The Second Coming of the Heartland

August 14, 2022

by Pepe Escobar, posted with the author’s permission and widely cross-posted

It’s tempting to visualize the overwhelming collective West debacle as a rocket, faster than free fall, plunging into the black void maelstrom of complete socio-political breakdown.

The End of (Their) History turns out to be a fast-forward historical process bearing staggering ramifications: way more profound than mere self-appointed “elites” – via their messenger boys/girls – dictating a Dystopia engineered by austerity and financialization: what they chose to brand as a Great Reset and then, major fail intervening, The Great Narrative.

Financialization of everything means total marketization of Life itself. In his latest book, No-Cosas: Quiebras del Mundo de Hoy (in Spanish, no English translation yet), the foremost German contemporary philosopher (Byung-Chul Han, who happens to be Korean), analyzes how Information Capitalism, unlike industrial capitalism, converts also the immaterial into merchandise: “Life itself acquires the form of merchandise (…) the difference between culture and commerce disappears. Institutions of culture are presented as profitable brands.”

The most toxic consequence is that “total commercialization and mercantilization of culture had the effect of destroying the community (…) Community as merchandise is the end of community.”

China’s foreign policy under Xi Jinping proposes the idea of a community of shared future for mankind, essentially a geopolitical and geoeconomic project. Yet China still has not amassed enough soft power to translate that culturally, and seduce vast swathes of the world into it: that especially concerns the West, for which Chinese culture, history and philosophies are virtually incomprehensible.

In Inner Asia, where I am now, a revived glorious past may offer other instances of “shared community”. A glittering example is the Shaki Zinda necropolis in Samarkand.

Afrasiab – the ancient settlement, pre-Samarkand – had been destroyed by the Genghis Khan hordes in 1221. The only building that was preserved was the city’s main shrine: Shaki Zinda.

Much later, in the mid-15th century, star astronomer Ulugh Beg, himself the grandson of Turkic-Mongol “Conqueror of the World” Timur, unleashed no less than a Cultural Renaissance: he summoned architects and craftsmen from all corners of the Timurid empire and the Islamic world to work into what became a de facto creative artistic lab.

The Avenue of 44 Tombs at Shaki Zinda represents the masters of different schools harmoniously creating a unique synthesis of styles in Islamic architecture.

The most remarkable décor at Shaki Zinda are stalactites, hung in clusters in the upper parts of portal niches. An early 18th century traveler described them as “magnificent stalactites, hanging like stars above the mausoleum, make it clear about the eternity of the sky and our frailty.” Stalactites in the 15th century were called “muqarnas”: that means, figuratively, “starry sky”.

The Sheltering (Community) Sky

The Shaki Zinda complex is now at the center of a willful push by the Uzbekistan government to restore Samarkand to its former glory. The centerpiece, trans-historical concepts are “harmony” and “community” – and that reaches way beyond Islam.

As a sharp contrast, the inestimable Alastair Crooke has illustrated the death of Eurocentrism alluding to Lewis Carroll and Yeats: only through the looking glass we can see the full contours of the tawdry spectacle of narcissistic self-obsession and self-justification offered by “the worst”, still so “full of passionate intensity”, as depicted by Yeats.

And yet, unlike Yeats, the best now do not “lack all conviction”. They may be few, ostracized by cancel culture, but they do see the “rough beast, its hour come out at last, slouching towards…” Brussels (not Jerusalem) “to be born”.

This unelected gaggle of insufferable mediocrities – from von der Leyden and Borrell to that piece of Norwegian wood Stoltenberg – may dream they live in the pre-1914 era, when Europe was at the political center. Yet now not only “the center cannot hold” (Yeats) but Eurocrat-infested Europe has been definitely engulfed by the maelstrom, an irrelevant political backwater seriously flirting with reversion to 12th century status.

The physical aspects of the Fall – austerity, inflation, no hot showers, freezing to death to support neo-Nazis in Kiev – has been preceded, and no Christianized imagery need apply, by the fires of sulphur and brimstone of a Spiritual Fall. The transatlantic masters of those parrots posing as “elites” could never come up with any idea to sell to the Global South centered on harmony and much less “community”.

What they sell, via their Unanimous Narrative, actually their take on “We Are the World”, is variations of “you will own nothing and be happy”. Worse: you will have to pay for it – dearly. And you have no right to dream of any transcendence – irrespective if you’re a follower of Rumi, the Tao, shamanism or Prophet Muhammad.

The most visible shock troops of this reductionist Western neo-nihilism – obscured by the fog of “equality”, “human rights” and “democracy” – are the thugs being swiftly denazified in Ukraine, sporting their tattoos and pentagrams.

The dawn of a new Enlightenment

The Collective West Self-Justification Show staged to obliterate its ritualized suicide offers no hint of transcending sacrifice implied in a ceremonial seppuku. All they do is to wallow in the adamant refusal to admit they could be seriously mistaken.

How would anyone dare to deride the set of “values” derived from the Enlightenment? If you don’t prostrate yourself in front of this glittering cultural altar, you’re just a barbarian set to be slandered, law-fared, canceled, persecuted, sanctioned and – HIMARS to the rescue – bombed.

We still do not have a post-Tik Tok Tintoretto to depict the collective West’s multi-wallowing in Dante-esque chambers of pop Hell. What we do have, and must endure, day after day, is the kinetic battle between their “Great Narrative”, or narratives, and pure and simple reality. Their obsession with the need for virtual reality to always “win” is pathological: after all the only activity they excel in is manufacturing fake reality. Such a pity that Baudrillard and Umberto Eco are not among us anymore to unmask their tawdry shenanigans.

Does that make any difference across vast swathes of Eurasia? Of course not. We just need to keep up with the dizzying succession of bilateral meetings, deals, and progressive interaction of BRI, SCO, EAEU, BRICS+ and other multilateral organizations to get a glimpse of how the new world-system is being configured.

In Samarkand, surrounded by mesmerizing instances of Timurid art coupled with a development boom that brings to mind the East Asian miracle of the early 1990s, it’s plain to see how the heart of the Heartland is back with a vengeance – and is bound to dispatch the pleonexia-afflicted West to the swamp of Irrelevancy.

I leave you with a psychedelic sunset facing the Registan, at the razor’s edge of a new sort of Enlightenment that is leading the Heartland towards a reality-based version of Shangri-La, privileging harmony, tolerance and most of all, the sense of community.

The Path To Japan’s Childlessness As Conceived By Its Satanic US Occupiers

June 08, 2022

Source

by Thorsten J. Pattberg

In May 2022, Elon Musk, American billionaire and founder of SpaceX and Tesla, tweeted that unless birth rates go up, “Japan will eventually cease to exist.”

That got the American men in black at the US-Embassy in Tokyo on sexism alert.

All of us who wrote the same before [but were censored into oblivion] experienced madding schadenfreude;

First, because the Japanese themselves are usually too timid to self-report US bullying;

Second, because of the sheer sadism in Mr. Musk’s biting tweet.

Surely, as a member of the US deep state, this man with a hair-transplant and his 7 in-vitro-children (with cool names like Exa Dark Sideræl or X AE A-XII) must be quite aware that Japan slipped into this horrible condition through no fault of her own.

Japan has been an American vassal state for over 75 years now, and she is the victim of relentless US feminization and childlessness propaganda.

Part 1. Take Their Land And Steal Their Women.

Only a reckless war criminal such as the United States of America can afford the audacity of having starved Japanese people to death, nuke-bombed their ports, belittled their race, stole Japanese women, erased their fathers’ blood lineage, and then blaming their misfortune on the few Japan’s grandsons left who can’t get enough women pregnant.

Upon Mr. Musk’s tweet, who probably just did it for vanity and attention seeking, our Western press soldiers in Tokyo, the embassy district in Minato-ku, the Foreign Correspondents’ Club, the European headquarters, all rushed in and blamed the Japanese government for “not doing enough to fight the decline.” Haha, those keyboard bastards. The US superpower and custodian over all life in their Pacific colonies is solely responsible for the extermination. Read history.

The Japanese for over seven decades fought like little Indians against the extermination at gun point of their Western colonial masters, at first successfully. They managed to have ‘Western man’ not settle here. But the price for His rule in absence was brutal regulations: Military bases everywhere, dollar rule, fake democracy, form of economy, Christianity and foreign dictates from abroad.

Most Japanese elites complied and made themselves into slaves to their American taskmasters. If they performed well and published in the American language, they got credits and mention in Western media, journals and news. The most famous Japanese showpiece perhaps is Francis Fukuyama, who is actually American and does not speak Japanese. Nevertheless, they made him plagiarize The End of History from German philosopher Georg Hegel, in which he scientifically proves the West is best.

Those Japanese elites who refused subjugation were removed. For example, the American taskmasters and their Japanese collaborators caused all Japanese men [and the occasional pro-Japanese woman like SUGITA Mio] who were sympathizers to motherhood and Japanese survival to step down.

There are large-scale foreign attacks on Japanese male leaders every year. For example, in 2017 Sophia University in Tokyo, a Western Jesuit institute, staged another anti-Japanese project by promoting a hit list against “Japan’s Top Sexist Politicians’.

Their targets were accused of racism and sexism of the vilest sorts, including Prime Minister ABE Shinzo, Minister of Finance ASO Taro, House Speaker HIRASAWA Katsuei, former Prime Minister MORI Yoshiro, and even SHIRAISHI Masateru, a lower ranked cadre who was utterly destroyed for saying that “if too many men turn gay, we will perish.”

Those Japanese leaders can’t do anything to defend themselves. For example, Mr. Hirasawa only said that the real problem in Japanese society were “those who are not having children.” That’s it. Stating the simple truth will make you the target of the American punishers.

The agents of Empire will then distribute the hate list to all corners of the world via Wall Street JournalThe New York TimesThe IndependentThe GuardianDeutsche WelleReuters and Associated Press and so on.

But these were just recent examples. The planned destruction of the Japanese race started in the late 1940s and early 1950, when America launched the greatest re-education campaign in that century, in parallel to the deNazification campaign in Germany.

Pro-Japan nationalists were expelled from government and higher education. Pro-American scholars took their positions, shaming Japanese men, Japanese culture, Japanese war crimes, Japanese sexism, and breeding of the Japanese race.

Several scholars were made famous in Asia Studies in the West because they finally tackled the problem of male Japanese chauvinism and suppression of Japanese women. Titles such as ‘Martial Sex Life’ in 1949 by “the first Japanese sexologist,” ASAYAMA Shinichi, started to deconstruct Japanese sex life and explored suppressed homosexuality and ideal of sex life. That female ideal sex life was to stay unmarried, fool around with strangers, use contraception, abort a few times, try foreign men, maybe discover your inner feminist lesbian and so on.

Writes affirmative action feminist-quota Japanese SAEKI Chizuru for the American MIT Press: “Feminizing the hated enemy and depicting the Japanese as immature youth enabled the Americans to humanize the Japanese and regard the former enemy as dependents who needed US guidance and benevolence.”

The eminent sex scholar, now hanging out in the USA as some professor of women’s liberation, was merely reviewing ever so bigger affirmative action feminist Japanese SHIBUSAWA Naoko and her Harvard University Press debut America’s Geisha Ally (2006). Here’s what she had to say:

“Feminizing Japan’s image was done not only by the US troops but also by the Japanese government. […] “baby-san” [were recruited] to erode the hostility of US servicemen toward Japan by satiating the conqueror’s sexual appetites.“

By the 60s, the feminized, submissive Japan government who trained “baby-san” escorts ladies for US soldiers was in total control of Family Planning. There were hundreds of governmental and non-governmental Family Planning organizations, United Nations Family Planning Units, WHO and WTO demographers, Councils for Sex Education and so on, whose job it was to unplan the family, to destroy it—liberation-style. Family as a concept was now identified as part of evil eugenics and arranged marriage.

For example, the Japanese government is accused of having supervised one million sterilizations before 1957, said KOYA Yoshio, a revisionist from the Association of Racial Hygiene.

Those past sterilization programs were not at all uncommon, and everywhere in the world. Sterilizations were universally performed for public health reasons on the feeble-minded, murderers and rapists. But of course, if a foreign power wanted to punish your population, it would liberate the feeble-minded, murderers and rapists and have them multiply exponentially.

The Association used sterilization horror stories to push for ‘woman’s choice’ and for ‘individualized choice.’ In other words, the government must never decide such things again—only a foreign government such as the USA can do that.

This was killing two birds with one stone, as American activists could now breed many more disabled and subpar Japanese while brainwashing the average Japanese that they must not marry and stay childless. With the Japanese government banned from bettering the gene pool in any sort of way, Washington could be assured it would never have to fight another healthy 100 million Japanese in the next war.

With Japanese population control thus outsourced to foreign planners, the Association proceeded triumphantly: “Changes in sex education were accompanied by an increasing number of large-scale sex research projects.” Translation: Large scale population modification had begun.

Those Japanese educators who rejected the idea of foreign sex propaganda on Japanese soil in theory committed a criminal offence, for it was the explicit and stated goal of the American occupiers to [quote] “eliminating the expression of patriotism from its schools and public life.” [From a textbook, Asia for Educators, Columbia University, 2022.]

Part 2. Destroy Their Men And Shame Their Manhood.

In hindsight and with better knowledge of psychological warfare we know that American planners of course introduced American men and body shapes into all things Japanese, on billboards and in fashion and teen magazines. So Japanese men started to dress like Western men in suits and jeans, while Japanese women were handed contraception and were told to stick around for Western men.

For example, we know that US military bases in Sasebo, Iwakuni, Atsugi, Futenma, Kadena, Yokosuka, Yokota, Misawa and Tokyo had a turnover of well over 500,000 US soldiers, excluding civil personnel. The Washington Post once admitted there were as many as 45,000 Japanese brides who had “married the enemy” and relocated to the United States. The number of half-fus (mixed raced children) left behind by American GIs in Japan probably exceeds 100,000.

It is not cynical to expose how the “liberation of their women” is always the explicit wish of the invaders against the local dudes. After the Victory of Actium, the Romans occupied much of Greece and “freed” Greek women who were encouraged to walk naked and join orgies and try out new things with our brothers Atticus and Brutus. Meanwhile, defeated natives Alex and Aegeus were initiated in the art of anal sex and writing novels.

Japanese men became autistic and drew naked women in notebooks. They became very good at anime and manga. Between the 80s and 2010s, Japanese males had softened and feminized unrecognizably. Yet, the Americans were not finished with them and kept harassing them.

Take the following paragraph from the American cartoon series for kids, South Park. Two Japanese politicians approach a white American tourist. Here is the dialogue:

“You are Amelican?”
“Yes!”

“Oh, you must have vely big penis!”

“Excuse me, I was just asking what you are up to with these toys.”

“We are vely simple people, with vely small penis. Mr. H’s penis is especially small. [Mr. H interjects: “So small!”]

We can not achieve much with so small penis.

But YOU, Amelicans, WOW, penis so big, SO BIG PENIS!”

“Well, I guess it is a pretty good size.”

This sort of racism against Japanese men is rampant and completely normalized in America. It will never stop, believe it.

So back to the childlessness propaganda. The Americans and their Western and Japanese collaborators now sell 550 million condoms in Tokyo annually. The regular pi’ru (hormone blockers) are prescribed to most girls just like the morning milk. The morning-after pi’ru (instant abortion) cost barely $50 on prescription. And those who buy on the black market get 10 pops for $150, no problem.

All compartments of civil society are determined to lecture and medicate Japanese girls so that they cannot and mustn’t conceive in the first 30 years of their lives. If they accidentally and against all odds do get pregnant, they can still kill the fetus if it’s not older than 12 weeks. The true number of abortions in Japan is unknown because everyone is doing it at home with chemicals. The Ministry of Health lists only those 156,000 abortions annually that were billed through the national health insurance (Last checked: May 2019).

In fact, it is a miracle that children still do get born in Japan at all.

Confidently to the motto “he who lies on the ground shall be kicked thereafter,” those foreign planners responsible for the childlessness propaganda now turn to the public and accuse neutered Japanese politicians of not doing enough to increase the birth rate, as if the Japanese had that much testosterone left.

Kicking your colonial victims when they‘re already lying helpless on the ground is terror, pure and simple. How much more humiliation can the Japanese take?

The bullying of the emasculated Japanese became a national sport in the West. When the US occupiers molested all those Japanese women, they had the idea to introduce American sports to Japan. Real man’s sports. Like Baseball for example.

Two Baseball Leagues, one in Tokyo, the other in Osaka, were set up in the 50s. By the 60s, every American team of note had visited Nippon, and Japanese teams had to sign up American players to juice up marketing.

That was easy-peasy. All Japanese boys now have to pick up a bat and play baseball in middle school and don’t even know why they like it.

But then somebody cunningly made a practical joke and introduced American basketball to Japan.

As a reminder, there are no blacks in Japan. The average height of Japanese men is 5 foot 3 inches (back in the 80s). The average height of Afro-Americans in the NBA is 6 foot 5 inches.

So now every Japanese middle school got its basketball court, alright, which the Japanese are genetically unsuited for, too bad, but hey, they wouldn’t even know why they don’t like it, so who gives?

Americans had their laughs, but the Europeans were not far behind when they introduced their national sport to Japan too—soccer!

Soccer is not exactly advantageous for Japanese athletes who have short legs, but who said they are gonna win, right? So every Soccer World Cup we watch with painful embarrassment the futile attempts of the Japanese all-stars to win yet a single tournament.

Part 3. Prevent These People From Ever Rising Again.

Without brainwashing the people into voluntary childlessness (because what’s the point of having more Japanese playing basketball?), the Asians could never be colonized for 75 years.

Why not? Well, let‘s take a look at the Vietnam war. The actual War between North and South Vietnam started in 1955. When the Americans entered the war in 1965, and lost it in 1969, they knew they were not fighting against just yellow people but more so against the laws of biology.

For every 10,000 Viet Cong, Cambodian or Lao people the Americans killed, 50,000 new ones were born. That’s why US planners used carpet bombings, orange gas, crop destruction—the entire arsenal, just for visuals. They hoped that images of massive civilian losses would force Ho Chi Minh to surrender in 1965 just like the Showa Emperor of Japan surrendered in 1945.

Unlike Japan, however, Vietnam was a proxy war. Had the Americans won the war in Vietnam, their breeder-planners would have taken over and reduced the population quickly. Alas, Vietnam won the war with the help of its allies and was unstoppable and grew from 36 million in 1960 to 100 million in 2020.

Had Japan won its war, based on the same trajectory, it would have grown its population from 73 million in 1940 to at least 204 million in 2020.

The US command in the Vietnam War knew about population dynamics and reproduction circles. Only massive attacks on civilians can force foreign regimes to surrender under shock, but if they remain clear headed and don’t surrender at all, their population will bounce back in a few years.

Japan had capitulated, alright. Now it was a run against time. When Douglas McArthur, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, set foot in Tokyo in 1945 with a plan to rebuild Japan in the image of a cheap industrial vassal state, he was shocked to learn that by 1947 the Japs had fornicated so hard—they had produced 7 million babies in just two years.

To remind everyone: during the entire Pacific War against China and the United States, Japan “only” lost 3.1 million lives. So in a sense, the war itself didn’t do any significant harm to Japan as a species.

Only post war colonial population control could do the trick.

General McArthur and his strategists had to completely destroy Japanese family culture with all techniques, regulations and shaming tactics they could think of, and quickly.

Polygamy had to be outlawed. The British Empire had successfully introduced monogamous marriage in China and India in the 18th century, but failed to register the lower classes. The US mustn’t repeat the same mistake.

Imperial Japan, just like Imperial China, had a vibrant concubinage and mistress culture. Some elite families had 15 to 20 elite children, because the patriarch had 2nd and 3rd wives. All these Asian values had to be outlawed. The noble East Asians must not multiply.

Empower the mass of women, abort their first children, prevent early pregnancies, shame young mothers. Social engineering was biblical and all-pervasive.

Some of the top-down governmental measures seem absurd, over-the-top. The entire housing market, for example, stopped advertising children‘s rooms. You cannot rent or buy a house in Japan that officially has children‘s rooms.

More family planning associations, agencies, and societies spread like mushrooms. Their unifying task: Prevent as many new Japanese as possible.

Some of the slogans may sound familiar to our readers if they live under US-American occupation: Children equal poverty. Children arrest development. Children are holding women back. Children equals Third World. Children equals underclass.

The results were mind-blowing. Wrote two Japanese demographers, TACHI Minoru and OKAZAKI Yoichi: “With the advent of the 1950’s we witnessed a sudden and swift decline in Japan’s birth rate […] Before ten years had passed since the start of the baby boom, the annual birth count was cut in half—a rate of decline without precedent in world demographic history.”

The greatest lie: Less children means greater wealth. Take the 80s: While the Soviet Union aimed at 500 million, the European Union aimed at 400 million, China at 1300 million, India at 1200 million, and America at 1000 million (in 2020, it currently has “only” 350 million), Japan was told it would be super rich and wealthy and powerful if it halved its population from 120 to just 60 million.

The moral lesson is obvious. If a superpower tells you your country is so cute and you should stay small, even smaller, then you should grow ears like Dumbo. They are having you on, Japan!

One of the greatest postwar lies in economics was the so-called Japan economic miracle. Critics could clearly see that Japan’s economic miracle was just rebuilding a country after a war. We know it was deceit because America pulled the same propaganda in Europe with Germany’s alleged wirtschaftswunder.

The underlying pledge was to make war profitable and to destroy foreign countries for guaranteed wealth creation. The loans of course came from US money lenders, global banks and in general the same people who destroyed Germany and Japan in the first place.

The GDP of the cocksucker colonies was now calculated by Americans, pegged to the American dollar. So of course as a vassal state of the superpower, when awash in fake dollars in forms of loans, and when all cities have to be rebuilt, there will be higher GDP output.

That all of it belongs to America, not Japan, is nowhere mentioned, but this is what it is.

The official propaganda was that Japan was successful because it had less children and more women in the workforce. Lies.

Women were forced into indoctrination camps, schools I mean, and learned that Japanese children are hideous, ugly and expensive—a sign of backwardness. Suddenly, child rearing was said to be expensive. Never before in history, ever—but the Japanese believed it. First world women, they were told by Western activists, only had one or two children, and they worked like real men, better even. So Japanese women wanted to be American, white and free.

Part 4. Set Them Up For Future Childlessness.

Images of larger Japanese families were removed from libraries, cinemas and entertainment. State TV broadcaster NHK and the film and movie industry chucked out single-child or nuclear family propaganda.

Well-to-do Japanese families with three, five or more kids hide their offspring under different names, or with other members of the clan, or send them abroad. The political pressure from the Left on them is as immense as the political pressure was on the capitalists in China during the One-Child Policy. Only that the Chinese had to hide their surplus kids from their own government, while the Japanese had to hide their surplus kids from the American Left.

Even if you’ve never set foot in Japan, you will have heard the most ridiculous stories about the Japanese who are uh-oh dating robots or marrying pillows, or proposing to holograms of their favorite anime characters or that Japanese men are genuinely sexless. These are the results of sadistic American planners. It’s cruel behavioral modification, not at all natural or normal.

Take the brainwashing of children aged 0 to 12. There is Doraemon, a cartoon series popular in the 70s and 80s. It’s about a ten-year-old boy who befriends a blue robot cat.

This single-child narrative is no coincidence. Japanese children were conditioned to appreciate robots, demons and aliens, not brothers and sisters.

Anpanman, a cartoon hero for children ages 0 to 6, has many animal friends, but no siblings. Shimajiro, the yellow tiger boy from the 90s, has one little sister. This corresponds to America’s ideology of the nuclear family.

Hana Kappa, a frog boy with magical powers, is known to all Japanese. Hana has many friends, but no siblings of course. And the friends are single children too.

The late 90s and 2000s continued the propaganda. Both Yokai-Watch and Pokemon are about a single child who befriends demons (Yokai) or pocket monsters (Pokemon).

Even the most conservative family show, Chibi Maruko-Chan, was about a girl and her parents, with just one sister who for all looks and purpose was written more like a cousin.

Finally, Crayon Shin-Chan, the naughty 5-year old boy who tyrannizes his mother and father, has a baby sister. The show depends on family interactions, but what to do, they must not have more children. So they just added a pet dog family member. Sounds familiar? Well, all Japanese family shows now have pet dogs replacing children.

The kids are groomed to wait for robots, monsters and pet animals. That is the main reason why Japan became the largest toy industry in the world. But guess what, even after 75 years of tamagotchi (digital pets), Godzilla, gundam robots and flying cars, they got nothing. Futuristic Japan was all a lie. The breeders just wanted to reduce the population, which they did.

Most women now have one kid on average. They are bossed around on state TV by their childless bosses, exemplary role females who are now being glorified. Mass media scrambled to find presentable anti-lifers. For example, YAMAGUCHI Tomoko, a beautiful dorama actress, became a media darling for “having no regrets having no children.”

Talentfree artists such as SAWAGUCHI Keisuke soon discovered that they could get Western media citations when they drew manga comics about “the happiness that comes from not having kids.”

The government, the academies and the scholars, all of whom rely on government grants and payrolls, love to praise childless women, next single mothers in their 30s or even 40s, and last divorcees—truly accomplished role models.

Here from Trends Magazine in 2004: “It was once rare for women to remain single and childless into their thirties, and those who did were often viewed with suspicion. But now that Japanese women are choosing from a much greater variety of lifestyles, a book of essays by popular columnist Sakai Junko that trumpets the advantages of the single life is flying off the shelves.”

One idol, 20-year-old model SUMIRE Yokono from the teen-pop group NM48, was attacked in national media for dating 21-year-old FUKUMOTO Taisei, who at that time was signed for another boy group. All aiduro agencies warn new applicants: you wanna be famous? Then no romance, no sex, no kids!

What looks like feminism in reality is womb patrol. It is complete madness to indoctrinate young females like this.

Womb control in universities is even worse. 50% of all female undergraduates in Japan self-report as singles or even as virgins. They have to. They are shamed by politicians, parents and educators that boyfriends are a cancer and that men are holding young girls back.

This disgusting breeding program has a name. It is called womenomics, the brainchild of late Prime Minister ABE Shinzo, America’s all-time-favorite worm tongue.

In 2013, Mr. Abe was allowed an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, in which he reported to his foreign superior how his regime intended “to make women shine in the workplace.” The result is millions of single childless women living in 12-square-meter chicken boxes. No sons for thee, but bullshit jobs in the city.

Part 5. Colony Or Survival.

Remember what we’ve said earlier about Supreme Commander Douglas McArthur and his problem with 7 million babies born in 1947?

Well, by 2018, Mr. Abe Shinzo had brought down that number to 0.9 million babies. You can imagine how the Americans loved “Apocalypse Abe.” He was the greatest cock-sucker and destroyer of the Japanese Washington could have wished for, so got the most positive press of any Japanese leader in living memory.

Not World War Two brought death to the Japanese, no. Death came with the US military occupation.

What triggered Elon Musk was the news that in 2021 alone the Japanese population dropped by 640,000. This is murdering 640,000 babies, bare minimum. If you want to survive this massacre, you must expel the American blood gods.

The way out of foreign induced childlessness is to study biology, sociology and psychology—all currently banned in Japan. You are being wiped out and offed from the planet, Japanese. Basic science, anthropology and common sense are prohibited now.

If you do not help yourself, you will be exterminated. The population is expected to drop 27 million by 2058. A war against your US occupier would cost you at most 3 million lives.

That’s why maths and science will probably be banned and abolished in Japan next, by orders of US supreme command, you can bet on this.

You wanna be their farm, you will be farmed…

END.


The author is a German writer and cultural critic.

Further Reading: Japan made the terrible mistake of aligning itself with the woke West and is now self-destroying. Read previous presentations about this nation‘s horrible decline:

Brutal. The Truth About Japan. From Tokyo University.

WOKE in Tokyo. The US Nukes Cool Japan Out Of Its Existence.

Worried about WW3 and transmitting coronavirus, Japanese bought 20 million house pets.

German Chancellor Scholz Attended Girls’ Day in Berlin, Accidentally Flew For NATO To Japan Next.

STOP IT, JAPAN: Mass Formation Psychosis.

The Ukraine and the End of the History

April 26, 2022

Source

by Batiushka

Introduction: 1492-2022

The present conflict in the Ukraine is clearly not really about the Ukraine – that artificial collection of territories is only a tragic battlefield between the West and the Rest. The conflict is about the organised violence and extraordinary arrogance of the West, the US/UK/EU/NATO, against the rest of the world, specifically Russia, supported by China, India and indeed all other peoples. Therefore, the coming Russian victory in the special operation in the Ukraine essentially signifies the end of the West’s 500-year long domination of the planet. This is why the tiny Western world, some 15% of the planet, is so virulent in its opposition to the Russian people.

The Russian victory will undermine the remnants of illusory faith in the mythical superiority of the West and above all in the USA, fear of which long discouraged the resistance of the ‘Rest’ to the West. Neither Iran, nor even China risked challenging the USA – Russia has. The Ukraine is the USA’s ‘unsinkable’ Titanic and Russia the iceberg to sink US hubris and overreach. When the world sees the Russian victory, four continents at least, Europe and Asian China, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, as well as Latin America and Africa, will vote for freedom from the American Empire. It is the end of Western domination, ‘the end of the history’ of ethnocentric Westerners like Francis Fukuyama. For Russia and Europe themselves we foresee five main consequences. These are:

1. America’s Withdrawal from Europe

The Russian victory will lead to the major reduction or even withdrawal of US forces which have occupied Western Europe since 1945 (the UK since 1942) and Central and Eastern Europe from 1991 onwards. In the US, isolationist sentiments are already strong after the humiliating US routs in Iraq and Afghanistan and violent internal divisions in the United States will only be reinforced. The USA will retreat to its divided island. Transatlantic unity will collapse. Then Western Europe can at last come out of its isolation at the tip of the western peninsula of the Eurasian Continent and rejoin the mainstream of a liberated Eurasia, led by the Russian Federation.

2. The End of the EU

The EU was a US concept in every respect, destined to become a USE, a United States of Europe. There are already a large number of tensions within it. Brexit, the result of English, that is, anti-British and anti-Establishment, patriotism, has taken place. The other tensions will demand solutions following the Russian victory. After that victory, room for any further EU expansion and economic colonisation of Central and Eastern Europe, including in the western Balkans, will end. The end of new colonisation after the loss of the Ukraine, rich in natural resources, will undermine the remains of the already divided EU. Ukraine was a buffer-state and resource centre for the colonial EU. Its liberation means direct EU proximity to Russia and the restoration of Russian influence. With the Russian victory, Western Europe will have to make strategic agreements with Moscow on European security, this time without US meddling.

3. The Renewal of Imperial Russia

The billions spent on bribing treasonous pro-Western puppet elites in former Soviet Republics like the Baltic States, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan and the four other Central Asian ‘stans’ will have been wasted. The myth of Western superiority on which these elites were created will give way to reality. This will put an end to their opportunities to earn dollars and make careers from Russophobia by renting out national territories for US bases, CIA torture facilities or racist germ warfare biolabs to create diseases.  Georgia was the first to understand this in early 2022, refusing to join in anti-Russian sanctions. In Moldova the deadline is approaching, as Russian troops prepare to liberate Odessa and break through the land corridor to unite Transdnistria to Russia.

4. Russian Values to Reshape Central and Eastern Europe

The strengthening of Central and Eastern European identities in nation-states like Hungary, Slovakia and Poland will lead to their rapprochement with Russia. Russia’s victory will mean an increase in sympathy for it in a number of Central and Eastern European nation states, not just in Serbia, Montenegro, North Macedonia and in Hungary, Slovakia and Poland, but also in the Baltic States, Austria, the Czech Lands, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Mediterranean Cyprus. Once their venal, anti-patriotic, US-appointed elites have fallen, Russian values will return to these countries as an influential force.

5. Russian Values to Reshape Western Europe

The EU, founded immediately the SU (Soviet Union) had collapsed, was from the outset an artificial construct, built on the rejection of patriotism in favour of a non-existent supranational European identity. Patriotism is an existential threat to Brussels. This is partly why as long ago as Common Market days De Gaulle, who had wanted a confederation of homelands, was overthrown in the US regime change in 1968. Then in 2016 patriots voted for Brexit against the Establishment elite and the Democrat President Obama. The EU was always about the rejection of national identities in favour of post-Christian, indeed anti-Christian, anti-national and anti-family values, mass immigration of paid slaves, the imposition of the LGBT agenda, the restriction of freedoms for anti-EU views etc. These are not Russian values.

Conclusion: Global Denazification

Just as in 1814 Russian troops liberated Paris and in 1945 Berlin, so in the 2020s Brussels will be liberated, or rather will collapse, under the pressure of Russian values. We are talking about the disintegration of the US-created European Union and also of US bases in Eastern Europe and the former eastern Soviet Union. We shall see the emergence of national centres, from Scotland to Cyprus, from Catalonia to Mongolia, from Slovakia to Central Asia. The bubble of Western, US/UK/EU, hubris is being burst by Russia’s liberation and denazification of the Ukraine. In order to preserve its identity as an imperial nation, protect the integrity of the Orthodox Faith and guarantee the peace of the whole multipolar world, Russia will spread this process of denazification to all.

Pakistan’s Moment of Truth

Apr 2, 2022

Russia Will Not Bend Its Knee And Submit To The West – Sheikh Imran N. Hosein

BY WEB EDITOR on  • ( 0 )

Russia Will Not Bend Its Knee And Submit To The West – Sheikh Imran N. Hosein

In a video released this month, the well-known Islamic scholar, Sheikh Imran N. Hosein, gave his views on the on-going Ukraine-Russia tensions. Some of the points that he made were:

  • Russia is not prepared to bend its knee and submit to the West.
  • Russia has the right to protect its security.
  • If NATO wants to continue on this foolish path they will take mankind to the brink of destruction.
  • Russia is not foolish; it will not invade Ukraine, unless someone wants a war.
  • The show of force by Russia at the Ukrainian border is meant to deliver a military, political and economic message but most importantly a psychological message to the West.
  • Turkey is behaving in a reckless way by selling weapons to Ukraine.

This is the complete video on this topic.

محور المقاومة وأوكرانيا والحرب العالمية الهجينة

الثلاثاء 5 نيسان 2022

 عمرو علان 

لقد بات جليّاً، كون المعركة في أوكرانيا جزءاً من حربٍ أميركيةٍ روسيةٍ أشمل، أن رحى المعركة العسكرية تدور في أوروبا بينما تمتد الحرب الأشمل لتشمل ساحاتٍ وصوراً أخرى، كالعقوبات التجارية الغربية التي تعاظمت وتوسَّعت بعد بدء إطلاق النار. ولقد انقسمت الأطراف الدولية في هذا الاشتباك العالميّ إلى ثلاث مجموعات: حلفاءٍ مباشرين، إمّا لروسيا أو لأميركا، وحلفاءٍ آخرين غير مباشرين لأحد المعسكَرَين، وأطرافٍ أخرى ما زالت تحاول المحافظة على موقع وسطٍ بين الحلفين المتقابلين.

منذ نهاية الثنائية القطبية، سعت أميركا حثيثاً إلى فرض هيمنتها على كل دول المعمورة، ونهب ثروات شعوبها، ومحو حضاراتها وثقافاتها. ولقد وظَّفت في مسعاها هذا عدة أدواتٍ: الحرب المباشرة بشقيها العسكري والاقتصادي، والحرب الناعمة بكل وسائلها من ثوراتٍ ملوَّنةٍ وهيئات «مجتمعٍ دوليٍ» ومنظمات «مجتمعٍ مدنيٍ» وإعلامٍ،… إلخ. وكانت العولمة والأيديولوجية الليبرالية الفكر المحرّك لهذه الأدوات، ولقد أقر ستيفن وولت في «فورن بوليسي» بكون الفكر الليبرالي، الذي تبناه الغرب و«الناتو» في العلاقات الدولية، قد ساهم بشكلٍ رئيسيٍّ في وصول الأمور في أوكرانيا إلى ما وصلت إليه. وفي سبيل المسعى الأميركي لتثبيت هيمنتها على العالم، قامت منذ مطلع القرن بعدة حروب ومؤامرات في منطقتي المشرق العربي ووسط آسيا، لكن باءت كلها بفشل استراتيجي على ما يقر به جل المنظِّرين والساسة الأميركيين.

وفي غضون هذا، ترسخت قناعةٌ لدى روسيا والصين بكون أميركا تسعى لتحجيمهما، إن لم يكن تفكيكهما، كي تستمر هيمنتها على العالم، وتنهي التاريخ على النحو الذي تراه! ولكن، في غمرة انشغال أميركا بمخططاتها في منطقتي قلب آسيا وغربها، استغلت الصين الفرصة وبنَتْ قوتها الاقتصادية والتكنولوجية، وقامت روسيا باستعادة التوازن لاقتصادها، وأعادت بناء جيشها وطورت أسلحته التكتيكية والإستراتيجية. وبالتوازي، كانت روسيا والصّين تُطوِّران علاقاتهما البينية ضمن «منظمة شانغهاي» وأطرٍ أخرى، بالإضافة إلى الاتفاقيات الثنائية بينهما التي تُوِّجَت بالقمَّة الصينية الروسية الأخيرة. ومع مطلع العشرية الثانية من هذا القرن، نضجت أغلب عناصر الاشتباك الكبير من أجل رسم عالم ما بعد الأحادية القطبية، حيث كانت الصّين وروسيا قد استعدتا للمواجهة، وكانتا قد وصلتا إلى مستوى متقدمٍ في تنسيق المواقف، بما فيه التوافق على التصدي لسياسة أميركا لتغيير أنظمة الدول.
كانت المعركة في سوريا أول تجلِّيات هذا الاشتباك الأوسع، بين المعسكر الروسي- الصيني الشرقي والمعسكر الأميركي الغربي، وهذا ما ظهر في استخدام روسيا والصين «الفيتو» لعدة مرات في مجلس الأمن، منهيتين بذلك مرحلة الهيمنة الأميركية على المجلس، التي سادت منذ انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي. لذلك، شكَّلت الحرب على سوريا المعركة التمهيدية في الاشتباك العالمي الأشمل، ويصح وصف ما تشهده أوكرانيا اليوم بالمعركة الثانية ضمن هذا الاشتباك. ومن المبكر حالياً التنبؤ في ما إذا كانت معركة أوكرانيا آخر المعارك العسكرية فيه، لكن من الواضح أن الاشتباك العالمي مستمرٌ في صيغته الاقتصادية، وربما السيبرانية، حتى إلحاق أحد المعسكرين هزيمةً إستراتيجيةً بالخصم. من المستبعد توقُّف الحرب الاقتصادية التي بدأها الغرب على روسيا عقب حسم المعركة العسكرية في أوكرانيا. وهذا، بدوره، يستجلب حرباً اقتصاديةً مضادة من المعسكر الشرقي على ركيزتي حروب أميركا الاقتصادية: هيمنة الدولار والنظام المالي العالمي الراهن. وقد بدأ هذا بالفعل؛ فقرار روسيا تحصيل أثمان صادرات الطاقة إلى أوروبا بالروبل، والسعي لإصدار الروبل الرقمي، تعدَّان خطوتين متقدمتين في الحرب الاقتصادية المضادة.

توصيف الوضع بكونه اشتباكاً عالمياً مصيرياً للقوى الكبرى، يفيد بتبلور مساراتٍ دوليةٍ وإقليميةٍ كانت قد ظهرت ملامحها منذ حين


وعليه، يمكن القول بأنّ العالم يشهد، منذ نحو عقدٍ من الزمن، حالةً تشبه الحرب العالمية؛ حرباً يمكن وصفها بالهجينة، لا هي حرب باردةٌ بالكامل، ولا ساخنةٌ بالكامل، وذلك نظراً لتفادي القوى الكبرى الدخول في صدامٍ عسكريٍ مباشرٍ بسبب الردع النوويّ المتبادل، مع الأخذ في الاعتبار أنه يصعب القطع بعدم تدهور الاشتباك العالميّ الراهن إلى الأسوأ، ولكن يبقى هذا الاحتمال الأقل ترجيحاً.
يصف ألكسندر دوغين ما يحصل في أوكرانيا بأنه حربُ استقلالٍ من هيمنة العولمة الليبرالية الغربية. الاشتباك العالميّ الراهن لا ينحصر فقط برغبة الدول الصاعدة بكسر الأحادية القطبية، بل، كما يقول، إن الحرب الراهنة في حقيقتها تدور ضد الأيديولوجية الليبرالية، التي تسعى لمحو حضارات شعوب الأرض وثقافاتها، والتي تدمّر الأسرة والمجتمع، وتنحدر بالإنسان إلى كائنٍ مسخٍ ورغائبيٍّ، متحررٍ من أية ضوابط اجتماعيةٍ أو أخلاقيةٍ.

ولا يبدو أن أميركا والغرب بعيدان من هذه القراءة لمصيرية الحرب الراهنة. فتشير طريقة تعاطي قادة الغرب مع المعركة الأوكرانية إلى أنهم يهدفون لإلحاق هزيمةٍ إستراتيجيةٍ بروسيا والمعسكر الشرقي، ولهذا فالأرجح تصاعد الضغوط الأميركية على حلفائها لحسم موقعهم في المعركة الأوكرانية، كحال الكيان المؤقت، الذي ما زال يتجنب الانحياز الكامل للجبهة الأميركية، وذلك لعدم رغبته في إغضاب روسيا، لا سيما أنه بات لروسيا حضورٌ فاعلٌ في المنطقة العربية. لكن، مع تعمُّق انقسام الأطراف بين معسكرين على وقع احتدام وطيس المعارك ومرور الزمن، يصير السؤال إلى أي مدىً سيستطيع الكيان المؤقت الاستمرار في لعبة موقفه الضبابيّ؟ ورغم العلاقات الأمنية والتجارية التي تربط الكيان المؤقت بروسيا، وعدم رغبته في استعدائها، يبقى تموضع الكيان المؤقت في المعسكر الغربي أكثر ترجيحاً، لكونه:
– في أصل وجوده صنيعةٌ غربيةٌ.
– مرتبطٌ وجودياً بالهيمنة الغربية.
– غير قادرٍ على مقاومة الضغوط الأميركية حال اشتدادها.
وهنا يُفتح بابٌ لقوى المقاومة في الإقليم، عبر استغلال تناقض المصالح الناشئ بين روسيا والكيان المؤقت. ففي المحصلة، تخوُّف الكيان المؤقت في محلّه من ردّ فعل روسيا حال تموضعه كلياً في المعسكر الغربي.
وفي الخلاصة، توصيف الوضع بكونه اشتباكاً عالمياً مصيرياً للقوى الكبرى، يفيد بتبلور مساراتٍ دوليةٍ وإقليميةٍ كانت قد ظهرت ملامحها منذ حينٍ، وظهور مساراتٍ جديدةٍ يمكن لقوى المقاومة البناء عليها، لا سيما كون هذه القوى باتت لاعباً حاسماً في رسم مستقبل الإقليم، ففي نهاية المطاف، كان محور المقاومة مَن أفشل أهداف حروب أميركا الاستراتيجية في منطقتي المشرق العربي ووسط آسيا.

نهاية «نهاية التاريخ»: الفوضى العالمية فُرصتنا الأنسب

السبت 2 نيسان 2022

(أ ف ب )

 وليد شرارة

موقف غالبية بلدان الجنوب، وبينهم حلفاء تاريخيون للولايات المتحدة، من النزاع الدائر في أوكرانيا، ورفضهم إدانة روسيا وفرض عقوبات عليها، مؤشّر قوي جديد إلى التراجع المستمرّ والمتسارع للهيمنة الأميركية. مَن كان يتصوّر، حتى بضع سنوات خلت، أن السعودية مثلاً، التي سارت خلف واشنطن طوال عقود الحرب الباردة وبعدها، واندرجت في استراتيجيتها العامّة ليس في الشرق الأوسط وحده، بل في أميركا اللاتينية وأفريقيا أيضاً، سترفض الانحياز إليها في مواجهتها الحيوية الراهنة مع موسكو؟ أمّا الهند، التي تحوّلت منذ مطلع الألفية الثانية إلى حليف رئيس، بنظر الاستراتيجيين الأميركيين، في مقابل الصين، وشريك بارز في «كواد»، فإن موقفها من النزاع في أوكرانيا، وقرارها مضاعفة وارداتها من النفط الروسي بأربع مرّات، والدفع بالروبل وليس بالدولار، ولّد صدمة جديدة لهؤلاء الخبراء الاستراتيجيين. المقاربة التركية للنزاع في أوكرانيا، وإن كانت مختلفة عن تلك المذكورة، تتمايز بوضوح عن نظيرتها الأميركية: هي أمدّت كييف بالسلاح، خاصة بمسيّرات «بيرقدار»، لكنها رفضت فرض عقوبات على موسكو، وتلعب دوراً نشيطاً في الوساطة بين الطرفَين.

هذا بالنسبة لحلفاء واشنطن، أمّا خصومها، فإن مواقفهم تتراوح بين الدعم العلني أو الضمني لروسيا. لكلّ دولة من دول الجنوب دوافع خاصة تفسّر تموضعها خارج المعسكر الذي تقوده الولايات المتحدة في مجابهتها المحتدمة مع منافِسيها الاستراتيجيين في روسيا والصين، وفي تنمية شراكات متعدّدة الأبعاد معهما، غير أن المحصّلة النهائية لمثل هذه التموضعات والشراكات، تشكّل منعطفاً حاسماً في مسار العلاقات الدولية منذ نهاية الحرب العالمية الثانية. فعجز الإمبراطورية المنحدرة عن ضبط الحلفاء، ناهيك عن التصدّي الناجح للأعداء، يشي بتفكّك منظومة السيطرة الغربية على المعمورة، وبداية مرحلة طويلة من الصراعات الدولية والإقليمية في بقاع مختلفة منها، ستحدّد مآلاتها شكل النظام الدولي الذي سيعاد بناؤه. ولا شك في أن للفوضى العالمية الآخذة في الاتّساع، تداعيات أكيدة ووازنة على صراعنا المديد مع المشروع الاستيطاني الصهيوني.

حالة الفوضى
الصراع بين الدول الكبرى ليس صنواً للفوضى بالضرورة. ففي مرحلة ما بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية، انقسم العالم إلى معسكرَين، ضمّ كلّ منهما مجموعة من الدول والأحزاب والتنظيمات ذات الخلفيات الأيديولوجية والسياسية المتعدّدة، ما أدى إلى نشوء نظام القطبية الثنائية. كانت للقطبَين الرئيسيَن، أي الولايات المتحدة والاتحاد السوفياتي، قدرة تأثير وضبط تختلف درجاتها مع أطراف معسكرَيهما، التي تمتّع بعضها بهامش استقلالية نسبية. غير أن مَن يستعرض الحروب والنزاعات التي دارت في تلك المرحلة، سيجد أن كلّاً من القطبين امتلك إمكانية التدخّل في مسارها، و»إقناع» حليفه المحلي أو الإقليمي بالتصعيد أو بتخفيض حدّة الصراع في فترات معينة، وبـ»اقتراح» حلول لهذه الصراعات، تنسجم مع الأجندة الدولية للقطب المعنيّ. فالاتحاد السوفياتي الذي دعم الدول العربية والمقاومة الفلسطينية في صراعها مع الكيان الصهيوني، ساهم في إقناعها بأن يكون هدفها النهائي هو التسوية السلمية على قاعدة القرارات الدولية، وإن لم تكن هذه المساهمة هي العامل الوحيد الذي يفسّر قبول الأطراف الرسمية العربية والفلسطينية بهذا السقف السياسي. الأمر نفسه ينسحب، وإن بأشكال ودرجات مختلفة، على حروب ونزاعات وقعت آنذاك، وسعى كلّ من القطبَين إلى توظيفها في إطار استراتيجيته العامة، أو ضبطها لمنع اتّساعها واستعارها.

الفراغ الناجم عن تراجع الهيمنة الأميركية، وعدم وجود قوى مرشّحة للحلول مكانها، ستعمل القوى الإقليمية على تعبئته


بعد انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي، حاولت الولايات المتحدة فرض نظام الآحادية القطبية، وشنّت لهذه الغاية حروباً عدوانية مدمرة، غير أنه بات من الواضح أنها فشلت في ذلك تماماً. ما نشهده اليوم هو مجابهة بين معسكر أطلسي بقيادة الولايات المتحدة، ومحور روسي – صيني أصبحت أوكرانيا إحدى ساحاته. لكن بقيّة العالم، أي بلدان الجنوب، وبينها قوى إقليمية وازنة، اختارت «عدم الانحياز» إلى أيّ من الطرفين. أصبح «عدم الانحياز»، ولو الظرفي، بالنسبة لهذه البلدان، أسهل ممّا كان عليه في فترة تشكّل المنظّمة التي تحمل هذا الاسم، والتي تعرّض أعضاؤها لضغوط هائلة، من قِبَل الولايات المتحدة أساساً، لحملهم على الانحياز أو إسقاط أنظمتهم الوطنية. وعلى رغم احتفاظ عدد من بلدان الجنوب بتحالفاتها الدولية، فإن هامش استقلاليتها قد اتّسع، وأضحت تعطي الأولوية لأجندتها الخاصة، حتى ولو لم تتقاطع مع أجندة الحليف الدولي. يقول فرانسيس فوكوياما، في مقابلة مع «ذي نيو ستايتسمان»، بأننا «ربّما نرى نهاية نهاية التاريخ». الفراغ الناجم عن تراجع الهيمنة الأميركية، وعدم وجود قوى دولية مرشّحة حالياً للحلول في مكانها، في منطقتنا وفي مناطق أخرى، ستعمل القوى الإقليمية على تعبئته من خلال النزاع في ما بينها أو التوصّل إلى تفاهمات وترتيبات.

أولوية فلسطين

منذ أن أدرك الحلفاء الإقليميون للولايات المتحدة قرارها «التخفّف من أعباء الشرق الأوسط»، وهو توجّه سيتعزّز في سياستها الخارجية في سياق حربها بالوكالة مع روسيا في أوكرانيا، وهم يعملون على بناء تحالف «عربي» – صهيوني في مواجهة قوى المقاومة في الإقليم، وفي القلب منها إيران. هذه هي الغاية الحقيقية لـ»اتفاقية أبراهام»، ولقمم شرم الشيخ والنقب. غير أن الإمارات، وهي الطرف الرئيس الذي اشترك في صياغة هذا المشروع أيام إدارة دونالد ترامب، شرعت من جهة أخرى في السعي لتطبيع علاقاتها مع إيران، وتطوير المصالح المشتركة معها. السعودية لم تشارك حتى الآن رسمياً في التحالف المذكور، لكن وجود البحرين تمّ بعد ضوء أخضر منها. إلّا أن ولي عهدها دعا بدوره إلى إقامة علاقات حسن جوار مع إيران.
تعلم جميع أطراف هذا التحالف هشاشته، وفي مقدّمتها الكيان الصهيوني. وتعلم قوى المقاومة ذلك، وفي طليعتها الشعب الفلسطيني، تغيُّر أولويات القوى الغربية، وانشغالها بمواجهات استراتيجية كبرى مع روسيا والصين ستزداد حدّة في المدى المنظور، وتستتبع تراجع أولوية صراعات المنطقة على أجندتها. هذا ما يثير ذعر قادة الكيان، وما يفسّر التقاط أبناء الشعب الفلسطيني وتنظيماته المقاوِمة لهذه الفرصة وتصعيد العمل المقاوم. انفجار انتفاضة شعبية عارمة ضدّ الاحتلال مدعومة بالنار، نار البنادق والصواريخ، سيفرض التراجع على العدو، وسيقلب الطاولة على مشاريع التحالفات الخيانية. الفوضى العالمية الراهنة هي السياق الأنسب لفرض أولوية فلسطين على جدول أعمال الجميع، عبر جولة جديدة من المجابهة تبني على ما حقّقته معركة «سيف القدس» المجيدة.

من ملف : نهاية «نهاية التاريخ»

Russian military intervention in Ukraine – Sheikh Imran Hosein first response

Mar 10, 2022

Sheikh Imran Hosein

Why the End of History Never Happened?

Dec 20 2021

By Darko Lazar

In 1989, when it became obvious that the collapse of the Soviet Union was imminent, Western elites gave themselves permission to think big. As politicians prepared to usher in a new era defined by a global liberal order, academics like Francis Fukuyama famously declared “The End of History”.

For Fukuyama, the end of the USSR meant that the last ideological challenger to liberalism had been eliminated. He imagined a world where Western thought would become universal, and Western-style democracies and free markets would spread unhindered.

“It matters very little what strange thoughts occur to people in Albania or Burkina Faso,” Fukuyama declared, “for we are interested in what one could in some sense call the common ideological heritage.”

Unfortunately for this school of thought, the last three decades have proved that people’s “strange thoughts” in many corners of the globe do indeed matter.

A Turning Point

Throughout history, empires have been defined by three key characteristics: brutality, bloodshed, and honor. Their expansion is always accompanied by an immense loss of life, which was traditionally justified by claiming cultural and political superiority. Fukuyama and those like him professed their superiority complex by thinly veiling them with the “values” of Western democracies: transparency, rationality, and of course, human rights.

But just like empires of old, the contemporary Western one takes history for granted. It fails to accept the fact that efforts to conquer nations will always produce backlashes, which inevitably lead to a reshuffling of the global order. History never ends – it’s a constant progression toward nations that each new generation wants their children to grow up in.

Empires have never bothered to understand this concept of resistance. And their elites have never been able to relate to the “strange thoughts” by ordinary people who would rather die fighting than live like subordinates.

As such, it is very difficult for an empire to acknowledge defeat or even recognize that its hegemony is in freefall. But for those who were born and raised in the constant shadow of American bombs, sanctions, and dictates, the failed US conquests in Afghanistan and the Middle East must be seen as watershed moments.

The Glory Days Are Gone

From a historical standpoint, American global hegemony was a brief occurrence. This epoch lasted just over 30 years. It was defined by constant wars that culminated in the so-called ‘War on Terror’. The key battlegrounds were Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, all of which have been lost by the US. Any narrative suggesting otherwise is mere Western propaganda and a product of imperial arrogance that is unable to come to terms with an existential crisis.

Here, it is important to note that the American withdrawal from Afghanistan is much more than that. It is a very public acknowledgment that the US strategy in Central Asia and the Middle East has failed. In layman’s terms, the Americans didn’t just lose Afghanistan; they are about to lose the Middle East as well.

A lot of this has to do with the rise of China, Russia, and Iran. But the demise of American hegemony is also being fueled by Washington’s refusal to acknowledge that the world has fundamentally changed.

Despite all the muscle-flexing and inflammatory statements, the US no longer has the world’s unmatched military might. In other words, the world is no longer unipolar, and the Americans are no longer setting the rules of the game. 

It’s now an open secret that Washington’s so-called alliances across the Middle East have become obsolete. For an America in decline, they represent an enormous risk of being sucked into a regional war that they can neither control nor ever dream of winning. Meanwhile, for the Gulf monarchies and ‘Israel’, the Americans have become a liability – they are an unreliable and unpredictable guest that just can’t seem to move on from its glory days in the 1990s.

Rigged War Games

Washington’s ambivalence has been on full display for quite some time, manifesting through multiple blunders, including several incidents in the Gulf.

One of the more notable episodes unfolded in late October, when US naval forces attempted to hijack an Iranian oil tanker under the guise of enforcing Washington’s sanctions regime.

The attempt was skillfully foiled by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard. The incident, caught on video, shows IRG personnel using helicopters and speedboats to take control of the tanker as it’s being pursued by American Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers and a fast response cutter.

At one point, an IRG speedboat gets between the American destroyer and the tanker. The video shows a large-caliber machine gun pointed at the US ship’s combat posts, which could easily penetrate the destroyer’s three-millimeter armor. And just like that, the pursuit was over.

This is just one in a series of incidents in recent years, reminding the Americans that the shallow Gulf is an ideal environment for small, fast-attack craft, and a less-than-ideal environment for large, slow US warships. By all accounts, America’s multi-billion-dollar navy would be sitting ducks in this chaotic, shallow-water warfare.

These, however, are not exactly new revelations for policy makers in Washington. The Americans have been rehearsing war with Iran for decades, and the outcomes always involve catastrophic US losses.

In 2002, marine lieutenant-general Paul Van Riper quit his command after the US military rigged one of the biggest war games in its history to ensure the Americans beat their ‘Middle Eastern’ adversaries.

During the drills that cost nearly US$200 million to organize, Riper was the commander of a “low-tech, third-world army”. When the US fleet sailed into the Gulf, Riper instructed his small boats to move around in apparently aimless circles before launching a surprise attack which sank a substantial part of the US navy.

The war game had to be stopped and the American ships “refloated” so that the US forces stood a chance. That was in 2002. Since then, the US has only grown weaker, while Iran has become exceptionally stronger.

Survival Mode

While some political currents in the West recognize the need to change course and for the US to start serious negotiations about its future role in the world, many are still sticking to radical ideological and military doctrines.

And although this divergence in views is accelerating the collapse of the unipolar order, it is also delaying desperately needed dialogue based on mutual respect, rather than the classic version of American diplomacy: “do as we say, or else”.  

So, what is the US strategy for these unprecedented challenges? And are policymakers in Washington operating under the assumption that the US is still the world’s sole superpower?     

The actions of the current Biden administration suggest that there is no actual strategy. The White House is simply molding its game plan based on individual situations as they arise.

Their rhetoric ignores the fact that the US has become both economically and militarily inferior on the global stage. But in their actions – those that very much resemble Biden’s predecessor – the current administration is pushed into abandoning old colonial structures. The US military presence in Afghanistan was an important one. Others will soon meet the same fate.  

New Paradigm of US Foreign Policy and Relations with Russia: Valdai Club Analytics

NOVEMBER 17, 2021

New Paradigm of US Foreign Policy and Relations with Russia: Valdai Club Analytics

https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/new-paradigm-of-us-foreign-policy/

US foreign policy is by no means becoming less ideological. Liberal ideology in its newest left-liberal form is turning from a means of expansion into an instrument for consolidating the “collective West”, defining “us and them” and splitting the international community into opposing blocs, writes Valdai Club expert Dmitry Suslov.

US foreign policy is undergoing an important transition. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan drew a final and symbolic line under the period of its foreign policy, which began not on September 11, 2001, but in the early 1990s — what’s commonly called the “post-Cold War” period. In the early 1990s, intoxicated by the “victory in the Cold War” declared by George Bush Sr., the United States, being confident of the “end of history” and not meeting any resistance from outside in the context of the emerging “moment of unipolarity”, embarked on a course to transform everything else in the world in accordance with its values. These included the universalisation of the collective West and the spread of the American-centric “New World Order”. It was then that the goal of American policy towards Russia and China became their liberal-democratic transformation in accordance with Western patterns and integration into the American-centric world as junior players. US policy objectives regarding so-called “Rogue countries” (that is, those who stubbornly did not want to go over to the “right side of history”) became regime change.

That policy reached an impasse in the second half of the 2000s; since then the United States has been mired in a deep foreign policy crisis, due to the fact that the world had “suddenly” stopped developing in line with the American ideological guidelines. Russia and China refused to be transformed in accordance with Western patterns and integrate into the American world order as junior players, and attempts to democratise Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East generally failed. It was obviously not possible to extend the American-centric world order to the entire international system, and this order itself gradually began to burst at the seams.

Barack Obama tried to find a way out of this crisis by changing the instruments of American foreign policy, but maintaining the paradigm of spreading the American-centric world order to the rest of the world. The “reset” of relations with Russia and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Washington hoped that China would eventually be forced to join the TPP) were, in fact, the latest attempts to “draw” Moscow and Beijing into the American-centric world order. Supporting the Arab Spring and fighting Arab dictators was the latest attempt to transform the Middle East. Both attempts failed again.

The first president of the United States to abandon the paradigm of transforming the rest of the world in accordance with American values was Donald Trump. Under his administration, for the first time since the Cold War, the US didn’t initiate any new military interventions, openly declared its refusal to spread democracy by military means, and made a fundamental decision to leave Afghanistan by signing an agreement with the Taliban (banned in Russia). It announced that henceforth, US foreign and defence policy would be focused primarily on the confrontation with Washington’s global rivals and adversaries, namely China and Russia. However, both the American elite and the establishment of most of the US allies mistakenly perceived Trump and his policies as a temporary aberration, after which a “return to normal” US policy (as it was after the end of the Cold War) should occur. Trump’s turnaround did not seem real or final to many. However, their projections were all in vain.

Biden’s historical significance lies in the fact that, despite being flesh and blood part of the traditional American establishment, having removed Trump from the White House, and receiving the support of elites and the “deep state”, he not only did not abandon the foreign policy of Trump, but also saw it to its conclusion. In doing so, he gave it a much more systemic and complete character. The main ways in which Biden’s foreign policy differs from that of Trump are that the United States has increased the importance of combating transnational threats (primarily climate change), and also changed its rhetoric towards its European allies, making it more sympathetic. On most fundamental issues, however, continuity prevails.

The abandonment of the paradigm of universalisation of the American-centric world order is in no way a signal of the readiness of the United States to form a joint multipolar world order with non-Western centres of power, primarily with China and Russia. The fundamentals of American foreign policy — the commitment to primacy and ideological messianism — remain unchanged: they are the result of the nature of the American state as an ideological project and its position as the most powerful player in its environment. The history of US foreign policy does not know the joint formation of a multipolar world order and participation in it; the American ideology simply excludes this.

As a result, a new paradigm of American foreign policy is already being shaped. Its defining priority is the fight against global rivals, this time China and Russia, and attempts to build a new bipolarity, where one pole would be the “world of democracies” led by the United States, and the other pole would be the “world of authoritarians” with the leading roles played by China and Russia. From attempts to universalise the American-centric world order, the United States has moved to its consolidation and defence, and from the “post-Cold War” era to the era of a new global confrontation.

US foreign policy is by no means becoming less ideological. Liberal ideology in its newest left-liberal form is turning from a means of expansion into an instrument for consolidating the “collective West”, defining “us and them” and splitting the international community into opposing blocs.

By rejecting the old, failed foreign policy paradigm and adopting a new one, Biden has been able to lead America out of the foreign policy crisis of the past decade and a half. The fiasco in Afghanistan was associated with an incorrect assessment of how long the Ghani government would hold out after the withdrawal of American troops. However, this dramatic narrative should not be misleading: Washington was well aware that this government would fall and that the Taliban would inevitably come to power (within between several months and two years), but nevertheless decided to leave.

The new global confrontation is intended to restore meaning, order and self-confidence to American foreign policy. With its help, the United States seeks to rally allies and partners around itself, consolidate the “collective West” and strengthen its leadership, and, perhaps, even mitigate its internal problems — to try and glue back together a divided American society, albeit partially, and reduce the polarisation of the political elite.

Of course, the practice of American foreign policy is more complex and multidimensional than the rhetoric about a new global confrontation between democracies and autocracies.

First, the world does not fit into the Procrustean bed of a new ideological confrontation. As in the previous Cold War, in the fight against global adversaries, the United States needs to partner with a number of non-democratic countries (for example, Vietnam). Many of the official US allies are authoritarian (including most allies in the Middle East, including Turkey), and Washington is unlikely to abandon these alliances, even though relations with some of them have deteriorated. Loyal NATO allies such as Poland also face serious problems with democracy. However, most importantly, an increasing number of countries, including democracies, do not want to join the US-China or US-Russia confrontation on the side of one of the powers, and are striving to pursue an increasingly independent foreign policy. An illustrative example is South Korea, which, being an ally of the United States and a democracy, in every possible way avoids being drawn into anti-Chinese policies.

Therefore, it is already reasonable to raise the question of how soon the United States will enter a new foreign policy crisis associated with its inability to achieve a new global demarcation along ideological lines and rally around itself most of the “free world” in opposition to China and Russia. Where, in this case, will the American foreign policy strategy develop? But these are questions of a more distant future.

Second, an important priority of the Biden administration is the fight against transnational challenges, primarily climate change, which requires cooperation with global opponents of the United States and non-democratic countries in general. So far, the Biden administration has been trying to combine its geopolitical rivalry with Moscow and Beijing with cooperation with them regarding climate change and other global challenges. It is difficult to say whether such a combination works. Moreover, Russia and China are invited to cooperate on the basis of the Western agenda, not a joint agenda, and at the same time the United States is using the same climate agenda to discredit Moscow and Beijing, exposing them as “climate spoilers” that refuse to reduce carbon emissions on a larger scale.

Third, the Biden administration makes it clear that China, perceived as the only rival capable of undermining American global primacy today, is a much more important and strategic adversary than Russia, and the Pacific region is a much higher priority region than Europe.

It is precisely at the containment of China and the consolidation of the anti-Chinese coalition that the United States is trying to throw its main forces, sometimes to the detriment of its policy of consolidating the Atlantic community and containing Russia. The history of the creation of AUKUS and NATO’s decision to designate China in its future strategic concept (planned to be adopted in 2022) as a threat to the security of the alliance, along with Russia, speak of the same thing: Europe is interesting for the Biden administration not only as a springboard and an ally for containment Russia, but also as an assistant in the fight against China.

Equally, it is the desire of the United States to focus maximum resources and attention on the fight against China, as well as to weaken the tendency towards further rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing, which has led to their mutual strengthening, including the military strengthening of China. That is the main reason why the Biden administration is now aiming to stabilise the confrontation with Russia, and to prevent its further escalation. While maintaining the existing deterrent tools (sanctions, information war, support for the current governments in Ukraine and Georgia and their Euro-Atlantic orientation, etc.), Washington, nevertheless, has not provided a qualitative increase in support for Kiev and Tbilisi and seeks to prevent what could lead to a new escalation of the military conflict in the Donbass or in the South Caucasus.

However, while confrontation with Russia is not an equal priority of US foreign policy versus confrontation with China, it remains and will remain an important issue. The United States has neither the desire nor the ability to overcome or at least significantly reduce the confrontation with Russia at the cost of its own concessions, and will strive to make it more passive.

There is no possibility of reducing confrontation on the part of the United States, primarily due to its domestic political restrictions:

In recent years, a strong anti-Russian consensus has developed there. US policymakers perceive Russia as both a geopolitical and an ideological adversary that seeks to undermine the position of the United States around the world, strengthen its main strategic rival (China), as well as undermine the American political system, and undermine America’s faith in democracy and liberal values. This perception and the need to combat it is one of the few issues on which there is almost complete agreement in the polarised political system of the United States.

In the context of this polarisation, which has turned many foreign policy topics into instruments of domestic political struggle, any positive step towards Russia becomes a pretext for accusations of treason, and anyone who takes this step pays a high price. This limitation has been observed since the time of Barack Obama, but since then, its scale has increased many times over.

Since the adoption of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) in 2017, no administration has been able to significantly reduce the scale of anti-Russia sanctions.

In addition, NATO will try to maintain the Russian-American confrontation; the anti-Russian focus has sharply increased since the failure in Afghanistan. Finally, in the wake of the Afghanistan fiasco, the United States simply cannot afford to diminish support for countries directly involved in the conflict with Russia, such as Ukraine and Georgia. In order to reduce reparation damage and convince allies and partners of the reliability of American commitments, the Biden administration must show in every possible way that, although it is ready to turn away from “unnecessary” satellites, by no means will it abandon those that play an important role in the fight against global adversaries. The visits of US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to Georgia and Ukraine in October 2021 confirmed this very task.

The lack of any desire to improve relations with Russia is primarily due to the perception of Russia as a weakening power, which, in the opinion of the US, will in the foreseeable future be forced to seek cooperation with the West from the position of a vassal due to either a large-scale internal crisis or a geopolitical clash with China as a result of the growing asymmetry between Russia and the PRC (something the majority in the American mainstream stubbornly believe in).

As a result, the Biden administration’s policy towards Russia is essentially to wait and see as Russia returns to the western orbit while continuing the confrontation, but minimising the damage associated with this confrontation, that is, preventing it from creating an immediate threat to American security.

Thus, given the impossibility and unwillingness of the United States to reduce the intensity of the confrontation with Russia, let alone to overcome it, it is quite possible to conclude that the global confrontation with China and Russia has indeed become, and will remain in the near future, a new core and organising principle of US foreign policy. It will serve as the basis for the development of their national interests, determining the scale of their presence and the nature of their obligations in different regions of the world. One reservation: containing China and consolidating allies and partners against it will remain a higher priority than containing Russia.

In practical terms, this means that the United States will strive to increase its presence, range of partners and military-political commitments in Asia and strengthen relations with those countries it considers important in containing China (the creation of AUKUS and Biden’s statement that Washington will provide military assistance to Taiwan in the event of a military invasion by the PRC is a direct confirmation). It also intends to maintain its presence in Europe and support for Ukraine and Georgia as countries playing a central role in the geopolitical struggle with Russia at the current level. Additionally, it will seek to weaken the US presence and commitments in countries and regions that Washington does not consider central or important to the fight against China and Russia.

The latter include, for example, the Middle East. Washington does not see this region as an arena for fighting global opponents and therefore can afford to reduce its military presence and political role there. The US was guided by the same logic toward Afghanistan: they knew that the “vacuum” left there by their departure would not be filled by either Beijing or Moscow.

So, for Russian-American relations, the new paradigm of US foreign policy creates the preconditions for the formation of a model resembling a controlled or stable confrontation, when the parties are not interested in further escalation or in overcoming it through their own concessions.

كورونا وفايسبوك: أزمات النمو أم الأفول؟

أكتوبر/ 5 تشرين الأول 2021

 ناصر قنديل

منذ سقوط جدار برلين وتقدم أميركا كصاحب نموذج للعالم تحت عنوان العولمة المستنسخة وفقاً لنظرية نهاية التاريخ، أي اعتبار النموذج الليبرالي الجديد آخر نتاج التقدم الإنساني اقتصاديا وسياسياً وثقافياً واجتماعياً، كانت الحملات العسكرية الأميركية الجزء الأقل أهمية من المشروع الأميركي العالمي، على رغم كونها أخطر وجوه المشروع وأكثرها ظهوراً وحضوراً، ولكن وقفت خلف هذه الحملات العسكرية الأميركية سواء في حرب يوغوسلافيا او أفغانستان أو العراق، مشهدية فلسفية وثقافية وتسويقية تقوم على نهاية عهد الدولة الوطنية، والمقصود نهاية عهد الدولة لحساب الشركة أولاً، ونهاية عهد الوطنية، أي الحفاظ على الخصوصيات الثقافية والسياسية للكيان الوطنية للدول لصالح نموذج عالمي، لا مكان فيه للهويات والخصوصيات، التي ترتبط عموماً بفكرة الدولة، وسيتكفل حلول الشركة مكان الدولة بالتمهيد لتكون الشركة عالمية، وتزامن استعراض التفوق العسكري الأميركي مع استعراض نماذج التفوق التكنولوجي، ومن خلالهما نموذج الشركة، ففي الحرب لم تعد الجيوش قوة وطنية تحمل مشروع بلادها، بل صارت الحرب عملاً مأجوراً تعاقدياً تنفذه الشركات، تواكبه شركات أخرى في تكنولوجيا الإعلام والاتصال، ومثلها الثورات لم يعد قائماً على فعل تاريخي معبر عن إرادة نخب تقود شعوبها نحو مشروع حالم، بل صارت الثورات مقاولة تلتزمها شركات تسمى جمعيات مجتمع مدني، وتواكبها موازنات تنفقها الشركات على وسائل التواصل والأقنية التلفزيونية، وشعارات صنعتها شركات الدعاية المتخصصة، كعملية تجارية صرفة اعتمدت فيها قواعد توصيف المنتج ودراسات الجدوى وتحديد الكلفة والأرباح المتوقعة.

جاء الاعتراف الأميركي بالفشل العسكري بنظر البعض منفصلاً عن فشل المشروع الذي جسدته أميركاً الجديدة، أي نموذج الشركة العالمية، ولذلك يذهب هذا البعض إلى الدعوة للتمهل في الحديث عن فشل المشروع أو دخوله مأزقاً بنيوياً ويتخيلون فرصة لتعديل في وجهته يتراجع خلالها العسكري لصالح الاقتصادي، الذي لا يزال الأميركي فيه أولاً إن لم يكن حاكماً، وهم بالتالي يقرأون الأزمة التي يمر بها المشروع الأميركي بصفتها واحدة من أزمات النمو لمشروع في طور الصعود على رغم الإخفاقات، ولذلك تجب معاينة المأزق العسكري للحملات الأميركية، بعدما صار الاعتراف الأميركي بالفشل علنياً ورسمياً، وصولاً للقول بسقوط إمكانية صناعة السياسة باللجوء للقوة العسكرية، كما وصف الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن الإطار السياسي لقرار الانسحاب من أفغانستان، من دون أن ينسى أن المعيار هو سقوط الجدوى الاقتصادية لاستثمار ثلاثمئة مليون دولار يومياً، وما يزيد على تريليون دولار خلال عشرين عاماً، كتفسير للفشل، فهل كانت الحال مختلفة في مسيرة الانتقال من الدولة إلى الشركة؟

الخلاصة الأولى التي كتبتها سنوات الحروب هي تثبيت الخصوصيات والهويات على حساب نظرية الهوية العالمية القائمة على الربحية وحدها، وفق معادلة اقتلاع شجرات الزيتون لصالح التنافس على سيارة اللكزس، فنهضت أشجار الزيتون، بما ترمز إليه من هويات خصوصية، وهذا ما قاله النهوض الروسي والصعود الصيني والصمود الإيراني، ووقفت أميركا بعظمتها ضعيفة أمام شجرة زيتون الهوية الصهيونية، مؤكدة سقوط نظرية سقوط الهويات، وتراجع مشروع الشركة عن عالميته، لصالح الاكتفاء بكونه أميركياً، وصار الحديث عن الدولة العظيمة لا الدولة العظمى، وعن استعادة أميركا النموذج والمثال، ولكن الاختبارات القاسية لم تترك المجال لنظرية الشركة أن تبقى بعيداً عن تحديات إثبات أهليتها، وكانت جائحة كورونا أصعب الاختبارات الإنسانية، بينما كانت أزمة شركات تكنولوجيا المعلومات والاتصالات الفقاعة الأبرز التي وضعت الأزمة على الطاولة.

خلال جائحة كورونا ظهرت الفوضى وانكشف ضعف النظام الصحي، وانكشفت خطورة الاعتماد على منهج الربحية في عمل الشركات للإجابة على تحديات العناية بصحة البشرية ومواكبة أخطار الأوبئة، فبقيت أميركا الأولى الأشد تأثراً بالجائحة وعجزاً عن السيطرة عليها على رغم أنها الدولة الأغنى والدولة الأقوى تقيناً، والأكثر امتلاكاً لأدوات المواجهة والوقاية، وعلى رغم دخول الجائحة عامها الثالث لا تزال الإصابات والوفيات تسجل أعلى الأرقام في أميركا، على رغم أنها بقياس عدد السكان تشكل 20 في المئة من عدد سكان الصين التي نجحت بالسيطرة على الجائحة وخرجت عملياً من تداعياتها، في مواجهة عملية لنموذجي الدولة والشركة، وقبل أن تحط كورونا رحالها، انفجرت أزمة شركات الاتصالات العملاقة وتحولت إلى قضية عالمية مع الأزمة التي حلت بالشركة الأعظم التي تتحكم بيوميات نصف سكان العالم، فالأزمة التي تفجرت حول شركة فايسبوك ليست مجرد عطل تقني، ولا مجرد نقاش حول الضوابط التي يجب أن تحكم حال شركات التواصل، بل هي تعبير عن الأسئلة الكبرى التي يطرحها نموذج الشركة بدلاً من الدولة، حيث الربح هو الموجه الأول، على حساب ضمانات سلامة التشغيل وأمان المواد المتداولة وأخلاقيات استخدامها، حيث ما نشهده ليس إلا أول النقاش، كما حدث يوم الأزمة التي تفجرت عام 2008 من بوابة الرهونات العقارية، وانهيار النظام المصرفي ومن خلفه البورصة، واضطرار الدولة إلى اللجوء لتأميم بعض المصارف ووضع اليد عليها، وتقييد الباقي منها.

ليس ما تشهده أميركا مجرد أزمة، بل انفجار لنموذج، وتعبير عن أفول مشروع إمبراطوري، وهذا لا يعني أن أميركا ستزول عن الخريطة، أو أنها ستكف عن التصرف كدولة قوية ومقتدرة، أو أنها لن تحاول ترميم نموذجها ومحاولة إصلاحه، لكن كل ذلك سيجري تحت عنوان عريض هو أن الشركة العالمية فشلت كبديل للدولة الوطنية، وأن ما يجري نقاشه الآن في واشنطن هو كيفية العودة لمفهوم الدولة الوطنية القوية، بعد فشل الشركة العالمية الحاكمة.

مقالات متعلقة

فيديوات متعلقة

تسارع التاريخ والانحدار الأميركيّ


الثلاثاء 24 آب 2021

المركز الاستشاري للدراسات والتوثيق

وليد شرارة

ما يغيظ أيتام الهيمنة «الحميدة» الأميركية، هذه الأيام، هو أنّ الإعلان عن «تمريغ رأسها في وحل أفغانستان»، لم يعد يصدر عمّن يسمّونهم «أبواق الممانعة»، بل عن أبرز المنظّرين، في ما مضى، للنموذج الأميركي على أنّه أفق التطوّر المستقبلي الوحيد والأبدي للإنسانية جمعاء. فرنسيس فوكوياما، المرجع الفكري، حتى لا نقول الروحي، لغالبية بينهم آمنت بنبوءاته، التي سطّرها في كتابه «نهاية التاريخ والإنسان الأخير»، انضمّ إلى الإجماع الواسع وسط النخب الفكرية والسياسية الأميركية والغربية، حول اعتبار دخول «الطالبان» إلى كابول هزيمة منكرة لواشنطن. غير أنّ الأنكى بالنسبة إلى هؤلاء المكلومين، هو أنّ الإجماع المذكور ينطلق من الإقرار بهزيمة الولايات المتحدة ليصل إلى استنتاج آخر، مزلزل، وهو أنّ هيمنتها دخلت في طور متقدّم من الانحسار. أمام مثل هذا الاستنتاج، لم يجد الخائبون، من العرب أساساً، سوى اللجوء إلى مناورة فكرية مكشوفة ومكرورة، وهي التساؤل عن هوية المنتصر وطبيعة مشروعه السياسي والاجتماعي. سبق لأنصار الاستعمار القديم طرح النوع نفسه من الأسئلة، بعد نجاح حركات التحرّر الوطني في انتزاع استقلال بلادها والمصاعب الكبرى التي واجهتها خلال سنوات إعادة البناء الوطني التي تلت. قال هؤلاء: «هل هذا ما قاتلت الشعوب لأجله وضحّت؟ هل فعلت ذلك لكي تنشأ أنظمة حكم سلطوية أو من أجل الحفاظ على نظام الملل المكرّس لتمييز اجتماعي قاسٍ بين فئات الشعب كما حصل في الهند مثلاً؟». طبعاً، الفرضية المضمرة التي يستند إليها مثل هذا الهراء، هي أنّ أوضاع الشعوب المستعمرة كانت أفضل أيام سيطرة الأسياد البيض! الشعور بسعادة غامرة لهزيمة الإمبراطورية العاتية الأميركية في أفغانستان، لا يتأسّس على قاعدة التماهي مع البرنامج السياسي لـ«طالبان». مستقبل هذه البلاد، هو شأن شعبها الذي سيقرّر وحده مصيره وما يراه مناسباً لمصالحه وتطلّعاته من نظام سياسي واجتماعي، وهو قطعاً ليس شأن الغربيين، الذين نشروا الموت والدمار في ربوعها. كم عدد الأفغان الذين قتلتهم الولايات المتحدة وحلفاؤها المتحضّرون: عشرات الآلاف؟ مئات الآلاف؟ المتباكون الحاليون على مصير النساء الأفغانيات والأقلّيات الإثنية، لم يكلّفوا أنفسهم عناء إحصاء عدد الجثث. هذا النوع من التساؤلات التافهة هو إهانة لعقولنا. ينقسم العالم اليوم بين من يشعرون بالسعادة الغامرة لهزيمة واشنطن، ومن يرتعدون ذعراً بسببها. هم محقّون بذلك، لأنّ التحليلات الصادرة في الولايات المتحدة، قبل روسيا أو الصين أو إيران، تؤكّد أننا نشهد تسارعاً للتاريخ، ولكن ليس في الاتجاه الذي استشرفه فوكوياما قبل 30 عاماً.

نهاية حقبة تاريخية


لفرنسيس فوكوياما فضيلة، نادرة بين أترابه من المثقّفين الذين جرى تكريسهم ناطقين رسميين باسم الإيديولوجية السائدة، وهي الاعتراف العلني أكثر من مرّة بخطأ أطروحاته وتحليلاته. هو لم يتردّد، مثلاً، في القطيعة مع تيار «المحافظين الجدد» الذي انتمى إليه لفترة طويلة، وإصدار كتاب نقدي صارم لهم في عام 2006، بعنوان «ما بعد المحافظين الجدد: أميركا على مفترق طرق». يعيد فوكوياما الكرّة، لكنّه هذه المرّة يتراجع عن نظريته التي أكسبته شهرة عالمية حول نهاية التاريخ. ففي مقال على موقع «ذي إيكونوميست”»، بعنوان «نهاية الهيمنة الأميركية»، نُشر منذ أيام، هو يرى أنّ الاستقطاب الاجتماعي – السياسي داخل الولايات المتحدة، الذي تعاظم بفعل حروب التوسّع والسيطرة التي خاضتها، في العقود الثلاثة الأخيرة، والعولمة التي قادتها والأزمة المالية والاقتصادية في عام 2008 – 2009، بات عاملاً رئيسياً في إضعاف موقعها الدولي. ووفقاً له، فإنّ «المجتمع الأميركي منقسم بعمق، وأصبح يعاني صعوبة جمّة للوصول إلى إجماع حول أيّة قضية.

الثقة المفرطة بخلود الإمبراطورية الأميركية، هي سمة راسخة للعقل السياسي لأنصارها بين ظهرانينا

بدأ الاستقطاب حول موضوعات سياسية تقليدية كالضرائب والإجهاض، لكنّه توسّع ليصبح نزاعاً مريراً حول الهُويات الثقافية. طلب الاعتراف من قبل الجماعات التي اعتبرت أنها عانت التهميش من قبل النخب هو واقع التفت إليه قبل 30 سنة على أنّه كعب أخيل الديمقراطيات المعاصرة. كان من المفترض أن يُفضي تهديدٌ كبيرٌ كجائحة كورونا إلى اتحاد المواطنين حول سبل مواجهته. بدلاً من ذلك، غذّت الجائحة الانقسام الداخلي الأميركي، وتحوّل التباعد الاجتماعي وارتداء الأقنعة والتلقيح إلى رموز للتمايز السياسي… خلال الحرب الباردة وحتى بداية الألفية الثانية، ساد إجماع قوي بين النخب السياسية حول ضرورة الحفاظ على موقع أميركي قيادي على الصعيد الدولي. غير أنّ الحروب التي لا نهاية لها في أفغانستان والعراق، غيّرت موقف العديد من الأميركيين حيال التدخّل الخارجي ليس في الشرق الأوسط وحده، بل على مستوى العالم بأسره». مهما كانت العوامل التي يؤدّي تضافرها وتفاعلها إلى إضعاف الموقع المهيمن لقوة مسيطرة في مرحلة تاريخية محدّدة، فإن تداعيات هذا التطور أول ما تظهر في المناطق الخاضعة لسيطرتها. هذا سرّ ما حصل في أفغانستان، وما سيقع في منطقتنا، وفي مناطق أخرى، في الآتي من السنين.



كلّ إمبراطورية إلى زوال


الثقة المفرطة بخلود الإمبراطورية الأميركية، هي سمة راسخة للعقل السياسي لأنصارها بين ظهرانينا. نذير شؤم آخر لهؤلاء أطلقه المؤرّخ الأميركي – البريطاني، نيل فيرغسون، المسكون بنوستالجيا الإمبراطورية البريطانية، والذي أجهر بانتمائه إلى ما أسماه «العصابة النيوامبريالية» عقب الغزو الأميركي – البريطاني للعراق، في عام 2003. ففي مقالٍ بعنوان «نهاية الإمبراطورية الأميركية لن تتمّ بسلام» على موقع «ذي إيكونوميست»، جزم فيرغسون بأنّ مآل الإمبراطورية الأميركية لن يكون أفضل من ذلك الذي وصلت إليه الإمبراطورية البريطانية. هو يعتقد بأنّ اجتماع عوامل كارتفاع المديونية العامة للدولة، وتراجع وزنها الاقتصادي النسبي على المستوى الدولي لمصلحة منافسيها الصاعدين والأكلاف الضخمة للتوسّع الإمبراطوري الزائد، والذي عانت منه بريطانيا في زمن مضى وتعاني منه الولايات المتحدة حالياً، يقود إلى فقدان قطاعات وازنة من مجتمعها للشهية الإمبراطورية. وبحسب فيرغسون، فإنّ «البريطانيين في ثلاثينيات القرن الماضي، كما الأميركيين راهناً، فقدوا هواهم الإمبراطوري، وهو ما لاحظه المراقبون الصينيون وابتهجوا بسببه… المشكلة التي كشفها الانهيار الأميركي في أفغانستان هي أنّ التراجع عن الهيمنة العالمية يندر أن يحصل بشكل سلمي. مهما كانت الصياغة اللغوية المعتمدة للإعلان عن الانسحاب من أطول حرب قامت بشنّها، فإنّ ذلك يوازي الاعتراف بالهزيمة، وليس في نظر الطالبان وحدهم… قناعة السيد بايدن بإمكانية الخروج من أفغانستان على غرار ما فعله نيكسون في فيتنام، هي استعادةٌ لتجربة تاريخية سيّئة لأنّ إذلال أميركا في هذا البلد، كانت له نتائج خطيرة. هي شجّعت الاتحاد السوفياتي وحلفاءه على إثارة القلاقل في أماكن أخرى: في جنوب وشرق أفريقيا، وفي أميركا الوسطى وأفغانستان، التي غُزيت في عام 1979. تكرار سيناريو سقوط سايغون في كابول ستكون له تداعيات سلبية مشابهة».

لم تمنع القناعات الإيديولوجية لمدافعين بارزين عن ريادة النموذج الأميركي لعقود، من الإقرار بالهزيمة الأميركية في أفغانستان، وما تشي به من عوامل بنيوية تسرّع في انحسار هيمنة واشنطن على النطاق العالمي، على عكس مريديهم العرب. هنا تكمن أهمية هذه المقالات، ونحن نحضّهم على قراءتها بتمعّن، كما فعلوا سابقاً عندما روّجوا لنهاية التاريخ والهيمنة «الحميدة» وغيرها من الفقاعات الإيديولوجية.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Iran And The Great War

Jun 4, 2021

Related Videos

“Hagia Sophia” by Sheikh Imran Hosein

May 08, 2021

Washington Is Misreading Russia at the World’s Peril

See the source image

April 6, 2021 

Paul Craig Roberts

On August 31, 2018, I wrote:

“So, the questions for Andrei Martyanov, The Saker, and for Putin and the Russian government is: How long does turning your other cheek work? Do you turn your other cheek so long as to allow your opponent to neutralize your advantage in a confrontation? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you lose the support of the patriotic population for your failure to defend the country’s honor? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you are eventually forced into war or submission? Do you turn your other cheek so long that the result is nuclear war?

“I think that Martyanov and The Saker agree that my question is a valid one. Both emphazise in their highly informative writings that the court historians misrepresent wars in the interest of victors. Let’s give this a moment’s thought. Both Napoleon and Hitler stood at their apogee, their success unmitigated by any military defeat. Then they marched into Russia and were utterly destroyed. Why did they do this? They did it because their success had given them massive arogance and belief in their “exceptionalism,” the dangerous word that encapsulates Washington’s belief in its hegemony.

“The zionist neoconsevatives who rule in Washington are capable of the same mistake that Napoleon and Hitler made. They believe in “the end of history,” that the Soviet collapse means history has chosen America as the model for the future. Their hubris actually exceeds that of Napoleon and Hitler.

“When confronted with such deluded and ideological force, does turning the other cheek work or does it encourage more provocation?

“This is the question before the Russian government.”  https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/08/31/can-war-be-avoided-and-the-planet-saved/ 

Andrei Martyanov answered on September 4, 2018: https://www.unz.com/article/russia-as-a-cat/   He argued that Washington is aware that its military power is limited and will not risk nuclear annihilation.

On April 5, 2021, the Saker has reached agreement with my point: “Russia cannot and will not retreat further, she won’t meekly declare that the Donbass or Crimea belong to the Nazi regime in Kiev.  Russia is ready, capable and willing to fight US/NATO forces if needed, including by using tactical and even strategic nukes.” https://thesaker.is/what-will-the-empire-do-to-support-the-ukronazis-open-thread-4/ 

Like myself the Saker concludes that Washington’s hubris means that “The biggest danger right now is that western politicians are completely misreading not only Putin, but all of Russia.”  

Martyanov believes that Washington’s guarantee to Ukraine is a temptest in a teacup as Washington will not really risk confronting Russia militarily.  https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com 

I wonder if Martyanov is giving Washington too much credit for awareness.  If Washington were reading the situation correctly, would the US Secretary of Defense have given Ukraine a guarantee against Russian intervention if Ukraine, now better armed by Washington, renews its assault on Donbass?  Washington wants conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the purpose of giving the guarantee is to produce conflict.  

Martyanov might be correct that Ukraine is too wary to trust the guarantee, and that Washington would not stand behind it.  But escalation can have momentum of its own. The publicized guarantee could result in extreme elements pushing the Ukrainian president into foolhardy action.  Neocons and liberal interventionists could insist Washington’s word and reputation are at stake and demand that Biden go to Ukraine’s aid.  I agree with Martyanov that it would be a war based on stupid nonsense, but these things do happen.

I only raise questions. Saker and Martyanov are better informed on these matters than I. Nevertheless, I think the risk is high that the American people are going to be very regretful that they permitted the military/security complex to use the dumbshit Democrats to prevent President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia. 

Recently Published Articles

FM Sergey Lavrov gave an extensive interview to the RBK Media Holding – Communication between Brussels and Moscow has completely fallen apart

Source

FM Sergey Lavrov gave an extensive interview to the RBK Media Holding – Communication between Brussels and Moscow has completely fallen apart

February 20, 2021

A good sub-title for this interview could be “Lavrov Unplugged”.

A quote from the transcript (which incidentally was available faster than any other transcript from the The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation ):

“… when it became clear that Russia did not want to live in the house of “a self-appointed boss,” all these complications began to emerge.

….

All this started when this signal was not perceived (to be more precise, Russia was seen again as a “hoodlum” in the world arena and they were again going to teach it “good manners”). In any event, the West began its ideological preparations, for its current actions, at that time.”

Video in Russian without subtitles or English voiceover as yet.

Question: There is a feeling that the West is very annoyed by the appearance of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine. At first, they were very aggressive and wouldn’t let it go. When I talked with Minister of Trade and Industry Dmitry Manturov, he called it “the vaccine war.” Now the opinion has changed. Is this about the quality of the vaccine or is politics involved in this?

Sergey Lavrov: I think it is possible to use the logic of the Russian proverb that can be translated into English as “love it so but mother says no.” Western experts know that the Sputnik V vaccine is definitely one of the best, if not the very best. Otherwise, there would not be such a stream of requests for it, which is growing geometrically.

On the other hand, they realise that the spread of Sputnik V and other Russian vaccines that will soon enter the international market, will enhance our authority and status in the world. They do not want this to happen. But they have come to realise that their first response was simply outrageous in the context of the facts and medical science. When President Vladimir Putin announced the development of the vaccine in August 2020, the offensive was completely undiplomatic. Their response just betrayed their irritation, you are perfectly right.

And now many countries (the Czech Republic and others) are saying they can’t wait for the certification of the vaccine by the European Medicines Agency. In Hungary, they believe they are ready to start vaccination and supplies are now underway. The number of requests from Europe is steadily on the rise. Just the other day, Prince Albert II of Monaco sent a request for the vaccine for the entire population of his principality.

After independent agencies published their scientific evaluations, the West had to admit that the vaccine was good. Yet, attempts to discredit it continue.

Just yesterday I read a somewhat ambiguous statement by President of France Emmanuel Macron. He put us and the Chinese into the category of those who are trying to gain advantages in the world arena at the expense of their medical achievements. The day before yesterday, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen spoke with an emphatically negative connotation about the supplies of the Russian vaccines to foreign countries.

We must follow the correct position of principle, first voiced by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, notably, that we were the first to develop the vaccine, and we will continue to increase its production. This is not easy, we do not have enough capacities, and this is why we are negotiating with India, South Korea and other countries. At the same time, he said we are open to the broadest possible cooperation.

There is one more important point. When this issue was discussed at the UN the other day, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged the countries that have this vaccine or have the money to buy it, not to forget about the poor. In the meantime, attempts are being made to accuse us of trying to gain geopolitical favour by supplying it abroad. This is an obvious discrepancy. It is clear that the West is poorly prepared for this discussion.

Question: So, it’s about the same as when President Putin said at the Davos Forum that the world cannot continue creating an economy that will only benefit the “golden billion,” and we are actually accused of supplying the vaccine for the benefit of the “golden billion.” Still, are they talking about the vaccine like this just because it was made in Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t see any other reason, because no one even tried to conduct a medical or a scientific test. They just said right away that it was impossible just because it’s impossible, meaning that “no one can do this that quickly.” It was only in October 2020, when the West said they would be able to report on their achievements. President Putin announced in August that the Russian-made vaccine was ready for rollout.

Unfortunately, I often see that the response to everything we do, say or offer is, at best, questioned right off the bat. Usually, they say that “the Russians are playing their geopolitical games again.”

Question: EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, who was here recently and met with you, said that Russia is distancing itself from the West. At the same time, Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said we are open to cooperation with Europe. You said we are ready to break up, but we are not breaking off our relations. What really stands in the way of normal relations between the EU and Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: A biased attitude, by and large. I worked with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, a good colleague of mine, when he was Spanish Foreign Minister. Now many, in an attempt to give a controversial dimension to the High Representative’s visit to Russia, forget how it all began. In May 2019, Mr Borrell said: “Our old enemy, Russia, says again ‘here I am,’ and it is again a threat.” We then asked his protocol service to confirm what he said. We were told that it was a figure of speech and that he was misunderstood. However, this attitude shows.

We are seen as a stranger. In my interview with Vladimir Solovyov, replying to his question as to whether we are ready to break off with the EU, I gave an affirmative answer because there are no relations to talk about. As former US President Barack Obama once said (although he said it about the Russian economy), relations have been “torn to shreds.”

Indeed, the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement [between the EU and Russia] entered into force in 1997. It contained a number of declarative goals for moving towards common economic, humanitarian and cultural spaces. For many years, we used a mechanism of summits, which were held every six months in Russia and in the EU alternately. In fact, our entire Government held annual meetings with the European Commission to discuss the participants’ responsibilities in the context of over 20 sector-specific dialogues. We were building four common spaces and roadmaps for each of them. These were 100 percent substantive and specific projects. It was all destroyed, just like the Partnership and Cooperation Council, within which the Russian Foreign Minister and the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy reviewed the entire range of relations. This disappeared long before the Ukraine crisis.

Many in our country are just waiting for a chance to pounce on the Russian Government’s foreign policy. We are being asked how we can say that we are ready to break off with the EU when it is our largest trade and economic partner. If we take the EU as a collective partner, it is our largest partner in terms of gross trade. For example, in 2013 (before the Ukraine events) Russia became a WTO member. From that moment, our trade relations were built on the principles advocated by that organisation rather than the EU’s principles. As a single trade bloc, the EU also participated in the WTO. We traded with member countries based on WTO guidelines. If you think the EU is a valuable trade and economic partner, here are some statistics for you: in 2013, the United States was the EU’s biggest trading partner with about $480 billion, followed by China with $428 billion and Russia with $417 billion. That is, these numbers are of the same order of magnitude. Where do we stand now? In 2019, EU’s trade with the United States stood at $750 billion, with China $650 billion, and with Russia at about $280 billion. In 2020, it was $218 billion, if counting with Great Britain, and $191 billion without it.

The reason? It’s the sanctions imposed by our “valued” and largest economic partner for reasons that have never relied on any facts whatsoever. At least, no facts have ever been presented to us. We understand Crimea. We understand Donbass as well. It’s just that the EU admitted its inability, or perhaps, unwillingness, to prevent the anti-constitutional coup with an open Russophobic slant and chose to turn things upside down. Brussels shifted the blame to us and imposed sanctions on Russia rather than the putschists, who, by and large, spat on the guarantees of the European Union, which signed the corresponding agreements, totally ignoring, as I said, the fact that the actions of the government, which they supported, were openly and violently anti-Russian.

Question: Without the events in Ukraine, would our relations with the West have sunk to where they are now?

Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult for me to talk about this. After all, later there were other events linked with the accusations of “the poisoning in Salisbury.” No facts were presented. We were not allowed to meet with our citizens. No evidence was offered. Everything was similar to what is happening now with the alleged poisoning of Alexey Navalny.

Question: It seems the West is looking for a pretext to spoil our relations.

Sergey Lavrov: They are looking but there are many pretexts: it’s always possible to use something as an excuse to put the relationship on the required track. But it’s not that they want to spoil relations. I don’t think this is their main goal. They want to bolster their self-esteem. Now they are starting to act like the US, revealing the mentality of an exclusive group of states. I quoted German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas. When asked why they continue discussing sanctions against Russia and what goals they had achieved by imposing sanctions, he replied that he didn’t believe sanctions should be used for any purpose. What matters is that they don’t leave any action by the Russian Federation unpunished.

The concealment of facts that could somehow confirm accusations against us started long before the crisis in Ukraine. We can recall 2007 – the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in the hospital. There was a coroner’s inquest. Later this trial was declared “public.” In George Orwell’s logic, in Britain this means a “secret trial” during which no inquisitorial procedures of the secret services may be presented. You know, these are system-wide problems.

I listed what we used to have in our relations with the European Union. Nothing is left now, not even sporadic contacts on some international issues. As regards the Iran nuclear programme, we are taking part in the work of the collective group of countries, which are trying to somehow put this programme back on track. This is not part of our relations with the EU proper. In the Middle East, we have a Quartet of mediators consisting of Russia, the US, the EU and the UN. In other words, this is multilateral cooperation rather than our relations with just the EU.

With regard to who is taking steps to prevent our relations from further decline, at least a little, we were thinking about that when Josep Borrell, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, was getting ready to visit Moscow. He suggested cooperating in healthcare and vaccines. We have already discussed this here. As a Brussels institution, the EU will hardly be allowed to contact Russian agencies or companies independently regarding the vaccines. We would sooner cooperate directly with the producers of AstraZeneca, as this is already taking place.

On the eve of Mr Borrell’s visit, we invited his experts to make a joint statement on the Middle East by the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Our positions are nearly identical on the matter and we thought it would be appropriate to urge the Quartet to resume its activities and call for direct Palestinian-Israeli talks, respect for the relevant UN resolutions, and so on.

We gave them a page and a half text that was easy to approve after the first reading. Several days prior to his arrival, we were told that “it did not work out.” I will reveal a secret because this is a blatant example. I asked Mr Borrell at the negotiating table: “What about this statement? Why didn’t it work out?” He started turning his head all around. It was clear from his reaction, and he confirmed this later, that nobody had even told him about it. These are the people that deal with what some of our liberals call “relations with the EU.”

Question: Concluding this theme, I’d like to say that as a man born in the USSR, I understand that during the Soviet-Western confrontation we had different ideologies, economies and so on. Later, I thought that everything was the same on both sides. They were for democracy and we were for democracy; they had a market economy and we had a market economy. So what are the differences? Why do we fail to find a common language to this day? I thought we found it in the 1990s? Why did we find it then?

Sergey Lavrov: We found it at that time because nobody in the Russian Federation disputed the answer to the question of who was ruling the show. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has talked about this many times. We decided that was it – the end of history. Francis Fukuyama announced that from now on liberal thought would rule the world. Now there are attempts to push this liberal thought to the fore again in a bid to gain international influence. But when it became clear that Russia did not want to live in the house of “a self-appointed boss,” all these complications began to emerge.

Initially, having become President, Vladimir Putin and his team tried to convey this message through diplomatic signals that educated and smart people would be bound to understand. But nobody listened. Then the explanations had to be made politely but openly in the Munich speech. All this started when this signal was not perceived (to be more precise, Russia was seen again as a “hoodlum” in the world arena and they were again going to teach it “good manners”). In any event, the West began its ideological preparations, for its current actions, at that time.

Question: Regarding the sanctions. Bloomberg posted a news item today that new sanctions against Russia are planned concerning the Nord Stream 2, however, they are not going to be tough but rather “soft.” On the other hand, they report that the Americans want to thwart the Nord Stream project but without irritating Germany. Where are we in this situation?

Sergey Lavrov: We are a country that completely complies with the contractual obligations undertaken by our companies that are part of the project, along with the EU companies that joined it. The current situation is largely due to a decision taken by what we call the European Union, a decision that proves beyond doubt what sort of alliance it is. A few years ago, when the Poles, and others sharing their attitude, attempted to impede the Nord Stream project, the Legal Service of the European Commission was asked for legal advice, official opinion. The service presented a document which stated in no uncertain terms that the investment project had been launched long before amendments were made to the EU’s gas directive, the Third Energy Package. That’s it. Period. This issue should be closed for any person who has respect for the law. But no, the European Commission took this opinion and launched its own quasi-legal procedure which resulted in the conclusion that the project had indeed been launched much earlier, yet it fell under this third energy package and the gas directive. That’s what kind of a partner we have in this “relationship.”

This is about how we can “pounce” on them and express readiness to break relations with them when they are our main economic partner – that’s what kind of a partner they are. Meanwhile, now Germany alone is fighting for the project.

And in fact, Joe Biden’s administration will not cancel anything which was done by Donald Trump except for leaving the World Health Organisation (WHO). The Democrats are returning there now.

The NATO defence ministers meeting has just ended. But there was no let-up in US demands to pay 2 percent of a country’s GDP for defence needs, i.e. for purchasing US weaponry. There was no backing off the demands on Europe regarding Nord Stream 2 – to stop participating in some matters that undermine European security. They see it better from across the ocean, right? This is about who is the boss. Europe also wants to run the house but it was taken down a peg. The situation around Nord Stream 2 is straightforward.

For now they are saying publicly that bargaining is underway and possible agreements between Washington and Berlin are being discussed, including that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline may be allowed to be completed and even start operating. However, if at the same time gas transiting via Ukraine is going to be falling, then Nord Stream 2 must be shut off. I cannot decide for Germany, however, it is obvious to me that this proposal is humiliating. As Russian President Vladimir Putin said at his meeting with parliamentary party leaders, this is yet further evidence that they want Russia to pay for their Ukraine geopolitical venture.

Question: Do we have to pay for this geopolitical project?  Why do they think we have to pay for it?

Sergey Lavrov: Because they don’t feel like lashing out on it. They need the Ukrainian regime for the sole purpose of constantly irritating Russia and finding new reasons to support their Russophobic policy. They want to weaken anything around us – Belarus, Central Asia, and now also the South Caucasus, as they got nervous after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s successful mediation mission between Armenia and Azerbaijan: why was this done without them? They are now trying to infiltrate this region and step up their activities there. All of that has nothing to do with the Cold War-era ideology of a showdown between the two systems you talked about a few minutes ago. It has to do with the fact that our Western partners are unwilling, unprepared and unable to speak on an equal footing, whether with Russia, China, or whoever. They need to create a system where they will be the boss regardless. This is why they are taking an increasing dislike to the United Nations since they cannot have total control of it.

Question: Do you see the EU as a monolith, or as something more loose, with certain processes unfolding inside and some countries, no matter what, starting to talk about their willingness to be friends with Russia? In the case of the sanctions, the key figures behind them are, strange as it may seem, the Baltic States, which do not play a prominent role in the EU but, for some reason, everyone is listening to them.

Sergy Lavrov: It sounds inappropriate to refer to the EU as a monolith a mere couple of months after Brexit. This “monolith” is not the same as before. If you mean a monolith in a figurative sense, my answer is no. Quite a few countries are maintaining relations with Russia. The visit of Josep Borrell was the first trip by an EU official of this level to Russia in three years. In the same three years, about two dozen ministers from European Union member countries have visited Russia. We are having a great dialogue, without wasting too much time on confrontation and moralising. Indeed, all of them do have their assignments – a couple of sheets of paper from which they read a script approved by the “party committee” in Brussels.

Question: Do you mean they bring a notebook with instructions with them?

Sergey Lavrov: Certainly. They do not dare to veer off course. This, for example, goes for Alexey Navalny, or the Skripals as in the previous case, or human rights. Now scientist Yury Dmitriyev from Karelia is in the spotlight. They flatly refuse to accept evidence of his involvement in crimes, like pedophilia. They read from their notebook and I would adduce my arguments to the contrary and describe our vision of this or that situation and wonder why we cannot obtain evidence on the Navalny case or the Skripal case. In response they simply read again from their notebook. Apart from this discipline induced by the bloc member states’ solidarity, we discuss things normally. Yes, the EU sets the terms on which [its member countries] participate in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), while we are trading with these countries in the WTO on the terms that were agreed on for Russia to join this organisation. But the EU has nothing to do with this cooperation in trade and investment activity, except for its attempts to restrict trade and economic ties with the sanctions.

You mentioned the Baltic States. Indeed, they run the show in this respect to a great extent. I have talked to your colleagues about this on more than one occasion. When in 2004 there were hectic activities to drag them into the EU, Russia and Brussels maintained a very frank dialogue. The President of the European Commission at the time was Romano Prodi. In 2005, the objective was set to move to visa-free travel.

Question: Nobody has any memories of this today.

Sergey Lavrov: We remember this when we reply to those who ask how we dare say that we are ready to break relations with the EU. You mentioned the Baltic States. We had long been negotiating an updated version of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between Russia and the EU, which the EU terminated in 2014. It was expected to go a bit beyond the boundaries of the WTO rules and allow us to negotiate additional trade preferences. At one time there was an objective to establish a free trade zone, but this has long since fallen into oblivion. However, there were plans to update the agreement in order to liberalise trade even more, in addition to the WTO rules. In 2014, they ceased to exist – another example of breaking down our relations.

A visa-free travel agreement was also finalised back in 2013. We had met all of the EU requirements: we agreed that only people with biometric passports would be eligible for visa-free travel and that those who violated EU entry rules or any other EU rules while in an EU country during a visa-free period would be subject to readmission. We signed the relevant agreement. Everything they asked for, and that suited us, was done. Later, when it was time to sign the agreement and then ratify it, the EU said: “Let’s wait.” It did not take us long to learn why they had said this, all the more so as they did not try to conceal their motives. This Brussels team decided that it was politically incorrect to approve a visa-free travel agreement with Russia prior to offering it to Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova.

Question: In other words, Russia was made dependent on other countries?

Sergey Lavrov: It sure was, at the Baltic States’ initiative. This is also important for understanding the nature of our relations. This is an attitude from people who decided that they were European, which is not at all the case. Russia sees Europe in all its diversity. If the “party committee” in Brussels does not like it, we cannot force them to.

Question: Europe stretches at least to the Urals.

Sergey Lavrov: Correct. In 2009, when Jose Manuel Barroso was President of the European Commission, we held a Russia-EU summit in Khabarovsk. Our European colleagues arrived later in the day. We went out for a walk along the embankment. We were showing them around the city and Mr Barroso said: “It’s amazing. It took us 13 hours to get here from Brussels, and it’s still Europe.” This is the key message behind the slogan “Europe from the Atlantic to the Pacific.”

Question: I’m going to ask you about one other country, Belarus. There will be a presidential summit on February 22. President Lukashenko will come to Russia. Recently, Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei gave an interview to the RBC media holding and mentioned Belarus’ multi-directional foreign policy. Do you think we have managed to work well with Minsk on integration? What should we expect from these talks?

Sergey Lavrov: The term “multi-directional” should not be used as a profanity. Most normal states want it. Russia, too, has used a multi-directional approach as the basis of its foreign policy since 2002. In our understanding, a multi-directional approach is possible only if based of equality, respect and a balance of interests, as well as mutual benefit. This is the only way it can work.

First, they threaten us with sanctions, and then the same people are saying that we “had it coming” and impose unilateral restrictions on us, and then say that we are “bad” because “we are looking to the East.” Everything has been turned upside down.

Russia is a Eurasian country. We have close contacts with Europe, which have been cultivated for centuries, before anyone even thought of a European Union, and the Europeans fought and competed against each other. By the way, we often helped them achieve peace and fair outcomes in wars.

Question: We even saved the monarchies?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, and they are aware of it. The republic in the United States, too, to a certain extent.

However, our European neighbours have severed almost all of our ties and left only sporadic contacts on international crises that are of interest to the EU in order to keep a profile on the international arena. In many ways, the EU is driven by a desire to be seen as an important operator in Syrian and other matters. If we are not welcome here, we will simply continue to work with our other neighbours who are not prone to whims like that.

Objectively, our trade with the EU is almost half of what it was in 2013. Our trade with China has doubled over the same period.

Question: Back to Minsk. What can we expect from talks between President Putin and President Lukashenko on February 22?

Sergey Lavrov: There are some who want to interpret Minsk’s words about the multi-directional nature of its foreign policy as proof of its “unreliability” as a partner and ally. I do not think so.

In the Council of Europe, of which Belarus is not a member yet, we advocate the CoE establishing relations with Minsk. We supported the accession of Minsk to a number of Council of Europe conventions. We have always been in favour of Belarus enjoying normal relations with its western neighbours. I’m not sure what the CoE will do next. Russophobia has swept over most of the EU countries, and the most “violent” ones are in charge of the agenda.

I read the remarks by President Lukashenko (not all his interviews, but they were cited) to the effect that he sees no obstacles to deepening integration. Progress will depend on how President Vladimir Putin and President Lukashenko agree on things.

There are two more days to go before the talks. I don’t think we should be speculating on the outcome of the summit. We will know everything soon.

Question: Recently, US President Joseph Biden said the United States will no longer be “rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions” (ostensibly, Donald Trump did this). How can we build our relations now? Are there subjects we can discuss with Washington? Are they ready to talk with us?

Sergey Lavrov: These comments on who is rolling over or will be rolling over in the face of someone’s actions illustrate a very deep split in US society. It reached a level of personal enmity that is aggressive and contrary to American political culture. The politicians did not particularly mince their words during previous presidential campaigns or prior to elections to Congress, but I don’t remember anything comparable to what is being said now.

Our liberal media promote a tough pro-Western line. In looking for objects of criticism in Russia, they are infringing on the threshold of decency and getting personal. They are very crude, and behave not like journalists but like inveterate propagandists, accusing others of propaganda.

The fact that the New Start Treaty was extended in time is a very positive step. This shouldn’t be overrated, but it shouldn’t be underrated, either. In his election speeches Joseph Biden mentioned his willingness to extend it, but these were election speeches after all. His promise could be interpreted differently later, but he extended this important document for five years without any conditions, like we suggested. If this had not happened, there would not have been a single instrument of international law, not only in Russian-US relations but in the entire range of multilateral ties, that contained any restrictions in the sphere of disarmament, arms control and nuclear weapons non-proliferation.

It is very important that just a few days prior to February 5, 2021, the date the treaty was extended for five years, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Joseph Biden reaffirmed their intention to promote talks on strategic stability in these new conditions, in their first telephone conversation after the US presidential election. The situation has changed substantially since 2010: We and the Americans have acquired new weapons some of which are covered by the treaty. We announced this last year. We said that they must be taken into account. Some other weapons are not covered by the treaty – they are basically very different because of their physical characteristics.

Question: Are you talking about hypersonic weapons?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, the United States also has such weapons. Hypersonic weapons are partly covered by the New START Treaty, if these are ballistic missiles.

The New START Treaty already covers some weapons systems, so we now have to include these weapons systems in the Treaty for the next five years and see how all this will be verified. But it does not cover some weapons.

The United States has developed a new system called the Prompt Global Strike (PGS). By the way, this system implies a non-nuclear strike. We have suggested negotiating all issues without exception that have an impact on strategic stability and the legitimate interests of the contracting parties.

Question: Did they agree to this? Are they ready?

Sergey Lavrov: In October 2020, we submitted draft joint understandings to the Trump administration. This rough outline shows how we can sit down and start negotiating the agenda. We have received no reply from them. Instead of addressing this matter, Marshall Billingslea, the Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control, mostly made vocal statements that the United States was all for it but that the Russians did not want to do this.

When I spoke with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, I reminded him that Russia had submitted its proposals to the Trump administration, which dealt with this matter and many other issues, including cybersecurity and concerns over interference in each other’s domestic affairs. We would like to get back to them, and to hear the Biden administration’s opinions in this regard. We realise that they now need some time to settle down in the White House and the Department of State. I hope that this will not take too long.

There are still some questions on disarmament, for example, the lineup of participants in the disarmament process. The US position on China, approved by Donald Trump, remains unchanged; the same concerns a number of other matters.

Regarding multilateral talks, first of all, this should not annul Russian-US agreements because we have several times more nuclear weapons than other nuclear countries. Second, if we make this a multilateral process, then all prospective participants, primarily the five nuclear powers, should reach a voluntary agreement. We will never try to persuade China. We respect the position of Beijing, which either wants to catch up with us or proposes that we first reduce our arsenals to China’s levels and then start on the talks. All circumstances considered, if this is a multilateral process, then we will get nowhere without the United Kingdom and France. The Trump administration insisted that China should take part and at the same time said about its allies that they were the good guys, literally. This sounds funny. Apart from the complicated and lengthy disarmament process, we do not have so many promising spheres where we can cooperate constructively.

Question: Does this mean that their vision of the issue is entirely different or that they are reluctant to negotiate?

Sergey Lavrov: They think that they are the boss, and this mentality is still here and it determines the perception of their enemies. So far, they have not designated China as an enemy, but they have called us an enemy a couple of times. Democrats have an additional motivation for expanding this policy. Their position is that, supposedly unlike with Donald Trump, they will be “no Russian tail wagging the dog.”

Question: Don’t you think that Democrats have come to power with the intention of taking revenge against Russia, and that they will implement Donald Trump’s anti-Russia plans that he failed to accomplish in four years.

Sergey Lavrov: They made such statements during the election campaign. Joe Biden and his supporters said openly that the Trump administration had gone soft, that it was constantly making advances and working for the Russian intelligence. Donald Trump said that he was conducting the toughest policy with regard to Russia. He said that he liked Vladimir Putin, but he introduced more sanctions than all of his predecessors taken together.

We are also witnessing a cowboy-style showdown there. But this is normal for US politics, especially today. Disagreements between liberals who considered liberalism an irreversible trend have become aggravated to the greatest possible extent. Donald Trump, who did not like liberal principles and approaches, suddenly took over. He tried to think more about the basic interests of the American founders, the people who moved there (and it has always been a nation of immigrants), and who accepted its laws. So, the big question is whether people should remain loyal to the country that has accepted them, or do they want to erode its principles?

Question: Should they try to fit in?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, and they want to be the boss. Everything boils down to this once again.

Question: Karabakh, the subject of that. Fortunately, the war is over and a peace agreement has been inked. We covered extensively the role Russia and Azerbaijan played. I have a question to do with Turkey. I was in Azerbaijan during the war and heard many people say that the Azerbaijanis are supportive of the Great Turan idea (a state that covered the territory from Turkey to Central Asia). Is Moscow concerned by Turkey becoming a stronger state?

Sergey Lavrov: This opinion is entertained by a portion of the society. I’m not going to give a percentage of how many people support this idea. I’m not sure many of those who informed you about this really know what “Great Turan” is all about.

The relations between Turkic-speaking peoples have become an integral part of cooperation between Turkey and the corresponding countries, including Azerbaijan and a number of Central Asian states.

There is the Cooperation Council of the Turkic-Speaking States, in which we participate as observers. A number of our republics are interested in contacts with it and are promoting their specific projects.

There is TURKSOY  ̵  the International Organisation of Turkic Culture. There’s also the Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic-Speaking Countries. All of them have been functioning for a long time now. They draft their own plans and hold functions. Their cooperation is mainly based on cultural, linguistic and educational traditions.

Speaking about the Great Turan as a supranational entity in a historical sense, I don’t think that this is what Turkey is after. I don’t see how former Soviet and now independent countries can be supportive of this idea in any form. On the contrary, their foreign policies and practices focus on strengthening their national states.

Turkey has its interests which include its fellow tribesmen who speak the same language. We also want the Russian World to communicate. We have created an extensive network of organisations of our compatriots living abroad; we are opening Russian World centres at universities in different countries with purely linguistic, educational and scientific goals.

The Centre for the Russian Language and Culture created by the Russkiy Mir Foundation was recently closed in Krakow. This is an obvious step for Poland, as well as for the Baltic States, which are fighting everything that is Russian. Ukraine followed in their footsteps and shut down several media outlets and imposed a language ban. We are well aware of all this. We will keep raising this matter at the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the corresponding UN agencies. One cannot pretend that this comes with the “growth” and the “coming of age” of the Ukrainian nation, which, as they say, is an “ill-fated” one. The Ukrainians claim that they are the descendants of Alexander the Great. In that case, they should be responsible for the orders they introduce. The EU, and Germany and France as the Normandy format participants, avoid performing their duties when it comes to “educating” Ukraine in terms of making it comply with the Minsk agreements, and this has become a chronic behaviour pattern which does not reflect well on Germany or France.

Question: It was announced that Ukraine was recognised an unfriendly state. How will this affect relations between us?

Sergey Lavrov: This is just a descriptive attribute. What’s friendly about it? Russian schools are being closed, customers and shop assistants are not allowed to speak their native language, and the Nazis are burning Russian flags.

Question: This is reminiscent of the Baltic States 20 to 30 years ago.

Sergey Lavrov: Back when the Baltic States were about to be admitted to the EU, we asked the Brussels bureaucrats, the Eurogrands, whether they were sure they were doing the right thing. The problems that are at odds with the membership criteria persist, including non-observance of the rights of the Russian-speaking minorities in Latvia and Estonia. We were told that the Baltic States are phobic of Russia (war, the so-called occupation, etc.), the EU will bring it into its fold, it will calm down and ethnic minorities will be happy and contented. Things turned out the other way round. The Russians were not granted any rights, and statelessness is still there.

Question: Let’s go back to Turkey: Ankara’s stronger position, its active role in the Nagorno-Karabakh war, President Erdogan’s visit to Northern Cyprus (which a Turkish leader has not done for quite a while). What does Moscow think about it?

Sergey Lavrov: As far as Turkey and Northern Cyprus are concerned, we see it as Ankara’s relations with its “fellow countrymen.” I have not heard about Turkey refusing to honour the UN obligations accepted by the conflicting parties. These obligations include seeking a mutually acceptable solution and creating a bicommunal bizonal federation. There is a discussion of whether the federation will be strong or weak. But there is no disagreement about the fact that it must be one state. Although not so very long ago, it was the common opinion that the entire project would fail and they would have to create two states. We understand that Ankara is interested in Cypriot Turks living in equality and their rights being observed. We support the idea that the same motives with which Turkey explains its actions in the Eastern Mediterranean, including with respect to hydrocarbons, should determine its dialogue with Greece and Turkey.

On February 17, 2021, I spoke with Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias who told me that on January 25, 2021, he had had a probing conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. They did not iron out all issues. But it is good news that a dialogue was established. They agreed to continue it. On February 18, 2021, I spoke with Mevlut Cavusoglu. We continued sharing opinions following the telephone conversations between President Putin and President Erdogan on Syria, Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh and our bilateral relations. New power units of a nuclear power station are under construction; the TurkStream project is ongoing. There is much common ground between our countries when it comes to energy.

In October 2019, the first Russia-Africa Summit in history was held in Sochi. A record number of heads of state and heads of government attended. In the course of the preparations for the summit, we reviewed the development of our relations with African countries and the current state of affairs, including from the perspective of expanding our presence on the continent which political scientists consider to be the most promising in the long term. We reviewed other countries’ presence in Africa. Since 2002, the number of Turkish embassies in Africa has increased from 12 to 42. Turkey’s trade with the region is estimated at around 20 billion dollars a year and Russia’s trade is around 15 billion dollars. This is to say that Turkey has an eye for potential.

Question: Perhaps Turkey is disappointed with the EU because nobody accepted it?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe it could partially be the case. In its contacts with the EU, Ankara continues to insist that the EU promised it accession. Turkey is spreading its wings and gaining weight despite the existing economic problems at home. Turkey mainly goes on by accumulating its national debt but this model is widely common around the world.

Question: 2020 is the year of the pandemic. During such times, countries should join forces and help each other. Do you think that this was the case? Or did the world fail to put aside disagreements and rally together even when it came to the COVID-19 infection?

Sergey Lavrov: Now this conversation is back to square one. There are no ideologies anymore. But this ideology-based, politicised perception of the Russian vaccine was not a very good signal. The Sputnik V vaccine was announced in August 2020, many months after the G20 summit (March 2020) where Vladimir Putin strongly advocated cooperation in vaccine production. Even then, we were ready to create joint scientific teams. But Western countries and their companies, unwilling to help competitors, did not respond to that proposal. So much for unification in this purely medical field.

There is also the humanitarian sphere. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet made calls during the pandemic to suspend all unilateral sanctions in fields directly affecting food, the supply of medicine and medical equipment, in order to alleviate the suffering of the population in countries that were under unilateral sanctions (regardless of their reasons). There was no reaction from the initiators of those sanctions (primarily the US and the EU). Also, there was no response to President Vladimir Putin’s proposal, at the G20 summit, to create ‘green corridors’ for the period of the pandemic, to move goods under the most relaxed rules – without tax, duties, tariffs, delays, or special customs inspections.

We are all in the same boat, and it’s not so big. Some forecasts say this situation will continue for a long time, and the coronavirus will be a seasonal infection, and it is not at all the same as the flu or other diseases, so we will have to use precautions permanently, use PPE. This realisation should somehow prod countries to more open cooperation, especially those that up until recently had some doubts.

True, there have been some good shifts. One of them is the United States’ return to the World Health Organisation (WHO). Some hotheads in Washington believe that, now that they have returned, they will make others do their bidding. There are fewer than 50 Chinese people in the WHO Secretariat, 25 Russians, over 200 Americans, and more than 2,000 NATO representatives. The past US administration said China was manipulating the WHO. That is not true. Otherwise, we are admitting the complete helplessness of 2,000 NATO members who should be the majority in the WHO Secretariat.

Nevertheless, there are some positive results though. This problem has been recently considered at the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. It is important now to focus on equitable collaboration within the WHO. Besides the attempts at carrying out “soft coups” and establishing their own rules in the organisation, hardly based on consensus, an idea has been suggested to move the main decision-making on global health policies outside the universal organisation. We have been pointing out this tendency for some time now – the one to replace international law with a rules-based world order. As it turns out in reality, those rules boil down to working out all decisions in a circle of those who agree with you rather than in a group with universal representation where you have to argue your case and search for balances and compromises. And then you just present the decision as ‘the ultimate truth’ and demand that everyone respect it.

This underlies the Franco-German initiative for a new multilateralism and some limited partnerships in the West. For example, Paris has launched an International Partnership Against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons. Under this non-universal, non-UN partnership, the EU creates the so-called ‘horizontal’ regime of sanctions to be imposed on anyone that France-initiated partnership points at. A similar sanctions regime is being created for cybersecurity. Instead of any open-ended discussion, the French are promoting some partnership to defend freedom in cyberspace. This is another example of rules on which ‘order’ will be based.

There are attempts to start similar groups outside the WHO. But people’s health is not a field where one can play geopolitics. Unless there is a conspiracy behind this to reduce the population of the Earth. Many are now starting to develop such theories and concepts.

Iran: Keeper of mankind’s anti-imperialist flame amid the ‘end of history’

Source

Thursday, 04 February 2021 3:33 AM  

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)
The Islamic Revolution, February 1979. (Photo by Reuters)
Iran at 42: Keeper of mankind’s anti-imperialist flame amid the ‘end of history’
Ramin Mazaheri (@RaminMazaheri2) is currently covering the US election. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea, and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China,’ which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

By Ramin Mazaheri and cross-posted with The Saker

At 42 years the Iranian Islamic Revolution has endured so long that it has seen the reactionary force which rose to counter it – Reaganism – partially defeated by a new faction: Trumpism.

With the return to power – via Joe Biden – of the three decade-long Clintonista ideology Iran hasn’t lasted so very long as to witness a total sea change in US politics, but revolutionary Iran continues to vex, undermine and even defeat mighty Washington precisely because of a key pillar of the Islamic Republic: anti-imperialism.

It’s difficult for me to take Biden and his supporters seriously because even though they claim to represent a progressive leap forward politically one never hears them utter the phrase “anti-imperialism”. In fact, nowhere in US mainstream discourse is this phrase ever heard, and that should be very telling about the true nature of the political factions here.

Anti-imperialism. Indeed, it is a complete sentence. It is a definitive answer to so many questions and problems.

It’s so big that even Wikipedia’s scant page on anti-imperialism relates how it has five different axes: “the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural and the temporal”. In one column I cannot discuss all five axes, but I can relate how the phrase is never discussed in both polite and impolite American society. That’s worth repeating because the US is so very aggressive militarily, still.

The single greatest cardinal sin in politics is to attack another country, so from a political point of view the dominant concept behind “anti-imperialism” is an anti-war stance: To be anti-imperialist is to be pro-peace. Therefore, in its political sense “anti-imperialism” is a phrase which implies an inherently internationalist viewpoint which sees weaker – or maybe just less warlike –  countries bound together against any colonising aggressor.

The sad reality is that “anti-imperialism” is not what it used to be.

As I have often related, an accurate analysis of modern human history is that precisely as Iran emerged victorious from the Western-orchestrated War of Holy Defense (also referred to as the Iran-Iraq War) the global anti-imperialist struggle completely collapsed, due to the fall of the USSR and Europe’s Eastern Bloc.

Almost universally anti-imperialism had a crisis of intellectual confidence. This even allowed Western pro-imperialists to insist that Iran was in a laughable condition: it went from being a revolutionary country to an outdated country almost overnight! The sad, but partial, truth of this historical era is not widely understood even in 2021.

It’s an important rejoinder that Iran’s revolutionary mix of anti-imperialism, state economic management and a modern, late-20th century political structure mixed with the revolutionary addition of clerical democratic inclusion has also still not been fully understood by most non-Iranians on both the left and the right.

But for pro-imperialists understanding was not necessary because in 1992 they infamously, abruptly and arrogantly declared the “end of history”, and that anti-imperialism had permanently lost. This explains Washington’s philosophy towards Iran for the last 30 years: waste time – and make things as difficult as possible via illegal and murderous sanctions – until Iran catches up with “history”. Or to put it in the exact terms used today by the Biden administration, which is struggling to gain domestic legitimacy after a deeply-disputed election: wait for Iran to accept “reality” (a “reality” defined by pro-imperialists, of course).

After 42 years Iran is still waiting for many to understand the political and economic modernity of its culture, but most with open eyes have at least partially come to understand Iran thanks to its actions. They see that Iran is consistently a top 10 country in the acceptance of refugees; they see that Iran puts its best and most beloved, like QasemSoleimani, in harm’s way in foreign nations in order to aid their struggles; they see that Iran supports righteous Sunni countries like Palestine; they see that Iran takes major and daring risks to send help to Latino countries like Venezuela; they see that Iran followed all the rules of the JCPOA pact on Iran’s nuclear energy program even when Western signatories did not.

Anyone with open eyes sees that Iran is an internationalist country, an anti-imperialist fighter, a peacemaker and a supporter of righteous global cooperation . Anyone with a modicum of imagination has also wondered just how very successful Iran could be and would have been – with their natural and human resources, and with the exact system they have had in place for 42 years – if the West would end its decades of imperialist blockades on Iran.

In the modern digital age – dominated by Western corporations who undoubtedly support pro-imperialist ideologies – eyes are not allowed to be opened, sadly. The pen is not mightier than the sword of deplatforming, censorship and endless Western propaganda.

And yet anti-imperialism remains an ever-powerful sword, because defense of one’s home and sovereignty is always legitimate.

In the post-1991 world who has wielded this sword more than Iran? This is not mere boasting, and proof of humility can be shown by quickly recounting the history of modern anti-imperialist struggles:

Only a know-nothing would say that the USSR, with its 25 million martyrs, didn’t primarily defeat German imperialism. China gave so very much to protect Korea from American invasion, but not as much as North Koreans gave, of course. The sacrifices of the Vietnamese were the most globally galvanising anti-imperialist force in the 20th century – who could ever forget that? Ending South African Apartheid can never be forgotten, but Western media certainly does obscure the role played by Cuban soldiers in repelling attacks from the Western-backed South African Defense Force, which ultimately resulted in the discrediting of the entire South African system and led to the freedom of Angola and modern-day Namibia. And who can forget when Algiers was the “Mecca of revolutionaries”, following the victory of its incredibly inspiring anti-imperialist struggle which overturned 132 years of Algeria “being France”?

Yet Iran’s contributions to the global and supremely humane anti-imperialist movement have been easily obscured by the West’s post-2001 state-sponsored ideology: Islamophobia.

Islamophobia was a very good ideology for pro-imperialists to promote because it has no troublesome economic or class components – it is mere xenophobia. Islamophobia explains why even the few committed Western anti-imperialists so often dismiss Iran’s anti-imperialism with a dismissive wave of their hand: they feel that because of the presence of the religion of Islam Iran is too difficult to even be understood. Sadly, Western pro-imperialists – via the promotion of Islamophobia – have won in many areas for decades.

Iran is concerned with Islam, of course, but Islam differs from Christianity in that there is no possibility for forced conversion, for proselytising monks or nuns or for the forcing of faith on others. Islam, from a political, economic and geopolitical perspective, is simply an insufficient tool with which to define all of modern Iran (believing that it is sufficient is Islamophobic, of course).

Because anti-imperialism cannot die as long as countries are conquered and colonised (openly or via puppets), it must have a center somewhere, no?

It’s laughable to say that the centre of the anti-imperialist movement in 2021 – which began in politics with Lenin and his critiques of Western-style capitalism – could be located anywhere in the United States. Or in Western Europe, for that matter.

I think it is perhaps fair to say the centre in 2021 is in Iran.

If that seems strange to your ears: Isn’t it true that Western Islamophobia has made modern Iran seem to be totally inscrutable, or even not even worth serious analysis? At the very same time, hasn’t the huge reductions in the anti-imperialist movement – which was a global cultural force for nearly a century – made Iran even more atypical? Is Iran so hard to place on the global and historical political spectrums because it is so very revolutionary, or is it that many simply don’t make the effort to accurately understand it’s structures, ideals and actions?

After 42 years Iran’s actions are clear, even if – to some – their motivations and methods are not yet comprehended.

There are other established anti-imperialist nations, as I have noted, and I am not accusing them of resting on their laurels – I simply note here that since 1979 Iran has undoubtedly joined their company in the history of modern mankind. Given the importance of anti-imperialism in establishing global peace, goodwill and cooperation – who wouldn’t thank God for that?

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)


Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

www.presstv.tv

واشنطن تحت وطأة الانقلاب الفاشل وأميركا تتآكل من الداخل..!

محمد صادق الحسيني

لم يعُد هناك أي مجال للشك والترديد أو الارتياب بأنّ ما كان يدّعيه الأميركيون بأنّ ديمقراطيتهم هي نهاية التاريخ كما ادّعى وزعم منظّرهم فوكوياما، باتت اليوم على شفير الهاوية وذاهبة لتأخذ أميركا الى الخراب الشامل..!

وما جرى في واشنطن قبل أيام من أحداث عنف دامية دليل وبرهان قاطع لا يقبل الدحض أو النقض..!

والذي أكد في ما أكد اشتراك شخص الرئيس الأميركي المنتهية ولايته في كلّ ما جرى من خراب…!

وفي هذا السياق فقد أكدت مصادر واسعة الاطلاع من مراكز صنع القرار الأميركي بأنّ الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب قاد كلّ عمليات التظاهر والتمرّد الأخيرة في واشنطن من خلال غرفة عمليات مخصصة لهذا الغرض كانت تضمّه مع بعض من افراد عائلته وعدد من رهطه (الأمن الخاص لديه تقارير مصوّرة عن ذلك) والذي يثبت أنّ ترامب هو شخصياً كان متورّطاً بعملية قيادة الجموع المقتحمة لمجمع الكاپيتول هيل في إطار عملية انقلابية كانت تهدف الى ما يلي:

1

ـ منع الكونغرس من التصديق على انتخاب بايدن.

2

ـ حرق الكونغرس بعد العبث بكلّ محتوياته.

3

ـ أخذ رهائن من مجلسي النواب والشيوخ وتعطيل الكونغرس لفترة طويلة بهدف ضمان بقائه في البيت الأبيض. إن جهاز الشرطة التابع للكونغرس متورط بإدخال المقتحمين.

هذا وقد ثبت من خلال التحقيقات الاولية بأنّ كلاً من ابن سلمان وابن زايد متورّطين بضخ أموال لترامب وأنصاره لعمل هذه الفوضى في الكونغرس وفي الشارع الأميركي لجرّ الشعب الأميركي إلى مربع الصراع ومربع العنف.

ويبدو أنّ هذه المعلومات كانت متوفرة لدى قيادة الحزب الديمقراطي والسيدة نانسي بيلوسي بشكل خاص والتي تعتبر من الرموز المخابراتية من الوزن الثقيل.

وهذا الأمر بالذات هو الذي دفع رئيسة المجلس الى اتخاذ إجراءات سريعة كانت مأخوذة بعين الاعتبار سلفاً، حيث تمّ أخذ كافة الأعضاء في المجلسين الى قاعات آمنة ومن ثم قامت بالاتصال العاجل بالخدمة السريّة للبيت الأبيض وهي قوة تعتبر تابعة للقوة الخفيّة التي تحمي أميركا الدولة القوية وكذلك بالـ وسائر القوى المعنية فقامت بتطويق كل المربع الخاص بالكونغرس والبالغة مساحته نحو 13 هكتاراً واقتحامه وإخلاء القاعات من الرعاع والمتمردين من جماعة ترامب بمهنيّة عالية جداً وإعادة الأوضاع الى ما قبل الاقتحام في مدة لم تتجاوز 4 ساعات..!

تصاعد التوتر داخل مباني الكاپيتول وخوف الدولة العميقة من انفلات الوضع وانتقاله الى سائر الولايات، وهو ما كان يتمناه ترامب هو الذي دفع بالدولة العميقة بالعمل سريعاً لإنقاذ العاصمة واشنطن من خلال الدفع بقوات دعم أمنية وصلت إليها من فرجينيا ونيوجيرسي وميريلاند.. ولما اشتدّ الوطيس وصار الخطر اكبر دخلت قوات «الخدمة السرية» الخاصة على الخط فوراً وهي القوة التي تشكلت في العام 1865 بعد انتهاء الحرب الأهلية الأميركية والتابعة لوزارة الامن الداخلي، والمكلفة بحماية كبار الشخصيات والرؤساء، وذات المهمات الخاصة في الملمات لتطلب من ترامب التوقف فوراً عن مغامرته والقيام بتسجيل صوتي – وليس الظهور الحر على التلفزيون – لسحب جماعاته فوراً تحت طائلة التهديد بالعقاب الصارم، مجبرة إياه على القيام بالمهمة فور انتهاء خطاب الرئيس المنتخب جو بايدن من دون تأخير (والذي طلب منه ايضاً للخروج بخطابه الى الرأي العام للغرض نفسه)…!

وهكذا رضخ ترامب للأمر وقرّر التراجع مكرهاً، ففشل الانقلاب..!

هذا السيناريو الترامبي والسيناريو المضاد الذي قضى على التمرّد وأحبط الانقلاب في واشنطن العاصمة لن يمرّ بشكل عادي على الحياة السياسية الأميركية، بل انّ تداعياته خطيرة جداً وهي التي ربما ستجعل أميركا توضع على جادة إما الحرب الأهلية وإما التآكل من الداخل والانهيار رويداً رويداً…!

ما حصل ليلة الانقلاب الفاشل لم يكن ابن ليلته، بل هو تراكم فعل وفعل مضاد لفساد النظام السياسي الحاكم في الولايات المتحدة الأميركية …!

أميركا بانت على حقيقتها ديمقراطية فاشلة وهشة وكاذبة!

انها إعجاز نخل خاوية وهشيم تذروه الرياح.

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

Biden won? 2016-2020 showed what the US does to even mild reformers

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)

Friday, 18 December 2020 11:21 AM  [ Last Update: Friday, 18 December 2020 12:07 PM ]

Biden won? 2016-2020 showed what the US does to even mild reformers
Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

by Ramin Mazaheri and cross-posted with PressTV

What the four-year epoch of Donald Trump has made staggeringly clear to non-Americans is that no one – not even a democratically-elected American – will be able to even moderately alter the US capitalist-imperialist foreign policy trajectory without undergoing a no-holds barred attack aimed at bringing that person down.

What the election of Joe Biden (although “installation” is clearly more accurate) shows is that the current American elite is wrongly yet firmly guided by the the self-serving and evangelical ideas which have dominated US foreign policy since the implosion of the USSR in 1991: “the end of history”, unipolar dominance and “humanitarian interventionism”.

Trump’s defeat is still an assumption, but – given that the Supreme Court will likely continue to sidestep the issue of state executive orders for mail-in ballots that bypassed a democratic check and balance by the legislative branch – the staggering burden of proof on those who claim a criminal conspiracy of electoral fraud have a lot of proving to do, and in a very short period of time.

What’s certain is that Trump was undoubtedly the one person who put fear into the all-smothering US establishment in my lifetime, and probably yours. He dared to cast mainstream doubt on the elites’ versions of free trade (neoliberal capitalism) and foreign policy (imperialism), and he progressed the American conversation from Eisenhower’s seemingly technocratic “military-industrial complex” to the far more nefarious yet accurate “Deep State”.

Yes, Trump has weakened America domestically via his policies of deregulation and liberal (not neoliberal) capitalism, but this column talks about the new post-Trump realisations now breaking over the non-American world:

Trump has irrevocably changed foreign perceptions of America – in it’s cultural, social, political and economic totality – because the world witnessed the shocking extremism the US establishment/1%/Deep State/military-industrial-media complex/etc. was willing to use day after day just to take him down.

Trump showed the world who they are really dealing with: forces much stronger than even the US executive

Few Americans wanted to openly admit that what Trump initially suggested to the world was actually a new type of global competition, instead of one predicated on the usual American, “You’re either with us and for goodness and progress, or against us and for the terrorists”. But that was a major change, and it was predicated on Trump’s non-mainstream politician admission that America had fallen so far that people had to actually do some work to “Make America Great Again” – he essentially admitted it was no longer a unipolar world.

Trump openly promised death to Iran, Palestine and Cuba, but in 2016 part of his shock was that he clearly had accepted a multipolar world as he shockingly talked about extending an olive branch to Russia and a purchase order to China.

Trump saw that because of the financial crimes and corruption of the US elite, as well as their failed neoliberal response to the Great Recession, it was undeniable that America (and it’s European allies) had degraded and been equalled, or in some areas surpassed by, China and Russia. Trump admitted this, and thus the businessman wanted to “do business” with America’s two recalcitrant peers while still crushing revolutionary, sovereignty-demanding or just smaller nations with the competitive might the US still had held on to.

Trump – of course – was not just unhindered but applauded by the US Deep State in expanding upon the existing policy of crushing revolutionary countries, but he was clearly forced into antagonising those two American equals when initially he obviously did not want to.

So what does Trump’s ousting now mean for those two major countries? It means normal, peaceful relations with the US are now impossible for at least four years. How can they possibly conclude otherwise?

Why would China, Russia, or the other undoubted enemies of Washington possibly expect any detente with the US from 2021 onwards when the Trump era has unequivocally proven to them that such detente will never be permitted by the US elite at any cost?

It is now crystal clear that the US president does not shape foreign policy – he only implements it. If he doesn’t we see what happens: the US establishment was aghast at his calls to prosecute “crooked Hillary”, but Trump looks like he will be the first ex-president to ever face prosecution.

Who is actually giving the foreign policy orders? Feel free to guess my opinion, but we know it is certainly not public opinion. Trump obviously tried to please public opinion and pull out of Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere and we all saw what happened – he was absolutely vilified for it in all the US power circles.

There are countless articles in American mainstream media which prove this analysis right; which confirm that Biden will be even more belligerent to China and Russia; which confirm he will use the same drones and sanctions on all “un-invadable” nations as Trump did. It’s clear from Biden’s statements and cabinet choices that – in policies towards non-Americans – he is going to deploy the worst of Trump’s tools but, crucially, combine them with the worst of phony Clintonian “humanitarian interventionism”.

So why would China or Russia kowtow to Biden when the 2016-2020 era shows that total belligerence is the only possibility Washington permits? Why would China or Russia expect Biden to extend mutually-beneficial cooperation? It’s not going to arrive, and part of Trump’s downfall was that he even tried.

One must look at it from the perspective of non-Americans: 2016-2020 has been incredibly shocking in the way that a political newcomer who seemed to want peace in some places was pulled down by a myriad of rabid and hysterical monkeys. Biden and the US establishment wants the non-American to act as if 2016-2020 never happened, but who could possibly forget what shockingly terrible actions were on display in the US over the past four years to prevent any new policies, especially in foreign relations?

Obama was a successful ‘brand change’, but Biden will not be

In 2016 the US was already so weakened by its Great Recession-inducing financial crimes that Trump came to the fore. In 2020 the US is even more gutted, due to this spectacularly awful year. So why would Russia and China not meet the confrontations which Washington is clearly still intent on posing to them?

Biden has none of Obama’s charisma, youth, acting ability, etc. He behaves like an old grandfather who will do anything to earn the attention and admiration of his grandchildren, not someone who can credibly back up claims of being the competent leader of the self-appointed “leader of the free world”.

That is why China is now showing a shocked Australia who really needs who economically via unprecedented tariffs. It’s why Russia is sending the S-400 defense system to Turkey and is having their ambassador to Israel stick up for Iran no matter who it offends. It’s not a question of America being too “weak” nor realpolitik but common sense – the fall of Trump emphatically proves detente with the US is simply not going to be permitted.

More of these challenges to the US will occur in the next four years because that is all Washington wants. Of course the American people don’t want that: half the American people voted for Trump, after all, and we know that they meant nothing to the American elite for four years; the half-leftist Bernie Sanders supporters were similarly shut out once their vote has been used to push out Trump.

When we consider that 2016-2020 was more an American cultural era of “Trump, the ousting” rather than “Trump, the democratically-elected leader” it’s clear that for non-Americans Trump truly heralded the end of global cultural domination by the US, which started after World War II. Didn’t everybody say that would happen in 2016, after all? They were right, but usually for the wrong reasons. It’s no coincidence that the Iranian term gharbzadegi – or “Westoxification” – goes back to the 1940s.

Yet despite their increased division and overall weakness Washington still expects non-American nations to accept the exact same amount of smothering domination as in 1991, 2001, 2007 and even 2015.

But why?

The US is trending in the right direction economically and culturally? The election of Biden has restored US prestige? The manner in which he won inspires confidence? Biden has a foreign policy agenda which is going to be less belligerent than Trump’s unprecedented call to end America’s endless foreign wars? The US has a Belt and Road Initiative which I don’t know about?

Let’s take this moment to realise that an unprecedented, four-year confusion has come to an end: It’s clear that US reformism lost.

It wasn’t a great reformism, but it was something different and positive in some ways. To stop it the US elite gutted their own nation’s psyche, culture, integrity, friendships, families and communities.

On a visceral level, which is not yet registered intellectually, the world saw that proposing changes away from US unipolar domination inspired shocking, debasing cultural war every day for the last four years – is that a system to have faith in, or a system to give in to?

The weakest nations of the world will be pushed into line with post-Trump US leadership, but the strong nations wouldn’t be strong if they had faith in the restoration of the Washington establishment, which Biden represents. Biden is certain to keep challenging strong nations, no matter how unjust or foolish that is.

However, it’s obviously incredibly unfortunate that the moderate reforms suggested by Trump – especially the peaceful ones in foreign policy – could not even be attempted. Maybe some other American will try, but they should now be prepared to undergo the Trump treatment.

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

Dispatches from the United States after the presidential election

Results are in: Americans lose, duopoly wins, Trumpism not merely a cult (1/2) – November 5, 2020

Results are in: Americans lose, duopoly wins, Trumpism not merely a cult (2/2) – November 6, 2020

4 years of anti-Trumpism shaping MSM vote coverage, but expect long fight – November 7, 2020

US partitioned by 2 presidents: worst-case election scenario realized – November 9, 2020

A 2nd term is his if he really wants it, but how deep is Trump’s ‘Trumpism’? – November 10, 2020

CNN’s Jake Tapper: The overseer keeping all journalists in line (1/2) – November 13, 2020

‘Bidenism’ domestically: no free press, no lawyer, one-party state? (2/2) – November 15, 2020

Where’s Donald? When 40% of voters cry ‘fraud’ you’ve got a big problem – November 17, 2020

The 4-year (neoliberal) radicalisation of US media & Bidenites’ ‘unradical radicalism’ – November 22, 2020

80% of US partisan losers think the last 2 elections were stolen – December 3, 2020

Trump declares civil war for voter integrity in breaking (or broken) USA – December 5, 2020

Mess with Texas via mail-in ballot? States secede from presidential vote – December 8, 2020

Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

AVERTING BARBAROSSA II: THE LIANA SPACE RADIOELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

Averting Barbarossa II: The Liana Space Radioelectronic Surveillance System
Video

Written and produced by SF Team: J.Hawk, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson

At the end of the Cold War, the level of international tension has considerably declined for at least a decade, thanks to widespread multilateral disarmament bolstered by a variety of arms control regimes for conventional and nuclear armaments. That decade also saw the rapid deterioration of Russia’s early warning and surveillance systems as satellites launched during the Soviet era exhausted their service lives and crashed into the atmosphere without being replaced. At first, this was either not seen as an urgent priority by Russian decisionmakers or, if it was, there were more urgent priorities for scarce defense funding in an era of a prolonged economic crisis.

Fast-forwarding a decade, we find ourselves in a radically different situation. There is no more “end of history” optimism in the air, nor is there a sense of durable US hegemony either that seemed so permanent in the 1990s. Unfortunately, history tells us that such shifts in the global balance of power are fraught with danger, as the fading hegemon has an incentive to resort to extreme, reckless measures to preserve that hegemony. What makes the current situation unprecedented is this being the first hegemonic transition of the nuclear age. In the past, nuclear deterrence existed only in the context of relatively stable bipolar and then unipolar systems. Does nuclear deterrence mutually assured destruction still work under conditions of a multipolar system experiencing a hegemonic transition?

International relations theory has no answer to that question, but the US national security establishment appears to think that it doesn’t, particularly in an era of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, drone and missile swarms, hypersonic delivery vehicles, and possibly even directed energy weapons. Crash US programs in developing all of the above, far beyond anything that might be termed reasonable defensive sufficiency under conditions of the US spending far more on defense than anyone else in the world, do raise the possibility of long-term plans to prevail in the new round of great power competition through not only covert action and “hybrid warfare”, but also, if an opportunity arises, through good old fashioned strategic first strike which need no longer be delivered using nuclear weapons.

The point of Cold War-era nuclear arms treaties was not to limit the number of nuclear warheads for its own sake. Rather, it was to deprive the two superpowers of their ability to launch a disarming and decapitating strike which, given technologies of the era, could only be launched using nuclear weapons.  That is still the case today, but may not be by 2030 should the US complete its planned rearmament with a large array of land-, air-, and sea-based long-range stealthy and hypersonic weapons. Even the US Army, with its plans for “1,000-mile cannon” is once again getting into the game of strategic strike, to speak nothing of land-based hypersonic missiles. And strategic strike using non-nuclear warheads is a novel scenario in which the old “mutually assured destruction” calculations may not apply. Combined with the explosive growth of US anti-ballistic missile programs, if the rest of the world stands still, by 2030 US decision makers might find themselves tempted to launch such a strategic strike against even a major nuclear weapons state like Russia or China, to say nothing of mid-level powers like Iran or North Korea, particularly if they have no nuclear deterrent to begin with.

Except the rest of the world is not about to stand still, and the Liana space surveillance system is an important component of the Russian response to US initiatives. The imminent era of post-nuclear strategic strike demands strategic defense and stability cannot be provided solely by anti-ballistic early warning systems. They would simply provide warning of an attack once it was underway, and in view of the possibility that large numbers of hypersonic missiles could be launched very close to Russia’s borders from the territory of NATO member-states following a rapid and covert deployment, as well as submarines and stealthy bombers, that warning might come too late to make an effective response possible. To make matters worse still, US drive to destroy the Open Skies Treaty that is supposed to prevent precisely that kind of a covert preparation for a first strike, is also indicative of what the long-term US plans are.

Liana is therefore intended to provide that kind of strategic early warning, as well as operational target designation, in the event of an attempted surprise first strike. The satellite constellation is to consist of two types of satellites. The first, Pion-NKS, is a 6.5 ton satellite intended for a 67-degree, 500km orbit, with service life of more than three years. It’s development is nearly complete at the Arsenal Design Bureau. It is a high-resolution radar reconnaissance satellite, capable of positively identifying “car-sized” objects on the Earth’s surface. The second component of the Liana will be Lotos-S, a six-ton satellite operating on a 67-degree, 900km apogee orbit, and performing passive detection, identification, and location of electronic emitters, including radio communications. It was developed by the Arsenal Design Bureau, in collaboration with several other scientific research institutions. Both types of satellites are expected to be launched from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, using the proven and reliable Soyuz-2-1b launch vehicles. The complete Liana configuration is to consist of two Pion-NKS and two Lotos-S satellites, and open-source information sources suggest the two satellite types have a fair amount of component commonality in order to allow them not only to complement one another, but to perform each other’s primary missions though in a degraded form. So far there have been three Lotos-S launches from Plesetsk, with the first 2009 one being a failure, and the 2015 and 2018 one a success. No Pion-NKS launches have been scheduled yet, but the satellite’s advanced stage of development suggests they will occur in the coming years.

Technological advances mean that once complete, Liana will serve as a replacement for both the Legenda naval surveillance and target designation satellite network, and the Tselina radioelectronic reconnaissance one, thus providing Russian decisionmakers with the ability to monitor troop deployments and electronic activity that would inevitably precede a strategic first strike. Liana will also no doubt prove itself useful in non-Doomsday scenarios as well. The Syria experience revealed the need for reliable detection and target designation of NATO cruise-missile launch assets, including aircraft, submarines, and surface vessels. Liana’s capabilities mean both the assets themselves, other than submarines, and their communications can be monitored to reveal preparations for a strike and provide targeting information as well. It is not clear Russia would have been able to accurately strike at US warships launching cruise missiles at Syria had they been directed against Russian bases. The absence of radar surveillance satellites was a painful gap in Russia’s capabilities at that time, one that will be filled in the coming years.

From 9/11 to the Great Reset

From 9/11 to the Great Reset

September 11, 2020

by Pepe Escobar with permission from the author and first posted at Asia Times

9/11 was the foundation stone of the new millennium – ever as much indecipherable as the Mysteries of Eleusis. A year ago, on Asia Times, once again I raised a number of questions that still find no answer.

A lightning speed breakdown of the slings and arrows of outrageous (mis)fortune trespassing these two decades will certainly include the following. The end of history. The short unipolar moment. The Pentagon’s Long War. Homeland Security. The Patriot Act. Shock and Awe. The tragedy/debacle in Iraq. The 2008 financial crisis. The Arab Spring. Color revolutions. “Leading from behind”. Humanitarian imperialism. Syria as the ultimate proxy war. The ISIS/Daesh farce. The JCPOA. Maidan. The Age of Psyops. The Age of the Algorithm. The Age of the 0.0001%.

Once again, we’re deep in Yeats territory: “the best lack all conviction/ while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

All along, the “War on Terror” – the actual decantation of the Long War – proceeded unabated, killing Muslim multitudes and displacing at least 37 million people.

WWII-derived geopolitics is over. Cold War 2.0 is in effect. It started as US against Russia, morphed into US against China and now, fully spelled out in the US National Security Strategy, and with bipartisan support, it’s the US against both. The ultimate Mackinder-Brzezinski nightmare is at hand: the much dread “peer competitor” in Eurasia slouched towards the Beltway to be born in the form of the Russia-China strategic partnership.

Something’s gotta give. And then, out of the blue, it did.

A drive by design towards ironclad concentration of power and geoconomic diktats was first conceptualized – under the deceptive cover of “sustainable development” – already in 2015 at the UN (here it is, in detail).

Now, this new operating system – or technocratic digital dystopia – is finally being codified, packaged and “sold” since mid summer via a lavish, concerted propaganda campaign.

Watch your mindspace

The whole Planet Lockdown hysteria that elevated Covid-19 to post-modern Black Plague proportions has been consistently debunked, for instance here and here, drawing from the highly respected, original Cambridge source.

The de facto controlled demolition of large swathes of the global economy allowed corporate and vulture capitalism, world wide, to rake untold profits out of the destruction of collapsed businesses.

And all that proceeded with widespread public acceptance – an astonishing process of voluntary servitude.

None of it is accidental. As an example, over then years ago, even before setting up a – privatized – Behavioral Insights Team, the British government was very much interested in “influencing” behavior, in collaboration with the London School of Economics and Imperial College.

The end result was the MINDSPACE report. That was all about behavioral science influencing policymaking and most of all, imposing neo-Orwellian population control.

MINDSPACE, crucially, featured close collaboration between Imperial College and the Santa Monica-based RAND corporation. Translation:

the authors of the absurdly flawed computer models that fed the Planet Lockdown paranoia working in conjunction with the top Pentagon-linked think tank.

In MINDSPACE, we find that, “behavioral approaches embody a line of thinking that moves from the idea of an autonomous individual, making rational decisions, to a ‘situated’ decision-maker, much of whose behavior is automatic and influenced by their ‘choice environment’”.

So the key question is who decides what is the “choice environment’. As it stands, our whole environment is conditioned by Covid-19. Let’s call it “the disease”. And that is more than enough to beautifully set up “the cure”: The Great Reset.

The beating heart

The Great Reset was officially launched in early June by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the natural habitat of Davos Man. Its conceptual base is something the WEF describes as Strategic Intelligence Platform: “a dynamic system of contextual intelligence that enables users to trace relationships and interdependencies between issues, supporting more informed decision-making”.

It’s this platform that promotes the complex crossover and interpenetration of Covid-19 and the Fourth Industrial Revolution – conceptualized back in December 2015 and the WEF’s choice futuristic scenario. One cannot exist without the other. That is meant to imprint in the collective unconscious – at least in the West – that only the WEF-sanctioned “stakeholder” approach is capable of solving the Covid-19 challenge.

The Great Reset is immensely ambitiousspanning over 50 fields of knowledge and practice. It interconnects everything from economy recovery recommendations to “sustainable business models”, from restoration of the environment to the redesign of social contracts.

The beating heart of this matrix is – what else – the Strategic Intelligence Platform, encompassing, literally, everything: “sustainable development”, “global governance”, capital markets, climate change, biodiversity, human rights, gender parity, LGBTI, systemic racism, international trade and investment, the – wobbly – future of the travel and tourism industries, food, air pollution, digital identity, blockchain, 5G, robotics, artificial intelligence (AI).

In the end, only an all-in-one Plan A applies for making these systems interact seamlessly: the Great Reset – shorthand for a New World Order that has always been glowingly evoked, but never implemented. There is no Plan B.

The Covid-19 “legacy”

The two main actors behind the Great Reset are Klaus Schwab, the WEF’s founder and executive chairman, and IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva. Georgieva is adamant that “the digital economy is the big winner of this crisis”. She believes the Great Reset must imperatively start in 2021.

The House of Windsor and the UN are prime executive co-producers. Top sponsors include BP, Mastercard and Microsoft. It goes without saying that everyone who knows how complex geopolitical and geoeconomic decisions are taken is aware that these two main actors are just reciting a script. Call the authors “the globalist elite”. Or, in praise of Tom Wolfe, the Masters of the Universe.

Schwab, predictably, wrote the Great Reset’s mini-manifesto. Over a month later, he expanded on the absolutely key connection: the “legacy” of Covid-19.

All this has been fully fleshed in a book, co-written with Thierry Malleret, who directs the WEF’s Global Risk Network. Covid-19 is described as having “created a great disruptive reset of our global, social, economic and political systems”. Schwab spins Covid-19 not only as a fabulous “opportunity”, but actually as the creator (italics mine) of the – now inevitable – Reset.

All that happens to dovetail beautifully with Schwab’s own baby: Covid-19 “accelerated our transition into the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution”. The revolution has been extensively discussed at Davos since 2016.

The book’s central thesis is that our most pressing challenges concern the environment – considered only in terms of climate change – and technological developments, which will allow the expansion of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

In a nutshell, the WEF is stating that corporate globalization, the hegemonic modus operandi since the 1990s, is dead. Now it’s time for “sustainable development” – with “sustainable” defined by a select group of “stakeholders”, ideally integrated into a “community of common interest, purpose and action.”

Sharp Global South observers will not fail to compare the WEF’s rhetoric of “community of common interest” with the Chinese “community of shared interests” as applied to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is a de facto continental trade/development project.

The Great Reset presupposes that all stakeholders – as in the whole planet – must toe the line. Otherwise, as Schwab stresses, we will have “more polarization, nationalism, racism, increased social unrest and conflicts”.

So this is – once again – a “you’re with us or against us” ultimatum, eerily reminiscent of our old 9/11 world. Either the Great Reset is peacefully established, with whole nations dutifully obeying the new guidelines designed by a bunch of self-appointed neo-Platonic Republic sages, or it’s chaos.

Whether Covid-19’s ultimate “window of opportunity” presented itself as a mere coincidence or by design, will always remain a very juicy question.

Digital Neo-Feudalism

The actual, face-to-face Davos meeting next year has been postponed to the summer of 2021. But virtual Davos will proceed in January, focused on the Great Reset.

Already three months ago, Schwab’s book hinted that the more everyone is mired in the global paralysis, the more it’s clear that things will never be allowed (italics mine) to return to what we considered normal.

Five years ago, the UN’s Agenda 2030 – the Godfather of the Great Reset – was already insisting on vaccines for all, under the patronage of the WHO and CEPI – co-founded in 2016 by India, Norway and the Bill and Belinda Gates foundation.

Timing could not be more convenient for the notorious Event 201 “pandemic exercise” in October last year in New York, with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security partnering with – who else – the WEF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. No in-depth criticism of Gates’s motives is allowed by media gatekeepers because, after all, he finances them.

What has been imposed as an ironclad consensus is that without a Covid-19 vaccine there’s no possibility of anything resembling normality.

And yet a recent, astonishing paper published in Virology Journal – which also publishes Dr. Fauci’s musings – unmistakably demonstrates that “chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread”. This is a “relatively safe, effective and cheap drug” whose “significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use.”

Even Schwab’s book admits that Covid-19 is “one of the least deadly pandemics in the last 2000 years” and its consequences “will be mild compared to previous pandemics”.

It doesn’t matter. What matters above all is the “window of opportunity” offered by Covid-19, boosting, among other issues, the expansion of what I previously described as Digital Neo-Feudalism – or Algorithm gobbling up Politics. No wonder politico-economic institutions from the WTO to the EU as well as the Trilateral Commission are already investing in “rejuvenation” processes, code for even more concentration of power.

Survey the imponderables

Very few thinkers, such as German philosopher Hartmut Rosa, see our current plight as a rare opportunity to “decelerate” life under turbo-capitalism.

As it stands, the point is not that we’re facing an “attack of the civilization-state” . The point is assertive civilization-states – such as China, Russia, Iran – not submitted to the Hegemon, are bent on charting a quite different course.

The Great Reset, for all its universalist ambitions, remains an insular, Western-centric model benefitting the proverbial 1%. Ancient Greece did not see itself as “Western”. The Great Reset is essentially an Enlightenment-derived project.

Surveying the road ahead, it will certainly be crammed with imponderables. From the Fed wiring digital money directly into smartphone financial apps in the US to China advancing an Eurasia-wide trade/economic system side-by side with the implementation of the digital yuan.

The Global South will be paying a lot of attention to the sharp contrast between the proposed wholesale deconstruction of the industrial economic order and the BRI project – which focuses on a new financing system outside of Western monopoly and emphasizes agro-industrial growth and long-term sustainable development.

The Great Reset would point to losers, in terms of nations, aggregating all the ones that benefit from production and processing of energy and agriculture, from Russia, China and Canada to Brazil, Indonesia and large swathes of Africa.

As it stands, there’s only one thing we do know: the establishment at the core of the Hegemon and the drooling orcs of Empire will only adopt a Great Reset if that helps to postpone a decline accelerated on a fateful morning 19 years ago.

%d bloggers like this: