أفكار غربية مِن خارج الصندوق: روسيا هي مَن يكسب الحرب

 الخميس 23 حزيران 2022

وليد شرارة

خلال الأشهر الماضية، أعرب عدّة مسؤولين أميركيين وغربيين عن اقتناعهم بأن الحرب في أوكرانيا ستكون طويلة. آخر هؤلاء هو الأمين العام لحلف «الناتو»، ينس ستولتنبرغ، الذي دعا من واشنطن، بعد لقائه الرئيس الأميركي، جو بايدن، في الثاني من الشهر الحالي، الغرب إلى الاستعداد لحرب استنزاف مديدة في هذا البلد. عكس هذا الاقتناع في الواقع توجّهاً غربياً للسعي لتحويل أوكرانيا إلى «أفغانستان جديدة» بالنسبة إلى روسيا، من أجل إضعافها وإلحاق هزيمة بها، كما جرى مع الاتحاد السوفياتي السابق. يتساءل بعض المراقبين «الخبثاء» عن «العقل الفذّ» الذي يقف خلف مثل هذه الاستراتيجية. ارتبط «الفخّ الأفغاني» باسم زبيغنيو بريجنسكي، أحد كبار الاستراتيجيين الأميركيين، ومستشار الأمن القومي للرئيس الأميركي آنذاك، جيمي كارتر. أراد بريجنسكي، البولوني الأصل والشديد العداء للسوفيات، الانتقام لهزيمة فيتنام عبر إلحاق أخرى شبيهة بها بموسكو في بلاد الأفغان. جميع حروب أميركا الكبرى في النصف الثاني من القرن العشرين، بمعزل عن نتائجها الفعلية، أدارها أصحاب خبرة لا يستهان بهم في الشؤون الاستراتيجية والدولية كهنري كيسنجر وروبرت ماكنمارا وجورج بوش الأب وجيمس بايكر، وآخرين. مَن هو «السيد» أو «السيدة» أوكرانيا، كما يلقَّب عادةً المكلّفون بالإشراف على ملفّ محدّد في الإدارات الأميركية، في فريق بايدن؟ هل هو جايك سوليفان، مستشار الأمن القومي، أو أنتوني بلينكن، وزير الخارجية، أو فيكتوريا نولاند، مساعدة وزير الخارجية للشؤون السياسية، أو غيرهم؟ أقلّ ما يمكن أن يقال بالنسبة إلى نتائج الحرب بعد أكثر من 100 يوم على اندلاعها، ولتداعياتها الاستراتيجية والاقتصادية الإجمالية، هو أنها مخالفة، ومتناقضة في العديد من المجالات، مع «التوقّعات» الأميركية والغربية.

لم تمنع المواجهة المحتدمة في أوكرانيا، فلاديمير بوتين، من التأكيد، في الخطاب الذي ألقاه أمام «منتدى بطرسبرغ الاقتصادي الدولي»، أن العالم الأحادي القطب قد انتهى، على رغم المحاولات المضنية لإحيائه، وأن الثقة في العملات العالمية تقوّضت كرمى للطموحات والأوهام الجيوسياسية التي عفا عليها الزمن. قد يكون الأنكى بالنسبة إلى بايدن وفريقه هو مشاطرة شخصيات أميركية وازنة لمِثل هذه الاستنتاجات، والإعلان عنها في مداخلات علنية ومقالات، ما يسهم في المزيد من إضعاف الإجماع الداخلي حول سياسات هذا الفريق. التداعيات الكارثية لحروب أفغانستان والعراق الكارثية على الموقع الدولي لواشنطن، لم تشفها من إدمانها على الحروب المباشرة، أو تلك التي تُخاض بالوكالة، ظنّاً منها أنها ستوقف انحدارها. وعلى الرغم من أن أصواتاً بارزة، محسوبة تاريخياً على المؤسسة الحاكمة، أو أخرى معارضة، كبرنت سكوكروفت، مستشار الأمن القومي لبوش الأب، أو بريجنسكي المذكور سالفاً، أو إيمانويل والرشتاين، حذّرت مراراً من مغبّة المضيّ في هذا النهج، فإن صنّاع القرار المتتالين لم يكترثوا لتحذيراتهم.

عن شخصيات شاركت بقوة في الحرب الباردة ضدّ الاتحاد السوفياتي، وأدّت إحداها، والمقصود هنري كيسنجر، دوراً حاسماً في استكمال تطويقه عبر هندسة صفقة استراتيجية مع الصين نجحت في استمالتها إلى واشنطن ضدّه. عارض كيسنجر، في كلمته أمام «منتدى دافوس» الأخير، الهدف الأميركي من الحرب، والذي أفصح عنه وزير الدفاع، لويد جونسون، والمتمثّل في إضعاف روسيا، معتبراً أن «المفاوضات يجب أن تبدأ خلال الشهرَين المقبلين قبل أن تؤدي الحرب إلى اضطرابات وتوترات لن يكون من السهولة بمكان التغلّب عليها. ومن الأفضل أن يكون الهدف هو العودة إلى الوضع السابق على اندلاعها»، أي الموافقة على تقديم أوكرانيا تنازلات لروسيا، عبر التخلّي عن أراض لها. وهو طالب القادة الغربيين بعدم «الانجراف في مزاج اللحظة» ، وبإجبار أوكرانيا على التفاوض.
محارب آخر من زمن الحرب الباردة، وهو غراهام فولر، أدلى بدلوه في النقاش الدائر حالياً. وفولر، لِمن لا يعرفه، عمل لمدّة 27 عاماً مع المخابرات المركزية ووزارة الخارجية الأميركية، وهو عُيّن من قِبل الوكالة نائباً لرئيس المجلس الوطني للاستخبارات في 1986. فولر متخصّص في الشؤون الشرق أوسطية والروسية، وخبير في الحركات الإسلامية، ويُحسب أنه من دعاة «انفتاح» واشنطن عليها، وكان لدراساته ومقالاته الكثيرة عن هذا الموضوع تأثير أكيد على اتخاذ قرار الحوار معها من قِبل إدارات أميركية متعاقبة. هو رأى، في مقال على مدوّنته بعنوان «بعض الأفكار الجادة عن ما بعد الحرب في أوكرانيا»، أنه «على العكس من البيانات الانتصارية لواشنطن، فإن روسيا هي مَن يفوز في الحرب، وأوكرانيا مَن يخسرها. أما بالنسبة إلى خسائر موسكو الطويلة الأمد، فهي قابلة للنقاش. العقوبات الأميركية ضدّها اتّضح أن مفاعيلها كارثية على أوروبا أولاً. الاقتصاد العالمي يتباطأ، والعديد من البلدان النامية تعاني من نقص في المواد الغذائية وقد تتعرّض لخطر مجاعات واسعة… ستندم أوروبا الغربية على اليوم الذي انقادت فيه بشكل أعمى خلف الولايات المتحدة للتورّط في حرب ليست أوكرانية – روسية، بل أميركية – روسية تُخاض بالوكالة حتى آخر أوكراني». وهو يشير إلى أن مصادرة الموجودات الروسية في البنوك الغربية تحفّز بقيّة العالم على إعادة النظر في الاعتماد الحصري على الدولار كعملة احتياطية: «لقد بات تنويع الأدوات الاقتصادية الدولية مطروحاً، وهو سيُضعف موقع واشنطن الاقتصادي المهيمن سابقاً، واستخدامها الأحادي للدولار كسلاح». ويختم فولر لافتاً إلى أن الشراكة المتعاظمة بين موسكو وبكين هي الرهان المستقبلي لروسيا، التي تمتلك «علماء لامعين، ووفرة في مصادر الطاقة والمعادن النادرة، والتي سيكون فيها لقدرات سيبيريا الزراعية أهمية فائقة في ظلّ الأزمة البيئية. الصين لديها الرساميل والأسواق والقوة الإنتاجية للمساهمة في بناء شراكة طبيعية معها في أوراسيا».

جوزف ستيغليتز، أحد كبار اقتصاديّي «البنك الدولي» سابقاً، والناقد المعروف للعولمة النيوليبرالية، لم يشارك في الحرب الباردة، غير أنه لا يكنّ ودّاً خاصاً لروسيا. هو رأى في مقال بعنوان «كيف يمكن أن تخسر الولايات المتحدة الحرب الباردة الجديدة»، أن من الأفضل للولايات المتحدة، التي تبدو جادّة في منافستها للصين على الريادة العالمية، أن تركّز على إعادة ترتيب بيتها الداخلي. هي لا تريد أن تُزاح عن موقعها المهيمن، لكن الأمر حتمي، لأن عدد سكان الصين 4 أضعاف عدد سكانها، ولأن اقتصاد الأولى ينمو بوتيرة أسرع بثلاث مرّات من سرعة نموّ اقتصادها. الأسوأ بنظر ستيغليتز، هو فقدان واشنطن صدقيّة نموذجها وجاذبيته أمام بقيّة شعوب الكوكب، بسبب حروبها العدوانية، واستشراء العنصرية والفوارق الاجتماعية في داخلها. وقد كشفت الأزمة المالية والاقتصادية في 2008 وجائحة «كورونا» هشاشة نموذجها، وكذلك انتخاب دونالد ترامب والانقسام السياسي الذي نجم عنه ومحاولة «الكابيتول» الانقلابية عند خسارته الانتخابات في 2021. هي ليست مؤهّلة لإعطاء الدروس وقيادة جبهات عالمية ضدّ الصين، «التي لم تعط دروساً، لكنها قدّمت للبلدان النامية بنى تحتية حيوية بالنسبة إليها».
قد لا تلقى هذه الآراء آذاناً صاغية بين صنّاع القرار في واشنطن، لكنها ستجد اهتماماً بين النخب وفي أوساط الرأي العام، وخاصة مع اشتداد التضخّم والأزمة الاقتصادية – الاجتماعية المرشّحة للتفاقم، والوثيقة الصلة بتداعيات الحرب في أوكرانيا. أصبحت أغلبية الأميركيين وبقيّة شعوب العالم تعرف أن المحافظين الجدد هم المسؤولون عن تسارع الانحدار الأميركي بسبب السياسات التي أوصوا بها، وهم سيهتمّون بلا شك بمعرفة «العقل المدبّر» للحرب على روسيا، والتي لم تنجم عنها حتى اللحظة سوى الخسائر.

The High Cost of American Friendship

June 19, 2022

Source

By Eamon Mckinney

Democracy is easily defined by most, but to America it means any country that subverts its own national interests to those of the U.S.

Henry Kissinger once famously said, “To be an enemy to America can be dangerous, but to be a friend can be lethal.” The aged but far from venerable Kissinger’s words have never been truer than they are today. America has a habit of redefining words to suit its own purposes. What the word “friend” means to America is interpreted differently by other nations. Of course friend is not the only word that means something different to America than it does to everyone else. Democracy is easily defined by most, but to America it means any country that subverts its own national interests to those of the U.S. The recent Summit of the Americas held in Los Angeles hosted a number of notable Latin America statesmen. There were however many notable absentees, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, the latter two are undeniably democracies but by virtue of their independent government policies they were not welcome at the American-hosted summit. According to America’s twisted version of democracy, only right-wing, neo-liberal, America-friendly countries can qualify as legitimate democratic governments, and by extension “friends.”

The days when America can dictate and bully Latin American nations are over. Though not as intended by the hosts, there was much unity and friendship in evidence at the Summit. The head of Mexico’s socialist Government Manuel Lopez Obrador refused to attend in protest at the exclusion of the three absent nations, a lower-level official was sent in his stead. The heads of state of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador also declined the invitation citing the same reason. This principled and courageous stance came with the understanding that they would be positioning themselves as American enemies, but they did it anyway. After two hundred years under the imperialist Monroe doctrine they will no longer tolerate being considered America’s backyard. The message from Latin America was clear, “we don’t need your version of friendship, and we will take our chances as your enemy.”

Although unstated, one of the main U.S. objectives at the Summit was to dissuade further Latin American engagement with China. The problem for America is that “south of the border” they prefer the Chinese version of friendship. That entails actually listening to the needs of their “friends”, something America is lamentably bad at. All the Latin countries are struggling with burdensome IMF debt and many are seriously close to default. They need investment in their economies and their infrastructure. China offers both without the internal interference in the nations’ domestic affairs. Respect for sovereignty and self-determination is what Latin Americans having been fighting for since the Spanish conquest more than 400 years ago. For the first time in centuries countries can see how that can now be achieved, and China is a big part of that scenario. America only offers co-operation on security, Latin America has security concerns but most of that concern is directed at America. The tone deaf empire needs to understand that Latin America has a new, much better friend.

The message the U.S. got from the Summit was a clear continent-wide rejection of American policies and its attempts to create an anti-China block. We can assume that American officials are getting used to such rejection by now. Attempts to create an anti-China alliance in Asia have also failed miserably, for many of the same reasons. No Asian country sees China as a threat, they see it as a regional leader whose economic miracle has concurrently raised the economies of its neighbours. The U.S. attempts to create security concerns where they don’t exist has gained zero traction among Southeast Asian nations. With the exception of the occupied nations of South Korea and Japan, China’s relationships with its Asian neighbours are excellent. “Malaysian Prime Minister Ismail Jaakob said that “When Americans come to Asia they only want to talk about security, we have no pressing security concerns, when Asian nations get together we talk about trade, any problems can be resolved through negotiation and diplomacy”. The main security concern among Asian nations is the talk of the need for an Asian NATO. The recent U.S. attempts to place missiles aimed at China in six Asian countries unsurprisingly found no takers. If America was listening (doubtful), they would have heard that it is neither needed nor wanted in a region that just wants to do business. American friendship in Asia means making any enemy of China, and none consider that worth the price.

Another of America’s enemies, Russia has defied all attempts to destroy its economy and has rebounded to have the world’s strongest currency. The transparent motivations behind the Ukraine conflict have many nations quietly cheering Russia on in their fight against the common enemy, the Empire. The sanctions designed to destroy Russia found little support outside the usual suspects in the NATO clique. With the world facing catastrophic shortages of food, energy and capital it is increasingly Russia and China that countries are turning to for help.

While America’s enemies continue to enjoy much goodwill, how are America’s friends doing? Not so good. By joining in the absurd Anti-China Covid rhetoric spurred by Trump, Australia, Canada and Britain have committed economic suicide by alienating a valuable trade partner, just to please America. American friends in Europe will suffer through horrific food and energy shortages together with rapidly increasing inflation, all largely a result of the Ukraine provocation. Not forgetting the instigation of an unnecessary and dangerous war in their neighbourhood, a war that no one but America (NATO) wanted. And of course the Ukraine itself, goaded into a disastrous war against a much stronger foe, now finds itself facing defeat and destruction. All attempts by the hapless Zelensky at a negotiated peace are blocked by the West. Not while there are some Ukrainians still alive apparently. Despite the encouraging words of his American masters, the disposable Zelensky finds himself very much alone. The once prosperous post-Soviet Ukraine has turned into a bankrupt, burned-out shell of its former self. Zelensky may well retreat to his $45mil in Miami when it is all over, but the unfortunate Ukrainian people will suffer the consequences of American friendship for generations to come.

If America has its way, its “friends” in Taiwan will soon suffer the same fate as the Ukraine. Despite all attempts to provoke China into an action that would draw International outrage, and presumably sanctions, China has demonstrated considerable restraint. It understands the game being played and absent a foolish Declaration of Independence from Taiwan, it is unlikely to be drawn in. South Korea and Japan have been occupied nations since 1944. The American presence is overwhelmingly objected to by the citizens, yet they owe fealty to America. In the event of a China conflict, their U.S. bases would likely be the first targets in any China response. Yet both nations declined American requests to host China facing missiles in their countries.

The loss of American influence has accelerated tremendously in recent months, and it came at a bad time. America needs friends more than ever now and it is finding them increasingly hard to come by. Even long time “friends” and supplicants like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are shunning America’s call to produce more oil. Biden couldn’t even get MBS to take his phone call. Shamelessly they also turned to Venezuela to ask for oil, unsurprisingly they found no friends or solutions there either.

Returning to Henry Kissinger, by his definition, being a friend or enemy of America can be equally dangerous. “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”

Those that consider themselves American “friends” should heed his words.

But credit where it is due, the U.S. is indeed inspiring a new spirit of friendship and co-operation among the nations of the world. Economic and security blocs of like-minded countries are expanding in Central Asia, Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America. All of these blocs are anti-imperialist in nature, and by definition anti-American. More than a century of American imperialism is coming to a rapid end.

حراس الهيكل يقاتلون القهقرى وبحرنا يرسم قوس النصر…


الخميس 16 حزيران 2022

 محمد صادق الحسيني

«لن نقاتل عنكم بعد اليوم ولدينا الكثير ما نفعله لإعادة تأهيل خزائن مجمع الصناعات الحربية وبيوت المال النفطية والغازية لشركاتنا.»

هذا ما سيقوله بايدن الشهر المقبل حين يزور الكيانين المتهالكين «الإسرائيلي» والسعودي.

لن تكون المنظومة التي سيطلق ورشتها اليانكي الأميركي هجوميّة أبداً، بل دفاعية بكلّ معنى الكلمة.

هي محاولة سدّ المنافذ والمسارب التي بدأت تتسلل الى البيت «الإسرائيلي» الغارق في التيه، والبيت السعودي الأعمى!

وكيسنجر في حديثه الصحافي الأخير لم يتحدث عن الحرب أبداً مثلما فسّر البعض، بل إنّ ما قصده من عبارة تحوّلات كبرى تنتظر منطقتنا ليست سوى خرائط النفط والغاز الجديدة التي ستكون نحن من يحدّد شكلها وهي التي سترسم حدود البلدان من الآن فصاعداً وليست الجيوش التقليدية.

إنها معركة إرادات ومقاومات ومعارك من نوع جديد يمكن وصفها بالضربات بين المعارك والحروب وليست حروب جيوش جرارة تفرز حرباً عالمية، كما يهوّل البعض!

وما قرأه كيسنجر كان بعين الخبير المخضرم للنظام العالمي الجديد الذي سيقلب النظام العالمي الحالي على عقبيه من قلب تضاريس بلاد العرب بعد كلّ الهزائم التي تلقاها خلال عقد من الزمان في الكرّ والفرّ عندنا ويتوّج اليوم بالهزيمة الكبرى المرتقبة له في أوكرانيا.

نعم من بحر عكا وبحر صور لبحر بانياس وبحر اللاذقية سيتمّ تظهير الفشل الأميركي وسيتبيّن للعالم أنّ ساكن البيت الأبيض لم يعد شرطيّ العالم، بعد أن تهشمت صورته في أكثر من معركة على بوابات عواصم محورنا المقاوم وسواحل مدننا وبلداتنا من بوابات الشام الى أسوار بغداد وتخوم صنعاء، ومن هرمز الى باب المندب ومن البصرة الى الناقورة…

لا يخطئنّ أحد التقدير بأنّ المعركة الحالية سواء تلك التي ستدار في المضائق والأحواض النفطية والغازية عندنا او تلك التي تدار حالياً في أعالي البحار عند أصدقائنا الروس والصينيين أنها معركة هجومية أميركية…

أبداً ليست كذلك، إنها معركتهم الدفاعية الأخيرة وهم يتجهون بتسارع شديد نحو قعر جهنّم كما يصفهم الصينيون في ردهات مطابخ قرارهم.

 انها المعركة التي نحن من يمسك بتلابيبها ونحن الذين فيها في حالة هجوم استراتيجي حتى وانْ كنا نعيش أعلى درجات الضغوط وشظف الحصارات الاقتصادية!

صدقوني انهم يقاتلون القهقرى رغم كلّ استعراضات القوة والضربات الإيذائية هنا وهناك…

 انهم يقاتلون بشراسة تكتيكية لتقليل أثمان الانسحاب الاستراتيجي، وتقسيط تكاليف خسائر حروبهم الإقليمية الفاشلة وآخرها تلك التي خاضوها عند بوابات الشام والعالميّة ضدّ أصدقائنا وآخرها تلك التي يخوضونها حالياً في أوكرانيا.

لو كانوا في حالة موازين قوى تصبّ لصالحهم لم يتردّدوا لحظة واحدة لإرسال جيوشهم الجرارة الى بلادنا وقاموا بقصف وتدمير واحتلال مدننا وبلداتنا وجعلوا الموازين عاليها سافلها، لكنهم عاجزون ولا يملكون إلا التسليم بموازين القوى التي باتت لغير صالحهم بكلّ الحسابات.

إنها حسابات إقطاعيّات أوروبا وأميركا التي ترسم ذلك بدقة متناهية للحكومات الحارسة للهيكل العام للشركات المتعددة الجنسية وهي التي توجّههم بهذا الاتجاه او ذاك.

وليست الحكومات في واشنطن وباريس ولندن وغيرها من عواصم المتروبول الا أدوات تنفيذية عند آلهة السلاح والنفط والغاز والمال الحرام!

 للأسف طبعاً فإنّ الأغلب الأعمّ من الناس في العالم، انما يظنّ أنّ أميركا، وبالتالي ألمانيا واليابان، وبقية الدول الأوروبية، هي دول كبيرة راسخة، ولديها مؤسساتها الدستورية والقانونية، وجيشها وشرطتها وما الى ذلك،

وانّ فيها حكومات تحافظ على مصالح شعوبها، وأمن أوطانها ومستقبلها، وبقية الأسطوانة المعتادة التي نسمعها من كبار المحللين والكتاب العاملين لديهم…

وهو غش واحتيال وخداع بات مكشوفاً، لمن ألقى السمع وهو بصير، بعد المواجهة الروسية الأطلسية الأميركية في أوكرانيا، خصوصاً مع اشتعال حروب الطاقة ومجمعات الصناعات الحربية.

بنظرة واقعية إجمالية ثبت بالدليل والبرهان إنّ هذه الجغرافية الحكومية الغربية ما هي إلا إقطاعيات من العصور الوسطى، تعود للملك، وحاشيته من الأرستقراطيين والنبلاء، والناس عبيد مملوكة لهم، تعمل باليوميّة، لصالح بضعة أوليغارشيات، في تلك المصانع والمزارع والمناجم والمحاجر والشركات وآبار البترول إلخ…

بينما صار واضحاً لدينا الآن أنّ الشركات العالمية التي ظهرت على سطوح جغرافيا القتال أمثال بوينغ ولوكهيد ورايثون وجنرال اليكتريك وأمازون ومايكروسوفت وبنك إنجلترا وبنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي ووول استريت ليست شركات حكومية تعود لهذه الدول الكبيرة…

أبداً ليس كذلك، إنها في الحقيقة ليست سوى شركات متعددة الجنسية تعود لبضعة أفراد من بيوت المال العالمية، وهذه الحكومات «الجبارة» مثل حكومة ماكرون وبوريس جونسون وترامب بالأمس وبايدن اليوم ليست سوى حارس يحرس هذه الأموال لأصحابها الأوليغارش.

وإذا كنا نظنّ انّ المنظمات العالمية مثل مجلس الأمن ومنظمة الصحة العالمية والبنك الدولي وصندوق النقد الدولي ومنظمة العدل ومنظمة التجارة الحرة وما يسمّى بالمجتمع الدولي، انما هي منظمات دولية تعمل لأجل شعوب العالم ورفاهيته وأمنه وصحته فنحن مخطئون ايضاً…

لقد اتضح للقاصي والداني الآن بأنها هي الأخرى ليست سوى مجرد حارس مصالح تلك الشركات العالمية المتعددة الجنسيات، ايّ انها مثلها مثل «بلاك واتر» وأمثالها، كلّ ما هنالك أنها تتمظهر بملابس مدنية وياقات بيضاء ويلبس مدراؤها قفازات ناعمة تخفي عن الرأي العام قبضاتها الحديدية وأسلحتها الرشاشة المغطاة بشكل جيد تحت معاطفها ومجملة بربطات عنق ملونة.

هيكلهم يتلاشى رويداً رويداً والعالم يتغيّر بسرعة لصالحنا.

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

Ukraine to decide how much territory it trades for peace – NATO

12 Jun, 2022

Bloc chief Jens Stoltenberg said that a deal will come at a price, but insisted it’s up to Ukraine

Jens Stoltenberg speaks during a media conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, May 25, 2022 © AP / Olivier Matthys

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Sunday that the US-led bloc aims to strengthen Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table, but added that any peace deal would involve compromises, including on territory. 

Stoltenberg was speaking at the Kultaranta Talks in Finland, following a meeting with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto. While the NATO chief insisted that the West was willing to “pay a price” to strengthen the Ukrainian military, Kiev will have to make some territorial concessions to Moscow in order to end the current conflict.

“Peace is possible,” he outlined. “The only question is what price are you willing to pay for peace? How much territory, how much independence, how much sovereignty…are you willing to sacrifice for peace?”

Stoltenberg did not suggest what terms Ukraine should accept, saying that “it’s for those who are paying the highest price to make that judgment,” while NATO and the West continue supplying arms to the Ukrainians to “strengthen their hand” when a settlement is eventually negotiated.

The secretary general did not directly endorse the ceding of Ukrainian territory, but he did bring up the example of Finland, which gave up Karelia to the Soviet Union as part of a peace deal during the Second World War. Stoltenberg described the Finnish-Soviet settlement as “one of the reasons Finland was able to come out of the Second World War as an independent sovereign nation.”

Stoltenberg’s statement comes amid growing sentiment that Ukraine may soon be pressed into a peace deal by its Western backers. While US and British officials publicly insist that Ukraine “can win” its war with Russia, a recent CNN report suggests that officials in Washington, London and Brussels are meeting without their Ukrainian counterparts in an effort to plan a ceasefire and peace settlement. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also claimed that unnamed foreign parties have been trying to “push us a little” toward a deal, as the public in countries backing Ukraine grows “war weary.”

French President Emmanuel Macron has publicly denied urging Zelensky to give up some territory in exchange for an end to hostilities, as former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger suggested last month he should do.

Kissinger proposed in May that Ukraine accept a return to the “status quo ante,” meaning it would relinquish its territorial claims to Crimea and grant autonomy to the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Crimea has been a part of Russia since 2014, while Moscow recognized the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics several days before its military operation began in February. 

Zelensky has shifted positions several times on a potential peace deal, with the president periodically expressing interest in negotiating a settlement with Russia, only for his officials, the US State Department, or Zelensky himself, to express the opposite sentiment shortly afterwards. After announcing his willingness to enter negotiations late last month, Zelensky came out several days later and told his citizens that “there will be no alternative to our Ukrainian flags” flying over the Donbass republics.

“We understand that it is very difficult for Ukraine after all this fighting to give up their land,” Niinisto said during the discussion with Stoltenberg on Sunday. “But seeing that Russia would lose all its holdings is not at this point foreseeable. Gaining peace is absolutely difficult.”

You can share this story on social media:

For Europe, from Russia, with love

June 07, 2022

by Jorge Vilches https://thesaker.is/for-europe-from-russia-with-love/

The EU catch-22 conundrum involves many incongruous and conflicting issues each one of which must be solved first before solving any of the others in a context of constant change and dozens of mutually exclusive moving parts.

Simply put, the European situation is ultra-complex, far from enviable, and getting ever worse by the hour. Possibly a Rubik´s cube may represent the problem, but two of them would do it better. Still, you can easily google the solution for Rubik´s cube, but you cannot do that for the European conundrum. And as impossible as it may seem, I tried my best to convince the EU leadership to reverse their foolish decisions. Now, the big news is ( just as unbelievable…) that the Western collective brainos in charge are changing the MSM tune proposing that “a deal must now be made” as if orchestrated by top D.C. communication experts. And it probably is, why not ? Furthermore, most emphatically the living Henry Kissinger persona has boldly proposed the idea to the Davos crowd in.their.face.

fool me once

But HK is not alone and there must be some strategically huge thinking going on. Now even “The Guardian” tries to pivot realizing that “The perverse effects of sanctions means rising fuel and food costs for the rest of the world”. No kidding. ”Sooner or later, a deal must be made “. Congrats for such brilliant idea. And others also join the choir.

pax Russiana

The problem with “a deal must be made” is it contradicts history, and Valdai Director Timofei Bordachev for one.   There cannot be any “deal” in the Ukraine conflict simply because Russia wins and it´s way too late to negotiate anything after plenty of destruction and bloodshed and with no Ukranian or European intention of ever complying with Minsk 2. So Western credibility has reached negative values in the Russian collective mindset. What should take place though is a unilateral withdrawal and full capitulation of Western military support coupled with Ukraine´s unconditional surrender with voluntary regime change and even with a ´pax Russiana´ way beyond Minsk 2. Think US public opinion re Japan 1945 and the Pearl Harbor specter roaming in their minds, nothing less.

the EU conundrum

In an age were securing energy sourcing and ensuring strategic semiconductors is essential, Europe has dug for itself an ugly Catch-22 ditch that will directly hinder the livelihood of 800 million Europeans. Most dangerously, by picking a needless confrontation with Russia and banning the purchase of its oil, Europe has now unilaterally set itself up for an unmanageable outcome with assured negative consequences. This includes severe financial instability derived from

(1) disqualifying higher prices of seaborne risked, batched, necessarily variable and troublesome non-Russian crude oil feedstocks which will turn European products, services, and labor costs utterly expensive and non-competitive.

(2) unnecessarily sacrificing the energy security enjoyed during decades through cheap and reliable Russian Urals blend for yet unknown non-Russian vendors which in the best of cases will never ever match Russia, already a fully vetted, solid, experienced, close-by provider of unlimited quantities of very specific and high quality, door-to-door oils.

(3) spending a monumentally large amount of euros that Europe does not have nor should print while simultaneously risking project non-performance through the necessarily partialized, probably interrupted, postponed or aborted, and well-known trouble full reconversion investments now required for refineries, chemical processing plants, and every logistics infrastructure throughout European industry and trade. And all of this supposedly in 6 months time when 6 years would not be enough, meaning that non-compliance will be rampant by January 2023. Worse yet, having many half-finished, half-baked, half-tested facilities will mean the European energy & fuel matrix will stand flat-footed neither reconverted to yet unknown non-Russian oils nor processing the traditional and fully proven Urals blend (!!!)

 The real ultimate EU problem is ´negotiating´ from a position of extreme weakness it has dug itself into and should have always avoided. But at the same time, Europe cannot be anywhere independent from Russia. So the above will affect current and future European production of fuels to fertilizers and everything in between, from kerosene to diesel to gasoline affecting cars, trucks, buses, plastics, pesticides, agricultural, mining and industrial machinery, foodstuffs, water quality and availability, pharmaceuticals, ships, inks, airplanes, polymers, medical and industrial gases, sealing rings & membranes, power transmission, transformer and lube oils, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Attempting to execute the above under the described terms – and others not mentioned but technically even far more demanding – would be outright engineering and economics madness. But simultaneously attempting many impossible projects as now required throughout Europe within an ultra-narrow 6-month time-frame and everybody at the same time is sheer nonsensical stupidity, doomed to fail. Why do it then ? Because it´s mandated by the prevailing post-Brexit-US-Anglo-Saxon Russophobia that now hypnotized European leadership foolishly and irreversibly endorses.

Davos failed

Henry Kissinger knows it, but do they?.  Naturally, the EU leadership has made mistakes all along the 21st century, both technical and political, as fallible humans cannot avoid it. But the captains of the European ship this time around are going a long step further by unbelievably forcing its sailors to run around the deck like a bunch of beheaded chickens with no sense of purpose in rapidly approaching shallow waters in what seems to be a deliberate suicidal attempt. This has never happened before in recent history as the European success we all know was always based on superb and cheap Russian energy. The plan and policies were led by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who thought it out bottom-up, top-down, sideways, from left to right, from right to left, crossways, you name it. Until finally in the late 1990s reached the conclusion and convinced the European family of nations that Franz should marry Natasha. And so they remained happily married with many healthy and ambitious children until 2022 whereby the post-Brexit US Anglo-Saxon axis achieved the unthinkable by turning Europe against Russia yet again for the third time in a century as Prof. Michael Hudson has correctly observed. Meanwhile, absurdly enough, Poland is now proposing yet additional sanctions against Russia as if they did any good

wrong policy

Mike Whitney at The Unz Review reported how Henry Kissinger nailed it at Davos when claiming that “The EU policy is wrong… and must be changed immediately…or the damage to the US and its allies will be severe and permanent. Negotiations need to begin in the next two months”. So the Davos crowd heard it directly from a very famous horse´s mouth – the still most powerful former Establishment’s Voice – as he splashed ice-cold water at their staring eyes for concocting the current EU suicidal policy. Kissinger told the Davos messenger boys to their faces “you got it wrong” guys so report to your bosses that hurting US allies and US interests must stop immediately, right now. Of course, let´s recall that the real Davos puppeteers never bother to show up anywhere public in their “rules-based order” narrative, let alone at Davos proper. Furthermore, Whitney explained in no uncertain terms that “the basic strategy to weaken and isolate Russia by severing Russia’s economic ties with Europe and goading them into a long and costly quagmire in Ukraine” just pushes Russia and China to their mutual warm embrace. Thus, the West is making both the US No.1 and No.2 top rivals even stronger (unbeatable maybe ?) against US strategic interests. So “ the world’s manufacturing powerhouse (China) and the world’s second biggest producer of hydrocarbons (Russia) just got a helluva a lot better (together) because of Washington’s counterproductive war in Ukraine.” And forgot to add that Russia would also be the world´s topmost nuclear power with flight-ready hypersonic vector delivery capabilities. So already very much with us are supply line disruptions, food and energy shortages, with high inflation rearing its ugly head and worldwide unstoppable deglobalization. But more is coming with massive migrations and unemployment that will necessarily follow as Ukraine calls Germany´s policy “a disgrace”

energy insecurity

Obvious to any clear-thinking and reasonably informed mind, Western energy security is not secure anymore thanks to the EU policy vis-á-vis Ukraine thus placing Western livelihoods and wellbeing at stake. So Russia now has been forced to pull a 180 on the West while successfully focusing on China, India, and the remaining 85% of the world´s population, not NATO´s 15%. Meanwhile, European mismanagement stupidly ensures no possible rewinding for such a trend while Russia can freeze and starve Europe to death anytime it wants as humans are only a few meals away from survival. By the way, Russia has just limited the export of noble gases, a key ingredient in the manufacture of semiconductor chips. So, for example, no neon means no chips which would prolong a worldwide semiconductor supply crisis already wreaking havoc for a wide swath of EU industries. Or just a bit less of Russian natural gas means deep problems for Switzerland which would have to cover its electricity import needs from its other neighbors Germany, Austria, and Italy. Yet, the power export availability of those countries would heavily depend on the available fossil fuels, mostly Russian natural gas to be paid, of course, in nothing else but Rubles.

rubber meets road

The world oil market is finite one and the same. What you buyeth, someone else selleth. If the declared intended goal is to deprive Russia of oil revenue, that would mean that all exportable Russian oils — or a very important fraction thereof – would stay in Russia wherever (even subsurface) but not sold to anyone. That would necessarily mean that approximately 35% of the world´s currently imported oil would have non-Russian vendors. Now there´s no mystery here, so who would that be? Iran and Venezuela would not for different but still well-known technical reasons. So would it be Oman? Let alone whether Oman would have the right quality base blend oil, but still how much constant quality oil can Oman export to the EU? Would Norway suddenly supply all Europe?

(1) So, every refinery in Europe would not possibly be modified and tuned up for, say, a blend based on Oman spot crude. So which ones would and which ones would not? On what basis? Would there be EU infighting for vendors?

(2) such modifications and tuneups would be done all at the same time and with a tremendously strict deadline.

(3) is there enough deliverable surplus Oman or Norwegian blend base oil (or equivalent) to substitute for all current EU consumption of Russian Urals? What percentage then? 10% ? 20 % ? what about the remaining 80%?

(4) What about the added complication of seaborne batch delivery and still missing inland logistics infrastructure?

(5) Thousands of yet unknown people are needed to execute all of these projects with yet to be defined job descriptions, yet to be interviewed, hired, trained, teams put together, deployed, etc. etc. Current operational and maintenance + staff & field personnel would probably demand being switched to other jobs… or will drag their feet… or would simply resign thus necessarily compounding the problem to unchartered depths. New, young, inexperienced hands do not help under these circumstances. Many oldies will be called back from retirement. New managers and all sorts of office & field personnel from logistics to IT contractors, welders, etc. will not even be hired by the end of 2022

humpty dumpty

The EU Russian oil ban means that the UK and others in the continent will find that they now suddenly have spanking new fully unexpected competitors – Germany and Poland and many others too – per European countries bidding for what used to be THEIR vendors, their oils, including “Norway´s or Oman´s” which, of course, have finite supply capacity and will end up exporting a bit more to their traditional European countries and that´d be IT. Same for Middle East producers that besides negative geopolitics are not stupid enough to increase production in this senseless and most probably not sustainable temporary vaccuum of sorts now created by the EU. That leaves the random boutique hit-and-miss “beach front bazaar” oil suppliers, so lots of good luck with that. True enough, the UK and others in Europe have imported non-Russian oils before but in far smaller quantities and still perfectly matched & mated to only a few processing plants and refineries which would now be hundreds all throughout Europe.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQopPmeftFhq2gVAehZtbudZrZTqKkwqLWQA1izvhAGG8wMhl1306k8_XmjuCo&s

no diesel no glory

At least 50% of cars and almost 100% of trucks in Europe are diesel-powered. So, most European refineries are currently finely tuned to distill humongous tonnage from the “diesel special” Russian Urals blend in theory no longer available unless cheating prevails, of course. Venezuelan and Iran oils are way too heavy for diesel fuel production.

In turn, sweet Middle East oils are clearly not bidding for whatever reasons, even geopolitics. That eliminates the only three possible large enough providers of constant quality oils. So then the trick would be to find crude oil blends from “somewhere” that would be most similar to Russian Urals with a Nelson Complexity Index refinability of 9.8. Of course, this always assuming that European refineries will be rapidly fined-tuned to process such crude blends without problems, something which should be seriously doubted. The fact remains that refineries in the EU still are currently set up to distill diesel from a well-known Russian crude, and switching them over to a different blend would normally take many months if a single refinery were to be modified. Reconverting all refineries and processing plants in Europe simultaneously is an unheard-of experiment with most probable terribly adverse results.

Matching the Urals oil grade in theory is technically “possible” (sorta) by blending oils from different sources, BUT maintaining the blend specs and volumetric physical flow requirements to meet refinery capacity/specs is very difficult.

So, now not having available Russian Urals blend, exactly which “diesel special” crude oil blends — from where? — will European refineries process in order to distill massive amounts of high-quality diesel needed by the European transportation market? Not from Venezuela, and not from the Middle East. Maybe a little bit from Nigeria? Same as the Urals, the final supposedly constant high-quality homogenous non-Russian oil blend has got to have light-intermediate API gravity and low sulfur content. So what percentage of Russian Urals would any of these new blends replace? Anywhere near 100%? If not, how would Europeans manage with the enormous missing difference? The refineability of these non-Russian oil blends is risky and thus requires careful constant testing of all-around refinery modifications adapting internal processes to new yet unknown oil blends required to remain constant for at least 30 years, preferably 50 years. Of course, switching these European refineries over to different and varying types of non-Russian crude blends will take an enormous effort and time. But they better produce tons and tons of diesel. And it is not only a “refinery modification problem”. It´s rather a “refinery modification problem vis-á-vis a given feedstock blend, with guaranteed FIXED & CONSTANT composition, for decades, always unchanging with continuous reliable delivery despite the batch-only nature of seaborne sourcing.

quantity

Russian Urals oil is unlimited, smooth, on-demand, door-to-door, either by pipeline or from nearby Russian ports.

For unknown new oils, chances are that there is not enough volume available, not even in Africa.

The problem is also finding non-Russian oil suppliers with possible future “incremental” export volumes beyond current production for two main reasons: one would be potential growth in EU demand and the second is that no vendor will leave traditional customers abandoned high & dry just because the EU has now launched itself to an impossible project. Furthermore, these possible future European contracts might all turn out to be short-term ephemeral unsustainable ´purchases of convenience´ with no future. If Europe were not receiving timely, large enough, and well-delivered quantities it´d mean degraded European livelihoods and a failing economy, with shut down plants and refineries affecting everything. Price would also go way up, of course. The problem is that increasing source oil-field production is a fantasy stifled by the realities of labor shortages, increased drilling costs due to inflation, and temporary or permanent lack of raw materials caused by supply chain disruptions. There is little chance that worldwide production without Russia´s EU-specific blends will ever be able to match EU demands. Meanwhile, Russia is finding new Asian markets real fast as India in 2022 has increased its purchase of Russian seaborne oil by 25 times, that is 2500%…

C:\Users\Win7_64\Desktop\index.jpg

weaker West

So, by banning Russia, its primary and already well-established crude oil import source which satisfied all its energy requirements, Europe will now have to laboriously find it elsewhere with far less supply bidded. So the West will be paying higher prices – possibly much higher – while China, India, and others will be taking advantage of solid, constant, on-demand supplies and discount prices from Russia. Some suicidal EU strategy no?

So, from 2023 Europe will pay very dearly for its energy, thus having much higher non-competitive costs all around. This will affect the internal cost of living and most probably will ruin its export-based business model. “The current energy crisis could be one of the worst and longest in history and European countries could be hit particularly hard”, said the head of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, in a public statement. But it could be even worse.

no game in town

Europe may find itself not only paying much higher prices for the energy it requires. It may end up not even finding it at any price, period. At least not the right type at the precise time that any just-in-time economy requires thus leading to massive unemployment and massive migrations. So you either have it as you should or you actually have nothing at all. The current “just-in-time” world would obviously not function without proper and constant “just-in-time” deliveries of the right type of oil blends.

Europe has just drastically reduced the supply side of its economic equation by not allowing itself to access Russia, the world’s largest oil exporter, the world’s largest natural gas exporter, and a major supplier of coal. This means a self-inflicted severe limitation simply because not oil blends are the same (!!!) And Russia´s Urals oil may not have substitutes anywhere in the world large enough and compliant enough to satisfy European current and future needs.

Actually it´s not a “refinery problem” it´s a joint “refinery + oil blend problem”. Because the refinery is matched and mated for a given (and constant !) oil blend. Refineries do not refine just any oil. It is not plug & play, nowhere near that. So it´s a “specific refinery – specific oil blend” coupling that marries happily ever after for many years to come.

The refinery is always dependent on the input grade of the crude while following the output market requirements.

Right now the EU doesn´t even know what oil blends it will find in enough quantity, quality, and type for whichever of the hundreds of refineries and processing plants involved. That will not be known until both the right oils are secured in the required amounts and terms of delivery while whichever refinery adjusts to it, something not always possible. The much-needed end result has got to be a CONTINOUS supply of a highly SPECIFIC & UNIFORM quality oil blend in ENORMOUS quantities with the right delivery format. No occasional dating but rather a faithful MARRIAGE.

So a given plant or refinery for all practical purposes would pretty much FOREVER be fed with one and the same CONSTANT oil blend of the right formulation and specs. Repeat: it is not “plug & play”. Russia is the T-Rex supplier of a European troglodyte crude oil consumer. The problem is that Europe has just set itself up short of the QUANTITY of the right constant QUALITY of the oil blends it requires from a trustworthy and proven supplier.

Achilles heel

Finding non-Russian substitutes for Russian Urals blend will be hard enough to find and expensive enough to pay for. Constant uninterrupted physical delivery of such will be a whole new challenge which may end being the weakest link, same as yet unthought of human resources as partially explained hereinbefore.

So the process involves lots of previous lab testing trying to find the right reservoirs ( which exactly ? ) with the right type of blend base oil, with the right time window for oil-field production, the right seaborne delivery plus internal logistics and loading port capabilities, availability of the right vessel freight fleet yet unknown plus today non-existent capabilities at unloading ports, and the right land logistics for delivery per end-user requirements. This requires lots of coordination of thousands of the right people, lots of time, lots of the right policies and expertise in place, and tons of money. Russia has always complied with all of that — and even more — at cheap prices. Where will Europe find that in 6 months?

In a nutshell, the world wasn´t anywhere nearly prepared for an EU ban on Russian oil… or other Russian fuels…

market blues

Approximately 50% of the world´s total oil imports are from Japan + South Korea + Australia + New Zealand + Canada + US + Europe. Supposedly, none of these will now be buying any oil from Russia, so they will buy non-Russian oil competing among themselves. In the case of Europe, it´s 36% of their oil imports that they now have to substitute. Obviously a huge amount and not just of any oil. So which oil-exporting countries will now replace the missing Russian oil for these “unfriendlies” to buy? For example, will they have the right quality and enough quantity to substitute Russia´s previous oil export volumes to Europe and other places? In order to substitute for Russian oil, these oil-exporting countries will have to either (a) suddenly increase their production (?) and how would they do that exactly (??) or (b) disregard their traditional clients by suddenly cutting them off high and dry to sell to Europe.

In that case, where would their traditional clients find an exporter to buy the right quality oil from? It´s a single planet Earth market no? So, by now not having Russian Urals blend available because of the EU ban, exactly which crude oil blends — from where? — will European refineries adequately process enough in order to distill MASSIVE amounts of high-quality diesel fuel needed by European cars and trucks market and still render other required distillates…?

refineries nightmare

The fuel supply crisis will continue increasing sharply worldwide as the 2022 summer demand season kicks in while refineries everywhere keep running at an unsustainable rate. Still, refineries will not undergo major revamping & upgrades such as European refineries would now require because of new non-Russian crude oil feedstocks. Only very limited budgets would be approved for refinery modifications in the EU as the normal investment payback is 40 to 50 years, while, in the near future, fossil fuel consumption will supposedly be plummeting sharply. No incentives nor any subsidies will be awarded in any way shape or form. This year, China is expected to overtake the United States as the world’s largest oil refining country meaning it will import ever-larger amounts of crude oil, including Russia´s, so prices will go up accordingly despite any discounts. Meanwhile, the US continues to normally import Russian heavy oil on its own while telling Europe not to. There has been no announcement of any US Russian oil import reduction let alone an outright ban. I guess this piece of information makes it clear who is really running this show.

C:\Users\Jorge Vilches\Desktop\index 2.jpg

ports

Each and every European port will require modifications adapting to new handling, unloading, storage, and additional delivery requirements of non-Russian oil from whichever tanker fleet is found, yet unknown, if any. This means designing and building new dedicated facilities per specific consumer and tanker needs (supposedly fixed and unchanging) in order to match the processing foreseen and executed until today with necessarily different non-Russian oils. An EU Russian seaborne oil ban will shrink the number of vendors and the volume of oil offered to Europe very significantly thus ruining the supply side of the EU oil price equation. The much lower the supply, the MUCH higher the price. With Russian seaborne oil banned, the potential European supply is much smaller both in number of vendors and/or of the volume available for bidding. An unnecessary procurement mess and a very harmful self-inflicted policy. No feasibility studies have been made as there has not been enough time to do any in 3 months.

Ever larger migrations will be one of the prominent indicators of Europe in the very near future while Ukraine officials exchange insults with Hungarian government officers.

Andrei Martyanov: Davos “news”, real resources, Operational Art-2

May 26, 2022

Please visit Andrei’s website: https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/
and support him here: https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=60459185

Attached article about COFM

Sitrep Operation Z: + consequences = petty Tabaquis howling

May 26, 2022

by Saker Staff

After the Russian forces took POPASNA, the pace increased. There are still battles, but the Russians are now rolling over everything else in the Donbas. The Ukrainians are being annihilated, more and more soldiers are refusing to fight, reports of mass surrenders pour in, and the Russian strategy of cauldrons and partial cauldrons is proving incredibly effective. It is a bloody war in that area exacerbated by the Ukrainian leaders because orders for a sensible retreat are not forthcoming.

Two videos today – both quite detailed:

This first video from Military Summary on Rumble, describes the logjam against sensible retreat.

This second video describes some of the very recent battles and how these brought the Ukraine to this point.  Very detailed and he draws his maps on the fly as he talks.

A few hours ago reports started filtering in of huge forces of the Russian Aerospace Forces passing over Lugansk towards the front, and powerful explosions thundered everywhere. The correspondent of “Russian Spring” rusvesna.su from the capital of the LPR reports that he sees this for the first time, a lot of combat aircraft and helicopters swept over the city in several waves. Of course we do not know yet the what, why and where of this, excepting the Russian MoD report of this morning tells the story of the increased pace.

Take a look at the numbers:

💥High-precision air-based missiles have hit 48 areas of AFU manpower and military equipment concentration, 2 artillery batteries, and 2 ammunition depots near Nikolaevka and Berestovoe in Donetsk People’s Republic during the day.

▫️1 Ukrainian electronic reconnaissance centre near Dneprovskoe, Nikolaev Region, has been destroyed, including 11 servicemen from the combat unit, as well as 15 foreign engineering specialists who arrived with security guards.

▫️In addition, 1 Osa-AKM anti-aircraft missile system launcher has been destroyed near Nikolaevka in Donetsk People’s Republic, and 1 radar of the Ukrainian S-300 anti-aircraft missile system near Chuhuev in Kharkov region.

✈️💥Operational-tactical and army aviation have hit 49 areas of AFU manpower and military equipment concentration, 2 mortar crews, as well as 1 depot of missile and artillery weapons and ammunition.

▫️The attacks have resulted in the elimination of more than 350 nationalists and up to 96 armoured and motor vehicles.

💥Russian air defence means have shot down 1 Ukrainian Mi-24 helicopter over Husarovka, Kharkov Region. 1 Ukrainian Air Force military transport aircraft delivering ammunition and weapons has been also shot down in mid-air near Kremidovka, Odessa Region.

▫️In addition, 13 Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles have been shot down near Zelenyi Gai in Kherson Region, Bolshie and Malye Prokhody, Gavrilovka, Veseloe in Kharkov Region, and Epifanovka and Kirovsk in Lugansk People’s Republic, including 2 Soviet-made Tu-143 Reis jets near Melovatka in Lugansk People’s Republic.

💥Missile troops and artillery have hit 62 command posts, 407 areas of AFU manpower and military equipment concentration, 47 artillery and mortar units at firing positions, as well as 3 ammunition depots.

▫️Units and military equipment of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ 10th Mountain Assault Brigade, which arrived to reinforce the Ukrainian grouping in Donbass, have been destroyed during unloading near Pokrovsk railway station in Donetsk People’s Republic.

……………

Ukrainian General Staff says “The invaders are actively advancing in several directions at once.” — Specifically, the Russians are advancing simultaneously in Severodonetsk, Bakhmut, Avdeevsky, Novopavlovsk and Liman directions.

……………

We also had a short explanation of why the perceived slow down in the Russian operation. The slowdown of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is intentional with a view to evacuating the population and avoiding casualties among civilians, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said.  Russia’s Armed Forces are creating humanitarian corridors and announcing ceasefires to ensure the safe evacuation of residents from encircled settlements, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu explained, despite this approach stalling the progress of the country’s forces.  “Of course, this slows down the pace of the offensive, but it is being done deliberately to avoid civilian casualties,” he explained at a meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Council of Defense Ministers.

Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev spoke on the Ukraine specifically and geopolitics:

▪️All the goals set by the President of the Russian Federation during the special military operation will be achieved, it cannot be otherwise. Russia is not chasing deadlines in the course of a special military operation in Ukraine.

The ideal scenario for US-led NATO is an endlessly smoldering conflict in Ukraine.

▪️Nazism must either be eradicated by 100%, or it will raise its head in a few years, and in an even uglier form.

▪️Ukraine, if it had remained an independent country, and not controlled from outside, “would have long ago expelled all Nazi evil spirits from its land.”

▪️Moscow will be obliged to respond to the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO, which is a direct security threat to Russia. Finland and Sweden will be accepted into NATO, despite the objections of Turkey and Croatia, “because Washington decided so.”

▪️The West is today obscuring Russia’s contribution to the preservation of other states in different historical periods with all its might.

……………

The political and geopolitical situation is heating up and at the same time becoming more surreal.

They’re even dusting off Kissinger at Davos.  (Note Pepe Escobar’s ascerbic entry to his telegram channel at the end.)**

There is a small window of opportunity to wind down the armed conflict in Ukraine and find a peace settlement, former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger has told a gathering of Western elites in Davos, Switzerland. Beyond that, Russia may break from, the rest of, Europe for good and become a permanent ally of China, he said on Monday during a speech at the World Economic Forum.

“Negotiations on peace need to begin in the next two months or so, [before the conflict] creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome,” the 98-year-old veteran diplomat said of the crisis. The outcome will determine the rest of Europe’s relationships with Russia and Ukraine alike, he said. “Ideally, the dividing line should return to the status quo ante,” he said.

“I believe pursuing the war beyond that point would turn it not into a war about the freedom of Ukraine, which had been undertaken with great cohesion by NATO, but into a war against Russia itself,” he added.

There are more voices from Europe asking for a peace process to start but first, the Ukrainian response:

Ukrainian presidential advisor Alexey Arestovich resorted to obscene language to criticize those in the West urging Kiev to cede part of the country’s territory to Russia for the sake of peace.

“Go f**k yourselves with such proposals, you dumb f**ks, to trade Ukrainian territory a little bit! Are you f**king crazy? Our children are dying, soldiers are stopping shells with their own bodies, and they are telling us how to sacrifice our territories. This will never happen,” Arestovich said in an interview on Wednesday.

Soros calls for Putin’s defeat:  George Soros told the World Economic Forum in Davos the West needs a quick victory over Russia in Ukraine so it can focus on climate change

The process of ‘disowning’ the Ukraine has started.

Gen. Milley notes that the US has reopened military-to-military level talks with the Russians. His call to his Russian counterpart last week was “important” and it was “purposeful”

Of course, the talk of another peace plan is not born of care for people or human rights or democracy or deep held care for the Ukrainian people.  It is driven by desperation and is a desperate grasp at avoiding a psychological defeat bigger than Afghanistan.

TASS/ Russia’s State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin took to his Telegram channel to highlight that the US and its partners do not plan to provide real assistance to Ukraine.

  • Ukraine will only get 15% of the $40 billion promised by the US, he said.
  • “Washington and Brussels do not really intend to help Ukraine, or solve its economic and social issues. They only need Ukraine to fight Russia till the last Ukrainian,” Volodin said.
  • According to the recent aid to Ukraine legislation signed by President Joe Biden, 35% of the $40 billion is going to finance the US Armed Forces, he explained. Meanwhile, 45.2% of that amount is set to be spent on other countries, not Ukraine, while another 4.8% will be earmarked to support refugees, and restore the US diplomatic mission in Ukraine. “Ukraine will only receive 15% of the allotted sum,” the speaker revealed.
  • But Ukrainians will have to pay off the whole sum, he said. The US is aware that Kiev will not be able to service the debt in the future. “That is why they are seizing Ukraine’s last reserves, including grain, which is what we are seeing right now”.

Quo Vadis Ukraine?

A list of those that want a piece of the pie is shaping up. Of course, Poland is not suddenly in love with the Ukraine without a reason.  They want their piece of the land pie. I suspect Hungary is also not innocent in this matter. Will the Ukraine be apportioned? Or will it lose its nation-state status completely, and cease to exist? Nobody knows because nobody knows the Russian plan. In Europe and the US/NATO, fear is taking hold. Nobody knows where Russia plans to stop after liberating the two new Republics, Donesk and Luhansk. Is this the moment that they will choose to push NATO back to its agreed borders?

Maria Zakharova noted that these peace proposals that are appearing (talking about the Italian one specifically) could show that Rome is perhaps “beginning to think about the depressing consequences of the military psychosis that was caused by the reaction of the West to the special military operation of Russia in Ukraine” – and the supposed plan could be an attempt “to offer some alternatives to the current escalation, which threatens to develop into a full-scale military conflict between Russia and NATO.”

The deputy chair of the Russian Security Council, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, said that “any peace proposal built purely in the interest of NATO and the Western world order should simply be ignored.”

“Or rather, their authors should be told to go in a certain direction,” Medvedev said.

Russia is ‘building back better’ and major reconstruction is starting as well as President Putin signed a decree relaxing rules for granting Russian citizenship to residents of Ukraine’s Zaporozhye and Kherson Region.

The amendments are added to the decree that previously introduced a similar procedure for residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR).

Russia continues to do business.  Delegations from over 90 countries have confirmed their participation in the 25th edition of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) scheduled for June.  Russia and Iran also agreed to implement the MIR payment card system in Iran.

That is it for today. Enjoy your discussion and careful on the Ukie propaganda. It is still everywhere.

**Escobar Telegram Channel:

THE PLIGHT OF DR. K – IN ONE MINUTE

War criminal Kissinger’s performance at Davos should be summed up as yet another massive failure of his master’s trademark Divide and Rule.

Ukraine/404 has always been a sort of Rubicon in terms of downsizing Russia (think Brzezinski).

It consumed A LOT of capital – physical and political. It was THE red line – success or failure – setting the stage for the triumph of the NWO and its top secretion, The Great Reset.

Kissinger – even as a mere Rockefeller messenger boy – was at the center of this racket for DECADES. It was Kissinger, under Rockefeller’s orders, that groomed cypto Dr. Evil Klaus Schwab to build the WEF and the Davos ethos.

Even if Davos is a mere outlet for the people who really run the show, the WEF remains the premier Influence Scoundrels club on the planet bent on forcing their agenda all across the spectrum. Still toxic after all these years. Yet now even Kissinger knows it’s bound to fail.

Roller-Coaster of Pakistan-US relations.

April 08, 2022

By Zamir Awan

“To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” — Henry Kissinger. The United States became one of the first nations to establish relations with Pakistan, just two months and six days after the independence of Pakistan through the partition of British India, on 20 October 1947. Since then, the relations kept on expanding in all fields, cooperation in Education, Science & Technology, Agriculture, Economy, Trade, Defense Investments, etc., were the major areas of collaboration. In spite of China being the largest importer and exporter of Pakistan’s market, the United States continues to be one of the largest sources of foreign direct investment in Pakistan and is Pakistan’s largest export market (till 2016).

The cooperation and collaboration in the defense domain were much prominent. Pakistan was a leading member of the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) from its adoption in 1954–to 55 and allied itself with the United States during most of the Cold war. In 1971–72, Pakistan ended its alliance with the United States after the East-Pakistan war in which the US showed a cold shoulder despite having a defense treaty and obliged to support Pakistan, failed to assist Pakistan to fight against India. During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, the United States refused to provide any military support as against its pledge. This generated widespread anti-American feelings and emotions in Pakistan that the United States was no longer a reliable ally.

Pakistan remains a close ally with the US during cold-war era against the communism threat. Pakistan provided full support and military bases to the US and countered the expansion of communism. In the Afghan war against the former USSR invasion, Pakistan was a front-line state and fully cooperated with the US till the evacuation of the USSR’s troops from Afghanistan. Pakistan stood with the US during its war on terror and declared a non-NATO close ally.

Pakistan was serving and looking after the American interests in this region for almost seven decades. Although Pakistan is a small country with a poor economy, its geostrategic location, and commitment made it possible for the US to achieve its all strategic goals in this part of the world.

Pakistan played an instrumental role in bridging US-China relations. President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger took advantage of Pakistan’s close relationship with the People’s Republic of China to initiate secret contacts that resulted in Henry Kissinger’s secret visit to China in July 1971 after visiting Pakistan. The contacts resulted in the 1972 Nixon visit to China and the subsequent normalizing of relations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. China always recognized and valued it, whereas the US overlooked it.

True, Pakistan was one of the largest beneficiaries of US AID too, but, most of the aid was dispersed among the ruling elite and US officials only. There was hardly any trickle-down impact on society. Only a few individuals were the beneficiary of this aid in Pakistan or in the US, the general public was deprived.

But, Pakistan has to pay a very heavy price for siding with the US. Only due to its support to the US in the Afghan war, we did sacrifice 80,000 precious human lives. The economic loss was estimated to be US Dollars 250 Billion. A huge setback to the social and economic growth of the country. Due to unrest, economic activities were halted, and society deteriorated. Extremism, Intolerance, Terrorism, Drugs, and Gun Culture were additional gifts for Pakistan. By design the society was radicalized, individuals and groups were funded, brainwashed, trained, armed, and exploited against the state.

The US penetrated into our society and understood the weaknesses of the society. They identified corrupt, disloyal, greedy, disgruntle, and destitute Pakistanis. They offered them money, visas, migrations, etc., and cultivated them to be utilized against the state. Today, there are many Pakistanis having US nationality, Green Card, Multiple Visa, etc., and serving American interests. Some of the ruling elite are keeping their wealth, either white or black money, in the US, keeping their families in the US, considering their future in the US. In fact, few of the ruling elite are more loyal to the US and yet serve Pakistan. Their stakes are with America, not with Pakistan.

The US has a history of intervening in the domestic affairs of Pakistan and kept on dictating, even, in small matters, of posting, transfer, promotions, and appointments of public servants in Pakistan. As a matter of fact, they install their own loyal in key posts in Pakistan, who are serving their agendas, instead of solving the domestic issues. Under the banner of democracy, they always imposed their agenda on Pakistan. Under the cover of friendship, they have cultivated a strong lobby in Pakistan to influence domestic politics.

Although the publicized documents show that the US has been involved more than seventy times in the change of regimes during the cold war. But, after the cold war, in the unipolar world, this frequency must have been increased many folds. The change of regimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Arab Spring, etc., are only a few examples known to the rest of the world. But, actual numbers of similar activities may be outnumbered.

However, the rise of China and the revival of Russia has created a counterbalance and the world has transformed into a multipolar once again. The major reason for the failure of the US in changing the regime in Syria was Russia. This phenomenon has checked America and made it clear that the US is not only a unique superpower.

The recent victims of American friendship are Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Both were close allies with the US and are punished for their friendship. Sri Lank was pressing smoothly and was a very stable country. But, the US intervention made it unstable and damaged the democratic and economic system of the country. It is passing through a civil war-like situation and the economy has been destroyed almost.

Pakistan is also facing a similar situation. Ex-Foreign Minister Mr. Shah Mehmood Qureishi, informed publically that the US was asking Pakistan to cancel the Mosco visit. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s meeting with President Putin was not digested and was punished. Although the meeting was decided long ago and has nothing to do with the Ukraine issue, the US is linking it illogically. Pakistan was asked to roll-back China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and keep its distance from China. Although Pakistan always kept close relations with China as well as with the US during the cold war era. The US was a beneficiary of Pakistan’s close relations with China too.

Regarding, Pakistan’s stance on Ukraine, it was independent and motivated for reconciliation. But, the US was annoyed for abstaining from the UN. Although, many other countries also opposed or abstain during voting on the US-Backed resolution in the UN. Especially, India also abstained from the sane resolution. And violating sanctions. India is buying cheaper oil from Russia, procuring S-400 and etc., but US-Administration kept silent.

The irony is that the US does not want to be a friend of Pakistan, not it allows any other country to be friendly with Pakistan. To understand American mentality, the above-quoted saying of Henry Kissinger is a perfect example. The US might succeed in punishing Prime Minister Imran Khan, but, the narrative he has left among the youth of this nation will remain alive. Pakistan will not bow to any foreign power and will resist any pressure and coercion. The US has been exposed and lost its credibility as a sincere friend. The US is neither friend nor well-wisher of any country or nation. All countries and nations should learn from Pakistan’s experience. The UN is urged to intervene in stopping the interventions in the internal affairs of any sovereign state.


Author: Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Sinologist (ex-Diplomat), Editor, Analyst, Non-Resident Fellow of CCG (Center for China and Globalization). (E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com).

RELATED VIDEOS

Imran Khan: I received threats from America
Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan responds to the EU ambassadors: “What do you think? Are we your slaves!”

RELATED NEWS

How normalization with “Israel” assassinated Egypt’s economy

February 16, 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen

By Mona Issa

Economic prosperity? Anything but. After 40+ years, “peace” negotiations with “Israel” turned Egypt into a sluggish, aid-dependent rent economy.

At the bottom: 17 September, 1978: Anwar Sadat, Jimmy Carter, and Menachim Begin signing on the Camp David Accords. At the top: The 2013 Egyptian bread crisis, a result of economic assassination. 

There is no war without Egypt, and no peace without Syria – words Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s Secretary of State, uttered in the depiction of the strategic importance of Egypt to US interest in West Asia. Its manpower, resources, geographical position on the map are alone enough to make or break any project in the region. 

Egypt, in the critical years between the 1960s and the 1970s, moved from being the first industrial power in the Arab world, enjoying self-sufficiency and economic independence, to a country whose entire decision-making mechanism depends on receiving “humanitaqizqirian” aid from Washington.

How did this drastic jump, which put Egypt on a catheter mount, come to happen?

“Peace” negotiations.

Just one month after the 1973 October war – or, what’s known by the Israelis as the “Yom Kippur War,” there was a radical realignment process which brought Egypt and the US together. This was a process which initially started in 1971, the year when Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s president, invited the first US Secretary of State to visit Cairo since 1953. In the war of 1973, Egypt lost Sinai, and Sadat wanted to reclaim “self-respect”: a dream unattainable after Abdel Nasser’s death, unfound in what was coming for Egypt. 

When it came to reclaiming Palestinian land back to the Palestinians – and Sinai back to Egypt – to Sadat, the only way to negotiate with the Israelis was through the United States, in a political settlement, if you may. He thought that turning to Washington would help him solving problems unsolvable by military means, whether it was on the annexation of Sinai, or an economic crisis. 

The so-called political settlement came at the expense of the Egyptian economy, human rights and security for years to come.

The Egyptian economy enjoyed minimal imports (in 1961, with Abdel Nasser’s economic reforms, food imports to Egypt were only at 7%), redistribution of land and resources that isolated and diminished the power of traditional Egyptian landowners, the nationalization of the Suez Canal, protective policies against international inflation, and restrictions on foreign investment. Nasserism won its pioneer a substantial fan base and popularity after the 1952 Revolution.

However, his successor, a shameless lackey for the US, was determined to reverse all that revolution had done for the Egyptian people: Sadat, between 1971 and 1973, launched talks with Henry Kissinger. Sadat’s economic policies donned an ‘Open Door’ policy, which opened Egyptian markets to foreign investors and corporations without restrictions.

However, what he really got was a society lamb to the slaughter of foreign and private interest, dependent on food aid, and subject to US-Israeli policies.

Sadat wanted to be sure that Washington would come to Egypt’s rescue, so he required real, tangible evidence from the US that they will support Cairo. If such evidence was available, Sadat was willing to make Egypt undergo the necessary economic changes for US’ aid and the so-called ‘comprehensive peace plans.’ 

The evidence was provided: a basic tenant for Egypt to ride the American aid bandwagon was the normalization of relations with “Israel”, which consolidated in 1978. The free trade agreements, the astronomical numbers of foreign aid, and other agreements isolated Egypt from its neighbors, Arab and non-Arab. However, not only were both Sadat and the US eager to drive Egypt away from Soviet influence in the Cold War, but “Israel” also sought to plant itself on Arab soil, seeking Arab acceptance, which Sadat was so willing to do. 

The US seduced the Egyptian elite, by offering billions in aid, into signing on the Camp David Accords.

Let’s talk about the costs.

An Israeli official once called US aid “narcotic” – not too surprising considering that Washington is “Israel’s” godfather in West Asia, taking unconditional billions in aid and weapons to push common interests.

Between the years 1946 and 2011, the United States gave Egypt a total of $71.7 billion in bilateral foreign aid.

With Sadat’s economic liberalization, US’ conditions for aid were to integrate Egyptian and Israeli economies and boost foreign investments which would supposedly strengthen the economy. The public sector accounted for 75% of all Egypt’s outputs. However, Sadat’s laissez-faire policies only diminished them, placing them at the mercy of private companies and trade deals, such as the Qualified Industrial Zones.

The investments which Sadat was hoping for were not meant for productivity but were rather oriented towards banking and tourism. However, the banking sector, under what was called Infitah (Open Door policy), was not doing what it was supposed to do. With only 6 banks existing in 1974, Sadat allowed the influx of seventy-five banks – several of those were American, which abused the vulnerability of the situation in Egypt. The foreign banks, not to much surprise, laundered Egyptian money to the West rather than benefiting the people. 

With a deteriorating economy where the cost of production of basic goods such as rice, wheat, sugar, flour, oil, and gas was skyrocketing, many locals had left to oil-producing countries to make a living.

In Egypt, this meant one thing: bend to US interest or starve.

By 1981, Egypt was importing 60% of its food into the country: much of that was provided by Washington, in addition to Arab oil-producing countries. After normalization in 1978, Arab investors withdrew their investments; to Sadat’s convenience, the US was able to compromise.

Where has this led Egypt? Egypt today has a workforce participation rate of approximately 48%. Governmental spending exceeds the total revenue. Egypt is hideously indebted to the International Monetary Fund, its debt representing 92% of its Gross Domestic Product.  

Sadat attempted to convince the population that normalization with “Israel” would bring economic well-being and prosperity to the average Egyptian, though what it really did, with Washington’s shuttle diplomacy, is sell it to capitalists, and create a bread crisis in 1977, which was initiated by IMF and World Bank pressures to remove subsidies on bread.

Furthermore, along with the millions of dollars in US aid, a large project was initiated by the Nixon administration on March 1, 1975, to reconstruct the cities along the Suez Canal after three wars – the cost of which was to maintain peace with the Israeli neighbor. Disarmament was on the agenda, meaning that Egypt, on par with the accords, was prohibited from any military confrontation with “Israel”; however, even the Egyptians, given US-Israeli threats against them, knew that “Tel Aviv” would not be complying with the Sinai Disengagement Agreement.

As for economic growth, from the 1980s till recently, Egypt’s gross domestic product per capita has barely doubled, when emerging economies such as South Korea were able to multiply their GDP by ten times (the two countries’ economies, during the 1950s, had similar developmental conditions). Poverty rates in Egypt today hover around 30%, sustaining a high unemployment rate, last 10.4% in 2020.

As if turning to “Israel” once was not enough, wait till you see the “second Camp David Accords.” 

Despite the population’s adamant rejection of Sadat’s policies and the normalization, a greedy leader,a successor, looked for the preservation of the system at the expense of the nation’s interest. Another case taken into account is the US’ Qualified Industrial Zone (QIZ) economic proposal, which ultimately meant to expand economic cooperation between “Israel” and “Egypt.”

QIZ deal, signed in 2004 by Hosni Mubarak, was deemed by many as a “second Camp David,” and it was the most important economic deal between the two in 20 years, according to a US representative who attended the signing event.

Just a few months after that was sealed, Egypt and “Israel” signed another deal where Egypt would provide ‘Israel” with $2.5 billion worth of gas at a low price at a time when the country’s economy was running into the ground.

Those agreements came just a few days after Israel shot and killed 3 Egyptian soldiers at the border.

“One would have anticipated that with the ongoing carnage in Iraq, constant US threats against Iran and Syria, and Israel’s recent killing of three Egyptian border police, Egypt would have taken a tougher stance. But the exact opposite happened,” wrote K. Kamel, in Egypt and Israel: From Cold Peace to Warm Embrace. 

The trade agreement stipulated that the US would allow the exporting of Egyptian products free of duty and customs to the US, given that at least 11.7% of the total exports are manufactured in “Israel.”

Mubarak, though rejecting the agreement in 1994 through 2004, promoted the agreement on purely economic terms: Egypt’s textile-export agreement with the US would soon lose effect, China and India will replace Cairo in the market, and there is no choice other than to accept the QIZ agreement.

Officials in the Egyptian government told their people that the agreement will create a million jobs and that foreign direct investment will reach $5 billion in the next 5 years – both unrealistic and exaggerations.

Gamal Mubarak, Hosni’s son, defended the agreement, saying it serves the Palestinian cause.

However, facts on the ground proved otherwise. Many things were wrong with this deal, which was falsely marketed and heavily oriented towards “Israel.”

The first issue is that the deal breached World Trade Organization’s free trade conditions since the agreement gives “Israel” the power to enjoy a monopoly over Egyptian manufacturers.

Secondly, and even worse: to ensure the 11.7% quota, Israeli companies marginalized small and medium-sized businesses that supply larger textile factories with parts, as they forced them out of their jobs. The deal was heavily biased towards “Israel,” Egypt was not allowed to export its goods to the US duty-free without exporting Israeli goods, despite countries like China, India and Turkey engaging in it freely so. 

There was no real guarantee that the products will be exported to the US, prompting analysts to say that the agreement sort of resembles a Trojan horse, allowing Israel to flock into Arab markets, hence the “second Camp David.”

As some countries resist pressures to normalize relations with the psychopath ‘state’ (you can read Farah Haj Hassan’s article on Asian nations that said ‘No’ to normalization), others have not read much history on the first example of normalization in West Asia, and still deem normalization as an end to conflict, a yes to economic boom and a gateway to acceptance in both the region and the international community. 

To look West, after all their history in the West Asian region alone, should not deceive anyone anymore. Other than the fact that normalization is a human rights issue against fellow Arabs (not even just Palestinians! The US used Egyptian waters and airspace to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003), it’s suicide for any country looking to flourish with sovereignty. 

سقوط معادلة كسينجر روسيا والصين

ناصر قنديل

لا ينكر المحللون الاستراتيجيون الأميركيون دور الانفتاح الأميركي على الصين قبل نصف قرن، وفقاً للصفقة التي أبرمها هنري كيسنجر كمستشار للأمن القومي الأميركي لحكم الرئيس ريتشارد نيكسون، مع رئيس وزراء الصين يومها شي أون لاي، في توفير البيئة اللازمة للتفرّغ لمواجهة الاتحاد السوفياتي، وصولاً للنجاح بتفكيكه عام 1990. وكانت المعادلة التي أقامها كيسنجر وشكلت أساس عقيدته للأمن القومي بعد حرب فييتنام، وتابعها من بعده زبيغنيو بريجنسكي مستشار الأمن القومي في حكم الرئيس رونالد ريغان بالتعاون مع رئيس المخابرات يومها جورج بوش الأب قبل أن يصبح نائباً للرئيس فرئيساً، يواصل السياسات ذاتها، هي معادلة قدمي النسر، وتقوم على إغراء الصين بفك الحصار المالي والغذائي عنها، لرد خطر المجاعة التي تهدد دائماً تكاثرها السكاني الضخم، وما يعنيه ذلك من غض نظر عما تصفه الوكالات الأميركية المعنية بانتهاكات صينية للمعايير الأميركية لحقوق الإنسان والتجارة العالمية وحقوق الملكية الفكرية، مقابل امتناع الصيني عن وضع سياسة خارجية نشطة تخرج عن مجرد تثبيت المواقف على طريقة رفع العتب، وخصوصا لما يتصل بملفات المواجهة بين واشنطن وموسكو، على قاعدة اعتبار الاتحاد السوفياتي عدواً أول لأميركا، ومنافساً ايديولوجياً للصين، وبالتوازي تقوم عقيدة كيسنجر على خوض مواجهة ضارية مع الاتحاد السوفياتي محورها سباق تسلّح يقود موسكو نحو الإفلاس، ويدفع بنظام أمانها الاجتماعي الى الانهيار.

بعد تحقيق ما رسمته عقيدة كيسنجر من أهداف قبل ثلاثة عقود، أدارت واشنطن ظهرها للصين وروسيا، متفرغة لملء الفراغ الجيواستراتيجي الناتج عن انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي، ففي العقد الأول كان اهتمامها على حسم المساحة الأوروبية التي خرجت منها موسكو، وبعد العام 2000 توجّهت واشنطن نحو آسيا لملء الفراغات الناشئة في مناطق الصراع، وشكلت أفغانستان والعراق الوجهة الطبيعية، وفقاً لعقيدة أخرى وضعها بريجنسكي بعد انتصار الثورة الإسلامية في إيران، هي معادلة فتحات السدود، وعنوانها نصب الحواجز وإزالة الحواجز، ترتكز عملياً على ثنائية أوكرانيا وأفغانستان، حيث أمن روسيا يحسم في أوكرانيا، لدرجة التداخل الجغرافي والسكاني بينها وبين روسيا، وأمن آسيا يحسم في أفغانستان لموقعها الجغرافي كحاجز برّي يمنع التلاقي الجغرافي بين عمالقة آسيا، روسيا والصين وإيران، ومنذ ذلك التاريخ والتعثر يرافق السياسات الأميركية، وصولاً لضم روسيا لشبه جزيرة القرم، وانسحاب القوات الأميركية من أفغانستان.

خلال العقود الثلاثة الماضية كانت النهضة المتحررة من أعباء المنافسة الافتراضيّة بين موسكو وبكين، تسجل تقدماً حثيثاً، وتتحوّل معها كل منهما إلى دولة قوية ومقتدرة، وتشكل كل منهما مصدراً لتلبية حاجات الآخر، فروسيا البلد الأول في العالم في تصدير النفط والغاز معاً، والصين هي البلد الأول في العالم في الاستهلاك الصناعي للنفط والغاز، وبعد التكامل السياسي والعسكري تأتي الخطوة الأخيرة بإعلان التكامل الاقتصادي، لتشكل الضربة القاضية للأحلام الأميركية باستعادة فرص الحياة لمشروع الهيمنة والأحادية، وليس غريباً الآن أن تنتشر في واشنطن، نظريات الإدانة لمعادلات كيسنجر وبريجنسكي، على قاعدة الاعتراف بالفشل، لكن بما هو أخطر، وهو استحالة ترميم المشهد وتعديل الاتجاه، وفيما تبدو السياسات الأميركية انفعاليّة وأقرب للعشوائية، تبدو كل من روسيا والصين وهما تعملان وفقاً لخطة وروزنامة، لترتسم معامل العالم الجديد، تحت عنوان التعدديّة وسقوط الهيمنة، ونهوض الدولة الوطنيّة التي جعلتها منظومة العولمة الأميركية الفكرية والسياسية هدفاً يجب إسقاطه.

مقالات متعلقة

جيش تشرين بقيادة الأسدين يصنع الانتصارات…

أكتوبر/7 تشرين الأول 2021

See the source image
 حسن حردان

تحلّ ذكرى حرب تشرين التي خاضها الجيش العربي السوري بقيادة الرئيس الراحل حافظ الأسد بأفق التحرير، فيما خاضها الرئيس المصري أنور السادات بأفق تحريك التسوية بالاتفاق مع وزير خارجية أميركا هنري كيسنجر من وراء الرئيس الأسد.. تحلّ هذه الذكرى وسورية تقف على أعتاب تحقيق نصر جديد وغالي الثمن في مواجهة أشرس حرب إرهابية كونية شنتها عليها الولايات المتحدة الأميركية…

فالحرب ضدّ العدو الصهيوني الذي يحتل هضبة الجولان السوري، وأرض فلسطين، والحرب ضدّ قوى الإرهاب واحدة لا تتجزأ، لأنّ الإرهابيين الذين تستروا بثوب الإسلام زوراً إنما هم أدوات أميركا و»إسرائيل»، وهدفوا من وراء حربهم إلى إسقاط الدولة الوطنية السورية وتدمير الجيش السوري الذي أثبت في حرب تشرين انه قادر على خوض الحرب وتحقيق النصر وكسر شوكة وجبروت وأسطورة الجيش «الإسرائيلي»، كما أثبت انه يشكل بعقيدته العروبية، التي بُني عليها، سنداً قوياً للمقاومة ضدّ الاحتلال «الإسرائيلي» والاستعمار الغربي، وقوة حامية للحق العربي… وبالتالي سداً منيعاً يحول دون تنفيذ مخططات أميركا و»إسرائيل» الهادفة إلى تصفية قضية فلسطين وفرض الهيمنة الاستعمارية على المنطقة…

لقد أثبت الجيش العربي السوري قدرة قتالية فائقة في حرب تشرين في مواجهة جيش الاحتلال، ولقن جنود العدو دروساً في القتال المباشر على سفوح جبل الشيخ، وكاد جيش العدو يُدحر بالكامل وتلحق به هزيمة قاسية لولا الطعنة الغادرة التي وجهها السادات باتفاقه مع العدو على وقف النار، مما مكنه، أيّ العدو، من تعزيز قواته على جبهة الجولان وإعادة التوازن لجيش الاحتلال الذي كان يعاني من تراجع في معنوياته في الأيام الأولى للحرب.. على انّ البطولات التي سطرها ضباط وجنود الجيش السوري في ميادين القتال في موجهة جيش الاحتلال «الإسرائيلي»، ما كانت لتحصل لولا الثقة الكبيرة التي زرعها فيهم قائدهم الرئيس حافظ الأسد وقراره الجريء بالتحضير والاستعداد لخوض حرب تحرير الأراضي العربية المحتلة، والإقدام دون تردّد على اتخاذ قرار شنّ الحرب، مما أكد انّ سبب الهزائم العربية في السابق، إنما كانت نتيجة تخاذل القيادات العربية وارتباطها بقوى الاستعمار، وهكذا عندما توافرت القيادة الثورية والجريئة والشجاعة، تبدّلت الصورة وصنع النصر الذي أجهض نتيجة تواطؤ السادات ..

ولأنّ الرئيس بشار الأسد تربى في مدرسة القائد حافظ الأسد، وسار على نفس درب الكفاح الوطني والقومي المقاوم ضدّ المحتلين والمستعمرين وأدواتهم الرجعية والإرهابية، فقد صمد مع جيشه، جيش تشرين، صمود الأبطال في مواجهة الحرب الإرهابية الكونية، وأحبط أهداف هذه الحرب التي استهدفت تحطيم وتدمير وتفكيك هذا الجيش، الذي تربى على العقيدة القومية وعدم التهاون في الدفاع عن الوطن، وساند المقاومة في صنع انتصاراتها على جيش الاحتلال في لبنان وتحطيم أسطورته، ليتأكد بذلك انّ الأسطورة، بالمعنى المجازي للكلمة، إنما هو جيش تشرين الذي فاجأ أعداءه بقدرته على الصمود والانتصار على جيوش الإرهاب العالمي… وإجبار دول الغرب الاستعمارية بقيادة أميركا على الإقرار بفشل محاولاتها لإسقاط الرئيس بشار الأسد، والنيل من شرعيته الوطنية والشعبية.. وها هي أميركا تضطر مكرهة الى البدء بتجرّع كأس فشلها تدريجياً، من خلال القبول بتخفيف الحصار الذي فرضته على سورية بموجب قانون قيصر السيّئ الذكر، والسماح بانفتاح الأردن على سورية وإعادة العلاقات بين البلدين إلى ما كانت عليه قبل الحرب، واستجرار لبنان الكهرباء الأردنية والغاز المصري عبر الأراضي السورية.. الأمر الذي ما كان ليحصل لولا انتصارات الجيش السوري بدعم من حلفائه في محور المقاومة وروسيا…

ويمكن القول إنه بفضل هذه الانتصارات ستخرج سورية وجيشها أقوى وأكثر منعة وحصانة في مواجهة أعدائها، وستبقى الحضن الدافئ للمقاومة العربية ضدّ الاحتلال، وعمود محور المقاومة، وقلعة العروبة العصية على قوى الاستعمار… وأمل الأمة بالتحرر والوحدة، والمدافع الأول عن قضية الأمة المركزية قضية فلسطين.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

International Order, World Order, Order of the World, and Things to Come

International Order, World Order, Order of the World, and Things to Come

September 29, 2021

By Amir NOUR for the Saker Blog [1]

This is a chapter from Amir’s forthcoming book, titled : “L’Islam et l’ordre du monde: le testament de Malek BENNABI” (Islam and the Order of the World: Malek BENNABI’s Testament).  First available in French with translations to Arabic and English planned.

“Islam began as something strange and will revert to being strange as it began, so give glad tidings to the strangers”

(Hadith of Prophet Mohammed)

In the beginning was Westphalia

In order to properly set the scene for the subject which concerns us here, that is the “Order of the World” in contrast to “World Order”, as it was perceived by the late Malek Bennabi[2], it is convenient to proceed to a necessary clarification of the key concepts in this matter.

In fact, in the abundant literature on international relations, particularly in the French language, the qualifier “international”, “global” or “planetary” is rarely explained satisfactorily. As Gilles Bertrand[3] points out, the undifferentiated use of one or the other of these adjectives suggests that they are interchangeable, therefore without real meaning for political science. This is not the case, since for many authors like him, this usage reflects belonging to a particular school of thought in international relations, a particular perception of the world, and a different analysis of the concept of “order” in world politics.

The French Academy dictionary defines order as “an arrangement, a regular layout of things in relation to one another; a necessary relationship which regulates the organization of a whole into its parts”. In reality, the notions of order and disorder are part of practical, ethical, political, even mythical and religious discourse. From a philosophical point of view, according to Professor Bertrand Piettre[4], these two notions seem to be more normative than descriptive and have more value than reality. Thus, the term “order” is understood at least in two contradictory senses: either the order is thought of as finalized, as carrying out a purpose, pursuing a direction and thus making sense; disorder is then defined by the absence of an intelligent design. Or the order is thought of as a stable or recurring structure and, thereby, recognizable and locatable, as a constant and necessary arrangement; but as such, it can appear totally devoid of finality and purpose. Disorder, then, is not thought of as what is devoid of a finality, but as what appears to be devoid of necessity.

These two meanings, Piettre explains, refer to two philosophically different visions of the world: finalist or mechanist. Also, recent developments in contemporary science reveal a third possible meaning of the word order, a so-called “contingent” order which is constituted, not against or in spite of disorder, but by and with it; not by triumphing over disorder, but by using it. The author concludes that the notions of order and disorder are therefore intimately entwined and complementary to each other. Their combination, in a play of contingency and necessity, produces the diversity of the material and living world that we know.

In the context of international relations, order is commonly understood to mean the set of rules and institutions that govern relations between the key players in the international environment. Such an order is distinguished from chaos, or random relationships, by a certain degree of stability in terms of structure and organization.

Perhaps, one of the best studies ever done on this topic is the one sponsored by the Office of the United States Secretary of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment and conducted within the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute in 2016 under the title “Understanding the Current International Order[5]. The main aim of this study, was to understand the workings of the existing international order, assess current challenges and threats to the order, and accordingly, recommend future policies deemed sound to U.S. decisionmakers.

The report says that in the modern era, the foundation of the international order was built on the bedrock principles of the Westphalian system, which reflected fairly conservative conceptions of order while relying on pure balance-of-power politics in order to uphold the sovereign equality and territorial inviolability of States.

This Westphalian system led to the development of the territorial integrity norm, considered to this day as a cardinal norm against outright aggression towards neighbors with the aim of seizing their lands, resources or citizens, which was once a common practice in world politics. Thus defined in its main elements, this system has continued to prevail, especially since the Concert of Europe, also known as the Vienna Congress system, which from 1815 to 1914 established a whole series of principles, rules and practices having greatly contributed, after the Napoleonic wars, to maintaining a balance between European powers and shielding the Old Continent from a new all-out conflict. It stood fast until the outbreak of World War I, resumed with the creation of the League of Nations, and then, again, after World War II.

In sum, even if it took different forms in practice, the Westphalian order continued to be a permanent feature of the relations between the great world powers during all the aforementioned periods, thus allowing, to the greatest possible extent, the prevalence of structured relations designed to forswear territorial conquest and curtail any global disorder susceptible of generating wars or large-scale violence in their midst.

The RAND Corporation report indicates that since 1945, the United States, which was the greatest beneficiary of the restored peace, has pursued its global interests through the creation and maintenance of international economic institutions, bilateral and regional security organizations, and liberal political norms and standards. These ordering mechanisms are often collectively referred to as the “international order”.

However, in recent years, rising powers have begun to challenge the sustainability and legitimacy of some aspects of this order, which is clearly seen by the U.S. as a major challenge to its global leadership and vital strategic interests. Three broad categories of potential risks and threats likely to jeopardize this order have thus been identified by the writers of the report:

– some leading states consider that many components of the existing order are designed to restrict their power and perpetuate American hegemony;

– volatility due to failed states or economic crises;

– shifting domestic politics at a time of slow growth and growing inequality.

Kissinger and Realpolitik

Two years before the publication of this study, Henry Kissinger, the veteran of American diplomacy credited with having officially introduced “Realpolitik” (realistic foreign policy based on the calculation of forces and the national interest) in the White House while serving as Secretary of State under Richard Nixon’s administration, had further explored the theme of world order in a landmark book.[6]

From the outset, Mr. Kissinger asserts that no truly global “world order” has ever existed. The order as defined by our times was devised in Western Europe four centuries ago, on the occasion of a peace conference held in Westphalia, a region of Germany, “without the involvement or even the awareness of most other continents or civilizations”. This conference, it should be remembered, followed a century of sectarian conflict and political upheavals across Central Europe which ended up provoking the “Thirty Years’ War” (1618-1648), an appalling and unnecessary “total war” where a quarter of the population of Central Europe died from combat, disease or starvation.

However, the negotiators of this peace of Westphalia did not think of laying the foundations of a system applicable to the whole world. How could they have thought so when then, as always before, every other civilization or geographic region, seeing itself as the center of the world and viewing its principles and values ​​as universally relevant, defined its own conception of order? In the absence of possibilities for prolonged interaction and of any framework for measuring the respective power of the different regions, Henry Kissinger believes, each of these regions viewed its own order as unique and defined the others as “barbarians” wich were “governed in a manner incomprehensible to the established system, and irrelevant to its designs except as a threat”.

Subsequently, thanks to Western colonial expansion, the Westphalian system spread around the world and imposed the structure of a state-based international order, while failing, of course, to apply the concepts of sovereignty to colonies and colonized peoples. It is these same principles and other Westphalian ideas that were put forward when the colonized peoples began to demand their independence. Sovereign state, national independence, national interest, noninterference in domestic affairs and respect for international law and human rights have thus asserted themselves as effective arguments against the colonizers themselves during armed or political struggles, both to regain independence and, afterwards, to protect the newly formed states in the 1950s and 1960s in particular.

At the end of his reflection combining historical analysis and geopolitical prospective, Mr. Kissinger draws important conclusions about the current international order and asks essential questions about its future. The universal relevance of the Westphalian system, he said, derived from its procedural nature, that is value-neutral, which made its rules accessible to any country. Its weakness had been the flip side of its strength: designed by states exhausted from the bloodletting they inflicted on each other, it offered no sense of direction; it proposed methods of allocating and preserving power, without indicating how to generate legitimacy.

More fundamentally, Mr. Kissinger argues that in building a world order, a key question inevitably concerns the substance of its unifying principles, which represents a cardinal distinction between Western and non-Western approaches to order. Quite aptly, he observes that since the Renaissance, the West has widely adopted the idea that the real world is external to the observer, that knowledge consists in recording and classifying data with the greatest possible precision, and that the success of a foreign policy depends on the assessment of existing realities and trends. Therefore, the Peace of Westphalia embodied a judgment of reality and more particularly of realities of power and territory – in the form of a concept of secular order supplanting the demands of religion.

In contrast, the other great contemporary civilizations conceived of reality as internal to the observer and defined by psychological, philosophical or religious convictions. As a result, Kinssinger is of the opinion that sooner or later, any international order must face the consequences of two trends that compromise its cohesion: either a redefinition of legitimacy or a significant shift in the balance of power. In such surcumstances, upheavals could emerge, the essence of wich being that while they are usually underpinned by force, their overriding thrust is psychological. Those under assault are challenged to defend not only their territory, but the basic assumptions of their way of life, their moral right to exist and to act in a manner that until the challenge, had been treated as beyond question”.

Like many other thinkers, political scientists and strategists, especially Westerners, Mr. Kissinger considers that the multifaceted developments underway in the world are fraught with threats and risks that could lead to a sharp rise in tensions. And chaos threatens “side by side with unprecedented interdependence: in the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the disintegration of states, the impact of environmental depredations, the persistence of genocidal practices, and the spread of new technologies threatening to drive conflict beyond human control or comprehension”.

This is the reason why Mr. Kissinger thinks that our age is insistently engaged in an obstinate search, sometimes almost desperatly, of a concept of world order, not without expressing his concern which takes on the appearance of a warning: in our time, a reconstruction of the international system “is the ultimate challenge to government. And in the event of failure, the penalty will be not so much a major war between States (though in some regions this is not foreclosed) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance, for example the Westphalian model as against the radical Islamist version” with the risk, according to him, that at its edges each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities of order deemed illegitimate.

The major conclusion of this scholarly book which concerns us particularly in the context of our theme of the “Order of the World”, as opposed to “international” or “World” order, is this: “The mystery to be overcome is one all peoples share: how divergent historical experiences and values can be shaped into a common order”.

Mr. Kissinger’s allusion to the “radical Islamist version” as a possible alternative to the Westphalian model of world order is far from trivial; and the fact of having singled it out from other eventualities speaks volumes about its own strategic reading of the evolutions underway and the possible contours of the world to come.

Afghanistan, yet again a slayer and graveyard of empires

With a few years of delay, the “establishment” of his country seems to have been convinced of the same views. Indeed, in the space of just four days, two clarifications in this sense have been made, shaking violently the foundations of policies and “truths” hitherto considered incontrovertible.

Firstly, through an editorial[7] published in the columns of the highly influential New York business and financial daily “The Wall Street Journal”. Under the evocative headline “The Unconquable Islamic World”, the newspaper owned by Australian–American billionaire and media mogul Rupert Murdoch claims that historians, troopers and politicians will debate for many years the particulars of what went unsuitable throughout America’s intervention in Afghanistan. This adventure had its epilogue, on August 31, 2021, in the form of a hasty and messy evacuation of American troops through Kabul airport, under the triumphant gaze of the Taliban, the new masters of Afghanistan, a country which once again proved to be a slayer and graveyard of invading empires, old and new. Such a rout, broadcast live by international media, left everyone bewildered and certainly eclipsed similar scenes of panic that marked the fall of Saigon, Vietnam, on April 30, 1973, which sealed the first military defeat in the recent history of the United States.

Considering that the US-led coalition has been guilty of blindness by failing to understand that politics lies downstream of tradition, and tradition downstream of faith, the newspaper recognizes that Islamic societies belong to a particular civilization, which resists the imposition of foreign values by way of energy. This blindness is caused by the fact that, becoming apostles of common civilization, Westerners think that “human beings all over the place would make the identical primary choices we made in constructing political group”, and also by a “noble want” to see people as equal, interchangeable beings for whom religion and tradition are “accidents of delivery”. Whereas in fact, these accidents are “non-negotiable truths for tons of hundreds of thousands of people that would moderately die than concede them”.

Failure to understand this, the daily concludes, can be a symptom of “religious vacancy”. In other words, “alienated from America’s Christian origins, hundreds of thousands can’t fathom how religion may play a significant position in binding people collectively”.

Secondly, through an equally scathing assessment by President Joe Biden himself during a speech to the nation[8] delivered in the wake of the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and only eleven days before the 20th anniversary of the September 11, terrorists attacks, which had precisely precipitated this military intervention. On this occasion, President Biden gave a full-throated defense of his decision to end the United States’ longest war abroad by declaring that the era of large American military deployments to remake other nations is over. He further emphasized: “After more than $2 trillion spent in Afghanistan a cost that researchers at Brown University estimated would be over $300 million a day for two decades in Afghanistan yes the American people should hear this: $300 million a day for 20 years in Afghanistan”. Will this important declaration help turn a new page in Washington’s foreign policy, especially towards the Muslim world, a policy characterized by so many setbacks that have claimed the lives of millions of innocent people and caused heavy material damage and unspeakable sufferings? Only time will tell.

Islam and the New World Order

In the meantime, as Ali A. Allawi asserts in his mesmerizing book[9], there is little doubt that for at least two centuries the civilization of Islam has been going through a profound crisis. Islam, as a religion and a method of worship, embraced by almost two billion people in the world[10], has kept its vitality intact, and is gaining more and more followers outside its original geographical sphere, notably since the events of September 11, paradoxical though it may seem to some. Indeed, we are seeing more and more telling signs in this regard such as: the increase in the number of conversions to Islam, in particular among educated women; the significant surge in the number of mosques, Islamic centers and other places of worship in the West and elsewhere (including through the conversion of abandoned Christian places of worship); the election of Muslims to high positions of political and representative responsibility (including mayors and parliamentarians of major capitals and Western cities); the interest in studying Islam in general and the Qur’an in particular, including in schools and universities in many countries around the world; the remarkable growth of banks and other Islamic financial institutions, as well as that of the Halal industry in the world.

It remains true, however, that the situation is quite different for the world and the civilization that Islam has built over the centuries. These have been seriously undermined. What does this mean exactly? To try to answer this question, it is important to recall the following key considerations:

All civilizations try to balance themselves between the individual and the collective (or the group), between the temporal and the spiritual, and between this-worldliness and otherworldliness. Shifts between the relative importance given to the former at the expense of the latter is what gives the different civilizations their distinctive identity and coloring; and critical disjunctions in human history occur when the individual paradigm is overturned or tilted towards the collective, or vice versa.

In modern Western societies, especially English–speaking ones, it is an indisputable fact that since the Renaissance which was at the origin of the Enlightenment movement and thought, there has been a gradual and probably decisive and irreversible shift away from the collective and the sacred towards the individual and the secular.

This being the case, in the self–image of Western or Westernized societies, the individual is ennobled and endowed with the power and tools to determine, alone, the course of his personal development and fulfillment as well as those of society, through the idiom – which is then erected into absolute dogma – of rights and the practice of a democracy based on laws and rules. The primacy of the individual over collective rights thus gradually paved the way for the dismantling of the post-war welfare state, making the dividing line between the public and private domains increasingly blurred, and providing wide–open avenues to an unbridled individualism.

The Muslim World was not spared either by the onslaught of these stormy developments, and all the countries composing it ended up joining, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and intensity, the irresistible ultraliberal globalization movement churned out and forcefully promoted by the Reagan-Thatcher couple in the 1980s. Nevertheless, to this day, Islam, this invisible glue that binds Muslims to a different set of values, loyalties and identities beyond the nation, seem to be resisting and still has not recognized the inevitability of a world civilization stamped with the sole seal of the West and its typical and willfully domineering political, cultural, and socio-economic model.

Being a religion which does not separate the spiritual from the temporal and puts the rights, interests and well-being of the community ahead of those of individuals, Islam today constitutes a major brake on and obstacle to the standardization of humanity according to the globalist mold aiming to impose the rules of a single economic model and mindset. The supporters of this vision of the world work tirelessly to break open this bolt which still holds, unlike Catholicism, the other monotheistic religion with a universal vocation, in particular since the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council which has totally abdicated by giving in to the “demands” of an increasingly desecrated modern world.[11] This Council, let us remember, had, under the impetus of the brand new Pope John XXIII, assigned three main goals, the repercussions of which are still being felt today: to renew the Church itself (to make its aggiornamento), to re-establish the unity of all Christians, and to engage in the dialogue of the Church with the contemporary world.

Pierre Hillard understood this very well when he said that Islam is now the “last bulwark against the New World Order”. To the question that Laurent Fendt put to him on Radio “Ici et Maintenant”, on January 11, 2010, of “what would be in the case of a world government the enemy who would be put forward to continue to rule the world?”, Pierre Hillard replied: “Within the framework of the New World Order, the enemy currently is Islam (…) because Islam is still the only religion which brings hope for the hereafter (…) It is for the globalist spirit a competition that it cannot accept, because the Muslim will not – in any case much less – focus on material pleasures, on the consumer society; so it is necessary at all costs to destroy this Islam which does not extol the American way of life”. And while referring to an article by Ralph Peters in an American military journal[12] pleading in favor of a “Vatican of Islam”, he recalls the encyclical Pacem in Terris of John XXIII before concluding: “they succeeded with Catholicism and there is nothing left but Islam which tries to resist”.

On closer inspection, we may argue that throughout the Western colonial period, the Cold War and until after the “Thirty Glorious” the West was somewhat indifferent if not condescending to Islam as a religion. The fear of Islam has followed the demise of social democracy in the West, especially since the events of “May 68”, and the decay of progressive and socially centered movements in the Third World. The Iranian revolution of 1979, itself begotten by this historical development, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, radically changed the geostrategic situation in the eyes of Western countries. Islam is increasingly at the center of their concerns today and a rampant Islamophobia has naturally, and dangerously, ensued. As Mr. Allawi so rightly put it, Islam’s religion, cultures, civilization, nations and peoples have become the subject of meticulous scrutiny by a wide array of analysts, “from the most thoughtful to the most incendiary, from the most illustrious to the most obscure, from the most sympathetic to the most bigoted”.

Make no mistake about it. Much like Egyptian thinker Mustafa Mahmoud, we are aware that when some influential figures, both Western and indigenous, declare that they are not hostile to Islam as a religion, they are honest in some way. To be sure, they have no objection to Muslims praying, fasting, making the pilgrimage to Mecca, spending days and nights worshiping God, glorifiying Him and seeking His grace in individual meditation and invocation or in collective prayers in mosques. They are in no way hostile to ritual Islam, an Islam of gestures, genuflection and asceticism. Nor do they object to Muslims being bestowed with the rewards of the hereafter. It’s a question they don’t necessarily care or think about. On the contrary, these personalities and their mentors have very often encouraged, supported and defended the leaders and other sounding boards of this type of Islam: peaceful, pacifist, docile and exploitable at will. Their hostility and enmity are rather directed against the other Islam, the one that challenges their claim to the exclusive authority to rule the world, and build it on other ideals, values ​​and interests than theirs; progressive Islam which enjoins what is right and forbids what is wrong in the world; Islam which wants to open an alternative cultural path and eestablish other models and values ​​in the fields of economy, trade, art and thought; Islam that wants to advance science, technology and inventions, but for purposes other than the conquest of the territories of others and the control of their resources; Islam that goes beyond individual reform to social reform, that helps cure the ailments of the current pervasive and materialestic civilization to effect a much-needed salutary global change. In all such arenas, there is no room for negotiation, bargaining, or compromise. There is bitter warfare, either overt or covert, sometimes even with the help of supposedly co-religionists local clients.

In reaction, an awareness characterized mainly by rearguard actions and resistance to the claims of secular modernity is emerging across the Muslim world. This dynamic encompasses all of the attributes of a struggle for the survival of Islam, henceforth the sole standard bearer of Abrahamic monotheism.

The future of Islam: between reformation, deformation and rebirth

Uneasiness and uncertainty as to the direction in which Islamic civilization is moving, or is being intentionally pushed, have been providing the foundation for a flow of projects and plans aimed at “reforming” or “revitalizing” Islam since the beginning of the 19th century and up to the present day. These continued attempts are all based on schemes of “reinvention” of Islam through secularization, liberalization, historicization, or radicalization of Muslims’ understanding of their religion.

As we pointed out earlier, there is no crisis of religious belief in Islam comparable to that which has affected Christianity in the West generally. But this is a far cry from the assertion that the seeds of a rebirth of Islamic civilization are there simply because most Muslims continue to show extraordinary commitment to their religion. Mr. Allawi is right in thinking that the main threat to Islamic civilization will not come from the massive abandonment of religious faith. Rather, the future of this civilization is more linked to the success or disappearance of political Islam as it has manifested itself during the last forty years.

Indeed, the extreme politicization, both internal and external, of Islam and its transformation into an ideology for legitimizing access to and/or retention of power is undoubtedly a crucial change that has influenced the life course of Muslim states and peoples, and also their relation to the whole world. According to Allawi, the success of political Islam may, paradoxically, turn out to be the “coup de grace”, the final blow to the Islamic civilization. For it will eliminate, once and for all, the possibility that the political path could ever be the basis for rejuvenating or reshaping the elements of a new form of Islamic civilization. In many ways, the use of violence and terrorism in the name of Islam confirms the disappearance of this civilization from the consciousness of terrorists and their local and foreign supporters. Despite its predominance in the calculations of policy and decision-makers and in the public imagination, political Islam is only one aspect of the overall problem of Islam in the modern World. Similarly, its ups and downs are only one symptom among others of the disease affecting this civilization. And the fact that Islamism has received the lion’s share of attention does not automatically make its leaders and ideologues the arbiter of Islam itself.

Therefore, what needs to be addressed as a matter of high priority and urgency is to identify the root causes of the crisis and to remedy them. In particular, it is crucial to find out whether Islam’s apparent mismatch with the modern world is intrinsic to the religion itself or is due to other factors, including the gradual breakdown of its vital forces. Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Muhammad, who has contributed significantly to the development of his country, has suggested what could well be a particularly interesting “road map” in this regard. Addressing the participants of the 3rd International Conference on Islamic Thought, held in Kuala Lumpur in May 1984, he said: “If Muslims really want an Islamic social order, then they must examine every aspect of modern life from the perspective of Islam and make the necessary corrections (…) Then they should integrate the new knowledge into the corpus of the Islamic legacy by eliminating, amending, reinterpreting and adapting its components according to the world view of Islam”.

The debate on this topic is endless, and the opinions expressed by Muslims themselves are often diametrically opposed. This is the case with two recent contributions. If for the Tunisian researcher Hela Ouardi[13] “Islam is a totally anachronistic religion, stuck in a temporal trap and unable to cut the thread of the mythology that would allow it to enter modernity”, it is quite otherwise for the Swiss researcher of Moroccan origin Réda Benkirane[14] who considers that “paradoxically, what we perceive as a return of religion is in reality an exit from Islam. This “outing” essentializes the accessory (appearance, clothing, standards) and accessorizes the essential (the articulation of reason and faith). Everything that has been going on for half a century now has contributed to a turbulent secularization of Islam (…) The instrumentalization of religion for political ends has been the work of secular Western states and Arab petromonarchies”.

In truth, what reformers and critics of Islam alike have not sufficiently understood or admitted is that “the spiritual dimension of Islam has permeated the entirety of its civilization”. Accordingly, regaining knowlege of the sacred is an essential requierement. This is the most important characteristic of this particular religion, one that Muslims hold to be perfect and definitive, especially in terms of the transcendent reality which lies at the heart of its message. In interpreting the world view of Islam, the aim of all knowledge must be to “seek, find and affirm the divine basis of all righteous thinking and actions”, as referred to in the Qur’an.[15] Furthermore, the clear dichotomy between the sacred and the secular contained in the biblical affirmation “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” finds no place in Islam if it “despiritualizes the foundations of individual and collective action”.

The aforementioned considerations are the most essential features which made the specificity of Islam, its Alpha and its Omega, which allowed the birth and then the greatness of its civilization, and which will be crucial for the success of any “rebirth” enterprise aimed at the individual and societal regeneration of Islam in the modern world. Otherwise, what Mr. Allawi calls “the last crisis” of the civilization of Islam may induce a secularization of Islam, which would therefore reduce its domain to the private sphere, as an individual faith or, at best, a community faith. Such an evolution would obviously add Islam to the other non-established religions in the modern world and, with time, its singularity will disappear, and with it any possibility that its outward expression will have a serious impact on the world in general. On that account, it would permanently lose any claim it might have to be “the incubator of a unique form of a future civilization”. As for the Muslims taken individually, they would then be part of a world which would bear no imprint of their religion “while the model of Promethean man, heroically defying the gods and tolerating no limit to his desires and their fulfillment”, would take a further step towards its own inescapable perdition. All in all, the Islamic “awakening” so much announced lately would not be a prelude to the rebirth of an Islamic civilization but “a new episode of its decline”, and the final act of the end of a once resplendent civilization that would have thus, God forbid, also made its swan song.

This fundamental conclusion reached by Ali Allawi, and which we endorse entirely, is the same as that formulated fifty years before him by Malek Bennabi in the original Arabic version of his fascinating scholarly book published in 1971 in Cairo under the title “The Problem of Ideas in the Muslim world”. The Muslim world, he wrote, has emerged from the post-Almohadian era in the last century without, however, yet finding its base; like a rider who has lost the stirrup and has not yet managed to get it back, it is looking for its new equilibrium. Its secular decadence, which had condemned it to inertia, apathy, impotence, colonizability, nevertheless retained its more or less fossilized values. It emerges in this state in a twentieth century at the height of its material power, but where all moral forces began to fail soon after World War I.

After examining the ins and outs of this long process of decadence, Bennabi warns that the Muslim world, and more particularly a large part of its “elites”, is carried away by contradictory ideas, those very which bring it face to face with the problems of technological civilization without putting it in contact with its roots, and those which link it to its own cultural universe without putting it completely in contact with its archetypes, despite the meritorious efforts of its Reformers. It therefore risks, “by infatuation or by slipping on slides set in its footsteps, to be drawn into modern ‘ideologies’ just as they consummate their bankruptcy in the West where they were born”. We do not make history, he affirms assertively, by following in the footsteps of others in all the beaten paths, but by opening up new paths; this is only possible with “genuine ideas that answer all the growth problems of a society which must be rebuilt”.

Surely, for centuries, the civilization of Islam has often been shaken by powerful opposing currents. The crusades, the Mongol invasion, Western colonization and imperialism and, today, the intense movement of globalization were the most striking ones. It has just as often bent under their blows, but has never broken. Far from it, its contribution to universal civilization and to the construction of the Old and New worlds is undeniable. The chronicle of this role, especially during the period of the Ottoman Empire, has recently been the subject of a remarkable book written by Professor of history and Chair of the Department of History at American Yale University, Alan Mikhail[16], under the title “The Shadow of God: The Ottoman Sultan Who Shaped the Modern World”. In the introduction to this narrative presenting a new and holistic picture of the last five centuries and demonstrating Islam’s constituent role in the forming of some of the most fundamental aspects of the history of Europe, the Americas, and the United States, he states that: “If we do not place Islam at the center of our grasp of world history, we will never understand why the Moor-slayers (Matamoros)17 are memorialized on the Texas-Mexico border or, more generally, why we have blindly, and repeatedly, narrated histories that miss major features of our shared past. As we chronicle Selim and his age, a bold new world history emerges, one that overturns shibboleths that have held sway for a millennium”, before concluding: “Whether politicians, pundits, and traditional historians like it or not, the world we inhabit is very much an Ottoman one”.

*

  1. Algerian researcher in international relations, author of the book “L’Orient et l’Occident à l’heure d’un nouveau Sykes-Picot” (The Orient and the Occident in Time of a New Sykes-Picot) Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2014. 
  2. Malek Bennabi (1905-1973) was an Algerian thinker and writer who devoted most of his life to observe and analyze History to understand the general laws behind the rise and fall of civilizations. He is also known for having coined the concept of “colonizability” (the inner aptitude to be colonized) and even the notion of “globalism” (mondialisme, in French). 
  3. Gilles Bertrand, Ordre international, ordre mondial, ordre global”, in Revue internationale et stratégique 2004/2 (N°54). 
  4. Bertrand Piettre, “Ordre et désordre : Le point de vue philosophique”, 1995. 
  5. RAND Corportation, “Understanding the Current International Order”, 2016. 
  6. Henry Kissinger, “World Order”, Penguin Press, New York, 2014. 
  7. The Wall Street Journal, The Unconquerable Islamic World”, August 19, 2021. 
  8. See: “Remarks by President Joe Biden on the End of war in afghanistan, The white House, WH.GOV, August 31, 2021. 
  9. Ali A. Allawi, “The Crisis of Islamic Civilisation”, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2010. 
  10. According to a study conducted by The Pew Research Center entitled “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050”: “Islam will grow faster than any other major religion. As of 2010, Christianity was by far the world’s largest religion, with an estimated 2.2 billion adherents, nearly a third (31%) of all 6.9 billion people on Earth. Islam was second, with 1.6 billion adherents, or 23% of the global population. By 2050 there will be near parity between Muslims (2.8 billion, or 30% of the population) and Christians (2.9 billion, or 31%), possibly for the first time in history. If the main projection model is extended beyond 2050, the Muslim share of the world’s population would equal the Christian share, at roughly 32% each, around 2070. After that, the number of Muslims would exceed the number of Christians. By the year 2100, about 1% more of the world’s population would be Muslim (35%) than Christian (34%)”. 
  11. See : Jean Pierre Proulx “Il y a 50 ans : Vatican II. Le Concile qui a bouleversé l’Eglise”, Le Devoir, December 22, 2012, and the interview with historian Guillaume Cuchet, in “Aleteia”, “Le catholicisme aura l’avenir qu’on voudra bien lui donner”, September 18, 2021. 
  12. Ralph Peters, “Blood Borders: How a Better Middle East Would look”, in Armed Forces Journal, juin 2006. 
  13. See : Hela Ouardi, L’Islam n’arrive pas à trancher le fil de la mythologie qui lui permettrait d’entrer dans la modernité”, Le Monde des religions, September 19, 2021. 
  14. See : Réda Benkirane, “Tout ce qui se joue depuis un demi-siècle concourt à une sécularisation turbulente de l’islam”, le Monde des religions, September 5, 2021. 
  15. “We will show them Our signs in the horizon and within themselves until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur’an) is the truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?” (Chapter Fussilat, Verse 53). 
  16. Alan Mikhail, “God’s Shadow: The Ottoman Sultan who shaped the modern world”, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2020.
  17. Matamoros” is the name of a city located in the northeastern Mexican state of Tamaulipas across the border from Brownsville, Texas in the United States. It was coined by Catholic Spaniards for whom it was the duty of every Christian soldier to be a Moor-slayer. 

Palestine: Old Policy of Divide and Rule Continues

By VT Editors -June 14, 2021

By Sajjad Shaukat Pak VT

After martyring more than 300 Palestinians, including 100 children and 80 women, injuring more than 3000 innocent civilians in Gaza Strip through airstrikes and ground shelling, Israel agreed on a ceasefire with Hamas, which ended the 11 days war.

Unmatched with Israeli arms, freedom fighters of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad group Abu Ubaida had no option except firing rockets inside Israel.

Very tensions had started when Israeli police stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem and attacked the Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinians staged protests in the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex.

In an emergency meeting of the foreign ministers, the OIC had called for an immediate halt to Israel’s barbaric attacks on Gaza.

Earlier, called by China, the UNO Security Council held an urgent meeting on the unrest in Jerusalem. The three sessions of the UN body failed after the US’s moves to block a joint statement that would condemn Israel for the violence and call for a cease-fire.

Like the past administrations, the US President Joe Biden reiterated that Israel has the right to defend itself.

Biden also sent Linda Thomas-Greenfield—the US’s UN envoy to de-escalate tensions. However, it was part of the double game of Washington. When American President Biden seriously pressured Netanyahu to prevent a full-scale war, Tel Aviv agreed for ceasefire.

But, Israeli Premier Netanyahu has not accepted the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute which was stressed by the US and some major Western countries.

In fact, international bodies such as the UNO Security Council, OIC and the US-led West failed to present a solution to end the Israeli state terrorism on the Palestinians, which have continued from time to time.

Notably, like the United States, Ottoman Empire of Turkey was a large multi-ethnic state. In order to maintain their control, one of the British strategies was divide and rule which was being practiced through various tactics like arrangement of rebellions, manipulation of ethnic and sectarian differences. The Britain provided soldiers, weapons and money to the Arab subjects against that Empire. According to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British and French agreed to divide the Arab world between them. The Britain took control of what are now Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan. The French were given modern Syria, Lebanon and southern Turkey. Thus, they brought about the end of the Ottomans and the rise of the new states, with borders, running across the Middle East, dividing Muslims from each other.

Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 which was a conspiracy of the American and the British rulers against the Palestinians was implemented. On May 14, 1948, the UNO acted upon the 1947 UN Partition Plan and established the state of Israel.

Israel occupied East Jerusalem and Syrian Golan Heights during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed the entire city in 1980 in a move that has never been recognized by the UNO and international community.

Once Henry Kissinger stated “legitimacy is not natural or automatic, but created.”

Under the cover of the 9/11 attacks, the US President George W. Bush started global war on terror. Occupation of Afghanistan by the US-led NATO, Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, like the creation of Al-Qaeda by the CIA, the Islamic State group (ISIS), proxy wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen, and elsewhere in the world were part of the same anti-Muslim campaign to continue old divide and rule policy.

Henry Kissinger had suggested the split of Iraq into three independent regions, ruled by Kurds, Shias and Sunnis. In this regard, the Asia Times Online reported in 2005: “The plan of balkanizing Iraq into several smaller states is an exact replica of an extreme right-wing Israeli plan…an essential part of the balkanization of the whole Middle East. Curiously, Henry Kissinger was selling the same idea even before the 2003 invasion of Iraq…this is classic divide and rule: the objective is the perpetuation of Arab disunity.”

Similarly, during the partition of the Sub-continent, the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) which comprised Muslim majority decided to join Pakistan according to the British formula. But, Dogra Raja, Sir Hari Singh, a Hindu who was ruling over the J&K in collusion with the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Governor General Lord Mountbatten joined India.

The Security Council adopted resolution of April 21, 1948, which promised a plebiscite under UN auspices to enable the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine whether they wish to join Pakistan or India. On February 5, 1964, India backed out of its commitment of holding plebiscite. Instead, Indian Parliament declared Kashmir-an integral part of the Indian union.

Indian cruel actions against the Kashmiris reached climax on August 5, 2019 when Indian extremist government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the leader of the fanatic ruling party BJP revoked articles 35A and 370 of the Constitution, which gave a special status to the disputed territory of the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). New Delhi unilaterally annexed the IIOJK with the Indian Federation to turn Muslim majority into minority.

Implementing the ideology of Hindutva ((Hindu Nationalism), Indian prejudiced rulers have Issued over 1.8 million domicile certificates to non-Kashmiris to change the demographic structure of the IIOJK.

And deployment of more than 900,000 military troops in the IIOJK, who have martyred thousands of the Kashmiris through brutal tactics-extrajudicial killings—non-provision of basic necessities of life and medicines for the coronavirus patients prove worst form of India’s state terrorism. Now, almost 21 months have been passed. But, Indian strict military lockdown in the IIOJK continues.

Besides, the Indian Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) further exposed the discriminatory policies of the Modi-led government against the Muslims.

It is mentionable that Article 42 of the 1907—Hague Regulations states that a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

Moreover, in its resolution 3314, the United Nations General Assembly prohibits states from any military occupation. Article 2(4) of the UN charter explicitly prohibits the use of force.

In addition, General Assembly’s resolution 1541 adopted in 1960 accepts the legitimacy of the right of self-determination and opposes repressive measures of all kinds against the freedom fighters by the colonial powers.

Nevertheless, the US-led major Western countries continue old policy of divide and rule to create division among the Islamic countries.

In this respect, on the directions of the US ex-President Donald Trump, some Muslim countries’ various moves such as recognition of the state of Israel, opening of Israeli embassies in their countries, Shia-Sunni sectarian split, manipulation of Iran-Saudi Arabia differences, encouragement to Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, lack of practical action against the Modi-regime etc. might be cited as some instances. Undoubtedly, it is due to lack of unity in the Islamic Ummah that the Muslim countries have become easy target of this old policy.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: Sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

ABOUT VT EDITORS

VT EditorsVeterans Today

VT Editors is a General Posting account managed by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff.

All content herein is owned and copyrighted by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff

editors@veteranstoday.com

Trade-Off looming on Syria and Yemen:

Trade-Off looming on Syria and Yemen:

March 16, 2021

By Ghassan Kadi for the Saker Blog

In the past few weeks much has happened in the area of diplomacy on the part of Russia. Russia is forging ahead after stepping up its presence in the Middle East in the past decade, taking a strong pro-active political role. Moscow during this period has been intent on consolidating its efforts in re-establishing itself as the key player in any political settlements in the Middle East. Ever since Kissinger in the late 1970’s pulled the rug out from underneath the feet of the USSR, striking a deal between Israel and Egypt, excluding the USSR and the rest of the Arab World, the political influence of Russia in the Middle East significantly waned until it came back with deciding force when Russia responded to the Syrian Government’s request for help in September 2015.

Lately, the economic crisis has deepened in Syria following the drastic Western sanctions. And specifically after the implementation of the Caesar’s Act, the Syrian currency took a huge tumble and the cost of living has soared to unprecedented levels. This left many cynics wondering and pondering what was Russia going to do in the face of the collapsed Syrian economy after having achieved an impressive military victory, taking its troops outside its former USSR borders for the first time and heralding the end of the single super power status of the USA.

To this effect, and on the diplomatic side, Russian FM Lavrov has recently visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE for talks pertaining to an array of issues. The agenda issues that transpired to the media include trade, the Russian Sputnik V vaccine, as well as issues of global and regional security, albeit vague in details as what ‘security issues’ mean.

It appears that in these meetings, discussions included the return of Syria to the Arab League and the cost of reconstruction of Syria after ten years of war, a bill touted to exceed $Bn200. Expectations have existed for some time that the Arab Gulf states will fork out a huge chunk of this cost. As mentioned above, the bottom line here is that Russia’s military success in its operation in Syria needs to be followed by political success. Partly, this is achieved within the Astana talks which include Turkey and Iran. However, the very same Arab States instrumental in the ‘War on Syria’ are also instrumental in facilitating the return of Syria to the Arab League, the reconstruction efforts in Syria and the easing of sanctions. The Gulf states have always reiterated that there will no return of Syria to the Arab League for as long as Iranian forces remain on the ground. The UAE seemed more open than Saudi Arabia to the prospects of Syria’s return to the Arab League and financing the reconstruction process.

But why would the Gulf States, the same states that spent tens of billions of dollars in order to destroy Syria, be suddenly now interested in the reversal of the process? This is a fair question to ask.

Quite unexpectantly, and almost immediately after the return of Lavrov to Moscow, a top delegation of Hezbollah, headed by Mohamad Raad, was invited to Moscow for talks. Apparently, the visit was cloaked in a veil of secrecy in Russia and was not at all covered in Western media, even though it made news in Arabic mainstream media. It would be politically naïve to imagine that Lavrov’s visit to the Gulf has no relation to this. All issues in the Middle East are related to each other, including the war in Yemen.

To put it succinctly, the UAE had already stepped away from the Yemen war. However, Saudi Arabia remains bogged down in this travesty and seven years on, must have come to the humiliating and painful realization that it is a war it cannot win. This is where Iran and Hezbollah can have leverage in any direct or indirect negotiations with the Saudis, and Russia is the only arbitrator who is able to communicate with all parties involved.

All parties in the Middle East are looking for face-saving tradeoffs; at least partial and interim ones. The Saudis in particular are tired and exhausted,

In an interview given to Sputnik Arabic, one not widely reported in other media, not even Sputnik English, Raad praised the cooperation between Hezbollah and Russia, stating that ‘the invitation we received aims to reopen the dialogue about the next phase after having reached the achievements that serve the interests of the people of the region in the recent past’ .

This is Raad’s first visit to Moscow since 2011. Of that visit, I am not trying to speculate in hindsight of the purpose of it and the achievements of it. Furthermore, Hezbollah has not ever been party to any international dis-engagement or peace negotiations in the past, except for ones relating to exchange of prisoners. The economic demise of Syria and Lebanon, as well as the Saudi-Yemeni impasse, may well have placed Hezbollah in a position of participating in peace-deals negotiations this time.

I am neither referring to peace deals with Israel here, nor any deal involving disarmament. Hezbollah will not be prepared to negotiate disarming itself under any political settlement either today or in the foreseeable future, and Moscow is totally aware of this.

According to my analysis, the deal that Moscow is most likely to suggest is a mutual withdrawal of Iran and Hezbollah from Syria on one hand, and an end of the Saudi war on Yemen. It is simple, Saudi Arabia to leave Yemen and Iran/Hezbollah to leave Syria. I believe that Lavrov has already secured the Saudi acceptance of those terms, terms that will not only end the war in Yemen, but also the return of Syria to the Arab League and a possible easing of the Western economic sanctions on Syria. Had Lavrov not secured the Saudi assurance, he would not have invited Hezbollah for talks.

A deal of this nature can potentially end the criminal human tragedy in Yemen in a manner that will portray the Saudis as the real losers in the war, and this is where they need a face-saving trade-off in Syria. In Syria, they will be perceived as winners by securing an Iranian/Hezbollah exit. But most importantly perhaps for the Saudis, this will put an end to a very costly and humiliating war in Yemen, one which is beginning to draw criticism from some quarters of the international community, including alleged talk of America considering placing arms deal embargos on Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, if Iran and Hezbollah end their presence in Syria, many sanctions are likely to be lifted and the severe economic pressure in Syria will be eased. Such a deal will be a humanitarian win for Syria and Yemen, a strategic win for Saudi Arabia and Iran, and a diplomatic win for Russia.

What will be in it for Hezbollah will largely depend on what Lavrov has put on the table, and it seems obvious that it is Hezbollah that will need more convincing than Iran, and this is why the talks are now with Hezbollah; not with Iranian officials. Perhaps the deal already has the tacit approval of Iranian officials.

It goes without saying; Israel will be watching these developments with keen interest. Israel wants Iran and Hezbollah out of Syria. But the trade-off deal I am talking about is not one in which Israel is a direct party.

What is known at this stage is that a meeting has already taken place between the Hezbollah delegation and Russian officials. As I write this, I am not aware if other meetings are to follow and or whether or not the Hezbollah delegation is back in Lebanon.

Was the 2011 Moscow visit of Raad a prelude for Hezbollah to enter Syria? Will the 2021 visit be prelude for Hezbollah to leave Syria? We don’t know. We may never find out the actual detailed outcome of the mysterious-but-not-so-mysterious current Hezbollah visit. It may not even end up with a press release, but in the next coming days, we will find out if a Syria-Yemen trade-off is indeed looming.

The art of being a spectacularly misguided oracle

February 22, 2021

The art of being a spectacularly misguided oracle

By Pepe Escobar with permission and first posted at Asia Times

The late Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski for some time dispensed wisdom as an oracle of US foreign policy, side by side with the perennial Henry Kissinger – who, in vast swathes of the Global South, is regarded as nothing but a war criminal.

Brzezinski never achieved the same notoriety. At best he claimed bragging rights for giving the USSR its own Vietnam in Afghanistan – by facilitating the internationalization of Jihad Inc., with all its dire, subsequent consequences.

Over the years, it was always amusing to follow the heights Dr. Zbig would reach with his Russophobia. But then, slowly but surely, he was forced to revise his great expectations. And finally he must have been truly horrified that his perennial Mackinder-style geopolitical fears came to pass – beyond the wildest nightmares.

Not only Washington had prevented the emergence of a “peer competitor” in Eurasia, but the competitor is now configured as a strategic partnership between Russia and China.

Dr. Zbig was not exactly versed in Chinese matters. His misreading of China may be found in his classic A Geostrategy for Eurasia published in – where else – Foreign Affairs in 1997:

Building in Beijing

Although China is emerging as a regionally dominant power, it is not likely to become a global one for a long time. The conventional wisdom that China will be the next global power is breeding paranoia outside China while fostering megalomania in China. It is far from certain that China’s explosive growth rates can be maintained for the next two decades. In fact, continued long-term growth at the current rates would require an unusually felicitous mix of national leadership, political tranquility, social discipline, high savings, massive inflows of foreign investment, and regional stability. A prolonged combination of all of these factors is unlikely.

Dr. Zbig added,

Even if China avoids serious political disruptions and sustains its economic growth for a quarter of a century — both rather big ifs — China would still be a relatively poor country. A tripling of GDP would leave China below most nations in per capita income, and a significant portion of its people would remain poor. Its standing in access to telephones, cars, computers, let alone consumer goods, would be very low.

Oh dear. Not only Beijing hit all the targets Dr. Zbig proclaimed were off limits, but the central government also eliminated poverty by the end of 2020.

The Little Helmsman Deng Xiaoping once observed, “at present, we are still a relatively poor nation. It is impossible for us to undertake many international proletarian obligations, so our contributions remain small. However, once we have accomplished the four modernizations and the national economy has expanded, our contributions to mankind, and especially to the Third World, will be greater. As a socialist country, China will always belong to the Third World and shall never seek hegemony.”

What Deng described then as the Third World – a Cold War-era derogatory terminology – is now the Global South. And the Global South is essentially the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) on steroids, as in the Spirit of Bandung in 1955 remixed to the Eurasian Century.

Cold Warrior Dr. Zbig was obviously not a Daoist monk – so he could never abandon the self to enter the Dao, the most secret of all mysteries.

Had he been alive to witness the dawn of the Year of the Metal Ox, he might have noticed how China, expanding on Deng’s insights, is de facto applying practical lessons derived from Daoist correlative cosmology: life as a system of interacting opposites, engaging with each other in constant change and evolution, moving in cycles and feedback loops, always mathematically hard to predict with exactitude.

A practical example of simultaneously opening and closing is the dialectical approach of Beijing’s new “dual circulation” development strategy. It’s quite dynamic, relying on checks and balances between increase of domestic consumption and external trade/investments (the New Silk Roads).

Peace is Forever War

Now let’s move to another oracle, a self-described expert of what in the Beltway is known as the “Greater Middle East”: Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, certified warmongering neo-con, and one-half of the famous Kaganate of Nulands – as the joke went across Eurasia – side by side with his wife, notorious Maidan cookie distributor Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland, who’s about to re-enter government as part of the Biden-Harris administration.

Kagan is back pontificating in – where else – Foreign Affairs, which published his latest superpower manifesto. That’s where we find this absolute pearl:

That Americans refer to the relatively low-cost military involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq as “forever wars” is just the latest example of their intolerance for the messy and unending business of preserving a general peace and acting to forestall threats. In both cases, Americans had one foot out the door the moment they entered, which hampered their ability to gain control of difficult situations.

So let’s get this straight. The multi-trillion dollar Forever Wars are “relatively low-cost”; tell that to the multitudes suffering the Via Crucis of US crumbling infrastructure and appalling standards in health and education. If you don’t support the Forever Wars – absolutely necessary to preserve the “liberal world order” – you are “intolerant”.

“Preserving a general peace” does not even qualify as a joke, coming from someone absolutely clueless about realities on the ground. As for what the Beltway defines as “vibrant civil society” in Afghanistan, that in reality revolves around millennia-old tribal custom codes: it has nothing to do with some neocon/woke crossover. Moreover, Afghanistan’s GDP – after so much American “help” – remains even lower than Saudi-bombed Yemen’s.

Exceptionalistan will not leave Afghanistan. A deadline of May 1st was negotiated in Doha last year for the US/NATO to remove all troops. That’s not gonna happen.

The spin is already turbocharged: the Deep State handlers of Joe “Crash Test Dummy” Biden will not respect the deadline. Everyone familiar with the New Great Game on steroids across Eurasia knows why: a strategic lily pad must be maintained at the intersection of Central and South Asia to help closely monitor – what else – Brzezinski’s worst nightmare: the Russia-China strategic partnership.

As it stands we have 2,500 Pentagon + 7,000 NATO troops + a whole lot of “contractors” in Afghanistan. The spin is that they can’t leave because the Taliban – which de facto control from 52% to as much as 70% of the whole tribal territory – will take over.

To see, in detail, how this whole sorry saga started, non-oracle skeptics could do worse than check Volume 3 of my Asia Times archives: Forever Wars: Afghanistan-Iraq, part 1 (2001-2004) . Part 2 will be out soon. Here they will find how the multi-trillion dollar Forever Wars – so essential to “preserve the peace” – actually developed on the ground, in total contrast to the official imperial narrative influenced, and defended, by Kagan.

With oracles like these, the US definitely does not need enemies.

The Dangerous Alliance of Rothschild and the Vatican of Francis

22.12.2020 

Author: F. William Engdahl

ROT63241

Holy Moly! The most globalist and interventionist Pope since the Crusades of the 12th Century has formalized an alliance with the largest figures in global finance led by none other than that noble banking family, Rothschild. The new alliance is a joint venture they call “Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican.” The venture is one of the more cynical and given the actors, most dangerous frauds being promoted since Davos WEF guru and Henry Kissinger protégé, Klaus Schwab, began to promote the Great Reset of the world capitalist order. What and is behind this so-called Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican?

On their website they proclaim in a typical UN doublespeak, “The Council for Inclusive Capitalism is a movement of the world’s business and public sector leaders who are working to build a more inclusive, sustainable, and trusted economic system that addresses the needs of our people and the planet.” A more sustainable, trusted economic system? Doesn’t that sound like the infamous UN Agenda 21 and its Agenda 2030 daughter, the globalist master plan? They then claim, “Inclusive Capitalism is fundamentally about creating long-term value for all stakeholders – businesses, investors, employees, customers, governments and communities.”

They continue, “Council members make actionable commitments aligned with the World Economic Forum International Business Council’s Pillars for sustainable value creation—People, Planet, Principles of Governance, and Prosperity—and that advance the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”

In announcing the deal with the Vatican, Lynn Forester de Rothschild declared, “This Council will follow the warning from Pope Francis to listen to ‘the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor’ and answer society’s demands for a more equitable and sustainable model of growth.”

Their reference to Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum is no accident. The group is yet another front group in what is becoming a globalist bum’s rush to try to convince a skeptical world that the same people who created the post-1945 model of IMF-led globalization and giga-corporate entities more powerful than governments, destroying traditional agriculture in favor of toxic agribusiness, dismantling living standards in industrialized countries to flee to cheap labor countries like Mexico or China, will now lead the effort to correct all their abuses? We are being naïve if we swallow this.

Rothschild and pals

First off it is useful to see who are the “inclusive” capitalists joining forces with the Pope and Vatican. The founder is a lady who carries the name Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild. She is the wife of the 90-year old retired mega-billionaire head of London’s NM Rothschilds Bank, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. Lady Lynn however is from “commoner” roots, born into a US working class family in New Jersey whose father, as she tells, worked two jobs to put her and her brothers through law and medical schools. She seemed to have had some influential mentors, as she went to Wall Street then to telecoms including Motorola and made reported tens of millions before hooking up with Sir Evelyn and his reported $20 billion in assets. Reports have it that Henry Kissinger played a personal role in encouraging the Transatlantic union of the two.

Lady Lynn is interesting as well beyond her famous husband. According to the list of names of those who flew on the private jet of convicted child sex trafficker and reported Mossad operative Jeffrey Epstein, one name that appears is “de Rothschild, Lynn Forester.”

It is interesting to note, that the same Lynn Forester in 1991, before she took Sir Evelyn as her husband, generously let a British friend have full use of one of Lynn’s Manhattan apartment properties, following the apparent murder of the woman’s father, British media tycoon and Mossad agent, Robert Maxwell. The British friend of Lynn, Ghislaine Maxwell, today is awaiting trial for complicity in child sex trafficking as the partner of Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell reportedly maintained the Manhattan address of Lady Lynn until very recently to register a bizarre non-profit called Terramar that she and Epstein set up in 2012, allegedly aimed at saving our oceans. When Epstein was arrested she quickly dissolved the non-profit. One of the donors to Ghislaine’s TerraMar was something called the Clinton Foundation, which leads to the next friend.

Lady Lynn has another long-time friend named Hillary Clinton, whose husband, Bill, was also logged on Epstein’s Lolita Express private jet, around two dozen times. Lynn and her new husband, Sir Evelyn, in fact were so close to the Clintons that in 2000 the Rothschild newlyweds spent part of their honeymoon as guests at the White House of Mr and Mrs Clinton. Lady Lynn after that became a major fund-raiser in 2008 and again 2016 for a possible Hillary bid for President, called a “bundler.” She also advised Hillary on her economic program, a free market one based on Adam Smith as she described it in an interview once.

Lady Lynn’s “Guardians”

The Rothschild venture with the Vatican at this point, in addition to co-founder Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, includes hand-picked money moguls and their select foundations who pompously call themselves the “Guardians.” That’s a term sounding more like a South Side Chicago gang or some kind of mafia overlords. They call themselves the moral guardians, together now with their new friends at the Vatican, for reform of capitalism.

The Guardian member list includes Rajiv Shah, the CEO of the Rockefeller Foundation, and former partner of the Gates Foundation’s AGRA scam to introduce GMO seeds in Africa. The Rockefeller Foundation has been involved in promoting a pandemic “lockdown” since 2010, and is a core part of the WEF Great Reset agenda. He just released a Rockefeller report, Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the US Food System.

Rothschild’s Guardians also include Darren Walker the CEO of the Ford Foundation. Those two foundations, Ford and Rockefeller, have done more to shape an imperial American foreign policy than even the US State Department or CIA, including the funding of the failed Green Revolution in India and Mexico, and the creation by Rockefeller funds of GMO crops.

The head of DuPont, a GMO giant and chemicals group is another Guardian as well as scandal-ridden vaccine and drug companies, Merck and Johnson & Johnson. Merck lied about the risks of its arthritis drug Vioxx until more than 55,000 users died of heart attacks. Johnson & Johnson has been involved in numerous frauds in recent years including around negative effects of its anti-psychotic drug Risperdal, illegal presence of cancer-causing asbestos in its baby powder, and potentially thousands of legal actions for its role as a leading supplier of the opioid in Purdue Pharma’s deadly prescription painkiller OxyContin.

Other Guardians include CEOs of Visa, Mastercard, Bank of America, Allianz insurance, BP. In 2016 Visa along with USAID were behind the catastrophic Modi experiment to introduce a cashless economy in India.

Notable also is Guardian Mark Carney, former Bank of England head and also advocate of cashless digital central bank currencies to replace the dollar. Carney is now United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.

Carney is also a Board member of the Davos World Economic Forum, the public promoter of the Global Reset of capitalism to impose the dystopian Agenda 2030 “sustainable” economy. In fact several of Rothschild’s Guardians are on the WEF Board, including billionaire Marc Benioff, founder of cloud computing Salesforce, and OECD head Angel Gurria. And ex-Credit Suisse CEO, Tidjane Thiam is on the International Business Council of the World Economic Forum.

Other Guardians of the inclusive capitalism transformation include the head of Bank of America, which bank was sued by the US Government for fraud connected with the 2008 US subprime mortgage crisis, as well as for laundering money for the deadly Mexican drug cartels and Russian organized crime. The select Guardian list also includes Marcie Frost, the controversial head of CalPERS, the huge fraud-ridden California state pension fund managing over $360 billion.

The head of State Street Corporation, one of the world’s largest asset management companies with US$3.1 trillion under management, is another Guardian. In January 2020 State Street announced it would vote against directors of companies in major stock indices that do not meet targets for environmental, social and governance changes. This is what is called Green Investing, as part of so-called Socially Responsible Investing. The WEF strategy, pushed also by WEF board members like Larry Fink of BlackRock, reward companies that they deem “socially responsible.” This is the key to the inclusive capitalism agenda of not just Rothschild’s inclusive capitalism Guardians, but also the WEF.

Their website claims that the Guardians manage more than $10.5 trillion dollars and control companies that employ 200 million workers. Now a brief look at their new Vatican partner.

Vatican Morals?

Ironically, or maybe not, Pope Francis, the partner chosen to give Rothschild’s group of mega-capitalists “moral” credibility, is himself embroiled in what could be the largest financial scandals, fraud and misuse of church funds in the modern history of the Vatican. That, despite the fact Pope Francis declared as new Pope in 2013, one of his main tasks would be to clean up the scandal-ridden Vatican finances. That has hardly taken place even after more than six years. Some Vatican observers even claim the financial corruption has worsened.

The unravelling scandal revolves around now-disgraced Cardinal Angelo Becciu who until 2018 was de facto chief-of-staff to the Pope and regular confidante. Becciu was Substitute for General Affairs in the Secretariat of State, a key position in the Roman Curia until June, 2018 when the pope elevated him to Cardinal, ironically enough, responsible for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. Becciu, clearly no saint, was able to invest hundreds of millions even billions over years of Church funds, including donations for the poor in Peter’s Pence, into projects he chose with a former banker from Credit Suisse. Projects included €150 million share in a luxury London real estate complex and $1.1 million into a film, Rocketman, about the life of Elton John. That comes to light as the ongoing Vatican child sex scandals caused Pope Francis to defrock Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, the first Cardinal to fall in the Church’s deep sexual abuse charges.

Italian press reports that the Pope knew about the dubious investments of Becciu and even praised them before the depth of the scandals broke. In November, 2020 Italian police raided the residence of Becciu’s former Vatican accountant and found €600,000 in cash and evidence the Vatican employee received $15 million in fake invoicing over years.

With a background like this, the new Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican of Lynn de Rothschild warrants close scrutiny as they clearly plan big things along with Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum to “reform” the world economy, and it won’t be nice or moral we can be sure.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Why China is NOT the Enemy of the West (Why British Psychological Warfare Must Now be Examined)

Why China is NOT the Enemy of the West (Why British Psychological Warfare Must Now be Examined)

December 17, 2020

By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog

Since many good people have found themselves susceptible to the narrative that China is the global supervillain conspiring to overthrow western Christian values by any means necessary, I believe some lessons should be brought to bear.

  1. Anti-Nation state fanatic George Soros stated at the 2020 Davos Summit that China has become the greatest threat to his vision for Open Society (right behind Trump’s USA). This was echoed by Lord Malloch Brown’s 2020 Global Government Speeches.
  2. China’s deep alliance with Russia and the increased integration of the Eurasian Economic Union with the 135 nation strong Belt and Road Initiative form the basis of an alternative multipolar paradigm has kept imperialists up at night for the past several years.
  3. The prospect of a US-China-Russia alliance has been one of the greatest threats to empire which peeked in the weeks before COVID-19 arose onto the scene as the US-China Trade Pact successfully entered its first phase (and has since fallen into shambles) as well as Trump’s repeated calls for “good relations with Russia.”

Amidst the surge of anti-China media psy ops published across Five Eyes nations, countless patriots of a conservative bent have found themselves absorbed into a red-scare manic hysteria while forgetting that the actual causal hand of British Intelligence has been caught blatantly running the overthrow of nation states for decades (including the 2016-2020 to run regime change within the USA itself).

Understanding the nature of the current psy ops, and new red scare deflection underway, it is necessary to review some seriously underappreciated facts of recent history, and since former secretary of State Sir Henry Kissinger (a genuine Knight of the British Empire), figures prominently in this story, it is wise to start with his relationship with China.

Although he is celebrated for being an “enlightened” liberal politician who helped China open up to the west after the dark days of Mao’s Cultural Revolution by extending western markets to China, the truth is very different.

A devout proponent of world government and population control, Kissinger had been the tool selected during a particularly important period of human history to advance a new ordering of world affairs.

The Division of the World Into Producers and Consumers

Since the world was taken off the gold reserve system way back in 1971, a new age of “post-industrialism” was unleashed onto a globalized world. Humanity was given a new type of system which presumed that both our nature and the cause of value itself were located in the act of consuming. The old idea that our nature was creative, and that our wealth was tied to producing, was assumed to be an obsolete thing of the past… a relic of a dirty old industrial age.

Under the new post-1971 operating system, we were told that the world would now be divided among producers and consumers.

The “have-not producers” would provide the cheap labor which first world consumers would increasingly rely on for the creation of goods they used to make for themselves. “First world” nations were told that according to the new post-industrial rules of de-regulation and market economics, that they should export their heavy industry, machine tools and other productive sectors abroad as they transitioned into “white collar” post-industrial consumer societies. The longer this outsourcing of industries went on, the less western nations found themselves capable of sustaining their own citizenries, building their own infrastructure or determining their own economic destinies.

In place of full spectrum economies that once saw over 40% of North America’s labor force employed in manufacturing, a new addiction to “buying cheap stuff” began, and a “service economies” took over like a cancer.

To make matters worse, the many newly independent nations struggling to liberate themselves from colonialism were told that they would have to abandon their dreams of development since those goals would render the formula of a producer-consumer stratified society impossible to create. Those leaders resisting this edict would face assassination or CIA overthrow. Those leaders who adapted to the new rules would become peons of the new age of “Economic Hitmen”.

China and the West: The Real Story

By the time Deng Xiaoping announced the “opening up” of China in 1978, Kissinger had already managed the economic paradigm shift of 1971, the artificial “oil shock therapy” of 1973 and authored his 1974 NSSM 200 Report which transformed U.S. Foreign Policy from a pro-development orientation towards a new policy of depopulation targeting the poor nations of the global south under the logic that the resources under their soil were the lawful possession of the USA.

The NSSM 200 (titled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests”) outlined its objective “Assistance for population moderation should give emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is a special US and strategic interest”.

Kissinger, and the hives of Trilateral Commission/CFR operatives to which he was beholden never looked on China as a true ally, but merely as a zone of abundant cheap labor which would feed cheap goods to the now post-industrial west under their new dystopic producer-consumer world order. It was in that same year that Kissinger’s fellow Trilateral Commission cohort Paul Volcker announced a “controlled disintegration of western society” which was begun in full with the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes to 20% that ensured a vast destruction of small and medium businesses across the board.

Believing China (then still largely an impoverished third world country) to be desperate enough to accept money and short-term salvation after years of trauma induced by the Cultural Revolution. Under Kissinger’s logic, China would receive just enough money to sustain a static existence but would never be able to stand on its own two feet.

Unbeknownst to Kissinger, China’s leaders under the direction of Zhou Enlai, and his disciple Deng Xiaoping had a much longer-term strategic perspective than their western partners imagined.

While receiving much needed revenue from foreign exports, China began to slowly create the foundations for a genuine renaissance which would be made possible by slowly learning the skills, leapfrogging technologies and acquiring means of production which the west had once pioneered. Zhou Enlai had first enunciated this visionary program as early as 1963 under his Four Modernizations mandate (Industrial, agricultural, national defense and science and technology) and then restated this program in January 1976 weeks before his death.

This program manifested itself in the July 6, 1978 State Council Forum on the “Principles to Guide the Four Modernizations” informed by the findings of international exploratory missions conducted by economist Gu Mu’s delegations around various advanced world economies (Japan, Hong Kong, Western Europe). The findings of Gu Mu’s reports laid out the concrete pathways for full spectrum economic sovereignty with a focus on cultivating the cognitive creative powers of a new generation of scientists that would drive the non linear breakthroughs needed for China to ultimately break free of the rules of closed-system economics which technocrats like Kissinger wished the world adhere to.

Deng Xiaoping broke from the radical Marxism prevalent among the intelligentsia by redefining “labor” from purely material constraints and elevating the concept rightfully to the higher domain of mind saying:

“We should select several thousand of our most qualified personnel within the scientific and technological establishment and create conditions that will allow them to devote their undivided attention to research. Those who have financial difficulties should be given allowances and subsidies… we must create within the party an atmosphere of respect for knowledge and respect for trained personnel. The erroneous attitude of not respecting intellectuals must be opposed. All work. Be it mental or manual, is labor.”

Over the course of the coming decades, China learned, and like any student, copied, reverse engineered and reconstructed western techniques as it slowly generated capacities that ultimately allowed them press on the limits of human knowledge outpacing all western models.

Scientific and technological progress became the driving force of its entire economy and by 1986, the “863 Project for Research and Development” was announced which focused on areas of space, lasers, energy, biotechnology, new materials, automation and information technology. This project became the driver for creative innovation guided by the National Science Foundation and was upgraded to the 973 Basic Research Program in 2009 to: “1) support multidisciplinary and fundamental research of relevance to national development; 2) Promote frontline basic research; 3) Support the cultivation of scientific talent capable of original research; and 4) Build high-quality interdisciplinary research centers.”

The fruits of these long term programs was beginning to be felt and by 1996, discussion for a New Silk Road reviving the ancient trade routes connecting China to Europe and Africa through the Middle East and Caucasus was beginning with conferences hosted by Beijing under President Jiang Zemin.

One of the few western participants at these Chinese events was the Schiller Institute, whose founders delivered a full day seminar in 1997 describing the program that would finally come back to life in 2013 when Xi Jinping made it the focus of China’s foreign policy outlook under the Belt and Road Initiative.

Why did this program wait until 2013 to blossom onto the world stage when obvious momentum was already in motion in 1997?

George Soros and the Attack on the Asian Markets

From May 1997, George Soros’ targeting of the Southeast Asian “Tigers economies” of Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Laos, and Malaysia with speculative short sales of their local currencies resulted months of vast anarchy across all of Asia and the world more broadly. Currencies collapsed from 10-80% over the next 8 months and took many years to begin to recover.

Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohammed was brave enough to call out Soros’ economic warfare and did much to help his nation weather the storm by imposing capital controls to maintain some semblance of stability calling out the speculator saying: “as much as people who produce and distribute drugs are criminals, because they destroy nations, the people who undermine the economies of poor nations are too.” Chinese President Jiang Zemin followed suit calling Soros “a financial sniper” and stated he would not let the speculator enter Chinese markets.

As analyst Michael Billington astutely wrote in his August 1997 EIR report:

“The ultimate target is China. The British are particularly worried about the increasingly close collaboration between China and the ASEAN nations, which are being integrated into the massive regional and continental development projects initiated by China under the umbrella of the Eurasian Continental Land-Bridge program. Such real development policies offer the alternative to the cheap-labor, colonial-style export industries of the “globalization” model- the model that has led to the financial bubbles now bursting worldwide.”

The Tumultuous Years of 1997-2013

With the advent of the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management (whose meltdown nearly took down the world economy in 1999 if not bailed out by central banks), followed by the Y2K/tech bubble explosion of 2000, the world markets nearly collapsed on several occasions. 9-11 unleashed a new era of warfare which deflected attention from the rot of the financial system while derivatives were deregulated, and ‘Too Big To Fail’ banking formed in short order growing far beyond the powers of any nation state to rein in.

Under this period of destabilization, wars, terrorism and easy money speculation, China and its Eurasian allies moved slower to rebuild the physical basis of their existence with the creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, long term planning, and a slow but steady focus on real (vs speculative) economic activity. The fact that China was among the only nations of the world to keep national controls over their central bank and maintain Glass-Steagall bank separation were not lost on the enemies of humanity yearning for a bankers’ dictatorship.

This process continued until it became evident that the western unipolar agenda would stop at nothing including nuclear war in order to assure the total subservience of all nation states, with Obama unveiling his Asia Pivot (air-sea battle) plans against China along with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) economic attack on China. The veil was now lifted to the true ugly face behind the liberal fascist smiles and it became clear that the full spectrum dominance military encirclement of Russia’s perimeter was being fully extended to China’s perimeter as well.

The Revival of the New Silk Road

It was in the face of this existential threat that Xi Jinping emerged as the new leader of China and a historic crackdown of party corruption on all levels Federal, Provincial and Municipal was begun in force while Xi’s 2013 announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative in Kazakhstan revived the New Silk Road/Eurasian land bridge policy of 15 years earlier.

Although China is often accused of intellectual theft, the reality is that it has begun to clearly outpace western nations becoming a pioneer on every level of science and technology. China now registers more patents than the USA, has become the cutting edge leader of high speed rail engineering with over 30 000 km, bridge building, tunneling, as well as water management, quantum computing, AI, 5G telecommunications, and even space science becoming the first nation to ever land on the far side of the moon with an intent to mine Helium 3 and develop permanent bases on the Moon in the coming decade.

All of these cutting edge fields of science and engineering are being organized by the ever-growing Belt and Road Initiative which has taken on global proportions and integrated itself into a deep alliance with Russia, Iran and over 135 nations who have signed onto the BRI Framework stretching from Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Asia, and Europe.

This is the system which the USA and other western nations could have joined on multiple occasions, but which has instead been targeted as a global threat to western hegemony. According to the logic of those western utopians who refuse to let go of their old outdated 1971 script for a new world order, China’s New Silk Road must be subverted at all costs since it is very well understood that it would become the basis for a new world system as the old globalized paradigm comes crashing down faster than the Hindenburg.

The Real Perpetrators Laugh as a New Cold War Hysteria is Orchestrated

It is perhaps an irony that those figures who have been caught time and again attempting to destroy the foundations of both the USA, China and Russia have deflected attention from their own actions by promoting the idea that China is the USA’s natural enemy.

The reality is China is currently not only reviving the ancient silk road paradigm that focused on a harmony of interests and mutual self interest through economic and cultural exchange but they have also revived the spirit of President Sun Yat-sen’s International Development of China program in full. In this 1920 document China’s first President outlined the superiority of the American system of political economy which he studied deeply beginning in his early student days in the USA, and upon which he explicitly modelled his new republican China and his three Principles of the People (premised on Lincoln’s principle of a nation for, by and of the people). Sun Yat-sen (a Christian Confucian revolutionary) is not only the beloved founding father of the republic of China celebrated to this day, but stated his views pro-American views in the following terms

“The world has been greatly benefited by the development of America as an industrial and a commercial Nation. So a developed China with her four hundred millions of population, will be another New World in the economic sense. The nations which will take part in this development will reap immense advantages. Furthermore, international cooperation of this kind cannot but help to strengthen the Brotherhood of Man.”

Both mainstream and alternative media outlets that tend to be sympathetic to conservative values have bit the bait and are now blind to the fact that those oligarchical social engineers managing the World Economic Forum and drooling over a new era of World Government, population reduction and technocratic feudalism are laughing at all of those fish in their nets whose ignorance to history and other cultures are leading them to their own self-destruction.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow, BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide FoundationHe can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

الأسدان: في الذكرى الخمسين للحركة التصحيحيّة الأول غاب ولم يوقّع… وحضر الثاني ليدافع عن سورية والشرق العربيّ الأسد حافظ والأسد بشار: قدر التاريخ وخيار الشعب السوريّ

من حافظ إلى بشار.. ماذا فعلت «جمهورية الأسد» في سوريا؟ | مصر العربية

بهجت سليمان

1

ـ الرّجال، عظماء التّاريخ، يولدون في إطار خطّة قدر جليلة ومحكمة، وهم يُدركون بحدسهم الموضوعيّ العبقريّ خطّة أقدارهم، وهم يتفانون لأجلها بعيداً عن العواطف ومفرزاتها من الحبّ والكراهيّة، قابلين كلّ تبعاتها المضنية والممتعة، لا فرقَ، متجاوزين كلّ ذلك إلى مأثرة الخلود. وهذا هو حافظ الأسد.

قال ريتشارد مورفي السّفير الأميركيّ الأسبق في دمشق ما بين أعوام (1974 – 1978): (يجب على المرء أن يتمتّع بالكثير من الذّكاء ليتولّى رئاسة سورية)…

وليس ذلك، فقط، بسبب خصوصيّة بعض «الأشخاص» المختلفين بالبصمة القدريّة الخاصّة في شؤون مُبهمة..

وإنّما أيضاً لسبب يتضاهى بسابقه وهو أنّ من طبيعة «الإعلام» نفسه، بمفهومه الوجوديّ، أنّه «إعلام ناقص» بالطّبيعة الفطريّة للتّعبير المحدود؛ وأضيف، أيضاً، إلى هذه الحقيقة، حقيقة أخرى وهي أنّ الأمر أكثر تحدّياً وخطورة وعبَثاً، عندما يتعلّق بالأفذاذ من الرّجال، أو عندما يتعلّق بالخالدين.

2

ـ من جانب آخر فإنّ من يحكم سورية على الطّريقة الوطنيّة المسؤولة تاريخيّاً، فإنّه يحتاج إلى أن يمدّ نفوذه إلى المكان العربيّ المحيط بسورية، ببلاد الشّام، بما فيها من سرطانٍ سياسيّ في الكيان الصّهيونيّ، وبالتّالي عليه أن يكون رجل دولة تاريخيّاً يُدرك لعبة الأمم والدّول، وأن يُلِمّ بكلّ ذلك جرّاء المسؤوليّات الكبيرة نفسها التي رتّبها القدر أو التّاريخ على هذا المكان الذي انفرد عالميّاً بصفات متنحيّة وسائدة في وقت واحد، وهي صفات العمق التّاريخيّ والتّركيب الظّرفيّ و«أسلوب الإنتاج الآسيويّ» المعقّد بتداخل تشكيلات اجتماعيّة – اقتصاديّة وسياسيّة متزمّنة ما بينها، في ما بينها، تصنع المكان كلّها في اندغام وانسجام وتواطؤ مُبهم ومؤامرات دوليّة و«حُلُمٌ عالميّ»، وخيانات نوعيّة اختصّ بها أغلب حكام شعوب المنطقة التي اعتدت على ملكيّات وأقدار المكان الكأداء و«أسواء طالعه» التي لا تنتهي.

3

ـ حكمت سياسة الرئيس حافظ الأسد، بالمطلق، همومه الخاصّة والدّفينة والمقدّسة التي تُعيد الوجه المقاوم الشّريف للمكان، في كيفيّة وفلسفة الخروج من مستنقع حزيران النّكسة، في الوقت الذي كان فيه الرّاحل الخالد، ينظر إلى هذه «الواقعة» كمستنقع شلّ الوطنيّة والعروبة وجعل منهما مجترّاً للمساومات والمزايدات والاتّهامات والعنجهيّات الصّهيونيّة والغربيّة التي جعلت نظرتها إلى سورية والعروبة، تساوي نظرتها إلى منطقة هامدة خاملة وكأنّها قطعة من أقاصي العالم يُنظر إليها على أنّها «مختبرٌ» أنثروبولوجيّ وسياسيّ نموذجيّ لدراسة نظريّات انهزام الشّعوب والأمم وامّحائها عن خارطة العالم المعاصر المحسوبة في عداد المناطق، التي تحوي شعوباً هي من خارج مكوّنات سياق التّاريخ الحيّ وأولى بالانقراض.

كانت هذه الأهجوسة تسكن عقل الرئيس حافظ الأسد وتوجّه طرائق تفكيره وطموحاته وآماله بإثبات كذب هذه «الحقيقة» والعمل على ازدرائها، كواحدة من الهامشيّات التّاريخيّة التي تحتاج إلى حذف ورمي في سلّة مهملات العالم المعاصر، واستعادة الكرامة لهذه المنطقة العربيّة، بما في ذلك العمل على إثبات حقيقة العروبة الحيّة التي تخاذلت دونها دول عربيّة وحكومات واهنة وخائنة تقف صراحة في طابور أعداء العرب والعروبة وجميع الأمم النّازعة إلى وجود حيّ معتبر ومؤثّر وفاعل، ليس على مستوى المكان وحسب، وإنّما أيضاً في المنطقة والعالم.

4

ـ كان إيمان الرئيس حافظ الأسد بنفسه كجزء من إيمانه بالحقّ الوجوديّ التّاريخيّ لأمّته، محرّكاً لأفكاره القومّية التي كان يعنيه كثيراً، من التّاريخ، أحكامه القاسية العادلة منها والجائرة، فكان عندما لا يوافق عبثُ التّاريخ طموحاتِهِ، يُعاند التّاريخ بثقة أنّ للتّاريخ فلتاته العمياء القصيرة أو الطّويلة الأجل، والتي يمكن للإرادة الوجوديّة أن تشكّل طارئاً على فقدان التّاريخ لصوابيّته وعدالته، وأن تصحّح من مجريات هذا التّاريخ الذي كان الرئيس حافظ الأسد مكظوظاً بتجنّب استعادة التّاريخ لسخريّته بالحكم على عقم العرب والسّوريين، هذا الحكم الذي هو من الأوهام التّاريخيّة التي تعزّزها خيانات بعض أصحاب القضيّة العربيّة من حكام مهزولين.

لقد عنى له التّاريخ حاكماً حازماً، فبحث له وللسّوريين وللعرب على شهادة قسريّة يصدرها التّاريخ – وقد أصدرها – على تفوّق الإنسانّية والبشريّة في هذه البقعة المنسيّة من تاريخ العالم الحديث. كانت المعاصرة بالنّسبة إلى حافظ الأسد بنظرته الشّخصيّة في الأسلوبّية التي تحوّل الضّعف إلى قوّة، ليست محلّيّة ووطنيّة فقط وإنّما عربيّة ودوليّة أيضاً. ولقد كان لحافظ الأسد ما أراد.

5

ـ كان حافظ الأسد متجاوزاً النّدّيّة لأقوى وأذكى وأفهم وأعتى رجالات الولايات المتّحدة الأميركيّة وعلى رأسهم حاخام الصّهيونيّة العالم الأكبر هنري كيسنجر، والحاخامات الصّهيونية، في وقت لم يكن لسورية ولا للعرب أيّة نأمة تندّ عنهم، غائصين في وحول الضّعف والهوان والخنوع والقهر التّاريخيّ الطّويل..

وحين يكون الحديث عن الرئيس حافظ الأسد، فلتطأطئ الرّؤوسُ كلُّها هاماتها، وليشهد التّاريخ العربيّ – الإسلاميّ أنّ حافظ الأسد قد بزّ، حتّى عتاة ودهاقنة منذ انتهاء الخلافة الرشدية حتى اليوم، كما جارى وتجاوز، وتفوّق على، شخوص حضاريّة عربيّة وسوريّة منذ (سومر) و(آشور) و(بابل) و(أكّاد)، كان لهم السّبق في وجود هذا “المكان».

6

ـ لا نتحدّث هنا عن «آراء»، ولا نقدّم رأياً شخصيّاً – مع أنّه غير مجروح، نظراً لعالميّة شخصيّة حافظ الأسد – وإنّما نحن نشير إلى مفارقة قلّما يقف عندها الآخرون بما فيهم أدعياء العدالة، وهي أنّ حافظ الأسد قد خلق «شيئاً» كبيراً في «المكان»، على مستوى الوطنيّة والعروبيّة والسّوريّة والإسلام، وذلك من واقع عربي بائس يمكن أن يكون أفضل وصف له، هو الفراغ والذّل والمؤامرة على الذّات والجهل والهمجيّة والقبليّة والطّائفيّة وجميع الموجودات الاجتماعيّة البربريّة والانقسامات العموديّة العنصريّة والفواصل الأفقيّة في التّواصل والثّقافات، وكذلك الارتهان المباشر والاستخذاء أمام الغربيّ والصّهيونيّ والعدوّ.

7

ـ وقد جسّدت مباحثات الأسد – كيسينجر أعقد مباحثات تاريخّية بين حضارتيْ الشّرق، متمثّلة بحافظ الأسد، والغرب، متمثّلة بهنري كيسينجر الذي مثّل علاوة على موقعه الحضاريّ المتقدّم المطلق، أدهى وأنكى ما تكاثف من تجربة يهوديّة – صهيونيّة على مدى ثلاثة آلاف عام.

تحدّى الأسد الولايات المتّحدة ومن خلفها زبانية حضارة الغرب الصّهيونيّة والمتصهينة وفي طليعتها ما يُعرف بدولة “إسرائيل».

وفي هذا التّفصيل الطّويل لم يعط برنامج «الميادين» عنه، الرجل حقَّه، وخاصة في إبراز دور «الشّخص» في التّاريخ عندما يعارض ويتعارض مع تاريخ «حضاريّ» يكاد يكون بلا بدايات معروفة في التّاريخ السّياسيّ، وبخاصّة عندما يكون هذا الشّخص فرداً لا يؤازره غير العقل المختلف والمنفرد والنّافذ والمحيط بالأقطار وهندسة الدّوائر المثلّثيّة السّياسيّة ومنطق التّفاضل والتّكامل ما فوق الرّياضيّ.

وتقع المسؤولية الأكبر في ذلك، على عاتق الأشخاص المشاركين في البرنامج.

8

ـ لم يكن حافظ الأسد هذا المقاتل الذي عبر تاريخيّاً، بقوّة الحقّ، وحسب؛ كما لم تكن روايته هي رواية مقاتل على خطوط التّماس السّياسيّة العالميّة، مثلما أنّه لم يكن، أيضاً، تلك الشّخصيّة التّاريخيّة التي كتبت سِفرها بأسلوبها الخاصّ المنقطع النّظير، فقط؛ بل لقد كان حافظ الأسد تاريخاً واستمراراً لتاريخ في الوقت الذي صمت فيه «المؤرّخون» الضّغائنيّون، في ما عجز فيه أولئك المتواضعو الموهبة والمعرفة التاريخية.

9

ـ أدرك حافظ الأسد الصّراع السّياسيّ بين الأضداد التّاريخيّة على أنّه استمرار لصراع حضاريّ على الاستحواذ على حكاية التّاريخ، وما هذه المقطوعة الرّوائيّة التي عاصرها سوى جزء مستمرّ ومعمِّقٍ لكتابة الحضارة العالميّة، وكان أعظم من ترك في الصّيغ والعبارات والمفاهيم والمصطلحات والممارسات، الأثر الُمكَمّلَ، المفصليّ والمحوريّ، والشّجاع، لهذا الفصل الحضاريّ في سِفر شخصيّ قلّما يكون فيه للتّاريخ نكهة البطولة في الصّراعات التّراجيديّة البشريّة، لولا أثر الأفراد العظماء والأبطال الأسطوريين فيه.

10

ـ في الحرب و«السّلام» كان لحافظ الأسد دور المجالدين الأحرار والمصارعين الأسياد، وهو ما عبّر عنه في اختزاليّة راحت مثلاً عندما أسمى ذلك الدّور بالحرب من أجل “سلام الشّجعان»، حيث قال: «حاربنا بشرف، ونفاوض بشرف، ونسالم بشرف»..

الرّجال، عظماء التّاريخ، يولدون في إطار خطّة قدر جليلة ومحكمة، وهم يُدركون بحدسهم الموضوعيّ العبقريّ خطّة أقدارهم، وهم يتفانون لأجلها بعيداً عن العواطف ومفرزاتها من الحبّ والكراهيّة، قابلين كلّ تبعاتها المضنية والممتعة، لا فرقَ، متجاوزين كلّ ذلك إلى مأثرة الخلود. وهذا هو حافظ الأسد.

11

ـ وأما الرئيس بشّار الأسد، وهو الذي لم يُفطرْ على حبّ الشّهرة… إلّا أنّ العظماء الذين يحتقرون الشّهرة الزّائفة والفارغة، غالباً ما تُدركهم شهرة من نوع آخر، وهي شهرة مَن أدرك، بالفطرة والقصد والتّقدير السّماويّ، أنّ أهمية «الأشخاص» في التاريخ، تكون بقدر تقاطع أو اندماج قدرهم الشّخصيّ بأقدار القضايا الوجوديّة العادلة لأممهم، وبأقدار الشّعوب أصحاب هذه القضايا العادلة.

لقد عبّر هيغل في زمنه عن هذه «الموضوعة» العبقريّة عندما صاغ ذلك في أنّ الأبطال التّاريخيين فيما هم يصنعون أقدارهم الواعية والمفهومة، إنّما يندمجون في ذلك، بقصد ومن غير قصد، في صناعة أقدار أممهم، وذلك مهما يكن هذا القدر وذلك التّقدير عليه من مشقّات وإن شئتَ فمن مُحالات.

كانت خطّة القدر أن يصل الأسد (بشّار الأسد) إلى القيادة التّاريخيّة لسورية وللعروبة، في زمن انهار فيه العالم وتكاثف، مُستَقطَباً، على فكرة جديدة هي إعادة صناعة العالم على طراز جديد في الألفيّة الثّالثة من حضارتنا المشهودة.

12

ـ انحسر العالم عن زمان (حافظ الأسد)، وطرحت سياسات العالم مشروعات «عالميّة» غريبة وجديدة كلّ الجدّة في تفاصيلها الموجعة، ولو أنّ الهدف هو استمرار لِـ»خطّة العالم» العتيقة في مضمونها الالتهاميّ للبشَر. وتسارعت خطى إعادة «اختلاق» الشّرق الأوسط الجديد، بواسطة أحدث ما تفتّق عنه دهاء السّياسات العالميّة العنيفة، فيما سمّي بِـ»الفوضى الخلّاقة».

تقاطرت في سبيل ذلك أمام الرئيس (بشّار الأسد)، «المستحيلات»؛ ونحن لن نعدّدها لأنّ مفاعيلها لم تكن لتقتصر عليها كأحداث عالميّة جلجلت منطقتنا، ولكنْ لأنّ مفاعيلها كانت أن حدّدت ورسمت من قبل «مهندسي» العالم، لتقلب وجه العالم كلّه مع ما ينطوي عليه هذا التّعبير من مواجهة حصريّة وشخصيّة وخاصّة تتحدّى (سورية)، حصراً، و«تتجاوزها» إلى تحدّي “الشّخص»، القائد المعاصر، (بشّار الأسد)، هذا الرّجل الذي تمّ اكتشافه بسرعة صراحة وصلابة مواقفه في حضرة «الحق»ّ، كابتسارٍ صريحٍ لتحدّيهِ العالمَ في قلب العالم وقلب «الشّرق الأوسط» وقلب «المشروع العالميّ» الذي على من أراد أن يفهمه، فليتحوّل، مباشرة، إلى إدراك أهمّيّة (“إسرائيل») في المنطقة وفي العالم.

للسّياسة، دون الكثير من «المقولات»، غايةٌ «حيويّة» عالميّة، تقع خارجها، فتختلط، بسبب ذلك، عند الكثيرين من الدّعيين، الأسباب بالنّتائج.

13

ـ الّلافتُ في الرئيس (بشّار الأسد) – ومن دون أيّة نأمة تصدر عن أيّة مقارنة من المقارنات التّاريخيّة، ذلك أنّ «الأشخاص» والقادة التّاريخيين، غالباً ما تكون المقارنات المعقودة بينهم، هي مقارنات غير واقعيّة، لأنّ المقارنة تكون، أبداً، في «الكمّ» وليس في «النّوع»! والمفارق في شخصيّته كقائد معاصر، هو أنّه، فعلاً، وفي غضون عقد واحد من الزّمان قد حلّق على صهوة المقادير والأحداث والسّياسات واهتمامات الأفراد والشّعوب في دول وأمم ومجتمعات العالم، حتّى أنّه قد علّل وسوّغ انفراديّته وعدم عاديّته، بحيث انتقل من قدره الموضوعيّ والذّاتيّ إلى أكثر رجال المعمورة اتّقاداً و«جُذْوَةً» وشُهرة بين مليارات «الكرة الأرضيّة»، ولم يزل الأمر يتطلّب المزيد.

وقف الرئيس بشّار الأسد محطِّماً ورادماً أساسات إعادة رسم «المشهد» السّياسيّ الوطنيّ والعربيّ والدّوليّ، بما كان مطموحاً إليه لإعادة تخطيط «خريطة المنطقة».

14

ـ لقد تجشّم الرئيس بشار الأسد المحاكاة الموضوعيّة للأحداث والرّجالات في «التّاريخ» العالميّ، إذ أنّ «الأمور أشباه».

لقد كان (بيريكليس) (أعظم ساسة الإغريق) (490 – 429 ق. م) هو أحبّ رجل سياسيّ إلى الشّعب الإغريقيّ في تاريخ أثينا، مع ما اشتّهر عنه من وسامة ونبل وطيبة وحزم وحسم سياسيّ، وشجاعات مختلفة ومتعدّدة في المواجهات السّياسيّة التي لا تنتهي من أمام عظماء أبطال الرّجال، بدءاً بالكلمات ونهايةً بالقتال..، وسماحة بالغة في النّصر..

هذا مع ميلنا الوجدانيّ إلى الإعجاب الممزوج بالغبطة والاغتباط بابتسامات الرئيس بشّار الأسد، عُلواً وارتفاعاً ورفعةً فوق مختلف وأصعب وأشقّ المقادير.

15

ـ ونقول لهواة المقارنة بين الرئيسين: ليس هناك فوارق شّخصيّة وقسمات خاصّة ومعالم شّاسعة تميّز، بين القائدين (الأسد حافظ) و(الأسد بشّار)، على مستوى «الفردانيّة» و«الخصوصية» التي ينفصل بها الرجلان، في ما بينهما، كقائدين تاريخيين..بل هما ظاهرتان متكاملتان، اندغمتا في تاريخ سورية والشرق والمنطقة والعالم، بحيث باتا ظاهرة واحدة، تعبر عن قوامها (المدرسة الأسدية) التي صنعاها ورسخاها وخلداها.

ولن يكون لِكلمة “الفردانية» و«الخصوصية» دلالات، عندما لا تظهر فروق بين «الظّاهرتين»، والتي تجعل كلّاً منهما «ظاهرة» يحتاج إليها تاريخ سورية المعاصر.. وتجعلهما معاً قدر التاريخ وخيار الشعب السوري، في آن واحد.

Why the FBI and CIA Are the Real Threats to “National Security”

‘My name is Nancy Pelosi, and I’m currently holding on’

October 19, 2020

By Cynthia Chung for the Saker Blog

Today we see the continuation of the over seven decade’s long ruse, the targeting of individuals as Russian agents without any basis, in order to remove them from the political arena. The present effort to declassify the Russiagate papers and exonerate Michael Flynn, so that he may freely speak of the intelligence he knows, is not a threat to national security, it is a threat to those who have committed treason against their country.

On Oct. 6th, 2020, President Trump ordered the declassification of the Russia Probe documents along with the classified documents on the findings concerning the Hillary Clinton emails. The release of these documents threatens to expose the entrapment of the Trump campaign by the Clinton campaign with help of the US intelligence agencies.

The Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released some of these documents recently, including former CIA Director John Brennan’s handwritten notes for a meeting with former President Obama, the notes revealing that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”

Trey Gowdy, who was Chair of the House Oversight Committee from June 13th, 2017 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has stated in an interview on Oct. 7th, 2020 that he has never seen these documents. Devin Nunes, who was Chair of the House Intelligence Committee from Jan. 3rd, 2015 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has also said in a recent interview that he has never seen these documents.

And yet, both the FBI and CIA were aware and had access to these documents and sat on them for four years, withholding their release from several government-led investigations that were looking into the Russiagate scandal and who were requesting relevant material that was in the possession of both intelligence bureaus.

Do these intelligence bureaus sound like they are working for the “national security” of the American people?

The CIA’s Long Battle against “Soviet propaganda”

In order to combat the “threat” of Soviet “propaganda” entering the U.S. and seducing Americans, Operation Mockingbird was created as a form of “control” over information dissemination during the period of McCarthyism. Operation Mockingbird was an “alleged” CIA program that was started in the early 1950s in order to control the narrative of the news. Though this role has never been confirmed entirely, in the CIA Family Jewels report compiled in the mid-1970s, it is confirmed that Project Mockingbird did exist as a CIA operation and that it was guilty of wire-tapping journalists in Washington.

At the helm of this project was none other than CIA Director Allen Dulles, an enemy of JFK, who by the early 1950s “allegedly” oversaw the media network and had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. Its function was to have the CIA write reports that would be used by a network of cooperating “credible” reporters. By these “credible” reporters spreading the CIA dictated narrative, it would be parroted by unwitting reporters (mockingbirds) and a successful echo chamber would be created across the world.

The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC), originally named Office of Special Projects but that was thought too conspicuous, was a covert operation wing of the CIA and was created by the United States National Security Council (NSC). For those who are unfamiliar with the origins of the NSC and its close relationship with the CIA, who was born on the same day, refer to my paper on the subject.

According to Deborah Davis’ biography of Katherine Graham (the owner of Washington Post), the OPC created Operation Mockingbird in response to addressing Soviet propaganda and included as part of its CIA contingency respected members from Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and others.

The Family Jewels report was an investigation made by the CIA to investigate…the CIA, spurred in response to the Watergate Scandal and the CIA’s unconstitutional role in the whole affair. The investigation of the CIA would include any other actions that were deemed illegal or inappropriate spanning from the 1950s-mid 1970s.

We are told “most” of the report was declassified on June 25, 2007 (30 years later) hoping that people would have lost interest in the whole brouhaha. Along with the release of the redacted report was included a six-page summary with the following introduction:

The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s.” [emphasis added]

The most extensive investigation of the CIA relations with news media was conducted by the Church Committee, a U.S. Senate select committee in 1975 that investigated the abuses committed by the CIA, NSA, FBI, and IRS. The Church Committee report confirmed abundant CIA ties in both foreign and domestic news media.

It is very useful that there exists an official recognition that false news was not only being encouraged by the CIA under the overseeing of the NSC during the Cold War period, but that the CIA was complicit in actually detailing the specific narrative that they wanted disseminated, and often going so far as to write the narrative and have a “credible” reporter’s name stamped on it.

But the question begs, “Did the Cold War ever end?” and if not, why should we believe that the CIA’s involvement in such activities is buried in its past and that it has “reformed” its old ways?

Henry Kissinger’s Purge of American Intelligence: The Deep State is Born

For us to get a better understanding of how we ended up in this situation, that is so stark that Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, has recently stated that the intelligence bureaus may need to be overhauled due to withholding evidence from federal inquiries, we need to go back a few decades and review how Henry Kissinger largely set this whole affair into motion.

From the moment Kissinger assumed the post of National Security Advisor to Nixon, he set out to centralize all intelligence estimates, diplomatic initiatives, and covert operations over figuratively and sometimes literal dead bodies of members of the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, State Department and Congress.

According to John Ranelagh in his book The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA:

Very early in the Nixon administration, it became clear that the President wanted Henry Kissinger to run intelligence for him and that the NSC staff in the White House under Kissinger would control the intelligence community. This was the beginning of a shift of power away from the CIA to a new center: the growing NSC staff.”

Kissinger would use the Watergate scandal, where the CIA was caught by Congress directly implicated in treasonous activities, as the impetus needed to form a new CIA, a secret branch away from the scrutiny of Congress.

In 1978, Kissinger would launch the Intelligence Reorganization and Reform Act, which essentially worked to “clean house” of the intelligence community.

In 1982, under the direction of Kissinger, President Reagan would sign NSDD 77 under Cold War duress, which would launch Project Democracy, a sardonic name for a Trojan Horse.

NSDD 77 allowed Project Democracy the reins over “covert action on a broad scale” as well as overt public actions later to be associated with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The directive ordered the CIA to stay out of both the overt and covert part of Project Democracy, thus giving free reign to the Kissingerian “NSC apparatus”.

Almost one year later, the uninformed and naïve Congress passed the NED Act in Oct 1983, and effectively signed off on wrapping duct tape around their heads.

The structure of the NED essentially functions as a private CIA political operations arm of an invisible, secret government beyond accountability and beyond the reach of the law.

Kissinger’s purge of American intelligence would be the last purge of sane patriotic leadership within the intelligence community, left to the hyenas and jackals to run from thenceforth, those who still had a degree of humanity as members of the intelligence community, and had survived the Kissinger purge, were simply kept in the dark about the cloak and dagger operations of the secret government branch.

In a 1991 interview, then NED President David Ignatius arrogantly stated “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA…The biggest difference is that when such activities are done overtly, the flap potential is close to zero. Openness is its own protection”.

The failure of the nation state is not a natural phenomenon but rather is the outcome of a fascist coup; involving a banker’s dictatorshipeconomic looting and permanent warfare (the Cold War never ended) to hinder national industrial growth.

Among the most effective strategies towards this end has been color revolutions, which just so happens to be the NED’s specialty practice and has included, to name a few, the nations of Yugoslavia, Belarus, Georgia, Iraq, Lebanon, Burma, Iran, Egypt, Thailand, Ukraine and the Hong Kong protests.

Wherever this strategy has unfolded, the target state is told by the international community that it has no right to intervene and is told to stand by as its nation is ransacked by locusts and its government ‘reorganised’.

Secret Intelligence’s Countering of “Anti-American” Propaganda

The Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act is a bipartisan bill that was passed into law in December 2016, it was initially called Countering Information Warfare Act. It was included together with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This bill was brought into effect just weeks before Trump was to enter office….hmmm, foreshadowing much?

Soon after the 2016 U.S. election, the Washington Post led the charge asserting that it was due to Russian propaganda that the U.S. elections turned out the way it did, that is, that Hillary had somehow, inconceivably, lost to Donald Trump and that the American people had been turned against her like a child caught in the middle of a messy divorce case. But there is no need here to set the record straight on Hillary, when Hillary herself has done suffice damage to any illusion of credibility she once had. That ultimately not even Hillary could hide the fact that her closet full of skeletons turned out to be the size of a catacomb.

But we are told that citizens do not know what is best for one’s self. That they cannot be trusted with “sensitive” information and in accordance act in a “responsible” manner, that is, to have a strong enough stomach to do what is “best” for their country.

And therefore, fear not subjects of the land, for the Global Engagement Center (GEC) is here to make those hard decisions for you. Don’t know what to think about a complicated subject? GEC will tell you the right way!

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would allow for the Secretary of State to collaborate with the Secretary of Defense, and other Federal agencies in the year 2017 to create the Global Engagement Center (GEC). The GEC’s purpose in life is to fight propaganda from foreign governments and publicize the nature of ongoing foreign propaganda and disinformation operations against the U.S. and other countries.

Let us all take a moment to thank the GEC for such a massive task in the cause for justice all around the world.

The GEC had a very slow start in its first year, however, it has been gaining momentum in the last year under Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who seems especially excited over the hiring of Lea Gabrielle as special envoy and coordinator of GEC.

Mike Pompeo was the CIA Director from 2017-2018. On April 15, 2019, Pompeo participated in a discussion at the Texas A&M University where he voluntarily offered the admission that though West Points’ cadet motto is “You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.”, his training under the CIA was the very opposite, stating “I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. (long pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment”.

This is apparently the man for the job of dealing with matters of “truth” and “justice”.

Lea Gabrielle was approved for her position by Mike Pompeo, what are her “qualifications”? Well, Gabrielle is also CIA trained, and while assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), she “directed and conducted global clandestine strategic intelligence collection operations.” Gabrielle also “deployed in tactical anti-terrorist operations in hostile environments”. After 12 years of active duty service, Lea Gabrielle became a television news journalist, who worked at NBC and FOX News.

The CIA really does not have the best track record for their role in “managing” foreign wars and counter-insurgency activities. In fact, they have been caught rather red handed in fueling such crisis situations. And these are the people who are deciding what information is fit for the American public, and western public in general, and what is not fit for their ears.

When the Matter of “Truth” Becomes a Threat to “National Security”

When the matter of truth is depicted as a possible threat to those that govern a country, you no longer have a democratic state. True, not everything can be disclosed to the public in real time, but we are sitting on a mountain of classified intelligence material that goes back more than 60 years.

How much time needs to elapse before the American people have the right to know the truth behind what their government agencies have been doing within their own country and abroad in the name of the “free” world?

From this recognition, the whole matter of declassifying material around the Russigate scandal in real time, and not highly redacted 50 years from now, is essential to addressing this festering putrefaction that has been bubbling over since the heinous assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and to which we are still waiting for full disclosure of classified papers 57 years later.

If the American people really want to finally see who is standing behind that curtain in Oz, now is the time.

These intelligence bureaus need to be reviewed for what kind of method and standard they are upholding in collecting their “intelligence,” that has supposedly justified the Mueller investigation and the never-ending Flynn investigation which have provided zero conclusive evidence to back up their allegations and which have massively infringed on the elected government’s ability to make the changes that they had committed to the American people.

Just like the Iraq and Libya war that was based off of cooked British intelligence (refer here and here), Russiagate appears to have also had its impetus from our friends over at MI6 as well. It is no surprise that Sir Richard Dearlove, who was then MI6 chief (1999-2004) and who oversaw and stood by the fraudulent intelligence on Iraq stating they bought uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapon, is the very same Sir Richard Dearlove who promoted the Christopher Steele dossier as something “credible” to American intelligence.

In other words, the same man who is largely responsible for encouraging the illegal invasion of Iraq, which set off the never-ending wars on “terror,” that was justified with cooked British intelligence is also responsible for encouraging the Russian spook witch-hunt that has been occurring within the U.S. for the last four years…over more cooked British intelligence, and the FBI and CIA are knowingly complicit in this.

Neither the American people, nor the world as a whole, can afford to suffer any more of the so-called “mistaken” intelligence bumblings. It is time that these intelligence bureaus are held accountable for at best criminal negligence, at worst, treason against their own country.


Cynthia Chung writes for Strategic Culture Foundation and is the President and co-founder of the Rising Tide Foundation

The author can be reached at cynthiachung@tutanota.com

Rhodes Scholar Talbott’s Hand Revealed in Russia Gate: The Only Foreign Interference America Should Worry About is British.

Rhodes Scholar Talbott’s Hand Revealed in Russia Gate: The Only Foreign Interference America Should Worry About is British.

August 13, 2020

By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog

It has recently come to light that the primary source of the Steele Dossier and Mueller Investigation is none other than Igor Danchenko- a veteran Brookings Institute employee from Ukraine who not only hadn’t been to Russia for decades but who admitted to the FBI in January 2017 that the entire Steele dossier was a fraud.

For those who do not know, the Brookings Institute is a powerful DNC think tank founded by Bill Clinton’s former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott who stepped down as president in 2017. Brookings has become known for its revolving door between officials in the Obama White House/DNC and the private sector. In recent weeks, it has come to light that Talbott reached out to Steele in August 2016 to share his own data accumulated by Danchenko and conspired with Steele on advancing the dossier in the wake of Trump’s November 2016 election. Other Brookings Institute agents deployed by Talbott include former NSC Russia Expert Trump impeachment witness Fiona Hill who co-authored a paper with Danchenko and also Talbott’s brother-in-law Cody Shearer who circulated a parallel dossier containing many of the falsified evidence printed in Steele’s script.

Sadly many analysts have read these new revelations badly and have concluded that MI6’s Christopher Steele was actually duped by fake American intelligence coming from opportunistic American operatives seeking to undermine a republican president for purely political considerations. Nothing however can be further from the truth.

Straussian vs Rhodesian Flavors of the Same Poison

Talbott himself may be American by blood, but thoroughly British in spirit. Both he and Clinton were Rhodes Scholars at Oxford in the 1970s and were joined by dozens of other Rhodes Scholars who flooded into the White House in 1992.

While appearing on the surface to oppose the brute force approach of the neoconservative Straussians, the Rhodes Scholar nests have distinguished themselves over the past century by promoting a world order that saw a more technocratic/Malthusian system of controls with the USA playing a subservient position in the Great Game. The Straussian neocons on the other hand aimed at a post-nation state world order with America acting as the lead and monetarism serving as a ruling religion. The differences between these two outlooks differs only superficially, as both plans involve a global bankers dictatorship controlled by the City of London and both demanded divided world of war, poverty and resource monopolies by an elite that have no allegiance to the USA or any sovereign nation state per se.

This outlook was expressed by Talbott in a most visceral manner in 1992 when he said:

“All countries are basically social arrangements….No matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary….Perhaps national sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all….But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government.”

The exposure of the British hand behind the scenes affords us a unique glimpse into the real historical forces undermining America’s true constitutional tradition throughout the 20th century, as Mueller/the Five Eyes/Rhodes Scholars are not new phenomena but actually follow a modus operandi set down for already more than a century. One of the biggest obstacles to seeing this modus operandi run by the British Empire is located in the belief in a mythology which has become embedded in the global psyche for over half a century and which we should do our best to free ourselves of.

Debunking the Myth of the “American Empire”

While there has been a long-standing narrative promoted for over 70 years that the British Empire disappeared after World War II having been replaced by the “American Empire”, it is the furthest thing from the truth. America, as constitutionally represented by its greatest presidents (who can unfortunately be identified by their early deaths while serving in office), were never colonialist and were always in favor of reining in British Institutions at home while fighting British colonial thinking abroad.

Franklin Roosevelt’s thirteen year-long battle with the Deep State, which he referred to as the “economic royalists who should have left America in 1776″, was defined in clear terms by his patriotic Vice-President Henry Wallace who warned of the emergence of a new Anglo-American fascism in 1944 when he said:

“Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.”

The fact is that already in 1944, a policy of Anglo-Saxon imperialism had been promoted subversively by British-run think tanks known as the Round Table Movement and Fabian Society, and the seeds had already been laid for the anti-Russian cold war by those British-run American fascists. It is not a coincidence that this fascist Cold War policy was announced in a March 5, 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri by none other than Round Table-follower Winston Churchill.

The Empire Strikes

When the Round Table Movement was created with funds from the Rhodes Trust in 1902, a new plan was laid out to create a new technocratic elite to manage the re-emergence of the new British Empire and crush the emergence of American-inspired nationalism globally. This organization would be staffed by generations of Rhodes Scholars who would receive their indoctrination in Oxford before being sent back to advance a “post-nation state” agenda in their respective countries.

As this agenda largely followed the mandate set out by Cecil Rhodes in his Seventh Will who said “Why should we not form a secret society with but one object: the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, and for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire?”

With the help of an anglophile, racist president in America, leading figures organizing these think tanks first advanced a program to create a “League of Nations” as the solution to the “nationalist problem” which humanity was told “caused” World War One. Nationalist forces in America rejected the idea that the constitution should be rendered obsolete and the plan for global governance failed. However that did not stop the Round Table Movement from trying again. Leading Round Table controller Lord Lothian (British Ambassador to the USA) complained of the “American problem” in 1918.

There is a fundamentally different concept in regard to this question between Great Britain and the United States  as to the necessity of civilized control over politically backward peoples…. The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves…. Yet America not only has no conception of this aspect of the problem but has been led to believe that the assumption of this kind of responsibility is iniquitous imperialism.

They take an attitude towards the problem of world government exactly analogous to the one they [earlier] took toward the problem of the world war. If they are slow in learning we shall be condemned to a period of strained relations between the various parts of the English-speaking world. [We must] get into the heads of Canadians and Americans that a share in the burden of world government is just as great and glorious a responsibility as participation in the war”.

A Chinese leader of the American-inspired republican revolution of 1911 named Sun Yat-sen warned of the likes of Lord Lothian and the League of Nations in 1924 when he said:

“The nations which are employing imperialism to conquer others and which are trying to maintain their own favored positions as sovereign lords of the whole world are advocating cosmopolitanism [aka: global governance/globalization -ed] and want the world to join them… Nationalism is that precious possession by which humanity maintains its existence. If nationalism decays, then when cosmopolitanism flourishes we will be unable to survive and will be eliminated”.

New Name. Same Beast

By 1919, the Round Table Movement changed its name to the Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka: Chatham House) with the “Round Table” name relegated to its geopolitical periodical. In Canada and Australia, branches were created in 1928 under the rubrics of “Canadian and Australian Institutes for International Affairs” (CIIA, AIIA). However in America, where knowledge of the British Empire’s subversive role was more widely known, the name “American Institute for International Affairs” was still too delicate. Instead the name “Council on Foreign Relations” was chosen and was chartered in 1921.

Rhodes Scholar William Yandall Elliot surrounded by a few of his leading disciples: Sir Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski Samuel Huntington and Pierre Trudeau

Staffed with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians, the CFR (and its International Chatham House counterparts) dubbed themselves “independent think tanks” which interfaced with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians in academia, government and the private sector alike with the mission of advancing a foreign policy agenda that was in alignment with the British Empire’s dream of an Anglo-American “special relationship”. One such Rhodes Scholar was William Yandall Elliot, who played a major role mentoring Henry Kissinger and a generation of geo-politicians from Harvard, not the least of whom include Zbigniew Brzezinski, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Samuel (Clash of Civilizations) Huntington.

The Round Table in Canada and the Coup Against FDR

In Canada, five leading Rhodes Scholars were busy creating the League of Social Reconstruction as a self-described “Fabian Society of Canada” in 1931 which was meant to be a fascist/technocratic answer to the chaos of “greedy nationalism” that supposedly caused the economic collapse of Black Friday in 1929. During the same time in America, a different path to fascism was taken by these networks during the early 1930s. This plan involved installing a General named Smedley Butler into power as a puppet dictator steered by the Anglo-American establishment. Luckily for America and the world, General Butler blew the whistle on the coup against Franklin Roosevelt at the last minute.

In a 1934 video address to the nation, General Butler said:

“I appeared before the Congressional Committee, the highest representation of the American people under subpoena to tell what I knew about activities which I believe might lead to an attempt to set up a fascist dictatorship… the upshot of the whole thing was that I was to pose to lead an organization of 500 000 men which would be able to take over the functions of government”

Left-Wing Fascism blossoms in Canada

Kissinger’s British Takeover of America

Though it took a few assassinations throughout the post war years, Kissinger’s takeover of the State Department ushered in a new era of British occupation of American foreign policy, whereby the republic increasingly became the “Dumb Giant” acting as “American Brawn for the British brains” using Churchill’s words. While a nihilistic generation of youth were tuning in on LSD, and an old guard of patriots surrounding Wallace and Kennedy had fallen to the “red scare” witch hunt, geopolitical theory was fed like a sweet poison down the throat of a sleeping nation, replacing a policy of peace and “win-win cooperation” advanced by true nationalist patriots as FDR, Wallace and the Kennedys, with an imperial clone masquerading as a republic.

Kissinger did nothing less than reveal his total allegiance to the British Empire on May 10, 1981 during a Chatham House conference in Britain when he described his relationship with the British Foreign office in the following terms:

“The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations… In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department… It was symptomatic”.

During this period, Kissinger worked closely with CIA director George Bush Senior, who was later rewarded for his role in advancing the British-planned first war on Kuwait with a knighthood. This war set the stage for the second wave of Middle East wars beginning with the Anglo-Saudi orchestrated operation known as 9/11 and the ushering in of the new “post-nation state order” by Kissinger and Blair.

At the 1991 Bilderberg Conference in France, Kissinger (who would soon be knighted for his work on behalf of the British Empire) stated:

“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”

The Dystopic New World Order Threatened by a New Deal of the 21stCentury

It is this dystopic geopolitical order which has been challenged by the Russia-China alliance which arose in earnest with Xi Jinping’s 2013 announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative as the Grand design for large scale infrastructure projects internationally and in September 2015 with Vladimir Putin’s intervention into Syria which defeated the Hobbesian regime change paradigm which poisoned the west. In 2016, the election of nationalist American President Donald Trump opened the door for the first time in over 50 years to a true national coalition of sovereign nations to eliminate the cancer of colonial thinking forever from the earth.

It is this same British-run deep state which owns Robert Mueller, Strobe Talbott, who along with the Integrity Initiative, Five Eyes and other Deep State operatives are dedicated to overthrowing President Trump from office and undoing the great potential for a Multipolar Alliance of Sovereign Nation States. This sabotage has taken the form of a Great Global Reset and Green New Deal.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation 

%d bloggers like this: