geopolitical, ideological, economic – do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence and interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so. Today the world is going through quite a turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global balance of power and influence to the social, economic and technological foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In the past epochs, shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military conflicts. Without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to the wisdom and farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it was possible to create a system that has restrained from extreme manifestations of such objective competition, historically inherent in the world development.

It is a duty of ours – all those who take political responsibility and primarily representatives of the victor powers in the Second World War – to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future together. Our colleagues – Mr Xi Jinping, Mr Macron, Mr Trump and Mr Johnson – supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states, permanent members of the Security Council. We thank them for this and hope that such face-to-face meeting could take place as soon as possible.

What is our vision of the agenda for the upcoming summit? First of all, in our opinion, it would be useful to discuss steps to develop collective principles in world affairs. To speak frankly about the issues of preserving peace, strengthening global and regional security, strategic arms control, about joint efforts in countering terrorism, extremism and other major challenges and threats.

A special item on the agenda of the meeting is the situation in the global economy. And above all, overcoming the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Our countries are taking unprecedented measures to protect the health and lives of people and to support citizens who have found themselves in difficult living situations. Our ability to work together and in concert, as real partners, will show how severe the impact of the pandemic will be, and how quickly the global economy will emerge from the recession. Moreover, it is unacceptable to turn the economy into an instrument of pressure and confrontation. Popular issues include environmental protection and combating climate change, as well as ensuring the security of the global information space.

The agenda proposed by Russia for the upcoming summit of the Five is extremely important and relevant both for our countries and for the entire world. And we have specific ideas and initiatives on all the items.

There can be no doubt that the summit of Russia, China, France, the United States, and the UK will play an important role in finding common answers to modern challenges and threats, and will demonstrate a common commitment to the spirit of alliance, to those high humanist ideals and values for which our fathers and grandfathers fought shoulder to shoulder.

Drawing on a shared historical memory, we can trust each other and must do so. That will serve as a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet, for the sake of prosperity and well-being of all states. Without exaggeration, it is our common duty and responsibility towards the entire world, towards the present and future generations.

America’s Own Color Revolution

By F. William Engdahl

Global Research, June 17, 2020

Color Revolution is the term used to describe a series of remarkably effective CIA-led regime change operations using techniques developed by the RAND Corporation, “democracy” NGOs and other groups since the 1980’s. They were used in crude form to bring down the Polish communist regime in the late 1980s. From there the techniques were refined and used, along with heavy bribes, to topple the Gorbachev regime in the Soviet Union. For anyone who has studied those models closely, it is clear that the protests against police violence led by amorphous organizations with names like Black Lives Matter or Antifa are more than purely spontaneous moral outrage. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans are being used as a battering ram to not only topple a US President, but in the process, the very structures of the US Constitutional order.

If we step back from the immediate issue of videos showing a white Minneapolis policeman pressing his knee on the neck of a black man, George Floyd, and look at what has taken place across the nation since then, it is clear that certain organizations or groups were well-prepared to instrumentalize the horrific event for their own agenda.

The protests since May 25 have often begun peacefully only to be taken over by well-trained violent actors. Two organizations have appeared regularly in connection with the violent protests—Black Lives Matter and Antifa (USA). Videos show well-equipped protesters dressed uniformly in black and masked (not for coronavirus to be sure), vandalizing police cars, burning police stations, smashing store windows with pipes or baseball bats. Use of Twitter and other social media to coordinate “hit-and-run” swarming strikes of protest mobs is evident.

What has unfolded since the Minneapolis trigger event has been compared to the wave of primarily black ghetto protest riots in 1968. I lived through those events in 1968 and what is unfolding today is far different. It is better likened to the Yugoslav color revolution that toppled Milosevic in 2000.

Gene Sharp: Template for Regime Overthrow

In the year 2000 the US State Department, aided by its National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and select CIA operatives, began secretly training a group of Belgrade university students led by a student group that was called Otpor! (Resistance!). The NED and its various offshoots was created in the 1980’s by CIA head Bill Casey as a covert CIA tool to overthrow specific regimes around the world under the cover of a human rights NGO. In fact, they get their money from Congress and from USAID.

In the Serb Otpor! destabilization of 2000, the NED and US Ambassador Richard Miles in Belgrade selected and trained a group of several dozen students, led by Srđa Popović, using the handbook, From Dictatorship to Democracy, translated to Serbian, of the late Gene Sharp and his Albert Einstein Institution. In a post mortem on the Serb events, the Washington Post wrote, “US-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. US taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milošević graffiti on walls across Serbia.”

Trained squads of activists were deployed in protests to take over city blocks with the aid of ‘intelligence helmet’ video screens that give them an instantaneous overview of their environment. Bands of youth converging on targeted intersections in constant dialogue on cell phones, would then overwhelm police. The US government spent some $41 million on the operation. Student groups were secretly trained in the Sharp handbook techniques of staging protests that mocked the authority of the ruling police, showing them to be clumsy and impotent against the youthful protesters. Professionals from the CIA and US State Department guided them behind the scenes.

The Color Revolution Otpor! model was refined and deployed in 2004 as the Ukraine Orange Revolution with logo and color theme scarves, and in 2003 in Georgia as the Rose Revolution. Later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the template to launch the Arab Spring. In all cases the NED was involved with other NGOs including the Soros Foundations.

After defeating Milosevic, Popovic went on to establish a global color revolution training center, CANVAS, a kind of for-profit business consultancy for revolution, and was personally present in New York working reportedly with Antifa during the Occupy Wall Street where also Soros money was reported.

Antifa and BLM

The protests, riots, violent and non-violent actions sweeping across the United States since May 25, including an assault on the gates of the White House, begin to make sense when we understand the CIA’s Color Revolution playbook.

The impact of the protests would not be possible were it not for a network of local and state political officials inside the Democratic Party lending support to the protesters, even to the point the Democrat Mayor of Seattle ordered police to abandon several blocks in the heart of downtown to occupation by protesters.

In recent years major portions of the Democratic Party across the US have been quietly taken over by what one could call radical left candidates. Often they win with active backing of organizations such as Democratic Socialists of America or Freedom Road Socialist Organizations. In the US House of Representatives the vocal quarter of new representatives around Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib and Minneapolis Representative Ilhan Omar are all members or close to Democratic Socialists of America. Clearly without sympathetic Democrat local officials in key cities, the street protests of organizations such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa would not have such a dramatic impact.

To get a better grasp how serious the present protest movement is we should look at who has been pouring millions into BLM. The Antifa is more difficult owing to its explicit anonymous organization form. However, their online Handbook openly recommends that local Antifa “cells” join up with BLM chapters.

FRSO: Follow the Money

BLM began in 2013 when three activist friends created the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to protest the allegations of shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin by a white Hispanic block watchman, George Zimmermann. Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi were all were connected with and financed by front groups tied to something called Freedom Road Socialist Organization, one of the four largest radical left organizations in the United States formed out of something called New Communist Movement that dissolved in the 1980s.

On June 12, 2020 the Freedom Road Socialist Organization webpage states, “The time is now to join a revolutionary organization! Join Freedom Road Socialist Organization…If you have been out in the streets this past few weeks, the odds are good that you’ve been thinking about the difference between the kind of change this system has to offer, and the kind of change this country needs. Capitalism is a failed system that thrives on exploitation, inequality and oppression. The reactionary and racist Trump administration has made the pandemic worse. The unfolding economic crisis we are experiencing is the worst since the 1930s. Monopoly capitalism is a dying system and we need to help finish it off. And that is exactly what Freedom Road Socialist Organization is working for.”

In short the protests over the alleged police killing of a black man in Minnesota are now being used to call for a revolution against capitalism. FRSO is an umbrella for dozens of amorphous groups including Black Lives Matter or BLM. What is interesting about the self-described Marxist-Leninist roots of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is not so much their left politics as much as their very establishment funding by a group of well-endowed tax-exempt foundations.

Alicia Garza of BLM is also a board member or executive of five different Freedom Road front groups including 2011 Board chair of Right to the City Alliance, Board member of School of Unity and Liberation (SOUL), of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), Forward Together and Special Projects director of National Domestic Workers Alliance.

The Right to the City Alliance got $6.5 million between 2011 and 2014 from a number of very established tax-exempt foundations including the Ford Foundation ($1.9 million), from both of George Soros’s major tax-exempts–Open Society Foundations, and the Foundation to Promote Open Society for $1.3 million. Also the cornflake-tied Kellogg Foundation $250,000, and curiously, Ben & Jerry’s Foundation (ice cream) for $30,000.

Garza also got major foundation money as Executive Director of the FRSO front, POWER, where Obama former “green jobs czar” Van Jones, a self-described “communist” and “rowdy black nationalist,” now with CNN, was on the board. Alicia Garza also chaired the Right to the City Alliance, a network of activist groups opposing urban gentrification. That front since 2009 received $1.3 million from the Ford Foundation, as well as $600,000 from the Soros foundations and again, Ben & Jerry’s ($50,000). And Garza’s SOUL, which claimed to have trained 712 “organizers” in 2014, when she co-founded Black Lives Matter, got $210,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation and another $255,000 from the Heinz Foundation (ketchup and John Kerry family) among others. With the Forward Together of FRSO, Garza sat on the board of a “multi-racial organization that works with community leaders and organizations to transform culture and policy to catalyze social change.” It officially got $4 million in 2014 revenues and from 2012 and 2014, the organization received a total of $2.9 million from Ford Foundation ($655,000) and other major foundations.

Nigeria-born BLM co-founder Opal Tometi likewise comes from the network of FRSO. Tometi headed the FRSO’s Black Alliance for Just Immigration. Curiously with a “staff” of two it got money from major foundations including the Kellogg Foundation for $75,000 and Soros foundations for $100,000, and, again, Ben & Jerry’s ($10,000). Tometi got $60,000 in 2014 to direct the group.

The Freedom Road Socialist Organization that is now openly calling for a revolution against capitalism in the wake of the Floyd George killing has another arm, The Advancement Project, which describes itself as “a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization.” Its board includes a former Obama US Department of Education Director of Community Outreach and a former Bill Clinton Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The FRSO Advancement Project in 2013 got millions from major US tax-exempt foundations including Ford ($8.5 million), Kellogg ($3 million), Hewlett Foundation of HP defense industry founder ($2.5 million), Rockefeller Foundation ($2.5 million), and Soros foundations ($8.6 million).

Major Money and ActBlue

By 2016, the presidential election year where Hillary Clinton was challenging Donald Trump, Black Lives Matter had established itself as a well-organized network. That year the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund (BLMF), “a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition” in which BLM was a central part. By then Soros foundations had already given some $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement. This was serious foundation money.

The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations. They described their role: “The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America.”

The Movement for Black Lives Coalition (M4BL) which includes Black Lives Matter, already in 2016 called for “defunding police departments, race-based reparations, voting rights for illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a universal basic income, and free college for blacks.”

Notably, when we click on the website of M4BL, under their donate button we learn that the donations will go to something called ActBlue Charities. ActBlue facilitates donations to “democrats and progressives.” As of May 21, ActBlue had given $119 million to the campaign of Joe Biden.

That was before the May 25 BLM worldwide protests. Now major corporations such as Apple, Disney, Nike and hundreds others may be pouring untold and unaccounted millions into ActBlue under the name of Black Lives Matter, funds that in fact can go to fund the election of a Democrat President Biden. Perhaps this is the real reason the Biden campaign has been so confident of support from black voters. What is clear from only this account of the crucial role of big money foundations behind protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is a far more complex agenda driving the protests now destabilizing cities across America. The role of tax-exempt foundations tied to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial companies such as Rockefeller, Ford, Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper and far more sinister agenda to current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would suggest.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO

من المحيط الهادئ حتى جبل طارق الصين وحلفاؤها يعتلون عرش العالم

محمد صادق الحسيني

كلّ ما يدور من حولنا يؤكد بما لم يعد قابلاً للشك او التردّد بأنّ مركز ثقل العالم ينتقل من الغرب الى الشرق..! وانّ محور هذا الانتقال هو العلوم التي بدأت تهيمن عليها وتتقنها كلّ من الصين وروسيا وإيران، فيما لا تزال أميركا هيكلاً ضخماً، لكنها لا تكاد تملأ جوفها إلا أوهام القوة ومحدوديتها…!

وهاجس الصين هو الشبح الذي يطارد في ما كان يسمّى يوماً الدولة الأعظم في العالم…!

وإليكم مسار هذا التحوّل التاريخي بالوقائع:

لا بدّ لأيّ محلل موضوعي ان يعود الى الجذور البعيدة، لأيّ أزمة تظهر في العلاقات الدولية في وقتنا الحاضر، وذلك من أجل سبر أغوارها، والوقوف على مدى عمق هذه الأزمة، واستشراف احتمالات تطورها، والاستعداد للتعامل مع هذه التطورات والتداعيات، بشكل يخدم المصلحة العربية العليا، وفي مقدّمتها القضية العربية المركزية، التي هي قضية فلسطين.

انّ الأزمة التي نعيش فصولها منذ أشهر، بين الولايات المتحدة والصين الشعبية، وما تخللها من حرب تجارية واقتصادية وتكنولوجية وعلمية وسياسية وغير ذلك ضدّ الصين الشعبية، لم تظهر الى العلن منذ انتشار فيروس كورونا في مدينة ووهان الصينية، بداية هذا العام، وإنما يعود تاريخ انطلاقها الى زمن أبعد بكثير.

فمنذ إعلان ضابط البحرية والخبير الاستراتيجي البحري الأميركي، ألفرِدْ ثايَر ماهان عن استراتيجيته لفرض الهيمنة الأميركية على العالم، في أواخر القرن التاسع عشر (توفي سنة 1914)، والتي استند فيها الى انّ الوسيلة الأفضل، لفرض هذه الهيمنة، هي نشر الأساطيل الأميركية في بحار ومحيطات العالم والسيطرة عليها، مبتعداً بذلك عن استراتيجية مونرو، التي كانت تركز على/ أو تدعو إلى/ بسط السيطرة على الأميركيتين فقط.

وقد نفذت الولايات المتحدة هذه الاستراتيجية، منذ سنة 1907، عندما قرّر الرئيس الأميركي الجمهوري، ذو الأصول الهولندية، ثيودور روزفلت الذي انتخب رئيساً سنة 1904، إرسال حملة بحرية عسكرية أميركية، تضمّ العديد من البوارج الحربية، في جولة حول العالم. هذه الجولة التي شكلت تدريباً عسكرياً حياً لمشاركة الولايات المتحدة، بجيوشها البحرية والبرية، في الحرب العالمية الأولى ومن ثم في الحرب العالمية الثانية، التي أدّت بنتائجها الى فرض الهيمنة على كامل بحار أوروبا و«الشرق الأوسط» وجنوب شرق آسيا، ايّ بحار اليابان والبحر الأصفر وأجزاء من بحار الصين وغرب المحيط الهادئ. إلى جانب إقامتها عشرات القواعد العسكرية، البحرية والجوية والبرية في كلّ البلدان، التي «حرّرتها» أي احتلتها خلال تلك الحرب، سواءً في غرب أوروبا او في جنوب شرق آسيا.

وبقيت الولايات المتحدة، ورغم تطور الاتحاد السوفياتي وقواته البحرية وتصدّيها للبلطجة البحرية الأميركية، في كثير من بحار العالم، خاصة في البحر المتوسط، في مواجهة الأسطول السادس الأميركي، منذ أواسط خمسينيات القرن الماضي، أو في غرب المحيط الهادئ في منطقة جزيرة غوام، القريبة نسبياً من الساحل الجنوبي الشرقي لروسيا، حيث ميناء ڤلاديڤستوك المطلّ على بحر اليابان، أو في منطقة بحر الفلبين، إلى الجنوب من بحر اليابان، علاوة طبعاً على وقوف الأساطيل السوفياتية بالمرصاد، لأساطيل الولايات المتحدة في بحار أوروبا والمحيطات الواقعة في غرب وشرق الكرة الأرضية، نقول رغم ذلك فإنّ الولايات المتحدة بقيت، تُمارس سياسات الهيمنة نفسها، بواسطة القوة العسكرية، حتى بعد هزيمتها المنكرة في حرب فيتنام، سنة 1975، وفشلها في احتلال كامل شبه الجزيرة الكورية، إبان الحرب الكورية ‪1950 – 1953، ونجاح الاتحاد السوفياتي والصين الشعبية في حماية جمهورية كوريا الديموقراطية (الشمالية) من الاحتلال الأميركي، وبقائها شامخة في وجه هذا الاحتلال حتى يومنا هذا.

وهذا يعني أنّ العقيدة العسكرية الأميركية العدوانية لم تشهد ايّ تغيّر على جوهرها، بل انها شهدت بعض التغييرات على تكتيكات وأدوات تنفيذها، على الصعد الإقليمية والدولية. وفي هذا الإطار قامت الولايات المتحدة، باختراع حجة الإرهاب، بعد تفجيرات نيويورك سنة 2001 وشنها حرباً على أفغانستان، لا زالت دائرة حتى اليوم، ثم حربها الأولى والثانية على العراق واحتلاله وتدمير الدولة العراقية، وبعد محاولتها، عبر قاعدتها العسكرية المسماة «إسرائيل»، تدمير المقاومة في لبنان (حزب الله) سنة 2006 وفشلها في ذلك، ومن ثم اختراع ادوات جديدة، خدمة لاستراتيجية الهيمنة الأميركية واقامة حائط صدّ امام جمهورية الصين الشعبية، يمتد من جزيرة غوام شرقاً وحتى جبل طارق غرباً، منعاً لاستمرار تطور الصين الاقتصادي وتوسيع تعاونها مع هذا الفضاء الجغرافي والديموغرافي الواسع.

ولكن الصين الشعبية وروسيا الاتحادية لم تكونا غافلتين عن هذه المخططات الأميركية واهدافها وعواقبها التدميرية على العالم، الأمر الذي دفعهما، منذ حوالي عقدين من الزمن الى إطلاق مشاريع استثمار عملاقة، في العلوم والمعرفة والتكنولوجيا، وهي المشاريع التي أوصلت الدولتين الى مستوىً متقدم جداً، سواءً في الصناعات العسكرية أو في الصناعات الالكترونية الدقيقة المتعلقة بقطاع الاتصالات بشكل خاص. وهو القطاع الذي يتيح المجال لمن يملك التفوّق في صناعاته المختلفة، وهي الصين وروسيا وإيران حالياً، أن يكون له الدور الطليعي في التطور الاقتصادي والتحول الى القوة الاقتصادية الأولى في العالم.

ومن الجدير بالذكر أنّ ما نقوله ليس دعاية مؤيدة للدول المذكور أعلاه او انحيازاً سياسياً. لها وإنما هو تحليل للواقع الذي نعيشه والأسباب التي أسست لتطوره. فالولايات المتحدة قامت، خلال العقود الثلاثة الماضية، بإنفاق ما يزيد على ثلاثة تريليونات دولار على الحروب وشراء السلاح (البنتاغون تشتري)، بينما لم تنفق الدول الثلاث، المذكورة أعلاه، اكثر من تريليون دولار واحد على التسلح واستثمرت بقية مواردها في التطوير العلمي والتكنولوجي، والاقتصادي بالنتيجة.

وعوضاً عن ان تتعظ واشنطن من هزائم مشاريعها وسياسات الهيمنة التي اتبعتها، عبر العقود الثلاثة الماضية بشكل خاص، عمدت، وبعد تولي ترامب رئاسة الولايات المتحدة، الى الإعلان عن استراتيجية أمنية أميركية جديدة، سنة 2018، مكونة من 14 صفحة وصادرة عن البنتاغون، أسمتها: استراتيجية الولايات المتحدة الأميركية للدفاع الوطني.

وقد حدّدت فيها نصاً أنّ الاولوية، في هذه الاستراتيجية، تتمثل في مواجهة الخطر الداهم، على الولايات المتحدة، ومصدره الصين وروسيا وكذلك التصدّي للخطر المحتمل، من قبل الدول «المارقة» مثل كوريا الشمالية وإيران، وهو الأمر الذي يجعل من الضروري الاستثمار (زيادة الاتفاق العسكري) في تطوير القدرات العسكرية الأميركية اللازمة لبلوغ تلك الأهداف (التصدي للخطر الروسي الصيني الداهم والخطر الكوري الإيراني المحتمل).

وهذا يعني، في تقديرنا، أنّ جوهر هذه الاستراتيجية الجديدة يتلخص في ما يلي:

1

ـ تخلّي الولايات المتحدة عن استخدام أكذوبة الإرهاب، داعش وغيرها، التي اخترعتها وأدارتها واشنطن طوال العقد الماضي، والتركيز او اختراع خطر جديد تسميه هذه الاستراتيجية بالخطر الصيني الروسي الداهم وذلك الكوري الإيراني المحتمل.

2

ـ إن هذه الاستراتيجية ستقود، وبشكل منطقي وموضوعي، إلى تخلي الولايات المتحدة عن دول النفط العربية، خاصة في ظل انعدام قيمة هذه المادة حالياً وانتهاء دورها الاستراتيجي (الوظيفي) في السياسة الأميركي، الذي استمر قرابة قرن من الزمن.

3

ـ وغنيّ عن القول طبعاً إن هذا يعني، وفي ظل الأزمات والمآزق الأميركية الناجمة عن انتشار فيروس كورونا، ان سحب القوات الأميركية، من المنطقة العربية وافغانستان، وكذلك تخفيف الانتشار العسكري الأميركي في مناطق اخرى من العالم، قد أصبح حقيقة واقعة برسم التنفيذ، حتى لو تأخر ذلك بعض الشيء.

4

ـ ان قيام الولايات المتحدة بنشر ثلاث حاملات طائرات، هي رونالد ريغان وثيودور روزفلت ويو إس إس نيميتس، تحمل كل منها 60 طائرة حربية، حسب تصريح قائد قيادة المحيط الهندي والهادئ، الجنرال ستيفين كولَر ، لا يتعدّى كونه استعراض عضلات لن يؤدي حتى الى استفزاز الصين، التي تعلم تمام العلم أن هذه التحركات تهدف الى تعويض العجز والتراجع الاستراتيجي، الذي تعاني منه الولايات المتحدة، سواء. على الصعيد الاقتصادي او الصعيد العسكري.

5

ـ انه، وكما يقول الكاتب، الأميركي الاسرائيلي سيث فرانتس مان ، في موضوع نشره على موقع الجروزاليم بوست الإسرائيلية وكذلك على موقع ناشيونال ريڤيو بتاريخ 25/5/202، أننا وعلى عكس ظهور الولايات المتحدة الأميركية كقوة عظمى، قبل مئة عام، فإن جائحة كورونا وما سينتج عنها من كوارث دولية، ربما ستضع الاستراتيجيين الأميركيين في مواجهة احداث، هم غير مهيأين لمواجهتها، ستفضي الى جلوس الصين على عرش قيادة النظام العالمي.

ويتابع الكاتب قائلاً: إذا ما كانت الولايات المتحدة وحلفاؤها جديون، في حماية النظام الليبرالي، فإنّ عليهم التحرك بسرعة، وإلا فإننا سنرى، خلال 25 سنة، متغيّرات سريعة شبيهة بتلك التي حصلت قبل مئة عام. ولكنها هذه المرة لن تنتهي بسيطرة الولايات المتحدة، وإنما ستنتهي بجلوس الصين الشعبية وروسيا وإيران في مقعد القيادة.

يهلك ملوكاً ويستخلف آخرين.

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

The other side of darkness: Towards an understanding of the roots of the Western right-wing politics

The other side of darkness: Towards an understanding of the roots of the Western right-wing politics

By Ken Leslie for The Saker Blog

1. A bit more on the protests

Again, I’d like to thank the Saker for publishing my essay. I also want to thank the commenters—criticisms inspire me and encouragement inspires me even more! I think we both agree that the public needs to be better informed about the roots and antecedents of the current US protests which have spread to most of the world. In a sense, this is a continuation of my previous polemic which received mainly negative reactions. Although I had anticipated this, I was still puzzled. Not only is the case for protests solid but all the counter-arguments (George was a criminal, Soros is funding the dreaded Antifa etc.) sounded hollow and contrived. The reasons for supporting the uprising (however ephemeral it might turn out to be) are overwhelming. If you empathise with the predicament of the Black Americans, you will see this as a genuine cri de coeur and demand for change (see recent pronouncements by Angela Davis, Cornel West, Black Agenda Report and Spike Lee). If you don’t and have been on the receiving end of the Empire’s benevolence for the last 70 years, you will appreciate the irony and the sight of the mighty Exceptionalistan (with apologies to Mr Escobar) stumbling around, riven to the bone by internal strife and hatred, for once focussed on its own misery and less able to inflict pain on the rest of the world. In the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi, “it is a wonderful sight to behold”.

So, why are most of the alternative media (with the honourable exception of Caitlin Johnstone and Saker) completely silent about such a momentous event. Moreover, media such as RT are actively engaged in smearing the protesters and bolstering the official right-wing narrative (in contrast to the Russian officials who have criticised the US posture). Is it possible that all the years of anti-imperial “struggle” have been a propaganda sham? It felt like I woke up inside a bad-ish dream in which the people around me turn into strangers. How could I be so disconnected from my friends and people I’ve been following and cheering on for years? Have I turned into a SJW overnight or have they all become raging racists? After a few days of pondering the strange situation, it occurred to me that neither interpretation was correct. Rather, the strange reaction that caused such a surprise was due to something else.

This is about reassuring the frightened white people that their status will not be threatened by the unruly unwashed masses. Everywhere, I see unproductive and uncreative white people hiding behind great inventions and works of art a la: What have the blacks invented/written/etc. Well, the black people have never done me any wrong and their music has enriched my life beyond measure. It was the white imperialists, racists and supremacists who have destroyed countless lives and nations. I feel no allegiance to these soulless people and am siding with the younger generation, black and white, which is tired of hypocrisy and psychopathy of power. In the meantime, several black men were ruthlessly killed by the police—and no, they were not career criminals.

To my Soros-hating friends: If you think that Soros is capable of organising and co-ordinating mass protests around the world so skilfully that none have been drowned in blood thus far, I sincerely believe that you are mistaken. By accusing Soros and the Illuminati of controlling the universal call for the end to neoliberal dictatorship, you are removing all sense of agency from a large proportion of humanity. You think they are stupid and incapable of recognising injustice. You in turn are condemned forever to bend your knee before brute force and false idols of the West. We live in a world governed by three unproductive parasite businesses whose profits dwarf GDPs of large states. Soros is targeting your democracy? Look at the state of the Western media – it is much worse than it was in the reviled Soviet Union. Your “culture”? Again, the USSR and the socialist block countries’ culture and education are still the envy of the world. The West did everything in its power, including pretending to be democratic, in order to destroy them. Forgive me if I don’t cry bitter tears over the legacy of slave owners and murderers. You are so afraid of change and so wedded to the rotten system that you are prepared to suffer countless indignities in order to feel superior to less fortunate human beings.

2. Ideological roots of US conservatism

This part will seem only tangentially relevant to the above section. Yet, I believe it is crucial for a better understanding of the current crisis in the United States. With the gradual revival of the right-wing politics in the West, there was some expectation that the nationalist politicians in Europe and the US would gradually defuse and dismantle the neoliberal order advanced by the United States and Great Britain ever since the 1980s. The fact that during this period both countries have been ruled by reactionary right-wing regimes leveraging patriotism and profit in order to squash any dissent or attempt at improving economic and social justice (and no, the Catholic convert war criminal Tony Blair does not count as a leftist).[1] You heard it right – it was the great anti-communist “patriot” Ronald Reagan who launched the United States on the road to perdition. A B-list Irish-American actor of questionable cognitive abilities, he was also one of the spiritual fathers of the alt-right. The irony must not be allowed to escape us—neoliberalism came from the right which has now morphed into fake “new nationalism” and anti-liberalism. That was the same Ronald Reagan who named April 10th (the founding of the Independent State of Croatia) a national holiday in California and laid flowers on the graves of SS butchers at Bitburg.

I am starting to believe that the exaggerated focus on and demonisation of Soros and his fake-left initiatives is a plan hatched by the fascist right aimed at hiding its dark purposes. This is not to say that Soros is innocent or God forbid—good. It simply means that in order to understand the current situation, we must reach beyond the platitudes served by people whose nefarious plans affect the entire world.

The topic I am trying to introduce here is vast and fascinating. It requires thousands of pages and it is utterly impossible to do it justice within a couple of thousand words. Yet, try I must. And although the subject matter is somewhat removed from the current focus on race, its understanding is crucial for a full appreciation of the roots of the current predicament of the US empire. The thesis I wish to develop is that far from being some kind of benign force whose aim is to liberate people from the yoke of evil Zionist Marxists, the Western right in all its forms is a reactionary, fascist, criminal cabal whose Drang was briefly interrupted in 1945 by the victorious Soviet army. This criminal enterprise which transformed the United States into the most powerful empire in history has many faces and hides behind many guises—anti-communism, conservatism (I consider myself a conservative with a small “c”), struggle for “freedom”, traditional family etc. None of these ideals is wrong in itself but is doubly invalidated if touted by liars, murderers, paedophiles and supremacists.

This is precisely what happened to the right in the West after 1945. It was hijacked by the Vatican and its agents. Their unctuous pronouncements on the sanctity of the family and nation hid unmentionable crimes against individuals and nations. My understanding of the pernicious role of the Roman Catholicism in world politics is so far removed from the current “Marxist Pope” alt-right blabber that I feel compelled to say something—and pronto. By the way, Jesuit Francisco Bergoglio was deeply involved in the dirty war in Argentina in which tens of thousands of innocent people were tortured and disappeared by the bloodthirsty fascist regime. So please, think twice before repeating the “Marxist Pope” trope. His “traditionalist” predecessor beat that by joining Hitler Youth. And what about his predecessor (the “holy” one)? There is evidence that he worked as a salesman for IG Farben, selling Zyklon B to the Nazis. And what about his predecessor? By all accounts a good and caring man intent on exposing the Vatican’s banking empire, pope John Paul I was dispatched after only 33 days on the throne. In this context, perhaps Pope Francis IS a raving Marxist.

It is important to state here that I do not wish to bash Roman Catholics, many of whom try to follow the teachings of Christ as best they can and many of whom have fought valiantly on the side of good. On the contrary, I am aiming to expose the nefarious role of the Vatican in the creation of the post-war quasi-fascist “West”, the role which has disgraced it forever and condemned it to increasing irrelevance. Nor am I trying to say that no other denominations/ethnicities have contributed to the rise of the US empire. I am simply shedding some light on a topic that has been largely neglected by Washington watchers in their blind focus on the “Jewish peril”. I see my essay as a belated attempt at “glasnost” and “perestroika” sorely needed by the West. It is a kind of catharsis that has been long time a-coming but like in the case of the USSR, it might have come too late.

Of course, here, I can only offer a brief sketch of how Roman Catholic networks underpin the current “Anglo-Saxon” hegemony. It was said by many that Adolf Hitler’s government was the most Catholic in German history (Himmler, Goebbels, Hitler and many others). It is interesting that the “patriotic” governments of Ronald Reagan were the most Catholic in the US history. Some of the RCs employed by Reagan (all Irish-American) included William Casey (Director of the CIA), Richard Allen (National Security Advisor), Judge William P. Clarke (National Security Advisor), Robert McFarlane (National Security Advisor), Alexander Haig (Secretary of State), Vernon Walters (Ambassador-at-Large), William Wilson (Ambassador to the Vatican State), Donald Regan (Secretary of the Treasury), Raymond Donovan (Secretary of Labour), Margaret Mary Heckler (Health and Human Services secretary), Joseph Biden (Subcommittee on European affairs), Daniel P. Moynihan (Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs), John Kerry, Terrorism (Narcotics, and International Communications), Christopher Dodd (Western Hemisphere and Peace Corps Affairs). Note the presence in the sub-fascist Reagan regime of two fake RC democrats—Biden and Kerry. This is just a further illustration of the point I made earlier that the “Democrats” are nothing but Repub light. The two faces of (the Roman god) Janus might disagree on abortion but never on the need to expand the empire and subdue/cleanse/convert the heathens. Why then would people anywhere in the world support either option is beyond me.

Thus, the ruling elites of the two most powerful empire states in the modern history were stuffed full of Roman Catholics at the point at which the destruction of the Soviet Union was on the cards. Of course, as shown on Saker’s website, the Roman Catholic hatred of Orthodox (and Protestant) Christianity goes back centuries and has little to do with stopping communism. The best proof of this is the fact that the cardinals in the Vatican jumped with joy on the news that the Orthodox Empire was overthrown (see works of Hansjakob Stehle). For a decade, they tried to co-opt the Bolshevik regime into giving the Church the religious primacy within the new state. When the Bolsheviks refused to play along, The Vatican suddenly discovered “the men of destiny” Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, both of whom bent over backwards to please the Church. Here, president Putin explains once and for all who has been the principal enemy of Russia (he did not go as far back as the times of Alexander Nevsky).https://www.youtube.com/embed/F0g07j4HohU?feature=oembed

The question arises here—why has Donald Trump (himself a Jesuit pupil) surrounded himself with Roman Catholics? Many people are so obsessed with the Jews (the Zionist half of the Anglo-Zionist equation) that they are blind to the massive revival of political Catholicism under Trump. Given the predominance of (mainly Jewish) neocons in the previous governments and the synchronised attack on the paedophilia in the Catholic Church, Trump’s victory could be viewed as a mini Reconquista—return to the acme of late 1940s and early 1950s when under the guidance of Cardinal Spelman and Jesuit geopolitician Edmund Walsh, Joseph McCarthy hunted down (mainly Jewish) leftists. That was the time when the Catholic James Forrestal who had funded and co-ordinated the political cleansing of Italy jumped from a hospital window in a bout of anti-communist paranoia. That very same creature funded the Uniate Ukrainian Nazi rebellion inside the Soviet Union. The Vatican’s freedom fighters called their unit “Nightingale” after the notorious Ukrainian Nazi extermination battalion Nachtigall. Look no further if you wish to understand the current tragedy of the fake (Vatican-created) Ukrainian nation.

This was the golden time when the icon of Mary was taken from the Vatican to the US Embassy in Moscow to inspire the fight against “godless communism” and the Catholic fanatic Secretary of the Navy Francis Matthews advocated a nuclear first strike against the Soviets. It was the time when the Roman Catholic dictator Ngo Dinh Diem ruled South Vietnam with an iron fist, working hard to extinguish the Vietnamese Buddhists (almost 90% of the population) in a manner similar to that employed by Ante Pavelic in his Civitas Dei called the Independent State of Croatia. It was also a wonderful time when the Roman Catholic zealot William Donovan created the CIA and began work on the creation of the (Roman Catholic) EU. Those were the halcyon days of Jim Crow and the Nazi-loving Dulles brothers.

What has this got to do with Trump, you’ll ask? Well, the warmongering Russophobe Spellman’s private secretary was one Roy Cohn, a despicable “communist hunter” of McCarthy infamy and the prosecutor at the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. As a Jew, Cohn worked very hard to ingratiate himself with the fascist Catholic underbelly of America which became equated with American “patriotism” mainly thanks to a clever propaganda campaign by the Church (remember hundreds of maudlin Hollywood renditions of Father Donovans, sergeant Kowalskis and constable O’Haras). Cohn leveraged his pathological anti-communism to become one of the great “power brokers” of US politics (both closeted gays and homophobes, Spellman and Cohn hid their true preferences behind a macho, patriotic façade). He was a popular guest at the court of Ronald Reagan and mentored a number of young conservative politicians before cosmic justice reasserted itself by granting him a painful death in 1986. One of Cohn’s mentees was young Donald Trump whose stellar rise to fame and power owed much to the machinations of a Roman Catholic fixer and Cohn’s protégé, Roger Stone.

The second “fixer” whose work was crucial in engineering the unlikely electoral victory for Trump is Steven Bannon. Although self-evidently Irish and RC, Bannon has flown below the pope-dar. All that most people remember about Bannon is his dissolute appearance and the fact that he used to work for Goldman-Sachs. And yet, Bannon is as close to an ideologue/geostrategic thinker as it is possible to get in the modern US. Bannon is the inheritor of the Roman Catholic geopolitical line which sees the United States as the bastion of Christianity that has to assert complete dominance over the world in order to defend the “civilisation” against the onslaught of socialist or more generally, non-Catholic powers. The progenitor of the “Christian” geopolitical school was Fr. Edmund Walsh, an Irish Jesuit whose views on the role of the United States in world affairs were and remain very influential. The (Jesuit) Georgetown University has a School of Diplomacy bearing Walsh’s name. This elite school sets the tone for the US global supremacist doctrine and has been the home to a number of RC war criminals including Kurt Waldheim (the patron of the Austrian-born “gobernator” of California Arnold S.), Lev Dobriansky and Madalene Albright.

Walsh’s co-religionist and successor, Zbigniew Brzezinski was instrumental in co-ordinating the joint Vatican-US offensive on the USSR which resulted in a decade of untold misery for the peoples of the USSR and Eastern Europe. He also played a critical role in the (s)election of Karol Wojtyla to the papal throne by (again) co-ordinating the work of US, Polish and German cardinals under the auspices of the CIA and US government. Compared with such “achievements”, Brzezinski’s role in fomenting the war in Afghanistan hardly deserves a mention.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the geopolitical situation changed drastically and a dying Russia ceased to be seen as the primary enemy for a while. Focussing on Israel’s geopolitical needs, the ex-Trotskyite neocons schemed to destroy the possibility of a thriving and progressive Middle East. Like their RC patron Brzezinski, they zeroed in on the Islamist infrastructure and used it to destroy the region. Although this strategy seemed unconnected with Russia, it was conceived as a way of surrounding Russia with US Islamist proxies and weakening China by putting pressure on its western Muslim-inhabited regions. This strategy failed ignominiously with the entry of Russia into the war in Syria. At the same time, the economic slide of the United States accelerated and despite fake stock market interventions, Trump was faced with a difficult choice. Instead of fulfilling his anti-imperialist election promises, he tried to distract his supporters by blaming China for all America’s ills. This “last-chance saloon” strategy required an ideological firebrand who would provide necessary ammunition.

From Haaretz (2018): “Stephen Kevin Bannon was the third of five children in a Catholic family of Irish descent, born in 1953. His mother was a homemaker and his father a telephone technician. They sent young Steve to a Benedictine-Catholic military high school for boys. It was in Richmond, Virginia, the former capital of the Confederacy. There he received a classical education.”

Bannon’s rise was funded by among others Robert Mercer, the tech billionaire, who has a penchant for supporting right-wing Catholic politicians (Ted Cruz, Kellyanne Conway etc.). The symbiosis between right-wing WASPS and Roman Catholics in American political life is nothing new. A more interesting question is—how did Bannon manage to smuggle his right-wing Catholicism past the ever-vigilant Jewish-owned “liberal” media? By calling himself a Christian Zionist and a defender of the “Judeo-Christian” civilisation, Bannon skilfully shifted the US geopolitical doctrine from the failed neocon PNAC to the Antemurale Christianitatis (the bulwark of Christendom) model. This narrative sees the US in the same way that the above-mentioned RC fascists of the Eisenhower era viewed it—as a Panzerfaust of Western civilisation whose primary task is to destroy its (non-Catholic) enemies. In Bannon’s case, these enemies are Shia Islam and Communist China. This time around, the Jews are viewed as equals (at least for the time being). This shift from targeting Russia might be baffling but is easily explainable—again from Haaretz:

What the U.S. needs to do, he believes, is avoid pushing the Russians into the arms of the Chinese (which is critical for Israel with regard to the Iranian problem, where Russo-Chinese collusion could prove very problematic). Just as Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon wanted to improve relations with China in order to isolate Russia, Bannon wants to improve relations with Russia in order to isolate China. That’s something Trump understands deeply, he says.

So, part of the reason why Russia-friendly commenters are reluctant to criticise Bannon and Trump is because ostensibly, the dynamic duo are treating Russia as an equal—a potential partner in a new Yalta-like carve-up of the world. This of course is a complete sham—a cheap and incredibly arrogant red herring. US politicians and experts understand very well that American empire is fading fast and that in order to maintain its grasp on the world, it must split its enemies and attack the more dangerous one first. By focussing on Russia, Bannon would have had to shed the mantle of a freedom fighter and concede that the underlying reason for American belligerence is a Crusade against non-Catholics. In the eyes of the Vatican, Orthodox Christians remain heathen barbarians. Hence the sanctions, murders of Russian diplomats and soldiers, theft of diplomatic property, ramped up threat of a nuclear attack, the ripping up of all nuclear agreements—all under Trump. At the same time, China, that last bastion of freedom from Roman Catholic imperialism, is thus a natural target for Bannon and Trump. Not only would Its destruction inject some badly-needed blood into the weakening body of the empire, it would also guarantee an instantaneous revival of Roman Catholicism as the most powerful religion in the world. The Vatican employed the same tactic against the Russian Empire and Soviet Union and its struggle for world domination continues apace. Bannon is simply their plausibly deniable pawn.

Attacking China is easy, especially for an RC ideologue. China is one of three countries that does not have formal relations with the Vatican (the United States succumbed under Ronald Reagan). China is “godless”, communist and authoritarian—all the tired tropes once used against the Soviet Union have been taken out of the closet only to be wielded by the bibulous Crusader knight to little effect. No mention of the Vatican’s genocides (at least three in the 20th Century), of the destruction of three Slav federations and the reunification of Germany under an RC camarilla (Kohl, Genscher, Kinkel etc.), the bloody concentration camp called Latin America—Roman Catholicism, even though completely discredited as a political force, is the last hope of the dying empire. Placing any false hope in the benevolence of this arch-criminal institution is dangerous and self-defeating. Russia and China must work together for a new world purged from imperialism and supremacism.

As can be seen from the actions and pronouncements of the Russian government, Russia is well aware of the Bannonite trap and is highly unlikely to fall for it. Why? Simply because Trump’s actions have been as anti-Russian as those taken any one of his hard-line predecessors. Instead of elaborating on this, I wish briefly to outline the mechanism behind the Bannon-inspired Hong Kong riots. The British (and the French) have been very adept at using religion in order to maintain their imperial possessions. The last governor of Hong Kong was Chris Patten—a zealous Roman Catholic who distinguished himself not only as a sworn enemy of the PRC but also as a notorious Serbo- and Russophobe. Although he ruled Hong Kong as an outpost of the empire, after the handover he became inordinately interested in the state of “democracy” there. In the shorthand of RC imperialism, “democracy” equals the takeover of institutions and media by the RC-friendly agents who then actively undermine the state’s ability to fight CIA-orchestrated colour revolutions. The principal RC agent in Hong Kong has been Cardinal Joseph Zen who has been fighting the “godless” communists for half a century. Patten ensured that a large number of RC-friendly agents remained embedded in the Hong Kong apparatus of government and that many West-friendly oligarchs were supported in their piratical activities.

The Patten-Zen nexus was behind the British involvement in the “umbrella revolution” of 2013 as well as the more recent unsuccessful protests. Hiding behind religion is an old imperialist ruse and the Chinese government had to be careful in order not to trigger a manufactured global outrage. The fact that they succeeded in dealing with the protests suggests that they are very much aware of the above points. Patten’s dark scheming received a significant boost with the election of Trump. To many of us, it was strange to see giant posters of Pepe the frog and US flags all over Hong Kong. The explanation was simple—the protests were directed by CIA cut-outs (e.g. NED) through RC (but not only RC) churches, institutes and schools. Bannon’s incendiary rhetoric was complemented by the conspicuous (shamelessly so) presence of right-wing RC senators (Cruz, Rubio etc.), US “diplomats” and “charity workers” who directed the riots convinced that the Chinese government would fold and admit defeat. Consequently, there was no attempt to hide the orchestrators’ symbols.

For his failure to sever Hong Kong from China and for thwarting the BBC Jimmy Saville enquiry, Patten was rewarded with a chancellorship of the University of Oxford. His last media appearance was a couple of days ago when he criticised the protesters who were trying to topple the statue of the notorious colonial buccaneer and racist, Cecil Rhodes. Bannon on the other hand has doubled down on replacing the EU with a slew of “nationalist” fiefdoms subservient to the US and trying to topple the government of the PRC by lobbying for an exile ex-football player(?) billionaire who is supposed to rule the great nation on behalf of Bannon’s masters. Hopefully, this will distract from the renewed attempts to weaponise Roman Catholicism in order to overthrow popular governments in Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba. The greatest irony of all (and the subject is replete with them) is that a rabid exponent of the most universalist, globalist and imperialist religious ideology has been trying to sell himself as a nationalist and nativist patriot.

On a personal note, I must state that like many anti-imperialists, I supported Trump against Hillary Clinton. Although hugely disappointed with his actions I don’t believe that Trump is a racist in the sense in which the warmongering fake left aims to portray him. At the same time, he is presiding over the most massive blowback in US history. Having leveraged US power in order to stem the bleeding, he is living a nightmare predicted by many—a United States eating itself from within thanks to massive class and racial inequalities. My humble submission is just a small part of a complex mosaic which can nevertheless help explain why despite the attempts by Soros and various others to co-opt the cause of racial, social and international justice, we must not uncritically run to right-wing politicians and ideologues as potential saviours.

  1. It is interesting and not inconsequential that Tony Blair was converted by the same priest who later converted Bannon’s right-hand man, the Englishman Benjamin Harnwell. The priest’s name is Michael Seed. 

Politicisation of Great Lockdown result of ‘TINA’ economic ignorance & censorship

Politicisation of Great Lockdown result of ‘TINA’ economic ignorance & censorship

June 14, 2020

by Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker Blog

In the United States questioning liberal economic ideology is not tolerated, so when the latest inevitable economic bust in capitalism occurs it is little wonder that their society talks about everything except economic ideology. They spend their time inventing and discussing non-economic solutions to economic catastrophes, which is precisely how their fundamental weaknesses and inequalities only get worse and worse.

Now we are talking about the murder of George Floyd, police brutality and White supremacy – these are old but still important issues, but they are also certainly issues which will not lead to systematically redistributing one cent towards governmentally-abandoned African-American areas.

The fall of the USSR and the triumphant parades led by banners bearing TINA – There Is No Alternative (to neoliberalism and neo-imperialism) – encouraged Americans to throw away their textbooks on the “dismal science” of economics. “Yeah,” they said, “Marx might have been interesting in his day, but it’s all over now – get with the times: it’s the economy, stupid! (whisper) But seriously – don’t openly question liberal economic ideology.”

For those of us following the data it has become quite clear: “Everything Bubble 2” is a great pica-saving handle to describe the 2020 Western economy, but it gives the wrong impression that what’s going on is just a repeat of 2008 (when Everything Bubble 1 popped) – it’s actually much worse. Nobody expected Everything Bubble 2 to be popped by something as economically-suicidal as a Great Lockdown, but we now have no choice but to add the effects of the two together, so… wow… we just cannot say that this is like 2008, or 2001, or 1929, or any other era.

But in the US you can’t say anything about ideological economic direction, of course. This leads us to two realisations about their society which are now obvious to all:

1) By abandoning economic ideological debate for three decades Americans can only politically snipe each other to death in 2020 because they simply cannot intelligently discuss economics, much to the glee of the 1%. 2) By censoring ideological debate the US is unable to devise new solutions to the latest capitalist bust, so in order to end this very atypical capitalist bust they are vainly reapplying previous solutions: hyper-partisanship, militarism and economic ideological totalitarianism.

Combine these two realisations and it’s clear that the American solution to their 2020 economic crisis is militarist in nature: Militarism against those who disagree with the Mainstream, militarism to guide the economic way out, and militarism towards the Covid-19 germ as well. As a result of the George Floyd murder we may even add a fourth militarism – though one which will surely end after the November presidential election – militarism against anti-Black racism.

Why would this “solution” of militarism be a surprise to anyone?

Removing economics from politics creates stupid politics, but also hyper-partisanship

Americans today have only one solution for domestic or international failure – declare war on the other guy, even if he is a fellow citizen.

This economic crisis is so bad for the already-weakened West that one would think the economic debate for its solutions would have never become partisan. (Considering that both mainstream parties agree on TINA – what was there to argue about economically, anyway?) Georgia, Florida and Texas have cities just as dense as Illinois, Michigan, California, New York and New Jersey, but it can’t be a coincidence that this latter camp of blue-states remain economically closed with a severity and duration seemingly unparalleled in the world.

It is as if working with the other side – even for the good of the nation – implies risking a deadly (moral) contagion? It’s as if doing a single thing Trump did, suggested or supported makes one an irredeemable “deplorable”? It’s as if losing an election this November is a bigger catastrophe in the minds of politically-involved Republican and Democrat citizens than the unprecedented capitalist catastrophe of having over 40 million unemployed people?

All I can say is: LOL you can’t possibly run a nation that way. I am as political as anybody, but if unemployment was 25% my primary motivation would not be getting credit at the polling booth!

So it’s an amazing proof of how undesirable the American cultural-political-economic model truly is when we observe how the re-opening of their economy has become such a politically-polarised issue.

That may or may not be old news to many, but here is something which is never discussed: This seeming “militarisation of political partisanship” is predicted on confining mainstream political discussion solely to exactly that – the alleged importance of political partisanship. Western culture’s proclamation of TINA, the chucking out of economic textbooks and censoring “time-wasting” economic debate has thus given two-party political affiliations an entirely outsized place in US culture.

And TINA was always going to be especially fatal for heterogenous Western societies: In a country like Iran, which is 90% Shia, or homogenous & self-segregated Japan it’s perhaps not necessarily economics which can hold the title of “champion of societal unification”, but in the very heterogeneous West economic class clearly provides the broadest basis for life-saving and nation-saving unity. (The West’s White supremacists will sputter that, “It didn’t used to be this way here!” Who cares? It is this way now for your children, and it was only ever not “this way” because of massive segregation.) National unification may be rejected by Trotskyists, but not everyone wants to see the nation founder in response to every serious crisis.

But by rejecting discussion of economic unity (a.k.a. class warfare against the 1%) the West could only logically choose to emphasise other factors in its place, i.e. political, cultural, ethnic, sexual, gender and religious factors, all of which (for their heterogeneous societies) are inherently less unifying and even quite controversial. In a crisis this disunity is not just readily apparent but leads to tangible disaster – certainly the West is currently burning in crisis.

The problem goes deeper than their facile blaming of only the political and media classes: there are many everyday American citizens who clearly want to increase the stranglehold of this economic crisis in order to oust Trump or just their local incumbent. In 2020, because they are not in power, it’s logical to agree that Democrats are acting the most desperately and power-hungrily. However, it’s not as if Republicans are promoting consensus, unity and high ideals – of course they are using the economic crisis to achieve the neoliberal tenet of slashing government ranks down to just cops and fire departments.

It is not an exaggeration to say that by removing economics from the discussion US political culture has become not “militant” – which has positive connotations of ideological purity – but “militarist”: Democrats and Republicans are going on the war path to stoke problems instead of focusing on societal unity amid this unprecedented crisis.

You couldn’t honestly talk about imperialism with an American in 2019, and it’s not like they want to hear about it now; nor can you honestly talk about capitalism with an American despite its current epic fail; in June 2020 they want to talk only about how their political party is superior, and how corona is the new Black Plague, and now they’ve added a new problem they’ve recently discovered: police brutality against Blacks.

The problem of this faux-militancy, which has such a gaping intellectual void (the lack of an economic component), is similarly and glaring obvious in the centuries-old militarisation of imperialist US culture: War on Indians, war for/against slavery, war on socialism, war on Soviet-led communism, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on Muslims – the US solution of “war on corona” is thus not at all unique for them.

The new – and probably temporary – “war on police brutality” is certainly necessary but cannot possibly reach the halls of power nor the ears of the US vanguard party of bankers.

The solution in US corporate fascism is always war, but conquering corona yields no booty

The real economic ideology of the US is – of course – corporate fascism, which is why their military-industrial complex had a ready solution to the 2001 Y2K/dot.com bust via declaring war on the Muslim world. Very profitable indeed, and it allowed their Pentagon-planned economy (the Pentagon is the world’s largest employer) to continue organising the very unequal US economic redistribution.

There was no new war to be had in 2008 – Obama could only double down on the existing wars (after accepting his Nobel Peace Prize) and double down on the status quo economic ideology as well: QE dropped helicopter money at the problem and hoped the problem was resolved. It was resolved very satisfactorily indeed, but only for the 1% and their asset classes.

In 2020 Everything Bubble 2 was popped by the Great Lockdown and a new war was declared: against corona. As if Red men with tomahawks had amassed just outside the picket-topped fort, Americans threw themselves wholeheartedly into this battle for self-survival. Now, as the stock market has been boosted with taxpayer QE money back to pre-crisis levels, Americans are (kind of) throwing themselves into a battle against police brutality as well.

Declaring war is what American culture does, period.

What does war do? It rallies around the flag – for countries who were not inspired by 1917 it is truly the “champion of societal unification” – but there is no booty to be had this time: no new frontiers to provide cheap land; no new resources to allow Western manufactures to be made more cheaply; no oil; not even any way to use US taxpayer money to pay mercenaries in order to boost the stock prices of Pentagon-linked corporations.

Americans need to realise that “keep-capitalism-alive-through-jingoism” is a primary pillar of imperialism, and that true patriotism is never allowed in neoliberal capitalism – thus their hyper-partisanship today. War also provides a useful distraction from endemic economic inequality, which is why this “endless war” ruse has been going on across the anti-socialist West ever since WWI.

The West has thrown themselves into the war on the corona germ, but their lower classes are screaming that this war is economic suicide. Once the war on corona is over – even if the West extends past the “surge” this fall or even into 2021 – economic ideology will finally have to be discussed.

But the West doesn’t ever have to do that intelligently – they were the economic ideological winners, right?

*********************************

Corona contrarianism? How about some corona common sense? Here is my list of articles published regarding the corona crisis.

Capitalist-imperialist West stays home over corona – they grew a conscience? – March 22, 2020

Corona meds in every pot & a People’s QE: the Trumpian populism they hoped for? – March 23, 2020

A day’s diary from a US CEO during the Corona crisis (satire) March 23, 2020

MSNBC: Chicago price gouging up 9,000% & the sports-journalization of US media – March 25, 2020

Tough times need vanguard parties – are ‘social media users’ the West’s? – March 26, 2020

If Germany rejects Corona bonds they must quit the Eurozone – March 30, 2020

Landlord class: Waive or donate rent-profits now or fear the Cultural Revolution – March 31, 2020

Corona repeating 9/11 & Y2K hysterias? Both saw huge economic overreactions – April 1, 2020

(A Soviet?) Superman: Red Son – the new socialist film to watch on lockdown – April 2, 2020

Corona rewrites capitalist bust-chronology & proves: It’s the nation-state, stupid – April 3, 2020

Condensing the data leaves no doubt: Fear corona-economy more than the virus – April 5, 2020

‘We’re Going Wrong’: The West’s middling, middle-class corona response – April 10, 2020

Why does the UK have an ‘army’ of volunteers but the US has a shortage? – April 12, 2020

No buybacks allowed or dared? Then wave goodbye to Western stock market gains – April 13, 2020

Pity post-corona Millennials… if they don’t openly push socialism – April 14, 2020

No, the dollar will only strengthen post-corona, as usual: it’s a crisis, after all – April 16, 2020

Same 2008 QE playbook, but the Eurozone will kick off Western chaos not the US – April 18, 2020

We’re giving up our civil liberties. Fine, but to which type of state? – April 20,

2020

Coronavirus – Macron’s savior. A ‘united Europe’ – France’s murderer – April 22, 2020

Iran’s ‘resistance economy’: the post-corona wish of the West’s silent majority (1/2) – April 23, 2020

The same 12-year itch: Will banks loan down QE money this time? – April 26,

2020

The end of globalisation won’t be televised, despite the hopes of the Western 99% (2/2) – April 27, 2020

What would it take for proponents to say: ‘The Great Lockdown was wrong’? – April 28, 2020

ZeroHedge, a response to Mr. Littlejohn & the future of dollar dominance – April 30, 2020

Given Western history, is it the ‘Great Segregation’ and not the ‘Great Lockdown’? – May 2, 2020

The Western 1% colluded to start WWI – is the Great Lockdown also a conspiracy? – May 4, 2020

May 17: The date the Great Lockdown must end or Everything Bubble 2 pops – May 6, 2020

Reading Piketty: Does corona delay the Greens’ fake-leftist, sure-to-fail victory? – May 8, 2020

Picturing the media campaign needed to get the US back to work – May 11, 2020

Scarce jobs + revenue desperation = sure Western stagflation post-corona – May 13, 2020

France’s nurses march – are they now deplorable Michiganders to fake-leftists? – May 15, 2020

Why haven’t we called it ‘QE 5’ yet? And why we must call it ‘QE 2.1’ instead – May 16, 2020

‘Take your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty public servant!’ That’s Orwell? – May 17, 2021

The Great Lockdown: The political apex of US single Moms & Western matriarchy? May 21, 2021

I was wrong on corona – by not pushing for a US Cultural Revolution immediately – May 25, 2021

August 1: when the unemployment runs out and a new era of US labor battles begin – May 28, 2021

Corona proving the loser of the Cold War was both the USSR & the USA – May 30, 2021

Rebellions across the US: Why worry? Just ask Dr. Fauci to tell us what to do – June 2, 2021

Protesting, corona-conscience, a good dole: the US is doing things it can’t & it’s chaos – June 3, 2021

Why do Westerners assume all African-Americans are leftists? – June 5, 2020

The US as Sal’s Pizzeria: When to ‘Do The Right Thing’ is looting – June 6, 2020

The problem with the various ‘Fiat is all the problem!’ (FIATP) crowds – June 9, 2020


Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of the books Ill Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’ and the NEW Socialisms Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism.

ما بين بوتين والأسد أقوى من «بازارات» السياسة…!

ما بين بوتين والأسد أقوى من «بازارات» السياسة…! – جريدة البناء ...

محمد صادق الحسيني

كثر أخيراً الكثير من الكلام وفيه الغث والسمين عن خلافات في الرؤى بين روسيا بوتين وسورية الأسد، وذهب كثيرون من دون علم ولا مسؤولية عن نية مزعومة لدى القيادة الروسية بالضغط باتجاه تغيير القيادة في سورية أو ما سمّوه تغيير الرئيس بشار الأسد، وهو ادّعاء لا يصحّ إلا مع مرضى النفوس ممن ينطبق عليهم المثل الإيراني الشهير:

«الكافر يقيس الناس على معتقده…»!

ظناً منهم أنّ كلّ عالم السياسة هو كعلاقتهم الذئبية مع سيدهم الأميركي…!

صحيح أن التاريخ ليس وحده من يعطي العلاقات السورية الروسية الحاليّة، ذات الطبيعة الاستراتيجية المتينة طبيعتها، وإنما الاقتصاد والسياسة والأمن والضرورات العسكرية للطرفين. وهذا يعني أن العلاقات الحاليّة مبنيّة على أسس القانون الدولي الشديدة الوضوح، في تنظيم العلاقات بين الدول، وكذلك الأمر فهي مبنية على المصالح المتبادلة للطرفين.

ومن نافل القول أيضاً أنّ هذه العلاقات، التي تزداد ترسّخاً في الوقت الحاضر، ليست علاقات جديدة، بل هي موجودة منذ استقلال سورية عن الاستعمار الفرنسي، منتصف أربعينيات القرن العشرين. وتعمّقت هذه العلاقات بعد توقيع اتفاقية التعاون المشترك بين البلدين، سنة 1955، والتي أثارت حفيظة القوى الاستعمارية الدولية يومها وعلى رأسها الولايات المتحدة، التي اتهمت سورية بأنها تجنح لأن تصبح دولة شيوعية مرتبطة بالاتحاد السوفياتي وقاعدة لتوسيع نفوذه في المنطقة…!

وقد قامت تلك القوى الاستعماريّة بمحاولة فاشلة لتطويق سورية ووقف تعاونها مع الاتحاد السوفياتي، وذلك من خلال العمل على إنشاء حلف عسكري معادٍ للاتحاد السوفياتيّ، أُطلق عليه اسم حلف بغداد، بحيث يضمّ العراق الملكيّ والأردن وتركيا وبريطانيا والولايات المتحدة. وقد رفضت سورية ومصر عبد الناصر هذا الملف العدواني العسكري وقاومته بكلّ الوسائل حتى أسقطته وتمّ دفنه بعد عدوان 1956 على مصر وتكريس الدور السوفياتي في «الشرق الاوسط»، اقتصادياً وسياسياً وعسكرياً.

ولكن المحاولات الاستعمارية الأوروبية، بقيادة الولايات المتحدة الأميركية بعد العدوان الثلاثي، لإسقاط سورية ومنعها من تمتين علاقاتها مع الاتحاد السوفياتي، قد استمرّت وتمّ تصعيدها عبر ما أطلق عليه: «مبدأ آيزنهاور»، الذي اعلن عنه الرئيس الأميركي آنذاك، أيزنهاور، في رسالة أرسلها إلى الكونغرس الأميركي، وجاء فيها أن الولايات المتحدة مستعدة لتقديم المساعدة الاقتصادية والسياسية والعسكرية، لأيّ دولة في «الشرق الاوسط» تطلب ذلك.

ولم يمضِ وقت طويل حتى طلبت الإدارة الأميركية، من عضو الناتو تركيا، بالبدء بالتحرّش بسورية عسكرياً. وبالفعل بدأت تركيا بحشد الآلاف من جنودها على الحدود السورية… وقد بلغ التوتر ذروته في 18/8/1957 إثر تعيينات وتغييرات أجراها الرئيس السوري شكري القوتلي على قيادات الجيش السوري، اعتبرتها الولايات المتحدة انقلاباً شيوعياً نقل سورية الى المعسكر السوفياتي. وهو ما دفع تركيا (الناتو) إلى دقّ طبول الحرب ضد سورية. إلا انّ تهديد الزعيم السوفياتي، نيكيتا خروتشوف، بقصف تركيا بالصواريخ إن هي اعتدت على سورية، الأمر الذي دفع المعسكر الغربي بالتراجع عن نيات العدوان وسحب تركيا حشودها عن الحدود السورية وإنهاء الأزمة في شهر 10/1957. وبهذا يكون مبدأ أيزنهاور هو الآخر قد سقط تماماً وانتهت أحلام الولايات المتحدة بالسيطرة على سورية، بحجة التصدي لتمدّد النفوذ السوفياتي في «الشرق الأوسط».

وكما كانت خطط العدوان الاستعماري الأوروأميركي ضدّ سورية، في خمسينيات وستينيات وسبعينيات القرن الماضي، متواصلة ضدّ سورية والدول العربية الأخرى المعادية للاستعمار، إلا أنها وفِي جزء كبير منها كانت تستهدف المصالح السوفياتيّة، ومن ثم الروسية بعد انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي، في المنطقة والعالم، وذلك عبر تكريس سيطرة الولايات المتحدة على بحار وأسواق العالم. وكان للسيطرة على البحر المتوسط، من قبل الأساطيل الأميركية، أهمية مزدوجة خدمة للمصالح الأمنية العسكرية والاقتصادية لكلّ من الولايات المتحدة والكيان الصهيوني.

ولا بدّ هنا من العودة بالذاكرة الى السياسات الأميركيّة، المعادية لسورية، منذ بداية القرن الحالي، وصولاً الى اغتيال الحريري في لبنان واستصدار القرار 1559 من مجلس الأمن وإرغام الجيش السوريّ على الانسحاب من لبنان وافتعال أزمة دولية لحصار وتدمير سورية، بعد اتهامها زوراً باغتيال الحريري. ولكن فشل هذه الحملة وصمود سورية قد دفع قوى العدوان الاستعماريّ الى إشعال حرب 2006 ضدّ لبنان، أملاً من واشنطن في تحقيق الهدف بإخضاع سورية وإنهاء دورها، المتمثل في كونها خط الدفاع الأول عن القضايا العربية، وفي مقدمتها قضية فلسطين، وكذلك لكونها قلعة أمام السيطرة الأميركية على المنطقة.

أما عن علاقة كلّ هذا مع طبيعة العلاقات السورية الروسية واكتسابها صفة العلاقات الاستراتيجية، فلا بدّ من توضيح بعض النقاط، لإظهار حقيقة العلاقة الجدلية، بين المصلحة الروسية وتلك السورية في التعاون العسكري والسياسي والاقتصادي، والتطور والنمو اللذين شهدته هذه العلاقات، منذ بدء الحرب الكونية العدوانية على سورية، سنة 2011. وأهم هذه النقاط هي التالية:

1

ـ اتفاقية التعاون المشترك، بين سورية والاتحاد السوفياتي، الموقعة سنة 1971، والتي شكلت قاعدة تعاون صلبة، على مختلف الصعد وبينها الصعيد العسكري، حيث حصل الاتحاد السوفياتي آنذاك على نقطة ارتكاز بحرية لأسطوله، الذي يقوم بمهمات الدوام القتالي في البحر الأبيض المتوسط.

ورغم تعثر عمليات الاسطول الروسي لبضع سنوات، بعد سقوط الاتحاد السوفياتي سنة 1991، الا ان بداية الالفية الحاليّة قد أعادت الحياة الى هذا الوجود البحري الروسي في المتوسط. وهو الوجود الذي يعتبر، من وجهة نظرنا، القوة الروسية التي تتواجد على خط الدفاع الأول عن أسوار موسكو، حتى قبل بدء العدوان على سورية. وليس علينا إلا أن نتذكر، بأن الاساطيل الأميركية والبريطانية والفرنسية والايطالية، التي شاركت في حروب التدخل، التي بدأتها البحرية البريطانية، في شهر حزيران سنة 1918، عندما نفذت عملية إنزال بحري على ميناء مورمانسك Murmansk في المحيط المتجمّد الشمالي، وسيطرت عليه، نقول إنّ هذه الأساطيل قد تحركت للهجوم على روسيا من البحر المتوسط الى مضائق البوسفور والدردنيل وصولاً الى البحر الأسود، جنوب روسيا، حيث وصلت الأساطيل الفرنسية والبريطانية واليونانية والايطالية الى ميناء اوديسا (حالياً في أوكرانيا)، بالإضافة الى قوة بحرية أميركية، قوامها 8000 من عناصر المارينز، قد تم إنزالها على سواحل ڤلاديڤوستوك، في أقصى الجنوب الشرق الروسي، وبدأت جميع هذه القوات، ومن خلال عمليات منسقة، بمهاجمة الأراضي الروسية… ولكنهم فشلوا في اختراق الأراضي الروسية واحتلال أجزاء منها.

2

ـ كما أنّ اتفاقية التعاون السورية الروسية، المذكورة أعلاه، قد شكلت أرضية لقيام وزارة الدفاع السوفياتية بتعزيز الوجود العسكري السوفياتي في طرطوس، بعد أن قرّر السادات يوم 8/7/1972 الاستغناء عن خدمات المستشارين العسكريين السوفيات في مصر، وهو الأمر الذي وصفه الزعيم السوفياتي ليونيد بريجنيف بأنه أكبر هدية للولايات المتحدة من دون ثمن.

الى جانب ذلك فقد شكلت هذه الاتفاقية القاعدة التي قام بموجبها الاتحاد السوفياتي بتسيير 900 رحلة جوية، لطيران النقل العسكري، لنقل 15000 طن من المعدات العسكرية للجيش السوري، بعد حرب تشرين 1973، وذلك لتعويض الخسائر التي لحقت بقوات الجيش. كما تمت إقامة جسر بحري بين روسيا واللاذقية للغرض نفسه.

ولا بدّ، في هذا الصدد، من التأكيد على ان الاتحاد السوفياتي لم يكن ليقوم بكلّ تلك العمليات، التي اعتبرها استثماراً استراتيجياً في علاقاته مع سورية، لم يكن ليقوم بذلك لو لم يكن على قناعة بأنّ الدور السوري في التصدّي لمحاولات الهيمنة الأميركية في العالم هو دور أساسي.

3

ـ وقد تأكد هذا التقدير السوفياتي العميق، للدور السوري، سنة 2010، عندما حصل الهجوم الدبلوماسي الاقتصادي الأميركي الأوروبي التركي الخليجي على روسيا الاتحادية، وذلك عندما قام الرئيس الفرنسي، نيكولا ساركوزي، بترتيب قمة رباعية في دمشق، ضمّت إلى جانبه الرئيس بشار الأسد ورئيس الوزراء التركي، رجب طيب ردوغان، والذي لم يكن رئيساً لتركيا بعد، وأمير قطر، الشيخ حمد بن خليفة آل ثاني.

وقد عقدت هذه القمة في دمشق، بتاريخ 27/5/2010، حيث عرض هؤلاء على الرئيس الأسد ما يلي:

أ ـ عرض الفرنسي العمل على إعادة دمج سورية في المجتمع الدولي وتقديم مساعدات اقتصادية أوروبية لها.

ب ـ أما أردوغان فقد عرض الضغط على «إسرائيل»، حيث كان يعمل وسيطاً في المحادثات غير المباشرة بين سورية والكيان الصهيوني، عرض تكثيف الضغط على «إسرائيل» للوصول الى حلّ لمشكلة الجولان المحتلّ.

ج ـ أما أمير قطر فقد عرض على الرئيس السوري تمويلات وقروض تصل الى 150 مليار دولار.

وذلك في مقابل موافقته على:

بناء خط أنابيب لنقل الغاز من جمهوريات آسيا الوسطى، السوفياتية سابقاً أذربيجان وتركمانستان، وإيران بعد إسقاط الحكم فيها، الى جانب الغاز القطري، ومن العراق أيضاً الذي كان لا زال تحت الاحتلال الأميركي، بحيث يمرّ هذا الخط من شمال شرق سورية ليصل الأراضي التركية ويتابع مسيره من هناك عبر بلغاريا… رومانيا المجر وصولاً الى النمسا، حيث ستقام محطة توزيع لهذا الغاز لكلّ أنحاء أوروبا. وقد سمّي هذا المشروع في حينه: خط غاز نابوكو Nabucco وهو مشروع كان يحظى بدعم أميركي أوروبي كامل وبدأ التحضير لإقامته سنة 2002، بينما تم التوقيع على الاتفاق الخاص بالتنفيذ، من قبل كل من: تركيا/ رومانيا/ بلغاريا/ المجر/ النمسا/ بتاريخ 13/7/2009. وذلك لمنافسة روسيا، أو بالأحرى لضرب الصادرات الروسية من الغاز الى أوروبا، خاصة أنّ روسيا كانت تخطط لإقامة خط أنابيب لتصدير الغاز، من جنوب روسيا إلى أوروبا، اسمه ساوث ستريم South Stream، الذي استبدلته روسيا بخط آخر اطلقت علية اسم تورك ستريم Turk Stream، وتمّ افتتاحه قبل أشهر.

ـ تجميد علاقات سورية مع إيران.

ـ وقف دعم حزب الله وحركتي حماس والجهاد الإسلامي في فلسطين.

ومن المعلوم طبعاً انّ الرئيس بشار الأسد قد رفض رفضاً قاطعاً تلبية أيّ من هذه الشروط. وربما يكون مفهوم لدى الكثيرين رفض الرئيس الأسد قطع علاقاته مع إيران وحزب الله والمقاومة الفلسطينية، ولكن ما قد يصعب فهمه على الكثيرين هو أسباب رفض الرئيس الأسد، وبشكل قاطع، الموافقة على مشروع خطوط الغاز.

ولكن السياق التاريخي للعلاقات الروسية السورية، الذي عرض أعلاه، لا بدّ انّ يساعد في فهم خلفيات وموجبات هذا الموقف السوري الصلب، وبالتالي الموقف الروسي الداعم عسكرياً للرئيس الأسد منذ عام 2015. إذ إنّ صانع القرار السوري يعلم تماماً ان موضوع خط الغاز المذكور لم يكن مشروعاً تجارياً عادياً وإنما كان مخططاً استراتيجياً أميركياً يرمي الى إخراج روسيا من أسواق الغاز الأوروبية، وإلحاق أكبر الأضرار باقتصادها بهدف شل قدرتها على مواصلة عمليات التحديث والتنمية والتطوير للدولة الروسية بشكل عام وللقوات المسلحة الروسية بشكل خاص.

من هنا، ومن منطلق الوفاء للصديق الصدوق، الاتحاد السوفياتي السابق ووريثته القانونية الحاليّة، جمهورية روسيا الاتحادية، فإنّ الرئيس الأسد، وبالاستناد الى الأخلاق السياسية العليا التي يتمتع بها، فقد قرّر أن يقيم خط صدّ عن موسكو لعلمه، المبني على تحليل دقيق للأبعاد الاستراتيجية لخطوته تلك، وذلك لأنّ التآمر على مصالح روسيا كان سيُمَكِّن دول الاستعمار الغربي بإلحاق أضرار كبيرة بروسيا وبسورية تتابعاً ونتيجة لذلك. وهو ما جعل الولايات المتحدة وأذنابها، من صهاينة وأعراب وعثمانيين جدد ودول أوروبية مُستَعْمَرَةٍ من قبل الولايات المتحدة تلجأ الى الخطة البديلة، ألا وهي تدمير سورية وتفكيكها كدولة، أملاً منها في تدمير خط الدفاع الأمامي عن موسكو. ولكن الصمود الأسطوري للشعب السوري وجيشه ورئيسه وتزايد الخطر على كيان الدولة السورية وما بدأ يلوح في الأفق محدودية قدرة الدولة السورية على مواصلة الحفاظ على حصونها على شواطئ المياه الدافئة، ونظراً للأهمية الاستراتيجية الفائقة لهذه المياه، فقد قرّرت القيادة الروسية التدخل مباشرة وبالقوة العسكرية اللازمة، لدعم صمود الحصون السورية.

وقد مثَّل هذا القرار تحركاً استراتيجياً قلب موازين القوى الدولية، خاصة أنّ سورية وروسيا قد اتفقتا، بعد التدخل العسكري الروسي، على تعزيز التعاون العسكري بين البلدين، على قاعدة اتفاقيات قانونية ورسمية طويلة المدى، تم بموجبها ليس إقامة قاعدة حميميم الجوية وطرطوس البحرية، فحسب وانما إيجاد الاطار القانوني اللازم لذلك، حسب الأصول والقوانين الدولية، خدمة للمصلحة الاستراتيجية للدولتين.

من هنا فإنّ العلاقات السورية الروسية ليست علاقات قائمة على الانتهازية او التسلط او الاستغلال، وانما هي استمرار لنهج من التعاون المثمر الذي يخدم المصالح الاستراتيجية المشتركة للبلدين.

وهي بالتالي ليست علاقات خاضعة لمزاج البازارات السياسية ولا لقوانين السيطرة والهيمنة، التي تمارسها الولايات المتحدة مع أذنابها في العالم، وانما هي علاقات متكافئة تعكس مستوى عميقاً جداً من الفهم والتحليل السياسي العلمي والموضوعي الذي هو أساس كل قرارٍ صائب.

وهذا هو السر الذي يقف وراء متانة هذه العلاقات واستحالة تعرضها للخلل بسهولة عند أول تباينات في قراءة هذا الحدث او ذاك من وقائع السياسة اليومية وتحولاتها الموسمية…!

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

The Empire takes a knee. Let it. But we don’t have to!

The Empire takes a knee.  Let it. But we don’t have to!

THE SAKER • JUNE 10, 2020

It is quite interesting to observe how many commentators are completely misreading the current race riots or compare them with previous race riots in the history of the US. I suppose that by telling themselves that these latest riots are “just like” or “not nearly as bad” as past US race riots they try to reassure themselves by maintaining the illusion that what is taking place now is of limited and/or temporary magnitude. It is not.

No, it is not “just like” the past

Oh sure, there is plenty of racial violence (by all sides) in US history, from the very inception of the US as a slave-owning society, to the immense number of lynchings (which took place in the North as much as in the South, those interested ought to read “At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America” by Philip Dray) to the murderous “Tulsa Massacre” which even saw Black neighborhoods bombed from the air! And while those who point out that there have been many race riots in the past are correct, they are fundamentally missing the key fact that the current “race riots” are not “just” race riots, but the result of many more complex and multi-layered phenomena. The best proof of this qualitatively new nature of the riots is that they have not only spread across the US like wildfire, but that they also spread to Europe and in Asia and Oceania (see here and here). Even some Japanese joined this decidedly gaijin phenomenon!

So what is going on here?

Unless we assume that Danes, Belgians or New Zealanders have been personally victimized by racist US cops, we have to admit that what triggered this worldwide rash of protests is not a first-hand personal trauma, but only second-hand exposure to a very specific narrative spread with quasi total uniformity by the legacy corporate ziomedia. I call this narrative “Black is Beautiful“.

The pernicious “Black if Beautiful” ideological dogma

Black is beautiful began in the US in the 1960 and it has since become an integral part of the western doxa, an ideological dogma which cannot be challenged without immediately resulting in an accusation of “racism”. Simultaneously, another ideological dogma was developed, the one which claims that “all races are equal”, but without ever really defining the terms “race” or the term “equal”. Interestingly, the notions that Black is beautiful or races are all equal are never demonstrated, only proclaimed, and any insistence that these notions be factually substantiated also results in an immediate accusation of “racism”.

It is not my purpose today to assess the merits (or lack thereof) of this narrative. But what I want to point out is this: any narrative which cannot be challenged or questioned without immediately being branded “racist” is an extremely intolerant one. It is also obviously a narrative which fears any scrutiny for empirical evidence. Yet, those who otherwise denounce the “lying media” or say things like “I don’t believe it unless the government denies it” or “how do you know when a politician is lying? when his lips are moving” seem to be more than willing to uncritically accept these ideological dogmas.

Furthermore, one key tenet of any honest quest for true moral values is that it be equally applied to all (if it ain’t – then it is, by definition, hypocrisy). Yet just try to mention something like “White is Beautiful” or, say, support the idea of a “National Association for the Advancement of White People” or wear a Tshirt with “White Lives Matter” on it and you will will be instantly branded a racist. Why? Because far from promoting real “equality” the modern liberal ideology really preaches Black superiority – a special status for Blacks which cannot be symmetrically granted to White (or any other) people. Furthermore, since most people agree “that beauty is in the eye of the beholder“, we can immediately conclude that the thesis “Black is Beautiful” is really an opinion, not an established fact. Presumably, it would imply the right to the opinion that “Black is not beautiful”, right? LOL, good luck with that! Again, this is a clear case of bias/hypocrisy and, most crucially, the categorical rejection of any dissenting opinion. Finally, what does the term “Black” even mean here? Does it only apply to US and Sub-Saharan Blacks (apparently so), or does it also include, say, Ethiopians, Somalis, Tamils or even Australian Aborigines? Does it also apply to dark skinned Greeks or Sicilians? Yet again, we see that the category “Black” is entirely meaningless (as it the category “White” or “Yellow” – by the way!).

Those who have read me in the past know that I don’t even accept the notion of “race” which, in my opinion, is wholly non-scientific. I also loathe the so-called “White nationalism” of the Alt-Rights & Co. which I consider as a rather primitive form of racism (which I defined under #4 here) and even a whitewashing of the Nazi ideology which is “pushed” by the deep-state (for details, please see my article here on this topic). Yet, following my previous article on this topic, I still had a few knuckleheads accusing me of, what else, “racism”. I think of these people as “pachinko brains”(“payazzo brains” would also work): they take each idea they come across as an “ideological ball” and they immediately assume that it absolutely *must* fall within one of a very limited set of categories. For them the simply fact of saying, for example, “the thesis about racial equality has never been properly defined, never mind proven” can only mean one thing: the person saying so is a racist. Period. No other options possible. What they obviously miss is that a person which does not even accept the notion of “race” cannot be a “racist”, but who cares about these logical niceties, right? Virtue-signaling is much, much more important than facts or logic, at least for pachinko-brains.

I strongly believe that the western media, especially the US media (Hollywood/Amazon/Neflix/etc) have literally brainwashed much of the poorly educated youth (and that is an understatement!) into a weird form of Black-anything worship, a cult-like certitude that everything Black deserves a grateful standing ovation. Hence the sudden appearance of Black cowboysBlack Celts and Vikings and even of the Black Knights of the Round Table who, apparently, were also Black. There is even a new term created for this kind of “creative re-writing of history”: color-blind casting. I am awaiting the first appearance of Black “Snow-Black” (as opposed to Snow-White) with impatience…

The Empire is universally hated, and not just for its (very real) racism

This would all be rather harmless and even comical if it weren’t for the “other side of the ideological coin”: the AngloZionist Empire has totally and comprehensively lost any kind of moral or political authority, both in the US and in the EU (as well as in the 5 Eyes nations and other US colonies like Germany or Japan). In the past, the AngloZionist Empire was just as evil as it is today, but at least it had the means to provide a high degree of material welfare to its citizens, but now that the Empire is falling apart and in a major economic crisis, more and more people are turning their rage against their own government or, maybe even more accurately, against the obscenely wealthy ruling classes which have a total control of the US and/or EU political scene.

Remember how George Orwell wrote in his masterpiece 1984 “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever“? I believe that a lot of people, Black and White, felt something similar when they saw the appalling footage of the slow murder of George Floyd by a gang of clearly stupid White cops. Yes, the image itself did not show Orwell’s boot, but the way that cop was crushing his knee into the neck of Floyd sent the same message “resistance is futile, we will crush you“. And many alienated and disenfranchised people (Black and White) felt a profound sense of outrage and even rage, hence the explosion of riots worldwide.

So where do we go from here?

Simply put, things are not going to get better. Neither the US (as the host of the Empire) nor the Empire itself (which is a parasite living off the US) are in any condition to reform themselves. This train has left a very long time ago (and it appears that 80% of US Americans agree with that). As long as the Empire (thought of as “The West”) still had some credibility left, it could at least pretend to be willing to right many undeniable wrongs without subverting itself in the process. After all, the best way to control a potentially dangerous opposition is to infiltrate it and then redirect it in a safe direction (that is basically the main role given to the Left wing of the Democratic Party and its pretend-revolutionaries leaders like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard: a glorified safety valve). Furthermore, the entire BLM movement – being both racist and violent – has exactly zero potential, even partially, to reform the Western society (abolishing police departments does not qualify). This does not mean, however, that it cannot greatly contribute to the final collapse of the Empire. After all, what we see today is that all the symbols of power of this society (politicians, cops, corporations, religious leaders, etc.) are “taking a knee” when faced with what any mentally sane society would immediately recognize as a textbook case of criminal rioting. And when one politician dares to appeal for a full restoration of law and order, he gets vilified along with the editor who dared to post it. In other words,

The Empire is taking a knee

This is not unlike what happened to the Soviet Union in the late 1980s when basically the entire ruling elite felt that it had lost any will to stand up against the opposition and when it became trendy to bash everything Soviet (much of which very much deserved such bashing, but not everything!). That state of affairs led to, first, the collapse of the soviet society Soviet Union in 1991 and, second, the collapse of the Russian society in 1993. The Soviet Union, just like the United States, was born from a bloodbath and for decades the Soviet leaders could use their police/security forces, and even the military, to crush any dissent, as in what happened in Novocherkassk massacre in 1962. Yet by 1991 and 1993 even the KGB special forces refused to take any action against the demonstrators. Why? Because by 1990 the Soviet Empire had also completely “taken a knee” before (a completely imagined and non-existing) the West just as the West today is “taking a knee” before (a completely imagined and non-existing Wakanda-like) Africa. Considering the evils which the West has wrought upon the African continent in general, and Sub-Saharan Africa especially, there is some karmic justice at work here, but this will be of very little consolation for all the people (irrespective of race) who are now suffering from the criminal mayhem of the BLM-inspired mobs (or from the violence of the police forces for that matter!).

So what can decent people do next?

Well, for one thing we don’t have to chose between White and Black racism. In fact, the only logical (and moral) stance today is to reject any and all forms of racism, very much including the Hollywood-promoted anti-White (and, I would add, anti-family, anti-male and anti-Christian) and pro-Black racism. And, crucially, we need to reject anti-White racism not because there is such a thing as a “White race” out there, but because the current anti-racist ideology is every bit as oppressive and intolerant as the racist anti-Black (and not only!) ideology of the heydays of the western Empire. The enemy of my enemy is NOT always my friend and between White-supremacists and Black-supremacists, the only morally correct choice is to categorically reject any and all forms of supremacism, even and especially the one which happens to be promoted by those who oppress us all: the (multi-ethnic) oppressive ruling classes of the Empire.

So let the Empire’s leaders take a knee if they want to: let them show their cowardice and hypocrisy.

We don’t have to. Yes, it takes much more courage to speak against the prevailing ideological dogmas than to meekly parrot the official narrative. That is the price to be paid for true, inner, freedom.

%d bloggers like this: