USSR Dissolution | UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM

Putin’s Collaborators (?) and Distant Echoes of WW2

Posted on February 25, 2023 by fada1

February 24, 2023

by Jimmie Moglia

By and large, for an ideology to take root among a people or a nation it is necessary to transform the individual into the mass man. For masses are – before in time and now often in the impalpable ether – what crowds are in space. Namely a large quantity of people unable to express their human qualities – for members of masses are not connected to each other either as individuals or as parts of a community. In fact they are only linked through some impersonal, abstract, crystallizing and often de-humanizing factor.

With crowds it can be, for example, a sports match, a huge sale, a morbid murder. With masses it is the drumming repetition of the same thing by the same media. Media – in turn – today overwhelmingly funded and overwhelmingly owned by historically old and yet modernized clever masters of the human mind and apostles of the thought-unique.

In essence, we can agree that masses are those who love they know not why, and hate upon no better ground, ever ready to accept the master’s line even when the verity of it is in strong suspicion.

That said, thanks to the imposed and aforementioned ‘thought unique’ he who does not agree with the US funded Ukrainian coup-d’etat of 2014, with the 8-year bombardment of the Donbass, with the open and openly Nazis nature of the current regime and army, with the banning of the Russian language, with the essential shutting down of the Ukrainian church and the imprisonment of some of its pastors… etc., this individual is variously defined as a ‘Putin’s Stooge’, and nostalgically, at least in France, as a ‘collaborator,’ more familiarly a ‘collabo’.

Collabo’ is a term coined to dishonor those Frenchmen who had acquiesced to live acquiescently within the Vichy regime of Marshal Petain during WW2. After France’s crushing defeat of 1940, Petain had come to terms with Hitler – and the ensuing regime got its name from its capital Vichy, a lovely town in the very lovely French region of Auvergne. It should be added, though easily forgotten, that Marshal Petain had been a hero of WW1, acclaimed as a national hero for having stopped the Germans at Verdun and having assumed command of the French forces in 1917. Which is why he was exiled but not killed after WW2.

I will return shortly to the analysis of who is a ‘collaborations’ and why, but I cannot resist relating an observation made in Paris, years ago, when France still held some independence from the cultural and political hegemony by the exceptional nation – exercised via the ‘collaboration’ within the European Union and, of course, NATO.

Among the large promotional posters attached to the walls of the metro stations, I remember one, featuring the large, beautiful view of a hilly, tranquil, bucolic, green and peaceful countryside, including a few very relaxed cows. The script on the poster said in English, “Auvergne, our Natural Resources.”

At the time, the thought-unique had not, as yet, driven France into the current extreme, self-defeating and demeaning position of subservience to the arrogant part of America, in just about all domains of life and endeavor. The poster was seemingly intended as a mild satire towards a culture that values nothing unless it represents a monetary return on investments.

For a description of the difference between the ‘arrogant’ and the ‘human’ part of America, please refer to my article “A Tale of Two Cultures.”

Returning to Ukraine, in the whole business, as most know, there are some metaphorical elephants in the metaphorical living room, even if, by convention, they are assumed to be invisible.

For in much of the Western world, whoever questions, however mildly and with supporting evidence, the narrative of an event actually inaugurated and named in New York in 1972, (over 30 years after its actual occurrence) this person, thanks to the democratic western values, including ‘freedom of expression’ can easily end up in jail.

Those condemned for this reason have been many. Emblematic is Ms. Ursula Haverbeck, who, being in no way a Hitler apologist, only questioned some of the questionable assertions related to the never-ending campaign launched, as mentioned, in 1972. For this she was jailed in Germany when she was 93-year young.

The whole thing is equally extraordinary and relevant to the issue dealt with here, considering that, in Ukraine, all know and witness a systematic re-interpretation of history, an inversion of values, a revolution in words and a reversal of meanings.

The American mastermind of the ‘Maidan Revolution’, the two ensuing Ukrainian presidents and some of the ministers are chosen people. While the most active and notorious personalities of the Ukrainian army (setting aside the mercenaries) are incontrovertibly Nazis. Even the main avenue in Kiev has been re-named ‘Bandera Avenue,’ in honor of Hitler’s collaborator and most popular partner of the Germans in Ukraine during WW2.

The ‘sponsor’ of the current president is equally chosen-people material, whose fiber and temper would not recommend themselves even to the most forgiving evaluator. (I wrote an article about him in May 2019, titled “The Bottom of the Barrel” https://thesaker.is/?s=The+bottom+of+the+barrel).

Equally notable are the multi-billion $$ ‘donations’ of arms to Ukraine by Giuseppe Biden. And even Bankman Fried – notorious hero of the recent close-to-a-billion $$ ruinous Ponzi scheme – has allegedly contributed 60 million $$ to the regime. While he has equally been hailed as a great co-religionist, great friend and great supporter of the current Ukrainian president.

Let’s now return to the issue of who is or isn’t a ‘collaborator’, or ‘collabo’ and if so, of whom, beginning with the lexicon.

‘Collaboration’ is a word of easy etymological determination. It derives from Latin, meaning ‘to work together’. Historically, ‘collaboration’ referred to the medieval meaning of “shared possessions acquired through work by a married couple.” However, in France, during the German occupation in WW2, it assumed the significance of ‘cooperating with the enemy’. And as if to ensure that the new WW2 meaning could not be confused with the original, the term ‘collaborator’ was shrunk into the shorter and disparaging-sounding word ‘collabo’.

The lexical metamorphosis began on October 24, 1940 when, in the little town of Montoire-sur-le-Loire, a meeting was held at the railway station between Adolf Hitler and Marshall Petain, president of France. A historical photo shows Petain shaking Hitler’s hand.

A transcription of the actual conversation is not available, but six days later, Petain, in a radio speech delivered while sitting by his fireplace, gave the French a status report on the situation. It is during this broadcast that he used the term ‘collaboration,’ in a significantly historical paragraph:

“It is a matter of honor, in order to maintain French unity, a unity spanning ten centuries – and in the context of a constructive new European Order – that today I have begun on a path of collaboration” (with Germany).

One important consideration. As a matter of principle and action, ‘collaboration’ was an integral foundation of Petain’s philosophy, in relation to the ‘new European order’ spoken-of in his radio address. Meaningfully, Petain’s words ‘new European order’ are omitted from French history texts in schools, referring to that period and event. Why? Because, in the sanctioned interpretation of history, it was/is important to emphasize Petain’s submission (to Germany) rather than collaboration. Which, more objectively, at least in my view, should have been called ‘modus vivendi’ – a sentence whose flavor of neutrality and antiquity, would better represent the condition when people who declared a war on an enemy and lost it, attempt to survive in objectively critical circumstances.

Still, given the aftermath of WW2 and the strongly promoted implementation of the European Union, Petain’s ‘new European order’ returned a few years later under a new flag and – we may add – with a vengeance.

Ever since, implicitly, explicitly, officially and unofficially the ‘new European order’ has been imposed, not to say forced-upon the seemingly complacent, compliant, beguiled, gullible, undisturbed and unruffled Europeans.

Furthermore, given that the tale of history cannot be told without (often) strategic and convenient omissions, a curious reader may be interested in another remarkably curious piece of news, usually (or strategically) omitted.

One important protagonist in the establishment of the current European Union was Walter Hallstein, a jurist most close to Hitler during the regime. Hallstein had accompanied Hitler in his state visit to Mussolini in Italy and had established the framework of the notorious ‘axe’ Hitler-Mussolini. Later he set up the legal framework for the ‘new European order’, now renamed ‘European Union’, including the structure of what would become the ‘Treaty of Rome’ of 1957. Equally, Walter Hallstein became the first president of the CEE Commission (Commission Economique pour l’Europe). In other words he was a pedigreed Nazi, though he successfully managed to hide it. So much so that I would wager that most of my 25 readers don’t know it.

While assigning NO value judgment to this historical truth, there is a connecting point or common denominator between Petain’s ‘collaboration in the context of a ‘new European order’ and the ‘collaboration’ in the context of Walter Hallstein even-newer European order. In both cases that connection, or context, or common denominator is submission.

It is because France was invaded that Petain did ‘collaborate.’ And apart from any related value judgment, who declared war on whom in WW2? It may be historically uncomfortable, yet it wasn’t Hitler but France who declared war on Germany, and so did England on the 3^rd of September 1939, one month and a half before the mentioned interview at Montaire.

Any historical consideration fails in its objective of clarification if it is not extracted from the web of intertwining events and – at least temporarily – considered as an independent fact. I am referring here to Hitler’s ‘Lebenraum’ (living space), a German rendering of American President Polk’s 19^th century notion of America’s ‘manifest destiny’ (see more about this later)

And why did France and England declare war on Germany? Because from the middle of the 1930s Germany had risen in power, aiming at agglomerating German-speaking countries, so as to redress the unfortunate and objectively despicable decisions taken at the end of WW1. When the map of Europe was re-drawn, creating new countries that contained a conspicuous proportion of Germans in speech and culture – notably Austria, created after the dismemberment of the millenarian Austro-Hungarian empire, and the Sudeten, the Western part of the new Republic of Czechoslovakia. A German survivor from the Sudeten, emigrated from Germany to Portland after WW2, used to recount harrowing episodes of mistreatment of the Germans by the Czecks after the Checks took over the Sudeten. Treating people as pawns and tokens is usually unadvisable. Even in our historical yesterday, the Czecks and the Slovaks found that they were not the same, or same enough to be part of the same state.

After Germany united with Austria in 1938 the Western powers became worried. They grumbled but accepted the fait-accompli at the famous Munich conference. Henceforth the West split among those in favor and those against the Munich agreement.

Missing, in the German reunification, was the ‘Danzig corridor’ earlier given to Poland. This practically split Prussia (the historical heart of modern Germany) from Germany proper.

On paper Danzig was the item of contention, apart from other German strategies. planned or pending. Poland refused to yield and Germany attacked Poland. Now England and France declared war on Germany.

It is currently fashionable, in certain quarters, to equate Putin with Hitler, but the comparison is not tenable. Russia does not harbor designs to invade other countries. The opposite is true. A map of Russia, produced after the end of the USSR by a US ‘think-tank’ features European Russia split into 4 independent states under US ‘protection’. While Russian Asia is up for grabs because it is ‘too big’ according to that poor imitation of a human, Victoria Nuland (Nudelman) who, Shakespeareanly speaking, is not worth the dust that the rude wind blows in her face.

In fact, after 1991 and the tumultuous dissolution of the USSR, in purely technical and historical terms NATO has assumed Hitler’s role. That is, the US has not ceased to erode and nibble at the geographical and strategic space protecting Russia. Which was accomplished by incorporating the Eastern States into NATO, also using the only slightly more chaste instrument of the ‘European Union’. The whole conducted in platitudinous breach of agreements and justified by the ridiculous claim that nothing in writing existed as a reference.

Therefore, watching the world from Russia’s point of view it is easy to see that all that Russia won in Europe after her enormous sacrifices in WW2, had been shattered.

Historically the situation is the mirror image of Europe in 1938-39, as seen by England and France. Wherefrom it follows that today’s Ukraine is yesterday’s Poland.

Besides, Ukraine is an integral part of Russia, of her people and history since 1654 and the Treaty of Perejeslav. Removing Ukraine from Russia (please refer to my article “America and Russia – Tale of Two Cultures) almost equates to removing Paris from France, Tuscany from Italy or Athens from Greece.

From Moscow’s point of view the situation is dangerous. Recent events show that the US destroyed Iraq and Libya nor has given up on Syria, all on behalf of an artificial, apartheid state that cannot be named. For they – Iraq, Libya and Syria – were the only countries upholding the rights of the Palestinians (along with Iran).

After the US-funded, South-American-style Maidan revolution in 2014, the threat against Russia became obvious and the damage direct – quite apart from the curious and extraordinary alliance of the resurrected Ukrainian Nazis with the new Ukrainian government, made up by members of the chosen people.

Returning to historical analogies, Russia’s action equates to what England and France did in 1939. Who would, today, dare to hold that England and France were wrong in declaring war on Hitler?

Yet at the time, the perception was quite different, starting with Petain and his ‘collaborationists’. Before the battle of Stalingrad, (1943), many in France held that Germany had not attacked France or England. Therefore why declare war on Germany?

In summary, those who compare Putin with Hitler should remember that it is exactly what England and France did to Germany. With a significant difference, England and France declared war on Germany to defend the Poles. Russia launched her military operation to defend the Russians. Quite apart from the remarkable admixture of a Nazi-inspired army and the post-Maidan Jewish government.

Besides, to be a collaborationist implies agreeing, conniving and cooperating with an enemy present in the territory. But Russia does not impose her rule on France or England, or anywhere else for that matter. Therefore those who accuse of collaborationism the dissenters on the American-NATO line on Russia are either not serious, or more likely in bad faith. How can one be a collaborationist with a country that does not occupy or plan to occupy the country of the collaborationists?

Instead, dominating England, France and Europe at large is the exceptional nation. To quote verbatim from a Biden’s statement, (Nov 24, 20) “America is back and ready to lead the world.” Where ‘being back’ meant a sharp break from the ‘America first’ inspired foreign policy of Donald Trump.

Militarily speaking it is difficult to argue that Europe is NOT under US occupation. DeGaulle himself detected and denounced the overpowering, constraining and conditioning presence of the US in France – which led him to exit NATO and impose the closing of the US bases in France in 1966.

Later President Mitterand echoed the same sentiments and policies. Whereas the current French president Macron appears but a reservist of the exceptional nation.

Therefore the label of ‘Putin’s collaborator’ assigned to dissenters is absurd. The real collaborator is he who is hand and glove with those who dominate and impose their geo-political choices in Europe at large.

Besides, nowhere, in Russia’s history or known archives, will be found a document declaring or theorizing that Russia should conquer Europe or the world. Hence it cannot be argued that if Putin takes Ukraine, he will then conquer Poland, Germany, France etc.

Such theory, if it existed, would have manifested itself since long, and comparing the Russian Federation with the Soviet regime is absurd. The USSR was the embodiment of Marxist theories applied to world revolution. Nor it is antisemitic to remember that members of the chosen people made up 95% of the first Politburo. Besides, on the 200^th anniversary of Karl Marx’ birth (April 30, 2018) the New York Times – the official opinion of America – whose ownership, ever since 1895 is politely left unsaid, and yet unbroken and undisputed – published a conspicuous article titled, “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!”

But returning to the main point, Russia, under Putin, has attempted to reestablish the security that the nation had before its dissolution.

In Asia all that Russia wants is that the ex-USSR countries do not become a threat. There was a hint of another Maidan two years ago in Kazakhstan, fortunately dispelled in time. Interested readers may refer to my related video (https://youtu.be/whXvQ765t-M)

Most of us agree that the sovereignty of a country does not imply the right of being a threat to her neighbors.

Besides, there are no extant text, present or past, theorizing or suggesting that Russia should dominate the universe, or at least entire continents and countries at large. Something equivalent to Kagan’s (Victoria Nuland’s husband), “Plan for a New American Century.”

In comparison, though the fact is not usually explained or discussed in schools, on December 2, 1823, the fifth president of the United States James Monroe, established his ‘Monroe doctrine,’ whereby North and South America should exist under total control of the United States.

The doctrine did not imply isolationism. Rather it implied preventing any intervention or participation by European countries into the affairs of the American continent. That is, the scope of the doctrine was not isolationism but interdiction of any other state or country from having anything to do with the Americas.

Another relevant historical date is December 2, 1845 when the 10^th president of the United States, James Polk pronounced a speech containing the words ‘manifest destiny’, referring to a quasi-supernatural license granted to the United States for dominating all lands from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

At the time, the hub of the United States was in the East, and the Western expansion was still in progress. Much of the center and the whole west were Mexican lands: California, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada. While lands north of Oregon belonged to Britain.

Henceforth, the US would fight Mexico in the South and antagonize Britain in the North to secure ‘full spectrum dominance’ in those lands, because the gods had said so.

The history of Texas deserves a brief mention. Mexico had invited American settlers to Mexico, which they did. But in 1829 Mexico abolished slavery, which Texas was not yet ready to do away with. The settlers rebelled, Texas became independent, and they retained slavery until the 1860s and the Civil War.

Yet, the spirit of independence (leaving the Union) has still its largest appeal in Texas. Showing that history counts and that traditions don’t die quickly.

In the end, President Polk managed to secure the largest territorial expansion and extension of the United States ever. Yet Polk’s ‘manifest destiny’ never died and still informs and inspires current US international policy, as all can see.

Terms other than ‘manifest destiny’ may apply: ‘indispensable nation’, ‘exceptional nation’. Thay are but cosmetic variations on the theme. For in our current society of the spectacle trifle is king rather than meaning. And trifles always require an exuberance of ornament, as provided by commercial media.

For the building which has no strength can be valued only for the showiness of its decorations. The pebble must be masked with care, which hopes to be valued as a diamond; and words can be cleverly labored when they are intended to numb the mind and to replace nothingness.

Besides, expecting a change of mind or heart from current Western politicians is naïve. Theirs is a life of little work and much luxury. And when a position teems with such pleasant consequences, who can without regret confess it to be false? Furthermore, in the current US political landscape, arrogance seems recommended as the supply of every defect and the ornament of every (supposed) excellence. Alternatively, those who are unable to add nothing to truth, hope for eminence from the heresies of paradox, as in the case of the “Putin Collaborators”.

“To continue receiving notification of Jimmie Moglia’s videos, articles and books please subscribe to his Twitter account @jimmiemoglia “

Filed under: EU, France, Germany, Hitler, Poland, Ukraine, United Kingdom UK, US-led NATO Alliance, USA, USSR, Vladimir Putin | Tagged: Austro-Hungarian Empire, “EuroMaidan” coup, Collaboration, De Gaulle, Donbass, Kiev Nazi Regime, Monroe Doctrine, Nazi Germany, USSR Dissolution, Warhawk Victoria Nuland (Toria), WWI, WWII | Comments Off on Putin’s Collaborators (?) and Distant Echoes of WW2

The War and the Future

Posted on February 1, 2023 by fada1

January 31, 2023

Source

By Batiushka

Foreword: Stop Living in the Past

Since the historic Special Military Operation to liberate the peoples of the Ukraine from their US puppet tyrants in Kiev began on 24 February 2022, the post-1945 settlement has been over. In fact, it should have been over with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 or, at latest, at the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. However, the USA was blinded by its exceptionalist hubris as ‘the only Superpower’ and engaged in its latest fantasy of destroying Islam, which it mistakenly saw as a serious rival, arrogantly dismissing Russia, China and India as minor players. So, as a sectarian rogue-state, the USA began its war of terror on all who thought differently, which it so humiliatingly lost. This can be seen in the dramatic pictures of the last flights out of Kabul in 2021.

In other words, after the end of the Soviet Union, which had been born directly out of World War One and formally founded in 1922, the end of the American Union (= NATO) should have followed, and with it the end of the worldwide American Empire. Thus, today NATO is an anachronism, well past its best before date, which is why has begun meddling all over the world, from the foothills of the Himalaya to the Pacific Ocean. NATO is just like the alphabet soup of other US organisations and fronts, IMF, EU, WTO, OECD, G7, G20 and UN, with its mere five Security Council members, including minor Great Britain and France. What might await us as a result of the liberation of the Ukraine on the centenary of the 1945 settlement, in 2045?

1. After the Ukraine

First of all, probably within the next fifteen months, we shall see the full liberation of the Ukraine. With the eastern Novorossija half of the Ukraine returning to Russia, the remaining half, Central and Western Ukraine, perhaps minus Zakarpattia (returning to Hungary as an autonomous region under the Balogh brothers) and Chernivtsy (returning to Romania), will return to being Malorossija, its capital in Kiev. Thus, the way will at last be open to form the Confederation of Rus’. The at last freed East Slav lands and peoples, Eurasian Russia and the Eastern European Belarus and Malorossija, could together form such a Confederation of Rus’, with a total population of just under 200 million.

2. The Reconfiguration of Eurasia

After the Ukrainian question has been solved and the USA has lost its political, military and, above all, economic power to bully the rest of the world, all of us in Eurasia will be able to start living in our new-found Freedom and building Justice and Prosperity for all. We foresee first of all the expansion of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).

a. The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU)

At present consisting of the Russian Federation, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, the EEU will surely be joined by a host of other countries, including firstly China, by now reunited with Taiwan, and Mongolia, then India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Cambodia. They will be followed by the rest of Asia (60% of world population). Thus, the EEU will largely replace the present SCO (Shanghai Co-operation Organisation). However, true to its Eurasian name, the Economic Union will also receive and grant applications from a new organisation in North-Western Eurasia. This could be called the European Economic Alliance (EEA). This could be formed through the economic co-operation of all forty-four countries in the extreme western tip of Eurasia, to be known simply as ‘Europe’. This will include what was once known as Western, Central, Northern and Southern Europe, representing nearly 7% of world population.

b. The European Economic Alliance (EEA)

This Confederation could be formed as EU coercion collapses, with Brussels disarmed as the American Union of NATO dissolves. This will follow the long-overdue withdrawal of US occupying forces from Europe and the closure of their bases. All there will find freedom again. The founding member of the EEA would perhaps be Hungary and its Capital could be fixed in Budapest in honour of Hungarian courage and its geographical closeness to the resource-rich Confederation of Rus’, the gateway to Eurasia, on which the EEA will be so dependent. The Budapest Parliament building would make a fine administrative headquarters for the EEA. Other countries would follow Hungary like dominos, possibly in the following ten phases, after rebellions in each European country, one after another overthrowing their corrupt US-installed puppet-elites. This would resemble the rebellions that took place with a domino effect in the then Soviet Eastern bloc between 1989 and 1991.

i. The Western Balkan Four

After the European Economic Alliance has been founded by Hungary, it would next be joined by Serbia. No longer held under the heel of the US bully, the ancestrally Serbian province of Kosovo would return to Serbia. However, this would only be possible if its Albanian inhabitants, like those also in Montenegro and North Macedonia, first moved to Albania. For this to happen they would have to be attracted by a huge package of investment and development to pull Albania out of grinding poverty and chronic corruption and into prosperity, to make int into a magnet for Albanians. We suggest that China could invest in the massive rebuilding, and building, of infrastructure in Albania, as China already has a history of links with Albania. With such a just solution, all Albanians could at last live decently and work in decent jobs in their own country and not be forced to live like cuckoos in the countries of others. On this Albania could join the EEA. At this point Montenegro, (North) Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina could also join the EEA. These countries would perhaps form together with Serbia a Trade and Cultural Federation, perhaps to be called Yuzhnoslavia, though each would absolutely retain its political independence. Investment in Yuzhnoslavia could come from the Confederation of Rus’.

ii. The Eastern Balkan Three

After their example, Moldova, Romania and Bulgaria would almost immediately join the EEA, attracted by links with Eurasia and the resources and linked culture of the Confederation of Rus’.

iii. The Greek World

They would naturally be followed by Greece and Cyprus, in the latter of which Russian investment is already huge. These three phases, i, ii and iii, of linking up with the Confederation of Rus, but remaining as sovereign nations within the EEA, would complete the reconstitution and restoration of the Orthosphere. This is the Orthodox Christian Commonwealth, whose natural centre has for 500 years been Russia.

iv. The Former Habsburgs

Next would come Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Lands and Austria.

v. Italia

They would naturally be followed by Italy, San Marino and Malta.

vi. Germania

The real turning-point would come if these countries were followed by the central domino of Germany. Germany, fixed between Western and Eastern Europe, knows that it cannot live without Russia and countries and markets to its east. It would immediately be followed by Germany-dependent Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium.

vii. Nordia

Closely linked to Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and finally Finland would follow almost at once.

viii. Gallia

After Germany, France, which is so dependent on Germany, with Monaco and then Switzerland and Liechtenstein, would also be obliged to join the EEA in fairly quick succession.

ix. Iberia

Spain, with newly-independent Catalonia, and then Andorra and Portugal would swiftly follow France.

x. The Isolationists, East and West

Now we come to the end of this game of dominoes. The last mohicans, the once irreductibly isolationist Russophobes, the Johnson fantasy, would realise that they could no longer remain alone. The people would revolt against their elite-imposed poverty and depopulation and the absurd propaganda down the generations. First, Estonia, under pressure from Finland, and then in a chain, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland could join the EEA. However, the first three would have to throw off their US puppet-elites and at once grant human rights to their Russian minorities.

Then, under economic pressure from Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, the British Isles and Ireland, would at last follow. Thus, now separated into their four natural components, there would appear an independent England, freed after a millennium of the delusional yoke of the invented ‘Great Britain’ (an invention on a similar scale of delusion to the old ‘Ukraine’) and of the British Establishment. Immediately would follow newly-independent Scotland and Wales and a united Ireland. After the collapse of the oppressive British Establishment elite and their London-run institutions, the people and the pragmatists would proclaim that there is no alternative to co-operating with Eurasia through joining the EEA. All the more so, given the debt crisis, chaos, division and poverty in the USA, the former British colony which had become Britain’s colonial and ideological master. Step by step, opened archives would reveal the MI5 and MI6 manipulations like Litvinenko, MH 17, the Skripals, the Kerch Bridge explosion and the Nordstream destruction and how the tabloid media (the whole British media, including the State-run mouthpiece of the BBC) were used to perpetrate these lies.

3. Outside Eurasia: Continental Councils, the Inter-Continental G30 and The World Alliance

Thus, a united Eurasia (some 70% of world population) will stand together with Africa (17% of world population), Latin America (South America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean – 8% of world population), and the small Northern America (under 5% of world population) and even smaller Oceania (a tiny 0.5% share of world population, with its economies increasingly dominated by China. This would only be natural justice, as the Pacific islanders originated from Taiwan). Each Continent could elect a Council, creating a Eurasian Council, an African Council, a Latin American Council, a Northern America Council (basically, the USA, or whatever it will break up into, with Canada and Greenland) and an Oceanian Council (Australia, New Zealand, Western New Guinea, Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia). Each Council would be made up of all the nations in its Continent.

On an Inter-Continental level, there could also be formed the G30. This would be composed of all 30 nations of the world which each have a population of over 50 million + Australia, representing all Oceania, and would replace BRICS, the G7 and the G20. These nations in order of size at present are: China, India, USA, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria, Confederation of Rus, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, Ethiopia, Philippines, Egypt, Vietnam, DR Congo, Turkey, Iran, Germany, Korea, Thailand, France, Italy, Tanzania, South Africa, England, Myanmar, Kenya, Colombia and Australia. 18 are in Eurasia (13 in Asia and 5 Europe-based), 7 in Africa, 3 in Latin America and 1 each in Northern America and Oceania). The composition could change as the populations of new countries grow to more than 50 million or alternatively some contract to fewer than 50 million.

On a global level, the 235 nations of the world, including the 143 with populations of under ten million and the 75 with under one million, could assemble in a World Alliance, replacing the old New-York UN. The Capital of the Alliance could be fixed in a central position, not in an off-centre position like New York, but in the Eurasian heartland, for example, in Yalta in the Crimea. Its Security Council could be composed of the ten most populous nations, essentially all regional powers in the new multipolar world: China (also speaking for Oceania), India, USA, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria, the Confederation of Rus’ (the only country with the vast majority of its population in Europe, which it would therefore represent), Bangladesh and Mexico. Six are in Eurasia, two in Latin America, one in Africa and one in Northern America.

Afterword: Towards the Future

Fantasy? Fiction? Faction? Frankly, if only 10% of the above came to pass, that in itself would be world-transforming. And if you dismiss the above out of hand, just think for a moment of how all would have mocked predictions of the generational chain of World War I (1914), World War II (1939), the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and in quick succession the fall of the Soviet bloc, and, on the centenary of World War I, in 2014, the US-orchestrated coup in Kiev which has led directly to the world-changing events which began in the Ukraine in 2022, the centenary of the USSR. Yet it all happened. In 2021 nobody had predicted the events in the Ukraine either, for nobody could have imagined the Mariana Trench depth of the suicidal stupidity of the Anglozionist elite.

A generation ago, as a Russian Orthodox priest stranded in Western Europe, the Northern Sahara, as so much of it seems to be, I did not dream of any of this. Would I live to see the revival of corruption-bound, post-Soviet Russia, enslaved to and humiliated by the West and all its vices? My impression then was that the whole world was living on borrowed time. Then came the miracle of the events of August 2000 in Russia and the appearance of President Putin. After the shamefulness and shamelessness of the CIA’s useful idiot, the drunkard Yeltsin, Putin was a miracle. And I began to think that I would live to see the future. And since 24 February 2022 I have been living it. The English Shakespeare once wrote in his Twelfth Night: What’s to come is still unsure’. I will agree, but I will still try to pierce the darkness to glimpse the light.

31 January 2023

Filed under: Bulgaria, China, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Russia, Scandinavia, Serbia, Ukraine, United Kingdom UK, US-led NATO Alliance, USA | Tagged: Albania, AngloZionist Empire, Cyprus, EEU, G30, Kiev Nazi Regime, Moldova, Orthodox Christianity, Romania, Russian SMO, USSR Dissolution | 1 Comment »

Quo Vadis Europa

Posted on April 2, 2022 by uprootedpalestinians

March 31, 2022

Source

By Ljubisa Malenica

Thanks to the current conflict in Ukraine, all the masks of so-called “Western values” fell before the eyes of the world public in a very short time. On the theme of Russophobia itself, another full text in its own right can be written. It came to the surface of everyday life throughout the West rather fast. For now, it is enough to notice the haste with which chauvinism towards Russians began to manifest itself in Western countries. It would seem as if Russophobia had been practiced for years. If you spend your life listening how “exceptional” you are, the very logic of this argument leads to the conclusion that others are in one way or another beneath you, only average, and it should come as no surprise to see these outpourings of hatred towards those “average” who dared to bring into question the “exceptional” order.

The ongoing propaganda campaign, demonizing both Russia and Putin, is trying to convince the world and domestic audiences of Russian isolation. It is enough to look at the map of the countries that imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation, and this narrative of isolation falls apart. On the other hand, the same map clearly indicates that those who have introduced sanctions to Moscow are limited to collective West and its satellites. Unfortunately, the war in Ukraine has nothing to do with Ukraine. This is an indirect war of the United States against Russia and represents only the final phase of a long process that began at the time of the disappearance of the Soviet Union. Even in terms of combat itself, Russian troops are not engaging domestically envisioned Ukrainian strategy or tactics. As Scott Ritter^[1] pointed out, Ukrainian army has been for eight years trained and equipped by NATO officers and instructors, up to NATO standards. Any unit of Ukrainian military is fully interchangeable within overall NATO battle order with any other unit from any other NATO member country, thus we are left with a silent fact that on the ground in Ukraine we have a war between Russian and NATO strategy, tactics and, to an extent, weapon systems.

During the Cold War, Europe was considered, for several understandable reasons, as the inevitable and most important battleground between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The sword of possible nuclear destruction hung constantly above it. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Fukuyama’s specter of the end of history was introduced into Europe as well. Unipolar moment of the United States swept over countries of Western Europe as well, which firmly believed that they also played a part in the disappearance of the USSR. Finally, the great war in which not a single shot was fired, came to an end. Moscow was defeated, then humiliated and rejected. These same European countries, which by the logic of things should have been the most concerned about increasing insecurity on European soil, watched apathetically as Washington dismantled the security architecture set up during the Cold War.

The mentioned security architecture was developed and set up with the aim of creating as many obstacles as possible on the path of rapid escalation towards the nuclear conflict between the then two nuclear superpowers, Soviet Union and the USA. European countries have benefited the most from these agreements and should have been the most interested in maintaining them. This unpacking of security agreements began during the Bush administration, when the then US president announced in 2002 that Washington would withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Agreement, which limited the number of defense systems that each of the two superpowers could deploy on its territory.^[2] The next step was the United States withdrawal from the Mid-Range Nuclear Forces Agreement in 2019, ^[3] while the final move came also during Trump’s term, the withdrawal from the Open Skies Agreement^[4] in 2020, which allowed signatory countries to monitor each other openly so as to reduce possible military tensions. Each of these moves further strained relations between Russia and the western powers while making it clear that the collective West was not interested in negotiations based on mutual understanding and reciprocity.

While all this was happening, Europe did nothing. No major European country has offered real resistance to NATO expansion. There was such resistance certainly, on part of individuals, but at the level of official policy, all European capitals of importance have unquestioningly followed Washington in further pushing the alliance’s positions to the east, towards Russia’s borders. This breakdown of Cold War security mechanisms was given little attention.

Even now that the war has engulfed Ukraine and nearly two million refugees^[5] have arrived in Europe, European leaders have barely been able to resist US pressure to stop importing Russian gas and oil.^[6] These two energy sources are of key importance for the European Union, which receives 25% of its oil and 40% of its gas from Moscow.^[7] Imposing sanctions on the Russian Federation, which could retaliate with reciprocal measures, would be a disaster for European countries. Previous fall, much earlier than the Russian military operation in Ukraine began, representatives of German industry warned the political elite of the negative consequences that high energy prices will have on their operations.^[8] In Germany alone, natural gas meets 50% of energy needs within chemical and pharmaceutical industries.^[9] Each of the European countries is dependent on Russian energy and some countries are completely dependent on Russian gas. Given the quantities in question, and prices, all statements about some kind of replacement for Russian oil and gas with other energy sources in a short period of time cannot be taken seriously. Even the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Annalena Baerbock, in a statement for the German Bildt pointed out that “we import a third of our oil from Russia. If imports were stopped immediately, the whole of Germany would stop the next day”.^[10]

Weather it likes it or not, Europe is linked to Russia by energy ties, because only Moscow can provide the necessary quantities of energy to maintain the European industrial base, at sufficiently affordable prices. Of course, this was the situation until the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, after which both oil and gas reached record and historical prices. Even faced with this unquestionable reality, the European political elite did not hesitate to impose sanctions on Moscow or to arm Ukrainian forces and Nazis with modern anti-tank weapons. Only when the very survival of the European industry became questionable due to Washington’s intentions to completely stop importing Russian energy, did the European capitals decide to oppose it.^[11]

When the conflict in Ukraine is viewed from the perspective of diplomatic and political activities, the European Union rarely appears. The heads of state, such as France and Germany, are somewhat more noticeable, but this is mostly sporadic and impotent action to which superficial attention is paid. Military operation in Ukraine exposed the reality. Just look at the main actors of the drama, the United States and Russia. Even China is more active in the issue of Ukraine as a sovereign political actor than the EU countries, which are almost completely overshadowed by the actions of the United States.

In addition to this humiliating political position, which is far from the recent chest thumping of French and German politicians about the need for more independent action on the world stage, renewed appearance of dark specters from the not-so-distant past might be more serious. The degree of Russophobia that could be seen in all Western countries immediately after the beginning of the Russian military action points to the fact that hatred toward the Russian people is covered by a thin layer of artificial civility. Russian athletes are banned from participating in competitions, Russian-owned restaurants are vandalized, Russian diplomatic missions are exposed to attacks, great works of Russian music and literature classics are rejected and removed, Russian products are discarded and even Russian cats are banned from exhibitions. In every way, there seem to be a push to punish and, in accordance with the popular Western culture of “cancellation”, reject everything that is Russian.

For the United States, with its fear of the Soviet Union in the 1950s and McCarthy’s witch hunts, Russophobia is somewhat understandable. Even during Trump’s tenure, James Clapper, the former director of the National Intelligence Service, made public chauvinistic claims that the Russians were “almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor.” ^[12] If we accept as a logical explanation that the American position arose on the basis of historical circumstances, then the question arises why identical situations are repeated within most European countries that have been in contact with Russia for much longer than Washington. Why do the nations and elites of given countries voluntarily participate in demonization of Russia if they are already forced by political circumstances to impose economic sanctions on Moscow?

One of the possible explanations is the Americanization of Western Europe, and with it, the transplantation of the ideology of “exceptionalism”. Of course, the countries of the European West will never be as “exceptional” as the United States, but imitating lifestyles and political, military and economic links give them a sense of superiority over others who do not belong to the same prestigious club. This sense of superiority serves as a screen to hide the disappearance and extinction of one’s own cultural and national identity and, accordingly, real sovereignty in foreign and domestic policy. Perhaps that is why French President Emanuel Macron once pointed out that “there is no such thing as French culture”.^[13]^[14]

What exacerbates Europe’s subordination is the fact that the current American elite serves as a subject of ridicule both outside the United States and within it. We are all already familiar with the phrase “Let’s go Brandon” and know what message is actually sent by its use. Neither Secretary of State Blinken nor Vice President Kamala Harris are in a more enviable position. One of the most famous American journalists of today, certainly one of the most watched, Tucker Carlson regularly uses his show on Fox News to document and criticize, in a humorous way, all the incompetence of the American political class currently in power. Whether Joseph Biden is just someone’s puppet or a partially independent actor, his behavior is, to say the least, a humiliation for the United States. He is, by all accounts, incapable of performing the duty placed upon him. After the Russian intervention in Ukraine, the Western media filled the information space for days with questions about whether Vladimir Putin is crazy, incompetent, angry or emotionally unstable. By the way, did you notice how that narrative disappeared almost overnight? Every possible conceivable formulation of the question “is Putin crazy” had been tried, but in the case of Biden, no similar scrutiny could be found, not even in traces. That says plenty about the Western media, and nothing we did not know beforehand.

Being subordinate to such an American administration reflects the sad state of the European Union and European countries in general, especially those in the West. The fact that Serbia together with Bosnia and Herzegovina have not imposed sanctions on Russia or banned flights only makes the political picture of current Europe gloomier. The head of the foreign affairs of the European Union, Joseph Borell, points out that Brussels has reached the limit of its capabilities to impose sanctions on Russia^[15] and anything more would seriously damage the Europeans themselves, who are already buying oil and gas at historically record prices. Only now, when possible retaliation towards the most sensitive sectors of European economy and industry is looming, does Europe decide to halt. The lives of Russians and Ukrainians in Ukraine are irrelevant, democracy, sovereignty, human rights, all that is irrelevant, just don’t touch the standard of living and the economic calculus. While the western part of the continent is doing well, everything else is irrelevant. One month into the conflict we can see sanctions have not worked so well for the EU countries. We seem to have made a full circle back to Russophobia and the fact that the current European elites have never seen Russia as part of Europe, which is a mistake in itself, and that the same elites would be happy to sanction Moscow into the ground rather than accept it as an equal interlocutor, if only there were none of that pesky geographical and economic connections and interdependencies.

Undoubtedly, there are those political forces in European countries that look at Russia much more positively. This is almost a characteristic of most opposition parties in Germany and France, but also elsewhere. Thanks to Viktor Orban, Hungary neither allows the transfer of weapons for the Kiev regime through its territory nor participates in the further arming of Ukrainians. In most Slavic countries, even those that are most Russophobic, such as Poland, there are political forces which, without sympathizing with the Russian Federation, understand that Russia exists as part of Europe and that this cannot be changed. Any security architecture in Europe, especially one created for the long run, cannot be imagined without Moscow’s constructive participation. Undoubtedly, there is a Europe that is primarily Europe and only then the West, but as we have witnessed trough out the years, this national and sovereignist Europe is in constant conflict, one which it is losing, with globalist and Atlanticist “Europe” which has very little in common with what is culturally, traditionally and historically Europe. This same Atlanticist Europe is now openly sending modern weapons to Ukrainian troops while imposing sanctions on Moscow, hoping for its defeat and weakening. If we assume the worst possible scenario, which is a complete Russian defeat, the fall of Vladimir Putin and the collapse of the Russian state, the consequences of such a traumatic event would not bypass Europe. Given that Russia has a population of 145 million, a possible wave of refugees alone would be a burden that EU could not cope with, not to mention other aspects of such an event. Warsaw and Krakow are already warning of the impossibility of accepting additional refugees from Ukraine, and are demanding help from the European Union and the UN.^[16]

As far back as 2017 and 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin^[17]^[18]^[19] warned of the existence of programs for the development of biological weapons in Ukraine, and of programs for collecting DNA material from Slavs in both Russia and Ukraine. The foreign media, especially the Western one, dismissed^[20] all of this as another example of Putin’s madness. Those Western officials who addressed this issue unanimously rejected the claims as Russian propaganda. It was all a conspiracy theory^[21] until the Russian military operation in Ukraine began. Among the first to notice something unusual was Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, ^[22] an independent journalist from Bulgaria. Namely, she pointed out that all data about eleven American biolaboratories^[23] on the territory of Ukraine was deleted from the website of the American Embassy in Kiev. This went unnoticed until March 8, when, during her testimony to the Senate Committee, Deputy Secretary for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland openly acknowledged the existence of biological laboratories on the territory of Ukraine, certainly under supervision from the United States. When Senator Marco Rubio asked if Ukraine possessed chemical or biological weapons, Nuland replied that “Ukraine has biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces maybe seeking to gain control of. We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research material from falling into the hands of Russian troops should they approach”.^[24] Thank you Vicky, that was more than clear enough. Immediately following this, US administration began damage control, stating the reasons for the existence of laboratories, such as reducing the risk of chemical and biological weapons leftover from the Soviet period, ^[25] and harmless study of diseases for the common good.^[26] If we accept these explanations, a couple of very clear questions arise.

Given that Washington’s activities in Ukraine on this issue have been going on since 2005, it is logical to ask how much time is actually needed to remove or destroy the chemical and biological weapons of the former USSR. Is seventeen years not enough? On the other hand, if these research facilities are really doing harmless research for the benefit of mankind, then why is Victoria Nuland worried about the possibility of them being taken over by the Russians? The conclusion is quite simple, although there is a chance it is wrong. They are lying, both in regard to the purpose of laboratories and in regard to the nature of materials contained within them.

The most worrying part of the issue related to biological laboratories is the possibility that they conducted research on bioweapons that would target specific national groups, in this case it being Slavic population, Russians and Ukrainians. As we already pointed out, back in 2017, Vladimir Putin mentioned the existence of programs for collection of DNA samples from the Russian population. The US Department of Defense did not refute these allegations, but indirectly confirmed them. In a statement from the 59^th Medical Wing of the Center for Advanced Molecular Detection, Captain Beau Downey said the center was conducting research “to identify various biomarkers associated with trauma…this needed two sets of samples and since the first set, containing the initial group of diseases had Russian origin, the control group should also be of Russian origin”.^[27]^[28]

Now let the author, who is a laymen when it comes to microbiology and military, try to unpack this, with warning that the following train of thought could be completely wrong. So, a military medical institution within US is doing research connected to trauma. It is presumed trauma here refers to injury. Fair enough, after all, this type of activities would seem only logical for such an institution. Given we are talking about trauma, we should ask trauma of whom? Civilians or military personnel? There has to be more than enough civilian medical institutions dealing with issues of civilian injuries, so it would seem logical 59^th Medical Wing of the Center for Advanced Molecular Detection deals with injuries suffered by soldiers. Again, this seems logical. Soldiers of which country? Logically, United States. Let us now contemplate who the soldiers of the US Army are. According to Pew research from 2017, 57% of military personnel were white,^[29] while 43% belonged to other races, as defined by US census. US population, roughly 330 million people, encompasses around 3 million Russians, which is little bit less than 1% of total population. This leads us to conclude that overwhelming majority of white Americans serving in US army belong to German, Anglo-Saxon and other non-Slavic European nations. If our logic has been sound so far, it begs a question why the sample taken for this research was not more diverse in its origin? Why was it not more representative of the real genetical composition of US forces, as described above? If there is research being conducted with emphasis on identification of biomarkers associated with trauma, why focus your attention to rather minor part of your population, and accordingly, your military units? It seems a wasted effort or Captain Downey is obfuscating real intentions. It does pay to bear in mind this identification of trauma biomarkers might not be used solely for healing purposes, this could have offensive value as well. This is all conjecture, given real informations are scarce, however, to the author, a layman, it seems illogical to conduct a research of this type on a minor and, from US military point of view, irrelevant sample, if we are considering only trauma detection and injury remediation.

So for the purposes of their research, American military did indeed collect samples of the Russian genetic code. Igor Kirilov, head of CBRN defense for the Russian Army, points out that in the period from 2020 to 2021, under the auspices of studies with various pathogens, several thousand samples of patient serum (patients were of Slavic origin) were transferred from Ukraine to the United States. The final destination of these samples was the military Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in the US, the largest institution of its kind in the America.^[30] Shortly after Victoria Nuland’s statement, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman called on Washington to present details of its military-biological activities to the public, stressing that the United States has 336 laboratories in 30 countries, 26 of which are in Ukraine.^[31]^[32]^[33] At the same time, just a day after the Russian army began its operation, the official website of the American National Endowment for Democracy, the infamous NED, removed all documentation related to its activities on the territory of Ukraine.^[34] We should not lose sight of the fact that NED, according to its own data, has been active in Ukraine since 1989.

After only ten days of Russian progress, we came to a situation where we had to accept, as a fact, that United States have funded laboratory work in Europe with some of the most dangerous pathogens known to man. The laboratory in Odessa^[35] is classified as level three biosafety facility, out of four possible levels.^[36] Level three biosafety enables work with anthrax and tuberculosis, among other things. It is also necessary to take into account that there is a significant possibility of European countries being acquainted with the entire program, which only further emphasizes the subordination of the European Union to American interests.

The possibility that other Slavic countries deliberately cooperated with Washington on this issue shows an extremely dangerous degree of frivolity, especially when we consider that one of the main characteristics of both viruses and bacteria is mutations aimed at facilitating their spread. It is not impossible to imagine that a virus artificially created to attack Russians after several mutations becomes dangerous for Poles or Czechs, given the common Slavic roots and similar characteristics of the genetic code in all Slavic peoples.

Finally, we will look at the economic consequences of current events, and they are best seen when looking at oil and natural gas prices on the world market. At the time of writing, a barrel of oil sells for $ 110, while a thousand cubic meters of natural gas costs $ 4,705. These are astronomical figures, figures that already have a visible negative impact on European industry. On March 10, the only state-owned steel plant in Germany, Lech-Stahlwerke, was forced to shut down its Bavarian plant due to high energy prices.^[37] This factory produced a million tons of steel a year, and consumed as much energy as the city of 300,000 inhabitants.

According to a survey by the Federation of German Industries, high energy prices are jeopardizing the survival of a quarter of all German small and medium-sized enterprises.^[38]^[39] According to available data, 23% of these companies see energy prices as a threat to their own survival, while 21% are considering moving plants abroad. It should be borne in mind that these are data just before the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, which logically leads to the conclusion that the current situation is much worse. This is of particular importance given that more than half of jobs in Germany are created by small and medium-sized enterprises.^[40] These same companies generate 37% of the total annual turnover and make up almost 99% of all existing German companies.^[41]

Unfortunately for Europe, Germany has been transformed through EU into the economic engine of the entire continent, and any instability within Germany itself can only have a negative impact on the rest of the countries, both inside and outside Europe. At the same time, the European Union is introducing a new package of sanctions against Russia, which includes a ban on export of luxury goods to the Russian Federation and the import of iron and steel from it.^[42]^[43] Russia is one of the five largest exporters of iron and steel globally. Sanctioning Moscow in this regard can only lead to a further rise in metal prices. Russian authorities have already announced additional duties of 15% on the export of 340 products made of steel and other metals, which will be in force from August 1 to December 31 this year. Since we are talking about exports, this will also affect the increase in prices, and from this move, a profit of 160 billion rubles is expected.^[44] According to data from 2019, the EU import of semi-finished steel products from Russia and Ukraine accounts for as much as 71% of imports in this category. In other categories of steel products, the Russian Federation, together with Ukraine, appears as one of the major trade partners of the European Union as well.^[45]

Russia is also a leading exporter of cereals, especially wheat. Ukraine and the Russian Federation provide as much as a quarter of the world’s wheat export,^[46] which is crucial for nutrition of a number of countries, including those in Europe. Given the current events, the chances are extremely low that Ukrainian farmers will sow their fields this year. Without sowing there can be no harvest. Food prices are expected to rise globally.^[47] At the same time, Russia is the primary exporter of neon, nickel, copper and precious metals,^[48] with neon and palladium standing out due to their key role in production of microchips.^[49]^[50]

There is not even theoretical possibility that Western countries will remain unaffected by their own sanctions. Three weeks after start of the conflict, Washington has already been forced to send a diplomatic mission to Nicolas Maduro with the goal of convincing Venezuela to compensate for oil that Moscow delivered to the United States.^[51] Not so long ago Maduro was a dictator and a drug dealer.

While the West is feverishly looking for new ways to sanction Russia for “violating international law”, economic and political processes worthy of attention are taking place on the other side of the Eurasian supercontinent. In early March, the Russian Federation and Pakistan signed a major trade agreement by which Islamabad agreed to import two million tons of wheat and natural gas from Russia.^[52] Shortly afterwards, India and Russia decided to finalize a system of mutual trade that would take place in the national currencies of the two countries, thus bypassing the dollar. According to available data, edible oil and fertilizer are of key interest for New Delhi at the moment, but once established, this system can easily be used to trade in other goods as well.^[53] At the same time, China and the Eurasian Economic Union are agreeing to create a common and independent international monetary and financial system based on the “new international currency”.^[54] This new currency is supposed to take yuan as a reference base and its value would be calculated on the basis of the index of national currencies of the participating countries, as well as commodity prices.^[55] In addition to all this, there are signs of negotiations between Saudi Arabia and China regarding possibility that Riyadh would accept the Chinese yuan instead of the dollar as a means of payment for oil bought by Beijing,^[56] especially now that dedollarization has become an integral part of developing one’s own sovereignty. For the sake of the record, China buys 25% of total Saudi oil exports.

Despite warnings from major banks on Wall Street, Western sanctions included expulsion of Russian banks from the global SWIFT payment system, but this is proving to be another future problem for Western capitals. A Bloomberg article points out that “booting Russia from the critical global system — which handles 42 million messages a day and serves as a lifeline to some of the world’s biggest financial institutions — could backfire, sending inflation higher, pushing Russia closer to China and shielding financial transactions from scrutiny by the West. It might also encourage the development of a SWIFT alternative that could eventually damage the supremacy of the U.S. dollar.”^[57]

This warning has already proven to be correct, considering that Moscow has connected its own system for international financial exchange not only with China, but also with India and all the countries that make up the EAEU. Russia’s System for Transfer of Financial Messages already links more than 400 banks.^[58] If we take into account the previously emphasized importance of the Russian Federation as an exporter of several key raw materials, it is logical to expect a further increase in the number of institutions involved in the network. Given that India and China together have close to three billion inhabitants, their participation in this system is crucial and there is no real reason why these two countries would not join it.

Russia itself is already discussing the nationalization^[59] of assets of foreign companies that left the country in protest over the conflict in Ukraine, while the director of the Center for Economic Research of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements, Vasily Koltashov, advocates de facto confiscation of foreign technologies through a law on friendly and hostile states which would allow Russian Federation to cease recognizing US rights to patents.^[60] Koltashov believes that “if a country turns out to be on the unfriendly list, then we can start copying its technologies in pharmaceuticals, industry, manufacturing, electronics, medicine. It can be anything – from simple details to chemical compositions.”^[61] Western sources also warn of the dangers regarding sanctions in the technological sphere.^[62]

Late last year, Iran and Russia finalized agreements to sign a major comprehensive co-operation agreement for a period of twenty years, which is likely to be similar to the agreement reached between Tehran and Beijing.^[63] At the same time, on the very day the Russian operation in Ukraine began, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was in Moscow. During this visit, an agreement was reached on the construction of a large gas pipeline “North-South” which would transfer liquefied gas from the southern Pakistani port of Karachi to the northern part of the country.^[64] The value of this project, which should be executed by Russian companies, is estimated at two billion dollars. In addition to cooperation with Asian countries, Moscow seems to be expanding cooperation with South American countries as well. During the meeting between Putin and Bolsenaro in February, the Brazilian president pointed out the high degree of interest in cooperation in the field of SMRs, that is, small modular nuclear reactors, especially their role in the development of Brazilian nuclear submarines, and expanding “dialogue on issues such as off-shore hydrocarbon production, hydrogen and nuclear energy…strengthening military cooperation and bilateral exchanges.”^[65]

As we can see, a series of constructive moves that should strengthen mostly opponents and competitors of the United States. Meanwhile, in the clown world of EU, the Brussels is preparing to impose sanctions on Poland and Hungary for refusing to comply with European Union dictates regarding LGBT propaganda and other decadent Western “values.” Namely, on March 10, the European Parliament, by a large majority, passed a decision calling on the European Commission to start the procedure of withholding funds from those countries that “do not respect the rule of law”, with special emphasis on Warsaw and Budapest.^[66]^[67]

This can only deepen the Union’s already existing agony, especially given the duration of this crisis, and the existence of several other simultaneous issues that are eroding internal cohesion and functioning. If the EC really implements this decision, question of Poland’s, and possibly Hungary’s, exit from the European Union, would inevitably become actual again. In line with European solidarity, which we could witness in action during the pandemic, Brussels also said it was grateful to states of the Western Balkan for backing EU sanctions against Russia, but noted that there were no plans for compensation funds to mitigate the damage these countries will suffer due to harmonization with the measures of the European Union.^[68] Much ado about solidarity.

By all accounts, the European Union is entering a period of economic and political turmoil carried on a false wave of moral superiority over Russia and the Russian people. It is enough to look at the map of the Eurasian supercontinent to see the undoubted place of Europe itself in this great expanse. The whole series of events that led us to the conflict in Ukraine were a kind of test measuring the real independence of European Union, and now we can say that European countries have failed that test. More than fifteen years, since Vladimir Putin’s famous speech in Munich, have been wasted. Neither France nor Germany exerted the necessary pressure, and they were quite capable of doing so, upon Kiev to fulfill the Minsk agreements, all the while arming the Ukrainian army and training units that we can now openly say are nothing but modern versions of Nazi troops from eighty years ago. After their ancestors were classified as “subhumans” by the “Aryan overlords” from the Third Reich, it is sad to see one Slavic people embrace this disgusting ideology with the intention of using it against another Slavic nation.

By no means are all Ukrainians open to Nazism. In fact, it is probably true that a small minority has truly accepted this ideology. However, it is necessary to accept that the part which did embrace Hitler’s ideas did so with the tacit blessing of both United States and European Union. It is depressing to observe how Europe, a space with extremely long traditions of statehood, art, culture, with the richness of its own history and historical experience, becomes even more deeply dependent on Washington. We should not cultivate illusions, in war between Russia and Ukraine, the European Union seems to be the biggest loser. Russia will be hit by sanctions but it can always turn to Asia. Iran has been under US sanctions for decades and continues to function as a state, Cuba and North Korea as well. Given this, it is relatively safe to assume that Russia will likewise survive the sanctions and continue to exist. But what will Europe do? Europe which had a rather clear and obvious choice. Either the continuation of dependence on the Atlantic order or the building of one’s own capacities with the aim of forming one of the hubs of the new multipolar order and the development of Eurasian connectivity. Apparently, Europe has chosen its path, and it could eventually lead to its disappearance. It is enough to look at the overall European birth rates, combined with impact of neoliberal open borders policy, to have a clear picture a possible future in store for Europe.

Given that this article was originally published some ten days ago, it would be prudent to take a quick look at what happened while it was translated. Economy seems to be the area where most of the action is happening right now. Syrian ambassador to Moscow, Riad Hadadd, affirmed Damascus readiness to discuss mutual trade settlements with Russia in respective national currencies.^[69] At the same time, Syria eastern neighbor, Iraq, shows intent on increasing cooperation with Russian Federation. Deputy speaker of Iraq legislative body, Shahwan Abdallah said as much during his meeting in Baghdad with Russian ambassador Elbrus Kutrashev.^[70] Meanwhile, Russia and Venezuela are developing possibility to use Mir cards in this South American country.^[71] Vladimir Putin’s announcement that hostile countries will have to pay for oil and gas in rubles caused shock among the western countries and provided significant boost to ruble recover.^[72] Putin also pointed out that gold and bitcoin would be acceptable as well.^[73] Despite protestations from European countries, Moscow announced possibility that other exports from the Russian Federation will have to be paid in rubles as well.^[74] It would seem that on the 30^th March 2022 all westward gas flow, that is from Russia to Germany, through Yamal gas pipeline declined to zero.^[75]

Meanwhile, in the background to all of this, Russian Central Bank announced it will continue to buy gold at fixed price of 5.000 rubles for a gram, which was interpreted as a clear step towards creation of gold-backed ruble^[76] and which should provide further basis for strengthening of the Russian currency.^[77] At the moment of writing, ruble stands at 84,5 for a dollar, almost exactly the same as at the start of the military operation.

On the other side, “leader of the free world” Joe Biden caught with cue cards instructing him on how to answer previously prepared questions. Author believed this was a joke, but apparently it is not.^[78] In a rather short time frame a lot of dirty secrets became public regarding Hunter Biden, most notable being his part in financing previously mentioned biolaboratories. After everything, even MSM had to buckle and admit laptop was real and its content rather damning. On 24^th March India refused to receive a UK delegation, described as high-powered, after it apparently became known British were intending to pressure and lecture New Delhi on the issue of its position regarding Russian military operation.^[79]

On the ground, military situation in terms of territory possession has not changed drastically due to the fact siege of Mariupol has been ongoing for roughly two weeks now and it would seem it is entering its final phase. Latest reports indicate Nazi elements and Ukrainian troops are in possession of ever shrinking urban territory with ammunition and other supplies being nearly depleted. In other areas, intensive Russian air raids and missile strikes were noted against military training grounds, ammo and fuel depots.

Earlier statement of war in Ukraine being about anything but Ukraine seems to be corroborated in general by the developments outside the bounds of the conflict itself. The bigger picture indicates recomposition of forces, especially in the light of recent Chinese, rather indicative, comments regarding Taiwan and Beijing cooperation with Russia. And in all of this, Europe remains divided, under economic and political strain which is only going to increase. Everything happening now could have been avoided, and yet EU and US administration did everything in their power to make this war happen. In their hubris they believed in the “exceptionality” of their position, but apparently forgot that every arrogance has its price.

Filed under: China, EU, Europe, France, Germany, Russia, Russophobia, Serbia, Ukraine, US-led NATO Alliance, USA, Western Propaganda | Tagged: Anti-Russian sanctions, Antirussia sanctions backfires, cold war, NATO Expansion, NED, Scott Ritter, Ukro-nazis, US-run biolabs in Ukraine, USSR Dissolution, Warsaw Pact | Comments Off on Quo Vadis Europa

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RBC TV channel, Moscow, March 16, 2022

Posted on March 18, 2022 by fada1

March 17, 2022

https://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/minister_speeches/1804655/

Question: Initially, the in-person talks were held in Belarus followed by online talks. You met with Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba in Antalya, Turkey, on March 10. What’s your take on the negotiating process?

Sergey Lavrov: I did not fly to Turkey in order to forestall the Belarusian negotiating track agreed upon by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky which is now being implemented via video conference. President Zelensky asked President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to speak with President Putin in order to set up a meeting between Dmitry Kuleba and me in Antalya, since we both planned to take part in the Antalya Diplomacy Forum.

Based on this request, President Vladimir Putin instructed me to hold a meeting and find out what Dmitry Kuleba has to offer (which is what I asked him to do). He stated that he did not arrive there to reiterate public statements. This statement got my attention. Dmitry Kuleba failed to vocalise any new ideas during the 90-minute conversation in the presence of Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu, despite multiple reminders to the effect that I wanted to hear things that had not been said publicly. I did my part and made myself available to listen to what he had to say. Anyway, we had a conversation, which is not a bad thing. We are ready for such contacts going forward. It would be good to know the added value derived from such contacts and how the proposals to create new channels of interaction correlate with the functioning of an existing and steady negotiating process (the Belarusian channel).

I’m not going to comment on the details, which are a delicate matter. According to head of the Russian delegation Vladimir Medinsky, the talks focus on humanitarian issues, the situation on the ground in terms of hostilities, and on matters of political settlement. Overall, the agenda is known (it was repeatedly and publicly announced by President Vladimir Putin in his elaborate remarks) and includes matters of security and saving lives of the people in Donbass; preventing Ukraine from becoming a permanent threat to the security of the Russian Federation; and preventing the revival in Ukraine of neo-Nazi ideology, which is illegal around the world, including civilised Europe.

I base my opinion on the assessments provided by our negotiators. They state that the talks are not going smoothly (for obvious reasons). However, there is hope for a compromise. The same assessment is given by a number of Ukrainian officials, including members of President Zelensky’s staff and President Zelensky himself.

Question: President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky said that the positions of Russia and Ukraine during the talks have become more “realistic.”

Sergey Lavrov: This is about a more realistic assessment of the ongoing events coming from Vladimir Zelensky. His previous statements were confrontational. We can see that this role and function has been reassigned to Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, who started saying that Russia’s demands are “unacceptable.” If they wish to create additional tension (as if the current tension were not enough) in the media space, what can we do?

We saw a similar tendency with respect to the Minsk agreements. Dmitry Kuleba was riding ahead on a dashing horse, along with those who were hacking the Minsk agreements into pieces. He publicly stated that the agreements would not be fulfilled. I would give negotiators an opportunity to work in a calmer environment, without stirring up more hysteria.

Question: President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky said that they are “reasonable people” and they realise that they are no longer welcome in NATO. What made him change his rhetoric? NATO aspirations are stated in one of the articles of the Ukrainian Constitution. They have been saying it all along that Kiev actually wants to be part of the alliance.

Sergey Lavrov: The rhetoric has changed because more reasonable thinking is paving its way to the minds of the Ukrainian leaders. The issue of dissolving the Soviet Union was resolved in a very odd manner: very few parties were asked; the decision was split “between three,” so to speak, and it was done. Later, certain common ground was achieved in the form of the Commonwealth of Independent States. It is good that the other former Soviet republics were shown some respect, at least post factum.

In the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, adopted before the Belovezh Accords, it was stated in black and white that Ukraine would be a non-aligned and militarily neutral state. In all the subsequent documents characterising the formation of Ukrainian statehood, the declaration was always listed among fundamental documents. After the anti-constitutional coup in February 2014, the Ukrainian Constitution was amended to include statements on continuous movement towards NATO (in addition to the European Union). That undermined the integrity of the previous process and the fundamental documents that the Ukrainian state is based on – because the Declaration of Sovereignty and the Act of Ukraine’s Independence are still listed among the founding documents of the Ukrainian state.

This is not the only inconsistency. The provision of the Ukrainian Constitution on ensuring the rights of the Russian and other ethnic minorities remains intact. However, a huge number of laws have been adopted that run counter to this constitutional provision and flagrantly discriminate against the Russian language, in particular, against all European norms.

We remember that President Zelensky recently said that NATO must close the sky over Ukraine and start fighting for Ukraine, recruiting mercenaries and sending them to the frontline. That statement was made very aggressively. The reaction of the North Atlantic Alliance, where some clear-headed people still remain, had a cooling effect. This reasonable approach in the current situation deserves to be welcomed.

Before the final decision was made to begin the special military operation, President Vladimir Putin spoke about our initiatives concerning the security guarantees in Europe at a news conference in the Kremlin, explaining that it is unacceptable that Ukraine’s security be ensured through its NATO membership. He clearly said that we are ready to look for any ways to ensure the security of Ukraine, the European countries and Russia except for NATO’s expansion to the east. The alliance has been assuring us that we should not be worried as it serves a defensive purpose and nothing threatens us and our security. The alliance was declared as defensive in its early days. During the Cold War, it was clear who was defending whom, where and against which party. There was the Berlin Wall, both concrete and geopolitical. Everybody accepted that contact line under the Warsaw Pact and NATO. It was clear which line NATO would protect.

When the Warsaw Pact and later the Soviet Union were dissolved, NATO started, at its own discretion and without any consultations with those who used to be part of the balance of power on the European continent, working its way to the east, moving the contact line further to the right each time. When the contact line came too close to us (and nobody took our reasoning seriously in the past 20 years), we proposed the European security initiatives which, to my great regret, were also ignored by our arrogant partners.

Question: Many people in Russia and Ukraine are asking themselves whether the situation could not have been resolved peacefully. Why didn’t this work out? Why did it become necessary to conduct a special operation?

Sergey Lavrov: Because the West did not want to resolve this situation peacefully. Although I have already discussed this aspect, I would like to highlight it once again. This has absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine. This concerns the international order, rather than Ukraine alone.

The United States has pinned down the whole of Europe. Today, some Europeans are telling us that Russia started behaving differently, that Europe had its own special interests differing from those of the United States, and that we have compelled Europe to share the United States’ fervour for the cause. I believe that what has happened is entirely different. Under President Joe Biden, the United States set the goal of subordinating Europe, and it has succeeded in forcing Europe to implicitly follow US policies. This is a crucial moment, a landmark in contemporary history because, in the broad sense of the word, it reflects the battle for a future international order.

The West stopped using the term “international law,” embodied in the UN Charter, many years ago, and it invented the term “rules-based order.” These rules were written by members of an inner circle. The West incentivised those who accepted these rules. At the same time, narrow non-universal organisations dealing with the same matters as the universal organisations were established. Apart from UNESCO, there is a certain international partnership in support of information and democracy. We have international humanitarian law and the UN Refugee Agency dealing with related issues. The European Union is setting up a special partnership for dealing with the same matter. However, decisions will be based on EU interests, and they will disregard universal processes.

France and Germany are establishing an alliance for multilateralism. When asked about the reason for setting it up at a time when the UN – the most legitimate and universal organisation – embodies multilateralism, they gave an interesting reply that the UN employed many retrogrades, and that the new alliance prioritised avantgardism. They also stated their intention to promote multilateralism in such a way that no one would hamper their efforts. When asked what the ideals of this multilateralism were, they said that they were EU values. This arrogance and misinterpreted feeling of one’s own superiority also rule supreme in a situation that we are now reviewing, namely, the creation of a world where the West would a priori manage everything with impunity. Many people now claim that Russia has come under attack because it remains virtually the only obstacle that needs to be removed before the West can start dealing with China. This straightforward statement is quite truthful.

You asked why it was impossible to peacefully resolve the situation. For many years, we suggested resolving the matter peacefully. Many reasonable politicians from the US and Europe responded in earnest to Vladimir Putin’s proposal at the 2007 Munich Security Conference. Unfortunately, decision-makers in Western countries ignored it. Numerous assessments by world-famous political analysts, published in many leading US magazines, such as Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs, and European magazines, were also ignored. A coup took place in 2014. The West unconditionally backed Ukraine and the coup’s perpetrators who had gained power in Kiev. The West emphatically refuses to set any framework in relations between NATO and the territory of Russian interests. These warnings were also voiced but were disregarded, to put it mildly.

You should read the works of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who said back in the 1990s that Ukraine would become a key issue. He said openly that a friendly Ukraine would make Russia a great power, and that a hostile Ukraine would turn it into a regional player. These statements concealed geopolitical implications. Ukraine merely acted as a tool for preventing Russia from upholding its legitimate and equal rights on the international scene.

Question: Not long ago, I heard the current adviser to the President of Ukraine, Alexey Arestovich, speak. A couple of years ago, he said that neutral status was too expensive for Ukraine. “We can’t afford it,” he said. What do you think about this statement? Is that true? Following up on what worries ordinary Ukrainians – security guarantees – what is Russia ready to do? What kind of guarantees can it provide?

Sergey Lavrov: Neutral status is being seriously discussed in a package with security guarantees. This is exactly what President Vladimir Putin said at one of his news conferences: there are multiple options out there, including any generally acceptable security guarantees for Ukraine and all other countries, including Russia, with the exception of NATO expansion. This is what is being discussed at the talks. There is specific language which is, I believe, close to being agreed upon.

Question: Can you share it with us yet or not?

Sergey Lavrov: I’d rather not, because it is a negotiating process. Unlike some of our partners, we try to adhere to the culture of diplomatic negotiations, even though we were forced to make documents public that are normally off-limits. We did so in the situations where our communication with the German and French participants of the Normandy format was misrepresented to the point where it was the opposite of what really happened. Then, in order to expose the culprits before the international community, we were forced to make things public. No attempts at provocation are being made now as we discuss the guarantees of Ukraine’s neutrality. Hopefully, the first attempts at a businesslike approach that we are seeing now will prevail and we will be able to reach specific agreements on this matter even though simply declaring neutrality and announcing guarantees will be a significant step forward. The problem is much broader. We talked about it, including from the point of view of values such as the Russian language, culture and freedom of speech, since Russian media are outright banned, and the ones that broadcast in Ukraine in Russian were shut down.

Question: But they can always tell us that they are an independent country and it’s up to them to decide which language to speak. Why are you – Russia and Moscow – forcing us to speak Russian?

Sergey Lavrov: Because Ukraine has European obligations. There is the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. There are multiple other commitments, including in the Council of Europe, which we are leaving (this has been announced officially). However, we will never renounce our obligations regarding the rights of ethnic minorities, be they linguistic, cultural, or any other. We will never “withdraw from the documents” that guarantee freedom of access to information.

In the 1990s, everyone was rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the Soviet Union becoming an absolutely obedient and obsequious partner of the West. Back then, we did our best to show that perestroika and new thinking were opening up a groundbreaking chapter in the history of our state. We signed everything that the West wanted us to sign at the OSCE, including the declaration proposed by the West and supported by us which contained obligations to ensure freedom of access to information in each country and to transboundary information sources. Now, we are unable to get through to the West so that it itself starts fulfilling this obligation, which they themselves initiated.

This Russian language-related requirement is enshrined in the obligations. Ukraine did not turn them down. Can you imagine the consequences of Finland banning the Swedish language? There are 6 percent of Swedes in Finland, and Swedish is the second official language. Or, Ireland banning English, or Belgium banning French? The list goes on and on. All these minority languages are respected, regardless of the fact that they have a parent state, whereas our case represents an exception. This is a case of outright discrimination, and what is known as enlightened Europe is just keeping quiet about it.

Question: We have decided to withdraw from the Council of Europe before being expelled. Why?

Sergey Lavrov: By and large, this decision was formulated long ago. Not because of a series of suspension and reinstatement of our rights, but because that organisation has fully degenerated. It was established as a pan-European organisation of all countries, with the exception of Belarus which was given observer status. We did our best to help Belarus participate in several conventions, which is possible in the Council of Europe. In general, Belarus was considering the possibility of joining it.

However, over the years the Council of Europe has turned into a kind of OSCE, (excuse my language), where the initial idea of interaction and consensus as the main instruments of attaining the goal of common European cooperation and security was superceded by polemics and rhetoric, which was becoming increasingly Russophobic and was determined by the unilateral interests of the West, in particular, NATO countries and the EU. They used their technical majority in the OSCE and the Council of Europe to undermine the culture of consensus and compromise and to force their views on everyone, showing that they have no regard whatsoever, do not care one iota for our interests and only want to lecture and moralise, which is what they have actually been doing.

Our intention to withdraw matured long ago, but our decision to withdraw has been accelerated by the recent events and the decision enforced through voting. The Parliamentary Assembly issued recommendations for the Committee of Ministers, which has voted to suspend our rights. They told us not to worry, that we would only be unable to attend the sessions but can still make our payments to the budget. This is what they have openly said.

The Foreign Ministry pointed out in a statement that our withdrawal from this organisation will not affect the rights and freedoms of Russian citizens under the European Convention on Human Rights, from which we are withdrawing as part of our withdrawal from the Council of Europe. First of all, there are constitutional guarantees and guarantees under the international conventions to which Russia is a party. These universal conventions are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which the United States has not signed); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the US is not among its signatories) and many other conventions and covenants most of which have been incorporated into the national legislation. Our lawyers are working with the Constitutional Court and the Justice Ministry on additional amendments to Russian laws to prevent any infringement on the rights of our citizens as the result of our withdrawal from the Council of Europe.

Question: Several counties have been trying to develop dialogue between Moscow and Kiev. France was the first to do this, followed by Israel, and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu will come to Moscow today. Turkey has stepped up its activity. Why are these three countries so active on this issue?

Sergey Lavrov: They are not the only ones to offer their services. The President of Russia had a telephone conversation with President of the European Council Charles Michel yesterday. He has had contacts with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, President of France Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister of Israel Naftali Bennett. My foreign colleagues have contacted me as well. For example, Switzerland, which has traditionally posed as a country where compromises are reached, is ready to mediate.

In this context, it is strange that mediation services are being offered by the countries which have joined the unprecedented sanctions against Russia and have proclaimed the goal (they make no bones about stating this openly) of setting the Russian people against the Russian authorities. We take a positive view on the mediation offers coming from the countries which have refused to play this Russophobic game, which are aware of the root causes of the current crisis, that is, the fundamental and legitimate national interests of Russia, and which have not joined this war of sanctions. We are ready to analyse their proposals. Israel and Turkey are among these states.

Question: Do they come with proposals, asking if they could help establish dialogue? Or how is this taking place in reality?

Sergey Lavrov: This happens in different ways. Right now, I cannot go into detail, but both want to help achieve accord at the talks conducted via the “Belarusian channel.” They know the state of the talks, what proposals are on the table, and where there is a bilateral rapprochement. They are sincerely trying to speed up the rapprochement. We welcome this, but I would like to stress once again that the matter of key importance is having a direct dialogue between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations and solving what we consider fundamental issues related to the effort not only to ensure the physical security of people in eastern Ukraine and for that matter in other parts of Ukraine, but also to enable them to live normal, civilised lives in the country that has a duty to ensure the rights of those who are known as ethnic minorities, rights that have been trampled underfoot in every sense.

Let us not forget about the tasks of demilitarisation. Ukraine cannot have weapons that create a threat to the Russian Federation. We are ready to negotiate on the types of armaments that do not present a threat to us. This problem will have to be solved even regardless of the situation’s NATO aspect. Even without NATO membership, the United States or anyone else can supply offensive weapons to Ukraine on a bilateral basis, just as they did with the anti-missile bases in Poland and Romania. No one asked NATO. Let us not forget that [Ukraine] is perhaps the only OSCE and European country that has legislatively legalised the neo-Nazis’ right to promote their views and practices.

These are matters of principle. I hope that the realisation of their legitimacy, justifiability and key importance for our interests and therefore the interests of European security will enable those, who are graciously offering their good offices, to promote relevant compromises in contacts with Ukraine, among others.

Question: We have named certain countries that are helping to settle this crisis. Has the United States offered any services in this connection, like “let us help to establish contacts?” After all, it is no secret to anyone that Russia-US relations were at a very low level. Now they have hit rock bottom, haven’t they?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, there is such a figurative expression. Of course, the situation is unprecedented. I can’t recall anything like the frenzied policy that Washington is conducting right now. To a considerable extent, this policy is generated by Congress whose members have lost all sense of reality and are throwing all conventions to the winds. I am not even mentioning the diplomatic proprieties that have long since been abandoned.

The United States certainly has played the decisive role in shaping the position of the Kiev authorities. The Americans have maintained a huge “presence” in Kiev’s “corridors of power” for many years, including the uniformed agencies, the security service, and the top brass. Everyone knows this. The CIA and other US secret services have their missions there.

Like other NATO members (the Canadians, the British), they have sent hundreds of their instructors to train combat units not only within the Armed Forces of Ukraine but also in the so-called volunteer battalions, including Azov and Aydar. However, some seven or eight years ago, in 2014, immediately after the coup d’etat, the Azov battalion was officially struck off the list of recipients of US aid. This was done precisely because it was regarded as an extremist, if not terrorist, organisation. Today, all pretences have been removed.

Now any person or group in Ukraine that declares Russia its enemy is immediately taken under the wing of overseas and Western patrons.

They are talking about the supremacy of law and about democracy. What supremacy of law, if the EU, in violation of its own law on the inadmissibility of arms supplies to conflict zones, takes the decision to do the opposite and send offensive arms to Ukraine?

We do not see any sign that the United States is interested in settling the conflict as soon as possible. If they were interested, they would have every opportunity, first, to explain to the Ukrainian negotiators and President Zelensky that they should seek compromises. Second, they need to make it clear that they are aware of the legitimacy of our demands and positions, but do not want to accept them, not because they are illegitimate but because they would like to dominate the world and are unwilling to restrain themselves with any commitments to take into consideration the interests of others. They have already brought Europe to heel, as I have said.

The US has been telling Europe for years that Nord Stream 2 could undermine their energy security. Europe responded that they should find out that on their own. They took the decision and their companies invested billions of euros. The Americans were claiming that this was contrary to the EU’s interests. They offered to sell them their liquefied gas. If there are no gas terminals, they should be built. The Germans told me this a few years ago. It was during President Trump’s administration. Europe was complaining that this would considerably increase gas prices for their consumers. Donald Trump replied that they were rich guys and will compensate the difference from the German budget. That’s their approach.

Today, Europe was shown its place. Germany eventually said that its regulator was taking a break, and this precisely defines the FRG’s place in the arrangements that the Americans are making on the world scene.

Question: Has Germany become a less independent state under the new chancellor? Would it have acted the same under Angela Merkel?

Sergey Lavrov: The Nord Stream 2 was commissioned, albeit temporarily suspended afterwards, under the new chancellor. I hope that experience will bring an understanding of the need to uphold national interests, rather than to fully rely on the overseas partner who will make all the decisions for you and then do everything for you as well. Clearly, the enormous number of US troops on German soil is also a factor that interferes with independent decision-making.

Articles are being published to the effect that the “politics of memory” is vanishing. It has always been considered a sacred thing in Germany and meant that the German people would never forget the suffering they brought during World War II, primarily to the peoples of the Soviet Union. After I read this, I realised that many people are aware of it. These are open publications. German political scientists are talking about this and, of course, ours do so as well. Several years ago, I spotted something that was probably the early phase of this emerging trend. We were holding ministerial and other consultations with the Germans (I’m talking about foreign policy talks) at the level of department directors and deputy ministers. I never saw this at the ministerial level. The thought that was conveyed to us during the talks was that “we, the Germans, have paid our dues to everyone and owe nothing to anyone, so stop bringing this up.”

Speaking of the Germans, there is a thing that is worth mentioning. We are now talking a lot about attributes of genocide or racial discrimination. Take, for instance, the siege of Leningrad. For many years and with all my colleagues, starting with Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Guido Westerwelle, Heiko Maas, and most recently Annalena Baerbock, I very persistently, with each of them, raised the topic of paying compensations to the Leningrad siege survivors. The German government has made two one-time payments but only to Jewish survivors. We asked why only Jews, because many ethnic groups, including Russians and Tatars, lived in Leningrad and continue to live there. Many of them are still alive. How are they supposed to understand the fact that only the Jews have received some kind of help from the German government when at the time they were boiling shoes, burying children and transporting corpses on sleds together? The payments in question are not big. But, first, for many of them they matter, and second, they serve as the recognition of the fact that everyone has been impacted by the siege. Their answer was interesting. The Jews, they said, are victims of the Holocaust. These payments cannot be made to other survivors, because they are not Holocaust victims. Our attempts to reach out to the German legislators and politicians and tell them that the siege of Leningrad was an unparalleled event in the history of WWII, where there was no distinction between Jews, Russians or other ethnic groups, failed. We reached out to Jewish organisations. It is a matter of honour for them as well. We will continue this work going forward. January marked yet another anniversary of the lifting of the siege of Leningrad. The President of Russia signed an executive order on one-time payments to all siege survivors, including the Jews. We have not seen any sign of conscience awakening in Germany so far.

To be continued…

Filed under: France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, US-led NATO Alliance, USA | Tagged: Anti-Russian Hysteria, “EuroMaidan” coup, Belarus, Biden's Foreign Policy, Brzezinski, cold war, Declaration of Soviet Social Ukrain Republic, Denazification of Ukraine, Holocaust, Kiev Nazi Regime, Lavrov, Minsk Agreements, Munich Security Conference, NATO Expansion, Nord Stream 2, OSCE, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Ukrainian Nazi Nationalists, USSR Dissolution, Warsaw Pact, Zelensky | Comments Off on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RBC TV channel, Moscow, March 16, 2022

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Solovyov Live YouTube channel, Moscow, December 27, 2021

Posted on December 28, 2021 by martyrashrakat

December 28, 2021

Interview: 27 December 2021 22:40

(Note: This transcript is currently partially complete and will be posted as it becomes available)

Vladimir Solovyov: We are like three-winged birds. The Russian Foreign Ministry operates on three fronts: on the first one, it communicates with our American partners, the second one is NATO, and the third are the Europeans, no matter what they call themselves (the OSCE is a bit more than just the Europeans). What matters the most to us in the extremely challenging dialogue at this stage? We launched it using methods that are totally at odds with the customary ways of Russian diplomacy. This approach proved to be very effective. Which of these fronts has the most importance?

Sergey Lavrov: What matters the most, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said, is that there is less empty talk, so that they don’t water down our proposals in endless discussions, which is something the West knows how to do and is notorious for. These diplomatic efforts must yield results. Even more importantly, these results must be achieved within a determined timeframe. We did not put forward any ultimatums. However, engaging in never-ending talks during which the West once again will make ambiguous promises, and will then definitely double-cross us down the road – we do no need that. In this context, the United States is our main negotiating party. It is with the United States that we will hold the main round of talks right after the New Year holidays.

Speaking on NATO’s behalf, its Secretary General and Chair of the Russia-NATO Council Jens Stoltenberg proposed holding a Russia-NATO Council meeting right after that, the very next day. Of course, they did so at the initiative of the United States. This organisational structure reflects the projects we have submitted and presented to the United States and NATO for review. I am referring to the Russia-US treaty on security guarantees and a Russia-NATO agreement on limiting risks and threats on the European stage (hopefully, not a stage of military operations). These documents set forth specific proposals. You have seen them. They present our vision of NATO and the Russian Federation, with its allies, making their respective armed forces less of a threat.

Vladimir Solovyov: Who will lead the talks?

Sergey Lavrov: An interagency delegation with the participation of the Foreign Ministry and the military. There is no lack of understanding on behalf of the United States. As for NATO, we have warned them that since they have put all the military-to-military initiatives on hold since 2014 and reduced our contacts to sporadic telephone calls to the Chief of the General Staff, the conversation will make sense only if the military are directly involved. Our delegation will include high-ranking army representatives. We asked the other side to confirm whether they will do the same. We are waiting for their reply.

Vladimir Solovyov: Overall, NATO has been acting in quite a strange manner. By and large, we don’t talk to them. There are virtually no contacts. They expelled our representatives. The ties have been severed almost entirely. Jens Stoltenberg’s statements caused an international crisis. He said that if need may be, NATO would be ready to deploy its military infrastructure to the east of Germany. President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko answered him, which caused an outpouring of criticism against him.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, Jens Stoltenberg has a Nordic mentality. He makes quite simple statements. Yes, this is true.

Vladimir Solovyov: How will you deal with him?

Sergey Lavrov: We will not be dealing with him. I would like to repeat that we have proposed a Russia-NATO agreement. It will not be necessarily drafted at the Russia-NATO Council, although this is not impossible either. We will not be dealing with Jens Stoltenberg, who is, technically, executive manager of the NATO Secretariat. We will be negotiating with the top members of the bloc, primarily the United States. It is logical that US President Biden reacted to our initiative days after we advanced it. He mentioned the negotiators: the United States plus the four leading Western countries. This provoked an outcry from the other NATO members, including Ukraine, which said that it must take part in the talks. What matters to us is not the form of our contacts with NATO, but the essence of the talks. First of all, they must be held professionally and responsibly in the military-to-military format.

Vladimir Solovyov: NATO is an amorphous organisation. They say they cannot do anything without a consensus decision.

Sergey Lavrov: That is none of our business. It is their internal matter. We do not care about the Washington Treaty, including Article 5, which stipulates collective defence. If NATO were a defence alliance, as Stoltenberg has been shouting from the rooftops, it would not have expanded eastward. NATO has become a purely geopolitical project aimed at taking over the territories orphaned by the collapse of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and the Soviet Union. This is what it is doing now. And we cannot sit on our hands when they are approaching “the doorstep of our house,” as President Putin has said.

Vladimir Solovyov: What about the declared right of each country to choose their allies independently? They are using this argument all the time.

Sergey Lavrov: They are just trying to prop themselves up. It is an unscrupulous attempt made through foul means to use a document that is based on compromise. Not a single “brick” can be removed from that compromise without bringing it down. This is what they are doing. Even the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe says that all states are free to choose their own security arrangements, including the alliances they join. But it also says that while doing this they must respect the principle of indivisible security.

Vladimir Solovyov: That is, as Vladimir Putin has said on the gas issue, “they lie all the time”?

Sergey Lavrov: They are telling half-truths, which is probably worse that outright lies, because they are trying to present their position as legally faultless. But legal is not a term that can be used in this case. All these documents, including the Paris Charter and the documents of the 1999 OSCE summit in Istanbul are political pledges. And the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act is a political document as well. All these political commitments made publicly at the highest level not to strengthen their security to the detriment of others’ security and not to deploy substantial armed forces have been destroyed systematically many times over, including during the five waves of NATO eastward expansion carried out contrary to their pledges, as President Putin has pointed out. Therefore, this time we demand – this is the only option – legally binding security guarantees. Trust but verify.

You have mentioned the OSCE: that organisation’s striving to posture itself on the international stage is a separate subject. Back in 1975, when the Helsinki Final Act of the then Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe was signed, US President Gerald Ford said solemnly and even pompously: “History will judge this Conference not by what we say here today, but by what we do tomorrow – not by the promises we make, but by the promises we keep.”

Vladimir Solovyov: That’s wise.

Sergey Lavrov: The very truth itself, I would say. All our actions are guided by this legacy of one of the great American presidents.

Vladimir Solovyov: At the same time, Jens Stoltenberg keeps claiming that NATO never promised Russia that there would be no eastward expansion, alleging that he heard this from Mikhail Gorbachev. I showed this video to Mikhail Gorbachev, who tells me: “What do you mean there were no promises? What about James Baker? On February 9, 1990, he gave me this promise. We had this conversation, there are written records, and the transcripts are available.” For these people, nothing matters unless there is a paper trail. Did they promise us that there would be no eastward expansion of NATO? The Americans keep repeating this narrative all the time.

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, they did. Only recently, I read the memoirs of a British diplomat who was involved in the talks, including on the reunification of Germany from a NATO perspective, on having no nuclear weapons to the east of the line where they were deployed at the time. He says that yes, they honestly promised that there would be no expansion of NATO, but this was not what they meant. They were driven by the historical opportunity to build a new Europe free from confrontation and so forth. This is what Zbigniew Brzezinski told one of his colleagues in all honesty: “We tricked them.”

Vladimir Solovyov: Under Boris Yeltsin, Russia did not demand any written commitments either. On the contrary, during a visit to Poland we agreed…

Sergey Lavrov: This is all that there was to our relations with the West when the Soviet Union was coming apart and we were building new relations between us. President Vladimir Putin has mentioned this many times. There was an unprecedented level of trust and an enormous desire to be friends, if not allies, as Vladimir Putin likes to say. However, we now see that all this was a mistake. You cannot take anything these people say on trust.

Vladimir Solovyov: The person who used to head the Russian Foreign Ministry, and is now a retiree living in Florida – his surname is Kozyrev – made a bombastic statement that at this stage Russia must join NATO. How come Russia does not want to be part of the family of civilised nations?

Sergey Lavrov: For many Russian politicians, primarily those in the opposition, the West is an undisputable ideal, an unchallenged leader to be followed in everything. For them, there is nothing bad about the West, and they fail to notice the damage the West causes around the world when it destroys countries and shatters their statehood. Some just want to fall into line with what is going on. Why look overseas to Florida? I read about this every day. The Presidential Executive Office provides us a digest of publications from the Russian media, including Meduza, Republic, and Novaya Gazeta. What they write…

Vladimir Solovyov: Didn’t Mikhail Bulgakov say: “Don’t read…”

Sergey Lavrov: But this is not about the communist…

Vladimir Solovyov: It’s basically the same thing, just the other way around.

Sergey Lavrov: Quite a while ago it struck me that just as in the Soviet times, I learned to understand what an article is about by simply reading its headline. You can now treat many media publications this way. For example, the Republic or Novaya Gazeta tend to extol the West in their articles. A prominent Russian opposition figure wrote on what the West tried to portray as a crisis this past spring on the border with Ukraine, when we were holding regular exercises (there was much talk about it at the time around the world). But the exercise came to an end, and the troops returned to the places of their permanent deployment. This is how this was presented: “See, Putin got scared. He got a phone call from Joe Biden, and immediately withdrew the troops.” The writer is a serious person who used to be part of our political establishment and was viewed as an interesting character. By the way, he took part in several shows of yours. Novaya Gazeta then published a long article titled “The fate of an outcast. Where will the Russian foreign policy take us.” Of course, this was about the stubborn Russian Federation unwilling to come to terms with its diminished international role. It lost the Cold War, and that’s all there is to it. You must show more modesty after that. You lost, so stay where you are. The historical comparisons in this article included post-WWII Germany and Japan. They lost, accepted this fact, and received a “wonderful democracy” in return. These are the words of a former deputy foreign minister from the time you have mentioned. By the way, he worked a lot on the Kuril Islands during the talks with Tokyo.

Vladimir Solovyov: No surprise there.

Sergey Lavrov: There is no shortage of revelations of this kind. Treating the West as the holder of the ultimate truth is quite a serious matter.

Vladimir Solovyov: Many people had the same mistaken beliefs. At the very beginning of his presidential term, Vladimir Putin said that Russia did not object to different NATO accession terms, ones that would be equitable and partner-like. Are they offering such terms to us? Is there any possible situation when Russia could join NATO?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, not. I cannot imagine such a situation because the entire process does not revolve around NATO and the European Union. It revolves around the fact that the West does not want any rivals with a more or less comparable level of influence on the international stage. This explains the hysteria regarding the rise of China. Well, China has risen because it accepted global economic and financial rules of the game, introduced by the West. Acting in line with this globalisation and Western rules, it has outplayed the West on its own field. Today, Washington and Brussels are demanding that all regulations of the World Trade Organisation be changed, and the WTO overhauled. They are saying openly that the United States and Europe should work on this and that all others should not even think about this. We will tell you in due time what you need to do. I don’t even see any ideology here. President Putin has repeatedly said that this is not so much an ideology as it is a struggle for influence.

Vladimir Solovyov: Napoleon said that war is all about geography, first and foremost. And politics is all about geography, first and foremost.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, that’s right.

Vladimir Solovyov: Does this mean that we are enemies? Does it mean that NATO sees us as enemies, and that it simply wants to destroy us?

Sergey Lavrov: This life and geography can take on the form of adversity. But it can also be rivalry or competition. I believe that if the West was ready for fair competition, it would be an optimal way out of the current confrontation.

Vladimir Solovyov: Then it wouldn’t be the West anymore.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, it wouldn’t be the West anymore. They now want to change the rules of globalisation and the World Trade Organisation because China is leading the way under these regulations. China will become the largest power by 2030, in terms of all parameters, if it retains the current pace.

Vladimir Solovyov: Since we are talking about the WTO, now we are hearing how shameful it is that they imposed sanctions but, instead of dropping on our knees in tears, we dared to retaliate with our own measures. They have actually calculated how much money we owe them.

Sergey Lavrov: The WTO is not involved in this.

Vladimir Solovyov: But they complained to the WTO.

Sergey Lavrov: The World Trade Organisation must follow its own procedures. Right now, it is pretty much paralysed. The dispute resolution body was essentially inactive and did not work until recently. When China inundated this body with completely substantiated and fair complaints against the United States and its unfair competition practices, the United States took advantage of procedural ploys and started blocking any new appointees to this body. As a result, it could never meet the quorum requirement.

Vladimir Solovyov: Now Europeans have addressed them. They are saying: “What are you doing, Russians? You caused us enormous damage.” Even though we had warned them. Joe Biden twisted their arm, admitting that Europe did not want to impose sanctions. And now it turns out that we were telling the truth.

Sergey Lavrov: We don’t even have to discuss this matter. It was a shameful act on behalf of the European Union. I feel sorry for the politicians who decided to publicly make this kind of statements complaining against Russia. It is simply beyond the pale.

Vladimir Solovyov: Everybody was saying: “Who do the Russians think they are? The economy is practically invisible. How dare they write to the Americans with their demands?” Everybody who looks up to the West as if it were the sun without spots claimed they would not even speak to us or deign to read our proposal. “Who do you think you are? You are about to be eaten for breakfast.” At the same time, as you said, Americans did not say no. They are studying it carefully. Certain topics have been outlined for the dialogue to happen right after the holidays, very soon. Who will represent Russia in this dialogue? And who will represent the United States? It seems that the Americans are not unanimous on this matter and there are discrepancies in Jake Sullivan’s stance and in Anthony Blinken’s comments and views (they may be stylistic discrepancies, but they seem to exist).

Sergey Lavrov: We will announce that. I can say that the representatives will be from the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry. We are aware of the Americans’ plans. They are aware of ours. I think these plans will become public shortly.

Vladimir Solovyov: Are we preparing for these talks every day?

Sergey Lavrov: We have been ready since the Soviet Union.

Vladimir Solovyov: Although not all of us happened to be pioneers.

To be continued…

Russia to Take Hardline Approach in Defending National Interests at Talks With US: Lavrov

Filed under: China, EU, Russia, US-led NATO Alliance, US-Russia Relations, USA, Vladimir Putin | Tagged: Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus, Gorbachev, Lavrov, NATO Expansion, OSCE, USSR Dissolution, Warsaw Pact, WTO | Comments Off on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Solovyov Live YouTube channel, Moscow, December 27, 2021

The Myth of Apolitical China: Why the West Refuses to Accept China’s Superpower Status

Posted on December 24, 2021 by uprootedpalestinians

It behooves us all to abandon the notion that China is only interested in business and nothing else.

December 23, 2021

BY RAMZY BAROUD

An article by Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times last July is a prime example of western intelligentsia’s limited understanding of China’s unhindered rise as a superpower. “Becoming a superpower is a complicated business. It poses a series of connected questions about capabilities, intentions and will,” Rachman wrote.

To help us understand what this claim precisely means, the FT writer uses an analogy. “To use a sporting analogy, you can be an extremely gifted tennis player and genuinely want to be world champion, but still be unwilling to make the sacrifices to turn the dream into reality.”

At least, in Rachman’s thinking, China is capable of being a political actor, though it remains incapable of vying for the superpower status, as it supposedly lacks ‘the will’ to make the required ‘sacrifices’.

Although I visited Beijing only once, a few years ago, I, or even any casual visitor to the Chinese capital, could attest to the powerful collective economic engine that fuels not only China but much of the world economy. While Chinese officials do not outright profess that their ultimate aim is to make their country a superpower – for, frankly, rarely are superpowers aware of the mechanisms that lead to such status – the Chinese leadership fully fathoms the nature of the challenge at hand.

Read: Taiwan amidst the Emerging China – US Cold War

Take Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech in October 2019, on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China. “Over the past 70 years, under the strong leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the Chinese people, with great courage and relentless exploration, have successfully opened the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Along this path, we have ushered in a new era,” he said. Note Xi’s constant references to ideology, nationalism, forward-thinking and insistence on China’s central position in this ‘new era’. Xi was elevated to the status of Mao Zedong – as a ‘core leader’ in 2019 and ‘helmsman’ in 2021 – precisely due to his role in transitioning China in terms of power, politics and global prestige.

The sooner we acknowledge that China is an influential political entity that operates according to a clear and decisive political strategy, the more meaningful our understanding of the geopolitical transformation in Asia, and the rest of the world, will be.

Indeed, the sooner we acknowledge that China is an influential political entity that operates according to a clear and decisive political strategy, the more meaningful our understanding of the geopolitical transformation in Asia, and the rest of the world, will be.

Since the rise of Britain as a colonial power, thus the advent of a new world order, determined almost exclusively by western powers, the global center of power, starting in the 18th century, had shifted away from Asia and the Middle East.

Later on, starting in the mid-twentieth century, the main competition that colonial western powers had been forced to contend with came from the Soviet Union, its Warsaw Pact, and their international allies, mainly Europe’s former colonies in the Southern hemisphere.

Read: The Gang’s All Here: New Western Imperialism in the South China Sea

The collapse of the Soviet Union, starting in 1989, ushered in the return of western control, this time led by the United States as the world’s only hegemon and neocolonial master.

It quickly became obvious, however, that the post-Soviet global paradigm was unsustainable, as Europe’s economic influence was rapidly shrinking and Washington’s desperate attempt at policing the world was failing due, in part, to its own miscalculations but also to the stiff resistance it faced in its new colonial domains, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Members of the Sydney Anti-AUKUS Coalition (SAAC) participate in a protest in Sydney, Australia, Saturday, December 11, 2021. Members of the Sydney Anti-AUKUS Coalition (SAAC) are holding a protest in opposition to the AUKUS military agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, the development of nuclear submarines and war on China. Photo by Steven Saphore. Anadolu Images.

The cost of war, aside from its incalculable massive destruction and human toll – according to a very modest estimate, almost one million people were killed in U.S. military adventures since 2001 – has also come at a great cost to the already weakening U.S. economy. Brown University’s Costs of War Project, published in September 2021, has calculated that the U.S. has spent up to $5.8 trillion in its failed military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. The same report has also estimated that an additional $2.2 trillion will be spent over the next 20 years in health care and disability coverage for veterans.

The U.S. involvement in long wars with undefined objectives opened up unprecedented geopolitical spaces that Washington and its western allies have dominated over the course of decades. For example, the U.S. had near-total geopolitical control over much of South America starting with the introduction of the Monroe Doctrine, in 1823. The same assertion can be made about Africa which, despite the formal end of colonialism in the long-exploited continent, continued to revolve around the same western colonial powers of yesteryears. However, a noticeable shift in the West’s geostrategic influence in these regions began taking place in the last three decades.

Russia has speedily offered itself as a military and strategic ally and alternative to the U.S. in parts of the Middle East, Africa, and South America.

While the West was fighting essentially futile wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the intentionally ill-defined ‘war on terror’, regional and international political actors moved in to fill the gaps created by American and western absence from their various regions of influence. Russia has speedily offered itself as a military and strategic ally and alternative to the U.S. in parts of the Middle East, Africa, and South America – in Syria, Libya and Venezuela respectively – as China moved in to fulfill a much larger economic role, branding itself as a fair partner, especially if compared to western powers.

It was not until the gradual U.S. retreat from Iraq in 2011 that Washington announced its ‘Pivot to Asia’, a new military and political stratagem aimed at offsetting the Chinese influence in the Asian Pacific region. Much of former U.S. President Barack Obama’s first term in office was dedicated to America’s political strategic realignments in the Asia Pacific.

Read: Jens Stoltenberg on the Rise of China: Is NATO Pivoting to the Indo-Pacific?

“The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay,” Obama declared in a speech to the Australian parliament in November 2011. “As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and missions in the Asia-Pacific a top priority.”

However, the American geopolitical shift may have arrived belatedly. For one, the repercussions of America’s military undertakings in Central Asia and the Middle East – as time has clearly demonstrated – were far too severe and costly to be simply canceled out by a declaration of a new strategy. Two, China had, by then, built a complex network of alliances in Asia and around the world, allowing it to cement real bonds with many nations, especially those concerned or fed up with the West’s obsession with military superiority and interventions.

According to a report published in October by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, over the last twelve years, China has been Africa’s largest trading partner. “China has created 25 economic and trade cooperation zones in 16 African countries,” the report reads, “and has continued to invest heavily across the continent throughout the COVID19 pandemic,” according to a government report about Chinese–African economic and trade ties.

Read: Will AUKUS Be Able to Encircle China?

In contrast, according to data published by Statista Research Department in August 2021, “after a peak in 2014, foreign direct investment (FDI) in Africa from the United States dropped to 47.5 billion U.S. dollars (from 69.03) in 2020.”

Here is precisely where many analysts go wrong, arguing, as Rachman did, that “China’s economic weight, as the world’s largest trading power and manufacturer, gives it significant political leverage internationally. […] But Beijing’s economic power is not always politically decisive”.

This limited thinking is based on the assumption that, to be ‘political’ is to follow the same blueprint used by the U.S. and its western partners in their approach to foreign policy, diplomacy and occasional wars. China’s take on politics, however, has always been quite different. According to Beijing’s thinking, China does not need to invade countries to earn the designation of a political actor.

Instead, China is simply tapping into its own historical trajectory of utilizing economic influence in its quest for greatness, and arguably, empire. The fact that the Road and Belt Initiative – a long-term strategy aimed at connecting Asia with Africa and Europe via land and maritime networks – is a modern interpretation of the Silk Road, which was a network of ancient trade routes which linked China to the Mediterranean region, is enough to tell us about the nature of the Chinese model.

Read: US-Indonesia Maritime Collaboration in the South China Sea: Harbinger of an Expanded Quad-Plus?

That in mind, China has also taken many steps that are unmistakably ‘political’ even from the selective definition of western intelligentsia. One of the many treaties that China has initiated, co-founded or joined is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which, as of September, included Iran as well. The Shanghai Pact is a Eurasian political, economic, and security alliance that was established in 2001 and has served to counterbalance western, U.S.-led transnational organizations.

China’s so-called ‘wolf diplomacy’ is one of Beijing’s most trusted tactics through which clear and repeated messages are sent to Washington and its allies, that the rising East Asian nation will not be kowtowed or intimidated.

Until the last decade, Beijing had resorted to economic cooperation as the most productive way of facilitating its arrival to the global stage as a potential or a fledgling superpower. However, one may argue that, not until Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’, Donald Trump’s trade war, and Joe Biden’s incessant threats to China over Taiwan, did Beijing begin accelerating the political dimension of its strategy.

China’s so-called ‘wolf diplomacy’ is one of Beijing’s most trusted tactics through which clear and repeated messages are sent to Washington and its allies, that the rising East Asian nation will not be kowtowed or intimidated. The “wolf warrior diplomacy” describes a more assertive and even confrontational style employed by Chinese diplomats to defend China’s national interests.

According to the common western understanding, China, or any other country for that matter, that dares operate outside the dictates of western agenda, is a threat or a potential threat. However, even when China’s economic fortunes were rising, following Deng Xiaoping’s successful economic reforms campaign in 1978, the country was not seen as a ‘threat’ per se, as Beijing’s economic rise fueled Asia and, by extension, the global economy, eventually even mitigating the Great Recession of 2008, which itself resulted from the collapse of U.S. and European markets. China only became a threat when it dared define its geopolitical objectives in the Asia Pacific region, starting in the South and East China Seas.

Not only is China very much a political actor but one would contend that presently, it is the most important political actor in the world, as it gradually but surely challenges American and western dominance on various fronts – military in Asia, economically and politically elsewhere. China’s influence can also be observed beyond Asia and Africa, in Europe itself, as even Washington’s own allies are openly divided in their approach to the brewing U.S.-China cold war and America’s insistence on repelling the encroaching Chinese danger.

“A situation to join all together against China, this is a scenario of the highest possible conflictuality. This one, for me, is counter-productive,” French President Emmanuel Macron said during a discussion broadcast by Washington-based think tank, the Atlantic Council, in February.

It behooves us all to abandon the notion that China is only interested in business and nothing else. This stifling thinking regarding China helps perpetuate the notion that the U.S. has used its global dominance to achieve other noble objectives, for example, ‘restoring’ democracy and defending human rights. Not only are the degradation of China and the elevation of the U.S. essentially racist, but also entirely untrue.

(Romana Rubeo, an Italy-based journalist and editor, contributed to this article.)

Filed under: China, Taiwan, USA, USSR | Tagged: America's Lost Wars, AUKUS, Central Asia, China's "Belt and Road" BRI, Chinese Communist Party, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Monroe Doctrine, Ramzy Baroud, SCO, US defeat in Afghanistan, USSR Dissolution, Warsaw Pact | Comments Off on The Myth of Apolitical China: Why the West Refuses to Accept China’s Superpower Status

عودة الروح لفلسطين وانهيار القرن العشرين

Posted on May 18, 2021 by uprootedpalestinians

ناصر قنديل

–

تميّز القرن العشرين بكونه على الصعيد الفكري والسياسي والاقتصادي قرن العقلانيّة، التي لا يرى البعض منها إلا كونها تبشيراً بالخير والعدل والسلام، توافقاً مع الشعارات التي رفعتها الثورة الفرنسية التي افتتحت عهد العقلانية في الفلسفة والسياسة والاقتصاد، لكن ما يتجاهله الكثيرون هو أن هذه العقلانية التي نهضت تحت رايتها إمبراطوريات الغرب الكبرى، تحوّلت الى إنتاج أنماط للدول والنظام السياسي والنظام الاقتصادي، والإفراط بمنح العقل تفويض التدخل لتعليب التاريخ والجغرافيا بإنتاج علب، يجري السعي لفرضها على شعوب العالم، بما يرافق فرضها من عبث إرادوي في التاريخ والجغرافيا، ولعل منطقتنا كانت خير مثال عن هذا العبث، الذي طال العالم كله، حتى أتاح انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي لنا رؤية روسيا تستعيد حيويتها وقوتها بمصادر حضور مؤسسة على عناصر تستمدها مباشرة من التاريخ والجغرافيا، وليس من وصفة وضعيّة اسمها الشيوعية، حوّلتها قوة عظمى لكنها سلبتها الروح، فعادت الروح الناتجة عن تزاوج الروح الإمبراطورية مع المسيحية الشرقية والقومية الروسية. كما أتيح لنا ونحن نرى تركيا كدولة ذات أطماع بجوارها ومخالب تمدّها في المنطقة، تفعل ذلك بعدما تزاوجت طورانيتها السلجوقية مع خلفيتها الإمبراطورية المتمثلة بالعثمانية، بعدما تحررت من الوصفة العلمانية القسرية المهجنة التي فرضت عليها لتحمي الخاصرة الأوروبية، وأتيح لنا أن نرى إيران المتطلعة لدور فاعل في آسيا تفعل ذلك تحت راية إسلامها بخصوصيّته المؤسسة على الكربلائية الرافضة للظلم، بنكهة إمبراطورية متصالحة مع تاريخ بلاد فارس، بعدما تحرّرت من القفص الشاهنشاهي الذي وضعت بداخله، وأجهضت لأجله ثورتها مرات عديدة، لتلعب قسراً دور شرطي الخليج وسند كيان الاحتلال.

–

في منطقتنا تم التلاعب بالتاريخ والجغرافيا بصورة شديدة المرضية، لدرجة غير قابلة للتصديق لمجافاتها كل ما هو طبيعي، فكيف تم تحويل مصر أم الدنيا وزعيمة العالم العربي الى دولة ضعيفة مهددة بالجوع والعطش، وتم تنصيب السعودية بقوة المال والنفط زعيماً بديلاً بلا أي مقومات موضوعية لدور الزعامة؟ وكيف تم الطغيان على دور اليمن التاريخي صاحب الفضل بنشر اللسان العربي وتأصيله، وأصل القبائل العربية وصاحب أكبر تاريخ عمراني منذ مملكة سبأ وسد مأرب، ليتحول مجرد مصدر للعمال في دول النفط الخليجي، وهو الذي يمثل أكبر كتلة بشرية في الخليج يتحوّل مجرد ملحق في السياسات والبحث عن مصادر الحياة؟ وبالعقلانية التي منحت الغرب تفويضاً من الإله الجديد، المسمى بالمصلحة، تم إطلاق الوهابية لتحل مكان الإسلام المتجذر في تاريخ الأزهر وعلماء بلاد الشام والأندلس، وبالعقلانية فرض شطب ابن خلدون وابن رشد وابن عربي من التاريخ العلمي الإنساني ومن التراث العربي، ليحل مكانهم مشعوذون يملكون فضائيات مفتوحة على مدار الساعة لتوزيع النصائح الفلكية للنجاح والتعويذات لمعالجة المرضى، لكن تبقى أكبر عملية عبث بالتاريخ والجغرافيا هي تلك التي شهدها المشرق العربيّ، حيث رسمت خرائط الكيانات الوليدة من اتفاقية سايكس بيكو، على قياس ضمان أمن وهيمنة الكيان المولود بقوة وعد بلفور، كوطن قومي لليهود الذين تمّ جلبهم بالشعوذة والتهجير والإغراء، لإقامة كيان يتحدّى كل ما يتصل بالتاريخ والجغرافيا، ليكون حارساً لأنابيب النفط وتقاطعاتها، وكل ذلك باسم العقلانية، فما يريده العقل وتسخر له الأموال والسلطات والأسلحة يمكن له أن يلغي كل حقائق التاريخ الموروث الذي تسهل شيطنته والجغرافيا العذراء التي يسهل تطويعها.

–

منذ عام 1990 مع سقوط جدار برلين الذي أسس لاستعادة أوروبا وحدتها التي مزقتها العقلانية، كما أسس لاستعادة روسيا لروحها خارج صيغة الاتحاد السوفياتي العقلاني، بدا أن القرن العشرين ينهار، لكن بدا بوضوح أن هذا الانهيار لن يكتمل إلا عندما يلامس حدود المشرق العربي، وخصوصاً عندما تهتز أركان الكيان الذي يحمل أعلى مراتب الدلالة على ماهية العقلانية التي أسست للسياسة والاقتصاد والفكر في القرن العشرين، والذي قام على أعلى درجات العبث بالتاريخ والجغرافيا، ومن هنا تنبع أهمية ما يجري في فلسطين، حيث يقوم الفلسطينيون بإبداع مثير للذهول بتفكيك الكائن الخرافي فرانكشتاين المولود الأهم للعقلانية، فقد ثبت وسيثبت أكثر أن المال والسلطة والسلاح التي أنجبت هذا المسخ العلمي هي مصادر قوة خرساء وتبقى خرساء عندما ينطق التاريخ وتتحدث الجغرافيا، فيتهاوى ما بدا أنه بنيان عصيّ على الرياح، وفلسطين المنتفضة من أقصاها الى أقصاها وفي قلبها القدس وأقصاها، تقول ذلك بما لا يحتمل التأويل، وتثبت أن ما توهّمه البعض من موت القضية الفلسطينية كان مجرد سراب، وأن الهوية الجامعة التي تشعل جذوتها فلسطين والقدس بين شعوب المنطقة لا تزال تحمل سحرها وكلمة سرها، رغم كل عمليات التخريب المبرمج للهويات، وأن الإسلام لا يمكن ان يكون تكفيرياً، وأن المسيحية ترفض أن تكون صليبيّة، فلا غورو المنتقم من صلاح الدين يمثل المسيحية، ولا أبو بكر البغدادي وأبو محمد الجولاني قادة بقر البطون وأكل الأكباد والقلوب يمثلون الإسلام. فالمنطقة اليوم تستردّ روحها من فلسطين، لتدفن الكثير الكثير من موروثات مرحلة العقلانية، فلبنان مأزوم وسورية مهدّدة والعراق تائه والأردن في خطر، ولا أمل بحلول عنوانها كذبة لبنان أولاً وسورية أولاً والعراق أولاً والأردن أولاً، بل الحل الجامع هو فلسطين أولاً، والتسليم بأن الحل الجامع هو بالعودة لمحاكاة المصير الواحد الذي عبثت به خرائط سايكس بيكو، ولو بصيغ تحفظ الخصوصيّات الناشئة.

Filed under: Al Qaeda, Balfour declaration, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), House of Saud, Levant, Nazi Israel, Palestine, Russia, Sykes-Picot, The Islamic Republic of Iran, Turkey | Tagged: American "Muslim" Brotherhood, Nasser, neo-Ottoman, Occupied Alquds, USSR Dissolution, West Asia | Comments Off on عودة الروح لفلسطين وانهيار القرن العشرين

يوم إقليميّ دوليّ فاصل: 18 تشرين الأول

Posted on October 19, 2020 by martyrashrakat

ناصر قنديل

–

خلال العقدين الأولين من القرن الحادي والعشرين، تحوّل المشهد الدولي القائم من جهة، على وجود مشروع سياسي عسكري اقتصادي للقوة الأميركية العظمى التي فازت بنهاية الحرب الباردة مع سقوط جدار برلين وتفكك الاتحاد السوفياتي، ومن جهة مقابلة على بدء تبلور ممانعة دولية متعددة المصادر لهذا المشروع من قوى كبرى ومتوسطة، على خلفيات مصالح إقتصادية وإستراتيجية قومية تحت عنوان رفض عالم أحادي القطبية، وشكلت روسيا الجديدة مع الصعود السريع للرئيس فلاديمير بوتين، والصين الجديدة مع الصعود التدريجي للرئيس جين بينغ، لكن إيران التي كانت تتعافى من نتائج وتداعيات الحرب التي شنّها النظام العراقي عليها، كانت تدخل معادلة القرن الجديد من باب واسع، فهي تتوسّط قلب المنطقة الساخنة من العالم، التي ستشهد حروب الزعامة الأميركيّة للقرن، وهي الداعم الرئيسي للمقاومة التي انتصرت بتحرير لبنان عام 2000، وقد بدأت برنامجاً نووياً طموحاً ومشاريع للصناعات العسكرية تحاكي مستويات تقنية عالية، وتشكل خط الاشتباك المتقدّم مع المشروع الأميركي ضمن حلف يتعزز ويتنامى على الضفتين الروسية والصينية، ويحاكي خصوصية أوروبية فشل المشروع الأميركي باحتواء تطلعاتها ومخاوفها.

–

خلال العقدين الماضيين كان الخط البياني التراجعي للمشروع الأميركي، بعد فشل الحروب الأميركية على العراق وافغانستان وسورية والحروب الإسرائيلية المدعومة أميركياً على لبنان وغزة، تعبيراً ضمنياً عن خط بياني صاعد لموقع ومكانة إيران، التي وقفت بصورة مباشرة وغير مباشرة وراء الفشل الأميركي، وفي قلبه صعود في خلفية الصورة لمكانتي روسيا والصين وتقدم لتمايز أوروبي عن السياسات الأميركية، ويمثل ما كان العام 2015 نقطة تحوّل في السياسة الدولية، مع توقيع الاتفاق الدولي بقيادة أميركية مع إيران على ملفها النووي. كان هذا الاتفاق تسليماً بمكانة إيران الجديدة، دولياً وإقليمياً.

–

جاء الانسحاب الأميركي من الاتفاق النووي ترجمة لهجوم معاكس يقوده ثلاثي أميركي إسرائيلي خليجي، يقوم على إنكار حقائق المواجهات السابقة، ومحاولة لصياغة معادلات بديلة، وكان عنوان هذا الهجوم على جبهتين، جبهة إقليميّة تشكلت من جهة على ترجمة الحلف الجديد بمشروع إقليميّ حمل اسم صفقة القرن لحل القضية الفلسطينية وعزل إيران عن التأثير بمساراتها، وانتهى بالتطبيع الخليجي الإسرائيلي من جهة وتوحّد الساحة الفلسطينية كمعني أول بالمواجهة، خلف شعارات المقاومة التي تدعمها إيران. من جهة موازية، كانت الجبهة الثانية دولية تشكلت على خلفية السعي لتعميم نظام العقوبات وصولاً لخنق الاقتصاد الإيراني، وفرض تفاوض جديد بشروط جديدة عليها، وكانت النتيجة من جهة تعاظم الضغوط الناتجة عن العقوبات الأميركيّة القصوى على إيران، ومن جهة موازية عزلة أميركية دولية في فرض منهج العقوبات على إيران، وفشل واسع في الحصول على دعم أمميّ لها، بما تخطى الرفض التقليدي لروسيا والصين لسياسة العقوبات، مع انضمام أوروبا إلى المصوّتين ضد الدعوة الأميركية.

–

في 18 تشرين الأول عام 2020، يسقط بموجب الاتفاق النووي، الحظر الأممي على السلاح بيعاً وشراء بالنسبة لإيران، بعد محاولات مستميتة فاشلة بذلتها واشنطن لتجديد الحظر، وكان واضحاً ان إيران بذلت جهوداً دبلوماسية معاكسة مع اوروبا تضمنت ضبط إيقاع المواقف الإيرانية من الاتفاق النووي بما يحفظ بقاءه كإطار دبلوماسي قانوني على قيد الحياة، وقد كانت فرصة اللقاء مع وزير الخارجية الإيرانية محمد جواد ظريف في مطلع العام بعد نهاية زيارة مفوض السياسات الخارجية في الاتحاد الأوروبي جوزف بوريل إلى طهران، مناسبة لسماع موقف إيراني عنوانه، انتظروا 18 تشرين، إنه الموعد الفاصل بين مرحلتين، والفوز الإيراني بحلول هذا الموعد وتثبيت حق إيران بسقوط حظر السلاح عنها، سيكون فاتحة مرحلة جديدة نوعيّة، يتقاطع انطلاقها زمنياً من باب الصدفة مع اقتراب الاستحقاق الرئاسي الأميركي.