Why China and Russia Criticized Biden’s Democracy Summit?

27 Dec 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen

Ruqiya Anwar

China and Russia see that the US democracy summit has drawn new dividing lines globally. For China, democracy should be an internal process where every people has his path. Russia, on the other hand, criticizes the US’s contradictory behavior.

Why China and Russia Criticized Biden’s Democracy Summit?

China and Russia have responded angrily to US President Joe Biden’s proposed democracy summit, which excludes them, with Beijing enraged by a Taiwan invitation and the Kremlin dubbing it divisive.

The White House billed the two-day event, which was held via video connection due to the coronavirus outbreak, as US leadership perceives itself to be in an existential war between “democracies and autocracies or dictatorships.” The worldwide summit was a campaign promise made by the US President, who has made the fight between democracies and “autocratic states” a central theme of his foreign policy. Whereas, experts around the world, however, have criticized the meeting for dividing the world along ideological lines.

At a virtual summit in December, US President Joe Biden gathered world leaders from over 110 countries, including the US’ major Western allies, and made a plea to strengthen democracies, calling safeguarding rights and freedoms in the face of rising “authoritarianism,” the defining challenge of the current era. Significantly, Joe Biden has provoked uproar by ignoring China and Russia. The US “democracy summit,” according to China and Russia, has drawn new dividing lines (Tayyaba 2021).

Similarly, the guestlist for the event has drawn criticism for being divisive, with questions raised about why some countries were kept off the list while others with questionable human rights histories were included. 

But, after the world witnessed the United States’ contempt for the rule of law, the extension of presidential power, and distrust of elections, the question remains: What moral authority does Washington have to lecture the rest of the world about democracy? Critics argue that the United States lacks moral authority since it continues to back autocratic dictators across the world while curtailing voting rights at home.

Critics have also said that the invitation-only event risks exacerbating ideological divides at a time when global collaboration on a plethora of serious issues, including climate change, public health, and nuclear non-proliferation, is crucial. 

The Chinese Foreign Ministry stressed that “The so-called democracy summit held by the US is using ideology to draw lines globally, using democracy as a tool and weapon to incite separation and confrontations to divert attention from its internal problems and maintain its hegemony. The United States is not a beacon for democracy, and US-style democracy has gone against the essence of democracy. US democracy’s problems, such as money politics, identity politics, partisanship, political polarisation, social division, racial tension, and wealth gap, are worsening”.

Notably, democracy in the United States is a game of the wealthy, based on capital. Ninety-one percent of congressional elections go to candidates who have more financial backing. In theory, it’s one person, one vote, but in practice, it’s a rule of the minority elite. The general public is courted when their votes are needed, but they are forgotten once the election is finished. 

The Chinese spokesperson further discussed that rather than being imposed from the outside, a country’s route to democracy should be decided by its people. Democracy is the right of people in all countries as a universal human good. It is not a privilege reserved for a select few countries. Moreover, inciting conflict under the pretext of democracy is against the worldwide trend. It will only cause chaos and devastation in the world, according to the representative, who noted that the US has long forced its political systems and values on others, pushing for democracy transformation, misusing unilateral sanctions, and provoking colour revolutions. 

Most importantly, the United States’ wars and military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have killed hundreds of thousands of people, injured millions, and displaced tens of millions. The failure in Afghanistan has demonstrated that imposing American democracy on others does not work. According to Chinese analysts, Washington has demonstrated its lack of faith in its political system by refusing to invite numerous countries, including China and Russia, to contribute their perspectives on democracy, demonstrating that the US-dominated event is not democratic at all (Farah, 2021).

According to experts, the “summit” is a futile show that has offered a platform for some anti-China groups to gain attention, such as representatives of Hong Kong separatists and the Taiwan secessionist authority, demonstrating that the event serves the US goal of increasing tensions with China (DAWN, 2021).

On the other side, the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs highlighted long-standing issues in the US and its allies, such as freedom of speech, electoral rules, and human rights among others. “The democratizing rhetoric coming from Washington is not only completely disconnected from reality, but also utterly hypocritical, the flaws in the existing vote counting mechanism, the world’s highest prison population, and legislatures defending the interests of their sponsors rather than the voters”. Furthermore, Russia encouraged the United States to first address domestic issues and overcome widening societal conflicts over ethics, values, and the country’s past and future vision. 

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

A Throne of Chinese Skulls! Oh Yeah?

December 20, 2021

By Chris Faure for the Saker Blog

The hot question among a number of hot questions is: What will China do?

Is there clarity? I would argue yes there is .. some. The paradox is that West pushes for terms of a new partitioning of the world (democracy summit, unending belligerence, cynical, and hypocritical paranoia), while Russia and China expect terms of surrender. According to China, there has to be payback for past empire atrocities.

In such an environment a kinetic hot war makes little sense because there is no overt military threat against western leadership. I would argue that Russia’s ultimatum is military containment by agreement, as a first step. I would also argue that because we do not have insight into step 2 (military/technical counter-threats), we cannot reason that step 2 is not highly coordinated with China, to the nth degree. It is so that the USA is no longer the world’s only ‘indispensable nation’. They are now dispensable and replaceable in their current form and the hope is that they reform themselves.

As there is much that we do not know in terms of further steps, there is also much that we do not know about how China is going to interrelate. What we do know is that they will be a part of the final dethroning of Western powers’ force for empire. We know this, because they said so and China is dead serious.

Russia made their proposals known. China did too, just today.

Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on the United States to work with China to find out the way of peaceful coexistence between the two major countries. He noted some people in the United States are unwilling to admit that other countries also have the right to development, unwilling to accept the fact that China is growing stronger and making progress, unwilling to agree that China and the United States can achieve mutual benefit and win-win results, and are trying to form a camp to contain and suppress China.

“The wrong words and deeds of the U.S. side not only seriously damage the interests of the two peoples, but also seriously impact world peace and stability” Wang said.

Here are the Chinese statements over the past few days:

Shortly after the Putin/Xi Jingping virtual meeting, this question was posed to Foreign Minister Spokesperson Wang Wenbin. Mr Wenbin is a highly competent diplomat.

Question from TASS: In his virtual meeting with Russian President Putin, President Xi Jinping said China will continue to carry out flexible and diverse cooperation with Russia and other member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization to safeguard security and stability in the region. What challenges are China and Russia facing in this aspect? What can China and Russia do to safeguard regional security?

Wang Wenbin: On December 15, President Xi Jinping had a virtual meeting with Russian President Putin. The two heads of state had an in-depth exchange of views on core and major issues of common concerns including safeguarding regional security, and achieved new, important consensus.

The world is witnessing the combined forces of changes and a pandemic both unseen in a century against the backdrop of complex and profound changes in international and regional landscape. We believe that China and Russia, two permanent members of the UN Security Council, take on an important mission in defending regional peace and stability and promoting development and revitalization of all countries. For some time, certain countries have been drawing ideological lines, building new military blocs and stoking regional tensions, which have all brought grave threats and challenges to regional peace and stability and global strategic stability. China and Russia firmly reject this. We will continue to follow the two leaders’ consensus, take up responsibility, unite all forces that love peace and support peace, and make active contribution to realizing sustained, universal and common security in the region and the wider world.

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/202112/t20211215_10470184.html

Certain sentences and words need to be lifted out of ‘diplo-speak’.

Note, the question from the TASS reporter is about regional security. Mr Wenbin, in his response, brought it back to the strategic stability of the wider world.

This sentence: Russia/China take on important mission in defending regional peace and stability and promoting development and revitalization of all countries.

Again, he then speaks about Global Strategic Stability and not only regional.

For some time, certain countries have been drawing ideological lines, building new military blocs and stoking regional tensions, which have all brought grave threats and challenges to regional peace and stability and global strategic stability.

And here is the shocker:

We will continue to follow the two leaders’ consensustake up responsibility, unite all forces that love peace and support peace, and make active contribution to realizing sustained, universal and common security in the region and the wider world.

The phrase the two leader’s consensus indicates that all plans have been made, everyone stands at the ready, and Putin and Xi Jinping will take the next step probably on a phone call. The fate of the world is now in the hands of Putin and Xi Jinping. It is astonishing that China is subjecting itself to The Consensus of the Two Leaders and shows without a shadow of a doubt that they are acting in full concert, strategically, politically, economically coordinated, and we know militarily as well, we just don’t know to what extent.

Another statement from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin: This statement is interesting in that it shows the emotion (which I’ve never seen him display) of the Chinese people. They are at the end of their strategic patience as well and this is how they feel.

“The era in which the USA acted arbitrarily in the world under the pretext of democracy and human rights is now over.”

Currently, the destruction that the Western powers waged on the world, is transparent. Take a look:  Pentagon documents reveal ‘deeply flawed’ US air war: report

https://peoplesdaily.pdnews.cn/world/pentagon-documents-reveal-deeply-flawed-us-air-war-report-241188.html

Russia and China are stepping into alternative world relations still based on the UN Charter and Law, and based on respect between countries, and more than that, they are proving that it is possible since the first discussions of multi-polarity in the world in 2015 and the first public discussions of Belt and Road in 2013. For years now Russia and China tried to help the Western powers out of their sorry state; but the time has come.  ‘Gung-ho’ and ‘wolf warrior diplomacy’ seem to be over and at least from China side, this is a tipping point.  The Western powers need to face their downright self-inflicted humiliation. This will happen economically by moving the world to a new economic system with new economic tools and will go right through to military intervention should the Western powers continue their arbitrary actions. But nobody will be fighting the ‘West’s War’ and I submit we may see something quite unanticipated by our usual analysis and calculus. It is already unprecedented that Mr. Lavrov published his diplomatic correspondence with France and Germany regarding the Ukraine. It is also unprecedented for draft proposals from Russia to be open to the public at this stage. We are in an unprecedented time.

The fact that both Russia, China, and Iran do not start the shooting, is incontrovertible proof that they are genuine in their statements that they want to bring peace.

China is in, boots ‘n all. If a regional conflagration should break out and it is in Russia’s ballpark (the Ukraine), and Russia can deal with it on her own, China will make sure that the Russian soldiers are the best outfitted and supported of any modern military force that we have ever seen. You will see a voentorg to beat all voentorgs. Russian forces will drink champagne and eat oysters (OK, this is shameless hyperbole, but it makes the point).

Taiwan has simmered down. The latest words there from China in the person of Foreign Minister Wang Yi, is Taiwan’s reunification with China is a question of time. “China must and will be reunified,” he stressed. He noted that there has been growing support for the ‘One-China’ principle around the world, referring to the recent decision by the government of Nicaragua to break ties with Taipei. “Ten days ago, we resumed diplomatic relations with Nicaragua. The total number of countries with [whom China has] diplomatic ties has increased to 181, and the one-China consensus has been consolidated internationally,” he said.

If there is a fight, no matter the size, or the manner of the fight, the Chinese are in and I would argue that they are in right now! Nobody can beat them at producing what is necessary for a fight. Their own aircraft carrier battle groups are out in the ocean through the near Pacific, South China Seas and other seas.  One has to get used to how China presents things. Even the media reporting these maneuvers, puts scare quotes around the words “routine drills”.  Battle groups are out for scare quoted “routine drills”. They do not say that China is readying herself for a defense of her own basin, in which case Russia will support in the same way that China will support Russia. Will anyone be able to penetrate beyond and inside the first island chain?

So, it is clear that the Russia/China double helix is operating fine currently. Mr Wang is not playing a good cop to Russia’s bad cop. He is making it clear that what is happening is not only a Russian problem, but a problem of the strategic stability in the world, It affects not only Russia, but China as well, and no longer can one entity be allowed to attack others like fish in a barrel.

We cannot think of a multi-front war: the West cannot possibly be that deranged.

Yet, the ludicrous rhetoric in the Western spheres continues apace and distracts from reality. It is hardly worthwhile rebutting every accusation. China is not using much rhetoric currently but we can be sure that they note this rhetoric. Knowing the strategic situation in the world, they are not rebutting. There is no need.

We need men ” … who want to sit on a throne of Chinese skulls …

Andrei Martyanov is causing high hilarity about USA representatives that want to ‘kill themselves some Ruskis’ and even offers up a few:

This boy, obviously, despite his tour in Iraq never saw a real war and a real enemy who can actually kill you back even when one is in the bunker inside your own army base.

We can conclude then that the slew of accusations made to Russia, are similar in tone and also in substance, as those made to China. The minds of these accusers cannot contemplate a peaceful world. It seems to be impossible for them. Although Russia is not threatening the Ukraine, and China is not threatening her own Taiwanese province, they believe their belligerent rhetoric can make it so.

Western states are slowly approaching the state of being disconcerted and soon now they will enter a stage of being stunned, as they are now being dictated to on the red lines of the other forces in the world. We can never forget Iran, which showed everyone how to say NO! There will be no conformity to Western red lines. I venture to say that the USA and cronies will not even be allowed to keep operating their Monroe Doctrine. They will not be allowed a sphere of influence. They will only be allowed their space as a pole in multi-polarity. The leftist candidate won the elections in Chile yesterday (although there are questions as to how ‘empire-proof’ he is). The one slogan that was visible is: “If neocolonialism started in Chile, we will end it in Chile”.

Within China, China is looking after China. They are developing their space program, their Belt and Road which is ‘a force for good’ in the world, and building their economy and continuing to create an increasingly varied and better life for their people. The Olympic Games will continue, and in time Taiwan will reunify.

They are also, with Russia and others, building out a new financial system for the world.

What can stop a war at this stage?

  • The West has a very strong and simple reason to avoid a new war: They will lose. Their actions are now futile.
  • The USA is dying. Xi and Putin can still decide to let it die and continue to stay out of the fray. But they have made the decision to enter a confrontational era. We could speculate as to why as the situation reveals itself.
  • China, Asia or the AsiaPacific is ready to end the empirical era. Both Russia and China are ready to end the empirical era in such a way that retaliatory strikes are almost impossible. It is a most complex ballet of threat and counterthreat, coherently managed by the two countries. Russia is not arriving, China is not arriving and Iran is not arriving for the war that the hegemon is inviting them to. How frustrating for them.

What can stop a war? China and Russia, the consensus of the two leaders probably can. I repeat: “The era in which the USA acted arbitrarily in the world under the pretext of democracy and human rights is now over.”

Yankee Go Home!

Related Posts

The Russian website GEOFOR interviews the Saker

December 18, 2021

PUTIN-BIDEN: THERE ARE THINGS THAT RUSSIA WILL NOT TOLERATE

Translated from Russian into English by Lilia Shumkova

source: https://geofor.ru/4769-putin-bajden-est-veshhi-kotorye-rossiya-terpet-ne-budet.html

GEOFOR: Dear Mr. Raevsky, I recall how after the Geneva meeting with President Vladimir Putin, his American colleague President Joe Biden, in response to a question about the continuation of high-level contacts between our countries, said that we should wait until the end of the year, and after that time make an appropriate decision. And now, six months after Geneva, a new dialogue, albeit in a video format. Moreover, this time the initiator was the American side. What do you think this means? What did the White House want to achieve, and to what extent did it succeed?

Raevsky: Under Biden, the United States turned to Russia five times with a request for negotiations – three times by phone, once in person and now via a video conference. Why did they need it? Here, you just need to look at the general context from the point of view of the United States and Biden himself. He has several “fronts,” not only the problem of Russia and Ukraine. I would even say that this is not the main “front” for him. There are two main ones. First of all, there is an internal “front”: he has a very low rating; The social, economic, and political crisis in the United States is now total and, in many ways, resembles the Soviet Union in the 1980s. American armed forces have already proved many times their total inability to conduct combat operations and achieve anything with them. Iraq is a disaster. They are afraid of Iran and do not even want to compete with it. You have seen the disgrace in Afghanistan. Now the mood is very depressed and angry. This internal “front” of President Biden is undoubtedly the most dangerous.

The second very dangerous “front” he has is the issue of China. The Americans say that in two years they will no longer be able to gain the upper hand in the war against China; something needs to be done urgently.

People who understand the principles and timing of the reform of the armed forces and the development of new weapons systems, the principles of tactics and military art in general, understand that nothing can be done in two years. It takes a decade, and maybe more than one.

China and the United States are moving towards a confrontation. Beijing definitely occupies the position of the stronger player. And the Americans are weak on all fronts.

Then they have the Middle East, where Iran is now, in fact, ruling the ball. Israel is trying to maintain the appearance that it is very strong and very dangerous, but in reality the United States is now losing the entire Middle East.

This was an open goal of the Iranians. This is a country that is an order of magnitude smaller or weaker than Russia or China, now – in general, successfully – expels the United States from the Middle East, or at least from many parts of the Middle East.

And, of course, another “front” is Ukraine and Russia plus Europe. And in Europe – and this needs to be pointed out – there is an economic crisis.

For all these reasons, Biden was in an extremely difficult situation.

Russia has been retreating on all fronts over the past 20 – if not 30 – years. And now the situation resembles the one when German tanks were near Moscow. The time is now to say, “Not a step further.”

I think that [Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Valery] Gerasimov and Putin conveyed exactly this to the Americans: “Say what you want, we will not practice the same belligerent rhetoric. But in reality we have the means to repel any provocation or strike from you, and we will have to do it if you don’t change course.”

I think that the realization of how dangerous the situation is today has reached the “collective Biden.”

Now about whether he achieved what he wanted in this video conference.

Sure. To some extent, yes. Because he will be able to say that it was he who stopped Russia in Ukraine, that it was he who stopped China, and no attack on Taiwan happened on his watch.

But this, of course, is fiction. Everyone understands perfectly well that neither China nor Russia need these wars. All these fears were fanned by the Americans themselves.

And, that’s where they really scared themselves, which was the right thing to do, because they are absolutely not tough enough to “butt heads” with Iran, China, and Russia at the same time.

But there is a certain specificity of American politics in this. Very often, American diplomats come to Moscow and say one thing, then when they come back, they are attacked by the media and Congress. Both the media and the Congress are totally in the hands of the “War Party” here. Accusations of weakness, softness, cowardice, etc. follow and here they need to show their “coolness”.

So, for example, Trump acted when he negotiated with the Russian side, and then declared: “There were no agreements.”

Therefore, it remains to be seen whether Biden will be able to withstand the onslaught of the “War Party” now. If he can do it, say, in the next 2-3 weeks, then I would say that for him this conversation was a clear and undoubted success.

And if the “War Party” breaks it, as Trump was very quickly broken, then everything will return to normal, and we will return to the same threshold where Russia and the United States will be on the verge of a full-scale war. This, in general, is not necessary for anyone, and maybe it has come to the American side that it is one thing to talk about world domination, to fight with weak incapacitated forces. And it’s quite another thing to wage war against a real military superpower.

GEOFOR: The meeting was preceded by a strong propaganda attack against Russia, during which Washington clearly tried to “raise the stakes.” President Biden even said that he does not see and does not accept any “red lines” outlined by Moscow. And yet, just before the meeting, Congress lifted a number of sanctions against Russia from the defense budget, including on the Nord Stream-2. Clearly under the influence of the administration. How do you explain such a metamorphosis?

Raevsky: Of course, firstly, it was necessary to “raise the stakes” in order not only, as they like to say in the West, “to negotiate from a position of strength,” but also to convince both public opinion and the “War Party” that we are in no way making concessions to Russia. And Biden said: “We will not recognize any red lines!” [NATO Secretary General] Stoltenberg said: “We do what we want and Russia does not order us!” and so on.

It’s all PR.

In reality – the fact that they have already asked for negotiations with Russia for the fifth time shows who is in a position of strength, and who is not.

And this lifting of the sanctions you are talking about from the defense budget is, in general, a small step, rather, a diplomatic step of goodwill. But, in fact, the issue with the Nord Stream-2 has already been resolved. The only thing that can close it is a full-scale war between Russia and Ukraine – or something worse. They have already sanctioned Russia so that there is nowhere else to go – they say it themselves.

So, if you no longer have the opportunity to impose other sanctions, then you can “sell” this “non-imposition” of sanctions as a gesture of goodwill.

This is Realpolitik, and nothing more.

The Americans have never abandoned their strategic goals – containing and encircling Russia, forcing it to submissive obedience and surrender of its sovereignty, and this is their ultimate goal which the Americans have never agreed to abandon.

This is a strategic goal. And everything that is being done now, for Americans, is the level of tactics, not strategy.

They have not discussed the strategy yet, because to revise the strategy means to revise the entire ideology on which this country is built. They are not ready for this yet.

GEOFOR: Could Putin’s visit to Delhi have influenced the position of the American side, and if so, what kind? Recall that during this bilateral meeting with the Indian leadership, a number of documents were signed, including an agreement on military issues until 2030. Moreover, this document concerns not only military-technical cooperation.

Raevsky: Here you need to understand a very subtle game that the Indians are playing. They are friends with the United States, they will even go to this Summit of Democracies. But they are friends not against Russia, but against China, which for them is a regional enemy.

But in order to emphasize how friendly they are with the United States not against Russia, Putin’s trip to India was organized and giant contracts were signed there, including contracts for weapons, including S-400 air defense, which the Americans categorically forbade Indians to buy, and the Indians did not care about this ban.

In fact, India’s attitude towards Russia is a slap in the face of the United States. This shows that the Indians will look very selectively at what is beneficial to them and act in their own interests, and not be a submissive puppet in the hands of anyone, and certainly not the United States.

I would also like to add that, in my opinion, the confrontation between China and India is the main current problem of the Eurasian continent. I see only one side that can help these two countries to change relations and switch to a different quality. This is, of course, Russia.

And the strategic task of the Americans, on the contrary, is to incite further conflicts between China and India at any cost.

And it is clear that the parties will continue to bend their own line. Moscow stands for peace in Eurasia, and the United States – if not for war, then, in any case, for military tension and confrontation between these two great countries.

GEOFOR: One of the main priorities of Moscow in these negotiations was the issue of ensuring the security of the Russian Federation, which was stated long before the meeting. As it became known, the American side confirmed its readiness for dialogue on this issue. In particular, to discuss the issue of the deployment of offensive weapons along the Russian borders from Norway to Romania and possibly Turkey. This also automatically includes Ukraine. How does this relate to the belligerent and harsh statements on the eve of the meeting?

Raevsky: Officially, right before the meeting, the Americans said that they categorically refuse to recognize Moscow’s red lines. Stoltenberg also said that “Russia is not a law for us, let it behave correctly and keep quiet, and we will do whatever we want.”

But in reality, expert groups will meet. And what will they discuss? Yes, of course, just these red lines. This is the only subject of real bargaining that is possible between these two countries.

So, in fact, the United States says one thing and does another.

Yes, they are now making concessions to Moscow. The growing power of the Russian Armed Forces, and the forces of the Russian economy and political “soft power” forced the Americans to make concessions.

From the Americans’ point of view, Ukraine itself in its current state is a “404 country”, and I would say, in general, the whole of Europe turned out to be such a “suitcase without a handle.” And Americans are no longer able to drag around with them – neither economically nor politically.

So what can they do? If it has already been decided to leave the suitcase without a handle, then you can set it on fire and hope that this arson can achieve something.

And what to achieve? Yes, it’s very simple – the dream of Americans is for Russia to really grab as much Ukraine as possible. First, because this is a “black hole” that would become a headache for Russia, not America. Second, it will create ideal conditions to block the Nord Stream-2 and even other energy projects between Europe and Russia. And, third, it will create – finally! – the next “cold war,” without which the American and, in general, western politicians and generals are so sad.

Everyone understands that in the event of a war, Russia will win quickly and convincingly. But after that, a situation will arise that will resemble, perhaps, the “Berlin crisis” with a similar level of confrontation. And the “War Party” in the West wants this for a number of reasons.

For example, if the supply of energy carriers from Russia is cut off, then whose fuel and energy sector will be able to compensate for the outgoing resources? American, of course. Their liquefied gas.

The same is true in the sphere of political influence. If, say, an open war happens, and Russia liberates even just a part of Ukraine from Nazi rule, it will be presented as proof that only NATO can save Europe from Putin’s “mordor”.

It would be very beneficial for the Americans to have a full-scale war unleashed. This is the interpretation of the “War Party”. But there are other people – sane people – who understand that such a situation is fraught with a very rapid escalation and direct confrontation between the United States and Russia. And they don’t want that.

And so, on the one hand, we are seeing “cool” statements. On the other hand, there are a number of concessions that the Americans are ready to make so far.

And the offensive weapons systems that they have now deployed in other countries is a purely political, not military, issue. When Putin says that for a Western hypersonic missile from the territory of Ukraine, the approach time will be five minutes to Moscow, this is a fact. But, on the other hand, the time of approach of a preemptive strike by Russian hypersonic weapons will also, by definition, be five minutes. And in this area, Russia has overtaken the United States for a long time and very significantly. Russia also has the opportunity to place missiles in the Atlantic Ocean outside the zone of operation of possible anti-submarine means of the United States and “swoop” from there.

These offensive systems are dangerous for Russia not so much from a military point of view as from a political one, since this is really a political provocation. It shows what, as Americans like to say, “they send a message”.

This is the message: “We don’t care about you! We do what we want and where we want.” This means that Russia is not an equal party to the negotiations, that there is a great Hegemon and Suzerain of the whole planet, who does everything he wants and how he wants, and Russia is invited to shut up, sit quietly, and not slack off.

This political problem is very real for Russia. Therefore, the current situation will force Russia at some point to draw red lines and say that there are things that we will not tolerate.

Obviously, both Putin and General Gerasimov have very successfully brought these realities to the consciousness of the “collective Biden.”

GEOFOR: The information that comes to us after the meeting suggests that the tone of the conversation between the Russian and American presidents is similar to the tone of Biden’s remote talks with Comrade Xi, which also took place recently. For example, during a conversation with the Chinese leader, the US president stressed the need to refrain from seizing Taiwan by force, which essentially meant that Washington did not object to economic and political methods. As for the Russian-American negotiations, in part of Ukraine, for example, issues related to its territorial integrity, Crimea and the notorious “Russian aggression” were not discussed at all. And at the briefing following the conversation, Assistant to the President J. Sullivan called on Kiev to stop the escalation of tensions in the Donbas and referred the Ukrainian leadership to the Minsk agreements. What is the reason for this position: the desire to maintain the status quo for a while? Then – for what purpose and for how long?

Raevsky: In this area, the situation can be said to have turned completely upside down.

Russia needed these decades of concessions in order to strengthen the Russian society itself, strengthen the information sphere, the Russian economy, establish import substitution, create new ties with other countries and, most importantly, to develop the Armed Forces to such a level that they can cope with any threat to Russia.

The Americans’ situation is flipped. They have the deepest internal crisis – political and economic. The state of the American armed forces is very fraught.

Of course, the current status quo is beneficial to them. The alternative is to continue on the path of escalation, and then there is only one way – to military confrontation. There’s nothing else left. Everything below the level of military confrontation has already been done. And it is completely unprofitable for them to go to an open military confrontation with Russia.

For how long is such a status quo beneficial to them? It is necessary to clearly distinguish two sides. On the military side, the reform of the armed forces is a very long and difficult process, very complex, and the armed forces have a huge inertia, which is very difficult to deploy in another direction, considering that the American political calendar is two years ahead; one year ahead, well, four years ahead at most.

On the political side, Biden’s rating is now catastrophically low. The situation inside the country is very bad. Therefore, it is more profitable for him to maintain the status quo for a year or two rather than to have a direct confrontation with Russia during his presidency. Plus, it is still unknown what benefits the Chinese and Iranians could find for themselves in such a confrontation.

Thus, Americans need the status quo. On the political side, two years, even one year, is much better than a war.

In the long run, the current status quo, I think, is just a screen put up to hide the fact that they will continue to self-destruct. In my opinion – and I know this country quite well – it is absolutely impossible to rebuild it. Reforms are impossible here, because this country is based on imperialism, on the ideology of world domination, and it is simply impossible for it to abandon this. Speaking “in American language,” “it’s not American.” That is, to recognize, for example, just the possibility that the United States is “one of the countries of the world”, but not “the leader of all mankind”, is something that is literally unthinkable for most Americans, and certainly for American politicians. For them, this is simply unacceptable.

The whole “crazy kindergarten” – there is no other way to say it – that we hear now from a local congressman about Russia, about China, about others, is a reflection of this type of thinking and worldview.

Unfortunately, in the United States, being an open supporter of the “War Party” looks patriotic. And since this country did not have any real war in defense of its homeland, and they lost all the other wars after World War II, this is a country that simply cannot abandon its imperial ideology, and now it lacks the tools that it needs to impose its imperialist ideology on the entire planet.

Therefore, realistically speaking, they need the status quo for as long as possible. But it is impossible to define this “longer”.” There are too many variables, too many scenarios.

GEOFOR: About protocol problems in relations with the White House. In preparation for the meeting, it was widely announced that the conversation would be “one-on-one.” And now we see President Biden negotiating surrounded by four of his advisers. Does such a transformation of the format of the meeting contribute to the establishment of an atmosphere of trust in negotiations and, more broadly, in bilateral relations in general?

Raevsky: First of all, you need to understand that when it comes to Biden, of course, we are talking about “collective Biden.” Biden himself is not able to delve into all the problems facing him, nor to negotiate. And, certainly, not with a man like Putin, who can talk for four hours without a piece of paper and remember all the numbers on all topics.

Naturally, there should be advisers around him; there is nothing new here.

When George Bush’s son was interrogated about the events of September 11 [2001], he was not trusted to answer questions alone. Dick Cheney was sitting next to him, who had to make sure, as the “senior supervisor,” that Bush would not blurt out anything superfluous. It’s the same here.

These advisers surround him, naturally, to advise, but also to keep an eye on him. They are the watchers, and he is their official representative.

Moreover, I would even say that this is a very good sign – just as I welcomed the trip of Victoria Nuland and the CIA director to Moscow. This shows that “serious people” are talking to the Russian side. Now if they sent Kamala Harris to talk to someone, that would be a sign of total disregard. Or, say, how Blinken calls Zelensky to tell him what happened at the negotiations.

There is no such contempt here. On the contrary, there are serious people who know what they are talking about and who are able to make decisions. This shows that the negotiations were not symbolic and that there really was a shift. In my opinion, this can only be welcomed.

But! There can be no question of any atmosphere of trust. This is what journalists think: there is an atmosphere of trust in the negotiations between Russia and the United States.

Such negotiations only develop confidence-building measures – those that are verifiable.

There can be no question of any trust.

Most likely, in general terms, the parties agreed to some steps, and expert groups will work on specifics – who, how and when will check the measures mutually agreed during the negotiations.

Here we can recall President Ronald Reagan, who said: “Trust, but verify”.

This is exactly what we are seeing now: both sides will check to the maximum, because the stakes are very high. When there is a risk of military confrontation between two nuclear superpowers, there can be no trust. There can only be absolutely verifiable mutually obligatory steps of the two sides.

GEOFOR: And now a few words about the affairs of Washington. The further away, the more noticeable the discord in the White House foreign policy team. If the aggravation of the situation in bilateral relations, harsh criticism of Russia, etc. comes from the Secretary of State and his team, then a certain constructive approach comes from the national security assistant. This became especially noticeable after Mrs. Nuland, whose work results apparently did not satisfy the White House much, an experienced diplomat, a former ambassador to Russia, and now the director of the CIA, William J. Burns, whom a number of Russian analysts write down in the “Sullivan team,” arrived in Moscow. Will President Biden be able to continue to stay above the fray of his closest aides? How subjective is he in making and implementing his political decisions? After all, it is still impossible to ignore the opinions of both parties on Capitol Hill… In short, how much can Russia trust the agreements that were reached during the dialogue at the highest level? Will the decisions on joint study of issues of interest to both sides go beyond expert consultations and translate into concrete binding agreements? Or is it still an attempt to get a respite in time in order to settle their internal problems, reformat relations with allies, and then return to the period of confrontation?

Raevsky: There are undoubtedly two parties here. There is a very serious struggle going on within the ruling classes of the United States and in the so-called “deep state.”

Imagine some kind of gangster group – one of those organized criminal groups, each of which controls some part of the city. As long as things are going well, they sit quietly. But as soon as the crisis begins, then they start fighting among themselves.

And so the election of Trump four years ago brought such a split in the ruling American elites that now a very strong battle is going on at the top in different groups, clans of the American government. And the divide is not between Republicans and Democrats. Relatively speaking, on the one hand there is a “War Party,” and on the other hand there is a “Peace Party.” This is very conditional, but not wrong.

First, the “War Party” members are pure ideologists. Second, it is the fuel and energy sector of America, which is very interested in “cutting off” Europe from Russia. It would be very beneficial for the American economy as a whole if Europe were both weaker and more dependent on the United States. Any cooperation between Russia and the EU is a direct and clear threat to the economic and political interests of the United States. There are still those who retain nostalgia for the Cold War. There are so-called “Neocons,” there are “Neoliberals,” and there are various lobbies that are hostile to Russia for various reasons. The Israeli lobby, the Polish lobby, the Ukrainian lobby. All of these groups lumped together can be called the “War Party”.

And there is a “Peace Party”, which, I think, consists of those people who understand that, going further along this path, you can only come to one point – war. This party does not want to pay such a price. This party probably understands that it is simply too much for the United States to go into a total confrontation with Russia, Iran and China at the same time.

Even if they wanted war, they realize that in this position it is better for them to present themselves as a “Peace Party”.

This is probably what Biden wants to achieve. He wants to demonstrate that with his “coolness” and disregard for any demands of Russia and China, he has succeeded, stopped both “Russian aggression” against Ukraine and “Chinese aggression” against Taiwan.

That there is absolutely no reality under this rhetoric, it does not matter at all. This is all for domestic consumption and for domestic policy. And also to preserve the image of the World Hegemon, which, unfortunately, it is absolutely impossible for Americans to abandon, since this ideology is “embedded” in the national identity of many – if not all – Americans. In addition, all politicians, in order to show that they are patriots, must be supporters of the “War Party,” supporters of wars and “cool” unilateral measures. In this country – alas! – this is interpreted not as a sign of insanity or irresponsibility, but as a sign of “coolness”. And if the president demonstrates these qualities, then he is a strong and serious president.

How to reform such a country and give it the opportunity to become just a normal country, and not an Empire, I can’t imagine. I don’t see how this system can be reformed. The only way out, which I unfortunately see, is that it should collapse. Collapse either quickly during a military confrontation, or – God forbid! – through some kind of agreement to “hit the brakes.” This is the best we can all hope for.

GEOFOR: So, how do you see the future of relations between Moscow and Washington?

Raevsky: First of all, I have always believed and written that for at least seven years – if not more – the American Empire and Russia have been at war. This is an ideological war, this is an informational war, a political war,  and an economic war. And-thank God! – there have not been any major military actions yet.

But this does not negate the fact that, in fact, there can be only one winner in this war.

Russia, Iran, China and other countries want a multipolar world in which there would be a place for sovereign states that treat each other with respect and in accordance with the principles of international law.

The American vision of the future is world hegemony, “the USA is ahead of the whole planet,”  the USA governs everything and everyone, and there are no equals.

This is a very important point – “We have no equal.” It’s an idea that generations of Americans have been raised on.

But suddenly [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] General Milley said that, in general, from a military point of view, the world already has at least three poles – the United States, Russia and China. There are actually more of these poles. For example, in the Middle East, the strongest regional power is no longer Israel – it is Iran.

The situation is changing, and not to the benefit of the United States.

Russia plays for a long time. She has been yielding, stepping aside, and giving way for a long time, because it was necessary to create such Armed Forces that could really guarantee the security of Russia in any threats. Russia has finally achieved this.

For Russia, the idea of Anglo–Saxon domination over the planet, when everyone else should serve them, is fundamentally unacceptable – and I would even say civilizationally. Russia sees herself to be an equal player among the great of this world.

What will be the relations between Moscow and Washington? One side will lose the war, and the other will gain the upper hand in it.

Not necessarily, by the way, a war with military operations. This could be a purely political war only, God willing!

But only one of the two boxers in the ring will remain standing. The second one will have to accept a real defeat.

For Russia, such a defeat would mean the loss of sovereignty and destabilization. Which will once again put her in a dangerous position.

And for the United States, simply giving up world domination is already a total defeat, because it will force this country to completely reformat itself and recreate itself on a new basis. Which they are absolutely not capable of, at the moment. In order to reform the country, it takes decades – if there is no external force. And since Russian tanks will not appear on the streets of Washington, no purge like the one that was against the Nazis after World War II in Germany, here – alas! – it won’t happen.

It means that all this will take a long time, and this process will not only be long, but also dangerous for this country.

——-

Andrei Raevsky was born in Zurich, Switzerland, his father is Dutch, his mother is Russian from a family of White Russian immigrants.

In 1984, he entered active military service in the electronic warfare unit, and then was transferred to the military intelligence service as a language specialist, to work in the interests of the Swiss Air Force. Then he moved to the USA, where he received a bachelor’s degree in International Relations from the School of International Service (SIS) American University (American University) and a Master’s degree in Strategic Studies (Strategic Studies) at the School of Advanced International Studies. Paul N. Nitze of Johns Hopkins University (Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University). Upon returning to Switzerland, he worked as a civilian consultant (in a position corresponding to the military rank of “major”) in the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service (SND), preparing strategic analytical materials, primarily about the Soviet/Russian armed forces. He worked as a specialist in “enemy operations” (“Red Team” in American military jargon) to train personnel at the operational level of the General Staff of the Swiss Armed Forces. Later he worked at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), where he specialized in peacekeeping tactics and operations. He wrote a book about psychological and intelligence operations in peacekeeping and four books of collected works “The Essential Saker” (The Essential Saker). Speaks Russian, English, French, Spanish and German.

Raevsky holds a Licentiate in Orthodox Theological Studies (PhD in Orthodox Theology) from the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies at the Monastery of St. Gregory Palamas in Etna, California (the “Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies” (CTOS) at the Saint Gregory Palamas monastery in Etna, California).

Swiss citizen.

Lives in the state of Florida.

The questions were asked by Sergey Dukhanov, an international journalist and an Americanist. He worked as his own correspondent for the NOVOSTI Press Agency in Canada (Ottawa, 1990-1992) and as the chief of the American Bureau (Washington, 1996-2001) of the newspapers Business MN, Delovoy Mir and Interfax-AiF.

ديمقراطية أميركا بمثابة سلاح دمارٍ شاملٍ

الخميس 16 كانون الأول

المصدر: الميادين نت

لقد بشَّر بايدن الأميركيين والعالم بأنَّ “أميركا عائدة” في فترته الرئاسية

عمرو علان

كاتب وباحث سياسي في العديد من المنافذ الإخبارية العربية ، ومنها جريدة الأخبار ، وقناة الميادين الإخبارية الفضائية ، وعربي 21 ، وراي اليوم

في ظلِّ انشغال الأوروبيين بقضاياهم الداخلية الضّاغطة، إضافةً إلى تزامن قمة بايدن “للديمقراطية” مع المؤتمر الشعبي المؤتمر عن مستقبل أوروبا، تراجَع بشكلٍ عام الاهتمام الأوروبي بالقمة.

في مقاله الشَّهير “لماذا يجب على أميركا أن تقود مجدداً؟”، الذي نُشِر في آذار/مارس 2020 قبيل خوضه السباق الرئاسي، والذي رسم فيه جو بايدن معالم سياسته الخارجية في حال انتخابه، كان بايدن قد ركّز على فكرة كون العالم يخوض معركة “الديمقراطية” ضد “الأوتوقراطية”، بحسب فهمه. وكان من أبرز ما طرحه في مقاله ذاك، عزمه على عقد مؤتمر دولي بقيادة أميركا لدعم “الديمقراطية” وتعزيزها حول العالم.

ولعلّ القمة من أجل “الديمقراطية” التي عقدها في 9 و10 كانون الأول/ديسمبر 2021 هي ذاك المؤتمر الذي بشَّر به في مقاله المذكور، فهل جاءت قمة “الديمقراطية” ونتائجها كما بشَّر بها العالم إبان انتخابه؟

دعت الإدارة الأميركية أكثر من 100 دولة إلى قمة بايدن، لكننا نجد غياباً كاملاً لأي معايير في توجيه الدعوات، فحتى لو سلَّمنا للأميركي بمعاييره المفترضة وشهادات حسن السلوك التي خوّل نفسه توزيعها في “الديمقراطية” والحُكْم الرشيد من خلال مؤسسة “فريدام هاوس”، فإننا نجد تناقضاً واضحاً في قائمة المدعوين، فقد تمت دعوة العراق وباكستان والهند وأكرانيا مثلاً، بينما لم تتم دعوة سنغافورة، ولا تركيا وهنغاريا الأطلسيتين، ناهيك بعدم دعوة روسيا وإيران، رغم تنظيمهما انتخابات دورية وحقيقية. 

ولهذا، كان واضحاً من قائمة المدعوّين أنَّ الأميركي يتغطّى مجدداً بقضية “الديمقراطية” و”حقوق الإنسان” من أجل أهدافٍ جيوسياسيةٍ تتعلق بمواجهة الصين. أكّد هذا الاستنتاج الذي ذهب إليه غالبية المتابعين، دعوة تايوان إلى القمة، رغم أنها ليست دولةً مستقلةً. 

على الأرجح، كان هذا الاستنتاج هو ما دفع باكستان إلى الاعتذار عن حضور قمة بايدن، إذ قال رئيس الوزراء الباكستاني عمران خان، في 9 كانون الأول/ديسمبر 2021، إنَّ باكستان غير راغبةٍ في الانضمام إلى أيّ تجمعٍ سياسيٍ ضد أحدٍ، وإنَّ العالم عانى الكثير من الحرب الباردة، وإن دولته لا ترغب في أن تجد نفسها جزءاً من حربٍ باردةٍ جديدةٍ. 

وجاء موقف روسيا والصين حازماً تجاه قمة بايدن، إذ قالت المتحدثة باسم وزارة الخارجية الروسية، ماريا زاخاروفا: “تقوم الولايات المتحدة بتدمير نظام العلاقات الدولية المؤسسة على القانون الدولي والدور المركزي للأمم المتحدة، وذلك من أجل إنشاء منطقة راحة خاصة بها تنوي واشنطن أن تهيمن فيها بانفراد…”. ولهذا السبب بالذات، تنظّم الولايات المتحدة هذه الفعالية الجماعية في شكل “قمة الديمقراطية”، التي ستمنح المشاركين فيها شرف حق خدمة المصالح الأميركية.

أما الصين، فقال المتحدث باسم وزارة خارجيتها إن الديمقراطية أصبحت منذ فترةٍ طويلةٍ سلاح دمارٍ شاملٍ تستخدمه الولايات المتحدة للتدخل في الدول الأخرى، مشيراً إلى الثورات الملونة التي أثارتها أميركا في الخارج، وتابع كلامه بالقول: “إن القمّة نُظّمت لرسم خطوط تحاملٍ أيديولوجيةٍ، واستغلال الديمقراطية… والتحريض على الانقسام والمواجهة”.

إذاً، ما كان الهدف الحقيقي من قمة بايدن – كما بات واضحاً للقاصي والداني في دول العالم – إلا مواجهة صعود الصين في الدرجة الأولى، والتصدي لعودة روسيا إلى الساحة الدولية في الدرجة الثانية. 

عندها، لا حرج إذا قيل إنَّ القمة لم تحقق الكثير على هذا الصعيد، فاستبعاد دول مثل سنغافورة، التي تقع في المجال الحيوي للصين، والتي يمكن أن يكون لها دور كبير ضمن استراتيجية أميركا لمواجهة الصين، لا يبدو خطوةً أميركيةً في الاتجاه الصحيح.

ولعلَّ استبعاد سنغافورة كان في الأساس بسبب رفض رئيس الوزراء السنغافوري الدخول في تحالف من أجل “الديمقراطية”، يكون الهدف الحقيقي منه الدخول في حربٍ باردةٍ جديدةٍ ضد الصين، ولا يبدو كذلك استبعاد تركيا ومصر، الدولتين الإقليميتين المهمتين، خطوة أميركية محسوبة، فكما قال ستيفن وولت في مقاله بعنوان “قمة بايدن للديمقراطية يمكن أن تأتي بنتائج عكسية”: “إذا ما كانت الصين تعدّ التحدي المركزي للولايات المتحدة الأميركية في هذه المرحلة، فإن التركيز على الديمقراطية يمكن ألّا يكون الطريق الأمثل لمواجهة هذا التحدي”.

أما عن حضور أوروبا في هذه القمة، فرغم تصريحات ممثل السياسات الخارجية للاتحاد الأوروبي، جوسيب بوريل، التي حثَّت الدول الأوروبية على المشاركة البنَّاءة في قمة بايدن، فإنَّ مصالح أوروبا لا تبدو متطابقة مع الولايات المتحدة الأميركية تجاه الصين في هذه المرحلة، ولا سيما في ظل جائحة “كوفيد-19” والتغيّر المناخي، إضافة إلى صعود الصين كقطب اقتصادي مهم لدول العالم، فكما أوضحت إيرين جونز وإليسا ليدو في مؤسسة كارنيغي للأبحاث: “تسود أوروبا تحفّظات على عودة أميركا لقيادة العالم، إذ يشير مصطلح “الاستقلال الاستراتيجي” الذي يُعد الأكثر رواجاً في أوروبا في هذه الحقبة إلى مَنحى أوروبيّ للخلاص من الخيار بين قيادة واشنطن أو بكين”.

وأضافت جونز وليدو أنَّ البعض في أوروبا يرى أنَّ تقسيم بايدن لدول العالم بين دول “ديمقراطية” يمكن التعامل معها، وأخرى “غير ديمقراطية” لا تصلح للتعامل معها، لا يأخذ بالحسبان تعقيدات العالم في هذه الحقبة.

وفي ظلِّ انشغال الأوروبيين بقضاياهم الداخلية الضّاغطة، إضافةً إلى تزامن قمة بايدن “للديمقراطية” مع المؤتمر الشعبي المؤتمر عن مستقبل أوروبا، تراجَع بشكلٍ عام الاهتمام الأوروبي بالقمة، في إشارةٍ إلى تراجع أهمية هذه القمة على المستوى العالمي.

لقد بشَّر بايدن الأميركيين والعالم بأنَّ “أميركا عائدة” في فترته الرئاسية، وكان العمل على تعزيز ما سمّاه “الديمقراطية” في العالم ومواجهة “الأوتوقراطية”، من خلال عقد قمّة عالمية لهذا الغرض، بحيث تكون فاتحةً لمسار جديد تقوده الولايات المتحدة الأميركية، وكلنا يدرك أنَّ هذه العبارات تخفي وراءها هدف مواجهة صعود الصين كقطب عالميّ، واستعادة روسيا مكانتها كقطب دولي آخر، فإذا بنا نجد بايدن يعقد قمة عن بُعد، رأى فيها الكثيرون مجرد استعراض لقيادةٍ أميركيةٍ عالميةٍ لم تَعُدْ موجودةً بالفعل، وظهر أنها كانت موجهةً إلى الداخل الأميركي أكثر من الخارج، وذلك، كما يبدو، في محاولةٍ لطمأنة الداخل الأميركي إلى موقع أميركا العالمي.

ولكنَّ المفارقة كانت في عقد أميركا مؤتمراً من أجل “الديمقراطية” عقب شهورٍ قليلةٍ فقط على إعلانها فشل مشروعها المزعوم لترسيخ ديمقراطيتها في أفغانستان، وعقب تزايد الحديث عن تراجع “الديمقراطية” في الداخل الأميركي ذاته، وذلك في ظلِّ عدم اعتراف قطاعٍ واسعٍ من بين الجمهوريين بنتائج الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية الأخيرة.

في ظلِّ تراجع الإمبراطوريات، يبدو أنَّنا سنبدأ بسماع الكثير من الجعجعة من دون رؤية الطحين. ولا أريد المبالغة كثيراً، لكنَّ قمة بايدن الأخيرة هذه تذكِّر بالقمم العربية التي لم يكن ينتج منها سوى البيانات، من دون أية نتائج عمليةٍ على أرض الواقع.إن الآراء المذكورة في هذه المقالة لا تعبّر بالضرورة عن رأي الميادين وإنما تعبّر عن رأي صاحبها حصراً

The Structural debunking of the basis of construction of the Summit ON Democracy©

December 15, 2021

By Chris Faure for the Saker Blog

The ‘war on terror’ and the ‘war on drugs’ and similar empirical processes have come and gone and left in their wake a truly diabolical ‘Long arm of the Law and Dollar Hegemony’. A few years ago, this was labeled correctly as the rules-based international order.

The Summit for Democracy© opened up a new front, which has always been there but now lies stark and visible. Like a proverbial dirty old man in a dirty old raincoat obscenely flashing the wrinkly danglies, so this Summit for Democracy© exposed itself.  Empire attempted to copyright the word Democracy© as a social division.

According to empire, we have two types of countries/entities in the world: The Democrats, and the Autocrats. With the current administration in the home of empire, they get a double whammy of course in the language that they chose: actually quite astounding and clever marketing. Effectively they announced a social war, that at this time is not a war ON something, but a war FOR something. The wars ON, and the new war FOR is the same old sour wine marketed in new wineskins, and this is clear in Biden’s opening speech (video link at the end). Biden says his initiative is to stop the ‘retreat of democracy’ and this is the ‘defining challenge of our time’. Translated into real English and in contrast, this initiative actually sets out to undermine the retreat from empirical dictatorship widespread now in our world. The opening speech was a carefully constructed sleight of hand and we see the play, there is no multi-polarity: there are only autocrats and democrats.

This ‘defining challenge of our time’ is equally as vague as the wars ON terror or on drugs: it is an ephemeral definition.  This is an old strategy, the doubling down strategy. Biden even mentions doubling down. It is mind-blowing how Biden shamelessly uses Chinese concepts in his speech. For example, democracy is capable of self-correction. This is a Chinese trademark in terms of their own systems. It is capable of self-improvement which is again Chinese trademark. This democracy will define the course ‘our shared future for generations to come’, again lifted from the Chinese playbook: A shared future for all mankind. We have to stand up for the values that unite us, he says, justice and the rule of law, free speech, free assembly, and so on he goes.

All of these were harshly exposed by the end of the summit.

It is worth remembering how the US has actively destroyed democracies across much of the global South over the past several decades while propping up authoritarian regimes. Here are a few prominent examples from the Global South:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1469234821327167488.html

The wine being proffered is sour, and the danglies under the dirty raincoat are incompetent and yet, still proudly displayed harking back to a previous time of bloody empirical greatness. These word crafters of the ‘defining challenge of our time’ are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

You may be surprised at what your own country said. Some countries took the opportunity to explain what their democracy is about. Mexico is typical and their delegate explained their own democracy in their own country without committing to this new defining challenge of our times. (I guess the summit did not expect to hear such truths). The greatest surprise was Argentina, who stated the Movement Towards Socialism in Bolivia is the most significant victory for democracy in the Americas for a very long time. A dictatorship was defeated and people’s rights were restored in record time. Of course, Bolivia was not invited. (Watch out Argentina, color revolutions are not yet off the list of regime change operations!)

It is heartening to see that some countries spoke the unvarnished truth and slapped the empire with the equivalent of a wet fish across the mouth, making it clear that Democracy depends on removing Democracy© from their own countries.

There were also comical moments. The Taiwanese delegate found her visual feed cut, after showing a map with Taiwan in a different color to China. The State Department said it was confusion over screen-sharing. In reality, the empire had a sphincter-clenching moment of fear over China’s possible response.

Take a look at what your own country said. https://www.state.gov/official-interventions-the-summit-for-democracy/

Exactly in the bull’s eye, spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested that the summit will give those taking part an “honorary right” to work for the agenda of the US worldwide. “This is exactly what we have been talking about for three years now: the United States is dismantling the system of international relations, which is based on international law and the central role of the UN, for the sake of creating its own comfort zone, which it intends to dominate single-handedly.

According to the spokeswoman, the US organized the ‘Summit for Democracy’ for the sole purpose of creating a new group that will then serve the interests of the “American regime” abroad.

In parallel with Russia, and external to the summit, China set to work and explained their own democracy, which they call Whole Process People’s Democracy. They are not trying to export it and say themselves that this is homegrown, suits China and its civilizational norms, and may not be suitable for others. http://english.www.gov.cn/archive/whitepaper/202112/07/content_WS61af46cdc6d09c94e48a1e49.htm

This epitomizes China’s view: “The summit held by the democratically dysfunctional US is essentially an anti-China farce, which includes a losers’ alliance and self-hypnotized cultists with “democracy” slogans”.

The Summit on Democracy is of course not the ‘defining challenge of our times’. It is a shameless attempt to maintain a power base run by mobs in a world that is involved with the process of moving toward multi-polarity, which is inexorably happening and that is the challenge of our times.

The list of invitees which initially seemed difficult to fathom is simple to fathom. It is a selection. It is a test as to who they think ‘stands with us for Democracy©, and who is defined as ‘autocrats’. It is a ‘you are either with us or against us’ according to an imposed definition of their own.

In context, we may view this summit as follows:

  1. It is a negotiation to retain a part of the world, perhaps a smaller and less shining city upon the hill. This negotiation aims at establishing two global areas of influence, and the hope is, if successful, to provide breathing room for the falling hegemonic power to Build Back Better.
  2. It is a paroxysm of a soft war council, to recruit those that are willing to go to social war for the hegemony.
  3. It is a first attempt at creating an alternate fragment of a United Nations, built on whatever remains of satrapies to the empire.

All of these have merit in the thinking of the creators of Democracy©. If you take a look at the panel discussions, these are mainly weak B-Roll 5th column type flunky’s, of course with an assigned leader, a person with more stature, assigned to them. Take a good critical look at how the structure is being established: https://www.state.gov/schedule-the-summit-for-democracy/

Listening to Biden’s opening speech, he outlines the hierarchy, the soldiers and gives them their tasks. The first column is Biden’s main points, the second one is my interpretation.

The Interventionists (Manager Soldiers)

Leaders of more than 100 governmentsI’ve outlined what some of those leaders said, which is not consistent with the Democracy©lub, and these will not be admitted. So from the outset, we can question the ‘more than 100’.Some will be dropped from the selection and become Autocrats.These interventionists are expected to do just that, to intervene.
Activists, Trade Unionists and other members of civil societyLeading experts, researchers, and delegates from the business communityWe see Juan Guaidó, a completely fabricated political player. There were Taiwanese who generally are 5th column type fodder.In the 2nd category, you will see the assigned leaders, for example:Hosted by Ursula von der Leyen – President of the European CommissionRemarks by Jacinda Ardern – Prime Minister of New ZealandRemarks by Mary Kay Henry – International President, Service Employees International Union https://www.state.gov/schedule-the-summit-for-democracy/

Their tasks are:

  • to lock arms and reaffirm our shared commitment to make our Democracies© better
  • make concrete commitments of how to strengthen our own democracies and to push back on authoritarianism
  • fight corruption
  • promote and protect human rights of people everywhere
  • doubling down our engagement with and support for democracies across the world

This is the second cadre of soldiers, the ‘woke’ in the streets and the online masses

women and girls in civic engagementempowering the lgbtq+ communitythe foot soldiers

Their tasks are:

  • promote labor law reform
  • address online harassment and abuse
  • reduce the potential for countries to abuse new technologies including surveillance technologies to suppress the rights of their people to suppress their views

The overall call to action is as follows:

  • we stand at an inflection point in our history that will define the direction our world is going to take in the coming decades
  • will we allow the backward slide of democracy to continue unchecked?
  • or will we once more lead the charge of human freedom forward?

(Can you hear the musical cadence from Henry V? Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more…)

And then they shot themselves in the foot as is typical from an imploding empire. On the second day, the previous ruling that Julian Assange could not be extradited to the US was overturned in London. The basis of this decision was that the US gave some assurances that Assange would not be harmed if extradited to the US. Of course, this was contingent upon him doing nothing wrong. In this instance, for example, if he stumbles upon a stair it would be classified as something he did wrong.

The world suddenly had a complete and clear view, and can only conclude that this Democracy© is a terrible and destructive system. They may not be able to pick up a small country and throw it against the wall as they now have too much opposition, so they now take people, and throw them against the wall. Chris Hedges made a list of how reliable these ‘assurances’ are, in a column titled The Execution of Julian Assange. These are only a few but he lists many more:

  • The Spanish courts can tell you what US “assurances” are worth. Spain was given an assurance that its citizen David Mendoza Herrarte, if extradited to the US to face trial on drug trafficking charges, could serve his prison sentence in his homeland. But, for six years, the DoJ repeatedly refused Spanish transfer requests, relenting only when the Spanish Supreme Court intervened.
  • The people in Afghanistan can tell you what US “assurances” are worth. US military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials knew for 18 years that the war in Afghanistan was a quagmire, yet they publicly stated, over and over, that the military intervention was making steady progress.
  • The people in Iraq can tell you what US “assurances” are worth. They were invaded and subject to a brutal war based on fabricated evidence about weapons of mass destruction.
  • The people of Iran can tell you what US “assurances” are worth. The United States, in the 1981 Algiers Accords, promised not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs and then funded and backed the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran, a terrorist group based in Iraq and dedicated to overthrowing the Iranian regime.
  • The thousands of people tortured in US global black sites can tell you what US “assurances” are worth. CIA officers, when questioned by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the widespread use of torture, secretly destroyed video tapes of interrogations while insisting there had been no “destruction of evidence.”

Assange, at tremendous personal cost, warned us. He gave us the truth. Now the ruling class is crucifying him for this truth. And with his crucifixion, the dim lights of our democracy go dark.

In summary, in this Summit for Democracy, we are seeing the attempted gathering of a subset in our word, the biggest color revolution yet. This one attempts nothing smaller than overthrowing all of the purported ‘autocrats’ worldwide, whether these are countries, areas, movements, or individual dissidents. This social color revolution is aiming for the soft underbelly of those that refuse to participate in or support the hegemony, its global control meme, and its various wars, its false Democracy©. Like the proverbial flasher in a dirty trench coat, the exposure of the Democracy© comedy central skit was complete.  We are all ‘autocrats’ now. 

Assessing the outcome of the Biden Putin summmit

December 14, 2021

Assessing the outcome of the Biden Putin summmit

Let’s begin by stating the obvious: those who now claim that the Biden Putin summit did not produce anything tangible and was, at best, a waste of time are plainly wrong, mainly because they misunderstood what was really at stake (and what still remains at stake following the Summit).

What is the evidence for this?

Their dream still lives on

The first and most obvious sign that something very real took place is the absolutely hysterical reaction of the War Party (which I define as follows: the entire US media, the Neocons, the MAGA-GOP gang in Congress, the “non-Biden gang” inside the Democratic Party, the US energy sector, the US MIC, the entire US “deep state”, the Israel lobby, the Ukie lobby, the UK lobby, the Polish lobby, etc.)  The Biden administration is coming under HUGE pressure from the War Party to continue to threaten Russia will all sorts of sanctions and “consequences” unless Russia stands down from her current “threatening” stance and give up Putin’s “dream” to invade the Ukraine and “restore the Soviet Union”.  The fact that none of that verbiage has any connections to reality is not an impediment for the War Party.  You could say that the War Party is a choir which only knows how to sing one song.

[Sidebar: on a recent talkshow on Russia TV one guest observed that it is truly hilarious to see the West threaten Russia with “sanctions from hell” while the latter are an absolute joke compared to the devastating crisis Russia survived in the 90s when the West was “helping” Russia.  He is quite correct.  I would also add that a country which lost 27 million people rather than to bow down and accept the become a colony of (Hitler’s) “United Europe” is unlikely be deterred by being disconnected from the SWIFT, especially since doing so would cripple the EU much more than Russia!]

Second, there are indirect but consistent signs of a very serious internal struggle inside the “Biden” administration.  This is nothing new, it all began with Obama, continued under Trump and is still happening today: when a President is very weak, the various agencies and departments begin to develop their own, quasi private, foreign (and internal) policies.  Under Obama and Trump this was not too much of an issue since neither President was willing or able to seriously negotiate with the Kremlin (which is when the Russians began to speak of their US counterparts as “non-agreement-capable”).  This time around, however, “Biden” clearly made a concerted effort to try to initiate some kind of dialog, hence this time there is something very real at stake.

Third, the tone in Russia has changed rather dramatically.  Just read the transcript of the interview of the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov: it is particularly amazing to hear that kind of language coming from a top Foreign Ministry official (Russian diplomats are very old fashioned and rarely use such a direct language).  Most striking in this interview is Ryabkov’s deep pessimism about the USA being able to actually reach a negotiated agreement with Russia on pretty much anything.

So what is really at stake here?

First, we need to note that we still don’t know what really took place between Putin and Biden.  All we know is that both sides agreed to continue their dialog on the expert level.  However, we can make some educated guesses based on how both sides have behaved since the Summit.

Second, there are clear signs that the “Biden” Administration is still apparently trying not to fully cave in to the War Party.  The problem is that this stance is only partial (different officials express often diverging opinion) and hesitant (even Biden himself seems to be zig-zagging about what is actually going on between the US and Russia).  Most western analysts out there see the following as the key issues between Russia and the USA:

  • Russian plans to invade the Ukraine
  • North Stream 2
  • Russian subversive covert actions in the West (Skripal)
  • Putin’s desire to re-create the USSR, if needed by using military force
  • Russian support for non-democratic forces and regimes worldwide (Syria)

I happen to think that all of these are only secondary issues, pretexts.

Again, this is the only song the War Party choir knows how to sing, so why expect anything else from

The new “democratic” values

So what is really at stake here?

Think about the recent Summit for Democracy and ask yourself: what was this all about?  It sure was not about democracy or human rights, not with countries like Israel or Latvia attending, both of which undeniably are Apartheid states.  Not to mention what the US and UK are doing to Julian Assange whose life, apparently, is much less valuable that Navalny’s.  All that nonsense is just PR, nothing else.

As I mentioned in my article about this summit, the real purpose of the summit was to issue certificates: those invited were certified as loyal House Negroes while those not invited were labeled as evil and dangerous Field Negros.  Now, considering the extreme weakness and vulnerability of the United States, it is pretty clear that the actual value of the “good House Negro” certificate was very limited for those who received it.  So this is not about the Negroes at all, it was about the Master of the house and his need to show that he still was the master and that he could still command a sizeable force of nice and obedient slaves to do his bidding.  In other words, it was a show of force for (an otherwise rather desperate) Uncle Shmuel.

This is absolutely crucial: for a dead Empire and a dead USA, appearances are much more important than reality.  As I have mentioned in the past, the AngloZionist Empire died on 8 January 2020 when the Iranians attacked US bases with missiles and the US did absolutely nothing while the USA, at least as we knew them, died on January 6th of 2021 (these two events were almost exactly a year apart, which makes me wonder what else could happen in January of 2022?).  The main objective of the Summit for Democracy was to hide these realities as much as possible and the very fact that the US had to organize such a silly non-event to try to still look relevant tells us everything we really need to know about the real condition of the Empire and the USA (both dead).

In the light of the above, now let’s look at the current dialog (however tenuous) between the USA and Russia.

US position: first, and above all else, the White House needs to avoid giving the appearance that Russia and the USA are negotiating on an equal footing.  This desire to maintain an appearance of superiority is made even harder by the stark reality which shows that far from being equal, Russia is the stronger party in this negotiation, and by a big margin at that (militarily of course, but also socially, politically and economically).  This is the key to the USA’s dilemma: how do you negotiate with a stronger opponent while maintaining the appearance of your own (non-existing) superiority?

Russian position: the Kremlin is ready to negotiate, but only if the US accepts that both sides have equal rights and obligations.  For example, if the USA gets to declare that it has “interests” thousands of miles away from home, then Russia gets to declare that she too has “interests”, especially in countries on her own border.

Clearly, those two positions are mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, both sides recognize that.

The USA’s method to deal with this problem is to do one thing while saying its opposite, that is to quietly accept the Russian stance on negotiations while publicly denying this.

The Russian method is even more simple: do nothing and simply wait.  Wait for the EU to freeze, wait for the USA to further drown in its many and very serious internal crises and wait for country 404, the “moldy bagel” to use Dmitri Orlov’s very accurate expression, to simply rot away.  Here is how the vast majority of Russian analysts and officials see the situation:

  • Russia has no need, plan, desire or even interest in invading country 404.
  • NS2 is important to Russia, but not crucially so.
  • Militarily, Russia can deal with the Ukie military in a few hours without sending a single soldier across the border.
  • Russia can also defeat the US on any level of warfare, from local tactical to strategic and nuclear.
  • Russia, being a much more free and democratic country than most of the House Negros invited to the Summit, has no interest whatsoever in the West’s verbiage about human rights.
  • Russia has no need to subvert or interfere in any of the countries which are so hostile to her simply because these countries are already quite busy committing economic, moral, spiritual, political and cultural suicide all by their own with no need for any further help from Russia
  • Russia is quite happy to work with the “bad” Field Negroes to build a multi-polar world composed of truly sovereign countries which agree to base their relations on international law.
  • Russia simply does not care what the House Negroes will do or say, simply because they have no agency (except for a few special cases like India).

Then what about the Russian forces near (relatively) the Ukrainian border?

Actually, several retired Russian generals have repeatedly explained what that is all about.  This force is simply not large enough to consider an invasion (and subsequent occupation!) of the Ukraine.  Its true purpose is quite simple: they are quite capable of stopping any Ukronazi invasion of the LDNR should the LDNR’s defenses collapse.  And for this much more limited mission, this force is more than sufficient to quickly and successfully execute such a mission.  No less important is that the presence of such an “insurance force” is a very clear message to the Nazi regime in Kiev: there is absolutely no way you will ever invade the LDNR – try this, and we will move our forces into the LDNR, disarm you, and recognize the LDNR as independent states.

Here is it important to repeat something one more time: it is not the West’s worst nightmare that Russia might invade the Ukraine.  The West’s worst nightmare would be for Russia not to move a single solider across the border.  That is the “peace nightmare” which the War Party wants, and needs, to avoid at any cost.

So, where do we go from here?

I get a sense that there are some people in the Biden Administration who are smart enough to choose a “soft landing” for the USA over a “crash and burn” scenario.  They are quite aware of all the facts I describe above and what they aim for is an orderly retreat while negotiating for the best possible terms for the USA with Russia (and other countries, by the way).  The problem is that any notion of an orderly retreat is presented by the War Party as abject surrender.

[Sidebar: this is not a uniquely US problem: ever since Putin came to power there were those who called the many Russian orderly retreats as signs of caving in to the West: they said that Putin was an obedient agent of “Davos” or Israel, and they blamed him for his alledged weakness and indecisiveness.  The truth is that both in politics and in military art, orderly retreats are a very difficult maneuver to successfully pull-off and, worse, even when they are successfully executed, they still very rarely get any praise but, instead, get only disgusted accusations of weakness bordering on treason.  “Couch-generals” have the luxury and time to demand a heroic counter-attacks, but they don’t have to then live with the responsibility for the inevitable consequences of such “heroic” grandstanding.]

Still, I am convinced that there are those in the Biden Administration who want an orderly retreat, not for the sake of peace, of course, but in order to buy time to regroup, reorganize, rearm, retrain and basically circle the wagons on a smaller, but better protected, part of our planet.

For the rulers of the USA, it is preferable to have the size of their plantation shrink, even quite significantly, than to have some combination of Field Negroes to completely burn down their house.  So they want to settle for a smaller plantation and fewer House Negroes.

Sadly, I don’t see the Biden White House capably of riding out the hysterics of the War Party, if only because the War Party fully compensates what it lacks in common sense with a maniacal determination to prevail, if only because should “peace break out” they would lose their incomes.  I sure hope that I am wrong here, but it would take a quite charismatic leader to dare to openly take on the War Party (we all remember how the swamp quickly drained Trump rather than the other way around).

Reality always defeats delusions

Most analysts see that 2022 will be the year of a massive internal crisis in the USA, with inflation, crime, riots, shortages, etc. all dramatically rising.  Optimists will see that as a good sign (surely the US won’t start a war when it is itself in a quasi-civil war state!) while pessimists will see that as a sign that the US will certainly start some kind of war (war is an old and effective trick to avoid dealing with internal collapse).

Here we can only hope (and pray!) for the best, while preparing for the worst.

Then there is the UK+3B+PU gang which is absolutely desperate for some kind of war, hopefully short and triumphant.  They are absolutely horrified at the idea that this war might not happen.  Yes, in theory, the USA does have enough weight to bring them to heel, but the problem is that the US executive is itself very divided (and, not to mention, very corrupt).  Russia most definitely cannot stop them, because for them even losing a war to Russia is preferable to not having one in the first place.

In summary:

The USA is deeply divided and cannot even give the appearance of accepting Russia as an equal partner.

The EU is run by a class of narcissistic infantiles who are terminally out of touch with reality.

The War Party will only increase its hysterics as it sees war as the only option to remain relevant.

Russia has done all she should and could by forcing the USA into a strategic retreat and now all she can do now is wait.

My personal conclusion will be in the form of a short video clip that eloquently shows what happened the last time around when the West wanted to crush Russia.

Andrei

GEOFOR interviews The Saker: Will Kiev decide on an open armed conflict?

December 05, 2021

Note: in late November I was interviewed by the Russian website Geofor.  Here is the English language translation of this interview.

GEOFOR: Mr. Raevsky, no sooner have the American warships left the Black Sea than the British went in there. Apparently, “unscheduled exercises” of NATO ships and Ukrainian watercraft are about to commence, again. Again, near the maritime borders of the Russian Federation. Moreover, a couple of American military boats were delivered to Odessa (although, politely speaking, not quite new). As a military analyst with experience in intelligence, how do you assess the degree of threats from this incessant demonstration of force in terms of the possibility of provoking a military conflict with far-reaching consequences?

Andrei Raevsky: From a military point of view, I assess the degree of direct threat from these forces as zero. Firstly, any ship that enters the waters of the Black Sea can be instantly destroyed by a number of Russian coastal defense systems and/or the Russian Aerospace Forces. So, the degree of threat from them is zero. Secondly, they are equipped with  rather outdated Tomahawk missiles. They have a relatively low flight speed, and they do not pose a great threat to Russian air defense systems.

On the other hand, there is an indirect threat from these NATO ships. And very serious. They are nudging Ukrainians in the same way as in 2008 they nudged Saakashvili in Georgia. They give Kiev a mistaken feeling being under an umbrella, under the protection of the US Navy or, say, NATO bomber planes, which is a complete deception and delusion, but this is the real danger.

GEOFOR: Does Russia have the ability to protect itself if it comes to launching Tomahawks? And how is this perceived in Pentagon and NATO headquarters? In the same context: what, in your opinion, is behind the decision of the Russian president to reject the Ministry of Defense’s offer to hold its unscheduled exercises on the Black Sea simultaneously with the United States and NATO? How will it be perceived in the Washington military-political establishment – as confidence in the capabilities of the Russian military to respond adequately to provocative actions or, as a desire not to take a potentially dangerous situation to the extreme?

Andrei Raevsky: Yes, of course, Russia can defend itself. As I just said, these are relatively slow and outdated cruise missiles, which do not pose a great danger to the multi-layered integrated air defense of the Crimea and the South of Russia and the entire Southern Military District of the Russian Federation. You can remember what the US missile strike on Syria was like, where most of them [Tomahawks] were shot down not by the Russian contingent in Syria – this is very important to emphasize – but by the Syrians with their relatively simpler air defense system.

Thus. I don’t think that all these Tomahawks threaten Russia very much.

I will also add that if the United States and NATO wanted to hit Russia with Tomahawks, it would be better for them to get out of the Black Sea and go to the Mediterranean Sea and move away to the maximum distance – just so as not to be instantly sunk.

Putin’s decision not to conduct simultaneous maneuvers in the Black Sea, in my opinion, is absolutely reasonable.

In Washington, this is likely to make an impression, in a certain sense, of a staged scene: Shoigu says: “I am ready”,  and Putin takes such a peacemaking, pacifying step. This is what in the West is called “Good cop – bad cop.” In fact, they are, of course, united in terms of developing principles and strategies for protecting Russia from possible aggression.

GEOFOR: And now a little more about Ukraine and the situation around it. Russian analysts find many analogies in the situation in Ukraine now and the one that was in Georgia on the eve of August 2008. How would you characterize the factors (internal and external) that could lead to Kiev deciding on an open armed conflict? And what will this lead Ukraine and Europe as a whole to? Who, in the end, may be the beneficiary?

Andrei Raevsky: Yes, the situation is very similar to that. And I would even say that the situation Zelensky is in, is worse than the one Saakashvili was in.

I’m afraid that his rating is such that he really has nothing to lose. The question of whether Kiev will decide on an open armed conflict implies that Kiev has an opportunity to solve something. I doubt it very much. Without getting the “go-ahead” from the “Washington Regional Party Committee” Kiev will not move. Thus, if Kiev moves, it will be, at least, in the presence of a “tacit” – not even consent – order, when the West gives the command “Attack!”. Few people in the West care that Kiev will then “get its ass kicked.”

But the most important thing in this context is to remember that the goal is not to “liberate ORDLO from Muscovites” (Note: “ORLDO” is the current official Ukie legal term for the LDNR) or “restore democracy and territorial integrity of Ukraine” and so on. The goal is to force Russia to openly invade Ukraine and start a war: so that it cannot be denied, in order to totally sink energy projects between Russia and the EU and make the EU completely dependent, first of all, on American shale gas and other energy carriers. And to achieve these goals, Ukraine does not need any victory at all – it’s enough to just say: “Here, these evil Putin’s “green men” have seized even more territory! Oh, how bad they are!”

We can say that from a military point of view, Russia will win very quickly. But from a political point of view, it will be a victory for the United States.

GEOFOR: Do you consider it possible that, with NATO’s symbolic support in the Black Sea, as well as the presence of various American, British and other instructors on land, Kiev will decide on a military provocation not in the Donbas, but in the Black Sea? After all, it is known that everyone is waiting for the Ukrainian military offensive in the east of the country, and why, for example, Zelensky not follow the path of his predecessor Poroshenko, who sent boats to break through the Kerch Strait, and, creating a conflict situation, disrupted the already agreed meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin? Moreover, the second meeting of the Russian and American presidents this year is now being prepared…

Andrei Raevsky: Yes, such a provocation in the Black Sea is very likely. It is enough to recall their provocation when Ukrainian boats tried to pass into the Kerch Strait. And it was without any presence of Americans. Of course, this is possible. I think this is not only possible, but it will definitely happen.

And if there really are plans to arrange a meeting between Biden and Putin, then Ukrainians have very little time left. In December, Americans convene their “Democracy Forum”, then there are holidays…

If there is this meeting – and we don’t know if there will be one – there could be a lot of things that could undermine it. For supporters of the war – both in the United States and in Ukraine – this is a very important moment that cannot be missed.

GEOFOR: And in conclusion. If it is likely that the ongoing Russian-American consultations (the arrival of the Deputy Secretary of State and the director of the CIA in Moscow, for example) and the dialogue between the two leaders, which, hopefully, will take place, will lead to at least some stabilization, both around the Ukrainian problem and in bilateral relations. What problems in this regard could you highlight?

Andrei Raevsky: These consultations are very important, and this is a very desirable development of the situation because American officials of this level have not come to Moscow twice to present some kind of ultimatum.

To present an ultimatum, you can simply use a consul.

To do this, there is absolutely no need to send the highest representatives of the American authorities to Moscow.

The conversations that took place – whatever they were – were to the point. And they were serious. As long as both sides are talking, at least they are not shooting. And this is very desirable.

And we can only hope that such consultations will continue in the future.

Of course, the Americans are the most dangerous enemy for Russia. This needs to be understood.

This is not a get-together with a “vodka-herring” menu to just shoot the breeze. Neither is this a friendly meeting.

But this is a direct dialogue of those who can really make decisions in a difficult situation and influence the situation.

And in this regard, it is very important.

Therefore, there is no need to fall into the mistake that Americans very often fall into when they say: “We don’t talk to such and such.” We don’t talk to terrorists, we don’t talk to states and “regimes” that we don’t recognize. This is a very big mistake.

You need to talk to everyone, often including the fiercest enemies.

source: https://geofor.ru/4710-andrej-raevskij-reshitsya-li-kiev-na-otkrytyj-vooruzhennyj-konflikt.html

Sitrep: Here Comes China – Taking the lead – a dialogue on democracy in China

December 05, 2021

By Amarynth for the Saker Blog including a number of data points from Godfree Roberts

Did you know that a huge International Forum on Democracy is ongoing in China right now?  This is before the supposed Summit on Democracy which is an attempt to divide the world into Democracies and Autocracies, according to the wishes of the rules-based international order.

As we have seen so often from China, they acted with incredible speed and presented their own high-quality International Forum.  They also published a Chinese White Paper on Democracy and it outlines how their Whole Process People’s Democracy functions for their people:  http://en.people.cn/n3/2021/1204/c312369-9928374.html

These are the first presentations followed by a panel discussion:

In addition, China released a full report on the state of US democracy:  http://www.news.cn/english/2021-12/05/c_1310352578.htm

China has learned over the past three years how to defend itself against accusations coming from the combined Western influence sphere.  Although we know that the media in general still balances toward the combined Western Sphere, there is now a serious contender in the room with the ability, incredible speed of implementation, track record, education, and creative expressive talent to gain media supremacy in getting their message to the world.

Oh, the poor ‘partners’ …

Australia

The ‘partners’ are being led by their noses.  The Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported that the US and its allies are the “biggest beneficiaries” of Australia’s trade row with China. Washington is in bed with Canberra, at the same time, it points the finger at Beijing and in the background, it picks up Australia’s lost Chinese trade.  So, simply stated, all the trade that Australia lost in their trade row with China, from coal to iron ore to meat, the US quietly picked up.

Taiwan

From Taiwan, I hear a similar activity is taking place but this is not yet confirmed by the needed 3 sources.  The idea of keeping the issues with Taiwan hot, is that the Taiwanese semiconductor foundry company (TSMC), the biggest employer in Taiwan with a raft of supporting industries around it, is being moved lock, stock, barrel, and existence to new facilities in Arizona.  We will wait for more confirmation, but this is a very dangerous move to make, as TSMC is not only the biggest semiconductor company in the world, the industry itself depends on a highly educated and trained workforce.  The Taiwanese workforce will lose its lunch.


All the latest from Godfree Roberts’ newsletter, Here Comes China:

BeiDou conducted the first inter-satellite and ground station communication using using lasers instead of radio signals, transmitting data a million times faster than radio and increasing satnav accuracy 4000%. Read full article →

A high-speed railway linking China to landlocked Laos opened Friday. The 660-mile, 160 km/h line runs through mountains and ravines from Kunming to Vientiane. Read full article →

Premier Li Keqiang says the establishment of a centre in Hong Kong to handle Asia – Africa trade and investment disputes will strengthen the city’s role as an arbitration hub and “provide more convenient and efficient dispute resolution services” for parties in both regions. [It also bypasses the WTO–Ed.] Read full article  →

China’s service trade rose 13% YoY to $659 billion in the first ten months of the year. Service exports rose 29% YoY, and service imports rose 1%. In October alone, the country’s service trade hit 414 billion yuan, up 24% YoY. Read full article  →

China now leads the world in trade of both goods and services and its trading partners now cover 230 countries and regions. China contributed 35% of the growth in global imports in the past five years. Read full article  →

Meeting its carbon goals could save China trillions: China could dodge $134 trillion in climate-related losses by meeting carbon neutrality targe. China is predicted to see an 81% reduction in its accumulative climate-related losses by 2100 if it achieves its carbon neutrality target, according to a new study from think tanks in Beijing and London. Read full article →

And extreme ethics violation in my view:  In 2018, Dr. He Jiankui shocked the world by announcing that he had used the CRISPR genome-editing technique to alter embryos that were implanted and led to the birth of two children. Today, the children are healthy toddlers and Western researchers want to get their hands on their DNA.  Read full article →

China has doubled installed renewable energy capacity since 2015, to one billion kW, or 43% of total installation: Wind power generation increased 30% year-on-year (299 million kWs), solar power generation grew 24% (282 million kWs), and hydropower remains at 385 million kWs; Cost inflation delays solar energy expansion. Read full article →

New groundwater regulations tackle overuse and contamination of 16 billion m³/year of water. Fines could reach  $783,000 daily. Right now 44% of groundwater monitoring stations record Grade V, the lowest water quality. Read full article →

China is scouring the countryside to find native seed, animal and fish genetic resources in a national germplasm census to protect “family property” and gain self-reliance in crop and animal breeding. “Excellent” plant and animal resources will be protected on company-run farms if they are in danger of extinction or turned over to Chinese breeding companies to exploit their commercial potential to propel Chinese seed companies as global competitors. Read full article →

Guinea-Bissau and Eritrea join the Belt And Road Initiative. Guinea-Bissau covers 36,125 square kilometres, with a population of 1,874,303, and like China’s Macau, was once part of the Portuguese Empire. Eritrea also signed an MoU with China to join the BRI and is expected to cement China’s presence in the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea, with interests ranging from a military base to protect shipping, in addition to infrastructure projects in ports and railways. China has been investing in the country for some time. Read full article →

To conclude, China developed its policies to deal with its national issues. But in so doing it has created both practical and theoretical achievements which are the world’s most advanced. China has never asked other countries to learn from its example, but neither can if forbid them to do so. Given the gigantic scale of China’s achievements anyone with sense in the world will study these intently. The “Resolution on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century” is therefore not only key for China, it is a document of crucial importance for the entire world. Learning from China.

Now comes the final countdown to either peace or war

December 04, 2021

So it is confirmed.  Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden will have what is announced as a “long” direct conversation (not face to face, but by a secure video link) this coming Tuesday.  Considering the extreme tensions taking place between the US/NATO/EU and Russia, this event will be, by definition, a watershed moment, irrespective of its outcome.  The two basic options are a) some kind of deal with be made b) nothing will come out of this meeting.

Personally, I am “cautiously pessimistic”, and I will explain why next.

Let’s look at what the two sides have been doing in preparation for this meeting:

The Empire has basically ratcheted up the tensions as high as possible, both by an avalanche of bellicose statements and by engaging in “petty harassment” exercises near the Russian border.  The main (and sole) advantage of this pre-negotiations strategy is that it costs very little money while having a major PR effect.  The two main disadvantages of this pre-negotiations strategy are that 1) they tend to paint you into a corner from which any concession, no matter how reasonable, can be turned into an “abject surrender to Putin” by your political enemies and 2) that the Russians know that all this sabre-rattling is only hot air and, if anything, a sign of weakness.

Russia has made some comparatively “stronger” verbal protests and mentioned “red lines” which the Empire which the latter has completely ignored.  However, Russia has also made some actual military moves which have truly frightened the Empire, including the sudden flushing out into the Pacific or all the strategic submarines of the Pacific Fleet.

Here is the problem as I see it: “Biden” has allowed all sorts of russophobic nutcases to paint the Biden Administration into the exact same corner where the same russophobic nutcases stuck Trump: a place where no meaningful negotiations (i.e. negotiations which imply the willingness to make mutual concessions) are possible.  All that Kabuki theater about “talking to Russia from a position of strength/force” kind of implies that the Russians will get scared and cave in to the Empire.  The problem is that in the real world (as opposed the political Hollywood of the western propaganda machine), it is Russia which is in a very strong position while the US/NATO/EU are all in a position of extreme vulnerability.  In other words, it is extremely unlikely that the Russians will make major concessions on anything (if only because Russia’s “great retreat” of endless concession to win time for preparations has now left Russia pretty much with her own back also against the wall).  Of course, Russia does not want/need a war anywhere, so she is probably willing to make relatively minor concessions, but only political ones.  In military terms, Russia is now “ready to go” and she will not stand down unless the Empire gives legally binding and verifiable concessions to guarantee Russia’s security on her western border (Putin has specifically said so).

Frankly, none of that is very complex: de-escalation and mutual confidence building measures have been developed by all sides for many decades now and there is no need to reinvent the wheel here.  How to do that is easy and straightforward.  But politically, I don’t know how “Biden” would respond to the MAGA nutcases in Congress who will accuse him of weakness, or even treason, if he does anything but continue to escalate towards an inevitable war: escalations can only be stopped by two means: negotiations or war.  If the former is made impossible, the latter becomes inevitable.

Worse, there are pretty good signs that “Biden” is not fully controlling the Executive branch and that there are characters at the CIA, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom (lead by the totally rabid US Neocons) which actually want a war involving Russia and who believe that such a war would not imply a very high probability of going nuclear.  Blinken, for example, strikes me as a kind of person which would make a great tailor or maybe an insurance salesman, but as a diplomat he is clearly clueless and “loser” written all over his face (ditto for that imbecile Stoltenberg or most EU politicians).  Worst of all, these losers believe in their own superiority and think that they can talk to Putin like, say, Commodore Matthew Perry “talked” to the Japanese or how Reagan showed Grenada “who is boss”.

Finally, the upcoming planned “show of unity and force” (aka Summit for Democracy) will be seen by the Kremlin as a desperate attempt at hide the Empire’s real weakness (death, really) and to make it look as if the West still had the means to rule the planet.  In reality, just Russia and China together are already much more powerful than all the colonies which Uncle Shmuel as summoned to this Summit, even if it is only two against 109 countries on the US side and that is the reality which this summit is designed to conceal from the public eye.

So no hope at all?

Well, not much.  But, in theory, here is what could happen.

The US could agree to give Russia legal binding and verifiable security guarantees on her east, including a pull-back of Ukie forces in exchange for which, Russia could pull back some of her own forces.  Deconfliction measures in the air and the seas could be agreed upon.  Observer missions could be agreed upon and then deployed by both sides to verify the implementation of any agreements.  On the political level, the US could order a dramatic reduction of western military involvement in the Ukraine in exchange for a Russian re-affirmation of the recognition of the Ukraine in her current borders, that is without Crimea and but the Donbass (in other words, the Kremlin would promise not to recognize the LDNR republics sovereign states).  In theory, an international peacekeeping force could be set up in the “grey zone” between the LDNR and the Ukraine (that would require the Ukies to pull out from their current, and totally illegal, occupation of some locations in that zone). The nationality of these peacekeepers would have to be agreed by both sides.

[Sidebar: about the LDNR – please keep in mind that even if de jure the Kremlin does not recognize these republics, it has already basically done so de facto (especially with the latest change to the Russian laws on the economy).  Also, remember that Taiwan is a country that is largely unrecognized, but which is clearly independent, at least for the time being.  Finally, keeping the LDNR inside the Ukraine creates an anti-Ukraine which prevents the Nazi-run Ukraine from fully becoming an anti-Russia.  So no, flag-wavers notwithstanding, agreeing not to recognize the LDNR would not be a “betrayal”, but only a card which must be played later in the game.]

Furthermore, Russia and the USA should establish a standing bilateral (yes, I agree with Nuland on the EU!) discussions mechanism to replace the useless and basically dead NATO-Russia Council.  Other areas of discussion could include such self-evident issues as space, terrorism, immigration, energy, cybersecurity, the Arctic etc. and a full restoration of civilized diplomatic relations (which were totally sabotaged by both the Obama and Trump Administration).  A deal could also be made about mutual non-interference or, at least, improve the current deconfliction between the USA and Russia in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.  And, of course, Russia could agree to a long term gas contract through the Ukraine in exchange for a full US acceptance of NS2.

Does that sound a little pollyannish to you?

It sure sounds pollyannish to me!

But I am not quite willing to declare it as absolutely impossible.  Instead, I would simply say that such an outcome is unlikely but still possible.

The alternative is war with, at the low end, could be limited to some silly Ukie provocation (of the kind they have been regularly pulling off, and failing, for many years now) or, at the high end, to quickly escalate a full-scale (inter)continental war, probably one involving nukes.

Hope dies last, right?

The one thing which makes it possible for me to believe that a war can still be avoided is that besides the real hardcore nutcases, there are still some sober-minded officials in the USA (maybe Gen. Milley?) who understand not only that war is an unspeakable horror, but who ALSO understand that a US attack on Russia will result in a Russian counter-attack on the US itself.  Specifically, it is now an official Russian position that if weapon X is fired at Russia or Russian forces, Russia will not only destroy that weapon and the system which delivered, but will also strike at the command headquarters from which the order to strike Russia was given, and that could be Kiev, Warsaw, Brussels or even Washington DC.  I am quite sure that General Gerasimov explained that to General Milley in exquisite detail and I strongly suspect that Milley got the message.  Let’s just hope that Milley can prevail over Lloyd Austin (who is clearly an incompetent imbecile used by the “war party” only as a disposable figurehead).

If not, then God help us all, because then war is inevitable.

I consider the current situation as the most dangerous the world has ever faced, this is even worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis or the US attacks against Iran (the murder of General Soleimani) or Syria.  By nature, nurture, experience, and training I am an unrepentant pessimist.  But, in this case, I still want to force myself into a stance of “cautious pessimism” meaning that, yes, the situation is terrible and seems unfixable, but I choose to believe that there still are enough sane people in the US to avoid the worst.

Still, I am acutely aware that the UK+3B+PU gang want war at all and any cost and that they are now setting the agenda in both the EU and NATO.  The only actor which still could order them to stand down and shut the hell up would be the USA, but only one ruled by an Administration in real and actual command, not the senile aquarium fish collectively known as “Biden” which is in power (at least officially) right now.

We can also count on the MAGA-crazies to oppose any and all deals with Russia, no matter how urgently needed and self-evidently logical.  The GOP has now become the united party for war doing exactly what the Dems did during the Trump years.  In a way, the US political scene reminds me of the Soviet Union during and after Brezhnev – a political system which simply cannot produce a real leader, so all you see is terminal mediocrities trying as best they can to hide their own mediocrity and total lack of vision.  A Ronald Reagan or a George H. W. Bush would have what it takes to talk to the Russians and get some results.  Alas, none of the presidents since have had enough brains or spine to do anything constructive at all: all they did was to preside over first the destruction of the Empire followed by the destruction of the USA (at least as we knew it before Jan 6th).

The fact that our best (or, should I say, only) hope lies with Biden and “Biden” is a sad and very frightening reality.  All we can do now is wait for Tuesday and pray that both Biden and “Biden” muster enough courage and (real) patriotism to bring the world back from the brink.  It ain’t much, but that’s all we got.

So, what do you think will happen next?

Andrei

Russian Foreign Ministry Statement on the planned US «summit for democracy»

1 December 2021

Cartoon courtesy of Global Times

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

In connection with the so called summit for democracy to be held on December 9-10 at the initiative of the US administration, we consider it necessary to make the following statement.

The organisers and enthusiasts behind this strange event claim to lead the world in advancing the cause of democracy and human rights. However, the track record and reputation of the United States, Great Britain, and the EU member states in terms of respecting democratic rights and freedoms at home, as well as in the international arena, are, to put it mildly, far from ideal.

The evidence suggests that the United States and its allies cannot and should not claim the status of a “beacon” of democracy, since they themselves have chronic problems with freedom of speech, election administration, corruption and human rights.

The editorial policy of major Western media outlets is, in fact, controlled by the partisan and corporate elites. Well-oiled mechanisms for censorship, self-censorship and the removal of unwanted accounts and content from digital platforms are used to suppress dissent in the media, which represents a gross violation of the right to free expression promoted by the West.

Social media platforms controlled by US corporations are widely used for disinformation, propaganda and manipulation of public opinion. Mass electronic surveillance by intelligence agencies and the IT corporations that collaborate with them has become a reality of daily life in Western states.

About a year ago, during the election campaign in the United States, the world saw how the archaic electoral system of that country began to crumble. The existing vote counting mechanism has revealed itself to have many weaknesses. Millions of Americans question the fairness and transparency of the 2020 presidential election. This is understandable, because the way it was conducted and its outcome involved dubious practices such as gerrymandering, multi-week mail voting, and denying observers, especially international ones, access to polling stations.

Serious questions arise from the continuing reprisals of US authorities against protesters outside the Capitol on January 6, whom the US administration and aligned media openly call “domestic terrorists.” Dozens of people who disagreed with the results of the presidential election were sentenced to prison time which is disproportionate to their opposition activities.

While fashioning itself as the “global democratic leader”, the United States has for many years led the world in the number of prisoners (over 2 million people). Conditions in many penitentiary institutions degrade human dignity. Washington continues to keep silent about torture at the Guantanamo Bay prison. The US intelligence services pioneered the creation of secret prisons in allied states, a practice without precedent in the modern world.

Lobbying in the United States is, in fact, legalised corruption. Legislatures are de facto controlled by big business. Both within the country and internationally, they primarily defend the interests of their sponsors, such as private corporations, rather than the people, voters.

Against this backdrop, the democratising rhetoric coming from Washington is not only completely disconnected from reality, but is also utterly hypocritical. Before embarking on the path of “exporting democracy,” we urge our North American partners to first address their problems at home, and to try to overcome the deepening divisions in society on matters of ethics, values, and vision of the country’s past and future. Humbly admitting that US democracy is not perfect is clearly not enough.

Great Britain cannot position itself as a progressive democracy, either. That country is a comfortable home to organisations professing neo-Nazi ideology with rising incidents of racism and discrimination against ethnic and cultural minorities in many spheres of public life. There have been cases of British intelligence illegally gathering personal data of their own citizens, and police violence, including against peaceful demonstrators, has become commonplace.

The situation in the EU is no better. Brussels consistently ignores the legitimate rights and interests of ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking residents in the Baltic states, Ukraine and Moldova. It turns a blind eye to the mythmaking of the new EU member states in political history, where former Nazi henchmen who committed war crimes are proclaimed national heroes. Administrative suppression of dissent, aggressive inculcation of ultra-liberal values ​​and practices that are destroying the Christian foundations of European civilisation have become commonplace in many EU states.

Claiming to be on the right side of ideology and morality, the United States and a small group of its allies have undermined confidence in themselves with aggressive actions on the world stage under the banner of “promoting democracy.” There were more than a dozen military interventions and attempts at “regime change” over the past 30 years. Provocative actions in the military-political sphere often flagrantly violate international law, and cause only chaos and destruction.

Recent history shows that military adventures with the aim of forced democratisation ended in bloody wars and national tragedies in the countries that fell victim to this policy, among them former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. All kinds of pretexts were used to unleash wars – the need to combat terrorism and WMD proliferation and “to protect civilians.”

Everyone remembers how after the military intervention of “the coalition of the willing” in Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush on board the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier announced the victory of democracy in that country. What happened next is common knowledge. There are no precise statistics to this day but according to some estimates, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis perished before their time.

Despite spending enormous sums running into the trillions of dollars, the American mission in Afghanistan ended in complete failure. The chaotic exodus of Americans and other members of the US-led coalition from Kabul last August was the sad culmination of the “war on terror” that lasted more than 20 years.

Libya has still yet to recover from NATO operation to “protect the civilians”. For all the peculiarities of the former socio-political system in the Jamahiriya, Libya was a stable country that ensured decent living standards for its population. This ill-conceived military action led, among other consequences, to the uncontrolled spread of weapons and terrorists in the entire Sahara-Sahel region.

We can continue quoting examples revealing the hypocrisy at the core of this “summit for democracy.” But is it necessary?

Russia, whom our Western colleagues have accused of almost every mortal sin of late, is shaping its foreign policy in a different way. We do not impose our own development model on anyone. We respect cultural and religious identities of every nation as well as distinct qualities of their political systems. We also respect the right of every nation to detemine in an independent way  its path of development. We are not going to dictate our world view to anyone. In the international arena, the rules we follow are the UN Charter #OurRulesUNCharter .

Russia strives to play a balancing, stabilising role in global politics. We uphold sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their internal affairs, non-use of force or threat of force, and peaceful settlement of disputes. We stand for international relations based on peaceful coexistence, cooperation and solidarity, equal universal security and fair distribution of the benefits of globalisation.

Russia is a world power with Eurasian and European roots to its identity. It does not chart its development trajectory exclusively in line with trans-Atlantic political, economic and cultural templates. We do not agree with the aggressive imposition of the so-called “new ethics” that are destroying moral standards upheld by traditional religions and respected by humanity for centuries.

Pursuing a non-confrontational and well-balanced foreign policy, we strive to create opportunities for the unimpeded development of all international players. We do not copy the example of the Western countries and do not intrude in their domestic affairs: if individuals living in these countries, or some of them, support the destruction of traditional moral and spiritual values, we merely regret this but nothing more than that.

We support dialogue between cultures, religions and civilisations as an important instrument for forming a unifying agenda and building up trust in relations between states and societies.

To resolve pressing problems, we urge all foreign partners not to engage in “democracy promotion,” not to draw new dividing lines, but to return to the compliance with international law and to enforce the principle of the sovereign equality of states, which is enshrined in the UN Charter. It embodies the foundation for a democratic world order that the US and its allies do not accept.

As humanity continues to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftereffects, the cooperation of all states on the basis of the principles of the UN Charter is needed now more than ever.

We will closely follow the “summit for democracy.”


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Rossiya 24, Moscow

November 05, 2021

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Rossiya 24, Moscow

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Rossiya 24, Moscow, November 1, 2021

Question: Not so long ago, you said that Russia would not use ideology-based rules in its international diplomatic practices. What examples can you give to explain this to a layman in matters of politics?

Sergey Lavrov: It’s simple. Ideally, any society should obey generally accepted rules that have proved their efficacy and sensibility.  Speaking about international life, the United Nations Charter is a book of collectively and universally coordinated rules. Later, when new members joined the UN, they accepted these rules in their entirety, without any exemptions, because UN membership requires that the Charter be ratified without any reservations. These rules are universal and mandatory for all.

With the age of multipolarity now dawning – and its emergence is an objective fact – new centres of economic growth, financial power and political influence have come into being. The multitude of voices is louder at the UN. A consensus or a vote are required in a situation where new solutions or rules have to be developed based on the UN Charter. In both cases, this work involves conflicting opinions and the need to defend one’s position and prove it is correct. Truth springs from argument and this is what this collective work is all about.

Conscious of the fact that its arguments are increasingly vulnerable because its policy is aimed at slowing down the objective formation of a polycentric world fully in keeping with the UN Charter, the collective West thinks it more beneficial for itself to discuss current issues outside of universal organisations and make arrangements within its inner circle, where there is no one to argue with it. I am referring to the collective West itself and some “docile” countries it invites from time to time. The latter are needed as extras and create a semblance of a process that is wider than a purely Western affair. There are quite a few such examples.

Specifically, they are pushing the idea of a “summit for democracy.” This summit will take place in December at the invitation of US President Joe Biden. To be sure, we will not be invited. Neither are the Chinese on the list of invitees. The list itself is missing as well. Some of our partners are “whispering in our ear” that they have been told to get ready: supposedly an invitation is in the pipeline. Asked, what they would do there, they reply that theirs will be an online address, after which a final statement will be circulated. Can we see it? They promise to show it later. So we have here the “sovereign” and his “vassals.”

The Summit for Democracy seeks to divide people and countries into “democracies” and “non-democracies.”  Furthermore, my colleagues from a respected country have told me that they could infer from the invitation they had received that the democratic countries that were invited to attend were also divided into “fully” and “conditionally” democratic. I think the Americans want to have the biggest possible crowd to show that the Washington-led movement has so many followers. Watching who specifically gets invited and in what capacity will be quite amusing. I am certain that there will be attempts to reach out to some of our strategic partners and allies, but I do hope that they will remain faithful to the obligations they have in other frameworks instead of taking part in artificially concocted, one-off unofficial summits.

The same applies to the initiative Germany and France proposed two or three years ago. I am referring to the idea of an Alliance of Multilateralists. Asked, why should it be formed – after all, the United Nations, where all sovereign states are represented, stands at the pinnacle of multilateralism – they gave rather an interesting answer.   According to them, there are many conservatives at the United Nations, who hinder the genuine multilateral processes, while they are the “forerunners,”   they want to lead the van and show others with their example how to promote multilateralism. But this prompts the question: Where is the “ideal” of multilateralism? Allegedly, it is personified by the European Union, a paragon of “effective multilateralism.” Once again, they understand multilateralism as the need for the rest to accept the Western world’s leadership along with  the superiority of Western “values” and other things western. At the same time, multilateralism, as described on the US dollar  (E pluribus unum) and as embodied in the United Nations, seems  inconvenient, because there is too much diversity for those who want to impose their uniform values everywhere.

Question: Is this a constructive approach?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, not! Let me reiterate that this is how they understand the serious processes that are unfolding across the world against the backdrop of the emerging multilateralism and multipolarity. The latter, by the way, were conceived by God, for He created all men equal. And this is what the US Constitution says, but they tend to forget its formulas, when it comes to geopolitics.

There are other examples. The Dutch and the British are pushing the idea of a Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence. Why not do this at UNESCO? Why discuss this outside the organisation that was specifically created for dealing with new scientific achievements and making them available to mankind? There is no reply.

There are several competing partnerships, and the Media Freedom Coalition formed by Canada and Britain is one of them. The French, together with Reporters without Borders, promote the Information and Democracy Partnership. Once again, not everyone is invited to join it. Several years ago, Britain held the Global Conference for Media Freedom.

Question: Russia was not invited to attend, was it?

Sergey Lavrov: At first, there was no invitation, but then we reminded them that if this was a “global forum,” it was right to hear opposing points of views. But they did not invite us all the same.

Examples of this kind are not in short supply. Talking about these matters, there are mechanisms within UNESCO, which is fully legitimate and competent to deal with these issues. However, it gives a voice to others who may have a different view on media freedom compared to that of our Western colleagues. I think that this sets the international community on a path that is quite destructive, just like the attempts to “privatise” the secretariats of international organisations.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is a case in point, since people from Western and NATO countries are fully in control of its Technical Secretariat. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) states that everything must be done by consensus. However, the Technical Secretariat obediently tolerates gross violations of the Convention. The Western countries vote for their decisions, which is completely at odds with the CWC, and claim that executing these  is the Secretariat’s duty. By arrogating the right to pinpoint who is to blame for using chemical weapons, the Technical Secretariat takes over the functions of the UN Security Council.

The West has now instructed the Technical Secretariat to crack down on Syria, where many shady things and outright provocations took place over the past years. We exposed them and held news conferences in The Hague, where the OPCW has its headquarters, as well as in New York. We showed that the Technical Secretariat was being manipulated with the help of destructive and extremist NGOs like the White Helmets. I would like to note that we are starting to hear statements along these lines from heads of certain respected organisations. For example, some senior executives of the UNESCO Secretariat have come forward with the initiative to promote “values-based multilateralism.”

Question: And they are the ones who define these values, aren’t they?

Sergey Lavrov: Probably. The UNESCO leadership also represents a Western country and NATO. There is no doubt about this.

We do know that at the end of the day, behind all this talk on building consensus and having regard for the opinion of all countries, the collective West will set the tone. This has already happened more than once. The way the West views “values-based multilateralism” will shape its negotiating position.

At the same time, there is an effort to promote a “human rights-based” approach. If we look at the challenges the world is currently facing, there is security, including food security, as well as ensuring livelihoods and healthcare. This is also related to human rights. The right to life is central to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it is being trampled upon in the most blatant manner, just like the socioeconomic rights. The United States has yet to join the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and has only signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that the West is seeking to emphasise. Lately they have been focusing on the ugliest ways to interpret these rights, including on transgender issues and other abnormal ideas that go against human nature itself.

Question: You mentioned the humanitarian aspect, which is very important. The border crisis in Belarus. Refugees from Syria and other Middle Eastern countries trying to enter the EU are being deported peremptorily. It is a serious crisis, and the problem has grown in scale. It concerns the border with the EU, which claims to respect human rights and the humanitarian rules. Can Russia mediate the settlement of this conflict? Can we influence the situation at all? And would there be any point?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t think that mediation is needed here. I do not see any violations of international law or obligations by Belarus. I have access to information about these developments, just as all the other stakeholders. According to this information, those who do not want to live in Belarus are trying to enter the EU from the territory of Belarus. Demanding that President Alexander Lukashenko and the Belarusian law enforcement agencies stop this would be contrary to international law, especially humanitarian law. The hysterical claims made in some EU countries that Belarus, supported by Russia, is deliberately encouraging these flows of refugees are unseemly for serious politicians. This means that they are aware of their helplessness, including in terms of international law, which is why they are growing hysterical.

Here is a simple example. You have said that the EU does not want refugees to enter its territory. I believe that it is not the EU but individual countries that do not want this. The situation is different across the EU in terms of the positions of individual countries and regions. There is no unity on this matter. Poland and Lithuania are pushing the refugees eager to enter their territory back to Belarus. I wonder how this is different from the recent developments in Italy. Former Interior Minister Matteo Salvini refused to allow refugees to disembark in Italy. He argued that there were several other EU countries along their route where they could request asylum. Salvini is likely to face trial for endangering the lives of those refugees, who had fled from the dire, catastrophic conditions in their home countries. What is the difference between the behaviour of the Baltic states and Poland and the decision for which the former minister is about to  stand trial?

There are many other examples of double standards here, but just take a look at the identity of those refugees fleeing to Europe. They are Syrians, Iraqis and, recently, Afghans. People from the Sahel-Sahara region in Africa are trying to enter Europe via Libya.  As we list the countries from which illegal migrants are exporting instability, we should not forget the reason behind the collapse of their home countries. This collapse has been brought about by Western adventurism. A  case in point is the US adventure in Iraq, where tens of thousands of NATO troops and  contingents of other countries eager to please Washington were later stationed in a cover-up ploy . Look at the aggression against Libya, and the failure of the 20-year-long war trumpeted as a mission to restore peace in Afghanistan. They attempted to do the same in Syria. As a result, several million people have been uprooted and are now trying to enter Europe from Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. This is our Western partners’ style. They regard any situation from a historical and chronological angle that suits them best. They launched devastating bombing attacks on Libya and Iraq. But after both countries were reduced to ruins, they urged everyone to assume a shared responsibility for the fate of refugees. We asked, why this should be a “shared responsibility?”After all, it was them who created the problem in the first place. They replied: “Let bygones be bygones.” There is no point looking back, they have awakened to the problem, and now it rests with us. Ukraine is another remarkable example of the logic of forgetting historical embarrassments.

QuestionI would be remiss not to ask you about Ukraine. The situation there is escalating. Not so long ago, an officer, a Russian citizen,from the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination (JCCC) on Ceasefire and Stabilisation in Southeastern Ukraine was detained (in fact, kidnapped) on the demarcation line. The Ukrainian military have become increasingly active in the grey zone. With that in mind, how much longer can the Normandy format dialogue continue? Is a ministerial meeting being planned? How productive will this dialogue be?

Sergey Lavrov: I would like to revisit the diplomatic tactics of cutting off inconvenient historical eras and periods. How did it all begin? In our exchanges with our German or French colleagues who co-founded the Normandy format and the February 2015 Minsk agreements, they unfailingly maintain a “constructive ambiguity” with regard to who must comply with the Minsk agreements. We keep telling them: What ambiguity is there? Here, it is clearly written: Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk must enter into consultations and agree on a special status, an amnesty and elections under the auspices of the OSCE. This is clearly stated there. They say they know who plays the decisive role there. We reply that we do not know who else plays the decisive role there except the parties whom the UN Security Council has obliged to act upon what they signed. To their claims that we “annexed” Crimea, we say that, first, we did not annex Crimea, but rather responded to the request of the Crimean people, who had come under a direct threat of destruction. I remember very well the Right Sector leaders saying that Russians should be expelled from Crimea, because they would never speak, think, or write in Ukrainian. Everyone back then was telling me that it was a figure of speech. It was not. Recently, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky confirmed this when he said: If you think you are Russian, go to Russia. This is exactly the ideology proclaimed by the Right Sector immediately after the EU-guaranteed settlement document had been trampled upon in the morning by the same people who had signed it on behalf of the opposition with President Viktor Yanukovych. When you remind them of Russophobia, which instantly manifested itself among the putschists who seized power as a result of the coup, they say no, it is a thing of the past. They propose starting the discussion with the fact that the sanctions were imposed on us. This is an unsavoury approach.

I am disappointed to see such a decline in the Western negotiating and diplomatic culture. Take any hot item on the international agenda and you will see that the West is either helpless or is cheating. Take, for example, the alleged poisoning of blogger Alexey Navalny. This is a separate matter.

Returning to Ukraine and the Normandy format, indeed, the situation has escalated. There are attempts to create a provocative situation, to provoke the militia into responding and to drag Russia into military actions.

The Bayraktar drone incident is nothing short of a mystery. The Commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine said that this weapon was indeed used, while the Defence Minister claimed that nothing of the kind had happened. I think they are now pondering options to see which one will work better for them: either to show how tough they are having started bombing in direct and gross violation of the Minsk agreements, or to say that they are complying with the Minsk agreements and to propose to get together in the Normandy format. We do not need a meeting for the sake of holding a meeting. They are sending mixed messages through characters like Alexey Arestovich (he is some kind of a semi-official adviser), or head of the presidential executive office Andrey Yermak, or Denis Shmygal, or President Zelensky himself. But they follow the same logic: the Minsk agreements should not and must not be fulfilled, because this will destroy Ukraine. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Minsk agreements were created as a result of 17-hour-long talks precisely in order to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Initially, having proclaimed their independence, the new republics were even unhappy with us for encouraging them to find common ground with Kiev. Whatever the new authorities may be, Ukraine is our neighbour and a fraternal nation. After signing the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements in Minsk, the Russian Federation convinced representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk to sign this document as well.

Accusing us of destroying Ukraine’s territorial integrity is unseemly and dishonest. It is being destroyed by those who are trying to make it a super-unitary state while reducing the languages ​​of ethnic minorities, primarily Russian, to the status of token tools of communication, and making education in Russian and other languages nonexistent​. This is a neo-Nazi approach to society building.

As you may be aware, in April 2014, immediately after the Crimea referendum, former US Secretary of State John Kerry, former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, Acting Foreign Minister of the new regime in Ukraine Andrey Deshchitsa and I met in Vienna. We agreed on one page of a “dense” text to the effect that the United States, the EU and Russia welcomed the Kiev authorities’ plan to hold a nationwide dialogue on federalisation with the participation of all regions of Ukraine. It was approved. Truth be told, this document did not go anywhere, but it remains open information. It was made available to the media. That is, back then, neither the United States nor the EU wanted to make a “monster” out of Ukraine. They wanted it to be a truly democratic state with all regions and, most importantly, all ethnic minorities feeling involved in common work. Up until now, the Ukrainian Constitution has the linguistic and educational rights of ethnic minorities, including the separately stated rights of Russian speakers, enshrined in it. Just look at the outrageous things they are doing with the laws on education, languages ​​and the state language. There is a law recently submitted by the government titled On State Policy during the Transition Period. It does more than just cross out the Minsk agreements. It explicitly makes it illegal for Ukrainian political, diplomatic and other officials to fulfil them. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe recently came up with a positive opinion about this law, which did not surprise us. This decision does not say a word about the fact that this law undermines Ukraine’s commitments under the Minsk agreements and, accordingly, Kiev’s obligations to comply with the UN Security Council resolution.

Question: If I understood you correctly, a ministerial meeting cannot even be prepared in this atmosphere.

Sergey Lavrov: Our German and French colleagues have been saying all the time: let’s preserve “constructive ambivalence” as regards who must observe the Minsk agreements. An EU-Ukraine summit took place literally two days after the telephone conversation of the President of Russia, the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France, when Vladimir Putin said such law-making was unacceptable, including the destructive draft law on a transitional period. Following the summit, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Council Charles Michel and President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky signed a statement a good quarter of which is devoted to the crisis in southeastern Ukraine. The top-ranking EU officials and the Ukrainian President officially stated that Russia bears special responsibility for this crisis because it is a party to the conflict. We immediately asked Berlin and Paris: so which is it: constructive ambivalence or this position? We were told that we shouldn’t be surprised because from the very beginning of the crisis in 2014 they proceeded from the premise that we ought to do all this. If that is the case, what was the point of signing the Minsk agreements?

Now they are trying to draw us in, citing President Vladimir Putin, who promised to organise the Normandy format at least at the ministerial level. We are not avoiding meetings. But promising to instruct Russian officials to work on this process, President Putin said that first we must fulfil on what we agreed in Paris in December 2019. The Kiev authorities were supposed to do everything the sides agreed upon then. They did not move a finger to implement the Steinmeier formula, determine a special status for Donbass, fix it permanently in the Ukrainian legislation and settle security issues.

A draft of this document was prepared when the parties gathered for this summit in Paris in December 2019. Its first item was an appeal by the Normandy format leaders for the disengagement of troops and withdrawal of heavy artillery along the entire contact line. President Zelensky said he could not agree to do this along the entire contact line and suggested doing it in three points only. Even the German and French participants were a bit perplexed because the aides of the presidents and the Chancellor coordinated the text ahead of the summit. Eventually, they shook their heads and agreed to disengagement in three points. Ukraine has not carried out this provision so far. Its conduct was indicative: it did not want to adopt a radical measure that would considerably reduce the risks of armed clashes and threats to civilians.

With great difficulty, the parties agreed on special measures in the summer of 2020. They signed a Contact Group document stating that any fire must not immediately trigger reciprocal fire. Otherwise, there will be an escalation. After each shelling, a commander of a unit that was attacked was supposed to report to the supreme commander. Only after his approval, the commander of the unit could open reciprocal fire. The republics included this provision in their orders but Ukraine flatly refused to fulfil it. Then, several months ago, it was persuaded to accept it and went along with this, implementing what was agreed upon a year ago. However, recently the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine said that none of this was required: if you hear a shot, even into the air, you can go ahead and bomb the civilian population.

Question: Let’s move on to Central Asia, if you don’t mind. The Taliban coming to power is a daunting challenge to Russia and the post-Soviet Central Asian countries, which are our former fraternal republics. Are we ready to take up this challenge and how can we help our neighbours in Central Asia?

Sergey Lavrov: We saw it coming one way or another all these years while the Americans were trying to “stimulate” agreements between the Afghans. This was done, I would say, not too skilfully. I’m not hiding my assessment. The agreement that was concluded with the Taliban in Doha without the involvement of then President Ashraf Ghani was the last “diplomatic victory” as it was portrayed by the previous US administration. On the one hand, it gave rise to a hope that the Taliban would now be amenable to talks. On the other hand, there were many skeptical assessments, because the Taliban agreed to create some kind of common government bodies in exchange for a complete withdrawal of all foreign troops by May 1, 2021. Former President Ghani was outright unhappy with this since he realised that if this agreement was fulfilled, he would have to share power. Under all scenarios, he was unlikely to remain the number one person in the new Afghan government. So, he did his best to slow down the process. As a result, the Americans stayed longer. According to a number of US political analysts, this happened because Washington failed to withdraw its troops by the agreed deadline. The Taliban then decided they were free from any commitment to form a government of national accord.

However, this is a thing of the past, and we believe that the United States and those who stayed there for 20 years promising to make a model country out of Afghanistan must now get directly involved, primarily financially, to avert a humanitarian disaster. In this sense, we want to preserve historical continuity with its causal relationship.

An event that we held recently in Moscow with the participation of Afghanistan’s neighbours and other leading countries of the region and the SCO and CSTO-sponsored events that took place not so long ago in Dushanbe were aimed at urging the Taliban to deliver on their promises and the obligations that they made and assumed when they came to power. First of all, this is to prevent the destabilisation of neighbouring countries and the spread of the terrorist and drug threat from Afghanistan and the need to suppress these threats in Afghanistan itself, to ensure the inclusive nature of government in terms of ethnopolitical diversity and to be sure to guarantee, as they said, Islam-based human rights. This can be interpreted fairly broadly, but, nevertheless, it provides at least some benchmarks in order to get the Taliban to make good on its promises.

Humanitarian aid must be provided now. I see the Western countries making their first contributions. The issue is about distributing this aid. Many are opposed to making it available directly to the government and prefer to act through international organisations. We see the point and are helping to reach an agreement with the current authorities in Kabul to allow international organisations, primarily humanitarian organisations, to carry out the relevant activities. Of course, we will do our fair share. We are supplying medicines and food there. The Central Asian countries are doing the same. Their stability is important to us, because we have no borders with our Central Asian allies, and we have visa-free travel arrangements with almost all of them. In this regard, President Putin told President Biden in Geneva in June that we are strongly opposed to the attempts to negotiate with the Central Asian countries on the deployment of the US military infrastructure on their territory in order to deliver over-the-horizon strikes on targets in Afghanistan, if necessary. They came up with similar proposals to Pakistan as well, but Pakistan said no. Uzbekistan has publicly stated that its Constitution does not provide for deployment of military bases on its territory. Kyrgyzstan has also publicly, through the mouth of the President, announced that they do not want this.

Knowing the pushy nature of the Americans, I do not rule out the possibility of them continuing to come up with the same proposal from different angles. I heard they are allegedly trying to persuade India to provide the Pentagon with certain capabilities on Indian territory.

Refugees are issue number two, which is now being seriously considered. Many of them simply came to Central Asia on their own. These countries have different policies towards them and try in every possible way to protect themselves against these incoming flows. In Uzbekistan, special premises for the refugees have been allocated right outside the airport, from where they are flown to other countries and they are not allowed to enter other parts of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Our Tajik neighbours are doing the same. They are also being pressured to accept refugees. They want to set up holding centres under strong guarantee that after some time the refugees will be relocated. The West rushed to beg the neighbouring countries to accept tens of thousands of refugees, each claiming that it was a temporary solution until the West gives them documents for immigration to Western countries.

Question: But it turned out it was for the long haul …

Sergey Lavrov: Thankfully, no one has agreed to that, at least not to the numbers the West was talking about. Of course, some refugees relocated there, and proper arrangements must be made with regard to them. The West said they needed “two to three months” to issue documents for these people and it was necessary to save them, since they collaborated with the coalition forces. But if you collaborated with these Afghans on the ground for a long time and employed them as translators and informants, you surely ran background checks on them. If, after they had worked for you for so long you were still unable to decide whether you could trust them or not, why are you then “dumping” them onto the Central Asian countries, which are our allies? This issue remains open.

As you may be aware, we have come up with a proposal for the UN to convene a conference to address the Afghan people’s pressing humanitarian needs. I think the message was taken, so we expect a more specific response will come.

%d bloggers like this: