In the US media and in the writings of a number of political scientists, the decline of the role and influence of the United States in the world is increasingly recognised. However, Washington is still thinking in terms of the last century, believing that the whole world revolves only around itself, and that the ‘poor’ United States are being opposed by revisionist (i.e. refusing to live according to US ways) powers, such as China and Russia, and such ‘villains’ as Iran and DPRK even openly sabotage US policy.
It would seem that the incredible growth of the Chinese economy, which has overtaken the US one and confidently and rapidly continues to develop, the strengthening of other states – primarily the Russian Federation – as well as the more energetic activities of the states of the Global South to protect their own interests should have sobered US officials. The unipolar period of the world ended long ago, and now even the leaders of Western European states recognise that we live in a system of international relations that is characterised by multipolarity.
Sometimes one has to wonder with what arrogance US statesmen and public figures look at the world, tending to interpret the numerous miscalculations and failures of US foreign policy as malicious machinations of hostile states.
For example, according to the director of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, Condoleezza Rice, who at the beginning of the 21st century was both assistant to the President for National Security and Secretary of State of the United States (and during this period of the image of a pragmatic politician was being created for her), in an article published recently by the Foreign Affairs magazine, she concludes that existing problems “are complicated by Russia’s growing cooperation with China, Iran and North Korea. The four countries have a common goal: to undermine and replace the US-led international system that they hate”.
The article admits that “the United States is tempted to turn inward”, so it is titled «The Perils of Isolationism». The main idea is that the US should continue its interventionist course with only minor adjustments. Rice writes that “the United States is a different country now – exhausted by eight decades of international leadership, some of it successful and appreciated, and some of it dismissed as a failure. The American people are different, too – less confident in their institutions and in the viability of the American dream. Years of divisive rhetoric…have left Americans with a tattered sense of shared values”.
The US does not want to remove the uniform of the ‘global gendarme’
However, no matter what, Washington must continue its vector of pressure in international affairs, strive (as before) to isolate Russia and maintain that “China’s behaviour is unacceptable”. “Never again should Washington unfreeze Iranian assets as the Biden administration did”.
According to Rice, in order to ensure an internationalist foreign policy, in other words ensuring Washington’s dictate and interference, the president must paint a vivid picture of what this world would be like without an active United States, i.e. without US leadership. In this case, we all face chaos and disorder. Only the United States is capable of ensuring the future development of mankind, since “great-power DNA is still very much in the American genome”. Recognising that Americans have seriously exhausted their capabilities in the outside world, Rice ignores and does not mention the possibility of reaching compromise and solutions based on taking into account the interests of other parties; it is only about the US imposing its views and its decisions, it simply cannot suggest other options.
Unfortunately, such a black-and-white vision of the world is still very typical for most US political scientists. They cannot break free from the uniform of the world gendarme in any way. Even the biggest failures in foreign policy in recent years have not taught them anything.
Veniamin Popov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Candidate of Historical Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“
Den Nordstream-Anschlag soll ein ukrainisches Kommando verübt haben. Nun kommen neue pikante Details ans Tageslicht.
Laut Sicherheitskreisen, auf die sich der “Spiegel” beruft, entkam der Tatverdächtige – ein Ukrainer – mit einem Auto der ukrainischen Botschaft aus Polen in die Ukraine.
Zuvor soll er ganz entspannt Urlaub in Deutschland gemacht haben – natürlich unbehelligt von Polizei und Sicherheitsdiensten.
Das kann doch nicht wahr sein, oder?
Wenn doch, dann muß die Bundesregierung Konsequenzen ziehen – gegenüber Polen, vor allem aber gegenüber der Ukraine.
Wenn nichts geschieht, ist entweder die Story falsch – oder wir haben die falsche Regierung!?
Denkbar wäre natürlich auch beides: Die Story gibt nur einen Teil der Wahrheit wieder – und die Regierung… (diesen Gedanken bitte selbst weiterführen)
The ruling elites’ dismal unpopularity is a deserved result of ignoring the real concerns of their own citizens
Since the beginning of the Ukraine Crisis in 2013/14, German governments, first under former chancellor Angela Merkel, then under her pathetic successor Olaf Scholz, have totally failed to help find a solution through compromise. This is no minor matter, and history won’t look kindly on Germany. Representing a traditionally significant if declining and now self-diminishing power in Europe, Berlin could have made a difference – quite conceivably one that would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Yet things are what they are. Initially, under the thoroughly opportunistic yet usually intelligent Merkel, this German failure was mostly due to subservience to the US but practiced in Berlin’s then signature style of evasive shiftiness. Yes, Merkel helped Kiev sabotage the 2015 Minsk II agreement, which could have avoided large-scale war between Russia and Ukraine. But she did that on the sly and only admitted it retrospectively, when criticized for having been “soft” on Russia. “No, I wasn’t!” she, in essence retorted, “I did my part and lied like a street grifter!” What can one say? Ideas of personal dignity differ across cultures.
Under her successor, the merely opportunistic Scholz, Berlin’s approaches have reverted to a certain elementary simplicity. The so-called “Zeitenwende” (epochal turn) he announced two years ago with traditional German modesty means that his coalition government has obeyed Washington in an unprecedentedly self-harming manner. Accepting sabotage of vital infrastructure – Nord Stream – and the systematic demolishing of the German economy by America’s beggar-thy-vassal policy, Scholz has grinned submissively, while not just sacrificing national interests but taking a flamethrower to them.
At the same time – and with a certain consistency one may also observe in committed masochists – this government of death wish loyalty has also ruined Germany’s relationship with Russia with Teutonic furor and thoroughness. All to pander to a Ukrainian regime that now stands accused of blowing up Nord Stream. That accusation makes no sense. Kiev loves to do its worst, true. But it could not have done it without the US. And yet the accusation is the new party line handed down via the Wall Street Journal. It serves as yet another test of how much public humiliation Berlin will take. Answer: there’s no limit.
But Berlin is not Germany. A government so bizarrely out of touch with its own country and its interests is unlikely to represent its citizens well. For some of its members that is even a point of pride. Foreign minister and geometry expert Annalena “360 degrees” Baerbock has long declared that she doesn’t care what her voters want but only about what the Zelensky regime demands. Baerbock, then, must have been positively delighted by the results of a recent and solid opinion poll.
Conducted by the topnotch INSA pollster, the new poll proves that many Germans do not see foreign policy – especially with respect to Russia and Ukraine – the way their current, immensely unpopular and massively failing (as even the Economist admits) rulers do. Consider some highlights: Asked if they are in favor or against peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, 68% of respondents were in favor.
And 65% consider it a “good” or “very good” idea to offer Moscow a quid pro quo, in which Russia would agree to a ceasefire and negotiations, while the West would stop supplying Ukraine with weapons. It’s another matter that Moscow would be unlikely to accept such a deal; those times are over. But Germans outside the Berlin elite clearly prefer winding down the war in lieu of the forever-war scenario that NATO and EU officially promote.
A clear plurality of respondents, 46%, believe that their government has failed to engage in enough diplomacy to protect Germany from the risk of war. Only 26% feel that Berlin has done enough. Yet there is no duty more elementary for rulers than doing everything possible to protect citizens from the threat of war. They cannot always succeed. But those widely seen as not having tried hard enough lose their legitimacy. That much we have known, at the latest since English political philosopher and arch-realist Thomas Hobbes published his “Leviathan” in the seventeenth century.
Legitimacy may sound abstract. Let’s talk about elections then, especially as three important regional elections are coming up. In the länder (states) of Saxony, Thuringia, and Brandenburg, all in Germany’s East, the Berlin coalition parties are staring at serious, even devastating losses to be inflicted by two surging newcomers, the very rightwing AfD and the leftwing yet culturally conservative BSW, named after its leader Sarah Wagenknecht.
Could the decline of the coalition parties have something to do with their resolute detachment from many voters’ wishes and fears over foreign policy? Absolutely. Asked in the INSA poll if a party’s demanding or failing to demand peace negotiations for the Russia-Ukraine War is a decisive factor in casting their vote, 43% of respondents answered in the affirmative. The same share said “no.” But leaving almost half the electorate with a strong sense that you don’t care about what they care about – especially in matters of life and death, i.e. war and peace – is never a winning strategy.
It is true that the question focused specifically on an election at the federal level; that is, for Germany as a whole. Regional politics, you might be tempted to think, has different priorities. You’d be so wrong, though. For one thing, Germans love to use their many regional elections as a way to punish the federal government. Voters do not make a neat separation between voting locally and dishing out the pain centrally. On the contrary.
Second, the results of regional elections, therefore, constantly affect Berlin politics, at this point right into the sick heart of a coalition that is terminal already. Third, regional elections in what used to be East Germany before the West German takeover in 1990 are even more neuralgic, because as a rule, voters there tend to be especially skeptical about Berlin’s by now abject subservience to the US and self-defeating if neo-traditional Russophobia.
Germany’s current mainstream media, think tanks, and academic cadres – such as conformist historians Jan Behrends and Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk – love to caricature, belittle, and patronize those Germans in the East of the country as in essence backward and brainwashed by Russians. (By the way, if you think that sounds weirdly familiar, that’s how Ukraine got its local civil war going in 2014.) Yet the Soviets/Russians haven’t had a say in eastern Germany for over a third of a century now. While Washington, of course, has maintained its propaganda grip. Maybe the proud domestic kulturträger (culture bearers) of NATO “value” Germany, and who love to look down on their eastern compatriots, should face their own lack of intellectual, political, and ethical independence instead. Where the fear of freedom cripples thought (while boosting careers), a little Kantian reliance on one’s own judgment might help.
In any case, belittling Germans in the East will make them only more determined, and rightly so, to vote their probably freer minds. And what freer minds in Germany see is a government that serves not their country but the US and Ukraine. That is a recipe for richly deserved defeat.
L’arrestation de Pavel Durov par la police française fait grand bruit. On est encore très loin de tout savoir sur les pressions exercées par le pouvoir français sur cet homme qui a fondé l’un des plus puissants réseaux numériques du monde… sans collaborer avec les services occidentaux. Mais ce qu’on sait déjà mérite d’être signalé : l’opération est menée par le coeur du réacteur macroniste et par ses excroissances dans nos services de police.
Rappelons d’abord que, après avoir été menacé par le pouvoir russe, Durov a choisi l’exil. La France lui a attribué, à cette occasion, la nationalité française.
Il semblerait qu’il fasse l’objet d’une procédure d’enquête de la part de plusieurs services, coordonnée par l’Office des Mineurs, une entitée créée en 2023 par la jeune commissaire Gabrielle Hazan, pour lutter contre la pédophilie et la pédocriminalité, tout particulièrement sur Internet.
Mon premier poste était à la sûreté régionale des transports à Paris, c’est un service d’investigation spécialisé dans la délinquance commise dans les transports en commun avec une compétence dans toute l’Ile-de-France (…)
Deux années plus tard, j’ai été nommée chef du service d’investigation du commissariat de Versailles. (…)
Ensuite, j’ai eu le souhait d’accéder à la direction centrale. Le travail de lien entre l’action politique et les directions opérationnelles m’intéressait.
L’expérience de terrain permet de poser un constat, de comprendre les enjeux pour ensuite mieux exprimer et défendre les besoins opérationnels de la police. C’est comme ça que je suis arrivée à Beauvau, au cabinet du directeur général de la police nationale en tant qu’adjointe au conseiller judiciaire.
On appréciera le récit quasi-magique donné par l’intéressée sur sa réussite personnelle. La réalité est probablement un peu plus complexe.
Le directeur général de la police nationale n’est autre qu’un certain Frédéric Veaux, dont la carrière a connu un tournant important en 2009 lorsqu’il est devenu l’adjoint du chef des services de renseignement intérieur Bernard Squarcini. Ce rôle éminent lui permettra de devenir Préfet, puis, en 2020, directeur général de la police nationale. Il devient alors, en quelque sorte, l’une des figures tutélaires du gouvernement profond en France.
Dans cette fonction, il s’illustrera par la société constant apporté aux policiers auteurs de violences contre des manifestants.
C’est donc cet homme qui “lance” la carrière de Gabrielle Hazan.
En outre, Frédéric Veaux est, à la ville, le compagnon d’une membre du Conseil Constitutionnel, ancienne directrice de cabinet d’Eruc Dupond-Moretti.
Nous sommes là au coeur de ce qui compte dans la police macroniste. Au coeur du pouvoir.
L’équipement allemand visible à Koursk a fait ressurgir de vieux fantômes et a renforcé la prise de conscience des intentions hostiles de l’Occident à l’égard de la Russie.La réplique tacite est «plus jamais ça».
La propagande de guerre et les feintes sont vieilles comme le monde. Il n’y a rien de nouveau. Mais ce qui est nouveau, c’est que l’infoguerre n’est plus le complément d’objectifs de guerre plus vastes, mais qu’elle est devenue une fin en soi.
L’Occident en est venu à considérer que «posséder» le récit gagnant – et présenter l’autre comme maladroit, dissonant et extrémiste – était plus important que d’affronter les faits sur le terrain. Selon ce point de vue, posséder le récit gagnant, c’est gagner. La «victoire» virtuelle l’emporte donc sur la «vraie» réalité.
Ainsi, la guerre devient plutôt le cadre permettant d’imposer un alignement idéologique au sein d’une vaste alliance mondiale et de le faire respecter par des médias complaisants.
Cet objectif est plus prioritaire que, par exemple, la garantie d’une capacité de production suffisante pour soutenir les objectifs militaires. L’élaboration d’une «réalité» imaginaire a pris le pas sur le façonnement de la réalité sur le terrain.
Le fait est que cette approche – qui est fonction de l’alignement de l’ensemble de la société (tant à l’intérieur qu’à l’extérieur) – crée des pièges dans de fausses réalités, de fausses attentes, dont il est pratiquement impossible de sortir (lorsque cela devient nécessaire), précisément parce que l’alignement imposé a ossifié le sentiment public. La possibilité pour un État de changer de cap au fur et à mesure que les événements se déroulent est réduite ou perdue, et la lecture précise des faits sur le terrain s’oriente vers le politiquement correct et s’éloigne de la réalité.
L’effet cumulatif d’un «récit virtuel gagnant » comporte néanmoins le risque de glisser progressivement vers une «guerre réelle» involontaire.
Prenons, par exemple, l’incursion orchestrée et équipée par l’OTAN dans l’oblast de Koursk, qui revêt une importance symbolique. En termes de «récit gagnant», l’attrait pour l’Occident est évident : l’Ukraine «apporte la guerre en Russie».
Si les forces ukrainiennes avaient réussi à s’emparer de la centrale nucléaire de Koursk, elles auraient alors disposé d’une importante monnaie d’échange et auraient sans doute détourné les forces russes de la «ligne» ukrainienne qui ne cesse de s’effondrer dans le Donbass.
Et pour couronner le tout (en termes d’infoguerre), les médias occidentaux étaient préparés et alignés pour montrer le président Poutine comme «gelé» par l’incursion surprise, et «vacillant» d’anxiété à l’idée que le public russe se retourne contre lui dans sa colère face à l’humiliation.
Bill Burns, directeur de la CIA, a estimé que «la Russie n’offrirait aucune concession sur l’Ukraine, jusqu’à ce que l’excès de confiance de Poutine soit remis en question et que l’Ukraine puisse montrer sa force». D’autres responsables américains ont ajouté que l’incursion de Koursk ne suffirait pas à amener la Russie à la table des négociations ; il serait nécessaire de poursuivre l’opération de Koursk par d’autres opérations audacieuses (pour ébranler le sang froid de Moscou).
Bien entendu, l’objectif global était de montrer la Russie comme fragile et vulnérable, conformément à l’idée selon laquelle, à tout moment, la Russie pourrait se fissurer et s’éparpiller au gré du vent, en fragments. L’Occident en sortirait vainqueur, bien entendu.
En fait, l’incursion à Koursk était un énorme pari de l’OTAN : Il s’agissait d’hypothéquer les réserves militaires et les blindés de l’Ukraine, comme des jetons sur la table de roulette, en pariant qu’un succès éphémère à Koursk bouleverserait l’équilibre stratégique. Le pari a été perdu et les jetons confisqués.
En clair, l’affaire de Koursk illustre le problème que posent à l’Occident les «récits gagnants» : Leur défaut inhérent est qu’ils sont fondés sur l’émotivité et qu’ils évitent l’argumentation. Inévitablement, ils sont simplistes. Ils sont simplement destinés à alimenter un alignement commun de «l’ensemble de la société». En d’autres termes, les médias, les entreprises, les agences fédérales, les ONG et le secteur de la sécurité devraient tous s’opposer à tous les «extrémismes» qui menacent «notre démocratie».
Cet objectif, en soi, exige que le discours soit peu exigeant et relativement peu controversé : «Notre démocratie, nos valeurs et notre consensus». La convention nationale du parti démocrate, par exemple, fait de la «joie» (répétée à l’infini), du «mouvement vers l’avant» et de l’«opposition à la bizarrerie» ses principales déclarations. Ils sont banals, mais l’énergie et l’élan de ces mèmes ne viennent pas tant de leur contenu que du cadre hollywoodien délibéré qui leur confère un caractère éblouissant et glamour.
Il n’est pas difficile de comprendre comment ce zeitgeist unidimensionnel a pu contribuer à ce que les États-Unis et leurs alliés se trompent sur l’impact de l’«aventure audacieuse» de Koursk d’aujourd’hui sur les Russes ordinaires.
«Koursk» a une histoire. En 1943, l’Allemagne a envahi la Russie à Koursk pour détourner l’attention de ses propres pertes, l’Allemagne ayant finalement été vaincue lors de la bataille de Koursk. Le retour du matériel militaire allemand dans les environs de Koursk a dû en laisser plus d’un bouche bée ; le champ de bataille actuel autour de la ville de Soudja est précisément l’endroit où, en 1943, les 38e et 40e armées soviétiques se sont lovées pour une contre-offensive contre la 4e armée allemande.
Au cours des siècles, la Russie a été diversement attaquée sur son flanc vulnérable depuis l’ouest. Et plus récemment par Napoléon et Hitler. Il n’est donc pas surprenant que les Russes soient très sensibles à cette histoire sanglante. Bill Burns et consorts ont-ils bien réfléchi à la question ? Ont-ils imaginé que l’invasion de la Russie par l’OTAN donnerait à Poutine l’impression d’être «défié» et qu’avec une nouvelle poussée, il plierait et accepterait une issue «gelée» en Ukraine – avec l’entrée de cette dernière dans l’OTAN ? Peut-être.
En fin de compte, le message envoyé par les services occidentaux est que l’Occident (l’OTAN) vient pour la Russie. C’est le sens du choix délibéré de Koursk. En lisant les runes du message de Bill Burns, on comprend qu’il faut se préparer à la guerre avec l’OTAN.
Pour être clair, ce genre de «récit gagnant» autour de Koursk n’est ni une tromperie ni une feinte. Les accords de Minsk étaient des exemples de tromperie, mais il s’agissait de tromperies fondées sur une stratégie rationnelle (c’est-à-dire qu’elles étaient historiquement normales). Les tromperies de Minsk visaient à faire gagner du temps à l’Occident pour poursuivre la militarisation de l’Ukraine – avant d’attaquer le Donbass. La tromperie a fonctionné, mais seulement au prix d’une rupture de confiance entre la Russie et l’Occident. Cependant, les tromperies de Minsk ont également accéléré la fin d’une ère de 200 ans d’occidentalisation de la Russie.
L’affaire Koursk, quant à elle, est d’une autre nature. Elle repose sur les notions d’exceptionnalisme occidental. L’Occident se perçoit comme se plaçant du «bon côté de l’Histoire». Les «récits gagnants» affirment essentiellement – sous une forme séculaire – le caractère inévitable de la mission eschatologique occidentale de rédemption et de convergence mondiales. Dans ce nouveau contexte narratif, les faits sur le terrain deviennent de simples irritants et non des réalités dont il faut tenir compte.
C’est leur talon d’Achille.
La convention du DNC à Chicago a toutefois mis en évidence une autre préoccupation :
Tout comme l’Occident hégémonique est né de l’ère de la guerre froide, façonné et revigoré par l’opposition dialectique au communisme (dans la mythologie occidentale), nous voyons aujourd’hui un «extrémisme» totalisant (prétendu) (qu’il soit du type MAGA ou de la variété externe : Iran, Russie, etc.) – posé à Chicago dans une opposition dialectique hégélienne similaire à l’ancien capitalisme contre le communisme ; mais dans le cas d’aujourd’hui, il s’agit de l’«extrémisme» en conflit avec «Notre Démocratie».
La thèse narrative du DNC de Chicago est elle-même une tautologie de différenciation identitaire se présentant comme un «ensemble» sous la bannière de la diversité et en conflit avec la «blancheur» et l’«extrémisme». L’«extrémisme» est effectivement présenté comme le successeur de l’ancienne antithèse de la guerre froide,lecommunisme.
L’arrière-boutique de Chicago s’imagine peut-être qu’une confrontation avec l’extrémisme – au sens large – entraînera à nouveau un rajeunissement de l’Amérique, comme ce fut le cas dans l’après-guerre froide. Ce qui signifie qu’un conflit avec l’Iran, la Russie et la Chine (d’une manière différente) pourrait être mis à l’ordre du jour. Les signes avant-coureurs sont là (en plus du besoin de l’Occident de remettre à plat son économie, ce que la guerre permet régulièrement).
Le stratagème de Koursk a sans doute semblé intelligent et audacieux à Londres et à Washington. Mais pour quel résultat ? Il n’a atteint ni l’objectif de prendre la centrale nucléaire de Koursk, ni celui d’éloigner les troupes russes de la ligne de contact. La présence ukrainienne dans l’oblast de Koursk sera éliminée.
En revanche, elle a mis fin à toute perspective de règlement négocié en Ukraine. La méfiance de la Russie à l’égard des États-Unis est désormais absolue. Cela a renforcé la détermination de Moscou à poursuivre l’opération spéciale jusqu’à son terme. Les équipements allemands visibles à Koursk ont réveillé de vieux fantômes et renforcé la conscience des intentions hostiles de l’Occident à l’égard de la Russie. La riposte tacite est : «Plus jamais ça».
M. A. Dr Mehenou Amouzou a obtenu son Master in Business à l’European Advanced Institute of Management, ainsi qu’un certificat en finances et investissement à Paris (France). Il a complété ses études dans les relations internationales et les stratégies politiques et de défense et a obtenu son doctorat de philosophie en finances.
Ont contribué à la rédaction de cet article : Georges D. Ossavou, Ray West, Fundacion Paraiso Sin Fronteras, Morgan Lewis, Amouzou Nkrumah Production, Nouho Kamara, Yves Adjeme, Vassiriki Traore, Hilaire Avomassodo & Toure Moussa.
Depuis le 7 octobre 2023, au moins 40 000 Palestiniens, dont 18 000 enfants et plus de 13 000 femmes, et plus de 1 200 Israéliens ont été tués. Aujourd’hui, cette guerre continue à décimer des centaines d’individus chaque jour. Pourquoi les grands pays, tels que les Etats-Unis, la France, l’Angleterre, l’Allemagne, l’Italie, le Japon, la Russie, etc. n’ont pas su prévenir ce conflit, en favorisant la création de deux Etats, israélien et palestinien ? Pourquoi la résolution de 1967 qui ordonnait la création de deux Etats n’est pas respectée jusqu’à maintenant, alors que pour la Corée du Sud et la Corée du Nord, les deux Soudan, les deux Allemagne, l’Erythrée et l’Ethiopie la réunification a été faite sous les auspices de l’ONU et de différentes organisations internationales ? Pourquoi Israël et la Palestine ne vivraient pas en bon voisinage ? Est-ce à dire qu’il n’y aurait aucune volonté des grands acteurs ci-dessus mentionnés à œuvrer pour la construction des deux Etats ? En tout cas, l’ONU qui a pu régler la majorité des conflits est incapable de résoudre ce problème. Israël et la création d’un Etat palestinien Selon notre analyse et au vu des événements actuels, il sera difficile d’envisager la création d’un Etat palestinien. Israël a une suprématie militaire, générée par l’Occident. Ses armements ne lui coûtent rien. Il reçoit les dernières technologies militaires et des bombes gratuitement ; il n’a pas de budget militaire à dépenser. Nous pouvons en déduire qu’Israël ne s’oppose pas à la création d’un Etat palestinien mais y est obligé par ses sponsors militaires et financiers. Depuis 1967 jusqu’à nos jours, l’Occident alimente cette guerre. Si Israël devait utiliser ses ressources propres, nous pensons qu’il aurait mis fin au conflit car la guerre coûte cher et il n’en a pas les moyens. Le conflit s’éternise soutenu par les Etats occidentaux. Nous entendons couramment dire qu’Israël est le seul pays démocratique dans le Moyen-Orient respectant les droits de l’homme, et très souvent les pays qui le disent ne sont autres que ceux qui alimentent Israël en moyens militaires et financiers. L’hypothèse probable de voir la fin de cette guerre qui a trop duré serait le déclin de l’hégémonie occidentale lequel engendrerait des problèmes d’ordre économique et militaire très graves au niveau national et international. Ce sont toujours les mêmes qui s’opposent à toutes les résolutions de l’ONU en faveur d’un cessez-le-feu. Il y a peut-être une cause sous-jacente à ce genre de comportement ; les Etats-Unis ne produisent plus comme avant, ils importent presque tout de la Chine et d’autres pays, ce qui affaiblit économiquement l’Occident. Cette situation ressemble à celle qui existait avant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Le taux de chômage en Occident en 1933 était très élevé dans tous les grands pays industrialisés, la récession économique était partout : Etats-Unis (37,6%), Royaume-Uni (19,9%), Suède 23,2%), Norvège (33,4%), Hollande (26,9%), Allemagne (36,2%), France (14,1%), etc. Les familles étaient obligées de chercher leur nourriture dans les dépôts d’ordures. A la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, et selon le major general Smedley D. Butler, il avait 21 000 millionnaires nouveaux aux Etats-Unis. Le taux de chômage très élevé au début de la guerre a été gommé par de nombreuses pertes en vies humaines. Malgré tout, on parle de la relance économique sans prendre en compte le nombre de morts généré par cette guerre. Combien de temps ce conflit va-t-il encore durer ? Malgré la perte importante de ses soldats, Israël continue à mener une guerre qui dure depuis déjà dix mois. Une question se pose, comment fait-il pour renflouer ses troupes ? La filière africaine pour alimenter les troupes israéliennes L’Etat d’Israël n’est pas le premier pays à solliciter des combattants auprès des gouvernements africains. Ce sont des mercenaires car ils ne sont pas déclarés par leurs pays respectifs et sont sans foi, ni loi. Tout se passe en catimini, en échange de dollars mais la moitié de la solde des participants africains est retenue par certains officiers. La plupart des soldats envoyés sont mal préparés, ils partent croyant qu’ils vont survivre et retourner chez eux, mais reviennent blessés ou dans des cercueils. L’Arabie Saoudite avait utilisé les soldats africains au cours de la guerre de Yémen. Ce conflit avait été initié par les mêmes pays qui soutiennent Israël. Il avait eu aussi des centaines de milliers de morts, de blessés, de déportés et de la famine. L’Arabie Saoudite et Israël ont préféré utiliser des soldats étrangers pour défendre leurs causes et protéger leurs ressortissants. Pour les soldats africains morts en Israël, les gouvernements participent seulement aux frais d’enterrement et la famille est laissée pour compte. La plupart du temps, le foyer ne vivait que de la seule paie du père ; ce dernier décédé, sa veuve qui était mère au foyer se retrouve totalement démunie, dans la misère et la souffrance. Les enfants sont alors contraints d’abandonner l’école et parfois l’apprentissage. La responsabilité en revient aux chefs de gouvernement ou aux présidents des pays qui ont pris la terrible décision d’envoyer leurs ressortissants combattre. Il y a eu plus de bombes larguées sur Gaza que sur Dresde, en Allemagne, Hiroshima et Nagasaki au Japon. Au cours des dix derniers mois de guerre, des villes entières de la Palestine ont été rasées complètement. Le combat n’est pas équitable ; la Palestine est sous-équipée par rapport à Israël soutenu en plus par l’Occident. Nous constatons que cette guerre s’éternise parce que les militaires étrangers sont mis en première ligne. Les dirigeants de l’Afrique noire qui sont impopulaires auprès de leur population ont envoyé leurs soldats en Israël comme on envoie des animaux à l’abattoir. Comme nous l’avons précisé dès le début, ces militaires ne sont pas préparés, ils sont seulement entraînés pour contenir la population. Le monde entier a pu constater la démonstration de la résistance palestinienne et comment l’attaque a été organisée et perpétrée le 7 octobre 2023. Du point de vue de plusieurs experts militaires, cette attaque a été minutieusement préparée alors que les soldats africains envoyés sur le front ne sont même pas armés, ou à peine. Il est évident qu’ils ne pourront pas tenir dans de pareilles conditions. Et si cette guerre devait se généraliser, comme la Première Guerre mondiale et la Seconde, est-ce que les Africains iraient combattre pour l’Europe pour des promesses qui ne seront pas tenues ? Va-t-on demander aux populations locales de contribuer à l’envoi de nourriture pour le Vieux Continent alors que ces dernières n’ont rien à manger ? L’Occident n’a jamais reconnu ni les valeurs culturelles, ni scientifiques, ni sociales de l’Afrique ; il la traite comme un laboratoire d’essai. Malheureusement, la guerre israélo-palestinienne a montré un autre aspect politique peu reluisant dans lequel certains dirigeants téléguidés par les Occidentaux mènent leur peuple comme des moutons et œuvrent contre les intérêts de leur propre pays. Certains pays qui étaient, hier, plus pauvres que l’Afrique sont devenus des pays développés, à l’instar de la Chine et de l’Inde pour lesquelles, jusqu’en 1975, 90 à 95% de leur population n’avaient pour seul moyen de locomotion qu’un vélo. Parallèlement à cette époque-là, la Côte d’Ivoire était mieux organisée et développée que ces deux pays. Actuellement, la Chine occupe la première place économique du monde et le nombre de milliardaires en dollars est de 814, en 2e place les Etats-Unis 800, en 3e place l’Inde 271. On peut aussi citer la Malaisie, la Thaïlande et Singapour qui ne vivait que du tourisme dans les années 1980. Quand M. Lee a pris le pouvoir, il a transformé le petit Singapour en un géant incontournable. On ne peut même pas comparer la France, la Belgique, l’Angleterre, l’Allemagne etc. au Singapour d’aujourd’hui. Pourquoi le Togo, le Niger, le Burkina-Faso, la Côte d’Ivoire ne deviendraient pas le Singapour de l’Afrique ? Les pays africains pourraient jouer un rôle important sur la scène internationale et dans la résolution de certains conflits s’ils acceptaient de parler d’une seule et même voix. Au lieu de cela, ils engagent de jeunes et vaillants hommes dans une guerre qui ne les concerne pas, gaspillant ainsi les forces vives du continent.
It is not just the criminalization of a church linked to the Moscow Patriarchate, but true persecution of the faith of more than 80% of Ukrainians
Recently, Ukraine finally passed a total ban on the Orthodox Church, making the faith of more than 80% of the Ukrainian people illegal. The decision did not surprise anyone, as several laws restricting the Church’s activities had already been approved in the country since 2022 – in addition to the de facto persecution of Orthodoxy taking place since the Maidan coup in 2014. However, even so, the Western media continues trying to soften the crimes of its proxy regime.
The current main narrative in the Western media is that Ukraine has banned the “Russian Orthodox Church”. By calling the Orthodox Church on Ukrainian soil “Russian”, the media induces public opinion to believe that the ban only affects a specific religious group linked to Moscow, and does not harm the Orthodox faithful as a whole. However, this is an easily refutable lie.
Unlike the Catholic Church, Orthodoxy does not have a “universal bishop” – like a “Pope” – and its administration is therefore divided into regional jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction of the Church is absolutely sovereign, with Orthodoxy being a Communion of Faith between different Autocephalous Churches. Each Autocephalous Church administers a canonical territory, with no Church being authorized to interfere in the internal affairs of another’s territory.
The canonical territory of an Autocephalous Church is not necessarily restricted to the borders of nation states. Canonical territorial delimitation concerns the historical development of Orthodoxy in a region. State borders are much more unstable than canonical borders – which, although they can change, require much more time to develop such reconfigurations.
In the case of the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, Russian jurisdiction extends to almost the entire post-Soviet space, in addition to some regions of Far Asia, such as China and Japan. Ukraine, for obvious reasons, has always been part of the canonical jurisdiction of Moscow and never wanted to stop being so. There are even reports that canonical autocephaly was already offered to Ukrainians by the Russians, being rejected.
In the case of very large canonical territories, such as Russia’s, it is common for there to be division into local “sub-jurisdictions”. These sub-jurisdictions sometimes correspond to the specific territories of some nation states. This is precisely the case with the Orthodox Church of Japan and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, for example – both sub-jurisdictions subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate. These regional churches have broad administrative autonomy, but do not have canonical sovereignty (autocephaly).
It is important to emphasize how these divisions are purely administrative in nature, although they correspond to historical, cultural and political factors. There is no such a thing as an “ethnic division” of Orthodoxy, being this type of segregationist mentality – known as “phyletism” – banned as a heresy in the Orthodox Communion.
So, it must be said very clearly that by banning the canonical Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) on Ukrainian soil, the Kiev regime simply banned the Ukrainian Orthodox Church itself. In other words, the faith of 80% of the Ukrainian people has become illegal in the country.
Zelensky did not simply banish the Church. He also called the Orthodox Christians of the Moscow Patriarchate “Muscovite demons” in his speech on Ukraine’s “independence day.” Furthermore, Artyom Dmitruk, a Ukrainian parliamentarian who voted against the Church ban, is being persecuted by the regime, having even suffered attacks on members of his family. The police are also reacting with violence against all demonstrators protesting against the ban on the Church, having then an official situation of religious persecution in the neo-Nazi regime.
It is also interesting to mention that there are efforts by the Western media to promote an ultranationalist Ukrainian schismatic sect – the so-called “Kiev Patriarchate”. The group was created by some former Ukrainian ultranationalist clerics in the 1990s following unsuccessful minority demands of autocephaly for Kiev. Since 2014, the sect has become a kind of Ukrainian “state church”, receiving strong support from the Maidan Junta – including the handover of canonical Church assets confiscated by the Ukrainian state.
This sect is known for venerating as saints the so-called “national heroes” of Ukraine, such as SS member and Holocaust collaborator Stepan Bandera. Furthermore, the group carries out several blasphemous acts against Orthodox Christianity, preaching a kind of Russophobic “anti-Orthodoxy”.
Unfortunately, however, political interference in religion has been strong in Ukraine, mainly from external actors. The “Kiev Patriarchate” was recently “recognized” by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in an illegal intervention maneuver in the canonical territory of Moscow. Constantinople is fortunately isolated in its decision, being supported only by the Autocephalous Churches of Athens and Alexandria.
There is a political explanation for this process. The Patriarch of Constantinople is always a Turkish citizen. It is law in Turkey that only a Turkish bishop is elected Patriarch – which, in practice, means that only bishops who were soldiers in the Turkish Army (and consequently in NATO itself) are qualified to command the local church. The current Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, is a former Turkish/NATO soldier, having certainly gone through a process of Western brainwashing in his youth. Furthermore, for decades the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been recognized by Orthodox theologians as an institution heavily infiltrated by doctrines condemned by the Church, being in a gradual process of separation from the rest of the Canonical Communion.
There is also a political explanation for the fact that only Athens and Alexandria “supported” Constantinople on the Ukrainian issue. At first, both churches, as well as the rest of the Orthodox world, condemned Constantinople, but political blackmail was used to make them review their decisions. Greece is an Orthodox state, where clerics are like “public servants”. Being a member of NATO and the EU, the Greek state threatened to cut financial support to the Church in case of condemnation of Bartholomew’s anti-canonical actions – which would leave clerics without a salary for their basic expenses. In the same sense, Alexandria is an economically weak Patriarchate, dependent on Turkish and Greek money for its financing, which led the local jurisdiction to “support” Constantinople.
Bartholomew has strongly influenced events in Ukraine. He has participated in several meetings and telephone calls with Turkish, American, European and Ukrainian diplomats, military personnel and intelligence officers, always helping to develop plans to weaponize religion in Ukraine in favor of the West. Unfortunately, this anti-canonical situation made communion between Moscow and Constantinople impossible to be maintained. There is currently a crisis in Orthodoxy similar to that of the Middle Ages that led to the rupture between Western Roman jurisdiction and the rest of the Church.
All of these topics are extremely complex for the Western public, who are not familiar to the traditions, rules and nomenclature of the Orthodox Church. But it is important that these clarifications are made because only then is it possible to debunk the fallacy spread by the mainstream media that the “Russian” Church was banned in Ukraine. In fact, Kiev banned the Ukrainian Orthodox Church itself, which has always been part of the Moscow Patriarchate, this canonical union not being a reflection of any political tie, but of a common historical-cultural development.
Each and every one of those Czech grandmothers in Pavel’s crosshairs is infinitely more honourable than Pavel will ever be, and each and every one of them has a far better understanding of Bohemia’s history.
In an ideal world, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova would not have had to upbraid Czech President General Petr Pavel, Prague’s answer to Kiev’s Clown Prince Zelensky. But this is not an ideal world and the Czech Republic, under the CIA’s good soldier Pavel, is far from a normal country.
At the heart of Zakharova’s complaint is that Pavel has claimed that, because the Nord Stream pipeline was a “legitimate target”, his mates were well within their right to blow it up and thereby send the German economy into a tailspin. I call these criminals Pavel’s mates as, if we accept that Ukraine blew it up, we need only recall that the good soldier Pavel was the first foreign head of state to visit Zelensky’s bunker after Russia’s peace-keeping forces rolled into Donbas. If, on the other hand, we agree that the United States and their Norwegian proxies committed this war crime against the peace, then we must remember that the good soldier Pavel happily chaired the NATO Military Committee, NATO’s equivalent to the Mafia”s Commission, which helps decide the overall thrust of NATO’s criminal enterprises.
For his services to NATO, the good soldier Pavel was awarded France’s Legion of Honour and National Order of Merit, as well as Belgium’s Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown, Bulgaria’s Badge of Honour and very many others, which no doubt look well on him when he puffs his chest out and plays the part of a soldier.
But Pavel is no hero. He and his wife, who is a lieutenant colonel in the Czech Army, are far less credible than The Good Soldier Švejk, the anti-hero in Czech writer Jaroslav Hašek’s dark comedy about a good-humored, simple-minded, middle-aged man who appears to be enthusiastic to serve Austria-Hungary in World War I, but who gets into all kinds of farcical scrapes that have endeared him to generations of readers. Whereas Hašek’s great novel, which has been translated into over 50 languages, is a credit to Bohemia, Pavel’s posturing is a thundering disgrace.
First off, though the good soldier Švejk has a low opinion of the Catholic Church, he is only an inconsequential figment of Hašek’s mind, whereas the atheist Pavel and his fellow NATO sycophants are in the process of banning the Russian and Czech Orthodox Churches as part of some cock-eyed NATO plan to help Zelensky’s pogroms and curry favour with the Pentagon. If Pavel and his fellow mercenaries think outlawing religions NATO disagrees with will make an ounce of difference to the fate of Kiev’s devil worshipers, they are mistaken, as the main forces that are making the difference in Ukraine are the Russian Armed Forces, who are a much tougher nut to crack than are the elderly Czech grandmothers by the banks of the Danube Pavel is locking horns with.
Each and every one of those Czech grandmothers in Pavel’s crosshairs is infinitely more honourable than Pavel will ever be, and each and every one of them has a far better understanding of Bohemia’s history than a conniving mercenary like Pavel can ever have. I say that for two main reasons. The first reason is that they believe in something, whereas mercenaries like Pavel believe in nothing. Pavel began his mercenary career by following in his father’s footsteps and joining the Czechoslovakian Communist Party and, shortly afterwards, the Czechoslovakian Peoples’ Army. When the bottom fell out of that dodge, Pavel joined the new Czech Army, where he wormed his way up to Chief of the General Staff of the Czech Armed Forces. With that, his MI6 King’s College education and NATO’s Commission gig firmly in his pocket, the CIA engineered his successful Presidential bid.
Although most other CIA and MI6 satraps could be lampooned in broadly the same manner, the Wars of the Reformation, which claimed the lives of one out of every three people in Lower Bohemia make it particularly apposite to the Czech Republic and to hired dogs like Pavel. Any Czech, whether of the Catholic, Orthodox or any other faith, would be aware of the rivers of blood that emanated from the Hussite wars, the Bohemian revolt and the 30 year war that followed it. And any Czech general or patriot worth his salt would well know that the terrible carnage of the Wars of the Reformation was, in very large measure, caused by the very large numbers of mercenaries available for hire and the exponential increase in military firepower that was concomitant with those wars, and that we see being played out again by the banks of the Dnieper.
Not the good soldier Pavel though. When not preening his whiskers in the mirror and jingling the ill-gotten gold in his pocket, this clown would wonder, if he had any moral fibre that is, how many more Ukrainians, Russians and sundry Christians his paymasters will decree must perish to keep their NATO scam motoring along.
As things currently stand, Pavel’s regime has not only used stolen Russian funds to buy hundreds of thousands more artillery shells from their NATO buddies to murder Russian civilians in Donbas with, but they have also trained thousands of Azov fanatics to murder Russian pensioners in Kursk. And, though Zakharova is no doubt unhappy with all of that, Pavel has presented Moscow with a butcher’s bill Pavel must personally atone for, not totally unlike the way Ukrainian conscripts Pavel, Zelensky and their fellow sociopaths have callously tossed onto Ukraine’s pyre. Pavel is no harmless good soldier Švejk. He is an opportunist creep, who delights in blowing up pipelines, enabling hits on children in Donbas and pensioners in Kursk, when he is not otherwise engaged in terrorising Czech church goers or talking out of both sides of his smarmy mouth.
Pavel, who now fancies himself as a statesman, is now saying that, though Zelensky’s regime might not get everything they want from peace talks with Russia, they should strike some interim deal so that NATO can regroup, further financially shake down Russia and strike at Donbas’ school children and Kursk’s pensioners at another, more opportune time. And, on top of that, this bum for hire wants the truncated Ukrainian Reich in NATO, no matter what the price, which Russia has already spelled out in words and actions that even the good soldier Švejk would understand. Because that price is all-out war up to and including the exchange of nuclear missiles in Europe, one really has to wonder if there is any hope for anywhere in Europe, when the CIA’s Lower Bohemian satrapy promotes such a loud mouthed windbag to positions of military and political prominence he is as clearly unsuited for as is the cross dressing Zelensky clown, who Pavel has helped to cause so much needless carnage by the banks of the Dnieper.
Zelensky is ordering the bombing of the Zaporozhye NPP and threatening the Kursk nuclear plant, because his health – literally – depends on dragging Russia into a long-lasting, large-scale conflict.
As we witness geopolitical tensions worsening, especially in the places richest in natural resources, resulting in the breakdown of diplomatic channels and the increasing radicalization – at least discursively – among the opponents, we are in turn witnessing a clarification of the respective strategic positions and their direction. All the mechanisms that we once thought guaranteed international security have historically expired. The deep crisis of Anglo-American hegemony has decreed their obsolescence. No peace can survive a profound crisis of any system, much less one that lives on exclusivity and priority in the plundering and exploitation of world resources.
No matter how many fantastic reports are produced about how competitive the U.S. economy is, how stable and consistent the dollar is and how resilient the Wall Street-based economy is, the fact is that these reports are far from being matched where it matters most: in the lives of the people, the workers, their families, in other words, the immense majority who have been slow to benefit from such monstrous injections of democracy. The process that began with Bush’s War on Terror and was continued by Obama has found its epilogue in the current situation. The generic term “terrorism”, whose combat was already aimed at containing some and appropriating others, has evolved once again into a concrete “axis of evil”. Time has finally told us who the U.S. was hiding behind so much “terrorism”.
When the terrorist curtain came down, it revealed the real objectives of its uprising and its broad and multifaceted instrumental nature. Today, we know very well how the term terrorist condemns, above all, the enemies of the U.S. and its hegemonic drift. The U.S. is steadily losing its economic (and productive) influence, and with it its political power, which is still immense and based on a formal and informal army of agents – covered and uncovered – and “influencers” who move its immense formatting machine. The largest organizational machine in history is beginning to lack what is the basis for sustaining any political existence: the real productive economic base.
Basically, the economic base under U.S. domination no longer corresponds to the inversely disproportionate political power that it sustains. The pyramid is inverted and not all the world’s debt will sustain it. The growing inability of the political apparatus to prevent the corrosion of its relative position is forcing the U.S. to make a sustained effort to mitigate, contain and reverse its perishing and, ultimately, the bankruptcy of an entire economic base that is already in large deficit. This is the fundamental reason why tensions are worsening worldwide. In a deep crisis, naturally and gradually, the exploitative base is removing the civilizational obstacles that separate greed from its object.
One way of removing these obstacles lies in the U.S.’s subversive capacity. In particular, in overthrowing legitimate governments and installing clients and other “surrenderers” who ensure the betrayal of their peoples for the benefit of the Wall-Street-based empire. Bangladesh, Indonesia, Georgia, Serbia and Venezuela are just some of the places where, if the rulers don’t please the big corporations that finance political power in Washington, they find themselves besieged by the armies of NGOs, Think Thank, mainstream media and social networks in California. Pavel Durov, co-leader of Telegram, had left Russia because he considered Vladimir Putin’s demands for control to be a violation of freedom of expression. Now he has learned to his cost that, in liberal-fascist Macronist France, failure to provide such guarantees results in imprisonment! The rights that are imprisoned in order to protect free speech! And all in the name of the “independence” of justice.
The indicators of decadence are so evident and profuse that they alone would merit in-depth and even critical reflection. But let’s put it this way: even on its own terms, according to its own concepts and taking into account its own data, the reality narrated does not smile on the U.S. and its “leadership”. Not even in its own terms can the U.S. hide its progressive bankruptcy. The BRICS have overtaken the G7 in GDP and the volume of economic transactions that escape Washington’s control grows every day, even when these transactions are carried out in its own currency. A clear example of the insurmountable contradiction that plagues the U.S.-controlled monetary and financial system is the use of the dollar by Washington’s own “enemies” to stabilize their economies and guarantee the stability of transactions and their mechanisms.
Maduro’s Venezuela, once again faced with another episode of the Shakespearean film “To win or not to win elections, that is the question?”, has dollarized its economy, using Chinese reserves in dollars and the oil it has in quantity like no other country. China, which is making Hong Kong a hub for cryptocurrency transactions, uses Tether – a virtual currency indexed to the value of the dollar – as a stabilizing mechanism for the crypto market, guaranteeing the conversion of fiat money and without the constant fluctuations of Bitcoin, Ethereum or Solana. Its capitalization value has already surpassed that of Bitcoin, for example. The much-vaunted “de-dollarization” may in fact be nothing more than, in part at least, a “de-Westernization” of the dollar and the consequent withdrawal of dollars from Washington-controlled banks.
It is against this backdrop that we should observe reality and not against the rose-colored backdrop that sings of enemy bankruptcies, insurmountable challenges and insurmountable obstacles, with which all the “mainstream” media paint us, unanimously and in unity, every day. This is the only way to understand the “desperate” and apparently suicidal maneuvers we see everywhere. Otherwise, given the rose-colored cloth, we end up saying that Netanyahu is crazy but a democrat, Zelensky is corrupt but brave, and that all the others are crooks, even though many are not corrupt, let alone crazy.
Once again, the solution to the crisis of crises, and the consequent extremism of positions, lies in resurrecting the Nazi-fascist monster, but this time in a more comprehensive and diverse guise. It is, however, the same monster that, with every crisis in the capitalist system, as in the 1920s and 1930s in Europe and the U.S. after the First World War, emerges to solve by force what others denied it peacefully: access to natural resources, i.e. cheap energy, raw materials, food and labor. The solution to all crises is repeated once again. Some used the salvation of souls, others the salvation of peoples.
Immediately after the Russian revolution of 1917, the Western imperialist bloc was intent on getting its hands on that extraordinary reserve of all these things. Faced with resistance, an invasion organized by 14 imperial powers and a civil war, whose counter-revolutionary force was supported by the imperial West, were not enough to bring down this “diabolical” regime. The Russian and Soviet peoples wouldn’t let it. Perhaps it was a kind of Stockholm syndrome, which curiously has happened again and again to this day. Despite the fact that even today, according to their own accusations, these people are “besieged” by a “bloody dictatorship”.
A war had to be prepared and this was done by demonizing, stigmatizing, breaking down relationships and sowing fear and hatred among the most unsuspecting European populations. Nothing new, then. Dehumanization, fermented in the economic crisis, the concentration of wealth and the unwillingness of the elites to share what they had previously accumulated from work, gave Hitler (and all the hidden “Hitlers”) the justification he needed when he looked to the USSR as the cure for the ills that plagued Germany: oil and minerals in abundance, fertile land and cheap labor.
If it hadn’t been for their insistent fighting capacity, the U.S., Britain and Japan would have been rubbing their hands in glee at the deals to come. Once again, they were wrong. Once again, their chances were dashed. And once again, the Russian Federation had to play the aggressor. Victim of a Western invasion every 70 years, Russia has gone from invader to invaded. An agreement like Molotov-Ribbentrop, the last of its kind between Nazi Germany and a European country, turned the biggest victim of the Second World War into its co-author. A devastating and unexpected victory – by the West – over its newborn son, Nazi-fascism, transformed the USSR into a kind of 3rd Red Reich.
In any case, and as programmed by the reactionary elites who dominate – and have always dominated – the U.S., due to the game being played on both boards, even if at different times, the Second World War left this colossal country in an extremely enviable position, just as the first one had, resolving the damage caused by the crash of 1929 and transforming it into a superpower, the only one. That, and that alone, is why we haven’t seen a full-scale war in Europe to this day. Until that enviable position had been shattered or threatened and until the hopes of political domination by Russia, China and Eurasia had been definitively dashed. Once the triumph with the fall of the USSR has been exhausted and the European Union has benefited from the resulting continental cooperation, we are back to the beginning of the dehumanizing process, once again of Russia, but this time Iran and China are also rewarded. After all, until recently, the hope of political domination by China and Iran prevailed.
The loss of hope in the functioning of “soft power” and the urgency of the situation, aggravated by Russia’s economic recovery, China’s centrality and Iran’s regionality, caused the planetary “life insurance”, which many believed to be the doctrine of “mutual assured destruction”, inherited from the Cold War, to expire. The “mutual assured destruction” doctrine only worked because the U.S. soon realized that it would be able to supplant the USSR and that its hegemonic dominance would not yet be challenged. The USSR’s adherence to non-proliferation treaties and the establishment of an international power architecture that benefited Washington, gave hope and consolidated certainties of victory. The winner could afford to be magnanimous.
The U.S. only feared the USSR from a military point of view, but it knew that military power does not exist without political power, that political power depends on the economy, and that this relative economic capacity was insufficient to guarantee a victory for the USSR. On the other hand, even if that wasn’t the case, the economies were de facto separate, segregated, and the backdrop against which the U.S. was acting was not a black backdrop of crisis, but a rainbow backdrop of expansion. It was this backdrop, this all-encompassing rainbow backdrop, embraced by the “uniparty” that brings together Democrats and Republicans, that contained the fiercest hawks. Its economic dominance, its strategy of accumulation, were not deathly threatened. Soft power was enough. While the USSR remained strong, the world witnessed major crises such as the Cuban missile crisis. In the end, the U.S. had the luxury of establishing the Washington consensus and ushering in the neoliberal era.
Today, the reality is quite different. Knowing that China is not yet the military adversary that the USSR was, the U.S. nevertheless knows that China has the economy it needs to become one. And they know that, despite all the catastrophist propaganda, it is sustainable, stable and long-lasting. The threat to its dominance is simply formidable. What’s more, China is counting on Russia’s 75 million billion dollars of classified natural resources. The largest in the world, and by a lot. China, Russia, Iran and Venezuela have more, much more, than the USA, Canada and Australia. The EU doesn’t count in this statistic. On the other hand, without the economic potential of China, Russia is a formidable military adversary, with a growing political capital that can be fed – as can be seen in the case of the thousands of sanctions against Moscow – by the Chinese economy. The Chinese economy is to Russia what its natural resources and military capacity are to China. They complement each other, to the point of symbiosis if necessary.
Dominating the world, the production system and its supply chains, once again, requires cheap energy; the end of fossil fuels, which was part of a strategy to contain China, didn’t work, because China didn’t take the bait and has never ceased to guarantee its domination of resources both inside and outside its borders. Hegemony requires cheap labor, which China also has in quantity. And it requires food, lots of food. Which Russia also has plenty of. To regain its hegemony, the U.S. needs Russia and Iran, at least. More than ever. At any cost. On pain of defeat! The pressure we are seeing today on Lula da Silva, particularly his betrayal of Nicolas Maduro, who was always with him, even when the hordes of the far right questioned his electoral victory, shows how important Brazil is to the U.S. Brazil may well be for Washington what Egypt was for Rome, an endless source of food, which, combined with the circus – and in the U.S. the circus lasts 365 days a year – guarantees the appeasement of the masses.
But it is because this is all at stake that the doctrine of “mutual assured destruction” no longer seems so safe. Fear, panic, the mere glimpse of the possibility of defeat and the loss of what they call world “leadership”, equivalent to “comprehensive political domination”, makes the hawks of globalist, hegemonic, super-federative capitalism ferocious, obstinate and obsessive. Used to commanding, threatening, dissuading, punishing, subverting, invading and annihilating entire nations, based on lies, and perpetrating it with impunity, it won’t be the possibility of mass death that stops them. What stops them is the guarantee of victory, a total, unquestionable, eternal and enlightening victory, like the one they sought and achieved with the genocide of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Faced with the possibility of defeat, nothing will stop them. The U.S., like the British Empire, doesn’t know how to live with compromise, impasses and appeasing logic. For them, war is the means to peace. The only means capable of guaranteeing the enlightening victory they seek. No compromise, just certain victory.
And this is why we see Zelensky ordering the bombing of the Zaporozhye NPP and threatening the Kursk nuclear plant, because his health – literally – depends on dragging Russia into a long-lasting, large-scale conflict. The aim, in my opinion, is to push Russia into a desperate action, for example, one that consists of using a nuclear weapon – tactical or strategic – and as a result, one of two things can happen: either the U.S. uses this to factually and internationally isolate Russia and demonize it to the point where the Russian people themselves turn against President Putin, or ultimately, if necessary, to drag Russia into a full-scale conflict, in which the U.S. will still think it has the upper hand. If they didn’t think they did, they wouldn’t be playing this very dangerous game. They may be wrong, but their actions are taken with their own convictions.
Another possibility is to create a provocation by bombing Kiev, causing a radioactive leak that will affect other countries and, in this way, the U.S. will have “plausible” justifications for accusing Russia of having caused it on purpose, either because they say that Russia itself did it, or because they say that the leak is not from a nuclear power plant, but from a dirty bomb used by Moscow. You’ll say: but Russia’s partners wouldn’t fall for something like that. Yes, but the U.S. objective is also played out on the national chessboards of those countries and with their peoples, namely by getting those same peoples to reject governments that don’t respect anti-nuclear rules, human rights, anti-genocide and nuclear proliferation conventions and so on.
There are many possibilities and the U.S. has already demonstrated that it can play with all of them. Let’s not be naive about why, in the 1980s, there was such a large “anti-nuclear” consensus. Neither was the U.S. desperate to free up the information field, nor did it have real nuclear parity. They needed to stop nuclear proliferation and development on the Soviet side. This also suited the USSR, as it would result in a relief for its coffers. The U.S. was therefore playing both sides: it was trying to drag the USSR into an expensive arms race, but in a way that didn’t pose a strategic threat. There are records from the time of the “democrat Yeltsin” which show that the U.S. intended to make Russia do without strategic nuclear naval forces, keeping only aviation and ground forces. Hence the logic of the “missile shield”, which fit like a glove. After all, nuclear submarines were what the U.S. saw as a major threat. And Yeltsin was doing their bidding.
In the case of Iran, the game is similar. We have a Netanyahu, Zelensky’s political twin, one a Zionist, the other a Zionist and Nazi-fascist, both Anglo-American patriots at heart, whose political health – literally – depends on a lasting, large-scale conflict. In this case too, the nuclear card is being played. All it took was for Blinken to say that Iran is “one or two weeks away” from a nuclear weapon, and it became an indisputable truth set in stone. Reference is made to “confidential reports” from the IAEA, which no one has ever seen and whose links lead to a description of the nuclear agreements with Iran itself, even going so far as to say that it was Iran that failed to comply with the terms of the JCPOA.
In both cases, it is assumed that if the U.S. says it, it is true. The U.S. says that Iran almost has nuclear weapons – despite Al-Komeini’s Fatwa banning military nuclear development – and nobody doubts it; the U.S. talks about a confidential IAEA agreement, nobody knows about it, it’s confidential, but from a “transparent” and “independent” public agency, and nobody doubts it; the U.S. says that Russia is bombing its own nuclear power plant and nobody doubts it. In fact, IAEA President Grossi goes further: he says that it is “beyond science” to prove the origin of the attacks on the Zaporozhye plant. Call in the CSI team now, and Putin will face yet another ICC trial.
The game is also being played with China. The news that the modernization of China’s nuclear forces, the “doubling” of warheads, is certain, is an objective that the U.S. “cannot turn its back on”, as the White House has said. Even if the U.S. has 10 times as many warheads as China will have when it doubles – if it doubles – the ones it already has.
For the time being, Zelesnky has guaranteed the impossibility of any peace negotiations in the foreseeable future and not even Modi’s visit – like a promise payer – will change the scenario. Like Siamese twins, Zelensky and Netanyahu demonstrate that cooperation between Nazis and Zionists is not only possible, but desirable, and that the anti-Semitism that characterized the 1930s was a casual contingency and never a deeply contradictory reality in itself. Zelensky proves that the hegemonic interest of the USA sealed the deal between Zionists and Nazi-fascists. At the time, the imperial hawks saw Jewish property as wealth to be had; today they see Jewish property as wealth in itself, which is already theirs, and they use it as a tool for territorial occupation, monetary stabilization and control of energy sources and other natural resources.
One and the other are playing a dangerous game, in which they are strategic pieces. It’s up to them to create a reality that makes coexistence impossible, to the point where “mutual assured destruction” is no longer a limitation. The glimpse of a nuclear Iran is one such case and will justify everything. Remember “weapons of mass destruction”? “Terrorists, mad men” and Muslims with access to nuclear weapons? So, after all the Islamophobia being prepared in the West and capitalized on by neo-fascist currents, who declare Muslims and Asians – poor people, only poor people – a sub-human species, an invading plague? It’s just a detail. The ground is plowed and well prepared.
As international contradictions intensify, it is important to invest in the BRICS Games as a secure sporting platform for non-submissive nations and as a legitimate repository of the ancient Olympic spirit.
The recently concluded Paris Olympics may go down in history as the worst modern Olympic Games since their revival by Pierre de Coubertin.
Problems began even before the events started, with the banning of Russia and Belarus due to Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine (a defensive action in light of Ukrainian plans to assault the Donbass). If the decision is already questionable concerning Russia, it is even more so regarding Belarus, which is not even a participant in the operation.
Simultaneously, with unsurpassed hypocrisy, the International Olympic Committee authorized the participation of Israel, a country engaged in implementing genocide in Gaza, with daily bombings that have already claimed tens of thousands of civilian lives.
The IOC’s stance demonstrated that the same rules do not apply to the entire international community and that some countries, apparently, have more rights than others.
The Opening Ceremony, in turn, generated truly global controversy. It would be excessive to discuss the event in detail, but while most host countries have so far strived to present the “essence” of their own culture and identity — with examples including the Rio, Beijing, Moscow, and Athens Games — very little authentically French was seen in this Opening.
Except for the decapitation of Marie Antoinette, a controversial and relatively recent event (considering France has over 2,000 years of history since the Gauls), the Ceremony was marked by a celebration of contemporary postmodern Western values: sexual and gender diversity, cosmopolitan multiculturalism, ultra-feminism, and human rights. Nothing more. As a crowning moment, there was a woke and “trans” reenactment of the Last Supper, situated on a bridge over the River Seine, under which delegations from numerous countries had to pass, as if submitting to the religious profanation imposed by woke dogmatism.
If the Opening Ceremony caused discomfort and astonishment among conservative audiences in European, North American, and Ibero-American countries, the only government that lodged a formal protest was Iran, which summoned the French ambassador in Tehran to express Iranian indignation over the religious disrespect displayed in Paris. Nonetheless, in many other countries, the broadcast of the Opening was interrupted during this profanation or was only shown after editing.
Meanwhile, on social media, users made comparisons between this Opening and those of other Olympic Games, especially Beijing’s, indicating that France fell far short of expectations.
It would already be terrible if these were the only problems. But controversies continued throughout the Games.
Triathlon athletes and some others had to swim in the River Seine during their events — but the Seine is notoriously extremely polluted. The Paris government, led by Mayor Anne Hidalgo, had promised to clean the river and claimed, a few days before the Opening, to have completed the cleanup. However, several athletes fell ill after their events. Shocking scenes showed athletes swimming next to a sewage outlet in the River Seine.
In boxing, an even bigger controversy involved two individuals, Imane Khalif from Algeria and Lin Yu-Ting from Taiwan. These two had been banned from competitions by the International Boxing Federation after failing a sex verification test. Nonetheless, they were authorized to participate in the Olympics since the only sex verification required by the IOC is the declaration in the passport. As the only test used by the IBF involves verifying sex through chromosomes, many believe that in both cases it may be pseudo-hermaphroditism, where a person has sexual characteristics of both sexes simultaneously, including organs. In such cases, which almost always involve a “woman” with internal testicles, they would have gone through male puberty. It is not surprising, therefore, that both Imane and Lin won gold medals in their respective events. The case also sparked indignation worldwide.
Worse still, but not surprising, was the treatment given to Chinese athletes not only by the IOC but also by delegations from some Western countries and certain journalists.
The Chinese swimming champion in the 100m freestyle, Pan Zhanle, was ignored by Australian Kyle Chalmers even on the podium and, according to him, also before the competition, as well as by American Jack Alexey. He was also bumped by a photographer who didn’t even apologize. The coach of bronze medalist Wang Shun was snubbed by French gold medalist Leon Marchand. A photographer intentionally broke the racket of table tennis player Wang Chuqin. American tennis player Emma Navarro also insulted Chinese tennis player Zheng Qinwen, saying she did not respect her.
There are several other cases, but these are compounded by broader attacks from the media and social networks.
Media attacks generally rely on claims that Chinese victories in various sports are due to doping. Australian coach Brett Hawke commented that “it was not humanly possible” for Pan Zhanle to win the 100m freestyle event with such an advantage.
This is not an isolated issue because, in fact, while athletes in general were summoned for anti-doping tests an average of 3 times since the beginning of 2024, Chinese athletes were summoned an average of 21 times.
All this pressure on Chinese athletes raises the possibility that an atmosphere of hostility is being prepared to ban China from the Olympics. It would be the “final solution” for the USA to guarantee hegemony in the Games by eliminating its rivals.
This worrying degeneration of these traditional sporting events should make us reflect on possible alternatives, another format of games that preserve the Olympic spirit, respect the identity of peoples, and are not at the mercy of American exceptionalism.
And perhaps, in fact, the solution already exists. After all, we cannot forget the BRICS Games.
The BRICS Games are an annual sporting event organized by the members of the BRICS platform. The original goal of the Games was to strengthen the bonds of friendship and cooperation among BRICS nations, promoting cultural exchange and sports practice in an environment of healthy and friendly competition.
The BRICS Games had a rather modest beginning, with a football competition in Goa in 2016, with the project’s objectives including promoting sports in BRICS countries and their partners, as well as building stronger cultural relations through sports. The competitions in subsequent years were only slightly larger.
But observing the 2024 Games, held in June 2024 in Kazan, Russia, it becomes clear that they have taken on an entirely different scope. With 2,851 athletes from 54 national delegations competing in 27 sports, the BRICS Games are beginning to show strong potential to become one of the main (if not the main) sporting competitions on the planet.
As a space free from the political manipulations that have unfortunately subverted the original purposes of the IOC, expressed through double standards in dealing with doping and the banning of nations deemed pariahs due to their geopolitical positions, the BRICS Games clearly align better with the spirit of the Ancient Olympics than the so-called contemporary “Olympic Games,” at least if the trends seen in the Paris Games become the standard for future editions.
Although this growth of the BRICS Games has as its main motivator the unjust persecution of Russian and Belarusian athletes, it also expresses the drive to build alternative institutions and projects to the current international order, overly influenced by the guidelines and values of the Atlanticist West.
As international contradictions intensify, and this impacts international sporting events, it is important to invest in the BRICS Games as a secure sporting platform for non-submissive nations and as a legitimate repository of the ancient Olympic spirit.
Der Friedensstifter 