Two Years After the Start of the SMO, the West is Totally Paralyzed

February 24, 2024

Pepe Escobar

February 24, 2022 was the day that changed 21^st century geopolitics forever, Pepe Escobar writes.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Exactly two years ago this Saturday, on February 24, 2022, Vladimir Putin announced the launching – and described the objectives – of a Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine. That was the inevitable follow-up to what happened three days before, on February 21 – exactly 8 years after Maidan 2014 in Kiev – when Putin officially recognized the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.

During this – pregnant with meaning – short space of only three days, everyone expected that the Russian Armed Forces would intervene, militarily, to end the massive bombing and shelling that had been going on for three weeks across the frontline – which even forced the Kremlin to evacuate populations at risk to Russia. Russian intel had conclusive proof that the NATO-backed Kiev forces were ready to execute an ethnic cleansing of Russophone Donbass.

February 24, 2022 was the day that changed 21^st century geopolitics forever, in several complex ways. Above all, it marked the beginning of a vicious, all-out confrontation, “military-technical” as the Russians call it, between the Empire of Chaos, Lies and Plunder, its easily pliable NATOstan vassals, and Russia – with Ukraine as the battleground.

There is hardly any question Putin had calculated, before and during these three fateful days, that his decisions would unleash the unbounded fury of the collective West – complete with a tsunami of sanctions.

Ay, there’s the rub; it’s all about Sovereignty. And a true sovereign power simply cannot live under permanent threats. It’s even feasible that Putin had wanted (italics mine) Russia to get sanctioned to death. After all, Russia is so naturally wealthy that without a serious challenge from abroad, the temptation is enormous to live off its rents while importing what it could easily produce.

Exceptionalists always gloated that Russia is “a gas station with nuclear weapons”. That’s ridiculous. Oil and gas, in Russia, account for roughly 15% of GDP, 30% of the government budget, and 45% of exports. Oil and gas add power to the Russian economy – not a drag. Putin shaking Russia’s complacency generated a gas station producing everything it needs, complete with unrivalled nuclear and hypersonic weapons. Beat that.

Ukraine has “never been less than a nation”

Xavier Moreau is a French politico-strategic analyst based in Russia for 24 years now. Graduated from the prestigious Saint-Cyr military academy and with a Sorbonne diploma, he hosts two shows on RT France.

His latest book, Ukraine: Pourquoi La Russie a Gagné (“Ukraine: Why Russia has Won”), just out, is an essential manual for European audiences on the realities of the war, not those childish fantasies concocted across the NATOstan sphere by instant “experts” with less than zero combined arms military experience.

Moreau makes it very clear what every impartial, realist analyst was aware of from the beginning: the devastating Russian military superiority, which would condition the endgame. The problem, still, is how this endgame – “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine, as established by Moscow – will be achieved.

What is already clear is that “demilitarization”, of Ukraine and NATO, is a howling success that no new wunderwaffen – like F-16s – will be able to change.

Moreau perfectly understands how Ukraine, nearly 10 years after Maidan, is not a nation; “and has never been less than a nation”. It’s a territory where populations that everything separates are jumbled up. Moreover, it has been a – “grotesque” – failed state ever since its independence. Moreau spends several highly entertaining pages going through the corruption grotesquerie in Ukraine, under a regime that “gets its ideological references simultaneously via admirers of Stepan Bandera and Lady Gaga.”

None of the above, of course, is reported by oligarch-controlled European mainstream media.

Watch out for Deng Xiao Putin

The book offers an extremely helpful analysis of those deranged Polish elites who bear “a heavy responsibility in the strategic catastrophe that awaits Washington and Brussels in Ukraine”. The Poles actually believed that Russia would crumble from the inside, complete with a color revolution against Putin. That barely qualifies as Brzezinski on crack.

Moreau shows how 2022 was the year when NATOstan, especially the Anglo-Saxons – historically racist Russophobes –   were self-convinced thar Russia would fold because it is a “poor power”. Obviously, none of these luminaries understood how Putin strengthened the Russian economy very much like Deng Xiaoping on the Chinese economy. This “self-intoxication”, as Moreau qualifies it, did wonders for the Kremlin.

By now it’s clear even for the deaf, dumb, and blind that the destruction of the European economy has been a massive tactic, historic victory for the Hegemon – as much as the blitzkrieg against the Russian economy has been an abysmal failure.

All of the above brings us to the meeting of G20 Foreign Ministers this week in Rio. That was not exactly a breakthrough. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it very clear that the collective West at the G20 tried by all means to “Ukrainize” the agenda – with less than zero success. They were outnumbered and counterpunched by BRICS and Global South members.

At his press conference, Lavrov could not be more stark on the prospects of the war of the collective West against Russia. These are the highlights:

• Western countries categorically do not want serious dialogue on Ukraine.
• There were no serious proposals from the United States to begin contacts with the Russian Federation on strategic stability; trust cannot be restored now while Russia is declared an enemy.
• There were no contacts on the sidelines of the G20 with either Blinken or the British Foreign Secretary.
• The Russian Federation will respond to new Western sanctions with practical actions that relate to the self-sufficient development of the Russian economy.
• If Europe tries to restore ties with the Russian Federation, making it dependent on their whims, then such contacts are not needed.

In a nutshell – diplomatically: you are irrelevant, and we don’t care.

That was complementing Lavrov’s intervention during the summit, which defined once again a clear, auspicious path towards multipolarity. Here are the highlights:

• The forming of a fair multipolar world order without a definite center and periphery has become much more intensive in the past few years. Asian, African and Latin American countries are becoming important parts of the global economy. Not infrequently, they are setting the tone and the dynamics.
• Many Western economies, especially in Europe, are actually stagnating against this background. These statistics are from Western-supervised institutions – the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD.
• These institutions are becoming relics from the past. Western domination is already affecting their ability to meet the requirements of the times. Meanwhile, it is perfectly obvious today that the current problems of humanity can only be resolved through a concerted effort and with due consideration for the interests of the Global South and, generally, all global economic realities.
• Institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, the EBRD, and the EIB are prioritizing Kiev’s military and other needs. The West allocated over $250 billion to tide over its underling thus creating funding shortages in other parts of the world. Ukraine is taking up the bulk of the funds, relegating Africa and other regions of the Global South to rationing.
• Countries that have discredited themselves by using unlawful acts ranging from unilateral sanctions and the seizure of sovereign assets and private property to blockades, embargoes, and discrimination against economic operators based on nationality to settle scores with their geopolitical opponents cannot be considered guarantors of financial stability.
• Without a doubt, new institutions that focus on consensus and mutual benefit are needed to democratize the global economic governance system. Today, we are seeing positive dynamics for strengthening various alliances, including BRICS, the SCO, ASEAN, the African Union, LAS, CELAC, and the EAEU.
• This year, Russia chairs BRICS, which saw several new members join it. We will do our best to reinforce the potential of this association and its ties with the G20.
• Considering that 6 out of 15 UN Security Council members represent the Western bloc, we will support the expansion of this body solely through the accession of countries from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Call it the real state of things, geopolitically, two years after the start of the SMO.

Moscow and Gaza: Is Russia Ready for a Major Shift in its Middle East Policy?

DECEMBER 12, 2023

Image by Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

BY RAMZY BAROUD

Gaza was among the main topics on the agenda of Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrived in the Middle East region on Wednesday, December 6.

Some news reports referred to the trip as ‘rare’, especially since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war in February 2022.

We know that the situation in Gaza, namely the Israeli war and the subsequent genocide, is a major objective in Putin’s visit, based on press statements from Russia’s official media.

But we do not know, yet, exactly how Gaza factored in, in Putin’s one-day visit.

Putin’s visit included the UAE and Saudi Arabia, two of the richest and most economically influential Arab countries, which are, like Russia, members of OPEC+ – the larger and most influential group of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Oil prices, energy supplies and the fractious security of the Red Sea waterways are reportedly also part of Putin’s agenda. However, it is unlikely that the Russian president has initiated such an important visit to discuss any of these issues.

Indeed, fluctuating oil prices and achieving OPEC+ consensus regarding production levels have been ongoing issues linking Russia to the Middle East for years, especially since the start of the Ukraine war, which invited unprecedented US-Western sanctions.

But what does Putin have to say about Gaza, in particular?

In the early phase of the Israeli war with the Palestinian Resistance in the besieged Gaza Strip, Russia had taken a guarded position, condemning the targeting of civilians, while calling for a comprehensive political solution.

But, days later, Moscow’s position began evolving into a stronger stance, namely condemning the Israeli war on Gaza, Washington’s blind support for Tel Aviv and the US’ intransigence during UN Security Council meetings.

President Putin, on October 13, compared Israel’s besiegement of the Gaza Strip to the Nazi siege of Leningrad in 1941. “In my view it is unacceptable, more than two million people live there. Far from all of them support Hamas, by the way, far from all. But all of them have to suffer, including women and children,” he said.

Moscow’s UN ambassador, Vasily Nebenzia, has repeatedly attempted, to no avail, to pass a UNSC resolution demanding an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. His efforts culminated to nil due to US refusal, backed by equally strong rejection of other Western allies of Israel.

Despite his unsuccessful efforts, Nebenzia has used the UNSC as a platform to declare Russia’s progressively strong stances against the Israeli war, going as far as questioning Israel’s long-touted ‘right to defend itself’.

“All they (the West) can do is to keep (talking) about Israel’s alleged right for self-defense, which, as an occupying state, it does not have, as was confirmed by the (UN) International Court consultative ruling in 2004,” Nebenzia said on November 2.

Following the US shameful use of the veto power to block the passing of a UNSC resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the Russian representative Dmitry Polyanskiy stated: “Our American colleagues have condemned thousands – if not tens of thousands – more civilians (..) including women and children, to death, along with the UN workers who are trying to help them.”

But for various reasons, the Russian position did not evolve beyond political rhetoric, however strong, into any tangible strategies.

The typical explanation for Russia’s inability to formulate a practical strategy regarding Gaza is its lack of any serious diplomatic or political capital beyond the current war on Ukraine; and that Moscow was fully aware of the Middle East’s delicate geopolitical balances.

But things began to change – not in Moscow, but in Gaza itself.

Over two months into a war that has resulted in the killing of more than 17,000 civilians, so far, Tel Aviv is finally discovering the limits of its military power.

Moreover, the war gradually began to destabilize the Middle East, involving state and powerful non-state actors, many of whom are close allies to Moscow and protectors of Russian interests in the region.

They include Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ansarallah in Yemen, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq and, of course, Hamas itself.

As a sign of closer relationship between Hamas and Russia, the Palestinian movement has released all Israeli captives with dual Israeli-Russian citizenship.

It has done so without a formal prisoner swap agreement, like the ones that have been mediated through Qatar and Egypt, resulting in the release of scores of Israelis and hundreds of Palestinians, starting on November 24.

Surely, Putin’s visit to the Middle East carries greater meaning than the mere ‘emphasis on the strong relationships’ between Russia and a few Arab countries. This meaning is compounded by the immediate visit to Moscow by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi on December 7, also with the sole purpose of discussing the situation in Gaza.

Is it possible that Russia has finally found a geostrategic opportunity in the Middle East that would allow it to expand, in terms of its strategic alliances and political role, beyond Syria?

This expansion must appear as an attractive opportunity for Moscow, especially as early signs of Israeli military failure and, by extent, American failure, in Gaza are becoming unmistakably clear.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is expected to deliver an important speech at the 21st Doha Forum in Qatar on December 10.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, was quoted by the TASS news agency on December 6 as confirming that Lavrov will be discussing the war in Gaza and the overall situation in Palestine and in the Middle East.

“The minister will pay special attention to the problem of Palestinian-Israeli settlement, of course, and security issues in the Middle East,” she said.

None of this, including the potential new Russian ‘vision’ in the Middle East, would have been possible if it were not for the Israeli-US inability to defeat small Resistance groups in a tiny, besieged region like Gaza.

Aside from the setback of the Israeli military machine, which has been financed and sustained by Washington, the genocide in Gaza has cost the US whatever little political credibility it still enjoyed in the Middle East.

Time will tell whether Russia will be able to stake a claim and help define a new Middle East in the post-Gaza war.

However, one of the most important factors that Russia will consider before making any major moves is the tangible outcome of the Israeli war on Gaza.

And, unlike most Israeli wars against Palestinians and Arabs in the past, this time around it seems that Palestinian Resistance – despite its very limited capabilities in the face of a powerful Israel-US military machine – is the one most likely to control the outcomes.

RELATED NEWS

• Fascism 101 for Today’s Geopolitics
• Moscow and Gaza: Is Russia Ready for a Major Shift in its Middle East Policy?
• Gaza: Israeli Barbarism With US Support
• The View from Washington: Let the Killing in Gaza Continue
• Israel, Gaza, and the Struggle for Oil
• The War in Gaza and the Crisis of Zionism
• Solidarity Against Anti-Palestinian Hate Crimes
• Doctors Plead for an End to Gaza’s Massacre
• Israeli Government’s War Crimes – Enabled & Defended by Biden & Congress
• Strong Job Growth Pushes Unemployment Rate Down to 3.7 Percent
•  “Practices for Care and Endurance” Support Those Organizing for Ceasefire in Gaza
• Killing Children, the Burdens of Conscience, and the Israel-Hamas War
• From Chongqing to Gaza’s Mass Assassination Factory
• Dying to Be Free: Releasing Palestinian Captives is Not a Numbers Game 
• “The Greatest Number of Jews Killed Since the Holocaust”
• Here We Go Again: America’s War for the Greater Middle East (Cont.)
• Beltway Geniuses Keep Flinging Russia and China into Each Other’s Arms
• Thresholds of Dialogue with Hamas and Russia

US sees Ukrainian army demoralized, no chance to win: Seymour Hersh

21 Sep 2023

Source: Agencies

Ukrainian soldiers ride an APC on the front line near Bakhmut, in the Donetsk region, on June 5, 2023. (

By Al Mayadeen English

Hersh also notes there is no interest in peace talks Ukraine’s claims of incremental progress in the offensive constitute of “all lies”.

Citing a US official familiar with current intelligence, US journalist Seymour Hersh said that the US intelligence believes that the Ukrainian forces have become demoralized and have no chance of winning, adding that there currently exists no discussion in Kiev or the White House regarding a ceasefire.

In a new post on his Substack account, Hersh said, “There are significant elements in the American intelligence community, relying on field reports and technical intelligence, who believe that the demoralized Ukraine army has given up on the possibility of overcoming the heavily mined three-tier Russian defense lines and taking the war to Crimea and the four oblasts seized and annexed by Russia. The reality is that Volodymyr Zelensky’s battered army no longer has any chance of a victory”. 

Hersh also noted there is no interest in peace talks. Quoting the official, Hersh continued that Ukraine’s claims of incremental progress in the offensive constitute of “all lies”.

Related News

• Looming US government shutdown leaves over half of Americans in fear
• China achieved what US failed at: Good Latin American ties – Report

Read more: Hersh: Majority of the world supports Russia in war in Ukraine

The renowned investigative journalist reported last month that the CIA informed US Secretary of State Antony Blinken that the Ukrainian counteroffensive would not likely yield results.

This information, said Hersh, came from a US intelligence official, who stated more specifically, that “the word was getting to him [Blinken] through the Agency [CIA] that the Ukrainian offense was not going to work. It was a show by Zelensky and there were some in the administration who believed his bullshit.”

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has been calling on his Western allies for months to provide his military with long-range missiles, arguing that this could drastically improve the outcome of the counteroffensive. But before that, it was the anti-air missiles, the advanced offense tanks, heavily armored troop carriers, and the HIMARS system.

Ukraine is depleting resources at an unsustainable rate, firing 90,000 artillery rounds per month when the Pentagon is only capable of producing a third of that number, while also losing around 20 percent of NATO-provided weapons – that were either destroyed or damaged – within the first two weeks of the counteroffensive, which saw very limited ground gains since it was launched almost three months ago.

Russia & NATO

As the Draconian Western-led sanctions on Russia exacerbate the economic crisis worldwide, and as Russian troops gain more ground despite the influx of military aid into Ukraine, exposing US direct involvement in bio-labs spread across Eastern Europe and the insurgence of neo-Nazi groups… How will things unfold?

Petrodollar be warned: Three Persian Gulf energy powers just joined BRICS

AUG 28, 2023

The BRICS revealed its geopolitical priorities when it added three Persian Gulf states to its once exclusive roster of members. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have been strategically included to put an end to the petrodollar.

MK Bhadrakumar

The leitmotif of the BRICS Summit meeting in Johannesburg on 22-24 August has been, expectedly, the expansion of the group to include six more member states. While this itself is a stand-alone event, in reality, it dovetails nicely into the group’s core agenda of global multipolarity and the creation of a fairer international trade and finance architecture that is crucial to economic growth. 

The Johannesburg II Declaration adopted at the end of the summit modestly mentions toward the very end of the document that the addition of six more members stemmed out of a “consensus on the guiding principles, standards, criteria and procedures of the BRICS expansion process.”

However, the list of six countries – Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE – also gives away some other important clues. For starters, this BRICS consensus is anchored in a profound Russian-Chinese understanding. Also, the BRICS is declaring itself to be a non-western grouping. There is no question that BRICS ascribes the highest importance to Africa and the Persian Gulf region, with Egypt and Ethiopia, the two ancient civilization-states, as the “lynchpin.” 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later disclosed that the “consensus” was reached through some “lively discussions” and some serious considerations:

“The weight, prominence and importance of the candidates and their international standing were the primary factors for us. It is our shared view that we must recruit like-minded countries into our ranks that believe in a multipolar world order and the need for more democracy and justice in international relations. We need those who champion a bigger role for the Global South in global governance. Six countries whose accession was announced today fully meet these criteria.”

The BRICS expansion process was thought to be very controversial, but the unity of the group held nicely. The mother of all surprises has been India’s shift to a proactive role, belying all western predictions. This creates a new ambiance for the India-China relationship, as President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi indeed broke the ice. 

With so much focus on West Asia and Africa, Brazil may have seemed like an outlier, but Argentina’s inclusion calmed Brazil’s sense of unease; China sought Ethiopia’s inclusion; Russia wanted Egypt’s inclusion. India, too was gratified that it enjoys historically friendly and close relations with all six newcomers. 

Credit for this may need to go to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, whose diplomatic skill and sheer perseverance put together the algorithm behind the BRICS expansion. 

Lavrov has visited Pretoria no less than four times after Russia’s special military operations [SMO] began in February last year. To be sure, the Kremlin’s hearts and minds machine was steaming ahead: South Africa hosted a joint military exercise with Russia on the first anniversary of the SMO, and President Cyril Ramaphosa visited Moscow twice this year. Simply put, he held President Vladimir Putin’s hands as Russia asserted its “non-isolation.” The BRICS summit’s outcome bears testimony to it. 

Unravelling of the petrodollar  

But what truly stands out in the BRICS expansion is the preponderance of member states from the Persian Gulf region — Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran. 

So, what has been the game plan in bringing on board three of the world’s most important energy superpowers? Putin has voiced more than once the Russian assessment that for a long time to come, the world economy, including the western economies, cannot do without hydrocarbons as a major source of energy to run efficient, cost-effective means of production. 

Russia and Saudi Arabia alone account for a quarter of the world’s oil production. Russia and Iran hold the world’s first and second-largest gas reserves in the world. 

If the Ukraine war has shown anything, it is that countries rich in commodities cannot be browbeaten. The issue here is about the willingness and space that these resource-rich states enjoyed to exercise their strategic autonomy. The Cold War era didn’t allow for any space. But the co-relation of forces has dramatically changed, especially as the post-Cold War “unipolar moment” has vanished. 

Saudi Arabia and the UAE exemplify this best. Having been close US allies for decades, they are now diversifying their external relations, including with China and Russia, whom Washington regards as sworn enemies. Iran, too, under the burden of extreme US and EU sanctions, today boasts a strategic partnership with both Moscow and Beijing. 

The salience here is that these three oil-producing countries are also open to trading oil in non-dollar currencies. What the US did to Russia last year by seizing its hundreds of billions of dollar reserves sent shock waves all across the so-called petrodollar states of the Persian Gulf and beyond.  

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov expressed satisfaction a few weeks ago that the process of de-dollarization in the global economy “is going relentlessly. The use of national currencies has already become a reality now, a reality growing at a global scale. Not merely countries facing sanction restrictions but also the ones not facing them are resorting to this practice – they understand the benefits of this regime in the foreign economic [activity].” 

In fact, in July, “non-sanctioned” India and the UAE signed an agreement to settle trade in rupees instead of dollars, boosting India’s efforts to cut transaction costs by eliminating dollar conversions. One needs only to know that India-UAE bilateral trade last year was a whopping $84.5 billion. The first transactions between the two countries under the new agreement, including in oil and gold, have already commenced. 

All indications are that the possible creation of a single BRICS currency figured in the discussions in Johannesburg. Putin made a reference to it in his media statement, saying: “I believe that a single settlement currency definitely deserves our attention. This is a complex issue, but we have to move towards resolving it in one way or another.” 

There is every likelihood that this complex discussion will advance through the next two BRICS summits in 2024 and 2025 under the presidency of Russia and Brazil, respectively, two member states that are supportive of the idea of a common currency. 

In sum, with the induction of the three major oil-producing nations of the Persian Gulf, BRICS 2023 will mark the beginning of the petrodollar’s unraveling. This is a huge step toward a multipolar world. The new settlement mechanisms, common currency, et al, will steadily dethrone the dollar, liberating the world economy from the clutches of the US Federal Reserve. 

Fortifying the Global South

The rationale behind the induction of the three West Asian oil states — along with Egypt and Ethiopia — can also be assessed in terms of the imperatives of regional connectivity with the African continent, which Russia and China regard as being on the cusp of a historic economic transformation. By 2050, manufacturing spending alone is projected to reach $1 trillion in Africa, offering tremendous opportunities for global businesses.

But effective intra-African integration will be critical to the continent’s economic transformation. Russia hopes to connect the Persian Gulf region to the International North–South Transport Corridor, a 7,200-km-long multi-mode network of ship, rail, and road route for moving freight, and extend it further beyond to the African market. 

Moscow is discussing with Cairo the establishment of a special economic zone in the vicinity of the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia is expanding a sweeping railway network connecting the north and south. A string of new ports is being planned along the Saudi and Emirati coastline.  

In the final analysis, the big question is whether what took place in Johannesburg is the expansion of BRICS as a “stand-alone” event. Certainly, the overnight appearance of six important states under its canopy – who will assume full BRICS membership from 1 January, 2024 – short-circuited all procedural, protracted procedures as is customary in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) or the European Union. 

The sense of urgency is palpable. No questions asked; no interrogation ensued; no compliance report expected from the new hand-picked member states. The countries, each a regional power with its own credentials, simply walked into a red carpet welcome. 

To be sure, much confabulation and quiet discussions between Russia and China paved the way. Russians are superb in distinguishing tactics from strategy, and in this case, they happen to blend with the world order that Moscow has been espousing. 

Taken together with the profound reform of trade and payments that is already in the works, what is happening is no less than the replacement of the international trading system that has been governed exclusively by the west for the past few centuries with the objective of transferring wealth from the rest of the world to their manicured “garden.” Unless the collective west shows the sagacity to adjust to new realities, weeds may soon start taking over its “garden” and turn it into a jungle. Europe’s economic recovery is going to be challenging.

Turbulent times ahead

In sum, the historical significance of the BRICS expansion needs to be weighed in the following terms: First, Iran and two erstwhile US regional allies, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, get much-needed space to negotiate an equal relationship with Washington based on mutual respect and benefit. Make no mistake, they are in a mood to capitalize on it. 

Second, the western dominance of West Asia is ending, in a historical sense, heralding a profound shift in the regional order. The process that China kickstarted – with quiet Russian support from behind the curtain – in mediating the Saudi-Iranian reconciliation will now advance toward its logical conclusion sooner rather than later. 

This means that the west’s colonial mindset of “divide and rule” will have no takers anymore among regional states. Thus, what happened in Johannesburg would be consequential for Israel and Turkey as well. 

Finally, most importantly, the de-dollarization process, which would have moved at a snail’s pace, will now accelerate. What Putin had warned when the Biden administration imposed the “sanctions from hell” against Russia — especially its ouster from the SWIFT payment system —namely, that there would be a very heavy price to pay by the United States, is coming true. The blowback is only beginning in the international financial and trading system. 

The west simply cannot win in the looming confrontation with the Global Majority. And the transition can be addressed by Washington only through reconciliation with Moscow and Beijing, not an easy poison for the Americans to swallow. 

That will have to begin with an end to the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and a retreat or abandonment of the attempt to fuel tensions with China over Taiwan. On the other hand, any change of course in the US strategy away from its belligerent militarized policies will have long-term implications for the entire US-led western alliance system, while in the short term, impacting President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign, too. The humiliating defeat in the Ukraine war cannot be covered up any longer.  

The times ahead will be turbulent as the old, self-centered, hegemonic western mindset won’t surrender easily. As for the entrenched interest groups in the US and Europe, their basic instinct will be to manufacture delaying tactics to stall the march of history. But it won’t work if BRICS stays the course.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

How US sanctions backfire, erode the Western order imposing them: FP

24 Jul 2023

Source: Foreign Policy

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi shakes hands with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, Venezuela, on Monday, June 12, 2023. (AP)

By Al Mayadeen English

By 2021, according to US Treasury Department’s report, the United States had sanctions on more than 9,000 individuals, companies, and sectors of targeted economies.

According to a Foreign Policy article, sanctions have become a go-to-foreign policy tool of the West, particularly the US.

Numerous nations, including Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela, all for a plethora of reasons are stacked together in what the authors call a “family photo” of those “named and shamed” by the US.

Databases by Colombia University and Princeton University indicate that the US has more than 20 countries sanctioned, implying that financial and commercial interactions with certain firms, persons, and, in many cases, the governments, are prohibited by US law.

By 2021, according to U.S. Treasury Department’s report, the United States had sanctions on more than 9,000 individuals, companies, and sectors of targeted country economies. In Joe Biden’s first year in office, the administration sanctioned 765 new designations globally, including 173 related to alleged human rights. The countries subject to some form of US sanctions collectively account for a little more than one-fifth of global GDP. China represents 80 percent of that group.

According to the article, a rising alliance of nations is attempting to change the rules of the global financial system, owing primarily to the pervasiveness of US sanctions, citing that it’s past time to evaluate how these punitive measures are undermining the very Western system they’re supposed to protect.

China, in particular, has the economic weight, growing diplomatic power, currency stability, and liquidity to press for further worldwide adoption of the renminbi and Chinese financial systems, such as the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System.

Political scientist Daniel W. Drezner and columnist Agathe Demarais recently published arguments in the Foreign Policy regarding how governments sanctioned by the US have utilized loopholes to undermine measures, such as de-dollarization.

China also offers a substantial and profitable market for sanctioned nations’ exports, such as Venezuelan, Russian, or Iranian oil and gas. Despite the fact that many of the rerouted business marketplaces are costly and inefficient, they offer enough rent to maintain the targeted governments.

The authors argue that these financial arrangements driven by China pose enormous systemic threats to the United States and its allies.

One example is the growing number of non-sanctioned nations in the Global South adopting a parallel anti-sanction international economy. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva reiterated his support for a BRICS trade currency (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), emphasizing how a dollar-dominated global economy means that the US uses its supremacy to pursue punishing foreign policy. 

Only two nations are sanctioned inside the BRICS group, which at least a half-dozen other growing economies are vying to join: China and Russia.

At the third annual forum, Strong Ideas For A New Time, organized by the Russian Agency for Strategic Initiatives (ASI), Russian President Vladimir Putin underscored that the exit of foreign companies from Russia due to sanctions has not only failed to weaken the nation but on the contrary it strengthened it.

The other three, in particular India, are countries the United States has growing partnerships with and are thus unlikely to come under US sanctions anytime soon. In other words, even US partners are hedging their bets against Washington’s extraterritorial sanctions policies.

Lula’s intentions signify an increasing desire in the Global South to break free from the US dollar, and according to the authors, the time has come for Washington to “recognize that its love of sanctions may be undermining its own economic and diplomatic power worldwide.”

When governments default on their debts or appear to be on the verge of default, significant institutional lenders will seek to transfer that debt to other investors in secondary debt markets for a fraction of the price. 

A foolish gamble

Venezuela’s example is a clear one. Caracas defaulted on $60 billion in foreign debt in 2017 after failing to make $200 million in payments to creditors. Venezuela’s debt has escalated since then as interest has accumulated. Venezuela’s GDP fell by three-quarters between 2014 and 2021, with inflation reaching an estimated annualized rate of more than one million percent at one stage.

Three months before the default, President Donald Trump placed fresh sanctions on Venezuela, preventing President Nicolas Maduro’s return to US capital markets to obtain new funds to roll over its debt. 

As Venezuela’s default and the economic crisis carried on, many of the initial institutional holders of Venezuelan bonds in the United States—including pension funds and trusts—moved to dump the dangerous debt at low, distorted prices, the article argues. 

According to one source at Mangart Capital, a Swiss hedge fund, 75 percent of Venezuela’s original debt in 2017 was owned by US interests; that figure is now thought to be about 35 percent to 40 percent.

Due to US investors being unable to purchase the debt, it defaulted to other buyers from China, Iran, and Russia.

Therefore, the US can bid farewell to any hopes of removing the Venezuelan government and installing a pro-Western one with the new bondholders.

Many of Caracas’ debts have been securitized using assets from the country’s vast oil and gas reserves. By purchasing such funds, new investors are investing not just in Venezuela’s bankruptcy and recovery, but also in its energy assets, and hence in global energy security.

The authors note that all this taken into consideration, US officials still may not reconsider their position toward sanctions.

Sanctions have become a vital instrument of the US, regardless of whether they benefit or harm long-term US interests. They are a form of virtue signaling that allows politicians to demonstrate that they are doing something when confronted with a particular issue.

Worryingly for the US, previous sanctions have simply resulted in a strengthened coalition among targeted governments, as seen in Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela. 

Much of this will need a sober willingness on the part of officials from both parties to accept a simple fact: Sanctions do not always work. In many situations, they intentionally undermine US interests.

What happens in Russia after The Longest Day?

June 27 2023

Photo Credit: The Cradle

By Pepe Escobar

Following Wagner’s ‘rebellion’ – which was nothing more than a blatant coup attempt, and a PR stunt demonstrated by Prighozin’s top-notch theatrics – NATO and the Collective West’s excitement over the possibility of Russia descending into chaos and civil war were quickly turned into utter disappointment.

The first draft of the extraordinary events that took place in Russia on The Longest Day – Saturday, June 24 – leads us to a whole new can of worms.    

The Global Majority badly wants to know what happens next. Let’s examine the key pieces in the chessboard.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is cutting to the chase: he has reminded everyone that the Hegemon’s modus operandi is to back coup attempts whenever it can benefit. This dovetails with the fact that the FSB is actively investigating whether and how Western intel was involved in The Longest Day.

President Putin could not have been more unequivocal: 

“They [the West and Ukraine] wanted Russian soldiers to kill each other, so that soldiers and civilians would die, so that in the end Russia would lose, and our society would break apart and choke on bloody civil strife (…) They rubbed their hands, dreaming of getting revenge for their failures at the front and during the so-called counter-offensive, but they miscalculated.” 

Cue to the collective West – from Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on down – frantically trying to distance itself even as the CIA leaked, via its trademark mouthpiece, the Washington Post, that they knew about “the rebellion.” 

The agenda was painfully obvious: Kiev losing on all fronts would be ritually buried by wall-to-wall coverage of the fake Russian “civil war.”

There’s no smoking gun – yet. But the FSB is following several leads to demonstrate how the “the rebellion” was set up by CIA/NATO. The spectacular failure makes the upcoming NATO July 11 summit in Vilnius even more incandescent. 

The Chinese, much like Lavrov, also cut to the chase: the Global Times asserted that the idea of “Wagner’s revolt weakening Putin’s authority is wishful thinking of the West,” with the Kremlin’s “strong capacity of deterrence” further increasing its authority. That’s exactly the reading of the Russian street.  

The Chinese reached their conclusion after a crucial visit by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Rudenko, who promptly flew to Beijing on Sunday, June 25. This is how the iron-clad strategic partnership works in practice.  

“The rebellion” as a P.R. stunt

Arguably the best explanation so far of the nuts and bolts of The Longest Day has been offered by Rostislav Ischenko.

The Global Majority will rejoice that Prighozin’s theatrics, in the end, left the collective West dazed, confused, and shattered: wasn’t the whole thing supposed to unleash total chaos inside Russian society and the army? 

Even as the fake, lightning-quick “mutiny” was in progress, Russia continued to pound Kiev’s forces – which, by the way, were spinning that the main phase of the “counter-offensive” was being launched exactly on June 24 at night. That was, predictably, yet another bluff.    

Back to the Russian street. “The rebellion” – inbuilt in a very convoluted plot – in the end was widely interpreted as just another military demonstration (by master of ceremonies Prighozin, not by the overwhelming majority of Wagner soldiers). “The rebellion” turned out to be a Western P.R. stunt, a series of (ultimately faded) pictures for global consumption.  

But now things are bound to get way more serious. 

Lavrov, once again, pointed to the role being played by the ever-self-aggrandized Le Petit Roi, Emmanuel Macron, right up there with the United States: “Macron clearly saw in the developments an opportunity to realize the threat of Ukraine dealing Russia a strategic blow, a mantra NATO leaders have been holding onto.”

So just like Kiev and the collective Western media, Lavrov added, Macron remains part of a single “machine” working against Moscow. That ties up with Putin, who stated of Macron’s Sunday intervention that “the entire Western military, economic and information machine has been set in motion against us.” 

And that’s a fact. 

Betting on a “long-term economic blockade”

Another fact adds to the more ominous clouds on the horizon.  

While no one was paying attention, a mini-Congress of national security officials took place in Copenhagen exactly on the fateful 24 and 25 of June.

They were arguably discussing “peace in Ukraine.” The chairman was none other than US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.  

Present at the meeting were Brazil, Germany, the U.K., France, Italy, Denmark, India, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, South Africa, Japan, Ukraine – and the proverbial Eurocrat of the non-sovereign EU. 

Note the G7 majority, side by side with three BRICS and two aspiring BRICS+ members.

“Peace in Ukraine” means, in this context, the so-called 10-point “Zelensky peace plan,” which implies a total Russian strategic defeat – complete with the restoration of Ukraine within the borders of 1991 and payment of colossal “reparations” by Moscow.

No wonder China was not part of it. Yet three BRICS – call them the weakest nodes – were there. BRICS and BRICS+ prospective members compose the six “swing states” which will be relentlessly courted and/or submitted to hardcore Hybrid Wars by the Hegemon to “behave” when it comes to Ukraine: Brazil, India, South Africa, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia.  

Then there’s the 11^th EU sanctions package, which is taking the economic war against Russia to a whole new level, as attested by Acting Permanent Representative to the EU, Kirill Logvinov.

Logvinov explained how “Brussels intends to drag as many countries as possible into this war (…) There is a clear shift from a failed blitzkrieg, which was said to be aimed at causing irreparable damage to Russia, to a multi-move game with the goal of establishing a kind of long-term economic blockade against our country.”

That’s undiluted Hybrid War territory – and the key targets are the six “swing states.” 

Logvinov remarked how “the EU always prefers to use blackmail and coercion. Since the EU remains the biggest economic partner for many countries, as well as a source of investment and a financial donor, Brussels clearly has enough leverage to exert pressure. So, the EU’s fight against the bypassing of sanctions is expected to be lengthy and uncompromising.”

So welcome to extraterritorial sanctions, EU-style, blacklisting companies from third countries “suspected” of re-exporting banned goods to Russia or engaged in oil trade without taking the so-called Russian oil price cap into account.

Fun in the Belarussian sun 

Among so many cheap thrills, what will be the next role of the main actor in The Longest Day (and even before)? And does it matter? 

Chinese scholars are fond of reminding us that during China’s periods of turmoil – for instance, at the end of the Han and Tang dynasties – the reason was always warlords not following orders from the Emperor.  

The Ottoman Empire’s Janissaries – their Wagner at the time – were meant to protect the Sultan and fight his wars. They ended up deciding who could be Sultan – as much as Roman Empire legionaries ended up deciding who would be Emperor. 

Chinese advice is always prescient: Beware of how you use your soldiers. Make sure they believe in what they’re fighting for. Otherwise, they’ll turn around to bite you.

And that leads us to Prighozin once again changing his story (he’s a specialist on the matter).  

He’s now saying that June 23-24 was just a mere “demonstration” to express his discontent. The main objective was to prove the superiority of Wagner over the Russian Army. 

Well, everybody knew about that: Wagner soldiers have been in combat day in, day out for over 10 years now in Libya, Syria, the Central African Republic, and Ukraine.

And that’s why he could boast that “Wagner advanced for 700 km without meeting any resistance. If Russia had asked them to be in charge of the war from the beginning, that would have been over by the night of February 24, 2022.”

Prighozin is also alluding to a deal with Belarus – laying extra fog of war around a possible transfer of Wagner under Belarus jurisdiction. NATO is already terrified in advance. Expect more ballooning military budgets – to be imposed at the Vilnius summit next month. 

Camps to accommodate at least 8,000 Wagner fighters are already being built in Belarus, in the Mogilev region – according to “Vyorstka” (“Layout”). 

The real story behind it is that Belarus, for quite a while, has been expecting a possible attack from rabid Poland. In parallel, as much as sending NATO into extra freakout mode, Moscow could be contemplating the opening of a new front between Lviv and Kiev.  

Wagner in Belarus makes total sense. The Belarussian Army is not exactly strong. Wagner secures Russia’s western front. That will raise major hell on NATO – even figuratively, and force them to spend even more astronomical sums. And Wagner can merrily use airports in Belarus to pursue its – rebranded – activities in West Asia and Africa.  

Everything that happened since The Longest Day is part of a new dramatic plot twist in a running series – way more gripping than whatever Netflix could offer. 

Yet what the majority of Russian public opinion really seems to expect is not another farcical Ride of the Valkyrie. They expect a serious draining of the Soviet-style bureaucratic swamp, and a real commitment to get this “almost war” to its logical conclusion as quickly as possible.     

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Leaked Pentagon Docs Say Russia Can Keep Funding Ukraine War Despite Sanctions

A US assessment says Russia’s economic elite will likely not withdraw their support for Putin

April 26, 2023

by Dave DeCamp 

Leaked US military documents show the US believes Russia will be able to continue funding its war in Ukraine for at least another year despite Western sanctions, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

The assessments were part of a trove of documents allegedly released by Jack Teixeira, an Air National guardsman who faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted for the leaks.

According to the Post, the leaked documents show that Russia’s economic elite are unlikely to withdraw support for Russian President Vladimir Putin even if they don’t agree entirely on the actions in Ukraine and have taken a hit from US sanctions.

“Moscow is relying on increased corporate taxes, its sovereign wealth fund, increased imports and businesses adaptability to help mitigate economic pressures,” the assessment reads.

The Post said the documents are marked with a code that suggests the intelligence was gathered by intercepting private conversations held by Russians on limiting the impact of sanctions.

While Russia’s economy took a major hit from Western sanctions, Moscow’s efforts to shield itself from the US-led economic campaign has kept its currency strong and allowed energy exports to keep flowing.

In the early days of the invasion, President Biden bragged that sanctions turned the Russian ruble into “rubble,” but it quickly bounced back and was one of the strongest-performing currencies of 2022. The ruble is currently at similar levels to how it was performing before the invasion.

Russia has also found new markets for its oil in Asia, and its oil revenue has continued to soar despite the G7’s attempts to place a price cap on Russian crude. The US is pushing other G7 nations to agree on new sanctions that would ban all exports to Russia but is facing pushback from the EU and Japan.

Author: Dave DeCamp

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave. 

• View all posts by Dave DeCamp
• Russia can fund war in Ukraine for another year despite sanctions, leaked document says
• Russia Takes Control of Two Western Firms in Retaliatory Move
• Britain Confirms Depleted Uranium Munitions are Now in Ukraine
• Zelensky Holds ‘Meaningful’ Call With China’s Xi Jinping

The US balks at thriving UAE-Russia relations

April 21 2023

The leak of classified documents suggesting Emirati-Russian intel against the US has caused uncertainty about the future of US-UAE relations amid significant shifts in the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf.

Photo Credit: The Cradle

By Stasa Salacanin

The leak of highly classified Pentagon documents, including reports of the UAE’s alleged intelligence collusion with Russia against the US and UK, has captured headlines both regionally and globally.

According to the US intel reports leaked to the Associated Press, a document implicating the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) entitled “Russia/UAE: Intelligence Relationship Deepening” states:

“FSB officials claimed UAE security service officials and Russia had agreed to work together against US and UK intelligence agencies, according to newly acquired signals intelligence.”

However, while US officials have declined to comment on the document, the Emirati government has vehemently denied any such accusation, calling it “categorically false.”

Although it is impossible to verify the authenticity of the leaked report, western officials and analysts have nonetheless been closely following increased cooperation between Abu Dhabi and Moscow, particularly since the outbreak of conflict in Ukraine.

Ties flourish between Russia and UAE

The claims are certainly credible, as close personal ties exist between the Kremlin and the Emirati ruling elite, and the two governments share similar views on several regional issues. The war in Ukraine has further boosted mutual commercial ties and cooperation between the Russia and the UAE, with non-oil trade increasing by 57 percent during the first nine months of the last year.

In early December 2022, Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Andrey Belousov estimated that mutual trade between Russia and the UAE will exceed $7.5 billion by the end of 2022 compared with $5.5 billion in 2021, reaching an all-time record in the history of their trade relations.

Additionally, UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan’s (MbZ) decision to support the OPEC+ move to slash oil production by two million barrels a day (bpd) in October despite pressure from the US and other countries, has been greatly praised by Kremlin.

It’s worth noting that the emirate of Dubai has witnessed an uptick in investments from affluent Russians, as real estate purchases by Russian nationals in Dubai surged by 67 percent year-on-year. Furthermore, the UAE continues to rank high on the list of preferred travel destinations for Russians, with over a million Russians having visited or relocated to the Emirates in 2022 – an impressive 60 percent increase from the previous year.

In light of the UAE having emerged as a significant destination for wealthy Russians seeking to circumvent western-imposed sanctions, Andreas Krieg, an associate professor at King’s College in London, has labeled the UAE as “the most crucial strategic partner for Russia in both the Middle East [West Asia] and Africa.” 

A ‘country of focus’ for the US

This flourishing partnership between Moscow and Abu Dhabi has not gone unnoticed in the west, and there are concerns about how cozying up with Russia may affect the UAE’s relations with the west, especially in light of the recent leak of compromising Pentagon intel.

As evidence of this, US Treasury official Assistant Secretary Elizabeth Rosenberg has explicitly designated the UAE as a “country of focus,” noting Russia has been able to evade sanctions and “obtain more than $5 million in US semiconductors and other export-controlled parts, including components with battlefield uses.”

While the UAE has historically been aligned with the US, it has developed its own foreign policy in recent years, according to Dr. Giuseppe Dentice, an expert on International Relations of the Middle East from Centro Studi Internazionali Ce.S.I and a teaching assistant at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan. As Dentine explains to The Cradle:

“The UAE has positioned itself as a free rider in the international arena, able to dialogue with the west and Russia and China. This has led the UAE to pursue its own agenda increasingly distant from the US and western interests, but in any case still extremely connected to many of Washington’s objectives in the large quadrant between the Mediterranean, Africa and Asia.”

For Joost Hiltermann, program director of the Middle East and North Africa section at the International Crisis Group think tank, Abu Dhabi is not likely to turn against the US in a major way. Despite pursuing closer ties with Beijing and Moscow, the UAE and other Persian Gulf states have emphasized that the US remains their primary external security partner.

Persian Gulf states pursue strategic balancing

In essence, “the UAE and other Gulf Arab states pursue a foreign policy of strategic balancing and hedging among both regional and global actors,” he tells The Cradle.

Yet, the UAE, along with other Persian Gulf countries, has refrained from aligning with the US in the new cold war, which has become evident in the case of US escalation over Taiwan and the war in Ukraine. In this context, the UAE does not want to miss out on the lucrative opportunity to engage with wealthy Russians, even if it means turning down the west and its preoccupation with the proxy war in Ukraine.

Dentice observes that many regional powers, especially those in the Persian Gulf have taken advantage of this new competitive environment to raise their own ambitions and develop their interests. The case of Russia and its businessmen is emblematic of this condition.

While the US does not necessarily oppose Russians visiting and residing elsewhere, Hiltermann notes that:

“They have an issue with the UAE becoming a hub for sanctions-busting and illicit economies, and they’ve had this concern for some time as US concerns relate to Russia sanctions violations and Iran and Syria sanctions violations.”

However, Hiltermann points out that the US has not always been clear on its sanctions policies and enforcement, which has confused and frustrated regional actors like the UAE. He says “Gulf Arab officials express significant dissatisfaction with US sanctions politics in the region, and often underline their lack of impact and how much they hurt local populations.”

Feeling the pressure

Additonally, Dentice emphasizes that the “UAE must be very careful to balance its own interests with the ambitions of the great powers.” Abu Dhabi should avoid any unnecessary confrontations or the risk of being labeled as a “pariah state” as this could harm its development and reputation as a commercial hub.

Irrespective of growing ties, the UAE has introduced some strict requirements for Russian businessmen and real estate investors who find it ever more difficult to purchase or rent space in Dubai. According to reports, financial and consultancy firms have are being closely observed by US financial regulators, so country business subjects have to be more cautious when dealing with Russia.

Also, despite its “free-rider” foreign policy approach, which requires a difficult balancing act, the UAE as well as other Persian Gulf states still heavily rely on US security arrangements, so many observers believe that sooner or later the UAE will have to agree on some compromise related to western sanctions issues.

Due to US pressure, the UAE has already canceled a license it had issued to Russia’s MTS Bank, and Russia’s largest bank Sberbank was also forced to close its office in Dubai.

Abu Dhabi’s diplomatic dilemma  

Despite efforts by Abu Dhabi and other Persian Gulf capitals to appeal to Washington about the importance of maintaining ties with Moscow by supporting de-escalation measures between Russia and the west – such as prisoner exchanges – it is becoming increasingly challenging to maintain good relations with a Russia so profoundly vilified in western capitals.

Hiltermann doubts whether this approach will be effective in the long run. He points out that while the “US claims that it does not push Gulf Arab states to choose sides, Russia has turned into an existential issue for the US and Europe in many ways, and sooner or later western pressures on the UAE will increase.”

It is clear that the UAE’s foreign policy approach is complex and involves a delicate balancing act between its own interests and the ambitions of great powers. Withstanding its efforts to maintain good relations with both Washington and Moscow, the UAE is increasingly feeling the western pressure to untangle from Russia, especially in the form of sanctions threats.

While Abu Dhabi’s strategic partnerships with a broad range of countries have reaped economic benefits, in the foreign policy realm, the same choices have caused acute diplomatic challenges.

But the UAE cannot merely focus on the great power contests unfolding abroad. Closer to home, Abu Dhabi has had to navigate the changing dynamics in West Asia, including peace talks to end the conflict in Yemen and the game-changing, Beijing-brokered rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The UAE’s success and stability in its own region will ultimately hinge on its proficiency in managing these local shifts. Meanwhile, the entry of China and Russia into West Asia offers Abu Dhabi some further leverage in managing Washington’s demands. Unless and until the US decides to draw a hard red line, the Emiratis will likely play all their cards in all arenas.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Russiatourismtrade and investmentUAE

Sergey Glazyev: ‘The road to financial multipolarity will be long and rocky’

In an exclusive interview with The Cradle, Russia’s top macroeconomics strategist criticizes Moscow’s slow pace of financial reform and warns there will be no new global currency without Beijing.

March 13 2023

Photo Credit: The Cradle

By Pepe Escobar

The headquarters of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) in Moscow, linked to the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) is arguably one of the most crucial nodes of the emerging multipolar world.

That’s where I was received by Minister of Integration and Macroeconomics Sergey Glazyev – who was previously interviewed in detail by The Cradle –  for an exclusive, expanded discussion on the geoeconomics of multipolarity.

Glazyev was joined by his top economic advisor Dmitry Mityaev, who is also the secretary of the Eurasian Economic Commission’s (EEC) science and technology council. The EAEU and EEC are formed by Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Armenia. The group is currently engaged in establishing a series of free trade agreements with nations from West Asia to Southeast Asia.

Our conversation was unscripted, free flowing and straight to the point. I had initially proposed some talking points revolving around discussions between the EAEU and China on designing a new gold/commodities-based currency bypassing the US dollar, and how it would be realistically possible to have the EAEU, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and BRICS+ to adopt the same currency design.

Glazyev and Mityaev were completely frank and also asked questions on the Global South. As much as extremely sensitive political issues should remain off the record, what they said about the road towards multipolarity was quite sobering – in fact realpolitik-based.

Glazyev stressed that the EEC cannot ask for member states to adopt specific economic policies. There are indeed serious proposals on the design of a new currency, but the ultimate decision rests on the leaders of the five permanent members. That implies political will – ultimately to be engineered by Russia, which is responsible for over 80 percent of EAEU trade.

It’s quite possible that a renewed impetus may come after the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Moscow on March 21, where he will hold in-depth strategic talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

On the war in Ukraine, Glazyev stressed that as it stands, China is profiting handsomely, as its economy has not been sanctioned – at least not yet – by US/EU and Beijing is buying Russian oil and gas at heavily discounted prices. The funds Russians are losing in terms of selling energy to the EU will have to be compensated by the proposed Power of Siberia II pipeline that will run from Russia to China, via Mongolia – but that will take a few more years.

Glazyev sketched the possibility of a similar debate on a new currency taking place inside the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – yet the obstacles could be even stronger. Once again, that will depend on political will, in this case by Russia-China: a joint decision by Xi and Putin, with crucial input by India – and as Iran becomes a full member, also energy-rich Tehran.

What is realistic so far is increasing bilateral trade in their own currencies, as in the Russia-China, Russia-India, Iran-India, Russia-Iran, and China-Iran cases.

Essentially, Glazyev does not see heavily sanctioned Russia taking a leadership role in setting up a new global financial system. That may fall to China’s Global Security Initiative. The division into two blocs seems inevitable: the dollarized zone – with its inbuilt eurozone – in contrast with the Global South majority with a new financial system and new trading currency for international trade. Domestically, individual nations will keep doing business in their own national currencies.

The road to ‘de-offshorization’

Glazyev has always been a fierce critic of the Russian Central Bank, and he did voice his misgivings – echoing his book The Last World War. He never ceases to stress that the American rationale is to damage the Russian economy on every front, while the motives of the Russian Central Bank usually raise “serious questions.”

He said that quite a few detailed proposals to reorient the Central Bank have been sent to Putin, but there has been no follow-up. He also evoked the extremely delicate theme of corruption involving key oligarchs who, for inscrutable reasons, have not been sidelined by the Kremlin.

Glazyev had warned for years that it was imperative for Moscow to sell out foreign exchange assets placed in the US, Britain, France, Germany, and others which later ended up unleashing sanctions against Russia.

These assets should have been replaced by investments in gold and other precious metals; stocks of highly liquid commodity values; in securities of the EAEU, SCO, and BRICS member states; and in the capital of international organizations with Russian participation, such as the Eurasian Development Bank, the CIS Interstate Bank, and the BRICS Development Bank.

It seems that the Kremlin at least is now fully aware of the importance of expanding infrastructure for supporting Russian exports. That includes creating international exchange trading marketplaces for trade in Russian primary goods within Russian jurisdiction, and in rubles; and creating international sales and service networks for Russian goods with high added value.

For Russia, says Glazyev, the key challenge ahead in monetary policy is to modernize credit. And to prevent negative impact by foreign financial sources, the key is domestic monetization –  “including expansion of long and medium-term refinancing of commercial banks against obligations of manufacturing enterprises and authorized government bodies. It is also advisable to consistently replace foreign borrowings of state- controlled banks and corporations with domestic sources of credit.”

So the imperative way to Russia, now in effect, is “de-offshorization.” Which essentially means getting rid of a “super-critical dependence of its reproduction contours on Anglo-Saxon legal and financial institutions,” something that entails “systematic losses of the Russian financial system merely on the difference in profitability between the borrowed and the placed capital.”

What Glazyev repeatedly emphasized is that as long as there’s no reform of the Russian Central Bank, any serious discussion about a new Global South-adopted currency faces insurmountable odds. The Chinese, heavily interlinked with the global financial system, may start having new ideas now that Xi Jinping, on the record, and unprecedentedly, has defined the US-provoked Hybrid War against China for what it is, and has named names: it’s an American operation.

What seems to be crystal clear is that the path toward a new financial system designed essentially by Russia-China, and adopted by vast swathes of the Global South, will remain long, rocky, and extremely challenging. The discussions inside the EAEU and with the Chinese may extrapolate to the SCO and even towards BRICS+. But all will depend on political will and political capital jointly deployed by the Russia-China strategic partnership.

That’s why Xi’s visit to Moscow next week is so crucial. The leadership of both Moscow and Beijing, in sync, now seems to be fully aware of the two-front Hybrid War deployed by Washington.

This means their peer competitor strategic partnership – the ultimate anathema for the US-led Empire – can only prosper if they jointly deploy a complete set of measures: from instances of soft power to deepening trade and commerce in their own currencies, a basket of currencies, and a new reserve currency that is not hostage to the Bretton Woods system legitimizing western finance capitalism.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

الحسابات الأميركية السعودية بين اليمن وسورية ولبنان

الخميس 9 آذار 2023

ناصر قنديل

منذ مدة تمرّ العلاقات الأميركية السعودية بأزمة ثقة، وتأكيد الطرفين الأميركي والسعودي على الطابع الاستراتيجي لتحالفهما، لم ينف اعتراف الفريقين بأزمة في العلاقة التي كانت لها قواعد تقليدية تقوم على موقع مرجعي للسياسات السعودية الخارجية ترسمه سقوف السياسات الأميركية. وبدأت تتغيّر مع موقف سعودي يرسم هوامش مستقلة تتسع تدريجياً حتى طالت ما تعتبره واشنطن بداية مساس خطر بالثوابت، مثل الموقف من تدفقات الطاقة، ورفض السعودية الالتزام بالدعوات الأميركية لزيادة الإنتاج، والعقوبات على روسيا وتمسك السعودية بالتعاون معها كشريك كامل ضمن إطار أوبك بلاس من خارج نظام العقوبات، وصولاً الى العلاقات الصينية السعودية ووصفها أميركياً بالإنقلاب على العلاقة التاريخية الأميركية السعودية، وتوصيف الرياض لها ضمن إطار الشركات المتعددة، حتى خرجت مواقف أميركية رسمية من البيت الأبيض ووزارة الخارجية تتحدّث عن أن العلاقة مع الرياض قيد التقييم، وأن هذا التقييم سينتهي بإجراءات.

في هذا السياق يقرأ الخبراء التعقيدات المرافقة لظهور التوجه السعودي نحو السعي لتمديد الهدنة في اليمن وفق مقاربة تراعي مطالب حركة أنصار الله، والحديث السعودي عن الحاجة للانفتاح على الدولة السورية، والنقاش السعودي حول الوضع في لبنان، حيث ظهر استعداد سعودي لمشاريع تسويات في الملفين اليمني والسوري لا تنضبط بالسقوف السابقة التي اعتمدتها السعودية سابقاً، حملتها تصريحات سعودية واضحة تتحدث علناً عن استحالة الاستمرار بالسياسات السابقة، ككلام وزير الخارجية السعودية حول سورية، ويبدو للمتابعين أن هذا التراجع السعودي عن السقوف العالية تجاه اليمن وسورية، والإنفتاح على خيارات جديدة يمكن أن تنجح في صناعة التسويات، يرافقه موقف سعودي سلبي تجاه التسوية في لبنان، بل موقف سعودي بسقف أعلى من الموقف الأميركي في السلبية تجاه فرص تسوية تخرج لبنان من الاستعصاء الخانق في مقاربة الاستحقاق الرئاسي، وهو ما يعتقد الخبراء أنه نتاج كون السعودية في اليمن تقاتل بجيشها، وفي العلاقات العربية والدولية حيث القضية السورية حاضرة تستنزف بسمعتها ومكانتها، بينما لا تتكبد أي أكلاف في لبنان، حيث تستثمر حراك أطراف لبنانية مستعدة لضبط إيقاعها على التوقيت السعودي، وهي تحاول أن تعوض عبر المكاسب الممكن تحقيقها عبر التصعيد والتشدد في لبنان، ما سوف يكون عليها تقديمه من تنازلات أو تكبده من أكلاف في تسويات ممكنة في ملفي اليمن وسورية. ويعتبر الخبراء ان هذه الصلة هي التي تفسر البطء في مساري التسوية في اليمن وسورية، بانتظار أن يؤتي التشدد والتصعيد في لبنان بعض الثمار، أو يسلك طريق التقدم.

مقابل هذه المقاربة ثمة مقاربة مخالفة في تفسير وتوصيف مسار الموقف السعودي تجاه اليمن وسورية ولبنان، واستطراداً ما تسميه بتعقيدات العلاقة الأميركية السعودية، وتقول هذه المقاربة إن الحاجة الماسة لتحقيق تقدم سعودي في اليمن وسورية ولبنان، سواء في سلوك خط التسويات أو التصعيد ترتبط بالحاجة لتسهيل أميركي، حيث لواشنطن مقاربة لا تتقاطع في النظرة مع الحسابات السعودية، والحساب الأميركي نحو سورية عبرت عنه زيارة قائد القوات الاميركية الى شرق الفرات لإعلان التمسك بتعطيل أي انفتاح على الدولة السورية وإعلان التمسك بالكانتون الكردي. وقد ترجمت هذا الموقف تصريحات أميركية متكررة تحذر من الانفتاح على الدولة السورية، وفي اليمن لا تزال واشنطن تأمل أن تنتزع من أي تسوية لوقف الحرب في اليمن، ترتيبات تتصل بأمن الملاحة في الممرات المائية التي يسيطر عليها أنصار الله وخصوصاً مضيق باب المندب، وضمانات لأمن كيان الاحتلال، وصلة ذلك بمستقبل السلاح الصاروخي للأنصار، وشرعنة قواعد أميركية في الأرض اليمنية وتسهيلات لحركة الطائرات الأميركية المسيرة في الأجواء اليمنية، بينما لا تمانع واشنطن بتسوية في لبنان تستوحي الطريقة التي تم عبرها ترسيم الحدود البحرية للبنان تفادياً لقيام حزب الله بوضع فائض قوته على الطاولة وتهديد أمن «إسرائيل»، وهي بذلك ترسم سقفاً للمقاربة اللبنانية أدنى من السقف السعودي وأكثر انفتاحاً على خيارات التسوية.
– تملك واشنطن مفاتيح التعطيل والتسهيل، وهي تستخدمها عبر رسائل مشفرة نحو الرياض، فتعرض عليها منحها تفويضاً مشروطاً في لبنان لقيادة الاستحقاق الرئاسي بشروطها، مقابل انضباط الرياض بالسقوف الأميركية لملفات اليمن وسورية، وهذا ما يربك الحسابات السعوية ويفسر التباطؤ في رسم الخيارات وتظهير المواقف، لكن الوقت يضيق، ففي سورية تسارع تركي نحو دمشق وموعد يقترب لعقد القمة العربية في الرياض التي يريدها السعوديون مناسبة لا ينالها سواهم لعودة سورية الى الجامعة العربية، وفي اليمن حدود لاستعداد أنصار الله للانتظار ومنح المهل، وفي لبنان تغلق الأبواب على الرهانات الرئاسية التي قيل للسعودية إنها رهانات رابحة ويتقدم الخيار المقابل بثقة، بينما تضع المقاومة الأميركي أمام معادلة تحميله مسؤولية إدامة الفراغ ومنع التسويات وصولاً إلى الفوضى وتضع مقابلها استعدادها للحرب على الكيان، فتنشأ دينامية الجنرال وقت التي لا تدع مجالاً لمواءمة قسمة الحقل على قسمة البيدر، ويصير على العشاق أن يتفرقوا لأن الدف قد تمزق، فلا تبقى السعودية قادرة على ضبط ايقاعها في اليمن وسورية على التوقيت الأميركي ولا تبقى اميركا قادرة على ضبط إيقاعها في لبنان على التوقيت السعودي. هي شهور فاصلة ستقول الكثير.

التعليق السياسي

إلى الحوار در

بعدما تبدّدت الأحلام بفرض خريطة طريق تحكم الاستحقاق الرئاسي عنوانها السعي لتجميع الغالبية اللازمة لانتخاب المرشح ميشال معوض، أي 65 صوتاً، وبدأت جبهته الداعمة تتفكك ومجموع ناخبيه يتقلص، منذ قرّر الحزب التقدمي الاشتراكي الخروج من هذه الجبهة نحو ترشيح قائد الجيش وآخرين كخيارات متفق عليها مع شركاء ترشيح معوّض وفي مقدمتهم القوات اللبنانية بالانتقال إلى الخطة باء، وبدعم الخارج الراعي والمساند، صارت الخطة باء في الواجهة وانتهى الرهان على ترشيح معوض وتحول الى حصان أعرج عاجز عن المضي في السباق، وقد انفض الثلث المعطل المفترض من حوله، فكيف بالسعي لتجميع الغالبية.

في الخطة باء سعي لتمرير إمكانية انتخاب قائد الجيش دون تعديل دستوري وطرحه مرشحاً توافقياً لا يمثل ما يمثله معوض من استفزاز بخطاب عدائي للمقاومة، وهو المرشح الجدّي للحلف الداخلي والخارجي المناوئ للمقاومة، ليس بالضرورة لاعتباره مناوئاً، بقدر اعتباره مؤهلاً لخلط الأوراق وإرباك الحسابات، لكن الخطة باء أصيبت بالمقتل وسقطت بالضربة القاضية مع إعلان رئيس مجلس النواب استحالة انتخابه دون تعديل دستوري، باعتبار غياب الإجماع الذي تحقق في التسوية السياسية التي تمت في الدوحة ومن ضمنها وصول العماد ميشال سليمان الى رئاسة الجمهورية، يجعل أي انتخاب دون تعديل الدستور عرضة لطعن مؤكد ينتهي بإبطال الانتخاب.

صار الفريق المناوئ للمقاومة خالي اليدين من أي مرشح، ولا خطة ج، وليس من السهل إنتاج مرشح ثالث وتجميع الثلث المعطل من حوله لتحقيق التوازن التفاوضي في مواجهة الإعلان المتتابع لدعم ترشيح فرنجية وحشد تأييد يتجاوز الثلث المعطل ويقترب من الأغلبية وراءه، وبالتالي لم يعد هذا الفريق المناوئ هو الفريق المفاوض المقابل لمؤيدي فرنجية، بل هو واحد من مجموعة أطراف مدعوة للحوار طلباً للتوافق حول الاستحقاق الرئاسي، وهي أطراف تتراوح في أحجامها وتتفاوت في مقاربتها، وليس بينها أي خيار قادر على تجميع الثلث المعطل منفرداً.

العودة للحوار اليوم تحظى بموافقة كتل نيابية تمثل أكثر من ثلثي مجلس النواب، وهو النصاب اللازم لانتخاب الرئيس، وعلى مناوئي المقاومة الاختيار بين مقاطعة الحوار وتظهير حجمهم الفعلي العاجز عن تعطيل النصاب، وهذا أمر جيد، أو المشاركة في الحوار منعاً لانكشاف تراجع حجمهم، وهذا جيد ايضاً.

عنقود العنب يؤكل حبة حبة، والحبة الناضجة اليوم هي إلى الحوار در.

مقالات متعلقة

• السفير الأميركي السابق في سورية يؤيد خروج قوات بلاده منها
• مجلس النواب الأميركي: لن نقدّم شيكات على بياض لزيلنسكي
• الاشتراكي والقوات يتناوبان على إعلان الفشل في تسويق خياري معوّض وقائد الجيش / فرنجية: الحل بالعودة الى الدستور… ونصاب الثلثين يضمن الشراكة الوطنية / التيار: حان وقت الحوار والتفاهم الداخلي… لا لإملاءات الخارج… ولا لانتظاره /
• ماذا يريد هؤلاء الزائرون؟
• زيلنسكي يحذّر من سقوط وشيك لباخموت
• إلى الحوار در
• برلين تكشف عن سفينة مشتبه بنقلها المتفجرات المستخدمة في تخريب «نورد ستريم»

Sanctions against Russia dubbed ‘poison’ for EU

28 Feb, 2023 

The bloc’s new restrictions only increase its dependence on direct competitors, according to Moscow

Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman Maria Zakharova ©  Sputnik / Russian Foreign Ministry

EU sanctions against Russia are missing the mark and instead chipping away at the bloc’s economic independence, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Tuesday.

She slammed the tenth package of EU sanctions, which was unveiled on Saturday to mark the one-year anniversary of Moscow’s military campaign against Ukraine. The measures targeted Russia’s banking sector and sought to curb its access to dual-use and advanced technologies.

Each consecutive sanctions package clearly demonstrates one thing: anti-Russia restrictions are instruments that did not work.

Zakharova said she agreed with Josep Borrell, the EU’s top diplomat, who earlier this month described the restrictions as “slow-acting but certain poison.”

“The only thing is that they, first of all, ‘kill’ the economic sovereignty of the European Union. The EU can slap itself with any number of restrictions regarding trade with Russia; this will only increase its dependence on its direct competitors,” she explained.

Read more
 EU rolls out anniversary anti-Russian sanctions package

Zakharova also blasted the bloc’s crackdown on Russian media, noting that Brussels was “deliberately destroying the foundations of democratic society, undermining the principles and values the EU was built on in the first place.”

The spokeswoman also offered a reminder that “the EU, the US and their satellites found themselves alone” in imposing sanctions on Russia.

“The rest of the world… did not join any of the ‘packages’, rejecting restrictions as illegal, hurting the global economy and undermining food and energy security,” she said, adding that the EU’s threats to punish those who refuse to comply with the sanctions would only strengthen global opposition to what “essentially is the neo-colonial dictatorial policy of the West.”

Since the start of the Ukraine crisis, the EU has imposed restrictions on a total of 1,473 individuals and 205 entities that the bloc said undermined Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russian President Vladimir Putin has described this campaign as “a full-blown sanctions war,” adding that it had failed to bring about the collapse of the nation’s economy.

You can share this story on social media:

• US preparing false flag chemical attacks in Ukraine – Moscow
• EU reveals Serbia-Kosovo ‘normalization’ proposal
• Moscow outlines conditions for unfreezing nuclear deal
• Elon Musk reclaims title of world’s richest person
• NATO de facto at war with Russia – Kremlin
• EU nation backs Chinese peace plan
• UK tennis faces ‘existential threat’ over Russian ban – LTA

سنة على حرب أوكرانيا فمن فرض إرادته؟

السبت 25 شباط 2023

التعليق السياسي

عندما يحتفل الغرب بمرور سنة على حرب أوكرانيا تحت عنوان أن أوكرانيا صمدت وأن روسيا تعاني العزلة، وأن السنة الثانية للحرب هي سنة التراجعات الروسية العسكرية والسياسية والاقتصادية، فهل علينا أن نصدّق؟

عندما بدأت روسيا ما وصفته العملية العسكرية الخاصة، وضعت حربها بين سقفين، الأول أن يقابل الأوروبيون الموقف الروسيّ بعقلانية، فلا ينضمّون إلى منطق العقوبات العدائية التي تنادي بها أميركا وتستدرجهم إلى ساحتها لتجعلهم رهائن للسياسات الأميركية في مجال الطاقة، وبالتالي تحولهم الى دول هشة ضعيفة عاجزة عن الاستقلال. وفي هذه الحالة تكتفي روسيا بالسقف الأوكراني للحرب، أي ترتيب مريح لذوي الأصول الروسية في أوكرانيا الجديدة، ضمن صيغة اتحادية لعدة دول مستقلة، يجمعها الحياد. وسقف آخر يرتبط باستجابة أوروبا لنداء العداء لروسيا الذي تقوده واشنطن. وفي هذه الحالة تتحوّل الحرب الى سقف عنوانه إعادة صياغة العلاقات الدولية على المسرح الأوروبيّ بصورة خاصة.

في الحالة الأولى كانت حلقة الهيمنة الأميركية ستضعف في أوروبا وتتحوّل أوروبا الى شريك أمني اقتصادي لروسيا في بناء نظام عالمي متعدّد الأقطاب تحفظ فيه أوروبا مقعدها المستقل، أما في الحالة الثانية فتسقط العناوين الأوكرانية المباشرة للحرب وتحلّ مكانها العناوين الدولية، وتتحول أوكرانيا الى ساحة منازلة مع حلف الناتو، كما هو الحال، وفي حرب استنزاف تتقن روسيا أصولها تزيد أهمية القدرة على تلبية الميدان بالقدرات البشرية والعتاد والسلاح والذخائر على أهمية الجغرافيا، وعندما سلكت الأمور هذا الاتجاه أظهرت روسيا براعة فائقة في تحمّل التخلي المؤقت عن الجغرافيا لتحقيق أهداف حرب الاستنزاف، وأوصلت الناتو إلى استنزاف مخزونات ذخائره، وأوكرانيا إلى استنزاف مقدراتها البشرية، واحتوت بنجاح العقوبات الغربية المالية ونجحت بحماية الروبل من الضغوط المفترضة بذكاء رغم مصادرة مئات مليارات الدولارات من أصولها.

الآن تدخل الحرب مرحلة جديدة لا ينفع فيها التغني الغربي بتصويت الأمم المتحدة على مبدأ الانسحاب الروسي من أوكرانيا، وهو مبدأ يبدو طبيعياً أن تؤيده غالبية دولية، هي ليست متوافرة للعقوبات المفروضة على روسيا وهي الأهم، حيث يتمرد أقرب حلفاء أميركا عليها في الاستجابة لنداء العقوبات، كحال تركيا التي تمسك بمداخل البحر الأسود، والسعودية التي تمسك بعصب سوق الطاقة. والواضح أن المرحلة الجديدة التي يدخلها العالم ليست مرحلة عزلة روسيا، بل مرحلة فقدان اميركا لسطوة قبضتها على أقرب الحلفاء.

في الميدان سيكشف الربيع ومن بعده الصيف حجم التحولات التي تتراكم لصالح روسيا في الجغرافيا، ومحدودية القدرة الغربية على مجاراة الروس في تأمين المزيد من السلاح الفعال وسلاسل توريد الذخائر، ويبدأ الاقتصاد الروسي بدورته الجديدة التي أسست لها إجراءات احتواء العقوبات، والتي يتوقع الخبراء أن تتيح نمواً في ظل الحرب يتجاوز الـ 5% سنوياً.

نجحت روسيا بفتح الطريق لعالم جديد يتشكل.

مقالات متعلقة

• أخطر قانون مالي هو الكابيتال كونترول… لماذا؟
• قنديل يهدي حردان وخليل نسختين من كتابه ويدعوهما الى حفل توقيعه الجمعة المقبل
• الصين تربك الغرب بمبادرة نحو الحرب الأوكرانية بالدعوة الفورية لإطلاق النار وبدء التفاوض الحكومة ومجلس القضاء والمصارف ينجزون اتفاق التراجع خطوة مقابل التراجع خطوة بري لاستثمار الأسابيع المقبلة: لبنان لا يحتمل شهوراً والأجواء الخارجية لا تمنع توافقاً ينتج الرئيس
• سنة على حرب أوكرانيا فمن فرض إرادته؟
• من المتورّط ومن سيتراجع بعد عام من حرب شاملة في أوكرانيا !
• كيم جونغ أون يبرق إلى الأسد متضامناً
• من حلم التوحد العربي إلى كابوس الأنشطار
• من آثار الحرب الاقتصادية: تفشي ظاهرة السلب والسطو المسلح

Neocons’ Strategery

Feb 25, 2023

URGENT APPEAL TO THE WORLD: STOP REPRESSION AGAINST JOURNALISTS IN SERBIA

February 17, 2023

Srbin Info Media

Media and personal freedom in Serbia have hit a new low over the last several days.

On February 15, a large citizens’ protest rally took place in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, around the statue of Czar Nicholas II. The assembled citizens were protesting against the ultimatum recently presented to the Serbian government by France and Germany to officially recognize and legally accept the secession of the NATO occupied southern Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija. They were using their constitutional right to voice their views and were urging the government to reject the ultimatum. The Serbian public believes that the ultimatum was conceived and written by the Biden Administration and that Britain and France were merely used as delivery boys.

A collateral issue is Serbia joining anti-Russia sanctions, which Western government have been pressuring and cajoling its government to do since the start of the Special Military Operation in the Ukraine a year ago. The Serbian government has been delaying compliance with these demands, but there are increasing signs that it is preparing to give in to US and EU pressure in the near future. On both issues, opinion polls show that the Serbian public are opposed to both recognizing Kosovo and joining anti-Russia sanctions by overwhelming majorities of between 85 to 90%.

The February 15 protest was covered by our media service, Srbin Info. Our editor, Dejan Petar Zlatanović also spoke at the rally to express his personal opposition to both the Kosovo ultimatum and the plan to introduce sanctions against Russia. In his remarks he stated that “whoever signs off on giving up Kosovo is a dead man.” The police, which monitored the rally, interpreted his remarks as a direct threat to assassinate Serbia’s President Alexander Vučić and promptly arrested Zlatanović. The violent arrest of our editor, who is 60 and also happens to be a person with a congenital disability, has been filmed and posted on Twitter. Take a listen to his screams as the regime police are taking him away:

Послушајте како је ухапшен новинар Дејан Златановић после протесте за Косово и Метохију. Ово нема ни у Северној Кореји. pic.twitter.com/5QuqYBlkBo

— Др Бранимир Несторовић (@DrBranimir) February 17, 2023

Serbian law provides for detention of no more than 48 hours, unless the prosecutor’s office can satisfy a judge that the detained person constitutes a danger to society, in which case the court can order a longer detention. As the 48 hour period was expiring and the authorities were facing a legal obligation to release Mr. Zlatanović, the prosecutor charged him with planning to violently overthrow the “constitutional order” and requested that the court approve detention of at least 30 days, pending an investigation. Our editor Zlatanović announced that he would begin a hunger strike if the prosecutor’s extended detention request were granted.

Along with Zlatanović the police also arrested human rights activist Damnjan Knežević. During the arrest, Knežević was beaten so badly that he had to be transferred from prison to a hospital to receive medical treatment.

The Serbian regime has managed to deceive a part of the Western public with the narrative that it would never knuckle under to Western pressure to recognize NATO occupied Kosovo as an independent state separate from Serbia and would not impose sanctions on Russia. It was lying on both counts. Now that the farce is falling apart and under Western threats and blackmail it is preparing to do both, it is trying to silence all truth tellers, as evidenced by the repression of opposition media and illegal detention of our editor, Dejan Petar Zlatanović. We ask all who believe in freedom of expression to write to the office of Serbia’s President Alexander Vučić to demand the immediate release of Mr. Zlatanović and Mr. Knežević and the dropping of all charges for legal and non-threatening speech that is protected by Serbia’s constitution and the European Declarations on Human Rights.

Please direct your appeal to:

Alexander Vučić

President of Serbia

www.predsednik.rs

Russia Confronting the Entire NATO Machine; West Engaged in Economic Terrorism – Ambassador to Lebanon

February 3, 2023

By Mostafa Awada

As the Russian military operation in Ukraine approaches the one-year mark, Al-Ahed News sat down with Moscow’s envoy to Lebanon Alexander Rudakov.

According to the Russian ambassador, his country “is not at war with the Ukrainian people, but it is facing the entire NATO military machine led by the United States that is using the Ukrainians as fuel. Kiev has no authority to make any sovereign decisions.”

“The objectives of the Russian special military operation on Ukrainian soil have not changed. They primarily include protecting our Motherland, its sovereignty, and its territorial integrity, ensuring the security of the Russian people, including [those living] in the territory of Ukraine liberated from neo-Nazis, and the disarming and the de-Nazification of this country,” Rudakov explained.

“We are actively and rapidly developing our own economic countermeasures. We are taking the necessary measures to minimize damage and ensure the sustainable functioning of all sectors of the national economy. The import substitution policy, the accelerated development of private industry, and the strengthening of technological sovereignty are designed to neutralize the impact of sanctions and all restrictions.”

Below is the complete transcript of the interview:

It’s been almost one year since the start of the Russian military operation in Ukraine. What goals has Russia achieved so far? And what is your assessment of the progress of the operation?

The system of international relations is experiencing radical changes. The course and results of 2022 show the clear and categorical refusal of the Western world to deal with anyone on an equal footing as a fully sovereign partner. Rather, it deals with some countries as dependent entities, colonies, or as second-class countries. The West also openly commits aggressive and treacherous actions without the slightest regard for the interests of other countries.

NATO’s hostile steps towards Russia began well before February 2022, which eventually led to an escalation on the Ukrainian front.

The objectives of the Russian special military operation on Ukrainian soil have not changed. They primarily include protecting our Motherland, its sovereignty, and its territorial integrity, ensuring the security of the Russian people, including [those living] in the territory of Ukraine liberated from neo-Nazis, and the disarming and the de-Nazification of this country. We are moving steadily towards the completion of all difficult tasks.

Are the doors of dialogue with Kiev still open?

One of the main principles of Russia’s foreign policy is the need to resolve differences by political and diplomatic means.

We have always been and remain open to dialogue with Kiev, including a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. Several rounds of these negotiations have already taken place in the spring of last year, which the Ukrainian side refused to continue, on the orders of Washington.

It is important to understand that Russia is not at war with the Ukrainian people, but it is facing the entire NATO military machine led by the United States that is using the Ukrainians as fuel. Kiev has no authority to make any sovereign decisions.

Thus, it is necessary, first of all, for Washington, the European capitals, and the Kiev puppet regime to realize the imperative of respecting Russia’s legitimate security interests in order to begin negotiations on a settlement in Ukraine.

There is nothing new in our position regarding this issue. We have always strived to create a system of equal and indivisible security for all. We consider attempts to enhance the security of a state by infringing on the interests of another state useless.

What are the methods adopted by Russia to withstand Western attacks through the media, politically, and economically?

In fact, a fierce hybrid war has been launched against Russia. Western countries are taking hostile measures towards us in the political, economic, and media sectors, in addition to providing military support to the neo-Nazis in Kiev.

Attempts to isolate Russia globally continue. In the pro-Western media, they are trying to discredit us and make false accusations about the world’s problems, such as the global food and energy crises. Unlawful penalties are being imposed unilaterally, and they use fraudulent and illegal methods to compete with us.

This is done with the aim of weakening or breaking Russia, but they will not be able to achieve their desired goals.

We were able to successfully prepare ourselves for sanctions. We are actively and rapidly developing our own economic countermeasures. We are also working hard to clarify and spread our positions aimed at promoting world peace, ensuring global security and stability, and establishing a fair, democratic system for relations between states. We are developing relationships with countries that share this vision and mission.

How does Moscow deal with the economic sanctions imposed on it in light of the war with Kiev? What is the impact of these sanctions on the Russian interior? And how does Moscow face this economic terrorism legally?

At the beginning, I would like to point out the correct formulation of the question: Western countries are currently practicing economic terrorism in its most obvious form.

The Europeans, whom we used to call “partners”, have completely lost their credibility. They are trying to strangle Russia economically. They arbitrarily set price ceilings for the purchase of Russian gas and oil, sabotage the infrastructure that guarantees supplies of hydrocarbons, and then unfoundedly accuse us of provoking the global food and energy crises, knowing that they themselves prevent the shipment of Russian grain and fertilizers to countries in need.

The policy of economic sanctions has long been practiced against Russia. In recent years, we have witnessed a new round of measures. However, it was fairly easy to predict, so we were able to prepare ourselves for it.

We take the necessary measures to minimize damage and ensure that all sectors of the national economy function sustainably. The import substitution policy, the accelerated development of private industry, and the strengthening of technological sovereignty are designed to neutralize the impact of sanctions and all other restrictions.

What is the role of Russia’s allies in strengthening its steadfastness in the face of the Western attack?

The true reasons for the war that a handful of Western countries launched against Russia are not a secret for much of the world.

We maintain reliable relations with many of our friends and allies in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, and with them we continue to develop political dialogue and bilateral trade and economic cooperation, as well as through various frameworks of international bodies.

Russia has long been a reliable trading partner and supplier of energy, food, and other goods and services. Due to the hostile course of the West towards Russia, our relations are currently being redirected to the markets of friendly countries, especially Asian ones.

We are successfully cooperating with member states of the Eurasian Economic Union, BRICS, and Shanghai Cooperation Organization to overcome emerging challenges.

In Lebanon, we have heard in the media about Russian offers in various fields to provide assistance to the government and the people. Can you provide an overview? And what was the government’s response to this?

Our Lebanese friends are well aware of Russia’s continuous readiness to lend a helping hand in difficult times.

Russian in-kind assistance is provided to Lebanon, including through United Nations humanitarian organizations. For example, last year 714.15 tons of Russian sunflower oil were distributed to Lebanese schools.

Every year, we offer 150 scholarships to Lebanese students who wish to receive free education in Russian universities.

Heeding the call of the Lebanese government, Russian President Vladimir Putin decided regarding the free supply of wheat and petroleum products. The technical logistics of transporting these products are currently being coordinated.

In addition, we are studying prospects for intensifying bilateral cooperation in a number of fields, including energy, medicine, and agriculture.

We are looking for other opportunities to support our Lebanese friends during this difficult time for their country. We always remain open to considering proposals for launching any mutually beneficial projects.

We are convinced that the early election of a Lebanese President and the subsequent formation of an effective and capable government will greatly contribute to the successful progress of all these initiatives.

Some Russian airlines are suffering from a fuel crisis in Lebanon. Care to comment?

One of the manifestations of Western economic terrorism, which we mentioned earlier, is the blatant intimidation of our partners. This is intended to get them to refuse to cooperate with us.

Companies operating in Lebanon specialized in ground maintenance of aircraft could not escape this fate, as under the threat of sanctions, they were prohibited from refueling Russian aircraft.

This, of course, creates some inconvenience and confusion. Considering this, the entire Russian economy has adapted to the pressure of continued sanctions, and in the best interests of our country, we are adopting effective methods to neutralize the damage caused by the restrictions on us and respond to them appropriately.

We are convinced that over time we will be able to restore Moscow-Beirut flights.

Does the Lebanese government’s acceptance of some of the sanctions imposed on Russia, at the West’s request, affect the Lebanese community in Russia?

Western countries, in their reckless attempts to inflict economic damage on Russia, create a whole host of human complexities that affect innocent people, often exacerbating the social and economic problems in these same countries imposing sanctions.

We regret that this short-sighted policy has negatively affected thousands of Lebanese expatriates living in Russia, depriving them of the possibility of benefiting from inexpensive direct flights to their homeland. We are trying to find a way out of this situation.

A final word

Russia traditionally stands for the promotion of international peace and stability, with strict respect for the principle of sovereign equality of states.

Russia’s relations with all Arab countries have always been characterized by an open and friendly nature, with our willingness to consider each other’s interests and mutual assistance.

Today, in the emerging multipolar world, Russian-Arab relations have become a model of sincere, mutually beneficial and diversified relations.

The steadfastness of many Arab countries in the face of extortion and intimidation is respected, as well as their firm position of being guided by their national interests in resolving pressing international issues.

I am confident that by uniting the efforts of like-minded people all over the planet, we will be able to contribute effectively to building a new, democratic, multipolar world order without threats against “unwanted” countries and without manifestations of neo-Nazism and neo-colonialism.

What is behind the escalation between Ankara and NATO?

NATO warns that Putin’s MASSIVE attack is happening now, send weapons | Redacted with Clayton Morris

February 03, 2023

• OH SH*T, HERE WE GO (Douglas Macgregor)
• Russia Ready to Use All Types of Weapons – Medvedev
• US Must Get Over Its ‘Impunity Syndrome’ – Moscow

The Ukraine Conflict — A Primer (Gonzalo Lira)

JANUARY 31, 2023

I like Gonzalo Lira’s videos A LOT, but today I am posting one without seeing it (I don’t have the time), so I cannot say that I approve (or disapprove) of what he says. 

If you disagree with X he says, please don’t blame me 🙂  That being said, I am pretty sure that he will be spot on.  Andrei

• Blog archiving and other issues
• Important message about the blog from Andrei

The West Has Lost Already (Gonzalo Lira)

January 28, 2023

Morocco to Become a Huge U.S. Military Base to Counter Russia in Africa. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

January 24, 2023

Source

Martin Jay is an award-winning British journalist based in Morocco where he is a correspondent for The Daily Mail (UK) who previously reported on the Arab Spring there for CNN, as well as Euronews. From 2012 to 2019 he was based in Beirut where he worked for a number of international media titles including BBC, Al Jazeera, RT, DW, as well as reporting on a freelance basis for the UK’s Daily Mail, The Sunday Times plus TRT World. His career has led him to work in almost 50 countries in Africa, The Middle East and Europe for a host of major media titles. He has lived and worked in Morocco, Belgium, Kenya and Lebanon.

By Martin Jay

There may be questions about whether Russia is winning the war in Ukraine, but there is no doubt it is winning the global war against the West. And it’s starting in Africa

There may be questions about whether Russia is winning the war in Ukraine, but there is no doubt it is winning the global war against the West. And it’s starting in Africa

Pundits have for months claimed that Ukraine has made great advances on the battlefield and taken back considerable swathes of territory that Russia held. While this claim is losing its validity in recent weeks there, most western analysts indulge themselves with their own blinded dogma and refuse to look at the bigger Ukraine war: commonly known as the ‘global south’ but in reality is actually just the ‘rest of the world’ beyond the boundaries of so-called western countries.

While most countries in Africa and Asia didn’t support Putin’s invasion, they were more vexed by the West’s ‘you’re either with us or against us’ narrative which quickly followed with a threat from the U.S.’s own UN ambassador who made it clear to Africa that countries which didn’t follow U.S. sanctions against Russia would be punished.

That hasn’t worked out too well though for America, despite the U.S. cleaning up on LPG contracts in Europe whose governments are happy to pay four times the price of Russian gas, as Washington still has a few problems with this new world war.

Africa is starting to bother Biden. In recent months it has become clear that the threat of sanctions has backfired and many nations are ready to go ‘non-aligned’ and take their chances or even to cross over to Russia for security reasons.

Mali, a former French colony which until just a few months ago had French troops fighting Islamic terror groups there, is now a fully-fledged Russian ally. Burkina Faso looks like it will follow. If it does, then a domino effect is sure to take place with Francophone countries who are tired of the paternalistic relationship they have with Paris and the nauseating tutelage that is spoon-fed to them from the Elysee. This is not only starting to worry Paris, but the EU is also beginning to see the dangers of losing these countries to Russia and China.

It’s also worrying Biden, who, unlike the EU or the Elysee, at least has the means and the initiative to act rather than just whimper like a puppy just kicked by its new owner.

Biden’s plan, like so many American presidents, is hardly an original one: send more troops and show a presence on the continent.

But it’s his choice of which country to send them to is both interesting and dangerous: Morocco.

Joe Biden instructed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to prepare an emergency plan to establish an American military-industrial base in Morocco, the New York Daily News has reported. Apparently the ruse was proposed during a high-level meeting at the end of December when Biden and Austin discussed America’s new global military strategy.

Biden has told Austin to push the Pentagon to facilitate the logistical and legal aspects of U.S. defence industry investments in Morocco. Details are sketchy, but it seems that Morocco is going to host U.S. defence companies, as well as possibly even be a recipient of U.S. military aid like Israel.

This would not only be a game-changer for Morocco to flex its muscles in the continent, but also put the country on a more even keel with Algeria’s whose defence budget dwarfs that or Morocco’s.

According to media sources in the U.S., before his meeting with Austin, Biden received a detailed report from CIA Director William Burns, who just recently visited Libya on the expansion of Russia’s influence in Africa, including Zimbabwe, Sudan, the Central African Republic, Algeria and the Sahel and Sahara countries. It might well be that Biden feels that whilst it is inconceivable to fight with Putin in Ukraine, U.S. troops and their proxies could take the fight to them in Africa.

For Morocco though there is certainly a dark side. Are we to assume that with this new plan for more troops on the ground and more kit, that this will defuse the threat from Algeria which Russia has a formidable friendship with? Or, more likely, will this only raise the stakes higher and create a war-like scenario, entirely manufactured by the Biden administration, which ultimately the Moroccans will be left to tackle on their own? Remarkably, the format of ‘hit-n-run’ which Biden started in Ukraine in 2014, which led to the war there, along with a similar strategy in Taiwan, is being cultivated in Morocco to antagonise and threaten Algeria both along its long border but more probably in Western Sahara in the South. We can only presume that reports a few weeks ago in state-friendly media of nuclear power plant deals being agreed between Morocco and Russia is also part of Biden’s move in Morocco. He may well see it as a double-whammy but like almost everything the American president touches on the geomilitary circuit, he f***s up, in Obama’s own words. Rabat may well have used the deal with Russia as a card to play, gambling on taking the whole pot if the U.S. boosts their military budget beyond the miniscule 1.5bn dollars presently. But like Rabat’s recent bungling of the bribery scandal in Brussels, which is more about the elite’s dismal media skills, it is likely that the U.S. game is going to make them the loser as they are the chosen crash test dummies that Biden wants in his latest geopolitical experiment. Pray for the Moroccans. They are good people who will pay a high price for being both gullible and insecure.

ماذا بعد الحرب في أوكرانيا…؟

 السبت 21 كانون الثاني 2023

زياد حافظ

في هذه المحاولة الاستشرافية في مطلع 2023 قراءة وتساؤلات لمرحلة ما بعد الحرب في أوكرانيا. ننطلق في هذه القراءة من فرضية نناقشها في ما بعد أنّ روسيا ستحسم المعركة العسكرية في أوكرانيا ما قبل نهاية ربيع 2023. لكن هذا لا يعني انّ الصراع مع الحلف الأطلسي بشكل عام والولايات المتحدة بشكل خاص قد ينتهي. فالسؤال يصبح كيف سيتعامل الحلف الأطلسي وخاصة الولايات المتحدة مع الحقائق الميدانية التي تكون قد تحقّقت في الميدان؟

هناك عدة حالات ممكنة ولكن باحتمالات متباينة مبنية على قراءة في ذهنية القيادات الغربية والإمكانيات المتوفرة ضمن ميزان قوّة مختلّ لصالح روسيا بشكل عام وخاصة لصالح المحور العالمي الرافض للهيمنة الأميركية و/ أو الأطلسية. وما يُعقّد المشهد هو اعتبار الطرفين المتخاصمين أيّ روسيا والحلف الأطلسي أنّ الحرب في أوكرانيا حرب وجودية وبالتالي لا يمكن لأيّ طرف أن يتصوّر مخرجاً إلاّ النصر القاطع. وبما أنّ فرضية هذه القراءة تتبنّى حتمية النصر الروسي ما يبقى علينا هو تصوّر ما يمكن أن يقدِم عليه الأطلسي. وعندما نتكلّم عن الأطلسي نقصد بالدرجة الأولى الولايات المتحدة، ثم الاتحاد الأوروبي كمؤسسة، ثم الدول الأوروبية التي تماهت مع سياسات الولايات المتحدة وأخيراً بيروقراطية الحلف الأطلسي كمؤسسة قائمة بحدّ ذاتها. غير أنّ الحلقة الأساسية هي الولايات المتحدة لأنّ ما يمكن أن تقدم عليه سينجرّ بشكل أو بآخر على مؤسسة الحلف الأطلسي والاتحاد الأوروبي.

أما الحلقة الأضعف فهي الدول الأوروبية التي ستتعرّض إلى اضطرابات اجتماعية وسياسية بسبب التراجع الاقتصادي الناتج عن سياسة العقوبات المفروضة على روسيا وخاصة في قطاع الطاقة التي كانت تستوردها بشكل رخيص من روسيا دون أن تجد البديل الاقتصادي الذي يحرّرها من الاتكال على روسيا. والنتائج البنيوية على الاقتصاد الأوروبي هي تفكيك البنية الصناعية التي كانت ركيزة الطبقة الوسطى والاستقرار الاجتماعي. ليس هناك من آفاق إيجابية للاقتصاد الأوروبي في ظلّ ذلك التحوّل البنيوي خاصة مع صعود دول الجنوب الإجمالي وفي مقدّمته الصين والهند والبرازيل الذين سيتقاسمون الناتج الصناعي العالمي. دول أوروبا قد تكون دول متاحف التاريخ وللسياحة والترفيه وليس أكثر. فتصبح دولاً لا وزن لها في إدارة شؤون العالم. وهذا الهبوط لن يكون سهلاً بل ترافقه توترات اجتماعية وانتفاضات سياسية تعيد النظر في البنى السياسة والاقتصادية والاجتماعية لهذه الدول. وما سيساهم في ذلك الانحدار الكارثي هو الرداءة غير المسبوقة للقيادات السياسية سواء كانت في الحكم أو في المعارضة. المشهد البريطاني يتلاقى مع المشهد الألماني والمشهد الفرنسي، تلك الدول التي كانت تتصدّر المشهد الأوروبي. فأما دول الأطراف في أوروبا فقد تغرق أيضاً في حروب عرقية ودينية دون أن تكون لها ركيزة تستند إليها. فعلى سبيل المثال وليس الحصر اسبانيا تواجه حركة انفصالية في منطقة كتالونيا، وإيرلندا الشمالية قد تنفصل عن المملكة المتحدة لتلتحق بالجمهورية الإيرلندية، واسكتلندا قد تستقلّ عن المملكة المتحدة، وكورسيكا عن فرنسا، وبلجيكا تنقسم إلى قسم فرنسي وقسم فلمنكي. وما تبقّى من أوكرانيا خارج القبضة الروسية قد يذهب قسم منه إلى بولندا، والقسم الآخر إلى رومانيا ومولدوفيا. خارطة أوروبا مُعرّضة لتغيير جذري أسوة بما نتج في الحروب الأوروبية في القرون الماضية. كما هناك كلام عن انشطار إيطاليا بين جنوب فقير وشمال ثري. أما النعرات الطائفية في منطقة البلقان فمن السهل إشعالها مجدّداً مع سقوط الحكومات المركزية في حقبة الضيق الاقتصادي.
تصدّعات أوروبا

أما الاتحاد الأوروبي كمؤسسة فيشهد تصدّعات داخلية عززتها الإجراءات العبثية بحق روسيا وارتداداتها على الاقتصادات الأوروبية. فالزمرة الحاكمة في مؤسسة الاتحاد الأوروبي ملتزمة عقائدياً بمقرّرات دافوس لإعادة التعيين للاقتصادات القائمة نحو اقتصادات أكثر «لطفاً بالبيئة» على حدّ زعمهم. وهذا التوجه إلى مصادر طاقة نظيفة ومتجدّدة بشكل قسري وسريع سيؤدّي حتماً إلى تفكيك البنية الصناعية القائمة ما يوقع دول الاتحاد في حالة فقر وتراجع حضاري شبيه بالقرون الوسطى. فالطاقة هي مصدر الحضارة والعبث فيها له ارتدادات خطيرة على سكّان هذه الدول. لكن عدداً من حكومات دول الاتحاد يتململ من طغيان الزمرة المسيطرة على الاتحاد خاصة أنها لا تخضع لمساءلة ومحاسبة. وحكومة فيكتور اروبان المجرية تقود حملة التمرّد ضدّ الاتحاد قد تتبعها حكومة صربيا. من جهة أخرى أبدت بعض الدول الأوروبية كألمانيا وفرنسا امتعاضها من استغلال الولايات المتحدة للشحّ في قطاع الطاقة لفرض أسعار اضعاف ما كانت تدفعه لروسيا. ونعتت هذه الدول الولايات المتحدة بالتصرّف «غير الصديق» مع الحليف!

أما الدول الأوروبية فالتصدّعات التي أحدثتها الحرب الأوكرانية تتفاقم خاصة أنّ النموذج الاقتصادي النيوليبرالي المسيطر بعد سقوط الاتحاد السوفياتي وصل إلى طريق مسدود. كما أنّ النظام النيوليبرالي حوّل السلطة الفعلية للشركات الكبرى وخاصة بيوت المال التي لا تكترث لحال المواطنين. وهذه القوى المسيطرة على القرار السياسي والاقتصادي والثقافي في تلك الدول تستولد نخباً وقيادات من المستوى الرديء على صعيد العلم، والفهم، والأخلاق. وبالتالي ليس في الأفق المنظور إمكانية بروز قيادات أوروبية تضع مصلحة دولها فوق أيّ اعتبار وخاصة تلك الاعتبارات التي تريد إعادة الهندسة الاجتماعية وفقاً لمقرّرات منتدى دافوس. لذلك لا يمكن أن نتوقع خلال السنة الجديدة أيّ تغيير جذري في المشهد الأوروبي إلاّ ربما المزيد من التوترات والفوضى الأمنية والاقتصادية والاجتماعية ما يجعل أوروبا تفقد دوراً كانت تقوم به على الصعيد العالمي. فكيف يمكن وصف سلوك القيادات الأوروبية التي حوّلت أوروبا من ثاني كتلة اقتصادية في العالم، وربما في بعض الأحيان الأولى، إلى مجموعة دول مترهّلة. هذا انتحار جماعي أقدمت عليه قيادات حمقاء بكلّ معنى الكلمة.

تبقى الولايات المتحدة العنصر الأساسي في الحلف الأطلسي. والمشهد الأميركي معقّد حيث الخطاب السياسي السائد لدى المؤسسة الحاكمة وخاصة عند المحافظين الجدد الذين قبضوا على القرار السياسة الخارجية لا يسمح بأيّ تراجع أمام روسيا. لقد أصبحت الطبقة الحاكمة والمحافظون الجدد أسرى الخطاب السياسي حيث الانتصار على روسيا بات شرط ضرورة للبقاء. فلا يتصوّر المحافظون الجدد عالماً وروسيا موجودة على الأقلّ بشكلها الحالي. فلا بدّ من قلب النظام القائم في روسيا والإتيان بنخب سياسية تساهم في تقسيم روسيا إلى عدّة ولايات أو دول ضعيفة تحول دون إمكانية نهوض لدولة لها وزن على الصعيد الدولي. والمحافظون الجدد يحرصون على إجهاض أيّ محاولة للتفاهم مع روسيا تفادياً لحرب قد تخسرها حتماً الولايات المتحدة مهما كانت الكلفة عالية على روسيا. فعلى سبيل المثال وليس الحصر تسبّب المحافظون الجدود تسريب خبر لقاء بين مدير وكالة المخابرات المركزية وليم بيرنز ونظيره الروسي في أنقرة لإجهاض أيّ محاولة لمنع التصعيد في أوكرانيا الذي إذا ما استمرّ سيضع الجيش الروسي في مواجهة مباشرة مع الجيش الأميركي. وهذا الأمر لا يريده الطرفان سواء كان الرئيس الروسي بوتين أو الأميركي بايدن. لكن المحافظين الجدد لهم أجندة مختلفة ولا يكترثون لنتائج حتمية عن مواجهة عسكرية مباشرة بين الدولتين.

أجندة المحافظين الجدد!

السؤال المطروح هو هل يستطيع المحافظون الجدد تجاوز التحفّظات داخل الإدارة الأميركية التي لا تريد المواجهة المباشرة مع روسيا؟ ليس من السهل الإجابة خاصة أنّ المرحلة السابقة شهدت نصر المحافظين الجدد في توريط الولايات المتحدة في الصراع الذي كان بالإمكان تجنّبه مع روسيا. فهم من رفضوا التعامل مع العروض الروسية لحلّ الأزمة في أوكرانيا، وهم بالأساس من قام بالانقلاب على الحكومة المنتخبة شرعيا في أوكرانيا في 2014 وفي مقدمتهم فيكتوريا نيولند زوجة روبرت كاغان كبير المنظرين للمحافظين الجدد. وهم من استعمل اتفاقات منسك في 2015 للمراوغة لتمكين القوّات الأوكرانية لمواجهة روسيا. وهم من أجهضوا الاتفاق الذي تمّ الوصول إليه في أنقرة بين روسيا وحكومة زيلينسكي في نيسان/ ابريل 2022 بعد 3 أشهر من بدء العملية العسكرية الروسية في أوكرانيا. وهم من يدفعون إلى تفريغ ترسانات الدول التي كانت في كنف حلف وارسو وإرسال السلاح والذخائر لأوكرانيا. وهم من يدفعون البنتاغون لتفريع ترسانة الولايات المتحدة من الأسلحة المتطوّرة وإرسالها إلى أوكرانيا. النتيجة لكلّ ذلك هو تدمير كلّ السلاح المتوفر لأوكرانيا وقتل الجنود ودون تحقيق أيّ تقدّم على الأرض. فسجل المحافظين الجدد هو تراكم هائل من الفشل ولكن لا يوجد من يُسائل ويحاسب. ولذلك ستستمرّ إدارة بايدن في ارتكاب الحماقات تلو الحماقات دون تحقيق أي نتيجة لصالح الولايات المتحدة حتى يصبح تحطّم أوكرانيا أمراً واقعا لا يمكن الهروب منه.

المحافظون الجدد لهم أجندة من بند واحد وهي فرض هيمنة الولايات المتحدة على العالم وإنْ أدّى ذلك إلى تدمير الحلفاء وتهديد العالم بحرب نووية لن ينج منها أحد. فهم لا يكترثون لآثار سياساتهم طالما كانوا متمسكين بمفاصل صنع القرار في الولايات المتحدة سواء في الإدارة أو مراكز الأبحاث أو الجامعات أو الإعلام المرئي والمكتوب. وشبكة علاقات المحافظين الجدد لا تقتصر على الولايات المتحدة بل امتدّت إلى دوائر القرار في مكوّنات الحلف الأطلسي وإنْ كانت سياساتهم تدمّر تلك المكوّنات.

استطاع المحافظون الجدد أن يفرضوا سردية بين النخب الحاكمة في الولايات المتحدة والدول الأوروبية المتحالفة معها مفادها أنّ الصراع مع روسيا هو صراع بقاء بينما في الحقيقة هو صراع لتدمير روسيا والاستيلاء على ثرواتها الهائلة من المواد الخام، والطاقة، والمعادن الثمينة والنادرة. كما أنّ حجم روسيا الجغرافي يهدّد مصالح الولايات المتحدة فلا بدّ من تفكيك الدولة الاتحادية. وتعمّ مراكز الأبحاث في الولايات المتحدة عن خرائط محتملة لروسيا المفككة. وبالنسبة للولايات المتحدة فإنّ الهدف الحقيقي هو الحفاظ على هيمنتها وخاصة هيمنة الدولار الذي يواجه تحدّيات من اقتصادات ترفض تلك الهيمنة. والطابع الوجودي لهذا الصراع مبني على ثقافة الفكر الرأس المالي أن التوسّع هو الوسيلة الوحيدة للبقاء. وتاريخ الولايات المتحدة مبني على التوسّع الجغرافي، في البداية تجاه الغرب حتى الوصول إلى المحيط الهادي ومن ثمّ القفز إلى الجزر في ذلك المحيط وصولاً إلى الفليبين والشاطئ الشرقي للصين.

أما جنوباً، فكانت نظرية مونرو التي منعت الدول المستعمرة في القرن التاسع عشر من التواجد في أميركا اللاتينية وجعلها الحديقة الخلفية للولايات المتحدة. وتحفظ في أدراج الإدارات المتتالية خطط احتلال كندا إذا ما اقتضى الأمر! والآن تعمل الولايات المتحدة على التوسع في القطب الشمالي حيث توجد ثروات نفطية وغازية وشرقاً نحو القارة الآسيوية. وبالتالي لا بدّ من وضع اليد على روسيا.

المشروع الأميركي لوضع اليد على روسيا كان مكتوماً بعد سقوط حائط برلين. لكن سرعان ما تبدّدت الوعود المقطوعة للقيادات الروسية بعدم التوسّع شرقاً للحلف الأطلسي. وحجر الزاوية في مواجهة روسيا هو أوكرانيا وفقاً لنظرية زبغنيو بريجنسكي الذي اعتبر أوكرانيا ضرورة أساسية للقضاء على روسيا. المهمّ هنا أنّ التوسع الشرقي للحلف الأطلسي تجاه روسيا يشكّل خطراً وجودياً على روسيا لا يمكنها تجاهله خاصة إذا ما تمّ نشر الصواريخ البالستية النووية فيها كما يدعو إليه قادة النظام الانقلابي في أوكرانيا. حاولت القيادة الروسية إقناع الإدارات المتتالية بعدم التوسع شرقاً لكن العنجهية الأميركية لم تكترث للهواجس الروسية. لسنا هنا في إطار سرد تطوّر العلاقات الروسية الأطلسية/ الأميركية بل لنؤكّد أنّ صوغ الخطاب السياسي يدعو إلى المواجهة لدرء خطر وجودي يعني الوصول إلى الحرب لحلّ المشكلة. الحرب هنا لن تقتصر على الحرب بالوكالة كما هو الحال الآن في أوكرانيا أو ربما عبر بولندا في ما بعد بل في المواجهة المباشرة العسكرية مع روسيا.

ما يؤكّد عمق الأزمة بين النخب الأميركية مقال صدر يوم السبت في 7 كانون الثاني/ يناير 2023 في صحيفة «واشنطن بوست» والموقع من كوندوليزا رايس وزيرة الخارجية السابقة في ولاية بوش الابن وروبرت غيتس وزير الدفاع السابق في كلّ من ولايات بوش الابن وباراك أوباما. في المقال اعتراف واضح أنّ الوقت هو لصالح روسيا ولا بدّ من زيادة الجهود الأميركية (أيّ زيادة التمويل والإمداد لأنها مربحة للمجمّع العسكري الصناعي) وذلك لمنع النصر الروسي. فهذا الأمر سيكون له تداعيات كارثية بالنسبة للولايات المتحدة (خاصة للمجمّع العسكري الصناعي) وأنّ إمكانية تغيير تلك النتائج ستكون صعبة للغاية إنْ لم تكن مستحيلة. والهيمنة الأميركية على العالم أصبحت مطلباً «وجودياً» بالنسبة لتلك النخب التي لا تكترث لنتائج تلك الطموحات والتي لا تأخذ بعين الاعتبار التحوّلات التي حصلت في موازين القوّة. فمقال رايس وغيتس دعوة صريحة لاستمرار الحرب مهما كانت النتائج.

فما هي إمكانيات مواجهة مباشرة بين الحلف الأطلسي وروسيا، وبالأخصّ بين الولايات المتحدة وروسيا؟ حقيقة، إنّ المواجهة في أوكرانيا لها طابعان: الأول مع الحكومة الأوكرانية والثاني الذي تمّ إعلانه منذ بضعة أيام على لسان وزير الدفاع الاوكراني أنّ المواجهة هي بين روسيا والحلف الأطلسي. هدف العملية العسكرية الروسية في أوكرانيا هو تدمير الجيش الأوكراني وخلع النازيين من الحكم في أوكرانيا ومنع الحكومة من الالتحاق بالأطلسي. التطوّرات الميدانية أبرزت تدفق السلاح والذخيرة من مجمل دول الحلف الأطلسي دون أن يغيّر في ميزان القوّة في المعركة الذي كان ولا يزال لصالح روسيا. واليوم تعلن هذه الدول عن نفاذ سلاحها وذخيرتها لتزويد القوّات الأوكرانية بما كانت تملك من بقايا سلاح حلف وارسو. أما السلاح الغربي الذي يسيطر على معظم دول أوروبا الغربية فإنّ معرفة القوّات الأوكرانية بذلك السلاح ما زالت محدودة وتحتاج لوقت طويل للتتأقلم معها.

لكن هل تستطيع الولايات المتحدة الاستمرار بسياسة حرب رغم ضعف الجهوزية. ولا نقصد هنا الجهوزية العسكرية فحسب بل الجهوزية الاقتصادية. يشير الستير كروك وهو دبلوماسي سابق ومن أهمّ العقول السياسية المحلّلة للمشهد السياسي في آخر مقال له بتاريخ 13 كانون الثاني/ يناير 2023 على موقع «ستراتيجك كلتشار فوندشن» إلى أنّ الغرب يتجه تدريجياً لتحويل اقتصاداته لاقتصادات حرب وخاصة في ما يتعلّق بسلسلة التوريد في الإنتاج الصناعي. لكن في رأينا هذه عملية طويلة المدى خاصة بعد تفكيك البنية التحتية الصناعية في الولايات المتحدة والمملكة المتحدة وبالتالي القدرة على تحويل الطاقة الصناعية إلى طاقة إنتاجية حربية كما حصل في الحرب العالمية الثانية أمر مشكوك به في المدى المنظور. فاستبدال سلسلة التوريد التي اعتمدت خلال العقود الأربعة الماضية لتوطين مفاصل عديدة من القطاعات الصناعية في عالم الجنوب الإجمالي لا يمكن إنجازه بفترة قصيرة. فروسيا، ومعها الصين وسائر دول الجنوب الإجمالي لن يتركوا المجال لذلك التحويل.

لذلك نعتقد أنّ المعركة العسكرية الاستراتيجية بين روسيا وأوكرانيا قد حسمت في رأينا لصالح روسيا وأنّ ما تبقّى هو ترجمة الحسم الاستراتيجي إلى معالم مادية سواء في التقدّم الجغرافي أو في التغيير النظام السياسي في أوكرانيا وإنْ اقتضى الأمر دخول كييف لفرض نظام جديد. وقد يحصل ذلك خلال سنة 2023.

المواجهة مع الأطلسي طويلة

أما المواجهة مع الأطلسي فقد تطول خاصة أنّ الغرب يراهن على إطالة الحرب دون تدخّل مباشر للولايات المتحدة وسائر دول الحلف الأطلسي. ويعتمد المحافظون الجدد على سيطرتهم على الإعلام والسردية التي تقول بأنّ أوكرانيا «تنتصر» والقضية مسألة إمدادات فقط لا غير. لكن بدأت النخب الحاكمة تواجه معضلة تفسير انهيار خطوط الدفاع الأوكرانية وخاصة في منطقة سوليدار وباخوت. فهل ستتخذ الخطوة التالية بدخول جيوش الأطلسي بشكل مباشر في أوكرانيا؟

المزاج السياسي المعادي لروسيا في دول أوروبا غير مؤيّد للدخول في حرب مع روسيا. استطلاعات الرأي العام واضحة بهذا الشأن. فالمواطن الأوروبي بغضّ النظر عن رأيه في روسيا وحكّامها لا يريد ولا يتحمّل ثمن المواجهة. ولقد بدأت تظهر معالم «التعب» من أوكرانيا. ولكن المنحى الذي نشهده هو عدم اكتراث الحكومات الغربية للرأي العام الداخلي كما جاء على لسان وزيرة الخارجية الألمانية أنّ المانيا مستمرّة بدعم الجهود الحربية في أوكرانيا وأنها لا تكترث لآراء المواطنين وهذا بكلّ وضوح. لكن العديد من المؤشرات تفيد بأنّ الدول الأوروبية غير جاهزة وغير راغبة للدخول في حرب. أما الولايات المتحدة فهناك من يدفع إلى الدخول المباشر إلى أوكرانيا وإنْ كان الوجود العسكري الأميركي كـ «خبراء» و «مدرّبين» و «مستشارين» أصبح من المسلّمات. والمحافظون الجدد يدفعون إلى المواجهة المباشرة بعد استنفاذ الوكلاء علماً أنّ الجهوزية العسكرية الأميركية غير متوفّرة كما جاء على لسان رئيس هيئة الأركان المشتركة مارك ميلي في جلسة استجوابه في لجنة الدفاع في الكونغرس عند استلام مهامه. قال آنذاك في 2018 إنّ الجهوزية الأميركية لا تتجاوز 40 بالمائة وإنّ هدفه هو إيصال الجهوزية الأميركية إلى 60 بالمائة بحلول 2024.

وتأكيداً على ذلك يصدر معهد «أميركان هريتاج فونداشن» تقريراً سنوياً عن الجهوزية العسكرية الأميركية. وعلى مدى السنوات الخمس الماضية لم يتجاوز تقييم تلك الجهوزية مرحلة «الهامشية» أيّ لا تستطيع الحسم في أيّ مواجهة. وإذا أضفنا المحاكاة النظرية للمواجهة العسكرية مع أيّ من روسيا أو الصين أو إيران فكانت النتائج دائماً لصالح خصوم الولايات المتحدة. صحيح أنّ الولايات المتحدة تنفق أكثر من أيّ دولة في العالم لكن هذا الانفاق لا يعني تفوّقاً في الجودة كما تظهر التقارير حول فعّالية ركائز السلاح الجوّي أو البرّي الأميركي. وإذا أدخلنا في المعادلة السلاح المتفوّق الروسي خاصة في الصواريخ الفائقة لسرعة الصوت وغياب وسائل دفاع مضادة له فإنّ التفوّق التكتيكي والاستراتيجي للسلاح الروسي أصبح كاسراً.

وهناك خبراء عسكريون كـ اندري مرتيانوف يشكّكون بالقدرات البشرية لقيادة الأعمال العسكرية حيث خبرة القادة العسكريين الأميركيين في خوض حروب حقيقية ضدّ خصوم لديهم الحزم والعزم لا يُشجّع على إمكانية نصر عسكري. فتجربة الحرب الكورية والفيتنامية والعراقية والأفغانية تدلّ بوضوح إلى أنّ التفوّق الناري لا يعني بالضرورة النصر. لكن بعيداً عن هذه الاعتبارات ما نريد أن نقوله إنّ الولايات المتحدة غير جاهزة على الصعيد العسكري لخوض حرب طويلة مع دولة من طراز روسيا أو الصين على الأقلّ في المدى المنظور. لدى الولايات المتحدة قدرة نارية تدميرية هائلة تستطيع تدمير المعمورة آلاف المرّات ولكن ليس لديها كيف تترجمها في السياسة.

هناك عقول باردة خارج البنتاغون كدوغلاس مكغريغور او لاري جونسون أو فيليب جيرالدي أو راي مكغوفرن أو لاري ويلكرسون على سبيل المثال وليس الحصر تعي هذه الحقائق وتحاول ضبط إيقاع مسار السلطة السياسية. لكن المحافظين الجدد يتربّصون بها ويمنعون أن تصل تلك الآراء إلى مركز القرار. لذلك سيحتدم الصراع داخل الدولة العميقة بين من يؤيّد توجّهات المحافظين الجدد ومن يخشى من الوقوع في الهاوية. ولا نستبعد تكرار مشهد إنشاء لجنة بيكر ـ هاملتون جديدة التي كفّت يد المحافظين الجدد في إدارة بوش بعد الفشل في العراق. البديل عن كفّ يد المحافظين الجدد هو الحرب التي ستكون مدمّرة للولايات المتحدة وللعالم.

وهنا يكمن العامل الداخلي في الولايات المتحدة الذي قد يغيّر المعادلات بين الدولة العميقة والبيت الأبيض. مسلسل الفضائح التي تطال الرئيس الأميركي يتنامى ما يعني أنّ الدولة العميقة تريد التخلّص من إمكانية ترشّحه مجدّداً في 2024. فتعيين محقق خاص جمهوري الانتماء السياسي للكشف عن تفاصيل «الفضائح» يؤكّد أنّ المؤسسة الحاكمة بما فيها قيادة الحزب الديمقراطي تريد التخلّص من جوزيف بايدن والآتيان بـ كمالا هاريس في حال تنحّى بايدن عن منصبه، أو فتح الطريق لترشيح ميشال أوباما في 2024. في مطلق الأحوال فإنّ التطوّرات الداخلية قد تحوّل الأنظار عن الإخفاق في أوكرانيا ويتيح الفرصة لصوغ خطاب جديد يتجاهل الإخفاق في أوكرانيا. التغيير في السياسة التي تفرضه الوقائع يحتم تغيير في الأشخاص وهذا ما يمكن توقّعه في الأشهر المقبلة لمنع التدهور الذي الكارثي الذي يهدّد الجميع.

في الخلاصة نرى ما بعد الحرب في أوكرانيا الانتصار الكاسح لروسيا وتصدّع الاتحاد الأوروبي. كما سنرى تصاعد النقاش حول الدخول الأطلسي بشكل عام والولايات المتحدة بشكل خاص في حرب نووية محدودة بالنسبة للمحافظين الجدد. لكن في المقابل لا يستطيعون ضبط إيقاعها لأنّ روسيا لن تستجيب لرغبات المحافظين الجدد. فليس هناك من مواجهة نووية «محدودة»! لذلك لا نتوقع الوصول إلى تلك المرحلة بل ربما بداية تفكيك الحلف الأطلسي الذي فقد جدواه ومصداقيته. أما على صعيد الوضع الداخلي في الولايات المتحدة فتراكم الفشل في السياسة الخارجية سيظهر الحاجة للتغيير. من سيقود التغيير وكيف فهذا حديث ليوم آخر. الرهان هو على ما تبقّى من عقول باردة خاصة في أجواء التردّي لمستوى النخب السياسية في الغرب…

*باحث وكاتب اقتصادي سياسي والأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربي وعضو منتدى سيف القدس