Souveraineté des idées et guerres des cerveaux

https://www.geopolitika.ru/fr/article/souverainete-des-idees-et-guerres-des-cerveaux?utm_referrer=https%3a%2f%2fwww.geopolitika.ru%2ffr%2farticle%2fsouverainete-des-idees-et-guerres-des-cerveaux

Il est évident pour tout le monde que dans les conditions actuelles où de profonds changements se font en Russie, il est nécessaire de développer notre propre appareil terminologique et de réviser en profondeur l’énorme masse d’informations qui est présentée sous le couvert à la fois du contenu général et des catégories sémantiques. Cela s’applique à un large éventail de connaissances enseignées dans les écoles et les universités, et utilisées comme système d’exploitation dans les instituts et les groupes de réflexion de la RAS. Et à l’ensemble des concepts largement utilisés dans les médias et le discours des sciences politiques. Cela est nécessaire pour plusieurs raisons interdépendantes.

Tout d’abord, certains concepts et termes nous ont été imposés par l’Occident et leur application empêche une compréhension adéquate de divers processus et phénomènes. Cette situation dure depuis longtemps, mais surtout depuis l’effondrement de l’URSS. À cette époque, des « agents d’influence » pro-occidentaux travaillaient activement en Russie, des manuels étaient publiés selon les modèles occidentaux, un discours qui nous était étranger était activement appliqué et introduit non seulement dans la communauté scientifique, mais aussi dans la pratique quotidienne. Cela a conduit à la fois à l’émasculation des significations profondes et à leur remplacement par des termes de substitution, qui ont commencé à être appliqués au niveau réflexif, et à l’appel constant aux théories et concepts occidentaux, au lieu de développer les siens propres. Une sorte de monopole de l’idiotie intellectuelle (du mot grec ιδιωτης – séparé de la société, différent, inexpérimenté) s’est établi, où des modèles et des termes étrangers ont commencé à être perçus comme les seuls corrects.

Deuxièmement, elle est tout simplement nécessaire dans le cadre du processus de souveraineté. Si l’on parle de souveraineté politique et technologique, il est tout aussi important de parler de souveraineté informationnelle au sens large du terme, qui inclut l’éducation, la science et la culture.

Troisièmement, tout cela est lié à la défense de nos valeurs traditionnelles et de notre patrimoine historique. Et, bien sûr, cela correspond aux décrets du président de la Russie du 09.11.2022 № 809 « Sur l’approbation des principes de la politique d’État pour la préservation et le renforcement des valeurs spirituelles et morales traditionnelles russes » [i] et du 08.05.2024 № 314 « Sur l’approbation des principes fondamentaux de la politique d’État de la Fédération de Russie dans le domaine de l’éclairage historique » [ii].

Quatrièmement, il est nécessaire de se rappeler que nous sommes en état de guerre informationnelle et cognitive avec l’Occident, et que pour les gagner ou, au moins, pour repousser les attaques informationnelles, il est nécessaire de comprendre les subtilités des opérations psychologiques, y compris la mémétique, la sémiotique et la programmation neurolinguistique. En général, l’aile patriotique et conservatrice de la pensée scientifique en Russie soutient de telles initiatives.

Par exemple, Andrei Shutov, président de la Société russe des politologues et doyen de la faculté de sciences politiques de l’université d’État Lomonosov de Moscou, a récemment déclaré que « la partie théorique des sciences politiques enseigne encore des sujets qui ont été développés par des représentants anglo-saxons d’écoles de recherche. La Russie d’aujourd’hui a besoin d’un accent différent, national. Il est nécessaire d’analyser de manière critique l’ensemble des disciplines générales enseignées. La Russie est la première et la plus importante des puissances challengeuses aujourd’hui. Un processus de souverainisation de la science politique a été mis en route…. Les cours et les programmes de travail des disciplines doivent être révisés dans le contexte des transformations modernes. La situation actuelle dans le monde exige des mesures urgentes pour modifier les cours en mettant l’accent sur l’étude et le développement du riche patrimoine créatif de l’école nationale de science politique » [iii].

Un travail similaire est effectué par le Centre d’éducation et de recherche « École politique supérieure portant le nom d’Ivan Ilyin », récemment créé au RSUHU et dirigé par le célèbre philosophe et docteur en sciences politiques Alexandre Douguine [iv]. En ce sens, il est tout à fait naturel que les activités du Centre aient suscité une réaction moins qu’adéquate de la part du public exalté, dont les sources d’influence sont visibles à l’œil nu. À cet égard, Vyacheslav Volodin, président de l’assemblée fédérale de la Douma d’État de Russie, a fait remarquer que « les ennemis de la Russie tentent de nous diviser de l’intérieur » et que les activités du Centre « sont les tâches essentielles et les questions les plus importantes sur lesquelles le Centre Ivan Ilyin peut et doit travailler ». Et pas seulement lui, mais nous tous avec vous » [v].

On espère que le travail de ce centre, ainsi que d’autres organisations similaires, gouvernementales et non gouvernementales, sera systématique et stratégique. D’autre part, on peut s’interroger sur la pertinence, par rapport aux réalités actuelles, d’un certain nombre d’institutions qui continuent d’évaluer la réalité à l’aide de clichés occidentaux. Par exemple, si l’on analyse attentivement ce qu’écrivent les experts de l’un des principaux groupes de réflexion russes spécialisés dans les questions de politique étrangère, on remarquera un style qui imite la science politique occidentale. Même de nombreux termes ne sont que des calques, bien qu’en russe ils sonnent plutôt faux. Par exemple, le terme « connectivité » [vi], souvent utilisé aux États-Unis et dans l’UE, fait référence à toutes les régions. Traduit en russe, le terme « connectivité » a une connotation légèrement différente et négative. Comme si quelqu’un voulait attacher ou lier quelqu’un. Bien qu’un synonyme plus adéquat puisse être utilisé: par exemple, « connexion ». Il en va de même pour de nombreux autres mots empruntés: fournisseur, amortissement (appliqué à la sécurité), etc.

Il semble que les auteurs, qui utilisent volontiers des expressions occidentales dans leur vocabulaire, tentent de suivre une certaine mode (la vieille idée des Occidentaux et des libéraux selon laquelle tout est mieux en Occident, y compris les termes) et de voiler les spécificités de leur position derrière cette façade de fouillis linguistique. Il faut admettre qu’une certaine confusion dans les mots étrangers n’est pas apparue à l’époque du libéralisme d’Eltsine, bien qu’elle ait atteint un pic évident pendant cette période, puisque les réformes de l’époque étaient supervisées par toutes sortes de consultants étrangers, généralement venus des États-Unis. Mais même sous l’URSS, il y avait des divergences.

Par exemple, les deux agences de renseignement américaines – CIA et NSA – ont la même consonance en anglais – Agency, mais pour une raison quelconque, en russe, les agences de renseignement s’appelaient Directorate et les agences de sécurité s’appelaient Agency. Aujourd’hui encore, nous utilisons ces noms, en grande partie parce que c’est ainsi que les choses se passent. Il y a des cas non seulement de mauvaise interprétation, mais aussi de compréhension superficielle de certains mots.

Prenez le concept de multipolarité. La déclaration conjointe Chine-Russie sur la multipolarité a été enregistrée aux Nations unies le 15 mai 1997. 27 ans après cet événement, le concept de multipolarité est-il bien compris dans les milieux russes de la science politique ? Qu’est-ce qu’un pôle dans le cadre de cette théorie ? Les Russes occidentalistes se référeront tous aux études des auteurs américains sur la multipolarité, qui sont basées sur le modèle des pôles géographiques, où une certaine opposition est ancrée et historiquement liée à la science positiviste.

Mais pourquoi ne pourrions-nous pas nous appuyer sur d’autres idées en la matière, qui pourraient être plus adéquates, plus concises et plus précises [vii] ? [Dans ce cas, c’est particulièrement important parce que de telles significations véhiculent une sorte de sagesse conventionnelle, c’est-à-dire que lorsqu’un terme est mentionné, il n’est pas nécessaire de le mâcher en profondeur – et il est supposé être parfaitement compris et familier à la société dans laquelle il est utilisé. Mais une compréhension superficielle déclenche l’effet de ciseaux linguistiques – il semble que l’on sache de quoi l’on parle, mais ce n’est pas tout à fait clair.

Les médias de masse constituent une question distincte et assez importante, car ce sont souvent eux qui forment l’appareil conceptuel du grand public. Il est grand temps que les médias russes, qui diffusent des informations à la fois à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur du pays, élaborent un dictionnaire des expressions obligatoires afin de transmettre correctement le sens de ce qui se passe. Bien que de nombreuses grandes agences de presse continuent malheureusement à être descriptives, sans se pencher sur les causes et les effets, les accents et certaines tournures de phrase sont toujours nécessaires.

Tout d’abord, une méthode miroir est nécessaire. Par exemple, les médias occidentaux, lorsqu’ils décrivent les frappes des FAU sur le territoire russe, ajoutent toujours la phrase « comme indiqué par la Russie », comme pour signifier que cette information n’est pas digne de confiance ou doit être vérifiée. Alors que toute la propagande du régime de Kiev, même la plus odieuse, passe toujours pour la vérité de dernier recours. Par conséquent, nous devons également faire certaines remarques concernant leurs déclarations dans la présentation de toute information.

Deuxièmement, lorsque nous faisons référence aux agences occidentales (dont, hélas, nos médias tirent encore des informations), nous devrions toujours émettre une réserve sur le fait qu’il s’agit d’instruments d’influence mondialistes émanant de groupes oligarchiques occidentaux. Même dans un contexte historique, il est possible de donner des paramètres de clarification sur certains événements. Non pas la « réunification allemande », mais « l’annexion non violente de la RDA par la RFA avec le soutien de l’OTAN ». Non pas « entreprises étrangères » mais « cartels néolibéraux ».

Et le terme « libéralisme » lui-même devra être clarifié. En effet, comme l’a souligné à juste titre l’universitaire américain Paul Gottfried, le libéralisme actuel est un non-sens, car « le libéralisme, bien compris, n’exigeait ni n’encourageait nécessairement (…) la tolérance de pratiques sexuelles bizarres, le remplacement des États-nations par des organisations internationales, la tolérance de discours ouvertement incendiaires visant à renverser le gouvernement (…) ». L’ère postlibérale actuelle n’est pas entièrement séparée de son prédécesseur libéral, mais la traite comme l’hérésie chrétienne traite la doctrine chrétienne » [viii].

Cela montre que même si nous analysons les travaux des penseurs conservateurs des États-Unis eux-mêmes, nous trouverons dans leurs critiques de nombreuses idées rationnelles qui mettront en évidence les erreurs des mondialistes et aideront à trouver une définition appropriée. Quant à notre propre philosophie et à notre science politique, nous devons en développer nous-mêmes tout l’appareil. D’ailleurs, dans l’entre-deux-guerres du siècle dernier, les Eurasiens y sont partiellement parvenus et ont donné au monde des expressions vraiment uniques dans les domaines de la géographie, de la politique, du droit et de l’histoire.

Notes de bas de page :

i) publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202211090019
ii) publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202405080001  
iii) ruspolitology.ru/ekspertnaya-deyatelnost/
iv) www.rsuh.ru/education/section_228/vpsh.php
v) tass.ru/obschestvo/20602719
vi) russiancouncil.ru/news/gorodskoy-zavtrak-rsmd-nalazhivanie-regionalnoy-svyazannosti-v-evrazii-interesy-i-strategii-klyuchev
vii) katehon.com/fr/article/mnogopolyarnost-i-mnogostoronnie-otnosheniya
viii) chroniclesmagazine.org/view/our-grim-postliberal-future/

Souveraineté des idées et guerres des cerveaux

Unable to escalate militarily, NATO relies on rhetoric

Lucas Leiroz

Recent discussions about “authorizing” attacks on Russia sounds like desperation on the part of Western countries.

Continuing their relentless wave of escalations in the war against the Russian Federation, NATO countries have decided to deliberate on whether to “authorize” Ukrainian attacks against what they consider “Russian territory” — the 1991 Russian borders, excluding the New Regions. For those who follow the conflict on TV, the “measure” seems like a “game changer”. For those who know the battlefield, it is nothing more than a bad joke.

Ukrainian attacks on the undisputed territory of the Russian Federation have been a reality since 2022. Border regions are frequently bombed in cowardly incursions against civilian and demilitarized areas. I myself almost died during the neo-Nazi attacks with Western missiles and drones on Belgorod when I was in the city as a correspondent. Kursk, Bryansk, Krasnodar and almost all southern regions of Russia are in a similar situation, vulnerable to fascist cowardice.

And it is not just cities reasonably close to the conflict zone that are susceptible to the Maidan Junta’s attacks. Even in Moscow, Ukrainian drones have already targeted everything from residential buildings to the Kremlin itself. Not to mention the frequent attacks on energy and oil infrastructure in several Russian regions. In other words, there is no Russian who is not a target of Kiev’s misanthropic regime.

Until then, Western countries cowardly tried to disguise their responsibilities for these attacks. Knowing that Moscow considers Ukraine’s sponsors to be co-responsible for all the regime’s crimes, the Western argument was that there was no authorization for their weapons to be used against targets “inside Russia” — as if Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson were not as Russian as Moscow or St. Petersburg.

No one has ever taken Western arguments seriously. Anyone who follows the Ukrainian conflict understands that there is no sovereignty in Kiev. The regime is just a proxy for the West, acting as a puppet. Ukrainian commanders do not have any decision-making power, their actions are merely compliance with orders coming from outside — from command centers in Brussels and Washington. There is no possibility that NATO is not to blame for the deep attacks on Russia simply because Ukraine never acts alone. All actions of the Kiev regime are previously authorized by the Atlantic alliance.

However, now, NATO has decided to “allow” these attacks — which, I repeat, have been happening since 2022. Suddenly, the Western bloc has chosen, tacitly, to assume its co-responsibility for the deaths of children in Belgorod and Kursk. In the media’s narrative to Western public opinion, it appears that NATO’s “patience” has run out — but in fact, what is running out is its weapons stockpile.

The West escalated the war as far as it could. It violated every red line possible. It sent long-range missiles, cluster bombs and radioactive depleted uranium munitions — not to mention the endless ranks of commandos fighting under the guise of “mercenaries”. None of these efforts were strong enough to even make Ukraine launch a “counteroffensive.” Nothing worked. Now, NATO is faced with the final decision.

Either the military alliance escalates the war to direct — and nuclear — confrontation, or it abandons Ukraine and allows the special military operation to be concluded according to the only possible outcome for this conflict (the victory of the Russian Federation). But, conveniently, NATO takes neither one position nor the other. On the contrary, it opts for rhetorical escalation, “authorizing” attacks that have always taken place and promising to “send troops” that, in fact, have already been in Ukraine for a long time — under the epithet of “mercenaries”.

NATO is drowning in its own weakness. Unable to escalate militarily, it escalates rhetorically. On the battlefield, nothing changes. Ukraine remains on the brink of collapse and Western weapons are increasingly proving useless. The cowardly attacks on Russian civilians continue to happen — many of them by Western troops — but from now on the “official” and “authorized” seal of the West will be on every projectile targeting Russian cities.

Obviously, Western propaganda will try to take advantage of the current rhetorical wave to make it appear that Ukraine will use Western missiles against Moscow and St. Petersburg. Kiev may even try to do so, but it is unlikely that the inept neo-Nazi army will achieve great things. Most likely, missiles and drones will continue to fall in border regions — exactly as has been happening since 2022. It is the “Russian territorial depth” viable for Kiev.

However, the West could be penalized for its irresponsible rhetoric. It is Russian patience, not NATO’s, that could run out at any moment. If Moscow deems it necessary to respond effectively to an artillery incursion against its demilitarized civilian areas, from now on, every Western capital could be legally considered a target, as the alliance has decided to publicly place itself in the position of being co-responsible for Ukrainian crimes.

Words have consequences. Decisions generate responses. Perhaps the open phase of the Third World War will be initiated by a formal and rhetorical decision. After all, through weapons, the West has not achieved so much.

Unable to escalate militarily, NATO relies on rhetoric

European Union: From peace to bellicosity

Hugo Dionísio

Belonging to the European Union begins to resemble those dreams that delight us while we sleep, but when we wake up, we realize that they are just that, dreams.

An important part of the tensions created in Eastern Europe, close to Russia’s borders, has to do with an illusion that is created, according to which the entry, in itself, into the European Union, produces a set of unquestionable benefits, the which are otherwise not attainable. But are those benefits so unquestionable?

In a European Union whose economy is increasingly cannibalized and contained by the USA, whose power summit often hides the fact that this threat is the most serious and limiting of all, currently, the realistic future that this bloc represents for the adhering countries, does not go beyond very anemic forecasts of economic growth and, even more serious, crowned with the demand for confrontation with Russia, which completely remove the assumption, according to which, membership in the restricted club of western Europe represented, above all, a guarantee of peace and security.

The Ukrainian case is the most extreme, but whether it is Georgia, Moldova, Serbia, Montenegro or any other country that belonged to the USSR or the “socialist bloc”, the request is always the same: joining the EU means joining NATO, joining NATO means being an enemy of Russia. In an increasingly pronounced way, being an enemy of Russia also means giving up of free relations with what is currently the greatest source of economic, scientific and technological growth in the world, which is China. And this is, perhaps, next to enmity with the Russian world, the most expensive bargaining chip that a nation has to pay, to belong to the select Western “garden”.

The West has long ceased to represent the greatest source of economic growth. Decades of purposeful deindustrialization, neoliberalism and F.I.R.E economy have reversed this reality. From a position of expansion, the West moved to a position of containing other people’s expansion. Today, the greatest guarantee of economic growth, for any nation, consists of its relations with the BRICS (India, China and Russia will be the 3 countries that will grow the most in 2024, according to the IMF).

If for countries like Portugal, Greece or Spain, the currency of exchange was measured in liberalization of markets and privatization of national resources, so that Western transnationals could enter and acquire what was previously in the country’s possession; as a result of its geographical condition and its shared historical identity with Russia and the countries of Eastern Europe, economic demands come coupled with an authentic declaration of enmity.

This requirement has dramatic effects in these countries. Ukraine is here to demonstrate it. As Georgia proves now and as Moldova will prove tomorrow, as Serbia also feels. Agreeing to join the EU means declaring war on a part, often a considerable or even majority, of your own population. In other words, neither growth, nor peace, nor security, nor even the right to memory. Can anyone extract anything constructive from the fact that hundreds of thousands of Russians living in Estonia are no longer able to speak, read and celebrate their language and history? I find it hard to believe.

As in the Ukrainian case, what is proposed to these people is that they give up their past history, their cultural and even religious foundations and replace them with a future, presented as radiant, but, in reality, uncertain. Not even the most blind can deny the process of destruction of Russophone and Russophile culture in Ukraine, particularly following the euroMaidan coup d’état. As they cannot deny the West’s loss of influence in the world and the crisis that looms on its horizon.

In this context, the organization that presents itself as the guarantee of peace in Europe, constitutes, in this new era, an almost certain path to war. They may say that “it’s Russia’s fault, which prevents them from joining Western structures because it doesn’t want to lose its dominance.” But, after Russia itself, in times of its own illusion, tried to join the Western club and was denied, it is not normal that this country began to look suspiciously at those who compete, by the way, for space close to its borders? Does any country like to be surrounded by enemies?

Thus, this vertigo or illusion that, by belonging to the EU, a country automatically belongs to the elite and will have its future filled with abundant riches involved in the highest “European values”, threatens to tear entire nations apart. The requirement that, in order to join, you have to give up your past is simply unacceptable to many people. Which is understandable: what kind of future can be based on an empty, disowned, cursed past? Joining the EU means, for Eastern European countries, a permanent war with their past. Take the case of Bulgaria or Slovakia.

But don’t think that, for southern European countries, not demanding such a currency of exchange, everything results in certain and undeniable gains. From an economic point of view, the story is far from univocal. We can say that the economies of these countries were united, not by membership, but by incorporation into the select Western club. As for their own people, and their living conditions, they still await the much-desired “convergence”.

However, it is also not serious to say that the entry of these countries into the European Union represented an absolute setback since the start. It’s a bit like being poor among rich. Being poor, among poor people, is much worse. Portugal, for example, when it entered the European Economic Community, was struggling with brutal infrastructure gaps. The active population was very poorly qualified, in terms of salary, it was among the poorest in all of Europe. In this sense, the potential for taking advantage of access to a market of hundreds of millions of people was very high. This reality ended up being reflected in shelves full of never-before-seen products, even though most exchanges were often unable to buy them. But, in the beginning, even this problem seemed promising and seemed to be resolved. To this end, the European Union provided millions in structural funds, which would bring national development.

For a country like Portugal, the community funds received were accompanied by a demand for the destruction of its industry, agriculture and fisheries. All this, in exchange for the transformation into a service economy. As someone once said, the roads that were built with the funds were not built for the Portuguese; They were made for Central Europe to place its products and tourists here.

From 1986 to 2029, Portugal and the EU will have “invested” more than 200 billion euros in structural funds. It would not be serious to say that they will be of no use. But being an apparently disconcerting amount, the truth is that the country paid much more than the mere purchase of products and services from northern and central Europe.

Currently, when we look at the visual contrast provided by the passing of very old cars, surrounding others, as expensive as they are rare… We cannot help but feel a bittersweet taste. At best! Portugal is the EU country with the most employed workers living below the poverty line, many also becoming homeless, sleeping on streets with the best hotels and the most competitive apartments for tourist rental.

The eternal crisis and austerity constitute the legacy of the second phase of European accession, which resulted from entry into the Eurozone. Reduced economic and wage growth, deregulation of labor laws and the right to housing, at the same time that privatizations, public-private partnerships and benefits for Western monopolies multiplied. All justified by the new ambition: “budgetary containment”. The declared objective was no longer peace, growth and development. They became the “right national accounts”.

While it is true that the exchange rate has not yet been, by far, as serious and destructive as that required from the countries of the former USSR, it is important to understand that the funds received do not come at zero cost. Rather, they are accompanied by a process of economic and socio-cultural substitution, formatting and conditioning, which aim to move these countries away from their “southern” dimension and aspire, like a donkey to a carrot, to belong to the north. Attached to the funds come the sticks of conditionalities, recommendations, guidelines and unconfessed and unconfessable demands, which mortgage the promised future.

Brussels’ power grows as it weakens that of peripheral member states, which found themselves without currency to influence exchange rate policy, without power to define the interest rate, which began to be set by the ECB, and shackled to the criteria of the Pact of Stability and Growth. To all this Brussels, and the parties of submission, make the hunger as the cure for anorexia. The victim needs to gain weight and Doctor Von Der Leyen prescribes a weight loss cure.

The truth is that the European Commission has never heard a recommendation demanding restraint in Public-Private Partnerships for health or highways, which guarantee annual returns of up to 13% per year; never demanded cuts in pardons and tax exemptions for large companies or taxes on their pornographic profits. The recommendations of the European Semester, when calling for “budgetary restraint”, refer to wage restraint, slimming of public services and privatizations, many privatizations, in an endless gluttony for more and more easy money.

At the end of all this, it is worth asking: if the southern countries received so many funds, if in order to receive them they had to comply with the conditions imposed (economic and fiscal policy conditionalities, constitutional revisions and adoption of economic and political regulation instruments) and if the receiving, have not reached, in more than 30 years, the levels of development of the countries of central and northern Europe, despite this being promised, then the answer can only be one: it is because it was not supposed to!

And this is what hurts to hear from Euroenthusiasts and Brussels fanboys. But, how is it that your favorite enchanting tale is nothing more than a deferred dream, whose assumptions indicate that, after all, this postponement is eternal, because, within the framework of the European division of labor, it is not up to the peripheral countries to develop high value added activities? And nothing highlights this reality more than the data regarding wage convergence: to the promise of future convergence, it was not just the Portuguese economy that did not live up to it, but all the peripheral economies of the European Union. Growing up, they were never able to converge, with the distances between those in the south and those in central and northern Europe almost always maintaining or increasing.

The fact is that the only small and peripheral country that dared to break with this logic was Greece. Today, we all know where Greece ended up. They accused the country of stealing, lying, falsifying, all because the respective government committed the “crime” of wanting to pay its people the same as workers in central and northern European countries earned. The largest European countries, which constantly exceed deficit limits, have never been subject to the “excessive deficit procedure” and austerity measures to correct it.

Furthermore, in the Portuguese case, between funds received and the purchase of products and services provided by central and northern Europe, between 1996 and 2023, this country gave more than it received, explaining the real meaning of this European adventure. According to the Bank of Portugal, between what came in and what went out, the country had a negative balance of 61 billion euros.

In conclusion, the carrot that attracts the donkey, European structural funds, are nothing more than disguised loans, disguised in the form of “investment”, but whose return is worth more to those who give them – the countries of northern and central Europe – than for those who receive them. The “investment” in funds thus constitutes a double benefit: economic and political control over the beneficiaries of the subsidies; economic return in the medium and long term.

The fact that these funds are allocated under strategies (Lisbon strategy; Strategy 2020 and 2030) designed in Brussels, determines that they do not aim to solve the real problems of peripheral countries. European funds aim to solve the problems that peripheral countries have so that they can be used as instruments to enrich central countries. The instrumentalization that the countries of central and northern Europe make of the eastern countries, with regard to the strategy of domination of Russian and Slavic lands, finds parallels in the countries of southern and Mediterranean Europe, namely by taking advantage of the intercontinental geographic links that such countries they mean, in addition to their significance as destination markets and as reserves of qualified and cheap labor, which is formed, satisfactorily, with the European Union’s own funds.

It is, therefore, imperative to dismantle and denounce this cycle of exploitation, whose benefits are not distributed equitably and which tends to maintain relative differences over time, a difference that aims to keep this cycle untouchable. Furthermore, coupled with this political-economic dimension, another one is added, which the conflict taking place in Ukraine unmasks. Peripheral and distant countries were suddenly elected as enemies of Russia, without their people being taken into account, who unconsciously watched the transfer of their funds to the war effort.

The most tragic thing is that whoever denounces the failure of this European project is accused of being “anti-European”, as if this were the only possible formulation, as if human history did not have cemeteries full of inevitable stories. When this European Union enters its bellicose phase, it is more fundamental than ever to talk about a Europe of peace, cooperation and friendship between people. A Europe in which openness does not mean submission.

The upcoming elections for the European parliament will be yet another moment during which very little will be said about the European Union, its autocratic character, its macrocephalism. Instead, a non-existent Europe will be sung, which, while celebrating “European values”, demands the fracture of continental Europe. While celebrating “union”, it forces a country to give up it’s history and replace it with a whitewashing revisionism of their fascist past. While it demands the surrender of its economy, it replaces it with eternal dependence from the political power of monopolies, represented in Brussels.

Belonging to the European Union begins to resemble those dreams that delight us while we sleep, but when we wake up, we realize that they are just that, dreams. The European project cannot survive even the light of day, much less when one wakes up.

European Union: From peace to bellicosity

NATO’s Lord Haw-Haws continue to kick sand in Russia’s face

Declan Hayes

Let’s use a few recent examples to show why NATO’s efforts to portray Russia as the source of all the world’s evils have passed their sell by date.

Though NATO’s efforts to portray Russia in general and President Putin in particular as the source of all the world’s evils never stop, let’s use a few recent examples to show why these efforts have passed their sell by date.

First off is this Vatican News report of commemorations to honour Estonia’s Catholic martyrs, a worthy cause which should be the occasion for healing but which is being used to sow rancour. In telling us that the event particularly remembers Eduard Profittlich, a German-born Jesuit missionary, who had been in charge of Catholic affairs in Estonia prior to being deported for ten years to a Siberian gulag, the Vatican fails to put the suffering of Profittlich and other German and Estonian Catholics in their proper context. This fault is compounded by giving particular emphasis to Helsinki’s Bishop Ramón Goyarrola Belda. Finland, Finnish converts like Teemu Sippo included, has been irrelevant to Catholic affairs in Estonia since the very start of the Reformation some 600 years ago and, to pretend otherwise, as this article does, can only be explained by the rabble rousing objectives of the writer.

This is not to deny that terrible things happened in Estonia during the War and nor is it to criticise Latvian Prelate Zbigņevs Stankevičs‘ decision to allow this commemoration at Estonia’s national Catholic shrine but it is to say that these commemorations of events that happened before almost all of us were born should be inclusive. In particular, in accordance with the late Pope John Paul II’s wish that Europe should breathe with both of its lungs, the Belarusian Orthodox and Catholic churches should have been jointly invited to play full and central parts in these events. If the current Pope wishes to argue that the Belarusian Orthodox Church did not suffer under both the Nazis and the Soviet Union or if the Belarusian martyrs of Nowogródek, the eleven Polish nuns the Gestapo shot by firing squad on 1 August 1943, do not deserve to be remembered along with the martyrs of Estonia, he best avoid the concerned Christians of Poland and Belarus, which suffered more than any other country, Estonia included, during the Second World War.

Estonia should really get over itself. Russian forces are not going to storm across the Narva River from their Ivangorod fortress in search of Estonian prey. And, though Russia must be concerned with Estonia donating more than 1% of its relatively tiny GDP to Zelensky, even that is small beer in the overall scam Zelensky and his cronies have going for themselves.

Not that Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas is an innocent in all this. Not only has Russia issued an arrest warrant for her but Estonia should not be allowing this scandal ridden NATO pawn to use her political office to settle family grudges against modern day Russia. And nor, of course, should the Catholic Church be helping her needlessly inflame tensions with Belarus and with Russia, which has its own problems to contend with.

One of those problems is the permanent pain in the arse which is MI6’s BBC outlet. Here is this BBC report on a dystopian Russian library, which carries books by the BBC’s George Orwell, the anti-Catholic bigot who famously moonlighted as an MI6 spy. Interesting though this parochial story might be, it serves no greater purpose than as a vehicle to have a pop at Russia and to show what a venal and vindictive rag the BBC is.

But it is typical of the non-existent standards which pertain at the BBC and all other MI6 and CIA outlets. Take this recent Sunday Times nonsense that Dublin MEP Clare Daly, who is taking legal advice over it, put rogue IRA figures in touch with Russian agents in Lithuania. The facts of the matter are that the rabidly pro NATO Sunday Times wishes to shut Daly up and it wishes to smear Russia and vulnerable Russian speakers in the Baltics in particular, by linking them to other rogue players, like the dissident IRA that are likewise in their cross hairs. Not only are there similar kangaroo court cases with much the same actors working their way through the British judicial system, but I have previously written about Norma Costello and the armies of wanna be journalists on retainers to defame Daly and her fellow heretics. And, as George Galloway showed when he exposed the fake Sheikh, NATO can call on a large number of fake journalists, who are little better than harlots for hire.

Not only do we in Ireland have MI6, the CIA and Irish military intelligence breathing down our necks but France has to stick its unwanted beak in as well. Here is an account of the French secret service warning the Irish Dept of Foreign Affairs that Russia is spreading disinformation here. If the article is to be taken at face value, the Russians are concerned about the sexual freak who represented Ireland in the Eurovision contest, street fights in Dublin and how the war in Ukraine is going. As regards the last of those, I get my news on the Gazan war from following Twitter, as well as Israeli and Arab sites and I do something similar regarding Ukraine. I look at the Irish Times, if at all, only for sports results and the weather and I have no interest in what Africa’s former French masters have to say about anything that is not directly connected to wine, women or song.

And, though I check RT several times a day, it seems so too does the Clooney Foundation for Justice (CFJ), which is threatening to arrest Russian reporters for reporting on the Ukraine war. Let’s just get this right. George Clooney is a two bit Hollywood punk married to Amal Alamuddin, a Lebanese Druze babe, who plays the part of a human rights’ lawyer. As I have seen that slapper wilt under cross examination, her rhetorical skills struck me as less impressive than her long legs and Gucci high heels but, hey, I am not a Hollywood casting agent and nor do I even have a casting couch.

That aside, Clooney would do well to remember Churchill’s words that “there are bitter weeds in England” and that there are quite a few in Russia too, who don’t always suffer fools like him or his imbecilic wife gladly. The acute irony of this is that these two clowns got Anna Neistat, the legal director of their foundation’s The Docket project, to muscle the EU and the International Criminal Court (ICC) to crack down on Russian journalists over what this former Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International dogsbody called “incitement to genocide” in Ukraine, something those CIA controlled groups are already complicit in in Syria. Although Neistat is hoping that the CIA can render Russian journalists when they are abroad, even an idiot like her should note that Iran’s bitter weeds have repeatedly proved that asymmetric warfare is a two way street and that bullying nuclear powers can and will have unforeseen consequences.

NATO’s Lord Haw-Haws continue to kick sand in Russia’s face

1 HOUR AGO

Matteo Gladio : Two sides of the same coin: Liberalism and Fascism

By Matteo Gladio*

This is a fight between the majority of people’s freedom vis-à-vis the privileges that a white minority and the ruling segments of the South of the world hold.

When referring to the events happening in Palestine and Ukraine, the Western bourgeoise media—that is, the news and information apparatus that operates as an extended arm of the ruling classes—constantly makes sure to remind its audiences that what is happening in these regions of the world is a fight to protect European “liberal and democratic” values.

We are told that Ukraine wants to join the European Union and become a liberal democracy, against the wishes of “dictatorial” Russia because the latter “has imperial ambitions over Ukraine, if not Europe as a whole”. As for “Israel”, the West used to indulge the Zionist entity, believing it must be defended at all costs because it already embodies “liberal democratic values”. After all, “Israel” is considered by the West as the only “liberal democratic country” in a region of “crazy Muslim and Arab dictators”, according to Western discourse. Every once in a while, this propagandistic tirade is adopted to frame the struggle that the people of Taiwan are allegedly waging against another dictatorship, one with Communist characteristics, the so-called People’s Republic of China.

This premise is important for our readers because it aims to demonstrate that the narrative continuously presented by Euro-American ruling classes and their media agents revolves around two key concepts: liberalism and democracy, sometimes combined as liberal democracy.

However, the world has probably gotten used to the West parroting these two words over and over, so much that our readers might have forgotten their meaning, and how these two concepts emerged historically. That is, we have forgotten the historical facts and struggles that cumulatively determined the rise of liberalism. To put it interrogatively, if the West vaunts itself as being a ‘liberal’ democracy, what is liberalism? How does liberalism emerge? Can Europe or the US liberal be considered societies? The short answer is no. The West is a land of fanatics, whose entire ideological and material wealth is built on genocide, slavery, and plundering of the world’s majority.

Genocide and Slavery: The Roots of Western Freedom

As an intellectual doctrine, liberalism refers to the idea of negative freedom, which is predicated on the inviolable affirmation of individual freedom under a specific mode of social and economic reproduction, more commonly known as capitalism. Under liberalism, so we are told, individuals should be free to marry whoever they want, to pursue business as much as they wish, and as they pursue their right to individual freedom, the State should step aside, and not interfere. However, a major contradiction exists between what liberalism claims to embody on an abstract level, and the socio-political praxis from which this idea emerged and has been consolidated. More simply, while liberalism claims to uphold the universal freedom of everyone, since its inception it was the freedom exclusively reserved to a well-defined community of people. 

In a book titled A Counter History of Liberalism, the Italian philosopher Domenico Losurdo goes to the core of this issue. By perusing the work of the most influential thinkers of liberalism, i.e. John Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Isaiah Berlin, Losurdo traces how the intellectual articulation of liberalism did not cohere with its political praxis. Liberal freedom was in fact a privilege reserved to a white supremacist circle of people in the context of Britain and the stillborn United States of America.

There were two major contradictions, or what Losurdo refers to as clauses of exclusion, that reveal how liberalism failed to reconcile its ideological claims vis-à-vis the political praxis from which it emerged. These two clauses entailed: First, the genocidal killing of the natives; and second, the slavery of Black Africans. In other words, liberalism was no more than an empty claim for the world majority, whose lives remained under the bloody grip of colonial clobbering and killing. The Native Indians were clearly excluded from “modern” or “negative” freedom and were instead condemned to expropriation and deportation or outright killing. The slaves and the theoretically free blacks were still subjected to terrorist violence in the middle of the twentieth century, locked up in workhouses or lynched.

Even the very “modern” and “negative” freedom of slave owners, or the ruling class in general, was subjected to heavy limitations, which even in the mid-twentieth century was still required to respect the ban on miscegenation, a ban on interracial sexual and marital relationships. 

Liberalism, in other words, regulated the lives of the powerful under colonialism, while genocide and slavery were constitutive of this ideological and political movement. Although liberalism raised the question of the limitation of power within the community of free people (the white people), this freedom went hand in hand with the imposition of absolute power over the excluded, which was the enslavement of blacks and the annihilation of the Native Americans. The freedom and the rights that a very closed community had gained were obtained through the material, social, and cultural annihilation of the Native Americans and Africans.

And so, once we understand that liberalism developed as an ideology of war and exploitation, how are we to rethink these statements from the bourgeoise media that constantly tells us that “Israel” and Ukraine must be supported in defense of liberal values?

Our Freedom, Their Defeat

The answer lies in understanding the historical and socio-political conditions that led to the abolition of slavery. Slavery was overcome—to the extent that it was really abolished—not by a spontaneous endogenous process within liberalism. Liberalism did not reform itself. Rather these conditions primarily came about in the wake of the challenges represented by the gigantic struggles for emancipation and recognition developed by the excluded people. It was the Haitian anti-colonial revolution in 1791 that abolished slavery, it was the October Revolution in 1917 that allowed a redistribution of wealth to the people, as much as it was the 1979 Revolution in Iran that kicked the imperialists out of the country. 

In other words, armed resistance, communism, and the struggle for national liberation were the engine of history that spearheaded change, forcing the imperialists to accommodate their demands. The so-called liberal world was forced to accept those material victories, often gained through feisty guerrilla battles, plane hijackings, and the expulsion of foreign forces from indigenous land.

Yet, every single time these socio-political formations rose up, they were always accused and demonized. Most importantly, what one must remember is that the imperialists did all they could to suppress these movements, and this is where we come to understand that liberalism and fascism are two sides of the same coin. The Western ruling classes fought Communism in Europe by establishing a comfortable alliance between liberalism and Nazism. In fact, the Nazis were inspired by the US segregation laws to design their supremacist project. For them, the US law had innovatively crafted racism into law, and so they were really inspired by decrees that restricted immigration to the free white person or the ideas of forced emigration of Black people, which Lincoln and Jefferson had put forward.

On the other hand, the liberals ended up recruiting the Nazis to fight Communism, i.e., through Operation Gladio, and they cozied up with the most reactionary forces in the region of West Asia (Zionists and Wahabis) to make sure that their interests were preserved. 

Hence, circling back to our initial question, the nature of these wars is simple. This is a fight between the majority of people’s freedom vis-à-vis the privileges that a white minority and the ruling segments of the South of the world hold. This is a fight against those fanatics who are ready to hop on a Zionist or Banderite train under the banner of freedom. Their vision of freedom is one that requires the majority of the world to be exploited. But the Palestinians, and so the Nigeriens or the Russians, are repeating resistance history once again. They are fighting back against this material and ideological project of war and world domination. The only difference, this time, is that liberalism is starting to collapse.

*Matteo Gladio Academic researcher focusing on the role of US imperialism in West Asia.

Source: https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/blog/two-sides-of-the-same-coin–liberalism-and-fascism

Matteo Gladio : Two sides of the same coin: Liberalism and Fascism

“Second Crimea War” and Western perilous historical amnesia

Biden wants to fight…

In Europe, there are more and more articles, counting western losses as result of the collective West aggression against Russia. This text is from a magazine ‘European Conservative’:

Scarcely a day goes by when Crimea is not in the news. The Crimean Peninsula, the home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, is the focal point of an escalating global power struggle. Yet the Crimean War (1853-1856) is rarely, if ever, mentioned by Western statesmen and media outlets. The silence is particularly striking given its many parallels with the still nameless war now being fought in the same region and for similar reasons.

Posterity might have other ideas, but we might call the current conflict the “Second Crimean War” for the sake of convenience, writes John Eibner, a Zurich-based historian and journalist who writes on international and religious affairs, with a special interest in Britain’s engagement with Eastern Europe.

As Crimean War II rages, a strange historical amnesia blots its predecessor from Western consciousness. The 19th-century conflict pitted the British and French Empires, the Ottoman Caliphate, and Sardinia against the Russian Empire. It shattered the rules-based European order established by the post-Waterloo settlement of 1815 and claimed over half a million lives in the process.

Awareness of the Crimean War may have been lost in the West, but not in Russia. Putin reminds his public that it was an “invasion by foreign hordes” in which “every inch of that soil was soaked with the blood of Russian … soldiers.” He goes further by placing it in the historical context of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 and Hitler’s in 1941-42. When CIA Director William Burns threatens “deep penetration strikes in Crimea” to “cement a strategic loss for Vladimir Putin’s Russia,” recollections of the Crimean War come to life and resonate deeply with a patriotic Russian public.

So, let’s start recovering from historical amnesia by reminding ourselves that the Crimean War was a mid-19th century clash of two imperial world systems. One was led by Britain, then the preeminent global superpower, the hub of a complex, unprecedented network of allies, formally ruled colonial possessions, and informally dominated spheres of influence. The other was the socially and economically underdeveloped but militarily powerful Russian Empire, spanning three continents from Poland in the West to Alaska in the East.

The interests of these two empires collided in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean regions of the decomposing Ottoman Caliphate, once the scourge of Christian Europe. Russia’s southward expansion at the expense of the Caliphate had been steady since the rule of Peter the Great

Meanwhile, as Britain’s imperial reach rapidly expanded following victory in the Napoleonic Wars, London came to see securing a shorter route to the Orient as a vital interest: at the time, reaching India from Britain by ship still required a long trip around the Cape of Good Hope. The two leading candidates—the Gulf of Suez and the Euphrates River—passed through Ottoman territory. Reversing Russia’s advances and drawing the Caliphate into Britain’s world system as a sphere of influence through a combination of economic and military leverage, became an imperative for empire builders in Westminster and the City.

The Anglo-Russian competition for mastery in the Ottoman Caliphate was militarized in the summer of 1853. Britain’s conservative Prime Minister Lord Aberdeen was alarmed. He sensed his country was “drifting into war” contrary to his wishes. He was right.

Within fifteen years of the Crimean War’s end, Prussia launched and won wars against Austria and France. This smallest of Europe’s five Great Powers, junior to Austria in the German Confederation, thereby became the driving force of a new, ambitious, and militarily aggressive German Empire. War-weary Britain and Russia did not act to hinder this geopolitical revolution. The catastrophic long-term consequences for Europe and the world are known to all.

As Britain entered the Crimean War, Aberdeen observed that while Britain had “abstract justice” on its side, entry as a belligerent would prove to be “impolitic and unwise.” He furthermore upbraided himself for not exercising a “little more energy and vigour” in his efforts to avoid it. The war’s outcome only confirmed his view that it had been a “most unwise and unnecessary” enterprise, as he confided to a friend.

Four decades after the Crimean War’s end, Lord Salisbury—then prime minister and doyen of Britain’s foreign policy establishment—assessed his country’s role in that conflict in the House of Lords. Salisbury curtly admitted, “We backed the wrong horse.” Indeed! It would have been better, the prime minister added, for Britain to have accepted conditions for peace offered by the czar on the eve of hostilities, as Aberdeen wanted.

What Salisbury did not say, however, was that no British government could have come to terms with the czar in 1853 and survived. By then, media-driven war hysteria in Britain had reached the point of no return. Parliament and the public alike would have viewed such an act as cowardly appeasement.

To predict the outcome of the current Crimean War would be imprudent. But the belligerents and their enablers should be conscious of the likelihood of unanticipated outcomes. One possibility is that both sides end up as losers, with one or more Prussian-like sleepers triumphing. The leading candidates are globally China and Turkey, as Washington and Moscow bogged down and exhausted in the mire of the Second Crimean War.

Source: https://en.interaffairs.ru/article/second-crimea-war-and-western-perilous-historical-amnesia/

“Second Crimea War” and Western perilous historical amnesia

M. K. Bhadrakumar : US engages a chastened Modi in office

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

Prime Minister Narendra Modi displays a letter from President Draupadi Murmu inviting him to form the next government, June 7, 2024

The US president Joe Biden has deputed his trouble shooter National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to travel to New Delhi no sooner than Prime Minister Narendra Modi forms his new government.

The White House said in a readout that Sullivan plans “to engage the new [Indian] government on shared U.S.-India priorities, including the trusted, strategic technology partnership.”

Of course, “strategic technology partnership” is a code word. Simply put, with the elections over and another term under Modi’s leadership assured, the integration of India into the Biden administration’s Asia-Pacific strategy will be accelerated where much has changed in the US’ favour in terms of the alignment of forces during the past six-month period with the Biden administration making significant inroads into the ASEAN and a new ecosystem of network and alliances overlapping and supplementing each other is being put in place to prepare for the unavoidable confrontation with China that lies ahead in which New Delhi under Modi’s leadership is an indispensable — and in many ways an irreplaceable — partner.

That said, it is predictable that Sullivan will keenly explore the positioning of New Delhi in the tumultuous developments lately in the confrontation between the US and Russia. He will take the pulse of the Indian ruling elite and estimate how much their fiery nationalist rhetoric is real, delusional or make-believe. 

The stakes couldn’t be any higher. Only this week, Biden made an explosive remark ruling out a US missile attack on Moscow and the Kremlin and Russian President Vladimir Putin retorted that Russia too has an option to arm the actors elsewhere who are locked in mortal combat with the US and its allies.

Strongman politics has no place  

Specifically, India has become a mainstay of the Russian economy due to its massive purchase of Russian oil. That is not in the US interests — although it helps keep oil prices “low”. India’s Bank of Baroda reported that the country’s imports of Russian oil soared tenfold in 2023. Russia has successfully weathered the EU embargo on Russian seaborne oil and the West’s price cap by rerouting most of its energy exports to Asia – particularly to India and China. According to the Russian Finance Ministry, income from energy exports between January and April soared by 50% compared to the same period in 2023.

Reuters reported that last month, India’s largest private corporation Reliance Industries and the Russian company Rosneft signed a one-year contract for monthly supplies of up to three million barrels of oil that will be paid for in rubles.

Sullivan will take a close look at this deal since cross-border settlements in local currency undercuts the West’s attempts to cut off Russia’s access to its financial system while promoting “de-dollarisation.” The US aims to use India as a “braking mechanism” within BRICS. 

The recent parliamentary election has been a big setback for the ruling BJP and Modi personally. However, across the board, there is a sense of elation in the western commentaries, which estimate that the election has diminished Modi’s “stature as an elected strongman with a mission from God.” 

An expert opinion at the influential Council for Foreign Relations in New York noted that Modi will be leading a “fragile coalition” and will be facing daunting economic and social issues that have no easy solution. Make no mistake, Sullivan will thoroughly explore how a weakened Modi can still serve US interests. It is not a mission that state secretary Antony Blinken can preform.

The Cfr commentary concluded that “Another challenge relates to India’s foreign relations. Modi and the BJP have massively traded on his reputation of popularity and his credentials as a devout Hindu nationalist with a new vision for India. Both of these have now received a setback… there is little doubt that Modi’s stature of invincibility as a leader of a rising power and a community of Global South nations with a large mandate has been diminished abroad.”  

To be sure, Sullivan will look for all emergent opportunities to navigate US interests from a position of strength. The US traditionally abhors “strongman” politics, especially in the Global South. From such a perspective, Sullivan can be trusted to assess the advantages that may now be opening up for smart diplomacy. 

Without doubt, India’s Russia ties will be listed somewhere at the top of his talking points. But there are other pressure points too, which the Biden administration had developed during the past several months, especially the Modi government’s alleged assassination plots in North America.

Even as the election results were heading the news cycle in India, Canada’s National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, comprising members with top security clearances, unveiled a report alleging that “India has become the second-most significant foreign interference threat to Canada’s democratic institutions and processes, replacing Russia… These efforts include intervention in Canadian democratic systems and institutions, including targeting Canadian politicians, ethnic media, and the Indo-Canadian ethnocultural communities.” 

Sullivan is just what the doctor would prescribe to correct abhorrent erratic behaviour by the US’ partners. There is no question that the US expects the Modi government to have a national security apparatus that is accessible, cooperative and transparent.  

Return of the natural ally  

Herein lies a paradox. For, at the end of the day, the election result may hold the potential to do good for the US-Indian working relationship. Consider the following. 

The election is living proof that India remains a vibrant democracy and, therefore, has much in common with the liberal democratic world — something that the western media is unwilling to acknowledge. As an opinion piece in the Hill newspaper put it, 

“The result of India’s latest elections is in some ways a reminder of how democracies can successfully apply self-correction mechanisms. In addition to concerns about over implementing BJP’s Hindutva ideology, which equates Indianness with Hinduism, some observers were worried about the prospect of authoritarianism in India.” 

Secondly, in a curious way, the human rights situation in India may  improve, democratic norms such as free press may revive and, most important, the anti-Muslim state policies may get mothballed under a coalition government that reverts to consensual politics for sheer survival and also faces a strong opposition in the parliament.

Indeed, despite Modi’s best efforts to debunk Rahul Gandhi, the latter is now a serious contender for power waiting in the wings — and Modi would know he is well-liked in the West as an erudite mind with a cosmopolitan outlook suffused with humanism and compassion for the dispossessed and marginalised millions of Indians. 

All this restores the political balance in New Delhi after a decade, with the Congress in a position to insistently question the government’s policies and the ruling BJP obliged to be accountable. The BJP’s hubris has no place in the scheme of things ahead. 

Equally, the reassertion of regional parties highlights India’s ethnic diversity. Thus, the rhetoric of ethno-nationalism though the past decade, which  pitched India’s Hindu majority against the country’s Muslim minority and helped the BJP in the previous two general elections, cannot have a free run anymore with tacit state support. 

Indeed, people’s primary concerns are about economic distress, and the limits of religious identity as a basis for voters’ choices have been reached. India cannot and will not be a Hindu Rashtra. 

Suffice to say, a major concern of the western world — that India was lurching toward ethno-nationalism and falling victim to its attendant dangers of militancy and extremism and authoritarianism — is dissipating. This will help the US-Indian discourses to regain their elan. 

In the final analysis, Biden’s decision to rush his hatchet man to New Delhi right at the birth of the new government only goes to show how much the US wants India to get back on track as its natural ally. As the saying goes, the early bird gets the worm.  

For the Biden administration, Modi has been the most “pro-American” leader that India ever had and it has been a dream team on Raisina hill with the External Affairs portfolio held by S. Jaishankar who is trusted by the Americans and whose heart is in the right place when it comes to India’s strategic alignment to the US, all his grandstanding as the role model of an unvarnished nationalist notwithstanding. 

To be sure, the US will do all that is possible and necessary to shore up the stability of another “Modi government.” It has been a decisive influencer in Indian politics and it will not hesitate to be proactive. And, above all, it has excellent rapport with the Sangh Parivar circles in the US, who are wired into the powers that be in India. 

Biden’s hands-on role 

Make no mistake that Biden will take a hands-on role in the relaunch of the US-Indian odyssey once his preoccupations over his own re-election bid gets over. Nikkei Asia, FT’s sister publication, has reported quoting Mira Rapp-Hooper, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for East Asia and Oceania at the White House National Security Council, that Biden plans to attend the summit of the QUAD in New Delhi after the US presidential election in November. 

“The preparatory work for … the [QUAD] leaders’ summit is well underway… And we are very confident that we will have really substantial deliverables that continue to build upon the QUAD’s mission,” she revealed.

In every respect, the signal that Sullivan’s visit will convey — not only to the Indian audience but also to the US’ adversaries in the epochal struggle looming ahead for the world order and the international system — is unmistakably that the Biden administration attaches the highest importance to forging a strong and enduring alliance with India.

To that end, Washington is willing to strengthen Modi’s hands in steering through choppy waters what seems a shaky coalition government setting out on an uncertain voyage — provided, of course, the Indian side also keeps its side of the bargain.     

Source: https://www.indianpunchline.com/us-engages-a-chastened-modi-in-office/

M. K. Bhadrakumar : US engages a chastened Modi in office

FT: Another European gas crisis is on the horizon

Less Russian gaz – more health…

Has Europe really overcome its natural gas crisis and achieved independence from Russia? At first glance, one could think so. ‘The Financial Times’ reported yesterday that the European gas market has proved “far more resilient” to challenges it has faced since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. At a closer look, however, it becomes equally likely that this is the calm before the next storm.

First of all, the use of fossil fuels follows the business cycle: in times of economic expansion, usage goes up because factories are producing more, trucks are delivering more, and offices are more intensively used. All of this requires energy, and the consumption of fuels like natural gas rises accordingly. The exact opposite is true during a recession. A decline in production causes an almost immediate decrease in fossil fuel needs.

As soon as EU economies start growing again, energy consumption will increase accordingly, and the question is where this energy will come from. In fact, countries that are expecting an improved economic outlook already this year are reacting accordingly. The United States, for example, is extending the runtime of coal fired power plants and is considering bringing back mothballed nuclear power stations, while India and China continue to build out all sources of energy.

At the moment, the European plan to reverse its economic fortunes must be squared with the plan to abandon the entire pipeline network that connects Europe to its former major supplier: Russia. Plagued by already notoriously high energy prices, the complete replacement of Russian supply will create new costs on multiple fronts, all of which will lead to new burdens for Europe’s companies and consumers. Countries like Hungary and Austria still depend heavily on Russian gas, and creating new infrastructure for more expensive US or Qatari LNG will not be as easy as many believe.

As the Financial Times reports, abandoning the existing pipeline network with Russia will also have a hefty price tag: “So-called transmission system operators (TSOs) in Czechia, Austria and Slovakia are all planning to raise their fees for transporting gas through their systems to cover lost Russian transit revenue. These extra transport costs will make it more expensive to ship gas south and west to central Europe”.

A cynical observer could claim that, while Russia has not sanctioned Europe, the Europeans have sanctioned themselves, creating the unsustainable situation where deindustrialisation has been the key to lower energy prices. But this is tantamount to losing weight via starvation. It can work for a while, but in the end it is going to be lethal.

Given current political trends — unless pipelines are deliberately destroyed like Nord Stream 2 — it is premature to talk about an end of Europe’s reliance on Russia. It might be a pause, but once energy needs pick up again, the temptation to use an existing pipeline network will be hard to resist.

Source: https://en.interaffairs.ru/article/ft-another-european-gas-crisis-is-on-the-horizon/

FT: Another European gas crisis is on the horizon

FED — den größten Raub aller Zeiten beenden

Viele Menschen sind bereits jetzt in Schockstarre angesichts des bevorstehenden Finanzcrashs. Sämtliches Hab und Gut droht verloren zu gehen. Doch wieso gibt es überhaupt globale Finanzcrashs? Wer profitiert? Hat das was mit der Agenda 2030 und dem Great Reset zu tun? [weiterlesen]

17.719 Ansichten

	Weitere interessante Sendungen zum Thema: Die Rothschild-Kontrolle https://www.kla.tv/13533 Die große Enteignung: WIE sie dir ALLES nehmen wollen! (ein Film von David Webb) https://www.kla.tv/28313 Großbanken: Profiteure von Welthunger und Energiekrise https://www.kla.tv/24791 Titanic: J. P. Morgans eiskalter Versicherungsbetrug und Milliardäre-Mord https://www.kla.tv/25720

https://www.kla.tv/29049

Filmfestival Cannes: Ablenkungsmanöver, um satanisch-rituelle Gewaltverbrechen zu verschleiern?

Filmfestival Cannes 2024: Auch Frankreich erlebt nun seine „Me Too“-Debatte! Der Kurzfilm „Moi aussi“ – „Ich auch“ – von Judith Godrèche thematisiert sexuellen Missbrauch, vor allem in der Film-Branche. Eine wichtige Entwicklung, denn ALLE Arten von sexuellem Missbrauch sind eben KEINE Kavaliersdelikte, erst recht nicht sexuelle und satanisch-rituelle Gewalt gegenüber von Kindern! Warum aber wird vor allem letzteres von den Mainstream-Medien verächtlich gemacht, vertuscht oder verschwiegen? Dass es auch anders geht, zeigt der ebenfalls in Frankreich angelaufene Kinofilm „Les Survivantes“, in dem acht Überlebende solch pädokrimineller Netzwerke zu Wort kommen. [weiterlesen]

33.964 Ansichten

Weiterführende Informationen:„Flyer Les Survivantes_Recot_Verso“ ↓ Flyer herunterladen27 Opfer + 27 Zeugen der Blutsekte ▶️ www.kla.tv/26203Die Blutsekte II — 111 Opfer, 50 Zeugen, 50 Täter ▶️ www.kla.tv/27211SRF-Skandal nur Spitze des Eisbergs: Weltweite Vertuschung rituellen Missbrauchs ▶️ www.kla.tv/26577SKANDAL: Justiz in pädokriminelle Netzwerke verstrickt ▶️ www.kla.tv/28454US-Bestseller-Film des Jahres 2023: „Sound of Freedom“ auf dem Prüfstand ▶️ www.kla.tv/2737850 Voices of Ritual Abuse – 50 Zeugen weltweiter, satanisch-ritueller Gewalt 50 Voices ▶️ www.kla.tv/28876Elitäre Kindersex-Netzwerke: Werden Aufklärer dem Establishment zu gefährlich? ▶️ www.kla.tv/28731

https://www.kla.tv/29228?autoplay=true