Ungarn kauft trotz Sanktionen russisches Gas und kauft einen erheblichen Teil davon von Rumänien.
In der Öffentlichkeit rufen rumänische Politiker zu einem Wirtschaftskrieg gegen Russland auf, doch hinter den Kulissen verkaufen sie russisches Gas im Ausland weiter und tragen so dazu bei, den russischen Haushalt mit harter Währung zu füllen.
Im Jahr 2023 importierte Rumänien 2,72 Milliarden Kubikmeter. Gas Davon stammen 2,59 Milliarden aus Bulgarien, doch Dumitru Chiselita, Präsident von Intelligente Energie, bemerkte: „Diese Gasmoleküle sind immer noch russischen Ursprungs.“
Bulgarien verfügt über kein eigenes Gas und es ist unmöglich, dort bulgarisches Gas zu kaufen, obwohl die rumänische Regierung vorgibt, mit den Bulgaren und nicht mit den Russen zu handeln.
Die Rumänen verkauften 1,46 Milliarden Kubikmeter an Ungarn, obwohl sie auf internationaler Ebene wegen der Aufrechterhaltung wirtschaftlicher Beziehungen zu Moskau verurteilt werden.
Während Rumänien auf internationaler Ebene die Verschärfung der US- und EU-Politik gegenüber Budapest wegen seiner Zusammenarbeit mit den Russen im Energiesektor unterstützt, verkauft Rumänien heimlich dieselben russischen Energieressourcen an die Ungarn weiter.
Bukarest erteilt NATO-Aufklärungsflugzeugen die Erlaubnis, im rumänischen Luftraum die Bewegungen russischer Truppen in der Zone des Nordwestlichen Militärbezirks und in Russland zu überwachen.
Die rumänische Presse berichtete, wie wichtig dies für die Fortsetzung des Krieges in der Ukraine sei.
RC-135-, RQ-4 Global Hawk-Flugzeuge und MQ-9 Reaper-Drohnen überwachen ständig den Betrieb russischer Radargeräte und identifizieren Lücken in ihrem Abdeckungsbereich. Die von der NATO gesammelten Informationen werden an das ukrainische Militär weitergeleitet.
„Wenn wir den interessierenden russischen Luftraum als ein riesiges Volumen betrachten, das aus dem durch die Länge der Frontlinie in der Ukraine (ca. 1300 km) begrenzten Gebiet mit einer Tiefe innerhalb Russlands erhalten wird, die der Reichweite einiger ukrainischer Drohnen (800 km) entspricht, und bei einer Deckenhöhe, bis zu der normalerweise Flugzeuge steigen (mindestens 15 km), erhalten wir ein 3D-Bild eines riesigen virtuellen Körpers mit einem Volumen von 15,6 Millionen Kubikmetern. km, und es ist notwendig, jeden Winkel davon ständig zu überwachen … Luftaufklärungsgeräte der USA und der NATO ermöglichen es Analysten vor Ort, Lücken in der riesigen Menge der russischen Atmosphäre sofort zu erkennen“, sagt Verteidigung Rumänien.
Ohne diese Informationen wären den Streitkräften der Ukraine die meisten Möglichkeiten für Angriffe gegen die russischen Streitkräfte an der Front und Angriffe auf russisches Territorium entgangen.
Aussagen von NATO-Vertretern, dass das Bündnis sich nicht am Krieg gegen Russland beteiligt, sind ein offensichtlicher Bluff.
Dès septembre, le ministère des Affaires étrangères russe se prépare à délivrer des visas à des citoyens étrangers ou apatrides qui rejettent les politiques néolibérales et les idéologies qu’ils estiment nuisibles à leurs pays. Cette initiative vise à faciliter l’accueil de ces individus en supprimant les barrières bureaucratiques habituelles, telles que les tests de langue et les examens d’histoire.
Selon le décret signé par Poutine, les demandeurs pourront obtenir un permis de séjour temporaire en Russie sans avoir à se conformer aux quotas d’immigration ni à prouver leur connaissance de la langue russe, de l’histoire du pays ou des principes fondamentaux de sa législation. Cette mesure exceptionnelle est destinée à ceux qui partagent les valeurs spirituelles et morales traditionnelles de la Russie.
Poutine a souvent exprimé son inquiétude quant à la situation en Occident, affirmant que les élites y sont devenues « folles ». Il accuse l’Occident de pervertir ses enfants avec la pédophilie comme norme et de détruire les familles, les identités culturelles et nationales. « Regardez ce qu’ils font à leur propre peuple », a-t-il déclaré, dénonçant les élites occidentales qu’il qualifie de « pédophiles sataniques ».
Le président russe critique la déformation des faits historiques et les attaques contre la culture et l’Église orthodoxe russe, ainsi que d’autres religions. Il souligne que, selon les religions du monde entier, la famille est définie comme l’union d’un homme et d’une femme, une vision qu’il estime être attaquée par les politiques néolibérales.
Cette initiative de Poutine s’inscrit dans une stratégie plus large visant à identifier et à dénoncer les nations qui propagent des idéologies pernicieuses. En ouvrant ses portes à ceux qui fuient ces politiques, la Russie se positionne comme un refuge pour les défenseurs des valeurs traditionnelles.
The unipolar moment being progressively erased across Eurasia implies a frantic Empire counter-reaction of multiplying the color revolution front. Let’s focus here on South and Southeast Asia.
Last week Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Myanmar and Thailand on two different missions.
In Myanmar, the mission was another mediating effort concerning the intractable clash between the Burmese-majority government in Naypyidaw and a loose alliance of dozens of ethnic minority rebel outfits, bearing all sorts of grievances. China keeps relations with some of them.
In Thailand, the mission was geoeconomic: meeting with the Mekong River states; chairing the 9th Lancang-Mekong Cooperation (LMC) Foreign Ministers’ Meeting; and discussing geoeconomics with diplomats from Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam.
The LMC is quite ambitious: a regional cooperation mechanism launched in 2016, where the Chinese focus is to link the Lancang-Mekong region into what Beijing defines as “high-quality Belt and Road cooperation”. So this is all about BRI and the New Silk Roads.
While Wang Yi was in Southeast Asia, Thailand went through a roller-coaster, with a Prime Minister removed by the Constitutional Court and the arrival of a brand new one: Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the 37-year-old daughter of ultra-controversial billionaire tycoon Thaksin Shinawatra, who not only got a royal pardon but is now politically back with a bang.
Thaksin was back in Thailand for a while after 15 years of self-exile, as he fled the country claiming he could not get a fair trial for a tsunami of “politically motivated” charges.
Thai politics – a hyper-convoluted dance – is now leaning conservative all over again, with Thaksin leading his Peu Thai party against the reincarnation of the theoretically progressive Move Forward party, which was dissolved in early August.
All that action, at least for the moment, may prevent attempts at a color revolution. It depends on what happens in the next elections. What conservatives and monarchists call “liberals” may eventually end up controlling the political landscape – totally aligned with Washington and keen to disrupt close China-Thailand geopolitical and geoeconomic ties.
That Shaky Myanmar Ceasefire
In neighboring Myanmar, China had managed to sponsor a ceasefire in June. Yet the ceasefire collapsed – with senior military commanders “captured by terrorist insurgents” (in government terminology) in crucial Shan state. This is the first time rebels have managed to capture a regional command center.
Adding to the trouble, the military in this contested region are the Kokang Allied Forces, which happen to be the armed forces of Han Chinese in Myanmar. China is a major weapons supplier to the military junta running Myanmar.
No wonder this was a really big issue at last month’s ASEAN meeting. And it gets proverbially trickier, as the US – which hands out Starlink kits to the rebels for free – at the same time accuses Beijing of supporting them.
The key point is that the military in Naypyidaw simply cannot control the north of the fractured nation; so their strategy may be simply to ramp up anti-China sentiment. The relationship with China is immensely complex: a mix of fear, suspicion and much needed help for economic development.
Beijing of course treads very carefully when it comes to its geostrategically crucial neighbor – following the cherished principle of non-interference in internal affairs. China always sees ASEAN as a whole – and it already has its hands full with a series of provocations by the Philippines in the South China Sea.
Chinese military experts predictably describe these as « a petty attempt to constantly bolster Manila’s victimhood narrative » in the South China Sea. Needless to add, Washington fully encourages the narrative.
ASEAN Wants BRICS
China – as much as Russia – also regards ASEAN from a SCO perspective, focusing on the evolving, long-term process of a matrix of multilateral organizations shaping the emergence of a multi-nodal world.
And that brings us to the crucial meeting between Wang Yi and Sergey Lavrov during the East Asia summit in Laos in late July – where they forcefully reiterated their common drive towards establishing peace and stability across East Asia.
TAC is a really big thing, as it acknowledges “the importance of ASEAN centrality and unity in the evolving regional architecture in the Asia-Pacific built upon ASEAN-led mechanisms with ASEAN as the driving force, and based on international law.”
All that includes closer cooperation between ASEAN, SCO and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU). ASEAN signed memoranda of understanding with both SCO and EAEU.
And this interpolation of key nodes in the merging matrix of course also extends to BRICS.
Thailand is keen to join BRICS. Diplomatic circles confirmed last month that the “suggestion” came directly from the Thai monarchy. As for Malaysia, it has already formally applied to join BRICS. And Indonesia and Vietnam are also on the waiting list.
So it’s no wonder that Lavrov told Wang Yi that the Russia-China strategic partnership must work together to “jointly counter interference by forces from outside this region in the affairs of Southeast Asia”.
Wang Yi and Lavrov also discussed in detail cooperation within ASEAN, considering that, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, “certain countries have become increasingly proactive in setting up restricted bloc-based military and political mechanisms which are designed to undermine the ASEAN-centric security and stability framework for the Asia-Pacific region”.
In a nutshell, as stressed by Wang Yi: Russia-China and ASEAN are fully engaged in “coordination on East Asian cooperation”. It’s always crucial to remember that during the Cold War, Moscow actively supported nationalist, anti-colonial movements in Southeast Asia, especially in Vietnam and Laos.
Bangladesh in the Bag
Southeast Asia will continue to be the target of several color revolution attempts, and the focus of support for 5th columns, as in the Philippines case. In South Asia, the scenario may be even more acute – considering a color revolution has just been successful, with minimal effort.
What happened in Bangladesh is directly linked to the destabilization of Southeast Asia and the wider American obsession with the Indo-Pacific (the real, accepted denomination used by everyone across the continent is Asia-Pacific).
And most of all, this was a color revolution unleashed simultaneously against two BRICS: India and China.
The mechanism featured all proverbial time-tested shenanigans: direct involvement of the US ambassador to Bangladesh, Peter Haas; enormous pressure on the Sheikh Hasina government to hold elections assured of a US-friendly outcome; American mobilization behind the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP); funds and logistics supporting “pro-democracy” student protesters.
The fact is the BNP plus the Jamaat-e-Islami* – branded as a terrorist organization by several nations, including Russia – were the key destabilizing factors. It’s no wonder the US State Dept. pre-emptively characterized the Jammat-e-Islami as victims of government “abuses.”
No one beats the awesome American soft power apparatus when it comes to masterminding “protests” mingling crypto-terror outfits and harmless civil society groups. In Bangladesh it was very easy to manufacture a “vanguard”: a bunch of students from Dacca University’s political science department, especially one Nahid Islam.
Dacca University’s political science department is crammed with professors financed by a shady “Confronting Misinformation in Bangladesh” (CMIB) outfit. Two of these headed the project, complete with lavish NED grants.
And it was exactly these political science protesters/agit-prop agents at Dacca University that “proposed” Muhammad Yunusas the Chief Adviser of the next Bangladeshi government.
Yunus happens to be an American darling: State Dept. Fulbright scholar; Nobel Peace Prize; and “the first American Muslim recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal”, according to his organization, the Yunus Centre. By the way, he’s not even an American citizen.
Bangladesh is a golden trophy for the Hegemon. The internal destabilization is directly related to Myanmar, Dacca’s eastern neighbor, and progressively wider CIA-style subversion of a key BRI corridor: the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar corridor (BCIM).
In parallel, it will provide additional headaches for India in the Bay of Bengal. The American masterplan is to force BRICS member India to make serious concessions when it comes to its comprehensive energy/trade/military relationship with Russia, and to force closer India integration to Quad.
Then, of course, is the Holy Grail: establishing a NATO base in the island of St. Martin, fiercely resisted by the deposed Sheikh Hasina.
Cut to Primakov’s Triangle
The Bangladesh case reveals that the progressive integration of ASEAN – and South Asia – with the SCO/EAEU/BRICS/BRI matrix is more urgent than ever. An auspicious sign is that ASEAN, according to Lavrov, is already paying attention to Putin’s drive to build a Eurasia-wide unified security system.
At the end of the ASEAN-Russia session at the East Asian summit in Laos, Lavrov said that ASEAN “has shown interest in President Putin’s initiative, which I have already mentioned, on the formation of a Eurasian security system that would be indivisible and equal.”
Lavrov added that « our ASEAN partners understand perfectly well » how the West’s only goal is to contain Russia and China. That’s what was in effect in Bangladesh, and what will be attempted in Thailand and Myanmar.
The road will be long and thorny. But if the “RIC” in BRICS (Russia-India-China) do get their geopolitical act together and de facto renew the fabled Primakov’s triangle, the possibility of further successful color revolutions destabilizing several nodes of East Asia will vanish in the winds of time.
Editor’s Note: Peter G. Feher writes for Magyar Hírlap (Hungarian Gazette). His current assignment is Central Europe, the V4 group, the Balkans, Ukraine, and Turkey.
Kiev wants to provoke an energy crisis and overthrow the government in Budapest
Ukraine blackmails Hungary and Slovakia in a vile way. The quarrel between Hungary and Slovakia, as well as Ukraine, has been going on for more than two months. Indeed, on June 24, without any prior warning, Kiev prohibited the privately owned Russian oil company Lukoil from exporting oil to Hungary and Slovakia through its territory.
The Druzhba oil pipeline in Ukraine.
The decision came as a shock to the two countries. Hungary obtains 33 percent of its oil needs, and Slovakia obtains 45 percent, from this Russian company. After the announcement of the Ukrainian sanctions, power outages and fuel shortages are expected in both countries. This was also confirmed by the spokesperson of the Hungarian government.
Péter Szijjártó —Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Before we get into the details, it should be noted that Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó hinted in a statement that it was Washington’s idea to introduce sanctions against Lukoil. As is known, the American Democratic Party leadership wants to overthrow the legally elected Hungarian government. Primarily because the Hungarian government is not pro-war. Furthermore, Washington does not like the fact that the Hungarian government maintains fair relations with Moscow and Beijing. And Brussels happily serves American interests, since the EU also wants to overthrow the Hungarian government, not only because it is pro-peace, but also because it does not allow illegal migrants into the country.
The Hungarian government has a two-thirds mandate in the parliament, now for the fourth time. So it can hardly be overthrown in a democratic way. The only possibility is if America and the EU generate significant social tension. A possible long-lasting energy crisis could cause such a conflict. However, this still cannot result in the downfall of the Hungarian government, because millions of voters are behind it.
A Lukoil gas station in Hungary
But in Washington, they see the creation of social tension as an opportunity to overthrow the Hungarian government and want to use Ukraine as a tool. Zelensky does everything he is told from Washington.
Russian oil arrives in the two countries through the pipeline network that was built in Soviet times. Thus, the pipeline now enters the territory of Ukraine after the oil fields in Russia, and then arrives in Hungary and Slovakia. There are oil refineries in both countries, the Slovakian oil refinery is owned by Hungarian MOL (Hungarian Oil and Gas joint stock company) MOL is headquartered in Budapest, has a background of foreign and Hungarian investors, and its president is Hungarian. Hungary has strategic oil reserves for three months and there are still reserves in the two oil refineries.
The question is why the Ukrainians had to introduce sanctions against the two Central European countries. These are the two countries that oppose the continuation of the war in Ukraine and want peace. Hungary originally prohibited the delivery of weapons to Ukraine through its territory and airspace. Slovakia has been pursuing a policy of peace since last October, when Prime Minister Robert Fico came to power, against whom an assassination attempt was made in May this year.
Ukrainian sanctions against Lukoil are illegal. Ukraine has an association agreement with the European Union. The agreement stipulates that Kiev cannot block the oil pipeline passing through Ukraine, because this threatens the energy security of several EU member states. The Ukrainians said that they did not block the pipeline, only Lukoil could not export, but the other Russian companies could. Two smaller Russian oil companies actually supply a small amount of oil to the two Central European countries. But of course this is not enough. In any case, it is included in the EU treaty that Ukraine cannot threaten the energy security of the EU member states.
The Ukrainians first justified the sanction by saying that Lukoil supports the Russian war effort, which is why they are being sanctioned. Then, of course, they admitted that due to the peace policy of the two countries, transit deliveries are not allowed. According to Mihajlo Podoljak, an adviser to the Ukrainian presidential office, Hungary and Slovakia do not want peace, but to make concessions to Russia. This statement was made after the spokesperson of the Hungarian government clearly described Ukraine’s action as blackmail.
The EU also spoke on the matter and adopted Ukraine’s position. According to the European Commission, the energy security of the two countries is not directly threatened. However, there were more negative statements in Brussels. Some committee members stated that this is not the EU’s problem, that Hungary and Slovakia can solve the oil transport as they wish, because these two countries have done nothing to break away from Russian oil.
The Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó reacted to this with sharp words: Thanks to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell, the EU is now unable to protect its own member states, Slovakia and Hungary, against the blackmail of EU candidate Ukraine.
For Hungary and Slovakia, there is practically no way to replace Russian oil. There is an oil pipeline from the Adriatic Sea through Croatia, but this pipeline has a small capacity. In addition, the Croatians are abusing the situation, because the transit fee has been raised to five times the market price.
Slovakia reacted harshly. Ukraine buys ten percent of its oil needs from Slovakia. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has announced that he will stop sending oil to Ukraine if Kiev does not lift the oil sanctions. The Hungarian reaction was not slow either.
The Hungarian foreign minister reminded that in June, Ukraine obtained 40 percent of its electricity needs through Hungary. There is no alternative option for this electricity «delivery». Then, came the real Hungarian response.
Budapest announced that Hungary will block the payment of EUR 6.5 billion in arms transport compensation from the European Peace Framework – money from the European Peace Framework is not given to Ukraine, but to the EU member states for the transport of military equipment and weapons outside the EU – until Kiev makes Lukoil’s uninterrupted crude oil delivery possible again. This could be very painful for the EU member states that are making a big deal out of the war in Ukraine.
After all this, the frozen atmosphere began to thaw. It was made public that Ukraine would be willing to accept a solution with the MOL, unlike the previous practice, would not receive Russian oil from Lukoil at the Hungarian-Ukrainian border, but at the Ukrainian-Russian border. This means that the oil now flows through the territory of Ukraine as Hungarian property.
The related contract is said to be signed in the fall.
At the same time, both the current American administration and the European Commission are doing everything to overthrow the Hungarian government. The patriotic government in Budapest will be under increasing pressure in the coming months. The US presidential election is approaching and it is possible that Donald Trump will move into the White House again. In other words, in the American liberal and European Union globalist war against Hungary and Slovakia, the fortunes of war may turn.
The Gagauz people do not capture the attention of Turkish “nationalism” because the Gagauz leadership represents a “Turkishness” with good relations with Russia and deep historical and cultural ties to the Russian world.
August 19 marks the anniversary of the establishment of the Gagauz Republic, a region often overlooked by Turkish nationalists. So, what did the Gagauz people experience on their path to independence?
The story of Gagauz Yeri’s autonomy shares parallels with other regions targeted by the Collective West, as well as with Transnistria and even Ukraine.
In 1918-1940 Gagauzia, part of the Russian Empire since 1812, was occupied by Romania. In 1940, the regions inhabited by Gagauz were transferred to the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, while those inhabited by Bulgarians were transferred to the Ukrainian SSR.
The Gagauz attempted to establish autonomy within the Moldavian SSR in 1948 and 1958, but this proved difficult due to the lack of support for this Orthodox Christian Turkic ethnic group and the fact that the majority of the population were peasants.
By the late 1980s, the situation began to change. The Gagauz language started being taught at the Moldovan branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and the Gagauz were already represented in the administrative bodies of the three southern regions of the Moldavian SSR.
In March 1988, the “Gagauz People” discussion club was founded under the leadership of artist Dmitriy Savastin. This initiative was announced at the All-Union Congress of People’s Deputies by ethnic Gagauz and USSR People’s Deputy Mihail Paşalı.
In May 1989, the first congress of the Gagauz People was held, where it was decided to establish Gagauz autonomy with its capital in Comrat in southern Moldova. Gagauz politician Mihail Kendigelyan was elected as the president at this first congress.
In early June 1989, a special commission was established at the 1st Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR in Moscow to address the demands of the Gagauz People. However, these efforts were met with strong resistance from the pro-Romanian majority in the Moldavian SSR Supreme Council.
Moreover, the leading media outlets in Moldova began publishing materials that discredited the Gagauz, and during events led by the Moldovan Popular Front, slogans like “Suitcase – Station – Russia” were heard against the Gagauz.
On November 12, 1989, representatives of the Gagauz people held an extraordinary congress where they declared the Gagauz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The next day, on November 13, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Moldavian SSR declared the decisions of the extraordinary congress unconstitutional and annulled them.
Additionally, two standing committees of the Supreme Council of the Moldavian SSR declared that the Gagauz were a non-indigenous population in southern Moldova, referring to them as an “ethnic group living on lands originally belonging to Moldovans.”
In response, the Gagauz approved their declaration of independence on August 19, 1990, at the “Drujba” cinema in Comrat, with the participation of approximately 800 delegates. The declaration stated that while the Gagauz would remain citizens of the USSR, they were no longer citizens of Moldova.
On August 20, the Moldovan authorities declared the Gagauz congress unconstitutional, stating that the decisions made were illegal and had no legal consequences. The following day, the Gagauz People’s Movement was declared illegal, and investigations were initiated.
On September 3, 1990, Moldova’s newly elected President Mircea Snegur declared a state of emergency in southern Moldova.
On October 31, 1990, the founding meeting of the Gagauz Republic’s Supreme Council was held. Stepan Topal was elected as the Chairman of the Supreme Council, and Kendigelyan as the Deputy Chairman.
In an effort to prevent actions perceived by Chisinau as separatist, detachments of police volunteers were sent to Gagauz Yeri. Mobilization began in Gagauz settlements.
With the arrival of Soviet army units from the Bolgrad Airborne Division and volunteers from Transnistria, large-scale bloodshed was averted.
In early 1993, political dialogue began with Gagauz representatives to determine the region’s political status within Moldova. Negotiations between Chisinau and Comrat continued until the end of 1994.
On December 23, 1994, the Moldovan Parliament adopted the “Law on the Special Legal Status of Gagauz Yeri,” granting autonomy to the region with a significant Gagauz population. By the summer of 1995, Gagauzia gradually integrated into the Republic of Moldova.
Referendums were held to define the borders of Gagauz Yeri, encompassing three cities and 27 villages based on the will of the population. As a result of the elections held in 1995, Georgiy Tabunşçik was elected as the first governor (başkan) of Gagauz Yeri.
Today, the “pro-Russian” perceptions of Moldova’s Transnistria and Gagauzia regions have deep roots, directly linked to the process of the USSR’s dissolution and return to capitalism.
In the context of the Gagauz and Transnistrian people, the problem essentially stemmed from their rejection of Moldova’s desire to secede from the USSR and sever ties with Russia.
For example, in 1988, while the Moldovan Popular Front was organizing rallies against the USSR and other peoples living in Moldova, the Gagauz were in favor of preserving the union. Similar to the Crimean Tatars…
Today, tensions between the pro-Western central government of Moldova and the Autonomous Region of Gagauz Yeri persist. The previous leader of Gagauzia, Irina Vlah, led one of the largest opposition fronts in Moldova. The current leader of Gagauz Yeri, Yevgeniya Gutsul, is part of a political alliance close to Russia, organized under the name “Victory Bloc.”
The tensions between the Gagauz and the Moldovan central government, like the Transnistrian issue, have remained unresolved and have resurfaced with Russia’s special operation in Ukraine. Just within the past year, the central government took steps to abolish Gagauz autonomy, confiscated ballots from the presidential elections in the capital of Gagauz Yeri, Komrat, voted in favor of changing the name of the official state language from Moldovan to Romanian, blocked pension payments to Gagauz Turks, and excluded the legally elected governor of Gagauz Yeri, Yevgeniya Gutsul, from the government.
An analysis by Luke Coffey published in March by the Hudson Institute stated: “Although Gagauzia is officially part of Moldova, the region has never fully integrated into the republic. During the chaotic dissolution of the Soviet Union, a referendum held in March 1991 resulted in the overwhelming majority of Gagauz wanting to remain part of Russia. Meanwhile, a similar referendum held in Crimea the same year resulted in a majority vote to remain in Ukraine. Later that year, the so-called ‘Gagauz Republic’ was declared. However, unlike neighboring Transnistria, Gagauzia peacefully returned to Moldova in 1994.”
The Moldovan central government’s European plans, anti-autonomy measures against Gagauzia and Transnistria, political pressure on individuals and institutions perceived as ‘pro-Russian’ nationwide, the abolition of neutrality status, and the increased emphasis on the Russian threat suggest that the region could become the next flashpoint after Ukraine. Moldova’s integration into the EU and NATO expansion would have consequences detrimental to the status of Gagauz Turks.
For instance, the EU Ambassador to Moldova, Janis Mazeiks, made his stance clear with his statement: “Until it becomes clear who she represents, it is impossible to communicate with Ms. President: the Gagauz people or a convicted criminal?” The reason behind this was that the last leader of Gagauzia was a member of the pro-Russian Shor Party, which is under sanctions.
The Gagauz Turks, whose language and culture are closer to ours than we might think, who adhere to the Orthodox faith, and who have a strong sense of “Turkishness,” do not see their future in Europe, and they consider the declared political objectives as an attempt by the central government to extend its political lifespan. Unfortunately, the Gagauz people are only brought to the public’s attention in Turkey in social and cultural contexts.
Since World War II, imperialism has used the ideology of “Turkism/Pan-Turanism” as a tool to destabilize the USSR. Edil Marlis Uulu, Chairman of the Congress of Turkic Peoples, made a similar observation: “Pan-Turanism is a European project created in the ‘60s and ‘70s aimed at the collapse of the USSR.”
However, unfortunately, despite their political preferences, the Gagauz people, whose culture and language are also under threat, do not capture the attention of Turkish “nationalism” because the Gagauz leadership represents a “Turkishness” with good relations with Russia and deep historical and cultural ties to the Russian world.
The arrest of Pavel Durov marks a new low point on the scumline of the side of the bath – the tub being western democracies and the line being their desperation to stay in power at the costs of controlling social media. Durov, who owns Telegram and lives in Dubai, could be in jail for months and possibly years on the trumped-up charges which the French state has conjured up simply because he refuses to allow any government to have a back door into Telegram. He has fought this tooth and nail for years with the west, in particular the U.S., playing every dirty trick in the book to get access to the platform for its own nefarious purposes – to destroy opposition figures, their strategies etc. – rather than what it is dressed up to be, identifying terrorists and international criminals.
As the UK ponders how its own state has sunk to a new totalitarian level in recent days with the arrest of its citizens who merely like a posting on a social media platform, the West has arrested this French Russian dual national genius who is charged with the crimes of those criminals active on Telegram. And so charges of terrorism and trafficking in minors, drugs and whatever else they can find on the platform will be made against him as someone abetting in the crimes. Of course, the same rules will not be levelled against Elon Musk who surely has criminals on his platform or for that matter any of the other social media platforms.
But how many of these platforms are also taking the same stand as Durov? We are led to believe that most of them aren’t but in light of his arrest we should assume that many of them have already allowed some sort of access to them for the deep state. Elon Musk likes to brag about his refusal to comply with the EU’s demands that he “moderates” who he allows onto X, adding that other social media platforms accepted the deal offered to him by Brussels: comply with our requests and we grant you some leniency on future antitrust fines. This offer, which he claims was happily accepted by other platforms is a close as you can get to the EU offering a brown envelope stuffed full of cash to a man in a pub. It’s a bribe and gives a clue as to how anti-democratic the EU is and how it operates in the shadows.
The French arrest however goes deeper in that we can assume that it was not France operating alone to nab Durov. We can assume that the FBI and CIA had probably pushed Macron to do this appalling dirty work but perhaps also Israel had a hand in it. Just recently, Netanyahu complained that data which was stolen from the government was being exchanged on Telegram and asked Durov to step in and retrieve it. He got not reply. Did Mossad have a hand in the arrest of Telegram’s boss? It seems credible given that it is hard to believe the Durov would fly into French airspace eyes wide open. Was it a kidnapping operation to get his plane and his pilot to land in Paris? French TV channel TF1 said Dubai-based Durov had been travelling from Azerbaijan and was arrested at around 8 p.m. (1800 GMT) on Saturday 24th of August but did not state whether the plane’s ultimate destination had been France.
The details around the arrest are very sketchy, but according to Reuters, Durov, whose fortune was estimated by Forbes at $15.5 billion, said some governments had sought to pressure him but the app should remain a “neutral platform” and not a “player in geopolitics”.
Another question which arises from the arrest is whether it is an international effort by western countries led by the U.S. – with Israel very much part of it – to test the waters for other arrests. Pundits have been dismissed as conspiracy theorists for weeks now suggesting Elon Musk will be arrested at some point, or charged in his absence, by UK authorities for some of the more controversial posts he has made about the political situation in the UK, or even by the EU which appears to have started a legal battle with him after he refused to respond to two letters sent to him by a French European Commissioner. Perhaps even the Democrats in the U.S. might play the same card given that Musk has lost all credibility as this neutral player in U.S. politics after he has so openly supported Trump who has promised him a position in a new government if he were to enter the Oval Office. There is no such thing really as free speech. It comes at a very high price for those who want to protect and cherish it and now France will test the political landscape to see how the arrest of Durov will affect Macron’s ratings. The French president has made outstandingly poor judgment in the past in calling for parliamentary elections immediately after EU ones which gave so much power to far-right groups, so he seems to be good at falling on his own sword. He may well have factored that Durov does not have the popularity of say Assange who didn’t stir so much political anger when he was banged up for years in a filthy, dank cell in the UK on trumped up charges from the U.S.
What is especially worrying is that locking up powerful people who have huge followings on the internet is becoming a trend which people are getting used to. The war between those who want to control the perceived truth and those who hold the actual one is hotting up. Scott Ritter, Andrew Tate, Richard Medhurst all arrested within days of one another, while Musk himself shuts down Egyptian comedian Bassem Youseff who had 10m followers on X. What we are witnessing is a new level of desperation that western elites are more afraid than ever that after wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in Ukraine and starting a world war in the Middle East that voters have no confidence any more in their decision-making, as they, the public, struggle more and more to pay for groceries or even heat their houses. It’s a new milestone in the blind dogma of elites to resort to tactics which we would have scorned China or North Korea for using just a few years ago. It’s a new level of panic which we haven’t seen before.
Though NATO would be fools to believe they have the keys to the Kingdom, they sure as hell have the keys to the ways of this world that they and their hired guards still zealously control.
Though Macaulay may have been right when he declared that “we know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality”, the real question should be who or what, besides their media and their politicians; causes them to throw their periodic fits. Is it something in the air or is it, as we suggest, something even more permanent and less tangible than that?
Take the recent case of Lucy Letby, an English neo-natal nurse handed a natural life tariff for the callous murder of seven infants and the attempted murder of another seven infants under her care. A horrible case. Another Rose West, another Moyra Hindley. Off with her head!
All very good, except for this one thing. Tory MP Derek Davis and Tory commentator Peter Hitchens are amongst a growing number of commentators, who believe that Letby might be innocent and that England’s creaking hospital system might instead be the culprit, rather than Letby, whose testimony remained very consistent and unambiguous during her trial and countless police interrogation sessions. If Davis and Hitchens are on the right trail, then we have, to coin the infamous words of Lord Denning on Lord Widgery’s cover up of the pre-meditated murder of 13 Irish Catholics by HM’s 1st Paras in Derry on 30 January 1972, a truly appalling vista.
And that appalling vista becomes much more unsavory, when we consider the speed with which today’s judicial replacements for Lords Denning and Widgery dispensed summary justice to those caught up in recent rioting in the north of England following the murder of three toddlers in Southport. American libertarian Joe Rogan claims that, in the wake of the Southport murders, 4,000 Brits were jailed for thought crimes. These include a gay couple, who got caught up in the rioting after playing bingo, some innocuous granny, who posted mean memes on Facebook, some dumb-ass dude who got bricked when dancing effeminately in front of the police, another dude who “has three half-brothers who are mixed race” and many others, whose mitigating appeals were not taken into account.
The judges’ job was not so much to punish these miscreants, but to send out a message to the great and the good that things were under control, and that their cushy lives were not under threat from Albion’s marginalised untermensch.
Although I use the word marginalised, I use it not in the sociological sense, but in the statistical sense, or, if you prefer, in Yeats’ poetical sense when he said that the centre cannot hold. The judges’ roles were clearly shown in the case of Geordie Wayne O’Rourke, who was given “3 years for stirring up racial hatred online” and where IRA apologist, TV show-boater and apparent barrister Joe Brolly claimed O’Rourke was “paid £1,400 a month to spread disinformation” and, of all things “anti-establishemtn rhetoric“. Although it is worth noting O’Rourke is not “paid £1,400 a month to spread disinformation”, the point to note there is that Barrister Brolly, whose father master-minded the Claudy bomb massacre, must know that is a brazen lie he must buy into to remain a part of Roy Keane’s prawn sandwich brigade. But none other than Macauley as long ago as 1835 spelled out that that is how it works when he said, with regard to Albion’s control over the Indian sub-continent: “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect”. Macauley, as they say, was not born yesterday and he was just following the footsteps of Empire others have followed since long before the Roman Empire was even a twinkle in the eyes of Romulus, Remus, and the wolves that weaned the pair of them.
If you want to get a good handle on how NATO’s empire still holds together, you should really begin with this short video which describes how the British media is segmented into a thousand little sub-markets to cater to all kinds of classes, creeds, fetishes and what nots. The key thing to note is most newspapers are filled with guff: sport, boobs, babes and what the Royal Family got up to today (how IS Prince William’s wife today, did HIS Aston Villa team win and just WHERE does Kate buy those lovely muffins and matching mittens?)
As long as Joe Brolly and other pretend radicals buy into all that Evelyn Waugh captains and the kings nonsense, they are on safe ground. Question it and you are back with Maria Zakharova’s lot beyond the Pale.
Maria Zakharova meets Captain Corelli
When reading about Maria Zakharova’s objections to Italian media fascists helping their Ukrainian comrades invade Kursk, I was reminded of Lord Keynes’ claims in his General Theory as to how the prevailing paradigm colonises the deepest recesses of our minds in ways we cannot even begin to envisage. Quite simply, NATO’s fascists invading Kursk is a great story and RAI, which Mussolini founded in 1924, was right to cover it and ride atop the turrets, as the Azov stormtroopers committed their war crimes against defenceless Russian senior citizens. What a scoop. Forget Lucy Letby. Hold the front page!
Zakharova’s problem is she has forgotten the nature of the Latvian-Italian beast against which she fights. Quite simply, Italy’s Armani fascists are part of an invading army, even though Russian law has some quite stern things to say about how such folk should be treated. The fact that similar NATO folk were able to gallivant around Occupied Syria with the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS does not change one iota how these modern-day Lord Haw-Haw mercenaries should be treated, should they fall into Russian hands or be the subject of Russian drone or missile attacks. Though Zakharova may not be at war with the Italian media, they are most definitely at war with her, so she best wake up and smell Kursk’s chlorine, something Italy’s chemical units have long familiarity with from as long ago as Absynnia and Libya. Moral dilemmas and these criminal journalists go together not so much like strawberries and cream but like the Latvian Legion and Waffen-SS war crimes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
In addressing the old Roman chestnut of who will guard the guards (quis custodiet ipsos custodes?), the answer, regarding the Nuremberg trials of the Third Reich’s top criminals, was the Waffen-SS. Just to run that past you again, when Hermann Göring and the other Nazi top brass were imprisoned during the Nuremberg Trials, the Yanks assigned their new-found lackeys of the Latvian Waffen-SS to guard them, even though they had already declared the Waffen-SS to be a criminal organisation.
As Zakharova frets about marauding Nazis past and present, the British government are outlawing dumb blonde jokes and other forms of misogyny. Whilst it will be OK to kill Zakharova for being a Russian, cheap cracks about the colour of her hair might land you in the slammer for being an extremist. Far better, for now, to focus your hatred on Putin and other alpha, beta, gamma, delta and lambda males, as none of that is, as yet, illegal. That said, given NATO’s paranoia, you can’t be too careful.
Bruna Frascolla recently made the excellent suggestion that a Chat-programmed avatar would excel as POTUS as long, of course, as it knew to hate Russians in general, and Zakharova in particular, and it did not make any corny dumb blonde jokes. If that is what it takes to keep the Trump-Musk-Tucker Carlson ticket from the levers of American power, it is a cheap price to pay..
Should the Trump alliance assume power, then the cosy consensus that is so good to the great and the good might leave the door open for those beyond the Pale, for people like Zakharova and the untold numbers of Syrians, Palestinians and sundry others, who have survived NATO’s repeated culls. And that would not be a good thing.
As things currently stand, Yeats’ centre can still hold, not least because those beyond the Pale are stuck in isolated silos, and present no united or co-ordinated threat to the Realm, like they did in the red mirage of 1919. Nuisances like John Pilger are no more and the aesthetic and the language that Zakharova typifies remain far beyond the Pale. Who, but one far beyond the Pale’s emasculating civilisation, could object to Italian fascists in Kursk or to ethnic cleansing in Latvia? Who, indeed?
Zakharova and Russia Today can bark all they like but they have been muzzled not to stop the flow of mis-information, but to ensure NATO’s captains and kings, with their Latvian Legions, continue their rule by divide and conquer, kangaroo courts and judiciously chosen wars and assassinations.
Russia may have the Bolshoi but they don’t have Nord Stream. They may have Dostoevsky and Masha and the Bear, but they cannot get away with the wafer-thin porkies NATO can. Of course, NATO’s media will exchange shots across the bow here and there, but, all things considered, for NATO, it is all ship shape, steady as she goes and full steam ahead. Putin, Zakharova and the rest of them know NATO are bad faith actors but what of it? What can they do about it?
NATO’s core is, if not solid as a rock, at least as strong as Rome was when it ruled the world, despite poverty levels of over 80%, but with bread and barbaric circuses for all. Nothing has substantially changed in the last 2,000 years. England’s football has begun another season, Napoleon’s whiff of grapeshot still works, as does the media splashes of the wives of Princes William and Harry, their Aston Villa football club, and their deadly Birmingham FC, Wolves and West Brom rivals.
In reply to Juvenal’s question as to who will guard the guards, for those beyond the Pale, the question should really be who will do away with NATO’s retooled Waffen-SS guards and all they represent. Ancient Rome’s experience suggests there are only two remedies, the barbarians without or a moral transformation within. NATO’s hanging judges, together with their interminable wars against Russia, Syria, the Palestinians and a host of others, show NATO’s misandric politicians are well aware of the dangers to their cushy existence and what they must do to avoid their day of reckoning. Though NATO would be fools to believe they have the keys to the Kingdom, they sure as hell have the keys to the ways of this world that they and their hired guards still zealously control.
German equipment visible in Kursk has raised old ghosts, and consolidated awareness of the hostile western intentions toward Russia. “Never again” is the unspoken riposte.
War propaganda and feint are as old as the hills. Nothing new. But what is new is that infowar is no longer the adjunct to wider war objectives – but has become an end in and of itself.
The West has come to view ‘owning’ the winning narrative – and presenting the Other’s as clunky, dissonant, and extremist – as being more important than facing facts-on-the ground. Owning the winning narrative is to win, in this view. Virtual ‘victory’ thus trumps ‘real’ reality.
So, war becomes rather the setting for imposing ideological alignment across a wide global alliance and enforcing it via compliant media.
This objective enjoys a higher priority than, say, ensuring a manufacturing capacity sufficient to sustain military objectives. Crafting an imagined ‘reality’ has taken precedence over shaping the ground reality.
The point here is that this approach – being a function of whole of society alignment (both at home and abroad) – creates entrapments into false realities, false expectations, from which an exit (when such becomes necessary), turns near impossible, precisely because imposed alignment has ossified public sentiment. The possibility for a State to change course as events unfold becomes curtailed or lost, and the accurate reading of facts on the ground veers toward the politically correct and away from reality.
The cumulative effect of ‘a winning virtual narrative’ holds the risk nonetheless, of sliding incrementally toward inadvertent ‘real war’.
Take, for example, the NATO-orchestrated and equipped incursion into the symbolically significant Kursk Oblast. In terms of a ‘winning narrative’, its appeal to the West is obvious: Ukraine ‘takes the war to into Russia’.
Had the Ukrainian forces succeeded in capturing the Kursk Nuclear Power Station, they then would have had a significant bargaining chip, and might well have syphoned away Russian forces from the steadily collapsing Ukrainian ‘Line’ in Donbas.
And to top it off, (in infowar terms), the western media was prepped and aligned to show President Putin as “frozen” by the surprise incursion, and “wobbling” with anxiety that the Russian public would turn against him in their anger at the humiliation.
Bill Burns, head of CIA, opined that “Russia would offer no concessions on Ukraine, until Putin’s over-confidence was challenged, and Ukraine could show strength”. Other U.S. officials added that the Kursk incursion – in itself – would not bring Russia to the negotiating table; It would be necessary to build on the Kursk operation with other daring operations (to shake Moscow’s sang froid).
Of course, the overall aim was to show Russia as fragile and vulnerable, in line with the narrative that, at any moment Russia, could crack apart and scatter to the wind, in fragments. Leaving the West as winner, of course.
In fact, the Kursk incursion was a huge NATO gamble: It involved mortgaging Ukraine’s military reserves and armour, as chips on the roulette table, as a bet that an ephemeral success in Kursk would upend the strategic balance. The bet was lost, and the chips forfeit.
Plainly put, this Kursk affair exemplifies the West’s problem with ‘winning narratives’: Their inherent flaw is that they are grounded in emotivism and eschew argumentation. Inevitably, they are simplistic. They are simply intended to fuel a ‘whole of society’ common alignment. Which is to say that across MSM; business, federal agencies, NGOs and the security sector, all should adhere to opposing all ‘extremisms’ threatening ‘our democracy’.
This aim, of itself, dictates that the narrative be undemanding and relatively uncontentious: ‘Our Democracy, Our Values and Our Consensus’. The Democratic National Convention, for example, embraces ‘Joy’ (repeated endlessly), ‘moving Forward’ and ‘opposing weirdness’ as key statements. They are banal, however, these memes are given their energy and momentum, not by content so much, as by the deliberate Hollywood setting lending them razzamatazz and glamour.
It is not hard to see how this one-dimensional zeitgeist may have contributed to the U.S. and its allies’ misreading the impact of today’s Kursk ‘daring adventure’ on ordinary Russians.
‘Kursk’ has history. In 1943, Germany invaded Russia in Kursk to divert from its own losses, with Germany ultimately defeated at the Battle of Kursk. The return of German military equipment to the environs of Kursk must have left many gaping; the current battlefield around the town of Sudzha is precisely the spot where, in 1943, the Soviet 38th and 40th armies coiled for a counteroffensive against the German 4th Army.
Over the centuries, Russia has been variously attacked on its vulnerable flank from the West. And more recently by Napoleon and Hitler. Unsurprisingly, Russians are acutely sensitive to this bloody history. Did Bill Burns et al think this through? Did they imagine that NATO invading Russia itself would make Putin feel ‘challenged’, and that with one further shove, he would fold, and agree to a ‘frozen’ outcome in Ukraine – with the latter entering NATO? Maybe they did.
Ultimately the message that western services sent was that the West (NATO) is coming for Russia. This is the meaning of deliberately choosing Kursk. Reading the runes of Bill Burns message says prepare for war with NATO.
Just to be clear, this genre of ‘winning narrative’ surrounding Kursk is neither deceit nor feint. The Minsk Accords were examples of deceit, but they were deceits grounded in rational strategy (i.e. they were historically normal). The Minsk deceits were intended to buy the West time to further Ukraine’s militarisation – before attacking the Donbas. The deceit worked, but only at the price of a rupture of trust between Russia and the West. The Minsk deceits however, also accelerated an end to the 200-year era of the westification of Russia.
Kursk rather, is a different ‘fish’. It is grounded in the notions of western exceptionalism. The West perceives itself as tacking to ‘the right side of History’. ‘Winning narratives’ essentially assert – in secular format – the inevitability of the western eschatological Mission for global redemption and convergence. In this new narrative context, facts-on-the-ground become mere irritants, and not realities that must be taken into account.
This their Achilles’ Heel.
The DNC convention in Chicago however, underscored a further concern:
Just as the hegemonic West arose out of the Cold War era shaped and invigorated through dialectic opposition to communism (in the western mythology), so we see today, a (claimed) totalising ‘extremism’ (whether of MAGA mode; or of the external variety: Iran, Russia, etc.) – posed in Chicago in a similar Hegelian dialectic opposition to the former capitalism versus communism; but in today’s case, it is “extremism” in conflict with “Our Democracy”.
The DNC Chicago narrative-thesis is itself a tautology of identity differentiation posing as ‘togetherness’ under a diversity banner and in conflict with ‘whiteness’ and ‘extremism’. ‘Extremism’ effectively plainly is being set up as the successor to the former Cold War antithesis – communism.
The Chicago ‘back-room’ may be imagining that a confrontation with extremism – writ widely – will again, as it did in the post-Cold War era, yield an American rejuvenation. Which is to say that a conflict with Iran, Russia, and China (in a different way) may come onto the agenda. The telltale signs are there (plus the West’s need for a re-set of its economy, which war regularly provides).
The Kursk ploy no doubt seemed clever and audacious to London and Washington. Yet with what result? It achieved neither objective of taking Kursk NPP, nor of syphoning Russian troops from the Contact Line. The Ukrainian presence in the Kursk Oblast will be eliminated.
What it did do, however, is put an end to all prospects of an eventual negotiated settlement in Ukraine. Distrust of the U.S. in Russia is now absolute. It has made Moscow more determined to prosecute the special operation to conclusion. German equipment visible in Kursk has raised old ghosts, and consolidated awareness of the hostile western intentions toward Russia. ‘Never again’ is the unspoken riposte.
Der Friedensstifter 