The new foreign strategy says Russia is responsible for defending cultural and spiritual values against “pseudo-humanistic” and other “neoliberal ideologies”.
Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Russia in February 2022. (Reuters)
Russia adopted a new foreign policy doctrine on Friday that prioritizes reforming world politics away from the hegemony of the United States and its Western allies and supporting countries that choose to fight neocolonialists and foreign interference.
The new foreign strategy went into effect after being signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“The Russian Federation intends to give priority to the elimination of vestiges of the dominance of the United States and other unfriendly countries in world politics,” the document said.
Russia would aim to “create the conditions for any state to reject neo-colonialist and hegemonic aims,” the 42-page policy read.
“Radical changes” in the world prompted the new policies, Putin said during a security council meeting, stressing that Russia’s engagement in the international arena must reflect its view on these changes.
Defender against neo-liberal ideologies
Russia views China and India as key allies in its new foreign doctrine and stresses the strategic importance of deepening relations and “coordination with friendly sovereign global centers of power and development located on the Eurasian continent.”
The war in Ukraine led to severe sanctions by the US and EU who lobbied countries around the world to join in on the unilateral sanctions, but many countries, including China and India, increased economic and bilateral relations with Moscow, reaching historic levels.
Chinese President Xi Jinping made a three-day official trip to Moscow earlier this month where he met with Putin and held what was described by the media as historic talks. The two presidents signed during Xi’s trip two joint strategic documents aiming to boost the two global powers’ economic and diplomatic partnership.
Russia, as per the document, is a “state civilization” and is responsible for protecting the “Russian world” – in reference to cultures that align with that of the country within Eurasia. Russia will be tasked with protecting “traditional spiritual and moral values” against “pseudo-humanistic and other neo-liberal ideological attitudes.”
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the new foreign policy doctrine identified “the existential nature of threats to the security and development of our country, driven by the actions of unfriendly states.”
“The United States of America is directly named as the main instigator and driver of anti-Russian sentiment,” he added.
“The West’s policy of trying to weaken Russia in every possible way is characterized as a hybrid war of a new type.”
Several indications lead to the conclusion that EUropeans at large — exceptions aside — should not be very bright. Or at least not brighter than anyone else as they claim to be. The fact is that – despite their undeniably copious amounts of individual and collective achievements – they have not yet been able to articulate a peacefull co-existence strategy amongst themselves and with third parties. Having failed at that implies that EUropeans are not really that bright, how could they be ? True enough, EUrope´s macro-economic and consumer society development has been ´successful´… but still under a highly unstable political co-existence. IMNSHO the main reason for such disqualifying historical flaw is that – contrary to their own self-image frequently preached sanctimoniously onto others – in political EUrope a “deal” is never a deal. It´s rather an expression of possible temporary abidance always subject to their own interpretation and circumstances yet un-defined. Basically, there is no valid contract, social or political or otherwise in EUrope. Humpty Dumptyness at its best. And the EU governance experiment made things worse with all the key decisions imposed by un-elected officials very clearly in the case of Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Poland, and Hungary. The argument could possibly be made that other societies today also struggle along equivalent lines, but then again this would swiftly confirm that EUropeans cannot be considered to be brighter than others… as they bloody insist they are.
EUropean ´superiority´ (not)
Dr. Josep Borrell is the EU´s topmost senior diplomat as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
Recently joined by another un-elected official namely the EU Commission President Ursula von den Leyen both now roughly insist that EUrope´s problems stem from its addictiveness to excellent and cheap Russian energy and resources, to China´s humongous export markets and high productivity dependency, and to the military ´security´ that the US today supposedly renders to them. So, accordingly their solution for EUrope would be to (a) get itself up in arms yet again and (b) to double-down on the ‘battle of narratives´ which should be interpreted to be just some more effective EU propaganda. So from this perspective rather than being bright EUropeans would just appear to be aggressive, manipulative, and conceited… and not superior to anyone else. So why be so proud about it all ?.
the EU thorny garden
Objectively searching into the EUropean political soul it´s easy to find EUrope´s self-EUthanization vis-á-vis its sheer lack of any ´affectio societatis´. This makes EUrope an un-viable business associate to and for anyone, even amongst themselves in view of the current widespread infighting. But JB´s ´brightness´ does not stop there, now proclaiming that “the world needs Europe” and that EUrope is a “garden” and the rest a mere ”jungle” ready to encroach upon it… So at this rate it would be wise to copernically acknowledge that EUrope is not any “global super-power” and that God Almighty has not appointed the un-elected European Commission as the rule-maker for the rest of the world to follow. Furthermore, the “international community”(sic) is not headquartered at Davos or Brussels and 85% of planet Earth does not even wake up in the West every morning. Making that clear would focus EU politics better than complaining about “too many abstentions” in the UN votes regarding this conflict which EU officials fail to understand and accept.
During the past one hundred years (approx.) aided or not by its supposed “superiority” collective Europe fostered 7 major historical vintage TM® failures, namely (1) enthusiastically fostered World War I – the Great War – “the war to end all wars” amongst themselves + (2) cradled and fully developed Nazism + (3) instigated and deployed World War II + (4) allowed for the firm establishment of ruinous “King Dollar” by calmly and willingly accepting the 1971 US unilateral default on the Bretton Woods Agreement thus perpetuating until today a highly detrimental “exhorbitant privilege” for a thus fiat US dollar + (5) established the currently ticking Euro currency time bomb + (6) fully accepted and even participated with impunity in many dozens of US military unsolicited interventions worldwide as the sole un-elected “world cop” thru its 800+ military bases in 80 countries (7) in 2022 unilaterally provoked an unnecessary and stupid self-harming divorce from Russia which has led the world closer than ever to a nuclear war. Readers may have different opinion regarding the individual interpretation of related events but still all of the above are categorically accepted historical facts. And a society that lies so much – onto itself and third parties — cannot be too bright, can it ?
Forget any and all dreams about forging a Greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Russia tried it, worked very hard at it, and invested tons in such century-milestone project, to no avail. Fact #1: Russia focused on Greater Europe for 30 years. Fact #2: Russia failed miserably in such endeavor. Under deep ´political hypnosis´ — for want of a better term — EUropean leaders supported by complicit constituents ended up deploying their self-harming strategy. For starters, no Referendum on the NATO-imposed, suicidal “let´s divorce Russia” initiative was ever proposed even though many dozens referenda have been held in the EU´s recent past. It´s simple: there is no valid contract in the EU
Russophia was also firmly established as a national cross-border regional sport of sorts spear-headed by complicit Western MSM and loudly outspoken and highly payed for EU officials. Of course, if challenged, Russians have the advantage of becoming quite stubborn when circumstances so require it, so they insisted in the Greater Europe project success and strictly followed the required EUropean Market & Financial Rules. But, yet again, there was no contract compliance. So led by the G-7 leadership, the collective West just plain took effective advantage of Russia in every way it possibly could provoke … and so the Minsk Accords were conveniently extended, postponed… and duly forgotten despite being squarely – and deceitfully — brokered by both Germany and France. The EU´s supposed Ostpolitik was betrayed with every trace of ´affectio societatis´ absent thus DE-stabilising the area and using third parties as pawns. Because, of course, EUropean flagrant unilateralism dictates that there is no room for anything close to having willingness and interest to engage and relate constructively with high-quality business partners beyond the EU´s – and NATO´s — full control. So Russia finally got fed up sick and tired of the West´s lack of “agreement capability” and will thus fully pivot to thriving Eurasia. Meanwhile Europe will immolate itself thru its NATO-induced suicide with shamefull colonialistic sins hovering its soul for the last 500 years until today. Is any of this “bright” ?
NATO´s ´hypnotic´ spell
British Gral. Hastings Ismay — the first Secretary General of NATO — defined that the purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was “to keep Russians out, Americans in, and Germans down” which has since become the common way to describe its dynamics and goals. Ismay also proposed that NATO “must grow until the whole free world gets under one umbrella.” So EUrope today and per its own fault, in more than one way and through not-publicized non-sanctum mechanisms, is actually ruled and governed directly by the US. Accordingly, the inclusion of Russia in the Greater Europe project was to be boycotted to death – most specially its association with Germany — and it certainly was. The European leadership thus offered and deployed highly pro-active support to provoke the Ukraine conflict, be it “militarily, financially or politically” thus confirming yet again its direct and unequivocal commitment and participation. During 8 years the Ukraine Armed Forces were trained by NATO to meet NATO combat standards while the Eastern Russian-speaking areas were systematically intimidated and bombed . NATO members proudly admitted to constantly supply the UAF with heavy modern weapons, military advisers and intel.
To weaken Germany and simultaneously strengthen the US required pitting Russia against Germany in a mutually destructive conflict so that the two countries could not re-establish normal relations for decades to come. The collapse of the EUropean economy would come about by denying cheap Russian energy to Germany. Thus, trillions of dollars of European resources would supposedly relocate to the US jointly with their best and brightest. According to the Rand Report, the main obstacle to Europe´s plundering on a scale which rivaled the Jewish looting of Russia in the 1990s was “the growing independence of Germany” which followed Britain’s exit from the European Union (Brexit) which gave “Germany greater independence and decreased the US influence upon European governments.”
the EU ´bright´ new oil & gas markets
No matter how diced or sliced, under the planned nat-gas EU ´capped-price´ purchase policy Western markets would be missing access to some 50% (approx.) of the 2021 effectively traded and consumed natural gas volumes. Besides, serious doubts remain on (a) the technical quality of such new possible “capped” price nat-gas (b) its delivery terms and conditions and (c) the reliability of such type of possible nat-gas suppliers. But at any rate when EUrope soon necessarily runs out of all possible nat-gas vendors willing to comply with its new capped-price policy — which would never fulfill its physical needs — then Russia and others will be able to charge whatever they want for the remaining nat-gas which EUrope will require in order to function ASWKI. Unless, of course, the deliberate ruinous EUropean plan were exactly THAT …which is an ever larger possibility. High quality nat-gas is high quality nat-gas, markets are markets, and business is business. An equivalent “absurd” sourcing conundrum would also be triggered by the soon-coming EU ban on Russian sea-borne oil with serious refinability problems (diesel !!!) vis-á-vis the different quality and quantity of the replacements yet to be found and the un-vetted reliability of the yet non-existent suppliers. Tom Kloza, Global Head of Energy Analysis says “Without new inventory, by the end of November the wolf will be at the door. And it will look like a big ugly wolf if it’s a cold winter” Ref #9 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/11/the-u-s-diesel-shortage-is-worsening.html
not-so-bright useful green idiots ?
The reference below describes the green parties in Europe “as being particularly easy to manipulate into running the errands of American imperialism. The prerequisite for Germany to fall into this trap is the dominant role of Green Parties and European ideologies. The German environmental movement is a highly dogmatic, if not fanatical, movement, which makes it quite easy to get them to ignore economic argument.”
On their part, the Russians — many still astonished by suicidal EUrope – seem to basically be thinking (approx.) …
“EUropeans, you didn´t have to love us or even be friends you know… but why hate us ? Always, systematically, by default. Why are you Russophobic ? We only wanted to continue being your vetted trade partners as repeatedly proven with flying colors for 30 years. So just what is wrong with you ? Why do you allow your leaders to lie to you, cheat and mislead you so much ? If you actually wished to scare us away consider it done, good job and good bye EUrope. Now, despite your fully un-necessary EUthanization of our relationship, we still welcome you to set up your investments as our business associates here in Russia. Just consider that your only gateway to the world´s next all-time winner anyway you dice it or slice it — namely Mackinder´s Eurasia — is by relocating to Russia with all our known advantages. Otherwise – per WEF logic — you will not have any worthwhile fuels or natural resources left ( just hyperinflation…and no markets ) and you will notbe happy”. So the remaining bright Germans – and other bright minds still in EUrope — would finally understand that 85% of the world´s population is not Western let alone part of today´s non-sensical NATO, fully “brain dead” per French President Emmanuel Macron. And once that the NS1 & NS2 sabotage perpetrators are proven and known, EUropean public opinion – most specially Germans – will see things very differently from today understanding how they have been mis-led into an entirely un-justified Russophobia.
EUropean RE-location
Development requires cheap and excellent all-around energy and natural resources which Germany and others do not have and that Russia has plenty of. It also requires markets with which to trade. So the alternatives are (a) “NATO out” which does not seem feasible right now, meaning “to revolt en masse against the NATO-imposed trade/financial sanctions against Russia, and force Berlin to repair NS1 and commission Nord Stream 2”…or… (b) relocate to the US, meaning total vassalization of the EUropean industrial burgeoisie a-la Werner von Braun…or… (c) relocate to Russia and be part of Eurasia´s new bright future, jointly with China & BRICS & SCO & Global South. Of course, sooner or later some of (b) will surely take place but chances are that (c) — per the assumed Russian offering proposed — will at least be the German predominant choice. Obviously, this would probably mean the sudden demise of the EUro and, soon after, of the US dollar ASWKI. The smarter part of the remaining EUrope would also follow the relocation of bright Germans to Russia. Unexpectedly, along these lines events may pick up unusual speed and EUrope as we know it today would cease to exist. And this would be the final evidence proving that EUropeans at large are not as bright as they think they are. They would all act differently if they were, with no room for cannibalism.
the Overton window
Bright Europeans do exist, but in EUropean politics they are very few and far between. So most today focus on (1) ruining Russia per NATO mandate to supposedly uphold ´democracy everywhere´ even corrupt kleptocracies… and while they are at it…(2) also saving planet Earth. Still, a handfull are finally understanding that this is too high a price to pay as EUropeans would not be willing to accept the MAGNITUDE and DEPTH of the hardships soon to come in what up until today was a flourishing consumer society with an enviable standard of living. Hypothetically, what some few political leaders were waiting and jockeying for was an Overton window large enough to get their heads in, their bets made, and their feet wet. The Overton window defines what is politically possible per the existing public opinion at a given point in time. So it is a very convenient tool to apply in view of the EU Commissariat Master Plan.
All members of the elected government of the German Federal Republic have necessarily taken an oath of office details of which are explicit below. That is the basis for the social and political contract between German leadership and their constituents. But apparently many / all have decided to conveniently dismiss such sworn obligations until the Overton window – Main Street´s hidden weapon — forces them to act accordingly, not before.
“ I swear that I will devote my energies to the well-being of the German people, increase their benefit,protect them from harm, uphold and defend the Basic Law and the laws of the Federation, perform my duties conscientiously and do justice to everyone. So help me God.” Not a single word is ever mentioned relating directly or indirectly to the EU, its governance impact, its interests and/or its goals.
the “most stupid” government in EUrope
Recently Sahra Wagenknecht has defined Germany’s government as the “most stupid” in EUrope for managing to embroil itself in a full-blown economic war with its top – and thus un-replaceable — energy supplier, namely Russia. Speaking at the Bundestag, the former co-chair of the party Die Linke (“The Left”) urged for an immediate end to the anti-Russian sanctions and also for the resignation of German Vice Chancellor and Minister of the Economy, the now infamous ´Herr Green´ Robert Habeck. While still describing the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as a “crime” Wagenknecht insisted that the anti-Russian sanctions are “fatal” for Germany itself. She told her fellow Bundestag leaders in-their-face that “The biggest problem is your grandiose idea of launching an unprecedented economic war against our most important energy supplier. The idea that we are punishing Putin by impoverishing millions of families in Germany and destroying our industry while Gazprom is making record profits – how stupid is that?” she wondered out loud. So, an important German at an important German venue publically told many other important Germans how stupid they were. Not me, she did. “The promise of NATO membership did not help any. Militarily, this war cannot be won”. Of course, this has meant that some Left Party members now demand the expulsion of Sahra Wagenknecht for good.
Firms in the metal and chemical industries, among others, are trying to relocate to the US, The Wall Street Journal reports: “High energy costs drive companies away from EU”. This means obvious consequences only fools would not foresee: DEpression & UN-employment. German producers warn of food shortages. Die Welt now reports that “There are significant supply gaps in the daily food supply for people in Germany. The situation is “more than serious” an open letter from the industry said. “Companies now fear that production lines will soon come to a standstill and that refrigerated logistics centers for food distribution will be closed. Some are even preparing for possible insolvency.”
Manufacturers of both frozen and fresh products say they cannot cope with soaring energy costs. “The food industry is currently experiencing the worst crisis since the end of the Second World War… It’s a minute to twelve. Act now – otherwise the refrigerators and freezers of the German population will soon be empty” the letter urges. Germany, along with the broader EU, is facing a sharp rise in energy prices and a record inflation surge amid the intensifying anti-Russian sanctions and a policy of abandoning all possible Russian fuels. The situation could also soon lead to energy rationing and shortages, also meaning NO energy, NO fuels at ANY price, period. And forget LNG from whomever or wherever. Too little, too late, too cumbersome, too risky, way dirtier, and way too expensive. Germany needs Russian pipelined nat-gas for many good reasons that they cannot ignore and will necessarily live by soon.
The frozen food industry is particularly susceptible to energy supply problems, due to its strong reliance on electricity for freezers. The EU risks a ‘Wild West’ scenario says IEA head Fatih Birol warning that member states could possibly abandon solidarity to secure their own gas supplies. Many dozens of thousands of small and medium-size businesses (SMEs) in Italy can’t cope with soaring energy bills, ´Corriere della Sera´ reports. Italy is badly dependant on Russian pipelined nat-gas, no substitutes are possible in practice. Supposed “stored” reserves cannot be extracted from sub-surface unless Russian pipelines are also flowing thus allowing to add-on such stored reserves to the main flow. By themselves, underground nat-gas reserves can hardly be produced on surface and still with lots of negative impact.
Larger companies will also add to the un-employed. According to a recent survey, over 70% of Italians are having difficulty or are simply unable to pay their energy bills. SMEs represent 99% of all businesses in the 27-nation EU. SMEs employ around 100 million people, or two thirds of all employed and account for 53% of Europe’s GDP.
Nearly one in six people over 65 in Germany is at risk of poverty, meaning they have less than 60% of the median income at their disposal according to the Federal Statistical Office and published by the German media group Funke. Europe maybe could have articulated a far better and softer transition and slower pathway into “some” renewables under excellent quality and already available + pipeline delivered, cheap Russian nat-gas. But they chose otherwise and now Europe must pay the piper. And with only a fraction of the EU imploding generalized chaos will prevail.
True enough, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán led the pack weeks ago by saying “the approach has clearly failed — sanctions have backfired — and our car now has 4 four flat tires”. Just as a reminder, vehicles carry only one spare tire (maybe two) but never four and more to come… Now, also Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotaki proposes to lift sanctions on Russia by December at the latest. But the questions remains: beyond some optics, the audio and the visual… just where precisely is the ACTION ? Are these two Heads of State bright enough per the circumstances ? Or are they just better sounding than the overwhelming EUropean political mediocrity ? Oh, you say they aren´t allowed to do any more than that ? If that´s the established system then EUropeans were not very bright…
“Germany needs Russian gas” – says Michael Kretschmer, Saxony’s Minister-President. Okay, that´s a good starting point to acknowledge don´t you think ? A valid diagnosis is necessarily behind any reasonable therapy and at least in this case – besides being bloody obvious – it´s still reconforting to see that a spanking new “common denominator” is being put together by some in Germany. Herr Kretschmer added that the current exorbitant prices for the fuel are “ruining Germany’s industry”. Okay, sorry to hear that. So that means that Russian energy matters lots, correct ?
“Russian gas supplies are critical for Germany, and will remain so in the foreseeable future”. In an interview with Germany’s Funke Mediengruppe Michael Kretschmer also added: “We are already witnessing that we can’t do without Russian gas.” Hmmm….. But then Kretschmer went on to say that now Berlin should try to make sure that it keeps receiving Russian gas after the armed conflict is over. But would that be soon, please tell us ? Because saying that implies ignoring that the end of the armed conflict will most probably not be decided in the battlefield and just come about by a NATO-EU surrender. Why so you may ask ? Well precisely because NATO & the EU leadership provoked and sustained Russian gas to be cut off, so that can be reverted only by them, not the other way around. So whatever happens militarily in the battlefield does not actually matter that much any more unless it were 101% decisive. But many months have elapsed and it does not seem to be anywhere close to that, does it ? So finally EU politicians on their own will have to end this unnecessary war that they started simply because the Overton window for European public opinion will not stand it and they will have to admit they were dead wrong and plain go home, if not to jail.
Clare Daly is a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and from the very beginning in March 2022 she has voted against its Resolutions on this matter basically considering them to be “a recipe for prolonging war with escalation”. She believes that “ignoring the role played by the US and NATO in destabilising the area for the past decade,using Ukraine as a pawn in its battles with Russia, only serves to prevent an understanding of the measures necessary to secure peace”. Per Clare Daly, the EP Resolutions “accelerate the provision of military equipment and weapons to Ukraine, strengthen NATO’s forward presence, increase defence spending…and strengthen the European pillar within NATO” while also ”opportunistically call for opening the European energy market to fracked American liquefied natural gas (LNG)…which is far more polluting and terribly far more expensive”. Clare Daly believes that ”there is no military solution to this crisis as the policy of flooding Ukraine with weapons will, at worst, lead to a permanent condition of conflict, as has happened in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, at best, a greater loss of life and destruction in Ukraine”. Furthermore, Clare Daly believes that the EP Resolutions on this topic do not sufficiently “take into account the impact of the war on workers,their working conditions, and the recognition of the hardship that this entails”.
Days ago Greta Thunberg at the London’s Royal Festival Hall left on record that there is no going “back to normal” as it would mean returning to the Global North climate crisis “system” i.e. “colonialism, imperialism, oppression, genocideand racist, oppressive extractionism”. So only the overthrow of “the whole capitalistic system” will suffice, says Greta. No explanation was given — or even a mild attempt made — to describe how the required transition could possibly be made to get from our current evil point A to future greatly-improved point B. Apparently, there’s no GDP growth — especially of the capitalist sort — without increasing carbon emissions. Supposedly the only solution to this state of emergency is “for rich countries to immediately abandon economic expansion as a social goal.” Full interview credit to Nicholas Harris at Ref #28 https://unherd.com/thepost/greta-thunberg-throws-her-lot-in-with-the-anti-capitalist-left/
entitlements & cakeism vs. the chicken and the egg & DE-globalization economics: FIRE vs real STUFF
If really interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions mankind worldwide would need to drastically change its way of life in many important ways already very firmly considered by the collective mind-set as genuinely valid entitlements So, politically speaking such proposal is a non-starter waaaay outside any current Overton window we may come up with. In turn, we also can´t have our own cake and eat it too. So which will it be ? On top of it, let´s add that “All service industries (– including FIRE finances –) remain completely dependent on the raw materials and manufactured goods sectors to function… So DE-globalization will increasingly favor those who produce and control the STUFF which underpins everything else…(of course necessarily) leading to devastating closures of (almost all ?) energy and/or resource-intensive industrial operations in Europe due to high energy prices that make their products uncompetitive.” Ref #29 https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/East-vs-West-Stuff-vs-Finance.html . Full credit to Kurt Cobb via OilPrice.com.
The answer may not be simple. But the memory of European colonisation in Africa, and its harmful effects, are still visible despite the independence of its states, may be a reasonable way of understanding it. An African adage teaches that “One should never forget the lessons learned in times of pain”, which seems to be the source of inspiration for the African cosmos – the set of entities that formally and materially hold the power relations in Africa – not to forget the tragic consequences of European colonisation, to protect their independence and not repeat the errors of the past. Without being simplistic or too complex, the answer to the question in question may have several reasons:
1. Historical memory of colonisation and the struggle for national liberation: Russia, heir to the Former USSR, supported ideologically, politically, economically, and militarily the national liberation struggles of several African countries, which after the achievement of independence, followed the communist model as the basis of their political, social and economic construction. Even though they later adopted Western capitalism, the mentality of the African cosmos is still of Soviet influence, because it was there that most of them did their military and political training and received economic support to finance the liberation wars to put an end to Western colonisation, with direct and indirect help from Cuba as an intermediary in some cases. The cold war between the USA and NATO against the USSR led to civil wars in African countries to conquer the spaces of influence. After the fall of the Berlin wall and the resurgence of Russia, Westerners looked at the situation as an absolute victory. Despite this, the African cosmos has not forgotten colonisation, the interference of Western countries in their internal affairs, and the rigged processes of massive indebtedness of their economies as a way of controlling their strategic natural resources.
2. Recent memory of wars at the beginning of the 21st century: Beyond colonial issues, the African cosmos has been following since 2001 the behaviour of the West (US, NATO, and EU) in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, sweetened by the Arab Springs, attempted coups in Turkey, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Tunisia, Egypt, etc., without forgetting the massacre in Rwanda and the war in Somalia and Yemen. These wars and coups have destroyed thousands of human lives, social infrastructure, jobs, etc. It was a catastrophe for the entire continent and nearby territories like South East Asia. The existing wars in Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Mali, Mozambique, DRC, Ethiopia, etc, allow the African cosmos, even those with strong ties to the West like Morocco, for example, not to act frontally against Russia, a fact verified in the recent votes of the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council which suspended it. The expulsion of French forces by the military junta in Mali and their replacement by the Russians through the Wagner group, like the construction of a port for the Russian Nave Arms on the Sudanese Red Sea coast, could be a revealing symptom.
3. The damaging memory of Western unipolarity and the chance for a global multipolar alternative power: For Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, the Ukrainian war is a civil war within Slavic civilisation, through several wars within it: economic-financial, propaganda-media, cultural, biological, radiological, and military war. It is a hybrid war that has ended with globalisation, as confirmed by Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock. For Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, it is not a question of total deglobalisation, but of economic-financial, cybernetic-digital, energy, and commercial deglobalisation. The West was no longer interested in economic-financial globalisation because they lost the battle against China, and cybernetic-digital globalisation (software, etc.) was won by the Indians. This bipolarity also involves the division of the UN Security Council into two blocs: the first composed of the US, UK, France (G7/NATO), and the second of Russia and China (Shanghai Group and BRICS). This situation led to an operational dysfunction of the WTO and led to the resignation of its previous Director General, Roberto Azevedo. In this sense, Jalife-Rahme quotes Philipe Stephens’ article “The world is marching back from globalisation”, where he states that “The US does not see a vital national interest in maintaining an order that transfers power to rivals”. Thus, according to Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, “Everything that is not globalised becomes balkanised”. Thus, the end of globalisation, especially the economic-financial one, as dictated by Larry Fink, will inevitably entail its balkanisation, through two regional blocs, i.e. de-globalisation and bipolar trans-meta-regionalisation, on one side the G7/NATO and EU, and on the other side the BRICS/Shanghai Group and Eurasian Union.
The de-globalisation said by Larry Fink is “neoliberal de-globalisation”, which occurs through the gradual paralysis of global supply chains, which are founded on the reduction of operating costs through outsourcing (relocation of companies) and downsizing (lowering labour costs to increase shareholder profits and value companies in capital markets), according to Alfredo Jalife-Rahme. The African cosmos believes that if Russia, even with nuclear weapons, a continental country with Eurasian tradition, which supplies almost 40% of energy resources and other strategic raw materials to the West, is treated this way, what will become of African countries, which are visibly weaker in military terms? The destruction of Libya for trying to sell oil in Euro and rejecting the USD may be indisputable proof.
The meddling of the West in Africa, beyond colonisation, needs no introduction. The wars and coups d’état in Guinea, Mali, Burkina Faso, Sudan, the Central African Republic, the civil war in Angola and other conflicts are facts that remain in the collective memory of the African cosmos. If the colonial memory was tragic, the expressive and aggressive interference of the West in the African cosmos is breaking any remaining trust, for historical reasons (over 400 years of colonisation), by unfair competition in the exploitation of natural resources, the massive interference in internal affairs by the IMF in the financing of road and housing infrastructures, etc., and the attempt to incorporate western values aggressively through sanctions and blackmail, even if these values do not correspond to the African historical-epistemic and gnosiological cosmogony.
4. China and Russia as a financial and military alternative for the existential survival of African countries in a multipolar world in the medium and long term: The African cosmos observes with concern and caution everything that Western leaders do against Russia as a result of the technical-military operation in Ukraine, regardless of the causes, which by common sense is perceived since 2014. The reason for this concern lies in the fact that whenever the West finds itself in crisis or politically, geostrategically, and economically cornered, it uses internal or external wars as a way out, a can be seen in the Roman wars, the colonisation of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the Napoleonic wars, the First and Second World Wars. Faced with the circumstances, the African cosmos shows resistance towards sanctions against Russia, abstaining from votes at the UN, in official pronouncements, that is, maintaining certain strategic neutrality, despite the gigantic Western pressure, forcing them to choose a side as if they were still vassals or colonised. It is not that the African cosmos agrees in its entirety with Russia’s technical-military operation in Ukraine, insofar as, there is a history of invasions in Africa carried out by Westerners, Arabs, Persians, and Ottomans. The main concern is the need for an economic-financial and military alternative to the West for its own existential survival, and to protect itself from possible aggressive interference in the long term, when strategic reserves of Western raw materials reach their limit. The way the West behaved during the Covid19 Pandemic in the context of vaccine distribution policies, by buying in advance almost 80% of all vaccines in production in the world, leaving poor countries without vaccines even to buy for a certain period, and changing their position only when they realised that, the non-global distribution of the vaccines prolonged the pandemic, led to the creation of the COVAX system by the WHO, after harsh criticism from Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, stating that, “The growing gap between the number of vaccines offered in rich countries and those administered through COVAX is becoming “more grotesque by the day”. And how could it be otherwise, the gesture of Russia and China in the swift distribution of vaccines and protective medical supplies was taken into account by the African cosmos at the time of decision making. As is well known, China’s economic and Russia’s military presence in Africa is seen as an alternative guarantee to what the West is offering. Since 2002, while the West was distracted with its eternal wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Arab Spring, Syria, Libya, etc., China entered Africa in silence, massively funding road infrastructure projects etc., without interference in internal affairs, through the adoption of the “Win-Win” strategy.
Russia, on the other hand, has become the main military alternative, accounting for 49% of total arms exports to Africa by 2020, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) database, to avoid internal conflicts and protect itself from external interference. Paul Stronski confirms that “The rulers of many African countries look to Moscow from Soviet-era links, and Moscow takes advantage of this and manages to maintain its influence. In the case of Algeria [and Angola], this is done by writing off old debts. Sometimes Russia also makes generous promises, assuring that it will build workshops or facilities for manufacturing or maintenance.
The African cosmos serenely realises that a defeat of Russia in Ukraine will lead the world to a more aggressive, self-centred and militarised Western unipolarisation and the weaker countries will have no alternative for survival and existential resistance. The fear of perishing and becoming a colonial space again seems to be more important to the strategists of the African cosmos than Western values about democracy, neoliberalism, capitalism, etc. For the African cosmos, its course and future depend on the economic-financial cover of China and the military cover of Russia, so that there is a certain balance in its relations with the West.
And it considers the situation of Russia and Ukraine as an internal issue between brothers of the same homeland linked historically, culturally, linguistically, and religiously. But it does not mean that it wants a radical change in its strategic relations with the West. It is only a preventive measure of existential survival.
The way the West treats Ukrainian refugees compared to what has been done with African refugees arriving via the Mediterranean and from the Canary Islands via the Atlantic has not been forgotten, as have the Punic wars between Rome and Carthage and the destruction of Libya. These historical events may justify the fear of the African cosmos in resisting in the face of Western pressure to give up its strategic relations with Russia and China.
This neutrality and strategic ambiguity serve to prevent a geostrategic and existential risk for sovereign and independent countries in the medium and long term. And, according to an African adage “When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers”. Thus, the African cosmos realises that it is grass in this war of titans, and Ukraine only as a geostrategic, geopolitical, geoeconomic, and geofinancial singularity of the hegemonic power struggle between Eurasia and the West. So that may have been the reason they refrained from the sanctions war against Russia, for the lessons learned from their tragic experiences, old and recent, of their relations with the West.
The African cosmos does everything it can to avoid being the grass in the conflict at hand, promoted by the West since 2014, through the coup d’état against Viktor Yanukovich, and the failure to implement the Minsk I and II agreements. Soon, it seems that the African cosmos uses the proverbial philosophy of its ancestors to avoid entering into another’s war, even though it is already feeling the side effects of the increase in the prices of wheat, fertilizers, oil, gas, etc., and the risk of probable retaliations, for disobedience of political guidelines, by the West.
The claim by Macky Sall, President of Senegal and Chairperson-in-Office of the African Union on his recent visit to Russia, in demanding the West remove sanctions affecting Africa’s food security is, without doubt, a clear and unequivocal demonstration of this position. ”
يعتبر بعض المراقبين الدوليين المخضرمين كسفير الهند السابق م. ك. بهادرا كومار والذي يؤكّدها مراقب آخر مرموق الستير كروك الضابط السابق في المخابرات البريطانية وصاحب موقع «كونفليكت فوروم» (منتدى الصراعات) أنّ المواجهة في أوكرانيا هي مواجهة بين روسيا والولايات المتحدة. هذه مقاربة صحيحة إلاّ أنها لا تفسّر لماذا؟ فالمواجهة التي نشهدها على الصعيدين الدولي والإقليمي هي بين محور صاعد ومحور متراجع على وشك الانفراط وهي فعلياً حرب أهلية بين رأس ماليتين: رأس مالية صناعية إنتاجية ورأس مالية ريعية مالية. المحور الصاعد هو محور الرأس المالية الصناعية الإنتاجية التي تقوده الكتلة الأوراسية ومعها دول الجنوب الإجمالي بينما المحور الثاني هو الرأس المالية الريعية الإنتاجية المالية التي تقوده الولايات المتحدة ومعها دول الغرب وخاصة دول التحالف الانكلوساكسوني. فالمحور الانكلوساكسوني انتهج سياسة اقتصادية منذ خمسة عقود فرضها على حلفائه في أوروبا أدّت إلى التخلّي عن الإنتاج الصناعي للدخول في عصر ما بعد التصنيع عبر التركيز على الخدمات بشكل عام والخدمات المالية بشكل خاص. والتحوّلات في البنية الاقتصادية والسياسية التي حصلت من جرّاء سياسات مالية ونقدية أدّت إلى تغلّب الريع على المصادر الأخرى لإنتاج الثروة.
ولتجنّب فقدان القوّامة والهيمنة في المشهد الاقتصادي الدولي اعتبرت النخب الحاكمة في الغرب من الطيف النيوليبرالي أن السيطرة على المال والنقد تكفي للسيطرة على الاقتصاد وبالتالي على الدول. هذه هي نظرية كيسنجر الذي اعتبر ان السياسة النقدية هي مفتاح السيطرة على العالم والتي روّج قوّامتها في ما بعد الاقتصادي ميلتون فريدمان وعلى الصعيد السياسي مارغاريت تاتشر ورونالد ريغان. لكن هذه النظرية كانت خاطئة منذ اللحظة الأولى لأنّ السيطرة على العالم تأتي من بوّابة السيطرة على الغذاء والطاقة والموارد الطبيعية وليس على المال كما أكدته التطوّرات خلال العقود الخمسة الماضية. هذا هو جوهر الصراع بين الرؤية النيوليبرالية الضيّقة الأفق والواقعية السياسية في الصراع الجيوسياسي للسيطرة على الجزيرة الأوراسية حيث تكمن موارد العالم في الغذاء والطاقة والمعادن. الانسان لم يعد قيمة اساسية في النظام النيوليبرالي الغربي الذي تمّت دحرجته إلى مستهلك ممنوع عنه التفكير وتقرير المصير.
السيطرة على الإعلام الشركاتي
لذلك كانت الموجة للسيطرة على الاعلام عبر التمركز الشركاتي في العالم الغربي وسلب حرّياته الدستورية في التعبير.
والهيمنة الاقتصادية في النظام النيوليبرالي كانت عبر البوّابة المالية عندما تحوّل الدولار إلى عملة الاحتياط الأولي وحتى الوحيدة في العالم. لم يكن ليحصل ذلك لولا قرارين أساسيين اتخذتهما إدارة ريشار نيكسون في 1971 و1973. فالقرار الأول هو قطع صلة الرحم بين الدولار والذهب والقرار الثاني بعد حرب تشرين عندما اقنعت الإدارة الأميركية بلاد الحرمين ومن خلال الأخيرة جميع الدول النفطية في منظمة أوبك تسعير برميل النفط بالدولار. هذا القرار مع القرار السابق بقطع العلاقة مع الذهب مكّن الإدارات الأميركية المتتالية في طباعة الدولار دون أي مساءلة أو محاسبة ما سمح لها بتمويل العجر المتفاقم في الموازنة الأميركية. وهذا العجز ساهم في تمويل الحروب الخارجية الأميركية ومشاريع زعزعة الاستقرار العالمي أينما شاءت في المكان والزمان.
العجز في الموازنة الأميركية ساهم في تكوين الدين العام الذي تجاوز 30 تريليون دولار ناهيك عن الدين الخاص الذي يعود للشركات والأفراد الذي يقدّر ب 38 تريليون دولار. أما الناتج الداخلي فلا يتجاوز 23 تريليون دولار أي بمعنى آخر فإن الدين العام يشكل 130 بالمائة من الناتج الداخلي بينما الدين الخاص تجاوز 165 بالمائة من الناتج الداخلي. ومجموع الدين العام والدين الخاص يقدّر في 2022 إلى 68 تريليون دولار أي 296 بالمائة من الناتج الداخلي. هذا يعني أن الولايات المتحدة مفلسة وإن كانت لديها موارد تستطيع أن تنقذها. لكن السياسات التي اتبعتها خلال العقود الخمسة الماضية أدّت إلى حالة افلاس. لكن هذا الإفلاس تمّ تمويله عبر جعل الدولار العملة الاحتياطية الأساسية في العالم مما سمح للولايات المتحدة طباعة الدولار لتمويل رفاهية في الحكومة وفي القطاع الخاص على حساب مصالح الدول الأخرى. هذه السياسة لم تعد ممكنة وقد يكون لها عواقب مهمة.
فهذا الإفلاس الذي هو أكثر من افتراضي ويهدّد وجود الكيان الأميركي. لذلك أصبحت السيطرة على المقدّرات الاقتصادية في العالم ضرورة للبقاء للولايات المتحدة. وهذه السيطرة تستدعي حروبا مستدامة إما للقضاء على الخصوم المحتملين في الحدّ الأقصى أو لاستنزافهم في الحدّ الأدنى. فالإفلاس هو المحرّك لسياسات عدوانية لا نهاية لها إلا بنهاية النموذج الأميركي القائم حاليا في الاقتصاد وفي السياسة. لذلك نفهم الاستشراس في السياسات الأميركية عبر مقولة ما لنا هو لنا فقط وما هو لكم هو لنا أيضاً فأنتم وكلاء لنا فقط لا غير. والمقصود بـ «لنا» هو النخب الحاكمة وليس المواطن الأميركي! هذا ما صرّح به بشكل واضح الرئيس الأميركي السابق دونالد ترامب الذي عبّر عن يقين السياسات الأميركية تجاه الدول النفطية حيث اعتبر النفط العربي ملكا للولايات المتحدة.
السياسات النقدية والمالية التي اتبعتها الولايات المتحدة خلال العقود الأربعة الماضية أدّت إلى سيطرة الدولار على العالم وبالتالي ساهمت في تكوين ريع افتراضي للولايات المتحدة ساهم في الإمعان في تلك السياسات. فعندما أصبح الدولار عملة الاحتياط للدول فهذا أدّى إلى تمويل العجز في الموازنة الأميركية بدون كلفة. فالدول التي تملك احتياطاً بالدولار مضطرة إلى شراء سندات الخزينة التي هي الوسيلة لتمويل العجز. تمّ التعامل بذلك حتى أقدمت الولايات المتحدة على حجز أموال المصرف المركزي الإيراني ثم الليبي ثم الفنزويلي ثم الافغاني ثم الروسي. هذا يعني أنّ الدول التي تملك احتياطاً نقديا بالدولار مهدّدة في أي وقت بخسارة أموالها إذا كانت سياساتها متناقضة مع سياسات الولايات المتحدة. هيمنة الدولار كعملة احتياط انتهت عندما احتجزت أموال دولة عظمى. هل تستطيع الولايات المتحدة التعامل مع الواقع الجديد؟ في رأينا كلا ولكن هذا حديث آخر!
لكن هذا جزء بسيط من نتائج تلك السياسات. فالبنية الاقتصادية أصبحت عاجزة عن التنافس في الإنتاجية وبالتالي في النمو الفعلي. بمعنى آخر إنّ الناتج الداخلي الذي ارتفع من 1،7 تريليون دولار سنة 1975 إلى 23 تريليون دولار سنة 2020 أيّ 14 ضعفا لم يجار الارتفاع بقيمة البورصة لنفس الفترة حيث ارتفع الداو جونز بنسبة 54 أضعاف. فكيف يمكن أن ترتفع قيمة الشركات بتلك النسبة التي تفوق ارتفاع الناتج الداخلي كمّاً ونسبياً؟ وهنا لم نتكلّم عن الخسارات المحتملة في البورصات الأميركية خاصة في المشتقات الورقية التي تعود إلى اقتراض مفرط مبني على تقديرات للمستقبل دون أيّ سند. فالخسارات المحتملة قد تكون بالكوادريليونات من الدولار أي أرقام فلكية. وإذا اعتمدنا الإحصاءات التي تقدّر القيمة السوقية للشركات الأميركية المتداولة في الأسواق أي ما يوازي 68 تريليون دولار فهذا يعنى أن هناك ثروة معظمها افتراضية لا تتماهى مع الإنتاج الفعلي. فمن أين اتى ذلك الفارق؟
الفارق مصدره السياسات النقدية المعتمدة وخاصة خلال العقود الثلاثة الماضية حيث التسهيل الكمي النقدي التي اعتمدها الاحتياط المركزي أدّى إلى إمداد الشركات بأموال (وبالتالي إلى تفاقم دينها) ليس لزيادة الطاقة الإنتاجية بل لرفع قيمة أسهمها! فالمسؤولون في الشركات الأميركية يتقاضون أتعابهم عبر الأسهم التي يأخذونها وبالتالي أصبحت اولويتهم رفع قيمة تلك الأسهم وإن كان على حساب الشركة التي يديرونها! والأمور لم تتوقف عند هذا الحد. فالاقتراض المسهّل بفوائد منخفضة جدّا أدّى إلى تدمير البنية الإنتاجية عبر وأد التنافس. فالعقود الثلاثة الماضية شهدت تمركزاً شديداً لمعظم القطاعات الاقتصادية في المال والنقل الجوي وإنتاج السيارات وشركات التواصل والمؤسسات المالية وذلك على سبيل المثال وليس الحصر. فالاقتصاد الأميركي أصبح اقتصاداً تحكمه الحالة الاحتكارية وليست التنافسية ما أدّى إلى تراجع الحوافز للتجديد والابداع وبالتالي التقدّم التكنولوجي.
أرقام صينية مرعبة
الصورة مختلفة كلّياً إذا نظرنا إلى النموذج الصيني حيث حقّقت الصين معدلات نمو قياسية خلال العقود الأربعة الماضية وصلت إلى ثلاث أضعاف معدّلات النمو في الولايات المتحدة. السياسات المالية والنقدية أدّت إلى ارتفاع الاستثمارات في البنى التحتية والتعليم وفي الطاقات الإنتاجية وليس لدعم أسهم الشركات! الاستثمار كان في البشر كما كان في الحجر! لذلك استطاعت رفع أكثر من 250 مليون صيني من مستوى الفقر إلى مستوى الطبقة الوسطى بينما نشهد انقراض الطبقة الوسطى في الولايات المتحدة والغرب الذي يتبع النموذج الأميركي عموما (بما فيه لبنان!). والصين استفادت من التكنولوجيا الغربية لتمكين وتطوير قاعدتها الإنتاجية حيث أصبحت أكبر دولة صناعية في العالم. والنموذج الصيني استند إلى دعم الدولة للقطاعات الإنتاجية سواء كانت مملوكة من القطاع العام أو من القطاع الخاص كما حافظت على التنافس وكبحت من الاحتكار. فالاحتكار هو مصدر ريعي بامتياز للثروة بينما الإنتاج مصدر عيني لها.
النموذج الصيني مزج بين قيادة سياسية مركزية متسلّطة حصرت في الدولة مركزية التخطيط بينما النموذج الغربي اعتمد على قوّامة المؤسسة المالية في فرض الخيارات الاقتصادية على السوق. فالمؤسسات المالية المهيمنة، وهي خمس مؤسسات فقط تملكها أربع شركات استثمار وتوظيف فقط، هي التي تحدّد الخيارات مع الاحتياط الاتحادي الذي هو أيضاً مملوك من مصارف خاصة. أي بمعنى آخر الدولة خارج إطار التوجيه للاقتصاد العام وتتكل على «حكمة» السوق الذي تسيطر عليه الشركات المالية. فلا عجب التراجع في الإنتاجية والقدرات التنافسية، ولا عجب في الانكشاف تجاه الخارج بشكل عام والصين بشكل خاص لتلبية حاجاتها. النخب الحاكمة أدركت تلك المفارقة ولكن بعد أن فات الأوان. وهي تجهد منذ عقد من الزمن كبح النمو الصيني عبر وسائل عدة ولكنها لم تنجح بينما كان من المفترض مراجعة سياساتها ونموذجها الاقتصادي والعودة إلى عهد التصنيع بدلاً من الخدمات الريعية.
محاصرة الصين للانقضاض عليها تتطلب التخلّص من تحالفها مع روسيا. لذلك المواجهة مع روسيا التي بدأت فعلا بعد مؤتمر ميونيخ للأمن سنة 2007 حيث حذّر الرئيس الروسي بوتين من القطبية الواحدة وضرورة إعادة صوغ الامن الدولي على قاعدة احترام مصالح الدول بينما الولايات المتحدة المتفرّدة بالقرار الدولي لا تقبل بأيّ مشاركة. حاولت الولايات المتحدة كبح الصعود الروسي بقيادة بوتين الذي قضى على النخب المتحكمة بروسيا التي أوجدتها الولايات المتحدة بعد انهيار الاتحاد السوفيتي. فكان عصر صعود الاوليغارشيات الروسية ومعها الغربية لنهب ثروات روسيا. مع وصول بوتين إلى السلطة توقّفت هذه العملية إلى حد كبير وهذا ما أزعج الولايات المتحدة التي حاولت محاصرة روسيا. فكانت موجة الثورات الملوّنة في أوكرانيا وجورجيا وحتى مؤخرا في كازخستان. والمواجهة المباشرة مع روسيا بدأت في عهد الرئيس الأميركي أوباما وفي أوكرانيا بالذات سنة 2014 مع الانقلاب الأميركي ضد النظام القائم في أوكرانيا والمنتخب ديمقراطيا. أدركت روسيا أنّ المواجهة مع الأطلسي لا مفرّ منها وبدأت التخطيط لها. لحظة المواجهة حددتها روسيا بعد أن أيقنت أن الأطلسي يهدف إلى قلب النظام في روسيا وعبر استنزافها في «مستنقع» أوكرانيا. غير أن الرياح الروسية لم تكن كما اشتهت السفن الأطلسية بشكل عام والأميركية بشكل خاص فكانت المواجهة التي نشهدها الآن والتي تنذر بزوال أوكرانيا وهزيمة الأطلسي والولايات المتحدة.
المهم في هذه المقاربة هو التركيز على التنافس بين رأس ماليتين. فالرأس المالية الريعية الأميركية الغربية لم تعد قادرة على التحكّم بالاقتصاد العيني بل فقط بالاقتصاد الافتراضي المالي وذلك عبر سيطرتها على شرايين المال. المواجهة مع روسيا عجّلت في العمل على إقامة نظام مالي خارج سيطرة الولايات المتحدة. والقرار الروسي بعدم التعامل في مبيعات الغاز الروسي للاتحاد الأوروبي يشكّل ضربة قاسمة لهيمنة الدولار وأو اليورو ويكرّس جدوى التعامل بالعملات الوطنية كالروبل واليووان الصيني والروبية الهندية وسائر العملات الوطنية للدول الرافضة للهيمنة الأميركية، وذلك وفقاً للاقتصاديين الأميركيين المرموقين ريتشارد ولف ومايكل هدسون. وفقدان النظام الرأس المالي الريعي المالي القدرة على السيطرة على شرايين المال يضرب في الصميم النموذج الذي اعتمدته الولايات المتحدة منذ أن قرّرت توطين قاعدتها الإنتاجية خارج الولايات المتحدة. وجاءت جائحة كورونا لتكشف هشاشة ما تبقّى من القاعدة الإنتاجية الأميركية حيث معظم قطع الغيار للمصانع الأميركية تأتي من الخارج وخاصة من الصين. فالولايات المتحدة أصبحت بحاجة إلى العالم أكثر مما العالم بحاجة إلى الولايات المتحدة.
هذا هو الدافع المركزي لدى النخب الحاكمة في الولايات المتحدة لمواجهة روسيا. فهي معركة بقاء لنموذج اقتصادي سياسي يعتمد تمركز الثروة في يد القلّة ويؤثّر على المجتمع الأميركي الذي تحوّل إلى سوق استهلاكي فقط لا غير دون أن يكون له أي رأي. وكذلك الأمر في الاعلام الغربي عموما حيث الرأي الواحد هو السائد. فتمركز الاعلام الأميركي بيد ست شركات فقط يساهم في السيطرة على السردية السياسية المطلوبة ويضبط تدفق المعلومات. كذلك الأمر بالنسبة لشركات التواصل الاجتماعي التي لا يتجاوز عددها أصابع اليد الواحدة. وقد اتبعت هذه الشركات سياسة «إلغاء» الرأي الآخر ضاربة عرض الحائط الحق الدستوري في حرّية التعبير. كما يقوم الاعلام الشركاتي المهيمن وشركات وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي بتحويل انتباه المواطن الأميركي عن القضايا الأساسية عبر التركيز على قضايا أخلاقية وثقافية لا تمسّ بمصالح الراس المالية الريعية المالية. فخلال جائحة كورونا تمّ تغييب الحديث عن البطالة التي حصلت من جرّاء الجائحة وإقفال المشاريع. كما أنه تمّ استبدال الخطاب الثقافي بالخطاب المسائل لتوجهات الحكومة على الصعيد الاقتصادي والسياسي. كما تمّ أيضا تحميل مسؤولية تردّي الأوضاع الاقتصادية للرئيس الروسي بوتين كما جاء على لسان الرئيس الأميركي بايدن عندما صرّح بأن ارتفاع الأسعار في الولايات المتحدة هو من صنع بوتين!
ما يسيطر في الاعلام الأميركي ووسائل التواصل الاجتماعي هو انقلاب على المفاهيم والقيم المجتمعية عبر ترويج ثقافة الوعي التي تريد إعادة هندسة القيم المجتمعية كالجنوسية التي تريد الغاء التمايز بين الذكور والإناث حتى عند الأطفال أي التسيّب في تحديد الجنس أو ، وثقافة مكافحة العنصرية التي امتدت إلى كل شيء لا يتماهى مع مصالح النخب الحاكمة. فكل ذلك يتيح الفرصة للتكتلات الاقتصادية الاحتكارية الحفاظ على مصالحها دون أي مساءلة أو محاسبة. فالوضع الاقتصادي اليوم في الولايات المتحدة على وشك الانفجار السياسي والاجتماعي وما زالت النخب الحاكمة تعتقد انه باستطاعتها السيطرة على الأمور عبر السيطرة في الاعلام ووسائل التواصل الاجتماعي. الاستثمارات التي تحصل في الولايات المتحدة لا تعود إلى تنمية وتطوير الطاقة الإنتاجية لأن هدف النمو لم يعد لتحسين الأوضاع الاقتصادية للمجتمع بل لزيادة أرباح المستثمرين وإن كانت تلك الأرباح وهمية وافتراضية.
هذا التمركز الإعلامي الضاغط على حرية التعبير موجود أيضا في كل من الصين وروسيا. لكن الفارق هو أن الحكومتين استطاعتا أن تقدما للمواطن ما يريده. لذلك نرى تماسكا اجتماعيا في كل من روسيا والصين يمكن الحكومات من الاستمرار في بناء مجتمع أفضل على قاعدة التزاوج بين اقتصاد السوق وحكومة مركزية قوية تضبط إيقاع السوق عبر التخطيط المركزي. فالتخطيط المركزي ضرورة لضبط إيقاع اقتصاد معقد ومركّب مع تزايد السكان. الحل في الغرب هو عبر السيطرة على الشعوب عبر نزع حرّياتها في الحد الأدنى وتخفيض أعدادها في الحد الأقصى كما دعا كل من كيسنجر وبيل غيتس وكلوس شواب رئيس منتدى دافوس.
الجدل حول جدوى اللقاحات…
هذا ما غذّى الجدل حول جدوى اللقاحات في جائحة كورونا. في القرن التاسع عشر كان البريطانيون يروّجون لتجارة الافيون للسيطرة على القارة الآسيوية. في القرن الحادي والعشرين الافيون الجديد هو ما ابتكرته وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي لتخدير الناس وخاصة الشباب عن متابعة القضايا الجوهرية عبر التركيز على الملذّات. الهدف هو إفقار الناس ولكن برضاهم وجعلهم سعداء في ذلك الفقر!
الصراع بين الرأس الماليتين هو صراع بين سيطرة الأسواق المالية على المقدرات الاقتصادية (الرأس المالية الريعية المالية) وبين التمازج بين التخطيط المركزي وقوّامة الدولة من جهة مع مقتضيات اقتصاد السوق (الرأس المالية الإنتاجية). النموذج الأول لا يكترث بمصلحة الشعوب بل يكترث لمصلحة المساهمين فقط لا غير بينما النموذج الثاني يعتبر سعادة الانسان الهدف الرئيسي. لذلك وجدنا أن النموذج الريعي المالي لا يستثمر في البنية التحتية التي يستفيد منها الجميع بينما النموذج الثاني استثمر بكثافة في البنية التحتية وخاصة في التربية والتعليم.
هذا لا يعني أن الرأس المالية الإنتاجية هي معصومة من الخطأ الأخلاقي إلاّ أنها تحاول تخفيف من سطوة رأس المال على العمل. هذا هو دور الحزب الشيوعي الحاكم في الصين وهذا هو دور الدولة القوية في روسيا. إعادة توزيع الثروة بشكل عادل يساهم في الحفاظ على النموذج الاقتصادي. هذا ما قامت به الرأس المالية الغربية عندما كانت إنتاجية وليست ريعية. فمنذ ثلاثينات القرن الماضي أدركت ضرورة توزيع الثروة وإن بالحد الأدنى عبر مشاريع اقتصادية اجتماعية لمنع انتشار الشيوعية. لكن بعد سقوط الاتحاد السوفيتي لم تجد النخب الحاكمة في الغرب أي مبرر لتوزيع الثروة بل أقدمت على إجراءات أدّت إلى تمركز الثروة بيد القلة. وهدف النخب الحاكمة النيوليبرالية في الراس المالية الريعية الإطاحة بما تبقّى من الدولة الريعية كالضمان الاجتماعي. ففي معتقد هذه النخب وذلك النموذج تحوّلت إلى الحقوق الاجتماعية إلى امتيازات يجب دفع ثمنها. المواطن لا حق له بالعمل او التعليم أو الاستشفاء أو الإسكان فهذه امتيازات عليه أن يدفع ثمنها. هذا هو الحال في لبنان! أما في النموذج الرأس المالي الإنتاجي وخاصة مع وجود الحزب الشيوعي في الحكم فإن العمل والتعليم والاستشفاء والإسكان حقوق وليست امتيازات. كذلك الأمر في روسيا وفي كلّ الدول التي تعتبر رفاهية المواطن واجب.
*باحث وكاتب اقتصادي سياسي والأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربية وعضو المنتدى الاقتصادي والاجتماعي في لبنان
It would be quite unusual for any thinking person to remain calm and quiet under the current geopolitical environment across the Eurasian landmass. Hence, I couldn’t resist myself from delving into the origin, causes, and future possibilities of the so-called ‘Ukraine problem’.
The very first thing that comes to my mind is how the phrase ‘Ukraine problem’ came into limelight. Does the origin of this phrase has something to do with things purely Ukrainian or for that matter, even Russian? Not really! The ‘problem’ identified with ‘Ukraine’ has its origin in the global geopolitics – more specifically, it has everything to do with the concept of ‘geopolitics’ defined by the academicians, strategists, economists who did the bidding of Zionist-Capitalist globalists during past one and half centuries. It was the experts like Mackinder (Heartland Theory – “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland, Who rules Heartland commands the World-Island, Who rules the World-Island commands the World”), Spykman (Rimland Theory – “Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia, Who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world”), Brzezinski (Grand Chess Board Theory – “Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s most advances and economically productive regions. The control over Eurasia would almost automatically entails Africa’s subordination,rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. Since Eurasia is too big to be politically one. It is the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played”), who for reasons unknown to any peaceful social person, wanted ‘Eurasia’ to be the indispensable piece of landmass that must be controlled by the Zionist-Capitalist globalist clique permanently. (There are a great many regions across six continents and five oceans where there are humongous deposits of fossil fuels, minerals, forests, and water resources – Eurasian heartland is just one of the many).
The Geopolitical Plot in Eurasia: The Role of Zionist-Capitalist Globalists
“ With the setting up of Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland in 1930, the disputes and tussle among the most prominent Jewish and Anglo banker families (like Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, Lazard, et al.) over type of business, geographical region of influence, and share of banking sector operations got resolved. The Zionist-Capitalist elites were fully united in words and deeds notwithstanding the occasional rivalry and difference of opinion between followers of two camps: Rothschild and Rockefeller. The long-term objective of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State clique (representing primarily the Jewish, Anglo, Dutch, French, German oligarch and aristocrat families who had accumulated wealth and have been engaged in business in banking-land-industry-trading) after WW-I has been to establish a hegemonic world order which would:
own ‘political process and power’ in every society/country on the earth
own ‘economic process and wealth’ in every landmass/country/ocean on the earth
control ‘socio-cultural process and population’ in every region/country on the earth
I find it difficult to consider that, ‘winning’ political power anywhere in the world, has ever been an objective of the Deep State – they want to ‘own’ the process through which any political party may be made to ‘win’ or ‘loose’ power depending on short-term and long-term interest of the Deep State.
The Zionist-Capitalist Deep State crystallized in its existing form when WW-II started in 1936 (with signing of anti-communist pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan). Expectations of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State were destruction of powerful societies (non- Anglo/Jewish/Dutch/French) who had potential to develop advanced economy, and expansion of the Zionist-Capitalist Empire:
combatants Fascist Germany and Communist Soviet Union decimating each other’s (i) military forces, (ii) physical infrastructure, and (iii) population across entire Eurasia;
combatants Fascist Japan and Nationalist China decimating each other’s (i) military forces, (ii) physical infrastructure, and (iii) population across entire East Asia;
stages (a) and (b) would be followed by occupation of whole Europe and Asia by the ‘benevolent’ Anglo-American military who would claim that they have ‘liberated’ these ancient civilizations from the ‘authoritarian dictatorships’ of fascism and communism;
stage (c) would be followed by establishment of ‘liberal democratic capitalism’ version of the empire as against (the older) ‘colonial extractive capitalism’ version in whole Europe and Asia to continue plunder of wealth in maximum possible way “
Unfortunately half of the objectives remained unfulfilled in the WW-II that was over by 1945 – because of two political parties: Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU) and Communist Party of China (CPC) whose top leadership mobilised their countrymen in collective patriotic spirit, Soviet Union and China didn’t capitulate but their direct adversaries (Germany and Japan) were trounced. Phase II became a necessity for the Deep State.
Phase II of WW-II was initiated as soon as phase I was over. ‘Operation Unthinkable’ was planned by most ardent imperialist Churchill in order to launch a surprise attack on Soviet Union to achieve the original objectives that Hitler failed to achieve, but dropped. Realising that a military block consisting of all societies that join together as Zionist-Capitalist Deep State, would be more effective to demolish:
(a) morally and militarily supreme power like Soviet Union which recuperated economically,
(b) new power like Communist China (where by January’1949, Peoples Liberation Army already won three major campaigns in last strongholds of Kuo Mintang party in east and south regions of China),
NATO was formed in April’1949.
To achieve the long-term objective of hegemonic world order as well as the four WW-II objectives, the Deep State displayed creativity in designing and deploying diplomatic, political, economic, cultural tools and methods that proved to be highly durable and extremely effective:
UNO and its key sister organizations were established to control the international political incidents in all regions across the globe
Through WBG, IMF, ADB global banking and financial companies spread its tentacles to every region of the world to control natural resources and economy
US Dollar as the foreign currency exchange basis across the globe – not only the gold backing was withdrawn from Dollar in 1971 by USA government, but the hegemon also manipulated the Arab rulers to use Dollar as currency for most crucial commodity trading (of petroleum)
Trade pacts like GATT, WTO, and similar other pacts driven by USA-West Europe-Japan were implemented so that the hegemonic power maintains their hold over global trade
Promotion of ‘periodic election’ plus ‘market economy’ plus ‘private ownership’ masquerading as ‘Democracy’ across the globe
Promotion of literature-cinema-fine arts that revolves around sex-drug-commercial duplicity in all major languages across the globe
Promotion of mainstream media for broadcasting and publishing round-the-clock propaganda on the above mentioned tools (i) to (vi) in all major languages across the globe
Promotion of academic institutions and intellectual for propagating curriculum on the above mentioned tools (i) to (vi) in all major languages across the globe
Promotion of religious fundamentalist groups (male chauvinists with belief in illusory past glory from society which profess religious faiths like Sunni Islam, in Catholic Christianity, in Puritan Christianity, Brahmanical Hinduism etc.) as well as ethnic fundamentalist groups (believing superiority of his/her ethnicity) in all regions across the globe
Development of highly complex computerised system and other industrial technology to replace human labour in every sphere of productive work as much as possible
… The Deep State operatives were very successful in their original plan of wrecking Soviet Union from within. In the beginning of 1980s two leaders got into powerful political positions in the Soviet block – Yuri Andropov became top leader of CPSU and Lech Walesa became top trade union leader in Poland, Such high-ranking anti-socialist leaders quickly made inroads into state structure and policies in Soviet Union and Poland. After Andropov handpicked Gorbachev to lead CPSU, it was only a matter of time for the Deep State to wrap-up the socialist experiment what was known as USSR. Gorbachev and his so-called reformist clique systematically incapacitated Soviet economy, and also actively promoted downfall of governments in every east European country which were led by socialist party aligned with CPSU. This clique was helped by professionals from USA and west Europe. They also pinned hope that CPC leader Zhao Ziyang will become the ‘Gorbachev of China’ to bring down the government ruled by CPC – however this was a complete failure as Zhao himself confided with Gorbachev that ‘Deng was the top leader’ in a meeting when Tiananmen Square protest was raging in Beijing in 1989. Without a single gun-shot being fired by the military wings of Zionist-Capitalist cabal, the Soviet Union dissolved itself between 1990 to 1991 CE –the phase II of WW-II came to an end. Instead of serious introspection and course correction among ruling party officials and government departments to design policies keeping pace with socio-economic changes and technological changes, all these (Soviet) ‘reformist’ leaders decided that the best way to (personal?) growth was to join hands with Zionist-Capitalist world order after bringing down the governments ruled by their own party communist/socialist party.
By 2020 whole Europe and half of Asia had been occupied by the ‘benevolent’ Anglo-American NATO military who claimed that they guarantee ‘independence’ of those ‘liberated countries’ from the clutch of ‘authoritarian’ communism and they also ensure that ‘liberal democratic capitalism’ version of empire will suck the land and citizens dry. No wonder, Soviet WW-II war memorials and monuments have been systematically destroyed in east Europe – how long the Deep State would tolerate anti-Zionist anti-capitalist flag hoisted by Soviet Red Army in Europe with immense sacrifices and sufferings by Soviet leaders, soldiers and people?
Concomitant with the complete control of all political parties (across the wide spectrum of their professed ideology) on both sides of the Atlantic: North America, South America, Europe, the discerning Zionist-Capitalist cabal maintains a complex cobweb connecting all key members and rotating them from one role to another. Thus a retired Director of intelligence department of USA will occupy the chair of Chairman of a big financial investment firm as well as the role of a university Professor! The cabal maintains a carefully constructed façade where professionals from different spheres of society jointly appear as a highly educated, experienced and intelligent wing – industrialists, bankers, politicians, bureaucrats, military officials, business managers, legal and media professionals, academicians, NGO managers, cinema directors and artists all walks of life are present…”
In spite of the planning and execution of the imperialist capitalist designs on Eurasia as mentioned above, the Zionist-Capitalist clique found, to their utter dismay, that by 2020 a resurgent nationalist Russia and a nationalist communist China are successfully spearheading a sort of global movement for multipolar geopolitical and geo-economic world order. Not only the gains at the end of WW I, WW II, and Cold War have been seriously undermined by the ‘evil-duo’ of Russia and China, but the basic primacy of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State in global affairs are being seriously contested by these countries (and Iran). The final objectives of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State is to wreck the current Russian and Chinese society and economy, create disorder that will eventually break the states of Russia and China into 3 – 5 smaller states, leaders of which will source their legitimacy and strength from the global oligarchy (the high priests of Zionist-Capitalist Deep State).
Brief Political History of the East Slavs
For any serious discussion on geopolitics and geo-economics of a country/region, historical development of political entity and society must be seriously and objectively carried out. Instead of writing long paragraphs, I thought it prudent to be economical and put information in tabular format. According to the traditional account presented in The Russian Primary Chronicle (originally authored by Nestor, a monk in Kievan Rus of the Monastery of the Caves in Kiev who lived between 1056 and 1113 CE), the kingdom of Kievan Rus was founded by Rurik, the Varangian /Viking ruler of Novgorod who reigned between 862 CE and 879 CE. The next chief Oleg who ruled between 879 CE and 912 CE expanded the territory by expelling the Khazars from Kiev, and established the new capital at Kiev – the location was chosen with an eye to controlling the trading with the Byzantine Empire through Dnieper. And, it was instrumental for the prosperity of Kievan Rus (that controlled the trade route from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea through which furs, wax, honey, slaves were moved). The kingdom was expanded eastward and westward by Igor who ruled between 912 CE and 945 CE, and by Olga (who ruled as regent between 945 CE and 964 CE) southward. Vladimir I ruled between 978 CE and 1015 CE – his reign was noteworthy because he got converted into Orthodox Christianity in 988 CE thereby selecting Orthodox Christianity as the state religion for east Slavic society. Yaroslav the Wise (reigned 1019 CE to 1054 CE) promulgated the first East Slavic law code (Rus’ka pravda). Both Vladimir I and Yaroslav challenged the Khazarian Empire for the entire space over which the Khazarian kingdom was built.
Encyclopaedia Britannica noted “The East Slavs had no significant tradition of supra-tribal political organization before the coming of the Varangians, who themselves, until well into the 10th century, had little interest in institutions more elaborate than those necessary for the exploitation of their rich, new territory. The territory of Rus, moreover, was immense and sparsely settled. The scattered towns, some probably little more than trading posts, were separated by large primeval forests and swamps.” Even though any staunch nationalist from the current Rus society would like to scoff at this quotation, reality of Rus society before Mongol invasion was nearer to this statement rather than further. After the death of Yaroslav the Wise in 1054 CE, there was a major break-up within the Rurik dynasty as a result of which the kingdom of Kievan Rus got split into multiple principalities each of which was ruled by a member of the Rurik family. The princes frequently fought among themselves, forming alliances with outside groups such as the Poles, and Hungarians. With Kievan Rus kingdom in decline, Novgorod principality became strong. A local oligarchy ruled Novgorod; a town assembly elected a prince as the city-state’s military leader. It benefited tremendously from the trading relations with other trading towns of the Hanseatic League. In the 12th century Novgorod had its dedicated archbishop as a sign of political independence. Also, by the 12th century, the combined principality of Vladimir-Suzdal became a major power – in 1169 CE the army under Prince Andrey Bogolyubskiy sacked the city of Kiev. Political power shifted to the northeast, away from Kiev region. In 1299 CE the metropolitan of the Orthodox Church moved to the city of Vladimir thereby raising the status of Vladimir-Suzdal’ as the religious centre of east Slavic society. To the southwest (of Kiev), the principality of Galicia-Volhynia developed mature trade relations with Polish, and Hungarian neighbours and emerged as another successor to Kievan Rus’. In 1199 CE Prince Roman of Volhynia, invited by the Galician noblemen ascended the throne in Halicz and united Volhynia and Galicia in 1200 CE. .
Briefly the political and territorial trajectory of Eurasian landmass (with more stress on the western edge of Eurasia) has been mentioned below:
Region
Description
8th century BCE to 2nd century CE
Carpathian Mountains in the west to Ordos Plateau in the east
The first Central Asian nomadic empire was built by the Scythians.Between 2nd and 4th century CE the Scythians were overwhelmed and dominated by the Sarmatians, Alans, Huns, and Goths.
4th century CE to 9th century CE
Between upper Volga and upper Don (currently west Russia)
Settlements of five Volga-Finnic groups of the Merya, Mari, Muromians, Meshchera and Mordvinians.
Around lower Volga and lower Don (currently west Russia), Caucasus, and lower Dnieper (currently Ukraine)
Settlements of Bulghars, Khazars, and Kipchaks; a team of Bulghars migrated towards coast of Black Sea, another team migrated to upper Volga; Khazars became a strong kingdom between Dnieper and Ural rivers, and it extracted tributes from non-Khazars living within their jurisdiction.
Coast of Baltic Sea, currently west Belarus, Gulf of Finland, lake Ladoga, White Sea
Settlements of two East Balt (Indo-European) groups: Latvians, Lithuanians and four Finnic groups: Vepsians, Estonians, Karelians, and Chuds.
Space between Dniester – upper Vistula in the west to Ural mountains in the east (currently Ukraine, Belarus, west Russia)
Entire region except the space occupied by the 3 above mentioned communities was occupied by the east Slavic tribes. Apparently, remnants of the old Scythian and Sarmatian communities had been assimilated and absorbed by the early east Slavic society.
860 CE to 1240 CE
The watersheds of the Volga, Don, Dnieper, Dniester, Neman, Western Dvina, Vistula
By the 7th century CE the east Slavs became the dominant ethno-linguistic group in the Eurasian plain. Between 862 CE and 1054 CE the kingdom of Kievan Rus (east Slav society ruled by Varangian aristocracy) was on ascendency, it reached its zenith as the first ‘state’ of the east Slavs with significant geopolitical weight.
From east to west:(i) Vladimir-Suzdal,(ii) Ryazan,(iii) Novgorod,(iv) Smolensk,(v) Chernigov,(vi) Polotsk,(vi) Kiev,(viii) Galicia-Volhynia
Between 1054 CE and 1240 CE, the kingdom of Kievan Rus slipped into a path of chaos, independent strong principalities arose who were engaged in internecine wars among themselves. There is a view among a section of the European academicians who would like to negate the entire Kievan Rus chapter. Jaroslaw Pelenski mentioned in ‘The Contest for the Legacy of Kievan Rus’, “The ‘Riurikide’ dynasty and the ruling elite … attempted to impose on their highly diverse polity the integrative concept of russkaia zemlia (‘the Rus’ land’) and the unifying notion of a ‘Rus’ people’. …But ‘Kievan Rus” was never really a unified polity. It was a loosely bound, ill-defined, and heterogeneous conglomeration of lands and cities inhabited by tribes and population groups whose loyalties were primarily territorial…”
1240 CE to 1547 CE
Golden Horde empire included:According to notable Russian scholars A.P.Grigorev and O.B.Frolova, Golden Horde had 10 provinces:(i) Khiva or Khorazm,(ii) Desht-i-Kipchak,(iii) Khazaria,(iv) Crimea,(v) the Banks of Azov,(vi) the country of Circassians,(vii) Bulgar,(viii) Walachia,(ix) Alania,(x) Russian lands (mostly vassal states like (a) Grand Duchy of Lithuania,(b) Republic of Novgorod,(c) Republic of Pskov,(d) Principality of Smolensk, and(e) Grand Duchy of Muscovy)
Between 1237 CE and 1242 CE, forces of Mongol Empire overran most of the regions which were once part of the kingdom of Kievan Rus’. After sacking the city of Kiev in 1240 CE, the Mongol army moved into Poland and Hungary.Crimea, Itil, New Sarai (near modern Volgograd) were the towns which became the commercial and administrative centres of the so-called ‘Golden Horde’ (Mongol family of Jochi, son of Genghis Khan). Control of the Slavic society and land was exercised through the local princes (who acted as vassals), and through agents charged with overseeing the fiscal levies.As the time progressed, different branches of Mongol ‘Golden Horde’ in charge with different regions (Tatar Khanates) of the empire clashed among them. Finally, in 1395 CE, Timur’s central Asian army destroyed the Golden Horde’s power centres at Sarai, Azov, and Kaffa. The Golden Horde never recovered fully, but they continued their tribute collection system till 1480 CE when Grand Prince Ivan III of Muscovy Principality denied payment of tribute (called as ‘Great Stand on the Ugra River’). Thereafter, few comparatively small sized ‘khanates’ arose in few places (across the erstwhile empire) that were run by the Mongol warlords and vied for political space (increasingly cornered by Muscovy Rus).
Grand Duchy of Lithuania(Kingdom of Poland and Duchy of Lithuania were united by Union of Krewo, a personal union of the rulers in 1385 CE; Union of Lublin in 1569 CE was a pact between Poland and Lithuania that united the two countries into a single commonwealth state)
Lithuanians created one of the strongest political entities of medieval Europe, Grand Duchy of Lithuania that covered their traditional tribal space on Baltic Sea as well as the principality of Polotsk (one of the break-away regions of Kievan Rus that was invaded by Lithuanians in 1307 CE). It also acquired the northern part of the principality of Kiev between 1240 CE and 1319 CE.Principality of Galicia–Volhynia (1199–1253 CE) was one of the many independent principalities that came into limelight after dissolution of Kievan Rus. Later proclaimed as Kingdom of Ruthenia it became a vassal of the Golden Horde. Polish kingdom annexed the Ruthenian kingdom in 1349 CE. Catholic Polish King Casimir III adopted the title of King of Poland and ruler of Ruthenia.Thus for all practical purposes, western and central parts of present-day Ukraine and Belarus became part of the Catholic Poland-Lithuania during mid-14th century.
Republic of Novgorod
Of the principalities of Kievan Rus’, only Novgorod escaped direct occupation by the Mongols. In fact, Novgorod’s burghers accommodated the invading Mongols – they extended their trading down the Volga and toward the Urals.Alexander Nevsky served as the Prince of Novgorod (1236–56 and 1258–1259), Grand Prince of Kiev (1236–52) and Grand Prince of Vladimir (1252–63) during some of the most difficult times in Rus’ history. He defeated all adversaries (Swedes, Germans, Estonians) approaching from north-west while maintained good relations with Golden Horde by paying them a tribute – probably, such farsightedness saved the Orthodox culture of the then Rus society.Novgorod continued to prosper economically, but its ruling oligarchy was dethroned by the Grand Principality of Muscovy in 1478 CE thereby ending its independence.
Grand Duchy of Muscovy
While towns like Kiev never fully recovered in Mongol times, many other towns made a striking recovery as it happened for the towns in Vladimir-Suzdal region. New regions, such as Moscow and Tver appeared on the horizon within Vladimir-Suzdal region. Alexander Nevsky, clan member of Rurikid dynasty formed the Grand Duchy of Muscovy when in 1263 CE his son Daniel I was appointed to rule the newly-created Grand Duchy, which they ruled until their male line died out in 1598 CE. It started as a vassal state to the Golden Horde Mongol Empire, and soon eclipsed and eventually absorbed its parent Duchy of Vladimir-Suzdal by the 1320s.The Grand Duchy of Muscovy gradually incorporated all left out adjacent smaller duchies. Vasili III who reigned between 1505 and 1533 CE, expanded Muscovy’s borders by annexing Republic of Novgorod (1478 CE), Duchy of Tver (1485 CE), Republic of Pskov (1510 CE), the principality of Ryazan (1521 CE), and Novgorod-Seversky (1522 CE).Moscow’s eventual dominance of northern and eastern Rus’ was in large part attributable to the Mongols. After the prince of Tver joined a rebellion against the Mongols in 1327 CE, Muscovy prince Ivan I joined the Mongols in crushing Tver. By doing so he removed his rival, brought the Russian Orthodox Church headquarters to Moscow, and was granted the title of Grand Prince by the Mongol Empire. Slowly the Muscovy prince became the chief intermediary between the Mongol court and the Rus’ principalities. Golden Horde respected and collaborated with Muscovy Rus. This, in turn, attracted even the Mongol nobles who settled in the secured Muscovy.‘Many Russian boyar (noble) families traced their descent from the Mongols or Tatars, including Veliaminov-Zernov, Godunov, Arseniev, Bakhmetev, Bulgakov (descendants of Bulgak) and Chaadaev (descendants of Genghis Khan’s son Chagatai Khan). In a survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century, over 15% of the Russian noble families had Tatar or Oriental origins.’
1547 CE to 1771 CE
Tsardom of Russia / Tsardom of Muscovy; Russian EmpireAs of 1763 CE, Russian Empire was organised in following divisions:(i) Archangelgorod Governorate(ii) Astrakhan Governorate(iii) Belgorod Governorate(iv) Kazan Governorate(v) Kiev Governorate(vi) Moscow Governorate(vii) Nizhny Novgorod Governorate(viii) Novgorod Governorate(ix) Orenburg Governorate(x) Revel Governorate(xi) Riga Governorate(xii) St. Petersburg Governorate(xiii) Siberian Governorate(xiv) Smolensk Governorate(xv) Voronezh Governorate(xvi) Vyborg Governorate
In 1547 CE, Ivan IV assumed the title of ‘Tsar and Grand Duke of all Rus’ and was crowned by Constantinople Patriarch Jeremiah II thereby turning the Grand Duchy of Muscovy into Tsardom of Russia. Between 1598 CE (when the last Rurik dynasty ruler died) and 1613 CE (when the Romanovs came to power) there was political instability. Thereafter the expansion process of the Tsardom continued. From 1551 to 1700 CE, Russia grew by 35,000 km2 per year. Through a series of victorious military campaigns Tsarist Russia annexed the Khanate of Kazan (1552 CE), the Khanate of Astrakhan (1556 CE), and the Khanate of Sibir (1598 CE) from the former Mongol warlords. Russia annexed the Khanate of Qasim in 1681 CE.In the mid-17th century the tensions between Polish-Lithuanian ruling aristocracy and the Cossacks of the Ukrainian lands increased. The dispute turned into a military conflict in 1648 CE known as the Khmelnitsky uprising. The Cossack leader Bogdan Khmelnitsky, after a few years of war against Polish-Lithuanian, was forced to seek protection from the Russian Tsar. The Pereiaslav union in 1654 CE led to the progressive incorporation of the Cossack parts of the state with the Russian Empire. In 1667 CE (Truce of Andrusovo), Russia and Poland partitioned the Russian and Malorossian territory (ruled by Poland-Lithuania) along the River Dnepr whereby Left Bank remained under Russian control (Smolensk, Left Bank Ukraine, temporary gain of Kiev, Zaphorizhia. In 1686 CE the control over Kiev, Zaphorizhia became permanent. Muscovy secured number of territories that belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania such as the Upper Oka Principalities and Sloboda Ukraine. In 1708, the Oka principalities and Sloboda Ukraine were incorporated into the first Kiev Governorate.Wars against Sweden resulted in victories and territorial gains – in 1721 CE Livonia, Estonia, Ingria, and Karelia were annexed, while in 1743 CE south-west Karelia was annexed by Russia defeating the Swedish kingdom.
1772 CE to 1921 CE
At the start of WW I in 1914 CE, western part of Russian Empire consisted of the following divisions:Principality of Finland governorates:Uleaborg, Vaasa, Abo-Byerneborg, Nyland, Tavastehus, Saint Michel, Vyborg, KuopioBaltic governorates:Estonia, Livonia, CourlandLithuania/Belarus governorates:Kovno, Vilna, Vitebsk, Mogilev,Minsk, GrodnoCongress Poland governorates: Kalisz, Kelets, Lomzh, Lublin, Plotsk, Petrokov, Radom, Suvalki, WarsawRight-bank Ukraine governorates:Kholm, Volhynian, Kiev, PodolianMalorossiya governorates:Chernigov, Poltava, KharkovNovorossiya governorates:Don Cossack Host, Ekaterinoslav, Kherson, Taurida, Bessarabia, Crimea
Through first partition of Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1772 CE, Russia came into possession of the part of Livonia that had remained in Commonwealth control, and of eastern Belarus embracing the regions of Vitebsk, Polotsk, Mstislavl. Only the most Western part (east Galicia) went to Austria. However the territories acquired by Austria did not correspond exactly to those of former Halych-Volhynia – the Russian Empire took control of Volhynia to the north-east, including the city of Volodymyr-Volynskyi. The full official name of the new Austrian territory was the Kingdom of Galicia and LodomeriaRussian empire annexed the vassal state of Crimean Khanate (Crimea, and most of present-day Zaphorizhia, Kherson, south-eastern Dnipropetrovsk, and western Donetsk Oblast) in 1783 CE. Russian empire acquired Southern Bug and Karbadino (in current south Ukraine) and Yedisan (Mykolaiv and Odessa oblasts of current Ukraine) in 1774 CE and 1792 CE respectively after defeating Ottoman Empire both the times.Through second and third partitions that happened in quick succession in 1793 CE and 1795 CE, Russia acquired southern part of current Latvia (south of Riga), most part of current Lithuania including Wilno (Vilnius), most part of current Belarus including Minsk, Pinsk, Brest, most part of Right Bank Ukraine that forms current Ukraine including Lutsk, Rovno, Zhytomyr, Bratslav, and Galicia from Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth.In 1801 CE Russia annexed the Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti (modern day eastern Georgia) for which a fierce tussle among Ottoman Empire, Persian Empire, and Russian Empire existed. In 1810 CE the Kingdom of Imereti (western Georgia) was annexed by Russian Empire.Between 1808 CE and 1809 CE, Swedish Empire and Russian Empire fought over the Finnish territory of Swedish Empire. Russian Empire won the war as a result of which the Finnish territory joined Russian Empire with an identity ‘Duchy of Finland’.Bessarabia (two-thirds of which lies within modern Moldova) was taken over by Russian Empire in 1812 CE after winning a war against Ottoman Empire.After Napoleon’s defeat in 1813 CE, the (Polish) Duchy of Warsaw was again captured by the neighbouring empires/kingdoms. Russia gained the central and eastern part of the Duchy of Warsaw, which further extended its boundary into the Polish landsParts of Georgia, Dagestan, parts of northern Azerbaijan, and parts of northern Armenia were annexed from Persian Empire by Russian Empire in 1813 CE. In 1828 CE, Persian Empire ceded Caucasian region (present-day Armenia, Azerbaijan) to Russian Empire after defeat in their last major military conflict with Russia.
Between 1914 CE and 1921 CE, Russian Empire got dissolved, and Bolshevik Russia ascended; following non-east Slavic lands became independent:(i) Principality of Finland governorates(ii) Baltic governorates(iii) Lithuania governorates(iv) Congress Poland governorates
After losing most of the western parts of the Russian Empire due to a defeat by German Empire and the ensuing Brest-Litovsk Treaty in March’1918, Bolshevik Russia regained some parts of the regions that became present-day Belarus, and Ukraine. Treaty of Riga among Poland, Soviet Russia (acting also on behalf of Soviet Belarus) and Soviet Ukraine signed in 1921 CE settled the border with Poland’s gain of west Ukraine and west Belarus.
1922 CE to 1991 CE
At the time of the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 CE, the western and south-western regions of the USSR comprised of the following states:(i) Estonian SSR(ii) Latvian SSR(iii) Lithuanian SSR(iv) Byelorussian SSR(v) Ukrainian SSR(vi) Moldavian SSR(vii) Georgian SSR(viii) Armenian SSR(ix) Azerbaijan SSR
In 1922 CE, Union treaty formally brought Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Transcaucasia into the USSR. Transcaucasia lands were divided in 1936 CE into Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.During the WW II in 1940 CE, Soviet troops annexed Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia in the Baltic Sea region whereas Romania ceded control of Bessarabia and North Bukovina to USSR which incorporated these lands as Moldavian SSR. Soviet troops also seized the west Ukraine and west Belarus lands from Poland.
At the time of the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine consisted of the following oblasts:(i) East: Luhansk, Donetsk, Kharkiv(ii) North-east: Sumy, Poltava(iii) South-east: Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk, Kherson, Crimea(iv) North-central: Kiev, Cherkasy, Chernihiv(v) South-central: Kirovohrad, Mykolaiv, Odessa(vi) West: Zakarpatska, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk(vii) North-west: Volyn, Rivne, Zhytomyr(viii) South-west: Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi, Chernivtsi, Vinnytsia
After formulation of the new constitution of Soviet Union, Russian, Transcaucasian, Ukrainian, and Byelorussian regions formed the Union in 1922 CE; other regions joined later on (till WW II when Baltic regions joined).After 1922, territorial architecture of Ukraine was modified 4 times:In 1939 CE, the region of Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil, Volyn, west part of Rivne were added to west and north-west Ukraine (territories from Poland);In 1940 CE, the southern part of Odessa and Chernivtsi were added to south-central Ukraine (territories from Romania);In 1945 CE, the region of Zakarpatska was added to west Ukraine (Ruthenia from Czechoslovakia);In 1954 CE, the region of Crimea was added to south-east Ukraine;On 24 August 1991, Ukraine SSR made the proclamation of its independence. With the dissolution of USSR in December 1991 Ukraine became independent country. But the historical baggage of its territorial expanse never left it.
The most significant observations on the political history of the east Slavic society are (as evident from a critical study of the history of the east Slavic civilization):
East Slavic communities spread across the vast expanses of east Europe and Central Asia were politically led by various non-Slavic aristocracies at different points of time (like Varangians, Mongols, Lithuanians, Germans) apart from the comparatively insignificant numbers of political organizations by the local Slavic aristocracy. Thus, the modern east Slavic societies possess the understanding of the political ideas/concepts which were/are prevalent in Europe and Asia as well as the cumulative experience of different styles of state formation, state administration, and warfare
Ruling aristocracy in east Slavic land passed through a very interesting metamorphosis – it can be stated with high degree of certainty that, the formation of aristocracy in Slavic society was initiated in the ancient era (may be 2nd – 4th century CE) when Scythian and Sarmatian tribes were assimilated in much larger community of east Slavs; during the medieval period, numerically smaller Varangians and Mongols (who settled in the lands of east Slavs) got absorbed within the east Slavic community; the modern era similarly witnessed the assimilation of a limited number of German, Polish, Lithuanian aristocrats within the east Slavic community. It won’t be out of place to mention that such waves of assimilation created a tremendous non-tangible asset in the form of geopolitical ideas and combat acumen among the east Slavs which is unparalleled in the history of humankind
It will be historically untrue to portray a picture of the political dynamics in the east Slavic civilization as a dichotomy between Kievan Rus and Muscovy Rus – the author finds that Kievan Rus and Muscovy Rus were two of the most important ‘time-space combinations’ (socio-political-economic formation in a geographic region at a specific historical time period) among (probably) a dozen of such entities. Thus Novgorod, Kazan, Belarus etc. were few other ‘time-space combinations’. And a very interesting fact about these formations was that, the common Slavs and aristocrat Boyars (more often than not, with a mixed ancestry of Slavic and non-Slavic elites) would find a common theme/platform built around a quasi-real quasi-metaphysical set of ideas/concepts to struggle for and establish a principality based on such notions (which, generally, won’t last for long)
Ukraine (within its current geographic boundary) never had a ‘state’ formed by a kingdom, or an empire – its boundary has been time and again modified as an administrative region with the USSR. ‘Left-Bank’, and ‘Right-Bank’ had different trajectories of political history, ‘Novorossiya’ on the coast of Black Sea had entirely different history (refer Figure 3.1 and 3.2 given below). All those different historical ‘time-space combinations’ were put together as ‘Ukraine SSR’ within the USSR by Bolshevik Party under two key factors: (i) Bolsheviks struggled from 1917 to 1922 CE against almost the entire world – anti-Bolshevik local groups of kulaks, bankers, middle-class professionals/ burghers, monarchists, senior army officers, politicians like liberals-conservatives-democrats as well as the Menshevik socialists, plus foreign governments run by the Zionist-Capitalists like UK, (its colonies) Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Romania, Czechia, Slovakia, Japan, USA etc. – which fostered a sense of feebleness within Lenin who thought indulging in the nationalist outlook of the regional leaders (with allegiance to Bolshevik Party) could be the only way out for creating the USSR. It can be assumed that, while overruling the objections of the leaders like Stalin and Artyom, Lenin didn’t foresee the dangers of such centrifugal forces which were present in the constitution of the USSR through the clause of secession; (ii) Lenin, and thereafter Stalin created a centripetal force within the USSR by adding regions with ethnic Muscovy Rus and/or encouraging settlements of ethnic Muscovy/Novgorod Rus in other regions (i.e. SSR) – thus Novorossiya was added to Ukraine SSR, Russians were settled in Kazakhstan SSR. Bolshevik leaders thought this centripetal force can balance the centrifugal force of local nationalism, which proved to be a fatal mistake for the ‘Soviet experiment’. Because of the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, Ukraine found itself in a condition that ONLY physically resembled a ‘state’, but neither the political parties nor the oligarchy of Ukraine recognised as such, rather Ukraine state became just like an institutional means to plunder wealth in order to enrich their business!
Reorganization of the administrative zones within the kingdom/empire/union in the east Slavic lands is indeed a very interesting exercise, and probably a favourite pastime for ALL heads of state at different points of time. Few of those were:
(i) A system of territorial units called razryad in 1680 CE (Moscow, Sevsk, Vladimir, Novgorod, Kazan, Smolensk, Ryazan, Belgorod chartered in 1658 CE out of the Kiev Voivodeship, Tambov, Tula, Tobol chartered no later than 1587 CE, Tom, Yenisei Razryads) which were subdivided into uyezd (canton)
(ii) In 1708 CE Tsar Peter the Great issued an edict dividing the empire into eight administrative divisions called guberniyas (Archangelgorod, Azov, Ingermanland, Kazan, Kiev, Moscow, Siberia, Smolensk) which replaced the 166 uyezds and razryads which existed before the reform
(iii) In 1727 CE Catherine I enacted another reform – a total of 166 uyezds was re-established, together with the newly created ones, the Russian Empire had approximately 250 uyezds
(iv) By 1910 CE further restructuring took place, as a result of which 104 administrative governorate units (Oblast and Governorate) existed
(v) After 1917 CE Bolshevik Party undertook a series of restructuring that transformed the earlier architecture of administrative organization
Figure 3.1:
Figure 3.2:
Ukraine: Between 1991 and 2021
How Did Ukraine Economy Perform?
Economic parameters of Ukraine show how poorly the Zionist-Capitalist oligarchy and their clientele (i.e. political parties) managed Ukraine for past three decades. The following figures have been taken from Wikipedia
Ukraine used to be the most advanced union state of the USSR in terms of industrial and agricultural output and productivity. It’s a crying shame that after 25 years of so-called independence the Ukrainian political leaders and the oligarchy couldn’t steer the country’s economy to surpass the GDP (PPP in current value) figure of 1990 CE – around 350 billion USD in 1990 CE as well as in 2016 CE! It not only shows lack of economic planning, and programme implementation, but, more importantly, it also proves complete negligence on part of the ruling oligarchy. The families in 1% oligarchy (businessmen, bureaucrats, political leaders etc.) and 5% upper middle class are anyway sucking the wealth out of Ukraine through mining-manufacturing-agriculture. 80% of the common people are leading a life of destitute and underemployment.
Apart from a dysfunctional economy, the socio-political environment got vitiated so much that there has been a steady decline of population over the past three decades (refer fig. 4.3 below). There are two primary reasons for such decline: (i) reduction in total fertility rate, (ii) emigration to European and North American countries.
How Did Zionist-Capitalist Deep State Moved Into Ukraine?
As I noted, Zionist-Capitalist clique always wanted to destroy potentially strong countries in Eurasian landmass (in fact, anywhere). In an old article in The Saker website I detailed on how two Fascist parties were developed in Germany and Italy after WW I by the Zionist-Capitalist clique in order to destroy the USSR (and those Fascist countries) [ link 🡪 https://thesaker.is/greatest-sin-of-lenin-and-stalin/ ]. During the WW II, Croatian and West Ukrainian fascist leaders and their parties indulged in more brutal and cruel pogroms than even the Nazi party could have ever imagined. Stepan Bandera, Andriy Melnyk and Symon Petliura were products of the fascist movement in west Ukraine.
After 1991 break-up of Soviet Union and Warsaw (Pact) block, USA and NATO leaders have helped rehabilitation of those fascist leaders and their ideas. In parallel the USA and NATO leaders relentlessly pushed NATO frontier – now Russia, Belarus are surrounded by NATO bases with first strike capability. New fissures are being invented across the central Asian countries to create a militant (Wahhabi) Islamic cult within the population. In the Caucasus countries, again the Hegemon is hyper-active to create anti-Russian sentiments. During past two decades ‘colour revolution’ had been applied successfully by the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State twice in Ukraine to install their flunkies in power. Finally, the objective is plain and simple – Russia will get surrounded by NATO countries, NATO military bases with nuclear capable bombers and missiles will be constructed in east European and Caucasian NATO members, Fascist Ukrainian militia backed by NATO armaments and trained by NATO ‘military specialists’ will launch frontal attack on western border of Russia – with incessant missile launching from east European NATO members Russia will not be able to defend border. Zionist-Capitalist clique assumed that Operation Barbarossa by Germany in WW II failed because Nazi Wehrmacht didn’t had any backing of conventional/biological/nuclear missiles – In the present era such issues have been taken care of by the Hegemon.
What Has Been Russia’s Stand in Ukraine?
Russian government has been voicing their discomfort about growing insecurity since past two decades. As usual, Russian concerns continue to fall on deaf ears. In 2014 CE Crimea, Donestsk, Lugansk oblasts (predominantly with Russian-speaking) decided to break away from Ukraine state. While Crimea joined Russia, Donestsk and Lugansk declared themselves as peoples’ republic.
On 17th December 2021 Russian government presented detailed security demands that include a legally binding guarantee that NATO will give up any military activity in east Europe and Ukraine. On 26th January 2022 USA sent a written response to Russia’s security demands, wherein it was repeated that NATO will continue to add new members in east Europe and Caucasus. Between 21st and 24th February 2022 Russian government recognised the peoples’ republics in east Ukraine and mobilized military to support them. President Putin also asked Ukraine government to demilitarize and denazify Ukrainian society.
Ukraine’s Future: Possibilities
To begin with, I have to confess that I don’t believe in ‘future of Ukraine’ – I would rather opt for rephrasing it as ‘future of Eurasia’! I know that educated people and democratic intellectuals all over the world will shudder at my words. For them I would like to put forward a simple question – can anybody show me the trajectory of the ‘Ukraine state’ for a continuous period of at least 300 years in the last millennium during which at least 80% of the contiguous landmass of the current Ukraine was being governed by a political institution like a kingdom or a principality or an empire or a constitutional state? No, they can’t show it because it didn’t happen! A geographical landmass can’t achieve such sobriquet as a ‘state’ only through accidental incidents like dissolution of the USSR!
However, my personal opinion notwithstanding let me list down the possibilities in near future about how ‘Ukraine state’ can continue to function as a socio-political entity. While doing so, I tried to be as realistic as possible. (I haven’t really assessed the impact of current affairs in Ukraine on the countries in the Resistance Camp, which in my opinion, will also be quite substantial that requires a separate study).
Description of Political Possibilities
Impact on Countries Owned by Zionist-Capitalist Clique
Possibility 1 – geopolitics remain firmly centred around the current world order
– Russian forces stay within Ukraine border for say, 1 month, and come back to Russia– Lugansk and Donetsk governments establish their rule over the entire administrative region with the help of Russian forces– Ukraine government, de facto and de jure accepts the new boundary as the 1991 CE Ukraine boundary minus the regions of Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk– Ukraine government signs treaty with Russian government on denazification of the society, demilitarisation to the extent that no army/navy/air-force, and remaining neutral without joining NATO military block– Ukraine government completely reorganise and restructure their country with new constitution that will reflect the new realities
– USA-UK-Australia-Canada-NZ, Israel, Netherlands, Belgium, France, and few other NATO block countries will continue to: (a) sanction Russian banks, mining, energy, and other industries, (b) sanction Russian leadership personally, and(c) undertake even more widespread campaigns to spread outright lies, disinformation and character assassination– None of the European countries can afford to stop flow of natural gas into their country since it is much cheaper compared to sourcing LNG/PNG from West Asia and/or North America– Military-Industrial Complex will get a much larger business from NATO governments, who know that they are lagging behind Russia (and China) in military technology– NATO and EU will increasingly mirror each other, due to which there will be a new paradigm of international relations – geopolitics and geo-economy of Anglo and European countries will show a block-mentality
Possibility 2 – geopolitics of the current world order is in doldrums
– Russian forces stay within Ukraine border for say, 2 months, and come back to Russia– Lugansk and Donetsk governments establish their rule over the entire administrative region with the help of Russian forces– Kharkiv and Kherson people create new peoples’ republic with the retreat of Ukraine army, and seek recognition from Russian government– Ukraine government, de facto and de jure accepts the new boundary as the 1991 CE Ukraine boundary minus the regions of Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk, but refuses to accept Kharkiv and Kherson as breakaway regions– Ukraine government signs treaty with Russian government on denazification of the society, demilitarisation to the extent that no army/navy/air-force, and remaining neutral without joining NATO military block– Ukraine government remains at loggerheads with Kharkiv and Kherson government, hence a new constitution or administrative actions for serious house-cleaning are impossible
– USA-UK-Australia-Canada-NZ, Israel, Netherlands, Belgium, France, and few other NATO block countries will continue to: (a) sanction Russian banks, mining, energy, and other industries, (b) sanction Russian leadership personally, and(c) undertake even more widespread campaigns to spread outright lies, disinformation and character assassination– None of the European countries can afford to stop flow of natural gas into their country since it is much cheaper compared to sourcing LNG/PNG from west Asia or North America– Military-Industrial Complex will get a much larger business from NATO governments, who know that they are lagging behind Russia (and China) in military technology– NATO and EU will increasingly mirror each other, due to which there will be a new paradigm of international relations – geopolitics and geo-economy of Anglo and European countries will show a block-mentality– NATO and EU will proactively create dozens of far-right ‘militia’ groups within Ukraine that will fight anti-Ukraine peoples’ republics and Russian forces; USA-UK-Israel-Netherlands-France will supply money and military equipment to regular Ukraine army
Possibility 3 – geopolitics churn out a new world order
– Russian forces stay within Ukraine border for longer than 2 months because of further escalation of combat scenarios– Lugansk and Donetsk governments establish their rule over the entire administrative region with the help of Russian forces– Many oblasts bordering Russia and Black Sea (like Kharkiv, Sumy, Zaphorizhia, Kherson, Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Odessa) want to create new peoples’ republic with the retreat of Ukraine army, and seek recognition from Russian government– Ukraine government refuses to accept the de facto reality and maintains its stand internationally that the legal boundary must be as per the 1991 CE USSR border; Ukraine government officially refuses to accept any breakaway region– Ukraine government refuses to sign any treaty with Russian government on neutrality, denazification, and demilitarisation, and actively seek military help from NATO to fight Russian forces– Russian political parties like Communist Party, United Russia and Ukrainian political parties as well as peoples representatives from all walks of life in predominantly Orthodox Christian Russia, Malorossiya, Novorossiya, Belarus, Armenia, and Georgia will come forward with an idea to create a new union that will be a truly Eurasian in letter and spirit– A new constitution is developed where the mistakes of the earlier constitution implemented 100 years back gets rectified. A new union is born this year with a new union treaty, a new peoples’ constitution, and a new capital just beyond the Ural Mountains. The Eurasian Union will be geopolitically and economically aligned with Asia, Africa, South America continents. Jointly with China, the new union will become the beacon of hope for the rest of the humankind against the quest for wealth and power of the existing Zionist-Capitalist world order. – Ukraine will still exist (Right Bank west Ukraine region) with Kiev, Cherkasy, Rivne, Zhytomyr, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi, Chernivtsi, Vinnytsia Zakarpatska, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Volyn oblasts to continue its historic role as the springboard for fascist forces in east Europe. (It would be an entirely different game if Russian government decides to annihilate this venomous snake for ever from the face of earth.)
– USA-UK-Australia-Canada-NZ, Israel, Netherlands, Belgium, France, and few other NATO block countries will continue to: (a) sanction Russian banks, mining, energy, and other industries, (b) sanction Russian leadership personally, and(c) undertake even more widespread campaigns to spread outright lies, disinformation and character assassination– Military-Industrial Complex will get a much larger business from NATO governments, who know that they are lagging behind Russia (and China) in military technology. Space-based nuclear offensive mechanism and system as well as land-based biological warfare mechanism and system will be developed– NATO and EU will increasingly mirror each other, due to which there will be a new paradigm of international relations – geopolitics and geo-economy of Anglo and European countries will show a block-mentality. Dissenting voices like Hungary and Serbian regions will be punished– NATO and EU will proactively create dozens of far-right ‘militia’ groups within Ukraine that will fight anti-Ukraine peoples’ republics and Russian forces; USA-UK-Israel-Netherlands-France will supply money, military equipment, and military personnel to the regular Ukraine army; battles between Russian army and NATO detachments result in disastrous total rout for NATO– NATO and EU countries try to create without success a new UNO where Russia (and China) will be pushed out from the security council and countries like Germany, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil are lured to join the new institution as ‘key member’ (never mind that only the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State owns and controls the institution)– NATO and EU countries will seek to restrict all types of normal country-to-country relations between Russia (and China) and all other countries in the world; trading, investment, cultural exchange, scientific and educational exchange with Russia (and China) will be discouraged (in case of large/powerful countries) and punished (in case of small/weak countries). EU and NATO countries will be forced to cease any business with Russia (and China), not even energy import.
Conclusion
100 years back, right in this Eurasian surreal dreamland, a revolutionary leader and his comrades set out to bring light in the darkness, to bring back morality-justice in the filthy money-oriented world, but the ensuing trail of treachery of the Zionist gangs who wrecked the Bolshevik Party from within (utilising many mistakes of their leaders including Lenin) extinguished the lamp decades ago. Who knows if the people of Eurasia decide to illuminate the lamp again under the able leadership of the current leadership!
As I submit this article to The Saker blogsite, active involvement of NATO has been announced. So, the ‘possibility 1’ discussed above is ruled out. Do you think the ‘possibility 3’ can become a reality?
It was the first high-level Russia-NATO meeting since 2019 – coming immediately after the non sequitur of the U.S.-Russia “security guarantee” non-dialogue dialogue earlier in the week in Geneva.
So what happened in Brussels? Essentially yet another non-dialogue dialogue – complete with a Kafkaesque NATO preface: we’re prepared for dialogue, but the Kremlin’s proposals are unacceptable.
This was a double down on the American envoy to NATO, Julianne Smith, preemptively blaming Russia for the actions that “accelerated this disaster”.
By now every sentient being across Eurasia and its European peninsula should be familiar with Russia’s top two, rational demands: no further NATO expansion, and no missile systems stationed near its borders.
Now let’s switch to the spin machine. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s platitudes were predictably faithful to his spectacular mediocrity. On the already pre-empted dialogue, he said it was “important to start a dialogue”.
Russia, he said, “urged NATO to refuse to admit Ukraine; the alliance responded by refusing to compromise on enlargement”. Yet NATO “welcomed bilateral consultations” on security guarantees.
NATO also proposed a series of broad security consultations, and “Russia has not yet agreed, but has not ruled out them either.”
No wonder: the Russians had already noted, even before it happened, that this is noting but stalling tactics.
The Global South will be relieved to know that Stoltenberg defended NATO’s military blitzkriegs in both Kosovo and Libya: after all “they fell under UN mandates”. So they were benign. Not a word on NATO’s stellar performance in Afghanistan.
And then, the much-awaited clincher: NATO worries about Russian troops “on the border with Ukraine” – actually from 130 km to 180 km away, inside European Russian territory. And the alliance considers “untrue” that expansion is “an aggressive act”. Why? Because “it spreads democracy”.
Bomb me to democracy, baby
So here’s the NATO gospel in a flash. Now compare it with the sobering words of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko.
Grushko carefully enounced how “NATO is determined to contain Russia. The United States and its allies are trying to achieve superiority in all areas and in all possible theaters of military operations.” That was a veiled reference to Full Spectrum Dominance, which since 2002 remains the American gospel.
Grushko also referred to “Cold War-era containment tactics”, and that “all cooperation [with Russia] has been halted” – by NATO. Still, “Russia honestly and directly pointed out to NATO that a further slide of the situation could lead to dire consequences for European security.”
The conclusion was stark: “The Russian Federation and NATO do not have a unifying positive agenda at all.”
Virtually all Russophobic factions of the bipartisan War Inc. machine in Washington cannot possibly accept that there should be no forces stationed on European states that were not members of NATO in 1997; and that current NATO members should attempt no military intervention in Ukraine as well as in other Eastern European, Transcaucasian, and Central Asian states.
On Monday in Geneva, Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov had already stressed, once again, that Russia’s red line is unmovable: “For us, it’s absolutely mandatory to make sure that Ukraine never, never, ever becomes a member of NATO.”
Diplomatic sources confirmed that in Geneva, Ryabkov and his team had for all practical purposes to act like teachers in kindergarten, making sure there would be “no misunderstandings”.
Now compare it with the U.S. State Department’s Ned Price, speaking after those grueling eight hours shared between Ryabkov and Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman: Washington will not consider Russian proposals on no expansion of NATO, and has no intention of even discussing the idea.
So much for “dialogue”.
Ryabkov confirmed there was no progress. Referring to his didacticism, he had to stress, “We are calling on the U.S. to demonstrate a maximum of responsibility at this moment. Risks related to a possible increase of confrontation shouldn’t be underestimated.”
To say, in Ryabkov’s words, that “significant” Russian effort has been made to persuade the Americans that “playing with fire” is not in their interests is the euphemism of the young century.
Let me sanction you to oblivion
A quick recap is crucial to understand how things could have derailed so fast.
NATO’s not exactly secret strategy, from the beginning, has been to pressure Moscow to directly negotiate with Kiev on Donbass, even though Russia is not mentioned in the Minsk Agreements.
While Moscow was being forced to become part of the Ukraine/Donbass confrontation, it barely broke a sweat smashing a coup cum color revolution in Belarus. Afterwards, the Russians assembled in no time an impressive strike force – with corresponding military infrastructure – in European Russia territory to respond in lightning quick fashion in case there was a Ukrainian blitzkrieg in Donbass.
No wonder an alarmed NATOstan had to do something about the notion of fighting Russia to the last impoverished Ukrainian. They may at least have understood that Ukraine would be completely destroyed.
The beauty is how Moscow turned things around with a new geopolitical jiu-jitsu move. Ukro-dementia encouraged by NATO – complete with empty promises of becoming a member – opened the way for Russia to demand no further NATO expansion, with the withdrawal of all military infrastructure from Eastern Europe to boot.
It was obvious that Ryabkov, in his talks with Sherman, would refuse any suggestion that Russia should dismantle the logistical infrastructure set up in its own European Russia territory. For all practical purposes, Ryabkov smashed Sherman to bits. What was left was meek threats of more sanctions.
Still, it will be a Sisyphean task to convince the Empire and its NATO satrapies not to stage some sort of military adventure in Ukraine. That’s the gist of what Ryabkov and Grushko said over and over again in Geneva and Brussels. They also had to stress the obvious: if further sanctions are imposed on Russia, there would be severe blowback especially in Europe.
But how is it humanly possible for seasoned pros like Ryabkov and Grushko to argue, rationally, with a bunch of amateur blind bats such as Blinken, Sullivan, Nuland and Sherman?
There has been some serious speculation on the timeframe ahead for Russia to in fact not even bother to listen to the American “baby babble” (copyright Maria Zakharova) anymore. Could be around 2027, or even 2025.
What’s happening next is that the five-year extension of the new START treaty expires in February 2026. Then there will be no ceiling for nuclear strategic weapons. The Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline to China will make Gazprom even less dependent on the European market. The combined Russia-China financial system will become nearly impervious to U.S. sanctions. The Russia-China strategic partnership will be sharing even more substantial military tech.
All of that is way more consequential than the dirty secret that is not a secret in the current “security guarantees” kabuki: the exceptionalist, “indispensable” nation is congenitally incapable of giving up on the forever expansion of NATO to, well, outer space.
At the same time, the Russians are very much aware of a quite prosaic truth; the U.S. will not fight for Ukraine.
So welcome to Instagrammed Irrationalism. What happens next? Most possibly a provocation, with the possibility, for instance, of a chemical black ops to be blamed on Russia, followed by – what else – more sanctions.
The package is ready. It comes in the form of a bill by Dem senators supported by the White House to bring “severe costs” to the Russian economy in case Moscow finally answers their prayers and “invades” Ukraine.
Sanctions would directly hit President Putin, Prime Minister Mishustin, Foreign Minister Lavrov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Gen Gerasimov, and “commanders of various branches of the Armed Forces, including the Air Force and Navy.”
Targeted banks and financial institutions include Sberbank, VTB, Gazprombank, Moscow Credit Bank, Alfa-Bank, Otkritie Bank, PSB, Sovcombank, Transcapitalbank, and the Russian Direct Investment Fund. They would all be cut off from SWIFT.
If this bill sounds like a declaration of war, that’s because it is. Call it the American version of “dialogue”.
The annual Valdai Club meeting has always been positioned as absolutely essential when it comes to understanding the non-stop movement of geopolitical tectonic plates across Eurasia.
The ongoing 18th meeting in Sochi once again lives up to expectations. The overall theme is Global Shake-Up in the 21st Century: The Individual, Values, and the State. It expands on the theme of a “crumbling world” that Valdai had been analyzing since 2018: as the organizers highlight, this “has ceased to be a metaphor and turned into a palpable reality before our own eyes.”
The “Future is Back” concept essentially means that, after the Covid-19 shock, the notion of a linear one-sided future, complete with “progress” defined as globalized democracy enshrining the “end of history”, is dead and buried.
Globalization, as framed by neoliberalism, proved to be finite.
The slide towards medical totalitarianism and the trappings of a maximum security penitentiary are self-evident. As some Valdai participants noted, Foucault’s concept of “biopower” is no longer abstract philosophy.
The first session in Sochi went a long way in terms of framing our current predicament, starting with how the current – incandescent – US-China clash is unfolding.
Thomas Graham, from the Council on Foreign Relations – the conceptual matrix of the US establishment – recited the proverbial “indispensable nation” platitudes and how it’s “prepared to defend Taiwan”, even as he admitted “the Biden administration is still articulating its policy”.
It was up to Zhou Bo, from the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, to ask the hard questions: if the US and China are in competition, “how far are we from conflict?” He stressed “cooperation” instead of a slide into confrontation; yet China “will cooperate from a position of strength.”
Zhou Bo also clarified how Beijing is “not interested in bipolarity”, in terms of China “replacing the USSR during the Cold War”: after all, “China is not competing with the US elsewhere in the world.” Yet even as “the center of gravity is moving irreversibly to the East”, he admitted the current situation “is more dangerous than during the Cold War.”
Surveying the global chessboard, Former Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim stressed “the absurdity of the UN Security Council deciding even matters related to the pandemic.” Amorim voiced one of the Global South’s key demands: the “need for a new institutional framework. The closer we get would be the G-20 – a little more African, a little less European.” This G-20 would command the authority the current UNSC lacks.
So Amorim had to tie it all to the centrality of inequality: his quip about “coming from a forgotten region”, Latin America, was very much on point. He also had to stress, “we didn’t want a Pax Americana”. A real, “concrete step” towards multipolarity would be “a big conference” which could be led by this “modified G-20.”
Togtbaatar Damdin, a Member of the Parliament of Mongolia, as he evoked “my great great great grandfather”, Genghis Khan, and how he built “that huge empire and called it Pax Mongolica”, focused on what matters to the here and now: “peaceful trade and economic integration in Greater Eurasia”. Damdin stressed, “we [Mongolians] no longer believe in war. It’s much more profitable to be involved in trade.”
A constant theme in this and other Valdai sessions has been Hybrid War and Shadow War, the new imperial instruments deployed against parts of Latin America, the “Greater Middle East” and Russia-China, in contrast to “a transparent system under the rule of law – and kept by international law”, as noted by Oksana Sinyavskaya from the Institute for Social Policy at the Higher School of Economics.
The discussions in Sochi essentially focused on the twilight of the current hegemonic socio-economic system – essentially neoliberalism; the crisis of alliance systems – as in the rot within NATO; and the toxic confluence of Hybrid War and the pandemic – stressing billions of people. An inevitable conclusion: the current dysfunctional international system in incapable of dealing with crisis management.
Enter rock star Lavrov
In the roundtable presenting the Valdai report on Year Two of the Age of Pandemic, Thomas Gomart, a director of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), stressed how hard it still is to analyze the geopolitics of data. With the Chinese privileging the concept of “ecological civilization”, questions of technological monitoring – as in how social credit is framed – are now on the forefront.
And as we delve deeper into “invisible wars” – Gomart’s own terminology – we face a toxic convergence of environmental degradation and hyper-concentration of digital platforms.
Gomart also made two crucial points that escape many analyses across the Global South: Washington has decided to remain the primus inter pares, and won’t abdicate from this position no matter what. This is happening even as Global Capital – heavily slanted towards the US – wants to find the new China.
That set the stage for Nelson Wong, the Vice Chairman of the Shanghai Center for RimPac Strategic and International Studies, to diplomatically shatter Divide and Rule tactics, and the US obsession with a zero-sum game. Wong stressed how China “does not hold a hostile attitude towards the US”; its aim is a “peaceful rise”.
But most significantly, Wong made sure that “the post-pandemic world will not be determined by the outcome of the confrontation between the US and China, or by splitting the world into two competing camps.” This hopeful perspective implies the Global South will eventually have its say – aligned with Amorim’s proposal of a tweaked G-20.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could not but shine as the Valdai rock star, during a special Q%A session.
The Valdai discussions in Sochi significantly take place just as Moscow decided to suspend the work of its mission to NATO from November 1, and close the NATO information office in Moscow. Lavrov had already stressed that Russia no longer pretends that changes in the relationship with NATO are possible in the near future: from now on, if they want to talk, they should contact the Russian ambassador to Belgium.
So one of the questions at Sochi had to revolve on whether Moscow should expect NATO to take the first step to improve relations. Lavrov had, once again, to repeat the obvious: “Yes, we proceed from this. We have never started the deterioration of our relations with NATO, the European Union, or any other country in the West or any other region of the world. Everyone knows this story well. When Saakashvili in August 2008 gave the criminal order to bomb the city of Tskhinval and the positions of peacekeepers (including Russian ones), Russia insisted on convening the Russia-NATO Council to consider this situation. The then US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice categorically refused, although when creating the Russia-NATO Council, the Founding Act emphasized that it should act in any “weather”, especially when crisis situations occur. This is one example that marked the beginning of the current state of affairs between the US and NATO.”
So Russia has established the new game in (Atlanticist) town: we only talk to the masters, and ignore the lackeys. As for NATO now geared to create “capabilities” to be used against China, the Global South may collectively engage in rolls of laughter – considering the fresh NATO humiliation in Afghanistan.
With the inevitability of a EU more and more geoeconomically intertwined with China, dysfunctional NATO at best may keep on prowling as a bunch of zombie rabid dogs. Now that’s a Utopia theme for Valdai 2022.
As much as Covid-19 has been instrumentalized by the 0.001% to social engineer a Great Reset, the Beirut tragedy is already being instrumentalized by the usual suspects to keep Lebanon enslaved.
Facing oh so timely color revolution-style “protests”, the current Lebanese government led by Prime Minister Diab has already resigned. Even before the port tragedy, Beirut had requested a $10 billion line of credit from the IMF – denied as long as trademark, neoliberal Washington consensus “reforms” were not implemented: radical slashing of public expenses, mass layoffs, across the board privatization.
Post-tragedy, President Emmanuel Macron – who’s not even capable of establishing a dialogue with the Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Vests in France – has opportunistically jumped in full neocolonial mode to pose as “savior” of Lebanon, as long as the same “reforms”, of course, are implemented.
On Sunday, France and the UN organized a videoconference to coordinate donor response – in conjunction with the European Commission (EC), the IMF and the World Bank. The result was not exactly brilliant: a paltry 252 million euros were pledged – once again conditioned by “institutional reforms”.
France came up with 30 million euros, Kuwait with 40 million, Qatar with 50 million and the EC with 68 million. Crucially, neither Russia nor Iran were among the donors. The US – which is harshly sanctioning Lebanon – and GCC allies Saudi Arabia and UAE pledged nothing. China had just a pro forma presence.
In parallel, Maronite Christians in Brazil – a very powerful community – are sending funds for the color revolution protests. Former President Michel Temer and industrialist tycoon Paulo Skaf even flew to Beirut. Former Lebanese President Amin Gemayel (1982-1988) maintained a lot of businesses in Brazil with funds he skimmed when in power.
All of the above points to neoliberalism taking no prisoners when it comes to keeping its deadly grip on Lebanon.
The Hariri model
Lebanon’s profound economic crisis, now aggravated by the Beirut port blast, has nothing to do with Covid-19 or the US proxy war on Syria – which brought a million refugees to the nation. It’s all about proverbial neoliberal shock and awe, conducted non-stop by the Hariri clan: former Prime Ministers Rafiq, assassinated in 2011, and Saad, chased out of power last January.
The Hariri model was focused on real estate speculation and financialization. The Solidere group, controlled by Arab investors and a few Lebanese, Hariri included, destroyed Beirut’s historical downtown and rebuilt it with luxury real estate. That’s the classical rentier neoliberalism model that always profits a tiny elite.
In parallel, the Bank of Lebanon was attracting funds from the tony Lebanese diaspora and assorted Arab investors by practicing very generous interest rates. Lebanon suddenly had an artificially strong currency.
A small middle class sort of flourished throughout the 2000s, comprising import-export traders, the tourism sector and financial market operators. Yet, overall, inequality was the name of the game. According to the World Inequality Database, half of Lebanon’s population now holds less wealth that the top 0.1%.
The bubble finally burst in September last year, when I happened to be in Beirut. With no US dollars in circulation, the Lebanese pound started to collapse in the black market. The Bank of Lebanon went berserk. When the Hariri racket imposed a “Whatsapp tax” over calls, that led to massive protests in October. Capital embarked on free flight and the currency collapsed for good.
There’s absolutely no evidence the IMF, the World Bank and assorted Western/Arab “donors” will extricate a now devastated Lebanon from the neoliberal logic that plunged it into a systemic crisis in the first place.
The way out would be to focus in productive investments, away from finance and geared towards the practical necessities of an austerity-battered and completely impoverished population.
Yet Macron, the IMF and their “partners” are only interested in keeping monetary “stability”; seduce speculative foreign capital; make sure that the rapacious, Western-connected Lebanese oligarchy will get away with murder; and on top of it buy scores of Lebanese assets for peanuts.
BRI or bust
In stark contrast with the exploitative perpetuation of the Western neoliberal model, China is offering Lebanon the chance to Go East, and be part of the New Silk Roads.
In 2017, Lebanon signed to join the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
In 2018, Lebanon became the 87th member of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
Over the past few years, Lebanon was already taking part in the internationalization of the yuan, offering bank accounts in yuan and increasing bilateral trade in yuan.
Beijing was already engaged in discussions revolving around the upgrading of Lebanese infrastructure – including the expansion of Beirut harbor.
This means that now Beijing may be in the position of offering a renewed, joint rebuilding/security deal for Beirut port – just as it was about to clinch a smaller agreement with Diab’s government, focused only on expansion and renovation.
The bottom line is that China has an actual Plan A to extricate Lebanon from its current financial dead end.
And that’s exactly what was, and remains, total anathema to US, NATO and Israel’s interests.
The Trump administration recently went no holds barred to prevent Israel from having China develop the port of Haifa.
The same “offer you can’t refuse” tactics will be applied with full force on whoever leads the new Lebanese government.
Beirut is an absolutely key node in BRI’s geopolitical/geoeconomic connectivity of the Eastern Mediterranean. With Haifa temporarily out of the picture, Beirut grows in importance as a gateway to the EU, complementing the role of Pireus and Italian ports in the Adriatic.
It’s crucial to note that the port itself was not destroyed. The enormous crater on site replaces only a section quayside – and the rest is on water. The buildings destroyed can be rebuilt in record time. Reconstruction of the port is estimated at $15 billion – pocket money for an experienced company such as China Harbor.
Meanwhile, naval traffic is being redirected to Tripoli port, 80 km north of Beirut and only 30 km away from the Lebanon-Syria border. Its director, Ahmed Tamer, confirms “the port has witnessed during the past years the expansion work by Chinese companies, and it has received the largest ships from China, carrying a big number of containers”.
Add to it the fact that Tripoli port will also be essential in the process of Syria reconstruction – to which China is totally committed.
BRI’s Southwest Asia connectivity network is a maze including Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
China is already planning to invest in highway and railroads, further to be developed into high-speed rail. That will connect BRI’s central China-Iran corridor – fresh from the $400 billion, 25-year strategic partnership deal soon to be signed – with the Eastern Mediterranean.
Add to it the role of the port of Tartus in Syria – bearing a strong Russian naval presence. Beijing will inevitably invest in the expansion of Tartus – which is crucially linked by highway to Lebanon. The Russia-China strategic partnership will be involved in the protection of Tartus with S-300 and S-400 missile systems.
Historically, in a larger axis that went from Samarkand to Cordoba, with strong nodes such as Baghdad and Damascus, what slowly evolved in this part of Eurasia was a syncretic civilization superimposed over an ancestral regional, rural and nomad background. The internal cohesion of the Muslim world was forged from the 7th century to the 11th century: that was the key factor that shaped the lineaments of a coherent Eurasia.
Apart from Islam, Arabic – the language of religion, administration, trade and culture – was an essential unifying factor. This evolving Muslim world was configured as a vast economic and cultural domain whose roots connected to Greek, Semitic, Persian, Indian and Arab thought. It was a marvelous synthesis that formed a unique civilization out of elements of different origin – Persian, Mesopotamian, Byzantine.
The Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean were of course part of it, totally open towards the Indian Ocean, the Caspian routes, Central Asia and China.
Now, centuries later, Lebanon should have everything to gain by ditching the “Paris of the Orient” mythology and looking East – again, thus positioning itself on the right side of History.
Singaporean ex-diplomat and author Kishore Mahbubani speaks at an Asia Society event in a file photo. Photo: Flickr Commons
As a living embodiment of how East and West shall meet, Mahbubani is immeasurably more capable to talk about Chinese-linked intricacies than shallow, self-described Western “experts” on Asia and China.
Especially now when demonization-heavy hybrid war 2.0 against China is practiced by most factions of the US government, the Deep State and the East Coast establishment.
Distinguished fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Asia Research Institute, former president of the UN Security Council (from 2001 to 2002) and the founding dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (2004-2017), Mahbubani is the quintessential Asian diplomat.
Ruffling feathers is not his business. On the contrary, he always deploys infinite patience – and insider knowledge – when trying to explain especially to Americans what makes the Chinese civilization-state tick.
All through a book elegantly argued and crammed with persuasive facts, it feels like Mahbubani is applying the Tao. Be like water. Let it flow. He floats like a butterfly reaching beyond his own “paradoxical conclusion”: “A major geopolitical contest between America and China is both inevitable and avoidable.” He centers on the paths towards the “avoidable.”
The contrast with the confrontational, stale and irrelevant Thucydides Trap mindset prevalent in the US could not be starker. It’s quite enlightening to observe the contrast between Mahbubani and Harvard University’s Graham Allison – who seem to admire each other – at a China Institute debate.
An important clue to his approach is when Mahbubani tells us how his Hindu mother used to take him to Hindu and Buddhist temples in Singapore – even as in the island-state most Buddhist monks were actually Chinese. Here we find encapsulated the key cultural/philosophical India-China crossover that defines “deep” East Asia, linking Confucianism, Buddhism and the Tao.
All about the US dollar
For Asia hands, and for those, as in my case, who have actually lived in Singapore, it’s always fascinating to see how Mahbubani is the quintessential Lee Kuan Yew disciple, though without the haughtiness. As much as his effort to understand China from the inside, across the spectrum, for decades, is more than visible, he’s far from being a disciple of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
And he stresses the point in myriad ways, showing how, in the party slogan, “Chinese” is way more important than “Communist”: “Unlike the Soviet Communist Party, [the CCP] is not riding on an ideological wave; it is riding the wave of a resurgent civilization … the strongest and most resilient civilization in history.”
Inescapably, Mahbubani outlines both Chinese and American geopolitical and geo-economic challenges and shortcomings. And that leads us to arguably the key argument in the book: how he explains to Americans the recent erosion of global trust in the former “indispensable nation,” and how the US dollar is its Achilles’ heel.
So once again we have to wallow in the interminable mire of reserve currency status; its “exorbitant privilege,” the recent all-out weaponization of the US dollar and – inevitably – the counterpunch: those “influential voices” now working to stop using the US dollar as reserve currency.
Enter blockchain technology and the Chinese drive to set up an alternative currency based on blockchain. Mahbubani takes us to a China Finance 40 Forum in August last year, when the deputy director of the People’s Bank of China, Mu Changchun, said the PBOC was “close” to issuing its own cryptocurrency.
Two months later, President Xi announced that blockchain would become a “high priority” and a matter of long-term national strategy. It’s happening now. The digital yuan – as in a “sovereign blockchain” – is imminent.
And that leads us to the role of the US dollar in financing global trade. Mahbubani correctly analyzes that once this is over, “the complex international system based on the US dollar could come tumbling down, rapidly or slowly.” China’s master plan is to accelerate the process by connecting its digital platforms – Alipay, WeChat Pay – into one global system.
Asian Century
As Mahbubani carefully explains, “while Chinese leaders want to rejuvenate Chinese civilization, they have no missionary impulse to take over the world and make everyone Chinese.” And still, “America convinced itself that China has become an existential threat.”
The best and the brightest across Asia, Mahbubani included, never cease to be amazed at the American system’s total inability to “make strategic adjustments to this new phase in history.” Mahbubani dedicates a whole chapter – “Can America make U-turns?” – to the quandary.
In the appendix he even adds a text by Stephen Walt debunking “the myth of American exceptionalism.” There’s no evidence the Exceptionalistan ethos is being seriously contested.
A recent McKinsey report analyzes whether the “next normal” will emerge from Asia, and some of its conclusions are inevitable: “The future global story starts in Asia.” It goes way beyond prosaic numbers stating that in 20 years, by 2040, “Asia is expected to represent 40% of global consumption and 52% of GDP.”
The report argues that, “we may look back on this pandemic as the tipping point when the Asian Century truly began.”
In 1997, during the same week when I was covering the Hong Kong handover, I published a book in Brazil whose translated title was 21st: The Asian Century (excerpts from a few chapters may be found here). By that time I had already lived in Asia for three years, and learned quite a few important lessons from Mahbubani’s Singapore.
China then was still a distant player on the new horizon. Now it’s a completely different ball game. The Asian Century – actually Eurasian Century – is already on, as Eurasia integration develops driven by hard-working acronyms (BRI, AIIB, SCO, EAEU) and the Russia-China strategic partnership.
Mahbubani’s book, capturing the elusive, unbearable lightness of China, is the latest illustration of this inexorable flow of history.
Has China Won? The Chinese Challenge to American Primacy (Kishore Mahbubani), published by Public Affairs (US$19.89).
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 
.svg){kind=link}