Which is why they want it to continue. Follow the ‘mahney.’
by Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
There are many reasons why the West wants to continue the conflict in Ukraine. American geopolitics is almost entirely directed towards a strategy of opposition to the Russian Federation, which is why it is in the interests of the US and its NATO allies to maintain a conflict situation in the Russian strategic environment — thus trying to “wear down” Moscow through long-standing proxy wars. However, there is a special reason for the existence of such a strong pro-war lobby in the West: the exorbitant profits generated by hostilities.
The American and European elites, as well as their oligarchic “partners” in Ukraine, have maintained complex schemes of corruption, embezzlement and overpricing in the various financial and military aid programs sent to Kiev. Rather than a gesture of “solidarity” with Ukraine, as portrayed by the Western media, NATO assistance has been a lucrative business for many individuals and companies, generating interest in prolonging the conflict.
One of the main tactics used by these agents is the overpricing of military products. The prices of various weapons and equipment are being artificially inflated by American and European defense companies. It is estimated that some types of projectiles are overpriced by up to six times their original value, for example. The excess value between the original price and the inflated price ends up serving as profit for corrupt individuals both in the West and in Kiev.
Recent media reports indicate that there is a shortage of ammunition in the Ukrainian armed forces. Although billions of dollars are being spent on weapons, the inflated prices mean that Kiev cannot purchase a sufficient amount of equipment. Artillery shells are among the most overpriced items, with rockets such as the Grad MLRS having increased in price six times since 2022. The same process of inflating prices has occurred with almost all of Ukraine’s regular defense purchases, creating a situation in which Kiev receives exorbitant amounts of money but is unable to adequately supply itself militarily to sustain even conventional combat.
Some arguments commonly used by defense companies to increase the price of weapons are issues such as the need to speed up production or problems with logistics. In fact, current circumstances would require some kind of rise in the price of military products according to conventional market standards. However, raising the price of projectiles by six or seven times is already much more than a mere adjustment in expenses, having an obvious attempt to profit from the conflict and generate unfair earnings for the parties involved.
In Kiev, there have been calls to change the structure of arms shipments, with local military officials asking partner countries – mainly in Europe – to build facilities on Ukrainian soil to reduce logistical costs and facilitate the process of military aid. Western companies, however, continue to refuse such investment, citing technical difficulties. Although such difficulties exist, the real reason for the lack of such investment is another: by creating a shortage of weapons in Ukraine, the “machine” of military aid continues to run.
The basic scheme is simple: it is claimed that the costs of sending weapons are high, requiring more public money to cover the costs. Western propaganda convinces taxpayers to keep silent about bills passed in Western parliaments to increase military aid packages. Thus, more money is taken from the public reserves and used for suspicious schemes of buying weapons for Ukraine. Ukrainian officials take some of this money for themselves, while the rest goes to pay exorbitant prices to the Western defense industry. Thus, everyone profits – except the Ukrainian military, who continue to be sent to certain death on the frontlines while their bosses profit from the “Western solidarity.”
Long ago, the official representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Wang Wenbin, formally accused the US of profiting from the conflict. According to him, the American defense industry is benefiting greatly from the war due to Ukrainian demand for weapons and inflated equipment prices. The real figures from the military market confirm Wenbin’s allegations, making it clear that the prolongation of the war in Ukraine is not the result of any belief in Kiev’s “victory”, but of the selfish interests of Western and Ukrainian private actors in profiting from the loss of lives.
Globalist billionaire Bill Gates has been caught telling his inner circle that a devastating “global famine” is the next step in the elite’s indomitable march towards total global domination.
The 500 million souls left on Earth following the great depopulation will not only be easily controlled, according to Gates, they will also yearn for the level of control that the elites can currently only dream about.
With total control of the food supply, farm land, seed banks, and genetically modified soil microbes, Gates has positioned himself to carry out a false flag worse than 9/11.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Francis Boyle, the Harvard educated law professor that drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act, which passed both houses of Congress unanimously, provided an affidavit stating that Covid 19 injections and mRNA nanoparticle injections violate the law he wrote. Dr. Boyle asserted that ‘COVID 19 injections’, ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections’, and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’ are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction and violate Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023).
Dr. Boyle provided this affidavit in a Florida case filed by Dr. Joseph Sansone involving an Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus that seeks to compel Governor DeSantis to prohibit the distribution of ‘COVID 19 injections’, ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections’, and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’, in the state of Florida. It also seeks to compel Attorney General Ashley Moody to confiscate the vials.
The pleadings assert that the distribution of ‘COVID 19 injections’, ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections’, and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’, violate – Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023); Federal Crime of Treason 18 USC § 2381; Treason § 876.32 Fla. Stat. (2023); Domestic Terrorism, 18 USC § 2331; Terrorism § 775.30 Fla. Stat. (2023); Murder § 782.04 (1)(a) Fla. Stat. (2023); and Genocide 18 USC §1091; Florida Drugs and Cosmetic Act § 499.005 (2) Fla. Stat. (2023); Fraud § 817.034 Fla Stat. (2023); Accessory After the Fact § 777.03 Fla. Stat. (2023); and Florida Medical Consent Law § 766.103 Fla Stat. (2023).
Dr. Boyle is considered one of the world’s leading legal experts on biological weapons. Dr. Boyle’s affidavit adds a tremendous amount of credibility to the case, which already has a tremendous body of evidence provided in the writ of mandamus. Affidavits stating that the injections are biological and technological weapons, were also provided by med legal advisor and biotech analyst Karen Kingston, who researched the evidence that makes of the Facts of the Case section of the Mandamus, and from Ana Mihalcea, M.D., PhD. Dr. Mihalcea’s research is included in the Mandamus. Dr. Mihalcea is one of the world’s leading researchers into the effects of self replicating nanotechnology in the blood of injected as well as the effects in the blood of the uninjected as a result of shedding.
Dr. Boyle’s affidavit is below:
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
Back in January 2024, Britain’s Leader of the Labour Party Keir Starmer arrived in Davos on the invitation of the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak decided not to attend the Davos Venue:
“Number 10 has not provided an explanation for his absence but the Prime Minister is facing significant problems at home”.
Starmer started his election campaign in the Swiss Alps, in conformity with Klaus Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution
Starmer was presented at Davos in January as the WEF’s “favourite candidate” for the position of PM,
Ironically, the actual announcement of the U.K. July election was released by PM Sunak several months later.
The Labour Party’s “Great Reset”
“it’s an opportunity to present the Labour Party as the UK’s future”, with a candidate who fully endorses the covid “vaccine” coupled with the repeal of civil liberties.
He also confirmed his fight against global warming and CO2, which will indelibly lead to bankruptcies and the impoverishment of British farmers.
“He took the opportunity to push his Green Agenda which he would take forward if he enters Downing Street.”
“During a panel discussionMr Starmer that the polls suggest he has a high chance of becoming Britain’s next prime minister.”
He touched on Labour’s “ambitious” plan for a new, publicly owned energy company dubbed Great British Energy, which was unveiled at last year’s party conference.
He said his first visit to the summit at Davos had given him the opportunity to speak to CEOs of business and investors “who would partner with us if we were in government”.
Keir Starmer, likely the next UK PM: “We have to deal with the anti-vax campaigns, because they will cost lives.”
“And if we need to pass emergency legislation to deal with them, I’ll be quite prepared to work with the government on that… And the sooner we do that, frankly,… pic.twitter.com/GejVND0nTu
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) May 25, 2024
My Message to Keir Starmer. Examine the Data Before “Going After the Anti-Vaxxers”
Emergency legislation to combat the anti-vax campaign WILL COST LIVES. It will result in excess mortality.
We recall that the COVID-19 vaccine was rolled-out in several phases in England and Wales starting on December 8, 2020 (See Michel Chossudovsky)
The upward movement in excess mortality (%) confirmed by official statistics commenced in 2021. According to the Lancet:
The UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) has calculated that there were 7.2% or 44,255 more deaths registered in the UK in 2022 based on comparison with the five-year average (excluding 2020).[1]
This persisted into 2023 with 8.6% or 28,024 more deaths registered in the first six months of the year than expected.[1]
The Continuous Mortality Investigation (CMI) found a similar excess (28,500 deaths) for the same period using different methods.[3]
England and Wales: Mortality and Morbidity pertaining to Malignant Neoplasm.
Dowd’s method was to analyze the number of deaths attributed to cancer in England and Wales between 2010 and 2022 [based on data] from the U.K. Office for National Statistics
He compared excess death rates, the difference between observed deaths and the baseline for expected deaths, before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
He established a baseline of normal cancer death rates from 2010-2020 that was remarkably consistent with few deviations, he said — until the cancer death rates rose significantly in late 2021 in the U.K. following the vaccine rollout”
The table below pertains to excess deaths related to malignant neoplasm (cancerous tumor) in England and Wales, recorded in three consecutive years: 2020, 2021, and 2022 vs. a 10 year trend (2010-2019).
The data for excess mortality in 2020 (the year prior to the vaccine) are negative with the exception of “malignant neoplasm without specification of site”.
England and Wales: the Vaccine was launched in December 2020
The upward movement in excess mortality (%) commences in 2021. The increase in excess mortality related to malignant neoplasm is tabulated for the two first years of the vaccine.
The Ed Dowd study’s results in the rate of cancer deaths above the historic norm in 2022 for ages 15-44 in the U.K. included:
A 28% rise in fatal breast cancer rates in women.
An 80% increase in pancreatic cancer deaths among women and a 60% increase among men.
A 55% increase among men in colon cancer deaths and a 41% increase in women.
A 120% increase in fatal melanomas among men and a 35% increase in women.
A 35% increase in brain cancer deaths among men and a 12% rise in women.
A 60% increase in cancer death rates among men in cancers “without site specification” and a 55% increase among women.
Excess Mortality in Germany
Below is a similar table pertaining to Excess Mortality in Germany (all Causes), which points to the Deviation of Observed Mortality from Expected Mortality (by age group) in 2020, 2021, and 2022.
Pfizer’s declassified Report was made public in the U.S. in October 2021 under Freedom of Information (FOI)
The Confidential report is a bombshell. The vaccine was launched in mid-December 2020. By the end of February 2021:
“Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.”
The United States has joined 12 other nations in signing a World Economic Forum (WEF) agreement that seeks to engineer global famine by destroying the agriculture industry.
According to the agreement, which was drawn up by the WEF and the United Nations (UN), food production is causing “global warming” and must be eliminated.
To “save the planet” from “climate change,” globalists insist, farms must be shut down across the world.
The WEF agreement sets targets for how much farmland each nation must eliminate in order to comply.
Under the guise of reducing “methane emissions,” thirteen nations have signed the pledge to engineer global famine by gutting agricultural production and shutting down farms.
Announced earlier this year by the WEF’s Global Methane Hub — a cabal of crisis engineers who exploit public panic to destroy the world food supply — those thirteen nations are:
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Chile
Czech Republic
Ecuador
Germany
Panama
Peru
Spain
The United States
Uruguay.
Imagine no meat production from Australia, Brazil, and the USA.
And they admit it’s all part of the climate fraud which has been thoroughly exposed as a quack science hoax, by the way.
As Luis Planas, Spain’s Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says:
“I am glad to see the shared commitment by the international community to mitigate methane emissions from agriculture as a means to achieve the goals we signed for in the Paris Agreement on climate.”
“Food systems are responsible for 60% of methane emissions,” warns Marcelo Mena, CEO of the Global Methane Hub.
She is saying that farming is destroying the planet.
Hence, their demand to shut down farms.
Without farms, you have no food.
And without food, you get exactly what Kamala Harris called for over the weekend: “Reduced population.”
The depopulation agenda is no longer even a secret.
They are bragging about it.
And here’s their logic: FOOD = GLOBAL WARMING.
So they are attacking food and shutting it down.
John Kerry said in a statement:
“Mitigating methane is the fastest way to reduce warming in the short term.
“Food and agriculture can contribute to a low-methane future by improving farmer productivity and resilience.
“We welcome agriculture ministers participating in the implementation of the Global Methane Pledge.”
Cows and chickens to be replaced by crickets and insect larvae
Enjoy the crunchy fake meat patties and Cricket McNuggets.
Soon, you’ll be eating bugs because meat will be wildly unaffordable – and only available to wealthy elites – due to the governments shutting down farms and ranches.
“We can presume from this language that among the practices being considered are replacing a major portion of the beef and dairy cattle, pork, and chicken stocks that populations rely on for protein with insect larvae, mealworms, crickets, etc.
“The U.N., World Economic Forum, and other NGOs have been promoting meatless diets and the consumption of insect protein for years, and billionaires have invested in massive insect factories being built in the state of Illinois, in Canada, and in the Netherlands, where mealworms, crickets, and other bugs will be processed as additives to be inserted into the food supply, often without clear labels that will inform people of exactly what they are eating.”
Hohmann also refers to the Deagel forecast which projects an almost 70 percent reduction of the U.S. population by 2025, saying:
“There is no more efficient way to depopulate than through war, famine, and plagues.
“Isn’t it interesting that all three of these time-tested methods of murder are in play right now?
In a related story, Michael Snyder from The Economic Collapse Blog writes:
“Global food supplies just keep getting even tighter, and global hunger has risen to extremely alarming levels…
“According to the United Nations, nearly 30 percent of the global population does not have constant access to food right now, and there are approximately 900 million people that are facing ‘severe food insecurity’…”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image is from NA
The original source of this article is News Addicts
The following message was emailed to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Readers are encouraged to write to Ms. Von der Leyen to voice their dissatisfaction with NATO, the European Commission, and the European Union whose reckless policies are prolonging the US/NATO war against Russia and pushing the world ever closer to nuclear annihilation.
Ms. Ursula von der Leyen President of the European Commission Brussels, Belgium
Ursula von der Leyen, do you know what the people are saying? They’re saying you want to escalate blinded by power and full of hate. They’re saying you’re pushing the world into war and you don’t even know what you’re fighting for. They’re saying you’re going to start World War 3 in your stubbornness and stupidity. That’s what the people are saying about you and I’m sorry to say, all of it is true.
You are the world’s most powerful woman but sometimes I wonder if you are human mouthing your robot-like platitudes which get amplified on the evening news You say Russia plans to conquer Europe. You know that’s a bald-faced lie yet you go on repeating such nonsense. Why, Ursula, please tell us why?
You are the mother of seven children so you realize the sanctity of life yet you’re willing to blow up the planet so neo-nazi Zelensky can play his fife. Biden killed children on the beach in Crimea using illegal cluster bombs. Is that your idea of collateral damage? You don’t seem to have the slightest qualms.
The blood is on your hands. The blood is on your hands. The whole world understands the blood is on your hands. America is your puppetmaster. You march to the globalists’ commands.
It’s the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse, only worse…much worse and you are preparing humanity’s hearse. Russia has every right NOT to have nuclear missiles on its border within five minutes of Moscow. You know that. Russia had every right to dismantle the CIA-funded Ukrainian bioweapons labs on its border with germs targeting the Russian population. You know that. Obama started the war in 2014 when his CIA and State Department overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected president and installed a puppet leader who commenced eight years of shelling eastern Ukraine, killing 15,000 ethnic Russians. You know that too.
Now Britain, France, and Germany send missiles and bombs to Ukraine to keep the futile slaughter going, to cause ever more bloodshed and pain. You keep right on provoking Russia. Your strategy is clearly insane. One day Russia will say: “ENOUGH!” leading to a fatal exchange. Nuclear winter is brutal and rough.
Ursula, is that how you want to be remembered— as the woman who started World War 3 in the US/NATO war against Russia based on deceit and duplicity? It’s time to drop the propaganda and lies. Take a deep breath Negotiate. Compromise. Diplomacy is the only solution. For your sins you can get an ablution
Ursula, O Ursula, when Eurovision makes this a song your name will be up in big bold lights and you will be even more famous. Is that how you want to be remembered— as the architect of a monstrous crime? Negotiate while there’s still time.
On Sunday, the Ukrainian armed forces attacked Russia’s Sevastopol, using US-made ATACMS missiles with cluster warheads, four of which were shot down and one deflected and exploded over the city.
“The Ukrainians made a decision to use ATACMS missiles equipped with cluster munitions against a city, a civilian city. This is an act of terrorism,” Ritter emphasized.
“Ukraine since 2014 has been bombarding Russian civilian sites, cities, villages, towns for the sole purpose of inflicting death and destruction on Russian civilians. This is an act of terrorism and given that the ATACMS missiles cannot be deployed by the Ukrainians without extensive intelligence support by the United States, this is an act of terrorism by the United States against Russia,” the analyst said.
Commenting on the terrorist attacks in Russia’s Dagestan, Ritter said they were “deliberately designed to disrupt the civil life of the Russian Federation”. He highlighted that the CIA has historically made attempts to “engender a split between the Muslim and non-Muslim segments of Russian society” and failed.
“That effort failed and the effort in Dagestan will fail, too, but it doesn’t absolve the parties involved of their guilt in launching what is a direct assault on the Russian Federation,” Ritter insisted.
Lately there has been more and more talk about a third world war. Formally, the events taking place in the world seem to confirm this global suicidal vector. But do Americans really have such a strong desire to try their military luck in a big world war?
Does the US look like a world leader?
Against the backdrop of the ongoing discussion in the United States about the priorities of American foreign policy, the question arises: can America maintain its primacy? By relying on the North Atlantic Alliance, it is no longer possible to contain Russia. The start of a military special operation in Ukraine did not lead to a war between NATO and Russia. In fact, the United States and NATO did not dare to openly confront Russia. The war is being fought by someone else’s hands. And Russia’s military victory is beyond doubt.
Indeed, if you look at the history of NATO, when has the alliance fought with an enemy whose military potential was even remotely comparable to NATO’s? Yes, actually, never. Before the collapse of the USSR, NATO had never formally fought at all. After 1991, these were campaigns against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and several dozen smaller operations.
Moreover, the failed mission in Afghanistan was recognized as the most dangerous in the entire existence of NATO, with the official death toll of 3.5 thousand soldiers and more than 2 thousand contract workers of various private military companies. During the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021), NATO armies consisted of 3 to 5 million people, which means that “in the most dangerous operation” about 0.1% of the available NATO troops died. And NATO had to hastily evacuate or even flee from Afghanistan, abandoning its equipment and allies.
Does this mean that NATO troops cannot fight effectively? No, of course, they are much less capable of blitzkrieg over the enemy. But NATO troops and the Americans themselves are very sensitive to losses in manpower and today they cannot even afford, as in Vietnam, to lose up to 60 thousand people killed during the war.
Conflicts like those in Ukraine cannot be dealt with directly by NATO troops morally. Only Ukrainians will die for their interests.
With China’s hands free, can NATO and the US afford to plunge deeply into the conflict in Ukraine? Doubtful. Of course, you can declare the maintenance of your hegemony in all regions of the world on paper. But it is already practically impossible for the United States to actually implement it. It is impossible, of course, in the total version that was real in the 1990s. New centers of power have already formed in the world, and the American dictatorship is tired.
Limited hegemony
Global superiority has never been confirmed except by military force. Is the United States capable of starting a third world war in order to perpetuate its former role in the world? It is very doubtful that the United States will decide on a military conflict with a nuclear power capable of destroying itself. Americans need to start coming to terms with the idea that America lives in a world that requires it to limit its political ambitions. Moreover, in recent years, the American military has not shown any impressive results either in Afghanistan, or in Iraq, or in Africa. More than $8 trillion has been spent and tens of thousands of NATO troops have died or been wounded in these conflicts. The US Armed Forces themselves began to develop to the detriment of the offensive Air Force and Navy, as an army intended more for local conflicts and fighting poorly armed rebels.
The times when Europeans could live carefree under the US military umbrella are passing. Today, the United States is already demanding that its European allies actively increase their military spending. America is increasingly calling on Europeans to take care of their own defense and is pushing Europe into conflicts with Russia.
The deployment of additional military contingents in Europe, the admission of new members (Sweden and Finland) is the involvement of Europeans in a new round of confrontation. Supporting the Ukrainian regime is becoming more and more expensive, and military assistance to the Ukrainian Armed Forces is becoming increasingly difficult to satisfy.
The United States is trying in every possible way to shift the burden of military confrontations onto Europe itself, raising revanchist and Russophobic sentiments in it. In the United States itself, voices are increasingly being heard that real American interests are not in the Middle East or the post-Soviet space, but in the East Asian region, where Chinese competition is capable of squeezing the United States out of there, depriving it of significant financial profits and industrial opportunities.
If the Americans do not decide on a full-scale world war with the gravest risk of being destroyed in this nuclear confrontation, then sooner or later they will have to make reasonable foreign policy compromises with both Russia and China. Be aware of the full scope of legitimate Russian and Chinese national interests. And recognize the inevitable annexation of southern Russian and other Russian lands to Russia, and Taiwan to the PRC.
The sooner the United States understands this, the more resources they will save to solve their internal political and internal economic problems. The prosperous future of the United States is seen in the renunciation of global hegemony and return to the ranks of regional powers, as it was in the 19th century.
Dans un contexte où Washington a désigné Pékin comme un rival géopolitique systémique, l’administration américaine s’efforce de remodeler en sa faveur le paysage géopolitique mondial. Elle recourt, pour ce faire, aux instruments diplomatiques classiques – sans cesser de recourir à des mesures unilatérales ou de coercition.
Corollaire de l’instrument diplomatique, le volet médiatique occupe une place prépondérante dans la politique antichinoise de Washington. Porte-voix de la géopolitique américaine, les médias occidentaux se chargent de faire adhérer l’opinion publique au narratif américain selon lequel la Chine constituerait une menace géopolitique majeure.
Ces outils médiatiques et diplomatiques sont utilisés par Washington pour servir un même but : garder la main sur le niveau de coopération que développe la Chine avec les pays tiers, et maintenir ou réaffirmer l’omnipotence des États-Unis sur les affaires mondiales.
L’endiguement de la Chine par voie médiatique
La justification des offensives diplomatiques américaines à l’encontre de Pékin se fait abondamment par voie médiatique, où la stratégie américaine d’endiguement de la Chine porte des noms plus évocateurs pour le grand public.
Le discours médiatique met régulièrement l’accent sur l’impératif de préserver les démocraties libérales face au modèle autocratique incarné par Pékin, et de défendre les «valeurs occidentales» contre les entorses aux droits de l’homme attribuées à Pékin. Ce portrait au vitriol de la deuxième puissance économique mondiale laisse penser que le volet idéologique continuera de faire partie intégrante de la stratégie américaine d’endiguement de la Chine, et que l’appui américain aux mouvements séparatistes – à Taiwan, à Hong Kong, au Tibet et dans le Xinjiang – se poursuivra comme moyen de pression politique et économique contre Pékin.
Les médias occidentaux insistent aussi sur la nécessité de réduire la dépendance économique à l’égard de Pékin et de se protéger des infiltrations technologiques chinoises. Ces mêmes médias se font l’écho de l’accusation américaine selon laquelle la Chine inonderait les marchés occidentaux de véhicules électriques et de panneaux solaires à cause d’une «surcapacité» déloyale dans la production. Une accusation qui fait corps avec le projet du bloc occidental de renouveler son modèle économique au moyen des énergies vertes.
Cette hostilité envers Pékin – et les mesures protectionnistes drastiques qui s’ensuivirent – traduit le refus de Washington de tolérer un compétiteur de l’envergure de la Chine sur un marché économique mondial que le bloc occidental domine sans partage depuis des décennies. Ce volet de la stratégie américaine vise aussi à écarter l’Union européenne comme producteur d’énergie verte, comme débouché des véhicules électriques chinois à bas prix, et donc comme compétiteur potentiel de Washington.
Quant au narratif relatif à la nécessité de garantir la sécurité et la liberté de circulation maritime dans l’espace stratégique d’Indopacifique, il vise à justifier la pression militaire exercée par Washington dans le voisinage immédiat de Pékin.
Sur Taïwan, Washington continue d’entretenir l’ambiguïté : on reconnaît l’appartenance de Taïwan à la Chine – comme énoncé clairement dans les trois communiqués conjoints –, mais on défendra Taïwan en cas de réunification imposée par Pékin. Cette entorse à la logique a été renouvelée par Antony Blinken au lendemain de sa dernière visite officielle en Chine. En attendant, Washington entretient des relations diplomatiques avec l’île et continue de lui vendre des armes, en violation des accords conclus avec Pékin.
En s’appuyant sur l’ensemble des éléments qui précèdent, les médias occidentaux se chargent aussi de légitimer les décisions américaines unilatérales, telles que l’imposition de sanctions hors cadre onusien, que ce soit contre les partenaires de Pékin, comme la Russie, l’Iran et la RPDC, ou contre la Chine elle-même.
Les structures multilatérales dominées par Washington
À quelques membres dissidents près, les structures multilatérales dominées par Washington, telles que l’OTAN, le G7 et l’UE, ont adhéré à la stratégie américaine d’endiguement de Pékin. Bien que les sanctions antirusses adoptées par ces mêmes blocs ne portent pas le nom de «découplage avec la Chine», elles n’en servent pas moins le même objectif : détruire les ramifications de la puissance chinoise.
Affronter la Chine suppose de bannir le bilatéralisme et d’adopter des positions communes : tel est le mot d’ordre des structures multilatérales dominées par Washington. On retrouve ce mot d’ordre dans la «Stratégie à l’égard de la Chine» adoptée en 2023 par Berlin : «Notre stratégie à l’égard de la Chine est fermement ancrée dans la politique commune de l’UE à l’égard de la Chine».
Seul pays du G7 à avoir signé la BRI, l’Italie a dû renoncer à ce projet après moultes pressions exercées par ses alliés, qui ont accusé Rome de trahir le bloc occidental en voulant ouvrir à la Chine l’accès à l’Europe centrale et orientale et au flanc sud de l’OTAN. De même, le narratif américain selon lequel la technologie 5G du chinois Huawei constituerait une menace à la sécurité nationale des pays de l’UE a eu raison des accords signés entre le géant chinois et plusieurs pays européens, dont le Portugal. Dans la même veine, il vaudrait sans doute la peine d’étudier les paramètres politico-médiatiques qui ont fait basculer la Tchéquie dans une posture particulièrement hostile à Pékin depuis l’arrivée au pouvoir de Petr Pavel, ancien président du comité militaire de l’OTAN.
Mais il arrive aussi que Washington ne parvienne pas à ses fins. La Hongrie – qui s’apprête à assumer la présidence de l’UE – et la Slovaquie n’ont pas fléchi devant les pressions de l’UE et de l’OTAN pour découpler leurs économies avec la Chine. Le projet de supprimer le vote à l’unanimité dans l’UE pour les questions de sécurité nationale vise justement à mettre fin aux velléités d’indépendance de ces membres. Le premier ministre slovaque, Robert Fico, a relaté dans une déclaration récente les pressions dont son gouvernement a fait l’objet pour avoir refusé de s’aligner sur les politiques de l’UE et de l’OTAN. Le dirigeant slovaque a même pointé la responsabilité des partis d’opposition, porte-voix de l’OTAN et de l’UE dans son pays, dans la tentative d’assassinat dont il fut l’objet.
En dehors de ces membres «dissidents» – ou attachés à leur souveraineté –, il est clair que Washington exerce une domination quasi-totale sur le G7, l’OTAN et l’UE.
Les structures multilatérales où siègent des pays du Sud
La situation est plus nuancée dans les structures multilatérales hybrides, telles que le G20, où siègent des pays du Sud, ou les structures entièrement dominées par les pays du Sud, telles que l’ASEAN. Dans ce genre de structure, il n’est pas aussi aisé pour les États-Unis d’imposer leur stratégie d’endiguement de Pékin.
Lors du dernier sommet du G20, présidé par l’Inde, la déclaration finale n’incluait pas, comme l’aurait souhaité Washington, une condamnation des actions de Moscou en Ukraine. L’absence de Xi Jinping de ce sommet visait peut-être deux objectifs : laisser à New Delhi l’opportunité de parler au nom du Sud global, en entérinant l’adhésion de l’Union africaine au G20, et éviter que les pays occidentaux ne fassent endosser à la Chine la responsabilité de la déclaration finale.
Dans une structure telle que l’ASEAN, emblème de la région stratégique d’Asie du Sud-Est, et caractérisée par différentes orientations politiques, les États-Unis ne sauraient unifier les positions des dix membres contre Pékin. Au lieu de cela, Washington s’efforce de développer de nouveaux partenariats ou d’approfondir les partenariats déjà existants (alliance sécuritaire avec les Philippines ; partenariat stratégique intégral avec l’Indonésie…), avec comme arrière-pensée d’exacerber les tensions entre la Chine et ses voisins, et d’entraver l’ascension de la Chine en Indopacifique et au-delà.
Logiquement, les accords de défense conclus dans le cadre de ces partenariats bilatéraux se répercutent ensuite sur la Chine et l’ASEAN. Dans ces conditions, le vœu chinois d’établir un Code de conduite en mer de Chine méridionale, qui exclurait l’ingérence de puissances étrangères à la région, ne semble pas près de se réaliser. En empêchant le consensus entre membres de l’ASEAN, les États-Unis veulent contraindre la Chine à négocier séparément le règlement de ses différends territoriaux et maritimes avec chacun de ses voisins – en sachant que la stratégie américaine consiste précisément à empêcher Pékin et ses voisins de parvenir à un accord.
Mais la situation est moins fluide qu’il n’y paraît pour Washington. Soucieux de ne pas devenir, à leur détriment, des instruments de la stratégie américaine d’endiguement de la Chine, plusieurs membres de l’ASEAN ont opté pour une politique de diversification de leur diplomatie et de leur économie. C’est le cas notamment du Vietnam, de la Thaïlande, de l’Indonésie ou de la Malaisie – et même de l’État de Brunei, bien conscient de l’importance de sa position stratégique. La Thaïlande et la Malaisie ont même exprimé le souhait de rejoindre le groupe des BRICS : plus que l’expression d’un non-alignement sur les positions américaines, ces éléments enlèvent de la légitimité à la stratégie d’encerclement militaire de la Chine par les États-Unis.
Cet affaiblissement indiscutable de la position américaine sur la scène géopolitique mondiale laisse entrevoir sous un autre angle la décision de Washington de jouer son va-tout pour préserver son hégémonie – notamment en brandissant la menace de Taïwan.
Les guerres féroces en cours en Europe et au Moyen-Orient complètent le tableau. En sacrifiant l’Ukraine, Washington espère affaiblir le partenaire stratégique de Pékin, la Russie. En confiant à Israël la mission innommable de perpétrer un génocide dans les territoires palestiniens, Washington fait la démonstration, à son détriment, que les partenaires historiques des États-Unis dans la région d’Asie de l’Ouest, tels que l’Égypte et l’Arabie saoudite, n’appliquent plus les directives de Washington avec autant de zèle que par le passé. À l’instar des voisins de la Chine, ils cherchent à équilibrer leurs relations avec les grandes puissances afin de donner la priorité à leurs intérêts nationaux.
Until we, as a people, are seen as more than mere barbarians, our merits will not be understood, our successes will not be replicated, and our achievements will not be topped.
There is a wonderful talk hosted by the Masar Badil with a spokesman from the Ansarallah movement, and I urge you to watch it if you can. It is crucial in times like this to hear directly from the Resistance.
There is this one phrase he said that is stuck in my head: We are in a battle against Western arrogance.
Although everything he said was poignant and incredibly useful, this phrase in particular made the unity between political work in the homeland [Palestine] and in the diaspora incredibly clear.
In the homeland, the operative tool of this arrogance is the military and its mouthpieces. Netanyahu and his underlings spout off incoherent nonsense every two days about how they are this close to winning the war, destroying Hamas, and freeing the hostages. The Resistance counters, firmly grounded in the reality on the ground, and with a confidence recognized worldwide, that Netanyahu has barely managed to free a few hostages. That its command and control remain robust, and with each passing day, Netanyahu’s pride and legitimacy suffer irreparable blows. The Resistance, of course, suffers greatly in all this, but as martyr Basil Al Araj puts it “we are far more capable of bearing the costs”.
The Resistance’s confidence is built on a sturdy foundation of the promises it has kept. They give us footage of conflagrated tanks, fighters literally jumping for joy, and, in general, the triumph of indigenous ingenuity over imperialist hubris. This is the difference between arrogance and confidence: Evidence. The supposed evidence of Zionist greatness is blasted on Western TV channels 24/7, yet it is convincing to no one. The English language news of the Resistance is concentrated in a single Telegram channel, and a few prominent Twitter accounts, all of which are constantly suppressed and even outright banned, and yet, millions are tuning in.
In a more just world, this tuning in, and the support that flows from it, would be the primary political activity of the world’s progressive masses. In the Middle East and among some of its diaspora, this is what political work looks like. But “the colonial world is a world cut in two”, so for much of the “developed world”, this is not the case. The colonial world, including its progressives, cannot possibly accept the leadership of an Islamic or Arab Resistance.
The Arabic word for arrogance is ‘istikbar’. The root, k-b-r, means big or bigger, so the word literally means “to make yourself bigger”. The Western left, despite having had virtually no successes since the fall of the Soviet Union, thinks of itself so highly that it can choose to ignore and minimize the anti-imperialist Resistance in the Middle East.
Abdaljawad Omar’s wonderful essay, The Question of Hamas and the Left, addresses this issue directly. The piece’s core concept is that the global Left, but especially those in the West, refuse to engage with the reality of Palestine and, especially with Hamas as a leading force. He says, “One cannot claim solidarity with Palestine and dismiss, overlook, or exclude Hamas.”
In the West, especially in America, this dismissal has a singular and underappreciated root: the deep-seated anti-Arab anti-Muslim sentiment implanted in people’s hearts and minds over the past few decades.
Most on the Left have at least a cursory understanding of Cold War propaganda: The constant deluge of anti-communist demonization that Americans, especially but the West tout court, were exposed to for decades. The media campaign against Arabs and Muslims over the past 3 decades is like that, but with modern media and military might, and directed at a mass of people rather than, as with the Soviet Union, a coherent political force capable of rebuffing cultural or physical annihilation.
This is unsurprising, as both the military and media machinery that make this possible both find their origin in post-Cold War surplus. A full discussion of that phenomenon is beyond the scope of this essay, but suffice it to say this was prefigured since the fall of the USSR. Take for instance this 1990 quote by the feminist and pacifist philosopher Ursula Franklin:
It will be very interesting to see what’s going to happen now in the current situation with the Soviet Union and the USA. And I would venture that the social and political needs for an enemy are so deeply entrenched in the real world of technology as we know it today that a new enemy will quickly appear.
And appear we did! The new enemy of the 21st century was just as amorphous as the communist but markedly more ‘backward’, dispersed and unpredictable. At the turn of the century, the US had carte blanche to change to this new, more inscrutable enemy, and has ridden that wave through the last 20 years, spreading destruction around the world from Iraq to Libya, Syria, Yemen and, continually, with increasing barbarity, Palestine.
Endless examples elucidate the omnipresence of this destruction and dehumanization. The worst prisons in the world are for our people (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Gilboa). In the US military, to this day, GIs love to coat their bullets in pork in an absurd attempt to trick God into sending their Muslim victims to hell.
The most advanced and carefully designed weaponry is tested and perfected on our people. Multiple countries populated almost exclusively with Arabs and Muslims have their skies patrolled by drones to the degree that children there “fear blue skies”. Even in the diaspora, from France to Germany to the US, official ruling parties issue decrees that specifically target and violate our fundamental rights.
This is the backdrop for every opinion on Arabs and Muslims and their Resistance. It is in this context, of oppression, destruction, and near-universal hatred that responses to our independent political maneuvers are generated. Regardless of the West’s unshakable faith in its “rationality” it needs to be said that you cannot properly understand someone you do not see as fully human.
Case in point, after October 7th, I and other Arabs were subjected to a slew of otherwise rational people asking about mass rape and baby beheadings. Even before delving into the facts of the matter, I stood stunned at the credulity of these people. Why do you believe Shani Louk was raped? Simply because she was scantily clad and near Arab men? Is that all it takes? Why do you believe in baby beheading, even conceptually? Why would you believe that such an act, which serves no political or military purpose would be carried out by what are obviously trained and disciplined fighters?
This was either extreme naivety or abject racism. In any case, even in otherwise well-meaning people, it drew a line of demarcation. A line that was not between ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ but between those who understand that every word said about an Arab in the Western media is a lie, and those who don’t.
I naively expected better of the Western left, even though my entire life in America has given me evidence to the contrary. In truth, I shouldn’t be surprised that this same dehumanization is at play. The American political spectrum, divided between reactionaries, liberals, and leftists, is united in not recognizing us as full political agents with a strategy and history that rivals, and sometimes even surpasses, their own. While this is expected from others, one would hope for a markedly better position from the left.
This position has echoes in the French left’s abandonment of the FLN in Algeria and its slavish loyalty to the colonial regime, but its fundamental character is different. To understand it we have to go to one of Omar’s most oft-repeated points:
Ultimately, the Western left’s quixotic search for a secular progressive alternative to Hamas overlooks a simple fact: at this particular historical juncture, the political forces that are still holding onto and leading a resistance agenda are not of the secular left.
I would expand on this to say: the Left’s search for a non-Arab, non-Muslim resistance movement belies the fact that the center of the world revolution has been far from the West for a very long time. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, resistance has shifted from being interwoven into the fabric of Western society to something that predominantly comes from outside. The Western left, in its colonial arrogance, refuses to accept this fact, and even less the notion that, if there is a revolutionary center, it would be the Middle East.
Even among those who appreciate this revolutionary center, we are often treated as a kind of raging beast. We have an appreciable power to be sure but lack meaningful insights. These are the people who will watch our military exploits with great excitement but yawn at the impressive feats of coalition building, the slow rise to strategic equilibrium over decades, and the steady accumulation of resistance infrastructure in the world’s most besieged and bombarded region. Only an arrogant Left that refuses to learn from those it sees as “lesser” could miss these monumental feats.
The fact is while we have precious few examples of a counter-hegemonic trend cohering into a political force, most are in the Middle East and none are in the West.
A humble Left would realize that the most active political student organization on nearly every campus in the US is not a socialist club or an autonomous group but an SJP (Student of Justice in Palestine). But our arrogant Left is committed to an unwillingness to learn from and, God forbid, to take seriously and be led by the subjects of the colonial empire.
Omar ends his essay with this description of Hamas as an energetic political entity that has astutely learned from the mistakes of its predecessor, the PLO, both in warfare and negotiations. It has meticulously invested its intellectual, political, and military resources into understanding “Israel” and its psychic center of gravity. And that Whether we like it or not, Hamas is now the primary force leading the Palestinian struggle.
No one in the West likes this. This description is matched in its accuracy only by its absolute incompatibility with the West’s view of “The Arab” in our entirety. The battle against Western arrogance has been an open-ended, multi-fronted war for at least 30 years. The most successful and sophisticated forces in this battle have been Arab and Muslim. Any effort to change that, to supersede this force for one that is more secular or international must begin with this realization.
Until this happens, until we, as a people, are seen as more than mere barbarians, our merits will not be understood, our successes will not be replicated, and our achievements will not be topped
Der Friedensstifter 