The organizers of the Swiss-based event want New Delhi to be represented at the highest level to corner Moscow

The international geopolitical landscape is becoming more perilous. The Ukraine conflict continues on without any solutions in sight. Tensions in the western Pacific between China and the Philippines are rising, and this is in addition to the continuing volatility of the Taiwan issue. A third area of potential regional strife involves Iran and Israel.

The Ukraine conflict is the most critical as it pits the two most powerful countries, the erstwhile Cold War antagonists, against each other in an actual, albeit indirect, military conflict in which a dangerous nuclear dimension is involved, even as the existing arms control agreements have broken down.

In Ukraine – even though the situation on the ground has moved in Russia’s favor, and the earlier goal of the US and EU of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia through a proxy war (by arming and funding Ukraine) has not been realized – there is so far no sign of willingness to genuinely explore a negotiated solution. The West is finding it difficult to remove itself from the coils of a policy in which it is trapped. Ukraine is being treated as the last frontier of Europe facing a ‘non-European’ Russia.

Read more

The narrative promoted at the highest levels is that if Russia wins in Ukraine, it will target other European countries, beginning with Poland and the Baltic states. Consequently, the long-term security of Europe is supposedly at stake. With this degree of demonization of Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, it is difficult for the West to step back, even if the recognition is growing that Ukraine is fighting a losing battle.

Support in the US for funneling more weapons and money into Ukraine has been diminishing, even as a new $60.8 billion Ukraine aid bill is moving through the legislative process towards approval.

The EU wants to prepare for the eventuality (especially if Donald Trump is reelected) of the US watering down support for Ukraine, and is willing to accept more responsibility for arming and funding Kiev. To this end, Western European countries have increased their defense budgets and intend to build stronger military capabilities of their own.

The president of the European Commission and the NATO secretary-general are fueling the war mood with their hawkish discourse against Russia, instead of lowering the rhetoric to pave the way for dialogue and diplomacy.

This is despite the fact that EU economies are not doing well and social unrest is growing. Farmers, particularly in Poland, are protesting against the flow of Ukrainian grain and other agriculture products into the EU as their interests are being hurt. This is ironic as the export of Ukrainian grain from Black Sea ports disrupted by the conflict required the opening of an alternative route through Europe to sustain Ukrainian agriculture.

The possibility of a diplomatic breakthrough on the Ukraine issue is low at this stage. President Vladimir Zelensky is frenetically lobbying for more weapons to defend against Russian missile attacks by trying to shame the US and others for leaving him unprotected, in a form of psychological warfare. He has even called for more direct help from the US, UK, Germany, and France to intercept Russian missiles, as they did in the case of Iran’s recent attacks against Israel.

READ MORE: US has found a surprising military frontier against Russia and China

While war fever is being nurtured by the West, moves are also afoot to hold an international peace conference in Switzerland this June on Zelensky’s ten-point peace proposal. It is maximalist in scope and has been dismissed by Russia, which has said it is willing to negotiate, but on a realistic basis that recognizes the territorial changes on the ground.

Moscow will not restore Crimea and the four Russian-speaking regions that voted in referendums to join Russia, whereas Ukraine demands full restoration of these territories, as well as war reparations, trials of Russians for alleged war crimes, and so on.

Read more

The position of the US and EU is that they will not impose a territorial solution on Ukraine. Zelensky has also passed a law against conducting negotiations with Russia while Putin is in power, even though he has just won another presidential election and will be in power for the next six years.

Any proposals by the West should be preceded by genuine moves by it towards peace. On the contrary, the moves are for more arms for Ukraine, unremitting propaganda that Putin will attack the EU if he is allowed to win in Ukraine, more sanctions on Moscow, appeals to China to not support Russia while the US and EU themselves do not withhold support for Ukraine, and so on.

Switzerland and Ukraine are active in gathering support for the proposed peace conference, especially from Global South countries. Four closed-door meetings to prepare for this conference have already been held, but without Russia’s participation. Clearly, a peace conference without Russian participation makes little sense. Moscow cannot be presented with a framework for peace in which it has had no role. The strategy seems to be to mobilize as many countries as possible, especially from the Global South, so that the blueprint for peace can be presented as the view of the larger international community, to which Russia would need to be responsive.

READ MORE: Sergey Poletaev: Here’s Russia’s plan for Ukraine for this summer

It appears that the Swiss foreign minister had a preliminary conversation with his Russian counterpart in New York on Russia’s participation after a preliminary round without its presence. The Russian foreign minister thinks this is cunning diplomacy by Switzerland, which is no longer neutral as it has taken part in all Western sanctions on Russia.

To promote the peace summit, both the Swiss and Ukrainian foreign ministers have visited India to press for its participation in the belief that this will encourage other Global South countries to attend. As for the agenda, India is told that it can pick up those points in Zelensky’s ten-point proposal to which it has no objections, and that could be the basis of its participation.

All of this suggests that the conference is a ploy to diplomatically isolate Russia by demonstrating that Ukraine wants peace and the Global South is in favor of dialogue, but Russia is recalcitrant. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, during a visit to China, sought Beijing’s participation. China had proposed its own peace plan, which Russia considered more balanced, but it has gone nowhere.

Read more

India has consistently favored dialogue and diplomacy to end the Ukraine conflict. For the sake of consistency, it cannot ab initio reject any initiative, however deficient, to discuss peace and decline to take part. It therefore participated in earlier closed-door meetings on Ukraine’s ‘peace summit plan’. It would, accordingly, be open to attending the June 10 summit, if only to note that without Russia’s participation as one of the two protagonists in the conflict, any initiatives would be like a marriage without the bridegroom. The organizers expect Indian participation at the highest level.

A G7 meeting is being held in Italy on June 13-15, to which the Indian prime minister has been invited. The Ukraine peace summit is slated for June 15-16, which would normally make it convenient for Narendra Modi to attend it immediately after the G7 summit concludes. However, the results of the current general election in India will be declared on June 4, which means that if Modi’s party – the BJP – wins, as is anticipated, the prime minister will be preoccupied with post-electoral ceremonies and cabinet formation, and can hardly be away from the country.

At best, he could attend the G7 summit for a day and hurry back home. In any case, due to the manner in which the so-called peace summit is being organized, and considering reports of an increasing number of Western military personnel being sent to Ukraine in ‘non-combat’ positions, along with more arms supplies, India may not deem it appropriate for Modi to be present, and could instead decide – rightly so – on representation at a lower political level.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The veto on Palestinian statehood and Israeli strikes on Iran are signs of irreversible decline in American soft power

So-called Western values, especially those touted by the United States, have long revealed themselves to be hollow and contradictory. The country’s Declaration of Independence from Great Britain famously stated that “all men are created equal,” while instituting brutal chattel slavery on Africans and committing a horrific genocide against the Native people of the Americas.

Yet, it could still be argued – in terms however trite – that the US was somehow on the right side of history at various junctures. Today, recent actions by the administration have shown that this is undeniably no longer the case. On Thursday, the US vetoed a draft UN Security Council resolution that would grant Palestine full UN membership despite Washington’s official position being in favor of the two-state solution.

The US explained this decision by saying that Washington “continues to strongly support a two-state solution,” and that the “vote does not reflect opposition to Palestinian statehood but instead is an acknowledgment that it will only come from direct negotiations between the parties [who are currently at war].“ Most Arab countries, as well as major powers like Russia, have expressed dismay over the decision.

Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council and co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said Washington had apparently lobbied its allies, Ecuador, Japan, and South Korea, so that the Biden administration would not have to veto the resolution. The states did not follow these orders. Washington failed to use its diplomatic weight to accomplish its face-saving goal before the UNSC, exposing its gradual loss of soft power.

Read more

Parsi also claims to have heard from a Western-friendly “senior Global South diplomat” that “whatever agonizing claim the US had to lead a self-appointed free world has died a very loud public death on the Security Council horseshoe tonight. You can't lead if you can't listen.”

Indeed, the fact that the US has issued four vetoes on behalf of Israel over the past seven months despite both international and domestic public opinion clearly supporting an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the recognition of Palestinian statehood is remarkable. It shows that US leadership has been very publicly lambasted; additionally, it is clear that US “ironclad support” for Israel will not survive into the next generation because of the dismal state of public opinion, even just in the US itself.

Also on Thursday, Israel launched strikes on Iran following Tehran’s retaliatory attack during the preceding week. That was done in response to Israel bombing the Iranian consulate building in Damascus earlier this month, killing several high-ranking Iranian military officials. Despite President Joe Biden working double time all week to avoid Israel escalating regional tensions and the fact that the administration had advance notice of Israel’s attacks, his government failed to prevent it.

Additionally, Israel is reported to have also bombed Baghdad, Iraq against alleged members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) while the prime minister of Iraq is in Washington for a state visit. There are also unconfirmed reports, based on publicly available flight data, that an American military aerial refueling tanker aircraft was in western Iraq during the time of Israel’s attacks that day. It raises serious questions about whether Washington’s posture, stated as only helping Israel defensively, has quietly changed.

Read more

Now, the Middle East is closer to a regional war than ever as a result of failed American so-called leadership, and the contradictions between Washington’s words and deeds are mounting. Israel is reportedly demanding an expansion of its ground operation in Gaza to Rafah, the last holdout for Palestinians in the enclave, in exchange for not escalating toward a regional war. The chances of strategic miscalculations, given the number of actors, are immense.

Yet, from the Iranian standpoint, it appears Tehran, whose attacks on Israel last week were largely performative, is playing down the attacks on its soil. This may provide a clear exit from the escalatory cycle – which would be consistent with the behavior of the current Iranian state over decades – if, indeed, the matter of the Damascus consulate bombing is “closed,” as official Iranian sources said. A massive win for both regional and global security, this would also reveal Iran, which the West defines as a “rogue state,” as evidently more responsible and forward-looking than the so-called world leader, the US.

No matter how the situation in the Middle East unfolds, it is clear, once again, that American leadership has been abdicated. The wider global community is discussing the issue in Gaza at length to reach a pragmatic and attainable solution. Meanwhile, Washington refuses to listen to these pleas, will not hold the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accountable for its actions, and cannot formulate a coherent strategy that aligns with its own stated values.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Technocrats have staked their legitimacy not so much on a carbon-neutral future as on a vision of prosperity that is rapidly receding

Lenin famously defined communism as Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country. In other words, the ideological project of building communism was supplemented by the technocratic project of electrification, the latter being an important source of legitimacy for the new regime.

The present-day European Union is engaged in its own expansive electrification project – the energy transition – that similarly inhabits ground where ideology meets technocracy and underpins legitimacy.

Yet in the past year or so, something has gone badly wrong, and a backlash against the climate agenda and its technocratic enforcers has been spreading across Europe. The energy crisis – far from catapulting the continent further along the path toward a carbon-neutral future as it should have – has exposed just how elusive the goal is, as Europe has scrambled to sign expensive LNG deals and even restart coal-fired plants. Farmers dissatisfied with EU policies that they regard as devastating to their livelihoods have been grumbling for years, but recently their protests have reached a crescendo, and built up political weight. Right-leaning and far-right parties, meanwhile, are gaining ground by the day. Standards of living are dropping and industry is shutting down or moving elsewhere.

Discontent with suffocating bureaucracy and regulation is widespread. A recent survey among German small and medium-sized companies – has registered a massive shift in sentiment against the EU. This is particularly concerning because the so-called German Mittelstand used to be among the strongest pillars of support for European integration.

What is embroiling Europe is deeper than a political crisis – it is approaching what can be called a crisis of legitimacy for the ruling elite. This can be thought of as a metaphysical event that precedes political upheaval, the latter being merely confirmation that such a crisis has taken place. Legitimacy is, of course, a rather nebulous concept, and it defies objective measurement.

Ruling classes throughout history have always advanced various claims about their own legitimacy, without which a stable political order is impossible. In tracing the contours of the current crisis, it’s important to establish what exactly the claims Europe's technocratic elite have put forth and how they are becoming increasingly difficult to believe.

Read more

Ostensibly, the EU’s ruling elite has staked out the green transition as its raison d’être. They claim to have the mandate, vision and competence to see it through and have set clear targets to measure their success.

The headline targets and dates are well-known: reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 and become climate-neutral by 2050. There are many other secondary targets. But the goals themselves, which will almost certainly prove elusive, are actually not where Europe’s technocracy has staked its credibility, and the failure to achieve them will not prove its undoing. What is in fact being promised in the energy transition lies somewhere adjacent to the carbon reductions and phase-out of fossil fuels. It is a vision of growth and prosperity wrapped up in a deeper narrative imbued with quasi-religious meaning, and a technocratic path toward achieving it. It is partly a promise of prosperity itself, partly a story about that prosperity, and partly a belief in the power of the anointed managerial class to achieve it.

The EU Green Deal is an ambitious and far-reaching program that can be parsed at many levels. It will certainly go down as a cultural artifact of our era. What is underappreciated, however, is the extent to which it has hitched its wagon to those very notions of growth and prosperity, albeit, of course, with a shiny green luster. In the discourse surrounding the initiative, words such as “emissions” and “renewables” are interspersed with ideas about a “prosperous society,” a “competitive economy,” and a “jobs bonanza.” When launching the Green Deal, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called the program “our new growth strategy – a strategy for growth that gives more back than it takes away.”

The Commission’s press release announcing the Green Deal – tantamount to a statement of creed – makes a startling juxtaposition. Climate change and environmental degradation, we are told, “present an existential threat to Europe and the world.” A more stark description of an apocalyptic crisis cannot be formulated. But the solution, which is couched in the typical corporate jargon of our era, makes clear what the vision is really about: “to overcome this challenge” – it’s merely a challenge now – “Europe needs a new growth strategy that transforms the Union into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy… where economic growth is decoupled from resource use and where no one and no place is left behind.” This is the future that Europe’s technocratic class has promised, and it will live and die by this promise.

In other words, climate targets are set and inevitably missed, but the prospect of missing them hardly threatens the legitimacy of the EU technocracy: if anything, the EU has been quite transparent about falling short of targets, because this only means that efforts need to be redoubled, regulations tightened, and more resources devoted to the cause. The most recent monitoring report by the European Environmental Agency readily admits that the majority of the 2030 green objectives will likely be missed.

Read more

But it’s a very different story when the EU becomes not more modern but less, as innovation falls behind. And instead of becoming more resource-efficient, it begins drastically overpaying for the same non-green energy sources and even returning to coal. Or when the economy loses rather than gains competitiveness and many companies simply pack up shop and move abroad. And what happens when Europe itself is left behind?

One of the implications of the green transition essentially being envisioned as a preservation of the current economic system but plopped down onto a new, sustainable foundation is that all the current rules must still apply: those governing investment, economic viability, and profit. As much of some on the fringe of the climate movement may yearn to implement a system-demolishing ‘eco-Leninism’, to use a term coined by radical activist Andreas Malm, the official EU narrative firmly inhabits the neoliberal framework.

And this leads us to the next great conceit of the energy transition: that there is no trade-off between green investing and making money and that much of the green transition would be quite profitably financed by the private sector. As money poured into green projects, the thinking went, those companies would surge ahead, leaving their non-green counterparts languishing and starved of capital.

And in fact, a strong emphasis has been placed on tapping the deep-pocketed world of institutional managed money. According to the EU’s own estimates, around €400 billion will be needed each year from 2021 to 2030 and €520-575 billion per year in the subsequent decades until 2050. Since the EU cannot pony up anywhere close to that amount, the idea has been to lean heavily on the private and financial sector, with public funds directed to making projects profitable for investors.

For a while, it seemed things might in fact be moving in the direction of a merger of green policy and capitalist profits. When Ford launched an electric Mustang and pickup truck, its market value surged to over $100 billion for the first time. A portfolio put together by The Economist in mid-2021 featuring stocks that stood to benefit from the energy transition doubled the returns of the S&P 500 over a period of a year and a half. Previously the domain of niche sustainable funds, green stocks broke out into the wider market and began receiving inflows from conventional funds. Investors inevitably began drawing comparisons between clean energy today and tech at the turn of the millennium in its market-altering potential.

Meanwhile, various green special-purpose acquisition vehicles (SPACs) proliferated. SPACS are a novel way for smaller companies to list without having to make an initial public offering, although they are indelibly associated with the now-departed era of low interest rates and abundant and cheap capital, when investors were looking to gain exposure to as many small prospective companies as possible in the hopes of hitting the jackpot with the next Tesla. Meanwhile, companies fully reliant on government subsidies with unproven technology were raising money.

A sense emerged that practically any well-marketed endeavor in tune with the prevailing zeitgeist could raise capital, and trendy political ones all the more so. In fact, the implicit unspoken expectation was that in the low-interest-rate world, enterprises supported by the Western elite were, perhaps not sure bets, but at least more attractive than they otherwise might be.

Read more

Alas, this world was not meant to last. Surging inflation and the sharp rise in interest rates to fight it in tandem with the energy crisis in 2022 blew a cold and menacing wind through the green investment boom and revealed much of it to be a fad. The S&P Global Clean Energy Index fell more than 20% in 2023. ESG funds in the US bled more than a net $5 billion in the final three months of 2023, while Europe saw a huge decline in the pace of inflows. Danish offshore wind developer Orsted, one of the darlings in the renewable space, canceled two US projects and has seen its share price plummet 75% since its 2021 highs. After declining for several years, the cost of wind and solar began rising.

Perhaps most symbolic is that Climate Action 100+, the world’s largest investor engagement initiative on climate change, has recently seen a spate of high-level desertions. In just a few days JPMorgan Asset Management, State Street and Pimco withdrew, while BlackRock moved its membership to its much smaller international business in what is a clear downgrade.

Many reasons are cited for the moves but what BlackRock attributed its decision to is probably closest to the truth: the potential conflict between the aim of Climate Action 100+ to get companies to decarbonize and its own fiduciary duty to customers to prioritize returns. In other words, the green economy and making money aren’t quite so compatible after all.

The last year or so has laid bare the reality that the energy transition will not be propelled by a wave of private investment. That puts the onus squarely on policymakers, who will have to mandate the necessary measures rather than hoping that the market delivers them on its own accord. And indeed, what we have seen is that EU institutions and European governments have used executive-heavy measures to push through climate policies, tempered by sporadic and reluctant concessions to farmers and other constituents. In this sense, the EU technocracy has indulged its worst impulses: a penchant for intricate and all-encompassing regulation and classification that almost seems to be a green reincarnation of the mind-boggling complexity of late medieval Scholasticism that set out to codify and order every aspect of the world in accordance with Christian theology.

And here we circle back to the question of legitimacy. Reality has come to resemble almost the mirror opposite of what the European Commission’s “new growth strategy” prescribes. The continent is deindustrializing and plunging headlong into a deep economic decline, yet Europe’s ruling class has staked its legitimacy on the exact opposite: a potent vision of prosperity.

Quite telling is that in 2023, Germany’s carbon emissions fell by a whopping 10% in just one year. For those convinced of the “existential threat to Europe and the world” of climate change, this figure should have been celebrated, regardless of how it was achieved. But because the reduction came thanks not to steps toward a “modern and competitive economy” but quite the opposite – factories shutting down – it was met not with jubilation but embarrassment. This is not how carbon reductions were supposed to happen, and it is why Europe’s ruling elite is facing a deeper crisis.

Regimes whose legitimacy has been compromised but which nevertheless plough ahead with unpopular measures and intrusive regulations enter a very dangerous place. Veteran European analyst Wolfgang Munchau believes that the hyperactive phase of the green agenda will end with the European elections in June and that some of it might even go into reverse. This may be true and if so it would be a prudent political compromise that could stave off a more acute crisis. But it would represent a profound retreat, and it will not restore the lost legitimacy.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Cancelling sanctions relief and kicking out everyone else looks like a setup for an arranged marriage with Western oil giants

Six months ago, high oil prices in America amid Western sanctions against Russian oil and gas sent the Biden administration scrambling for more supply that it could control – and ideally profit from.

Washington couldn’t influence Russia and Saudi-led OPEC, or relent on the ideologically-driven sanctions idiocy, but it could at least maybe dial up or down the supply to mitigate domestic political fallout of any resulting price increases. So the White House considered the cards it could play, and offered Venezuela a deal to lift the American boot off its neck. It’s probably just a coincidence that the country happens to have the largest oil reserves on the planet – largely untapped.

There’s also the added bonus of rapprochement to counter China and Russia’s advances in Washington’s backyard, or mitigating the influx of migrants from Venezuela to the US as a result of people fleeing a country struggling under a seemingly endless embargo.

So Washington turned to the same Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro whom it indicted on “narcoterrorism” charges in 2020 – the same guy the US spent years delegitimizing by promoting another Venezuelan politician as the “real” president of the country. But instead of black-bagging him to collect the $15 million bounty they’re offering for information leading to his capture or conviction, the Americans made a deal with him.

Read more

Thanks to the US, Maduro had a few problems, but maybe those could go away, if he’d be willing to play ball with America on its own terms. American oil giant, Chevron, scored a license to pump Venezuelan oil in November 2022 – a month after the sanctions waiver was implemented – and in exchange, the US would unblock some of Caracas’ oil sale cash that had been confiscated as a result of US sanctions. Until now, the US simply allowed Venezuelan state oil giant Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) to export oil to the US market while invoking sanctions to seize its profits through PDVSA’s American subsidiary, Citgo, confiscating billions in Venezuelan oil revenue. Where did all that cash go? To fund Washington’s regime change puppets, back when the entire Western world was referring to handpicked Juan ‘Who?’ Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela.

But since the Guaido project flamed out and Maduro was still in charge when the Ukraine conflict upended global oil markets through Western sanctions lunacy, the US sucked up any pride that it may have had left and said that it would let Venezuela get its hands on some of its own cash. Suddenly, Chevron was back plundering Venezuela’s black gold in exchange for Maduro promising to play nice in national elections. Just last month, Chevron announced a new drilling plan for Venezuela in a joint venture with PDVSA, with the goal of increasing output by 35% year-on-year by bringing new wells online. And a month before that, Chevron ramped drilling back up in the Orinoco Belt.

Six months later, Washington has now let the sanctions waiver expire, and any temporary business licenses to operate in Venezuela along with it. Not that Chevron has much to worry about. The Biden administration has underscored that oil companies’ continued licensing would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Which sounds like a convenient way for Washington to keep the market for itself, or at least decide who gets access. Everyone else gets scared off by sanctions.

Using sanctions as an instrument to control the global playing field isn’t new. It’s just getting harder to do amid increasing options as the rest of the world diversifies away from a Western-dominated global order. In February 2020, the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned Russia’s Rosneft state oil company on accusations that it “brokered the sale and transport of Venezuelan crude oil” – something that the US will no doubt be cool with American competitors doing. “The United States is determined to prevent the looting of Venezuela’s oil assets by the corrupt Maduro regime,” then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said, as the US was literally looting Venezuela’s oil assets and withholding the profits.

Read more

So what did Maduro do to give Washington an excuse to slap sanctions back on? Apparently it has to do with the disqualification of opposition candidate Maria Corina Machado from the presidential elections, set for July 2024. Disqualified by the Supreme Court for 15 years, Machado (whose candidacy has since been replaced by that of a former diplomat) is accused of involvement with “the corruption plot orchestrated by the usurper Juan Guaido,” and the marginalizing of the country which led to “dispossession of the companies and wealth of the Venezuelan people abroad, with the complicity of corrupt governments.” Machado did thank Israel for intervening in Venezuelan affairs by recognizing Guaido as the Western-selected interim president, and has argued in favor of the country’s National Assembly invoking an article that would allow it to authorize foreign missions inside Venezuela, arguing in favor of a “responsibility to protect” — the same provision that led to regime change in Libya under the slippery pretext of “humanitarian” intervention.

Washington wants Venezuelan elections to be as democratic, free, and fair as its own. Which are super clean. Just ask former presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, who was railroaded in the 2016 primary by the Democratic National Committee in collusion with the campaign of his rival, Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton, according to leaked documents posted online. Anything that Washington perceives to fall short of this stellar standard gives it an excuse to move the goalposts – once its own have had a chance to score some touchdowns.

While democratic failings are cited, maybe the waiver cancellation now has more to do with the fact that US oil prices have fallen, production has skyrocketed at home, and domestic demand is now low. Perhaps Venezuela’s untapped oil potential was too much of a good thing, and there wasn’t any point in demanding that Maduro set a table for everyone to dine when he could just be having a romantic tête-à-tête – or more like an arranged marriage – with Washington’s favorites. The party’s over for everyone else and they’re now kindly being asked to leave before the cops (or OFAC) show up.

Медиа: image / jpeg

An increasingly multipolar world means Washington’s influence over Africa will wane as alternative strategic partners emerge

Justified Accord 2024, the US Africa Command’s (AFRICOM) largest ever exercise in East Africa, ran from February 26 to March 7 and was hosted in Kenya, Djibouti and Rwanda. Joint Africa-US war games have been held for years and are portrayed as crucial to the security and stability of the continent.

They are also presented as integral to addressing terrorism and other transnational crimes in Africa and beyond. Through these exercises, the US seeks to improve the capacity of Africa’s militaries. Terrorism and other forms of extremism have been on the global agenda for decades and attracted unprecedented attention after the 9/11 attacks.

Violent extremism and counterterrorism were seen as the foremost national security issue under both presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and it was also an issue of concern under the Clinton administration.

The US military presence in Africa, however, is led by its national security objectives as well as its geopolitical interests. Africa’s security is part of broader US security concerns across the globe. Russia’s upswing in Africa’s security matrix – especially in the West African subregion, the Central African Republic, Libya, the Sahel – has placed the US on tenterhooks. Moreover, China’s footprint in Africa, primarily in infrastructure development and security, has also drawn the attention of Washington and enhanced the significance of the Africa-US military partnerships.

In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2024, the head of USAFRICOM, General Michael Langley, expressed concern about the upsurge in the influence of Russia and China in Africa. “Recent history shows that Moscow and Beijing jump to fill the void when American engagement wanes or disappears, and we cannot afford to do that in West Africa,” he said. Therefore, clearly, part of the AFRICOM’s mission is to stave off Russian and Chinese encroachment in Africa.

Read more

The US, since the end of the bipolar world, has had an almost unassailable ideological dominance in Africa and a disproportionate role in Africa’s security. Within the same period, however, China has been on the ascendancy as a formidable global actor. Russia has also upped its interest in Africa’s security.

To deal with this, the US has tried to redefine its relations with Africa from paternalism to partnership, and invariably cautions Africa against Russia and China. The US claims that, unlike China and Russia, it is motivated by Africa’s wellbeing, investing in civilian and defense institutions. Ironically, the US also claims that it upholds Africa’s sovereignty, unlike China, which extends predatory loans to impoverished African countries and exploits their natural resources in return. The US, also accusing Russia of trading in Africa’s natural resources under the guise of providing security, does not mention that Africa’s relations with the US and the West generally are just as problematic. The scramble for Africa’s natural resources and the consequent hollowing out of its sovereignty is a Western design formalized at the Berlin Conference.

General Langley drew a dichotomy between the US and its rivals in his presentation before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Chinese and Russian companies have used predatory tactics to entangle African states in debt and extractive contracts that leave local populations in the lurch. America offers an alternative. US diplomatic, development, and defense support does not hold their peoples and natural resources hostage, so we do not impose a moral balancing act on our partners. Instead of demanding financial and political concessions, we demand accountability on the fundamentals: respect for human rights and the rule of law,” he claimed.

This dichotomy is false. The US invokes the rule of law expediently. Since the Cold War period, for instance, Washington has had relations with autocrats in Africa and supported the overthrow of leaders opposed to its policies. The US and its Western allies are complicit in atrocities in Gaza, which renders their self-arrogated role as custodians of international law and norms hollow.

The Africa-US joint military exercises in East Africa come in two phases. First is the ‘Justified Accord’ for medical, communication, or logistical training. Second, the “Cutlass Express exercises” are for maritime security enforcement and promotion of national and regional security in East Africa.

The first phase is hosted by the Kenya Defense Forces and usually takes place from a British military base in Nanyuki, Kenya. It is to be remembered that the British soldiers from this base have over the years been implicated in atrocities such as murder in the surrounding communities.

Read more

In East Africa, USAFRICOM prides itself on “deep commitment to peacekeeping, crisis response and fostering enduring partnerships with military forces in the region.” Around 1,000 personnel from more than 20 countries from the East African region participate in these joint training exercises, which prepare them for African Union (AU), and United Nations (UN) mandated missions.

Usually between 2,000 and 2,500 short-term rotational US military and civilian personnel make up the Combined Joint Taskforce Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA), which covers an expansive region that entails the land and airspace in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Seychelles, Somalia, and Sudan, as well as coastal waters of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the Indian Ocean. With the challenges minimized, this partnership is glowingly portrayed: “Through collaborative training and shared experiences, the exercises foster a strong professional ethos and partner military forces, enhancing their ability to respond effectively to crises and contribute to lasting peace in East Africa.”

Concerned about its national security, the US monitors “ungoverned spaces” in Africa that are open to transnational crimes such as terrorism, as well as drug and human trafficking. The US military’s exploits and its interest in Africa’s security are self-serving. An unstable Africa would be a haven for transnational crimes that could easily find their way onto the US shores. Thus, the US regards the expansive yet ungoverned waters of the Gulf of Guinea, the Gulf of Aden, and the West Indian Ocean as susceptible to illegal fishing, illegal trafficking, and piracy which necessitates its interest in maritime security.

Further, the US military trains Africa’s security forces in counterterrorism and other areas of military professionalization, advises on peace operations, and oversees humanitarian assistance efforts. The US military has worked with the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) for medical supplies in Mogadishu and humanitarian assistance to Ethiopia and northern Kenya. USAFRICOM is also working with the AMISOM’s successor, the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS).

The counterterrorism or the “War on Terror” discourse, however, usually glosses over questions related the Manifest Destiny ideology, poverty, inequalities, and injustice exacerbated by deeply flawed institutions of global governance, institutionalized international predation, and interference in the sovereignty of states in Africa. Instead, a highly reductive and flawed position that terrorism is a manifestation of a clash of civilizations and can be addressed militarily holds sway.

African states are institutionally weak, weighed down by corruption and poor governance, and lack command and control which expose them to the smuggling of drugs, people and weapons, as well as the dumping of hazardous wastes. These challenges have a historical and international dimension, it must be affirmed. The persistence of neocolonial patterns within a deeply unequal international order has contributed immensely to Africa’s inability to assert itself. The West has callously dumped hazardous wastes in Africa, for instance in Kenya, that have been linked to an upsurge in cancer.

The Africa-US military pacts are not altruistic. Embedded in their design are America’s foreign policy and strategic interests. Consequently, there has been a backlash over the presence of US military in Africa. In Niger, for instance, the military authorities have revoked its longstanding military partnership with the US and ordered them to close down their two military bases in Niamey. The US airbase in Agadez, Niger is one of its largest drone bases in Africa for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activities. From this base, the US conducts drone attacks across the world. The collapse of the US-Niger military cooperation, the West fears, will witness a resurgence of terrorism-related activities in the Sahel since Niger has been a bulwark against violent extremism in the region. The US has stated, however, that discussions are ongoing with Niger on the status of its military bases.

Read more

The West is wary that Russia’s Africa Corps, formerly Wagner, will increasingly become a major player in the security in the Sahel, though is not about who has the capacity to reinforce national efforts towards combating terrorism in the Sahel. It is ideological warfare. It is also about sovereignty. In the wake of military coups in Burkina Faso, Niger, Guinea and Mali, the assertive authorities have closed down French bases. They have become impatient with decades of economic, political, cultural, military chokehold under the exploitative Francophonie orbit. They are deliberate about ending paternalistic and neo-colonial relations with France, their former colonizer, and other Western powers. Not to be left exposed, however, they are exploring and have indeed established alternative economic, political and military relations with Russia, China, Iran and other emerging powers.

In Niger, the decision to revoke military ties with the US was endorsed by trade unions. The inference is that the Nigerien civil society is in concurrence with the military establishment on the need to free Niger from condescending and exploitative partnerships. The mass support for military takeovers in the Sahel and West Africa was evidence of the backlash against puppet governments out of touch with the people.

The toppled regimes were seen as bending over backwards to accommodate foreign policies, beneficial to foreign actors especially France, but pernicious to the people’s wellbeing. Owing to hostility against Western military bases, the USAFRICOM has struggled to establish its headquarters in Africa, and African countries are reluctant to host its headquarters lest they are perceived as US lackeys. Exceptions are countries such as Djibouti which hosts several foreign military bases by major global actors and Kenya which hosts British and US forces. USAFRICOM headquarters is located in Stuttgart, Germany, and is unlikely to move to Africa any time soon.

The justification for the presence of the US military in Africa is that African militaries are just as weak as the state in Africa. Hence, they lack command and control, training, equipment, and logistics capabilities to assert their sovereignty. Furthermore, they consistently exhibit little or no capacity to secure their people, and effectively participate in peacekeeping operations in Africa’s troubled spots without external assistance. However, with an increasingly multipolar world that affords Africa alternative strategic partners, the influence of the Africa-US military pacts is likely to wane as China and Russia and other emerging powers assert themselves.

Медиа: image / jpeg

A Beijing-funded shipping canal will reduce regional reliance on Vietnam, a fellow communist state and traditional rival

China and Vietnam, two Communist neighbors with a shared revolutionary heritage, exist in a state of strategic unease. They are not enemies, and have significant trade connections, but neither are they friends.

This is because Vietnamese nationalism views Beijing with a suspicion that is historically rooted, with a legacy of seeking to sustain its independence against the Chinese dynasties of old. As China has risen again, this sentiment in Hanoi has increased, especially with the Sino-Vietnamese war of 1978 and overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea, known to Vietnamese as the East Sea.

Similarly, China is wary of the idea of Vietnam potentially aligning with a foreign power as part of a containment coalition against it, itself an instigator of conflict. Although the two countries are not currently in a state of hostility and have worked to improve bilateral relations amid these strong points of contention, this mutual suspicion persists, which leads to them continuing to hedge against one another subtly, even as they co-operate on some projects, in an unspoken competition. For example, one may note Vietnam recently forming parallel strategic partnerships with the US, Australia, and Japan, moves which were unthinkable decades ago.

As Vietnam hedges its bets, China is also broadening its strategic options. Beyond the South China Sea/East Sea controversy, Beijing is making efforts to woo two Southeast Asian countries which traditionally have been reliant on and influenced by Vietnam: Laos and Cambodia. Owing to the reality of geography, Vietnam has had the upper hand against these countries, as it effectively “wraps itself” around the east coastline of Southeast Asia. This renders Laos landlocked, while Cambodia has only a small portion of coastline. This means that, for most intents and purposes, Vietnam has been the two countries’ primary route of supply and access point to the sea.

Both have resented being dominated by Vietnam and, as a result, there has been a decades-long struggle for influence between Beijing and Hanoi over them, including Beijing’s support in the 1970s for the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. However, as China has ascended, the balance of power soon turned in its own favor, as it has unlocked game-changing resources and projects that are now rewriting the geographical limitations of this region via the Belt and Road initiative (BRI). As part of the BRI, China first gave landlocked Laos a new lifeline by building the China-Laos Railway.

Read more

Opened in 2021, this high-speed and commercial freight route, and accompanying expressway, connects the Laotian capital Vientiane with China, meaning the country no longer must rely on Vietnam to access ports. This has allowed Laos to not only export goods to China but also to become an intermediary between China and Thailand, with more railways to form a complete route between Beijing and Bangkok underway. The China-Laos railway is a strategic gamechanger, but more important than that is the new Techo Funan Canal in Cambodia.

This canal is a China-funded and contracted mega waterway that will span over 110 miles (180 km) from the Mekong River at Phnom Penh to the sea, with construction set to start this year. By building this canal, Cambodia now gets to bypass the Mekong Delta, which is in Vietnamese territory and subsequently transforms its capital city into a direct port. This canal strengthens China-backed Cambodia and deals a strategic blow to Vietnam, weakening its hold over its neighbor. Cambodia is thus transformed, from a historical subordinate to Hanoi into a commercial competitor. It is no surprise that the Techo Funan Canal has attracted Vietnamese fears and opposition.

When all of this is viewed together, China is effectively strengthening Laos and Cambodia at the expense of Vietnam. This is also part of Beijing’s strategy of using the BRI to integrate the interior of the continent and establish trade routes which bypass the contested waters of the South China Sea, which the US and its allies are militarizing. So, how is Hanoi reacting to these developments? The answer is, bizarrely enough, by integrating itself with China further in order to further compete with trade from China. As the saying goes, ”if you can’t beat them, join them!” On April 11, Vietnam announced it would be starting work on two high-speed railway links which would connect its northern cities with Yunnan and Guanxi provinces in China. Why? So that Vietnam can continue to promote itself as the nearest and primary overseas destination for Chinese companies, suppliers, and goods, so that it itself can be the next industrial powerhouse. Thus, to continue to hold an advantage and ensure China’s reliance on Vietnam, latch onto China’s success and therefore ensure that outbound Chinese commerce into Southeast Asian ports isn’t going to be siphoned away by what’s emerging in Cambodia.

Either way, what this shows is that the competition between Beijing and Hanoi is a complex and intermingled one, but far from hostile. The two nations have differing and conflicting objectives, but also many complimentary ones, for which it benefits them both to maintain a cordial status quo. Hanoi fears China’s presence emerging all around it, including peeling away its neighbors, which leads it to turn back to the ”Old Enemy” the US, though at the same time it is forced to admit Beijing can’t be ignored and that it continues to derive benefits by being in China’s game. Vietnam has to dine at the table while ensuring it is not the menu.

Медиа: image / jpeg

In its bid to dodge the American economic bullet, Uganda is seeking new strategic and trade partnerships beyond Beijing. In India, it may see one such opportunity

Last week, senior Indian diplomat Dammu Ravi, Secretary (Economic Relations) in the Ministry of External Affairs, paid a visit to Uganda as part of his three-nation African tour. Ravi addressed the Uganda-India Business Conclave, which saw a 35-member multi-sectoral business delegation from India travel to the African country in an effort to expand ties in areas from manufacturing and agriculture to renewable energy, healthcare, and tourism. Developing relations with Uganda is part of India’s broader strategy in Africa – and it comes at a critical time.

In January, Uganda hosted the 19th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit, followed by the third South Summit and the G77+China summit.

This is indeed an important milestone for Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, both diplomatically and politically. The landlocked East African country was recently suspended from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) by the United States due to multiple accusations related to human rights violations. This was followed by the freezing of new lending to Uganda by the World Bank.

Given the above, Museveni ensured his guests were impressed during the summit. In his speech, he pledged to realign the country’s foreign policy to emphasize greater cooperation among the Global South. In its bid to dodge the American economic bullet, Uganda is seeking new partnerships beyond China. In India, Museveni may see one such opportunity.

Read more

India may find Uganda to be a credible partner in East Africa. Undoubtedly, the endorsement for Uganda’s 2024–2027 presidency of the NAM grouping is a testament to the country’s leadership and multilateral engagements. However, New Delhi is likely to tread carefully in furthering its relations with Kampala given its strong ties with China and recent altercation with the US.

Complicated history

The relationship between India and Uganda dates back to when Indian sailors traded goods in dhows across the Indian Ocean, long before the Christian era, when European sailors traveled around the world.

As a matter of fact, the word “dhow” in Swahili refers to any pre-European ship found in the Indian Ocean, especially those that originate in India. After the abolition of slavery in 1834, the British brought with them more than 30,000 Indian ‘coolies’, a racist term for indentured laborers, for the construction of the Uganda Railway. Eventually, a large number of them settled in East Africa and made Uganda their home.

India’s freedom struggle inspired the early Ugandan activists to fight colonization. Known as the Year of Africa, 1960 marked a turning point for African independence with 17 new countries created, and another 18 in the following year. On 14 December, 1960, a “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” was a dopted by the United Nations General Assembly, which proclaimed the necessity to “steadfastly bringing to a speedy and unconditional end the provisions of the Charter and the present colonialism in all its forms and manifestations.” The matter was initially proposed for inclusion in the agenda of the Assembly’s 15th session by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Nikita Khrushchev, during his address to the General Assembly on September 23, 1960. Uganda became independent on October 9, 1962.

Read more

However, in August 1972, Ugandan dictator Idi Amin ordered the country’s entire South Asian population to be expelled, accusing them of sabotaging the economy. Around 50,000 Indians and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) along with other Asians had to leave.

Five decades later, in January of this year, President Museveni called that move a “mistake” and expressed gratitude to the Indian community for the service that they have rendered the country over the decades. Indeed, anti-Indian policies were promptly reversed once Museveni assumed office in 1986. Several actions have been taken to guarantee the reinstatement of bilateral relations, including the return of belongings that had been confiscated from Indians and PIOs.

New Delhi and Kampala have significantly deepened trade ties over the past two and a half decades. Since 1995, when the constitution established Uganda as a republic, India’s trade with the African nation has witnessed a sharp rise of almost 9% annually, and today it stands at nearly $1.3 billion. Indian exports to Uganda stand at $695 million, rising from just $57.4 million in 1995.

Since 2008, Uganda has been part of India’s Duty-Free Tariff Preference (DFTP) scheme that New Delhi offers to almost 35 least developed countries. Based on the scheme, 98% of India’s total tariff lines are duty free. Uganda’s exports to India consisted mainly of coffee, cocoa beans, and dried legumes, while it primarily imports pharmaceutical products, vehicles, plastic, paper and paperboard, and organic chemicals.

Betting on strong diaspora

Narendra Modi made history in 2018 when he became the first Indian prime minister to address the Ugandan parliament. During the PM’s visit, several agreements were signed, including one that waived the requirement for a visa for official and diplomatic passport holders, established a regional material laboratory in Uganda, and agreed to bilateral defense cooperation. Modi also announced two lines of credit totaling $64 million for the production of dairy and agricultural products, as well as $141 million for the construction of electrical lines and substations. Additionally, it was announced that numerous Indian Army training centers would provide additional training to the Uganda People’s Defense Force.

Read more

India’s first overseas educational campus was established in Uganda when, in April 2023, the National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU) of India inaugurated its campus in Jinja.

Notably, this town on the shores of Lake Victoria in Southern Uganda is also the center of the country’s Indian community. In 1997, then-Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral unveiled a bust of Mahatma Gandhi there. Few know that in 1948, a portion of Gandhi’s ashes were immersed in the Nile near Jinja.

Today, the Indian diaspora residing in Uganda exhibits the most robust and long-lasting cultural and economic ties towards the country. There may only be 20,000 Indians in Uganda, making up less than 1% of its overall population, but they provide about 65% of all national taxes.

Indeed, Indians living in Uganda play a significant role in the economy, especially in sectors like manufacturing, trade, agro-processing, banking, sugar, real estate, hotels, tourism, and information technology. They are not only some of the biggest taxpayers, but also provide jobs to thousands of Ugandans. Over the last two decades, these PIOs and NRIs have invested more than $1 billion in Uganda.

To further India’s connectivity with the East African country, Uganda Airlines last year launched direct flights between Kampala and Mumbai. The service, initially revealed in 2021, is only the second Uganda Airlines’ destination outside of Africa. As a result, the company joined Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda, and Ethiopia as the fifth flag carrier to connect their national capitals with India. The airline now operates from Mumbai thrice a week and aspires to expand to include new and important destinations in Delhi and Chennai.

Diplomatic rapprochement

Uganda has vacillated between steady economic growth and authoritarian leadership. President Museveni, who has been ruling the country for 35 years, won another term in 2021 and is set to lead for another five years.

While the country has managed to rebound from the pandemic and marked a 5.3% growth in the 2023 financial year ($114 billion at the end of 2023 in PPP term), the state of its economy looks dire amid mounting debt from China, the World Bank and the IMF, including a $1 billion Extended Credit Facility (ECF) for past-pandemic recovery from the IMF.

Since Uganda’s severe anti-LGBTQ legislation, its relations with the US have plummeted. To recall, in May 2023, Uganda enacted its contentious Anti-Homosexuality Act, which carries a life sentence or potentially the death penalty for homosexuality.

Since January, the US has barred Uganda from benefitting from AGOA as a measure of punishment. AGOA is a preferential trade arrangement which allows member countries duty-free access to the US market for around 6,000 products.

Read more

Clearly, the US decision has created ripple effects for Uganda’s economy, deterring World Bank loans and many Western foreign direct investments. As this economic pushback may potentially increase the inequality in the already volatile nation, Uganda may eventually lean on economic support from China. In the words of President Museveni, “In case Uganda has no other choice than borrowing, there exists plenty of non-Bretton Woods sources who are eager to lend.”

With huge opportunities available in the Indian market, Uganda can make better use of India’s duty-free tariff scheme, and recover its losses from missing out on AGOA. Stronger India-Uganda relations, including bilateral trade and increased investments from India, could deter the country from turning entirely towards China.

Currently, India and Uganda are two of the closest allies. As Uganda retains the presidency of NAM for the next three years, India can make use of its historic and present relations with Uganda and together, may effectively assume the leadership of the Global South under the banner of NAM. Indeed, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s second visit to Uganda in as many years is a powerful sign of growing bonhomie between the two countries and the relevance of one to the other.

However, India’s role as a champion and future leader of the Global South will be determined by how well it manages its multi-alignment. After successfully hosting the G20, India must contribute to Uganda’s NAM presidency, keeping the right balance with the West, particularly when the Ugandan economy is still crippled by Western sanctions.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The German chancellor has a weak hand to play with Beijing, and he won’t dare do the only thing that could give him leverage

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is on a three-day visit to China. He is not traveling alone. A large delegation of German business representatives, including from flagship companies such as Mercedes, Siemens, and BMW, is coming along. Scholz’s agenda is ambitious: The chancellor wishes to talk about international trade and competition, climate politics, the tensions over Taiwan, the war in Ukraine and Beijing’s relationship with Russia. Since Iran has just made use of its clear right to self-defense and retaliated following Israel’s illegal attack on Tehran’s diplomatic premises in Damascus, Scholz felt compelled to make a statement about that as well.

Two of these topics tower above the others: matters of trade and the relationship between China and Russia. Regarding trade, the crucial issue is that the West in general – led by the US – has embarked on a policy of de facto economic warfare against China, while constantly threatening to escalate further.

That was the essence of Janet Yellen's recent Beijing trip; the US Treasury Secretary arrived with a list of demands to curb what America denounced as Chinese “overcapacity” and dumping, and left with a blunt warning that “nothing was off the table” in terms of additional strikes against China’s economy.

Then there is the EU, which as usual, follows Washington’s lead. Under hardliners like European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Vice President Margrethe Vestager, Brussels is ramping up anti-Chinese rhetoric and measures. Beijing has officially been declared a “ partner for cooperation, an economic competitor, and a systemic rival.” With the EU Commission defining “economic security” clearly in opposition to China and launching probes targeting Chinese electric vehicles, wind turbines, and soon the procurement of medical devices, the accent clearly is on competitor and rival.

Read more

At the same time, however, German business leaders know that they cannot afford a policy of sustained conflict. A high-ranking Siemens executive has just gone public with a warning that “decoupling” from Chinese manufacturing would take “decades.” That, clearly, is just another way of saying it’s a very bad idea to even try.

Superficially, it may appear that there is an opportunity here for Scholz – an opportunist to a fault – to appear as a mediator or, at least, to deftly balance and weave between competing demands. The Global Times, a media outlet owned by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, prefaced the chancellor’s visit with a generally welcoming article, depicting Scholz as, in essence, a dove among hawks, arguing that while Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Economic Minister Robert Habeck stand for confrontation, the chancellor is seeking to find a balanced approach.

Yet, even if he wanted to try to be smart and flexible, Scholz is hamstrung in multiple ways. He will struggle to be taken seriously because both Germany and its chancellor lack international standing, and Germany lacks leverage in its relationship with China.

Let’s look at the leverage deficit first: In economic terms, the Chinese-German relationship is substantial and complex. Many factors are important; multiple indicators are relevant, such as, for instance, foreign direct investment (which is currently dipping). But overall trade volumes suffice to show that Germany cannot speak to Beijing from a position of strength or even parity.

China, according to 2023 export data, is still Germany’s single biggest trading partner, as Bloomberg has noted. That is not unusual in today’s world: with the second-largest economy in the world (the largest in Purchasing Power Parity terms), China is the top trade partner for a total of 120 countries. China is also the largest (external) trade partner of the European Union as whole. However, from China’s perspective, Germany ranks only 8th among export destinations, less than the US, Japan, and even Vietnam.

Read more

None of the above means that the economic relationship with Berlin does not matter to Beijing, but it does mean that it matters even more for Berlin. Among rational actors, such a pattern of mutual dependency is a reason for cooperation. What it certainly is not is one-sided leverage for Germany. If anyone has the whip hand here, it’s China, which may have tried to “gently” signal this fact with Scholz’s intriguingly low-key, not to say humiliating reception on his arrival in the Chinese manufacturing metropolis Chongqing.

In fundamental terms, Germany, according to data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is a country of not quite 84 million people (in China, Chongqing alone is home to over 30 million inhabitants) with projected GDP growth this year down to almost zero (0.5 percent). China has a population of over 1.4 billion, and its GDP is estimated to grow by 4.6 percent.

In sum, China’s economy has problems, such as its over-expanded real estate sector, which are inevitable and often obsessively exaggerated by Western “China doomers.” Germany’s economy is a problem.

The German chancellor can only play a weak hand, due to economics. There is only one way to play it well, and that would involve politics. Scholz could create some room for maneuver for Germany if he did what the Global Times article signaled Beijing would like to see from him: to show some autonomy, a little bit of distance between himself and the hardliners now dominating both Washington and Brussels.

Indeed, for the China hawks in the West, the mere possibility that the German chancellor might go off script is such a nightmare scenario it had to be exorcised in one of America’s two most authoritative journals on international politics. Foreign Policy dedicated a whole article to, in essence, asking if Scholz will chicken out and be too conciliatory toward Beijing. If the Global Times sent an invitation of the “an-offer-you-should-not-refuse” kind, Foreign Policy’s message was “don’t you dare.”

Scholz should dare. It would be only rational because it is really the only trump card he has. As Foreign Policy acknowledges, the EU’s hardball approach cannot work if Berlin is not on board. Without the EU toeing the line, Washington’s game would become much more challenging, too. That is power right there: the power to balance and play both sides.

Unfortunately, this is where we come up against Scholz’s very narrow limits. This is no Bismarck. Instead, we are dealing with a chancellor who can be called the most recklessly and – it must be said, spinelessly – subservient to the US in Germany's post-WWII history. Scholz grinned when Biden announced, in essence, that the US would destroy the Nord Stream pipelines if it felt like it. When it happened, nothing happened: Germany took it and kept grinning.

Under Scholz, Berlin has become a perfect client of the US. Accordingly, there is no real daylight between Berlin and Brussels either; another ultra-Atlanticist German, Ursula von der Leyen, runs the European Commission. True, some observers speculate that Germany is slyly cutting corners, but that will amount to too little, in absolute terms, for Beijing.

The issue of dependency also brings us to the penultimate irony of Scholz’s visit: The German chancellor has let it be known that he intends to challenge Beijing on its policy toward Russia and thus the war in Ukraine. In essence, Scholz seems to believe it is his job – and within his rights – to urge China to loosen its ties with Russia as well as to support the West’s unrealistic proposals for ending the war in Ukraine without acknowledging that Russia is winning it.

Read more

There are two things wrong with this astonishingly tone-deaf attitude: First, obviously, neither Germany nor the EU are in a position to make such requests of Beijing. They have neither the arguments nor the power to back them up. In such cases, the wiser and more dignified course is to be quiet. Second, less obviously, who is Scholz to try to interfere in the partnership between Moscow and Beijing, a partnership marked by rationality and respect for both partners’ national interests? As long as Germany offers a spectacle of unquestioning and irrational obedience to Washington, no one will be interested in its advice on how to cooperate.

That was the penultimate irony. Here is the ultimate one: Scholz’s visit is, most fundamentally, an outcome of the fact that the West has not been able to cajole China. With respect to Germany in particular, it is true that, according to a recent poll, two thirds of German businesses active in China complain of unequal treatment. And yet they are there. And yet a German chancellor still arrives with a planeload of business leaders.

The true message of the poll is about how indispensable China is, talk of “derisking” this and “decoupling” that notwithstanding. In the not-too-distant future, a successor of Scholz may well find himself on a similar trip, but to Moscow. Namely, when two realities will have become so compelling that they must be acknowledged: Russia, too, cannot be cajoled by the West; and, for Germany as well as for Europe as a whole, Russia, too, remains indispensable.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Tehran’s retaliatory attack may not have caused much destruction, but it was far from a failure

On the night of April 14, Iran and its proxy forces launched a series of cruise missile and kamikaze drone strikes on Israeli territory. The attacks did not come as a surprise. Tehran had warned that it would respond to the Israeli airstrike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus, Syria, on April 1, which killed several high-ranking officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including two generals. The retaliatory strike was called Operation True Promise.

There is still much debate on whether Iran’s retaliatory strike was successful. Most military experts agree that there was nothing unusual about Tehran’s actions, except that this was Iran’s first direct attack on Israel. From a technical point of view, the strategy was simple and correct: Iran first suppressed the enemy’s air defense systems with drones and then launched hypersonic missiles which the Israelis and Americans were not able to intercept. Incidentally, in light of this, Ukraine’s statements about shooting down Russian Kinzhal hypersonic missiles sound ridiculous.

Do not jump to conclusions

Many experts were skeptical about Iran’s strike and hastened to say that the retaliation did not live up to expectations. Given the clip thinking of most commentators, this reaction is hardly surprising. Their reasoning resembles a Hollywood blockbuster stuffed with special effects, where the end of the world and its miraculous salvation fit into 90-120 minutes, with a love scene in the middle. In real life, things are different. As Sun Tzu wrote in ancient times, to fight 100 battles and win 100 battles is not the height of skill. The best way to win is not to fight at all. This is Iran’s strategy. Its strike against Israel was not so much a military response as a grandmaster’s move in a big chess game. And the game is not over yet.

Read more

After the attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria’s capital, Tehran found itself in a tough situation. It had to respond in a way that would look convincing and would achieve specific military goals, but would not start World War III.

To achieve the first point, Iran had to carry out a direct strike without resorting exclusively to proxy forces – and that is indeed how it acted. Regarding the second point, even though most of the missiles and drones were indeed shot down, some managed to penetrate Israeli air space and hit military targets. The Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Mohammad Bagheri, said that the information center on the Israeli-Syrian border and Israel’s Nevatim air base were hit. And finally, as to the third point – war didn’t happen. This resembled the situation in 2020, when the Iranians hit US bases in Iraq in response to the assassination of General Soleimani.

However, it is still too early to speculate as to whether Iran’s attack was a success or not. The big question now is how Israel will respond.

What Iran has accomplished

It’s important to emphasize that Iran’s operation carried more political than military weight. In this sense, it was carried out subtly and was a success. Obviously, the Iranians did not want to start a war which would involve the US, even though that is what Netanyahu wanted. In other words, Israel didn’t manage to provoke Iran.

It is also obvious that the Islamic Republic possesses more powerful drones and missiles than those used in the attack on April 14. However, even the less advanced drones and missiles were able to penetrate Israeli air space and inflict economic damage, since Israel spent much more money on shooting down the missiles and drones than Iran spent on launching them.

Tehran has once again demonstrated that Israel is not invulnerable, and it is possible to attack it. As for the degree of inflicted damage, which some commentators were unsatisfied with, it largely depends on the type of missiles and drones used in the attack – and Iran has a lot of military equipment.

Read more

Finally, Iran’s main achievement is that it has managed to confuse Israel in the same way that it was confused after the October 7 Hamas attack. The country has to respond. But how? Should Israel strike Iranian proxy forces? This is possible, but Israel does it all the time without much result. Should it hit Iran directly? But that would start a war which no one is prepared for, including the US.

Conclusion

The ball is now in Israel’s court, and the country faces the same challenges that the Islamic Republic did after April 1. But will Israel be able to solve these challenges as efficiently?

It is noteworthy that IRGC Commander-in-Chief, Hossein Salami, said that from now on, if Israel attacks the interests of Iran and Iranian citizens, Tehran will strike it again.

This is an important statement. Essentially, the attack carried out by Iran on April 14 was not just a retaliatory strike, but established a new order. Iran demonstrated that it is ready to resort to new means of influence in a situation where words are not sufficient. It attacked Israel directly not in order to start a war, but to demonstrate what could happen if all other methods of pressure on Israel fail.

A new option has been put forward. Israel may be deprived of its most important advantage – absolute impunity, which until recently had been guaranteed by the US.

Медиа: image / jpeg

A long ongoing case has both caused and revealed corruption in all areas of public life

In Greek mythology Heracles (Hercules in Latin) was tasked with cleaning out the Augean stables in a single day.

Augeas was a Greek king who owned large herds of animals that resided in his palatial stables. They produced extraordinary amounts of dung, and the stables had not been cleaned for years.

Heracles completed his allotted task in a day – but King Augeas refused to pay him. Heracles killed the king, and went into exile.

The Brittany Higgins #MeToo case in Australia still awaits its Heracles – in the meantime, the prodigious pile of dung that it has generated grows exponentially higher by the day.

The sordid saga is Australia’s most infamous #MeToo case. It has dominated the mass media, the legal system, and politics in this country for the past few years – both causing and revealing corruption within each of these areas of Australian public life.

It has destroyed the reputations and careers of prominent journalists, politicians, judges, and lawyers – whilst at the same time transforming both its protagonists, Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann, into, at the end of the day, rather grubby and flawed celebrities.

It commenced in March 2019, when two drunk, unknown twenty-something political staffers – Higgins and Lehrmann – decided to go back to Parliament House in Canberra after a regular Saturday night of excessive drinking at nearby bars.

Parliament House had long been a favored after-hours sexual trysting location for young political staffers, but both Higgins and Lehrmann have subsequently maintained, unconvincingly, that this was not their intent.

Read more

Higgins claimed that Lehrmann raped her in a minister’s office (that of Senator Linda Reynolds, for whom they worked) to which they had improperly gained access, while Lehrmann has steadfastly denied that any sex, consensual or otherwise, took place.

On Monday, in the Federal Court in Sydney, Justice Michael Lee handed down his judgment in defamation proceedings brought by Lehrmann against Channel 10 and television personality Lisa Wilkinson – who broadcast the sensational television interview in early 2021 in which Higgins first publicly alleged that Lehrmann had raped her in Parliament House.

Justice Lee, one of the few lawyers involved in the Higgins saga to have acted with complete propriety and objectivity, made damning findings about both Higgins and Lehrmann – describing them as “unreliable witnesses” who had told deliberate lies – and found that Channel 10 and Wilkinson had acted unreasonably and in a “grossly improper and unjustifiable way.”

Justice Lee’s assessment of the credibility of all the major protagonists in the Higgins saga is undoubtedly correct.

Notwithstanding this uniformly negative appraisal, Justice Lee found – on the civil, balance of probabilities, onus of proof – that Lehrmann had raped Higgins in 2019, because he had been reckless as to whether the inebriated Higgins had consented to having sex with him.

Lee was at pains to point out that this finding differed from a finding of guilt in a criminal trial – where the more onerous “beyond reasonable doubt” onus of proof applies. It is also clear that if Lehrmann had admitted to having sex with Higgins, he would have been in a better position to defend his conduct.

In making this crucial factual finding, Justice Lee disbelieved the accounts given by both Higgins and Lehrmann of what had occurred on the night in question. In particular, he rejected Higgins’ evidence that she had repeatedly told Lehrmann that she did not consent to having sex with her.

It followed that Justice Lee entered judgment in favor of Channel 10 and Wilkinson – because their truth defense had been made out. Lehrmann will no doubt appeal the decision – given that the legal costs of all parties probably exceed $5 million.

The defamation trial presided over by Justice Lee revealed in graphic terms the unprofessional and unprincipled conduct engaged in by those media organizations that became involved in the Higgins affair in a partisan fashion.

Lisa Wilkinson’s interview with Higgins in February 2021 – which turned Higgins into a #MeToo icon – was hardly an exercise in journalism at all. Wilkinson was committed to the #MeToo cause and to bringing down the conservative Morrison government, and Justice Lee found that Higgins’ allegations were not tested at all – especially her now demonstrably false assertion that the government conspired to cover up her rape.

Wilkinson’s slanted interview unsurprisingly later won a prestigious award, and in her televised acceptance speech in June 2022 she reiterated the truth of Higgins’ allegations – thereby causing Lehrmann’s upcoming criminal trial for rape in the ACT Supreme Court to be postponed, and making it difficult, if not impossible, for him to receive a fair trial before a jury.

Justice Lee found that no reputable journalist could have believed that Wilkinson’s speech did not amount to a contempt of court.

And, at one point in her cross-examination, Wilkinson – who Justice Lee described ironically as a “fourth estate eminence grise” – accused Lehrmann’s lawyer of “making me sound like a tabloid journalist” – a comment that provoked laughter from serious journalists.

Wilkinson fell out with Channel 10 as a result of the aftermath of her speech, and she has not appeared on television for the past few years. Justice Lee’s scathing and apt criticisms of Wilkinson will probably ensure that her “journalistic” career will not be revived anytime soon.

After Lehrmann’s rape trial was aborted as a result of misconduct by a juror, Lehrmann agreed to give a tell-all television interview to the Channel 7 ‘Spotlight’ program, which was broadcast in June 2023.

This was hardly surprising – both Higgins and Lehrmann are addicted to the celebrity culture that created them and continues to sustain them in their quest for perpetual celebrity status.

Lehrmann’s ‘Spotlight’ interview was just as self-serving and flawed as Higgins’ interview with Wilkinson had been – perhaps even more so because Lehrmann is the more determined liar – and his defamation trial revealed squalid details about the lengths to which Channel 7 was willing to go to procure it.

Bear in mind that Justice Lee found that Lehrmann was “a fundamentally dishonest liar” who “gave false evidence about a litany of matters.”

Evidence presented at the trial showed that Channel 7 paid the rent on an expensive apartment for Lehrmann for over 12 months, as well as paying for meals at fashionable restaurants and numerous interstate trips.

Read more

More sensationally, a former Channel 7 employee who acted as Lehrmann’s “minder” on the ‘Spotlight’ program testified that Channel 7 paid $10,000 for “Asian massages” for Lehrmann, as well as reimbursing him for cocaine that he purchased.

The “minder” also testified that Lehrmann supplied Channel 7 with confidential documents obtained during his criminal proceedings – thereby committing a contempt of court. Justice Lee found that this allegation was made out. Both the “minder” and producer of ‘Spotlight’ recently departed Channel 7.

So much for what the Higgins saga tells us about contemporary investigative journalism in Australia.

The story has had an even more destructive impact on the legal system in Australia, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory – the nation’s capital.

After Wilkinson delivered her infamous televised speech, and after Prime Minister Scott Morrison delivered his apology to Higgins in federal parliament in early 2022 – in which he implicitly accepted that she had been raped – it was virtually impossible for Lehrmann to receive a fair trial before a jury in his criminal rape case.

Nevertheless, the Lehrmann criminal matter went to trial in the ACT Supreme Court in late 2022.

During her cross-examination at the trial, Higgins was granted the extraordinary indulgence of not having to appear for some days – even though no application by her was made in open court. And when the jury was unable to reach a verdict after some days’ deliberation, it was not discharged, as many lawyers thought it should have been.

By chance, a court official discovered that a juror had improperly accessed material from the internet – in clear breach of the trial judge’s repeated directions, and the trial was aborted.

Of course, the fact that modern jurors pay no heed to judge’s directions gives lie to the proposition that adverse pre-trial publicity can be cured by an appropriate direction by the trial judge.

After the rape trial had been aborted, Higgins delivered an inflammatory speech on the court steps condemning the legal system and Lehrmann. This speech constituted a clear contempt of court, but no action was taken against Higgins – just as no action had been taken against Lisa Wilkinson for her speech earlier in the year.

A subsequent enquiry reluctantly established by the woke Labor/Greens ACT government into the Lehrmann trial – presided over by a well-respected former judge from Queensland – made serious findings of misconduct (including that he had not acted with fairness and detachment and had lied to the judge presiding over Lehrmann’s rape trial) against the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold, who had prosecuted Lehrmann at trial.

Drumgold was forced to resign, and notwithstanding the serious findings of misconduct made against him by the enquiry, Drumgold has now found employment as a lecturer in law at a Canberra university.

And the ACT government recently gave Senator Reynolds $90,000 and an apology to settle a defamation action she had brought in respect of Drumgold’s conduct.

Not surprisingly, the reputation of the ACT legal system amongst those who believe in due process and the rule of law is at an all-time low – and quite deservedly so. It is difficult to see how it can ever recover.

Lehrmann’s flawed prosecution for rape has also led a few courageous judges in New South Wales – including one particularly brave female judge – to publicly raise questions about the influence of the #MeToo movement on the Office of the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions.

These judges believe that “meritless” cases alleging rape are regularly being prosecuted for essentially ideological reasons – and they are sick and tired of presiding over extremely weak cases with no reasonable prospects of success, that juries quickly throw out. These judges have taken the unusual step of ordering the government to pay the successful defendants’ legal costs in such cases.

The Higgins saga’s effect on politics has been equally dire.

Mention has already been made of Prime Minister Morrison’s extraordinary apology to Brittany Higgins made in federal parliament in February 2022.

Given that it was inevitable that the Higgins matter would wind up before the courts, it was grossly improper for Morrison to express a view on what might have occurred in Parliament House three years earlier. He was completely unaware of the facts at the time, and his apology was a pathetic attempt to curry political favor with the #MeToo movement.

Morrison’s crude ploy failed completely, and Higgins became a trenchant critic of the prime minister and subsequently campaigned against him. The Morrison government was voted out of office in early 2023 – with its “woman problem” said to be a major contributing factor to its demise.

Morrison also disloyally failed to support Senator Reynolds over the Higgins matter – he simply threw her under the #MeToo bus, in order to try and save himself and his government from being voted out of office. Reynolds has now, understandably, resigned from parliament in disgust – yet another female victim of the Higgins saga.

After winning the federal election in early 2023, the Labor government of Anthony Albanese settled a foreshadowed legal claim by Higgins against the Morrison government and Senator Reynolds for the staggering sum of $2.3 million – at a mediation that lasted less than a day.

It is now apparent that many of the allegations made by Higgins in that foreshadowed claim were never properly tested, and may well be demonstrably false. Justice Lee expressed doubts the settlement in his judgment.

Higgins and her boyfriend were friendly with a number of female Labor politicians who had eagerly taken up her cause in 2022, and serious questions have recently been raised about the propriety of this unprecedented settlement.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission – ironically established by Albanese last year – is currently considering whether to conduct an enquiry into Higgins’ settlement.

Higgins used part of her settlement monies to recently purchase a chateau in France, where she now resides with her boyfriend – who bears a disturbing resemblance to Bruce Lehrmann. Australian taxpayers are decidedly unimpressed.

Read more

The Higgins saga is, however, far from ended.

Last year, Lehrmann was charged with raping a woman after meeting her at a Toowoomba striptease club. That trial will take place later this year or early next year, and will no doubt ensure that Lehrmann retains his celebrity status for the foreseeable future.

Senator Reynolds has also sued Higgins and her boyfriend for defamation, and that case will come on for trial later this year in Perth.

If the National Anti- Corruption Commission decides to investigate Higgins’ remarkable $2.3 million payout – as it should – that enquiry may also take place later this year.

It is now beyond argument that the Higgins saga has seriously corrupted journalism, the legal system and politics in Australia, perhaps beyond hope of redemption, because – as Justice Lee pointed out in his judgment – the Higgins “shambles” has always been “a proxy for broader cultural and political conflicts.”

A few judges and journalists of integrity – no politician would dare criticize the #MeToo movement – have taken a principled public stand, but they comprise a very small, if courageous, minority.

No doubt the #MeToo movement will fixate upon the fact the Justice Lee found that, on the civil onus of proof, Higgins was raped and blithely ignore his serious criticisms of her and those media organizations that uncritically published her false allegations.

As the Higgins tsunami continues to wreak havoc into the future, one can only wonder what appalling additional disclosures it will reveal and how much more Australian taxpayers will have to pay for it.

Only one thing is certain – cleaning up all this filth is beyond even Heracles.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Kiev’s new effort to scoop up more bodies for the front is a response to looming catastrophe – and a catastrophe in itself

Ukraine’s situation is extremely precarious, if you want to put it optimistically. A more realistic term is “catastrophic.” The country faces steady, accelerating advances of Russian forces that are well-motivated and trained and superior in quantity and equipment. Even Ukraine’s commander-in-chief has admitted that “ the situation on the eastern front has significantly worsened in recent days.” A massive understatement but still proof that things are even worse.

We also know – from Ukrainian polls – that ever more Ukrainians are open to ending the war by making concessions. Yet the Zelensky regime is doubling down. Instead of entering serious negotiations – the kind where you adjust your aims to your losses so as to avoid even greater ones – it is seeking to throw more lives into a war that has become a meatgrinder for Ukrainian troops.

That is the main purpose of a new mobilization law that has just passed the Ukrainian parliament. (In addition, President Zelensky has already signed off on additional measures that will be integrated into the new law once he signs that as well. In essence, though, this is one integrated bundle, which many Ukrainians and outside observers refer to as one and the same law, as will be done here.)

The new mobilization law is complex, consisting of a long list of measures, including, for instance, new rules on confiscating private cars for defense purposes. Its core, however, is simple: The minimum age for mobilization is lowered from 27 to 25 years of age. All Ukrainian men between age 18 and 60 will have to register, including those abroad. Failure to do so will count as evading military service. To make sure that compliance can be policed easily, all registered men must have their registration papers on them at all times.

The law, which has been under contentious consideration for months, is not being well-received in Ukrainian society. On a TV show run by Ukrainska Pravda, a very anti-Russian outlet, Maria Berlinska, a Ukrainian activist of equally sterling credentials, called it a fiasco. And she is by no means alone. It is true that some Ukrainian commentators have – once again – tried to dismiss all and any popular discontent as nothing but Russian interference. But this time, that tired old trick from the NATO-Zelensky playbook is not working well. Even Western mainstream media acknowledge the law is “ unpopular.”

Read more

It is not hard to understand why many Ukrainians are angry. Perhaps the single worst disappointment is that the law does not include a hard rule for demobilization, which is what everyone expected. Think of it as a tacit deal: The government gets to hoover up more young men for cannon fodder, but, at least, it also promises to let go those exhausted soldiers who have already served (and survived) for years ( 36 months was under discussion). Even the New York Times has noticed that Ukraine’s current soldiers are “ battered and exhausted.” Yet opening a way out for at least some of them is what did not happen. Instead, the Zelensky regime has dared come out with a law that only takes but gives nothing back.

To take how much, or to be precise, how many exactly? That is the second major sore spot: The law is meant to refill the ranks, which are clearly very badly depleted (massively contradicting the regime’s few and absurdly low – and thus mendacious – statements on casualty figures). High-ranking Ukrainian officers have gone public warning that “some” front sections that need to be held by eight to ten soldiers are, in reality, manned by two to four. That means that where 100 meters need to be defended, in effect, only 20 can be. Sure, such statements are also spin to drum up political support for the mobilization law. But from everything we know about the war, this spin is based on reality.

Yet what no one has done – either President Zelensky or anyone among his top brass – is to say exactly how many more Ukrainians they want. The former commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny had bluntly asked for half a million. That is one reason why he lost his job. His successor, Aleksandr Syrsky has got the memo and is keeping mum, only letting it slip that it will not be 500,000. How reassuring.

Clearly, the Kiev regime prefers to go on the prowl for more meatgrinder fodder without too much public scrutiny. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment: If you had to drag, let’s say 300,000 mostly very reluctant and potentially rebellious men off to a war without a chance, would you like them, their families, and friends to know just how many they are? And by the way, 300,000 is a number Zelensky has mentioned, if in a very roundabout way, namely as his estimate (it’s no more than that, of course) of additional troops soon to be fielded by Russia.

Read more

The third main cause of public discontent about the new mobilization law is that it is unjust. Ordinary Ukrainians have a keen and absolutely realistic sense that their “elites” – in politics and business, and usually both in one and the same people – are not sharing the risks and sacrifices of war. This fact, too, the regime and its media try to propagandize away as “Russian manipulation.”

Yet the fact is that no such outside interference is needed. Take, for instance, Berlinska on Ukrainska Pravda again. She is all for continuing the war for years (and has entirely unrealistic ideas about how to do so). And yet she also asks why “ should the child of a mother from a forlorn village….turn into a flag in the ground [that is end up on one of those massively expanding military cemeteries], while someone [else] can ride around Kiev in expensive cars, go on expensive holidays abroad, simply get rich and do business during wartime?”

Now add to all of the above, the following: Those who were eager to fight have already volunteered. When they volunteered, moreover, misguided optimism was widespread. Those illusions have evaporated by now. Whoever is forced to fight now knows two things: The war is not going well (which is the reason why he is being drafted, actually) and family members, friends, or work acquaintances have already fallen or, if “lucky,” been taken prisoner or come back with severe, possibly lifelong injuries and psychological trauma. Finally, sending even more of the young to fight the proxy war for the West also makes Ukraine’s severe demographic problem even worse, wasting not just one generation but the fathers (and some mothers, too) of the next one, too.

This mobilization law is a hapless response to the catastrophe of looming defeat. It is a catastrophe in and of itself. Ideally, it would be the last straw, finally provoking Ukrainians to rebel against a regime that has sold them out to US and EU geopolitics. Ideally.

Медиа: image / jpeg

While Israel’s latest airstrike in Syria appears totally unhinged, there seems to be clear strategic thinking

On April 1, Israel bombed and ultimately destroyed the Iranian consulate annex building situated next to the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, Syria. The strike, which killed seven military officials, was widely condemned by the international community as a clear violation of Syria’s sovereignty, as well as of the Vienna Convention and the established norms of international relations.

A cursory look through history shows that state actors have virtually never attacked the diplomatic missions of other states, except during periods of total war. The most relevant and recent example is when the US bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, today’s Serbia, in 1999, which it claimed was an accident. Though, to be sure, Beijing did not believe this was the case despite apologies from the administration of President Bill Clinton.

Such a situation is totally unacceptable and sets a horrible precedent for international relations. Israel, as well as countries like the US, do not have the right to exercise military actions in Syria without the express consent of the UN-recognized government of Syria. Doing so is a blatant violation of the UN Charter.

In addition to violating the UN Charter, the attack on the Iranian consulate is a clear violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Read more

It is a bold gambit for the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to have resorted to such an escalation. It begs the question, why did Israel do this?

According to the New York Times, one of the strikes killed General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who was believed to have been in charge of Tehran’s relations with Hezbollah in Lebanon and other non-state groups in Syria, having served extensively across the Middle East during his tenure.

Perhaps the most simple explanation for the attack could be that it was meant to stifle the logistical operations of the “Axis of Resistance” and any potential attack against Israel by a united front.

At the same time, it is probably far more complicated and could do with the fact that the current US policy of carte blanche for Israel will almost certainly not survive until the end of this decade. For military leaders in Israel, now could be the only time to act in what could potentially be an existential war.

Public opinion has plummeted in the West for Israel and its ongoing atrocities in Gaza, but it did not begin there. In 2021, during weeks of fighting in Gaza that year, for the first time ever, members of the US Congress went on the record to criticize Israel. The following year, mainstream human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch published scathing reports accusing Israel of apartheid.

In the middle of last month, the administration of President Joe Biden abstained from a vote on a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Biden also personally told Netanyahu on April 4 that he had to change his approach to the unfolding humanitarian disaster in Gaza. Despite these actions, the US has maintained that the UNSC resolution is non-binding and is still providing arms for Israel’s war effort, effectively making any words or abstentions moot.

Even if US support may be shakier than in the past, it is clear that Washington is still nominally on the side of the Jewish state – at least for now. Thus, it could be seen that the stakes for Israel are extremely high.

Finally, an undeniable factor is that the current Israeli government’s survival is the primary driving force behind this attack. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the most senior Jewish elected official in Washington, on March 14 called out Prime Minister Netanyahu personally in a speech to the Senate.

He accused the leader of “allowing his political survival to take precedence over the best interests of Israel.” The senator called for new elections, adding that Israel “cannot hope to succeed as a pariah opposed by the rest of the world.”

Read more

Israel, the most well-equipped military in the Middle East, is in a state of total war with a guerilla group, Hamas, that is comparatively fighting with sticks and rocks. The fact that it has not yet achieved its objective of eradicating Hamas and freeing the hostages it took on October 7 last year is extraordinarily embarrassing for the Netanyahu government. Additionally, the near-unified international backlash against Israel for its military actions in Gaza has the made situation unsustainable – though retreat would also mean political suicide for the Likud Party.

It is clear that the Israeli prime minister needs an out. An obvious route would be to provoke the Iranian government into a major escalation, diverting international attention away from Israel’s crimes in Gaza and instead forcing Washington and its allies to rally behind the Jewish state in apparent self-defense. Interestingly, Biden seemed to create space for such a strategy during his latest call with Netanyahu when he also added that the US would defend against “public Iranian threats against Israel and the Israeli people.” For its part, Israel has warned Iran it could take things to a “new level” if it retaliated for the airstrike in Damascus.

Judging by the reaction from within Iran, evident by official statements and reports from the state media, it is clear that major sectors of civil and elite society in Tehran are demanding reprisal for this attack. According to anonymous Western intelligence reports cited by media outlets Bloomberg, such an attack is very likely.

But it is also likely that this is precisely what the Israeli government wants to happen, hoping that a kneejerk need for revenge – in addition to the emotions stirred by the situation in Gaza – could force a strategic misstep by the Iranian government, allowing Israel to make a last-ditch effort to secure US support for its military effort and also ensure Netanyahu’s political survival.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The idea of some form of compromise solution to Kiev-Moscow conflict is creeping up on foreign hawks and on more and more locals

What a small band of objective-though-long-disparaged observers in the West have long warned about is now happening: Ukraine and the West are losing their war against Russia. The strategy of using Ukraine to either isolate and slowly suffocate Russia or to defeat and degrade it in a proxy war is coming to its predictable catastrophic end.

This reality is now being acknowledged even by key media and high officials that used to be uncompromising about pursuing the extremely ill-advised aim of military victory over Russia. A Washington Post article has explained that with ”no way out of a worsening war,” Ukrainian President Zelensky’s options ” look bad or worse.” NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg has discovered the option of ending wars by concessions – Ukraine’s concessions, that is. The sturdy old hardliner Edward Luttwak warns of a ”catastrophic defeat” – for the West and Ukraine. True, Luttwak is still spreading desperate illusions about a direct NATO deployment to avert the worst. In reality, it would, of course, only make things much, much worse again, as in World War III worse. But his fear, not to say panic, is palpable.

The fast-approaching outcome will be a disaster for Ukraine, even if Moscow should be generous regarding the terms of a postwar settlement (not a given, after the costs that Russia has incurred). Ukraine has already been ruined in terms of its demography, territory, economy, and, last but not least, political future. The damage incurred cannot simply be undone and will have long-lasting consequences.

For the West, this war will also mark a dismal turning point, in four main ways that can only be sketched here:

First, the US will have to absorb its worst defeat since Vietnam. Arguably, this latest fiasco is even worse because, even during the Vietnam War, America did not try to attack Russia (then, of course, leading the Soviet Union) as head-on as it does now. Washington’s most over-confident attempt ever to take Moscow off the “grand chessboard” once and for all has backfired perfectly. In general, that will diminish America’s capacity to impress and cajole globally. In particular, the goal of preventing the rise of regional hegemons in Eurasia, the holy grail of US geopolitics, is even farther out of reach than before. The “unipolar” moment and its illusions were passing anyhow, but the US leadership has added a textbook illustration of the West’s limits.

Read more

Second, the EU and its individual members – especially myopic warmongers such as Germany, Poland, and France – are far worse off again: Their foolish abandoning of geopolitically imperative caution and balancing (remember: location, location, location) will cost them dearly.

Third, in their own, different ways, cases such as Britain (not even an EU member anymore) and the Baltics (very exposed and very bellicose, a shortsighted combination) are in a class of their own: damage there will be galore. Damage control? The options are paltry.

And, finally, there is, of course, NATO: Over-extended, self-depleted, and having gratuitously exposed itself as much weaker than it would like to seem. Its defeat by Russia in Ukraine will trigger centrifugal tendencies and blame games. Not to speak of the special potential for tension between the US and its clients/vassals in Europe, especially if Donald Trump wins the presidency again, as is likely. And, by the way, he can only thank NATO for proving his point about what a dubious proposition it has become. If you believe that having added more territory on the map (Sweden and Finland) was a “win,” just remember what has happened to the mistaken celebrations of Ukraine’s territorial advances in 2022. Territory may be a price; it is not a reliable indicator of strength.

Yet what about Ukrainians? They have been used as pawns by their Western friends from hell. They are still living under a regime that has just decided to mobilize even more of them for a hopeless meatgrinder, while Zelensky is admitting that Ukraine is on the verge of defeat.

Some Western media are still telling a simplistic and false story about Ukrainians’ unflagging and united will to hold out for victory, as if every single one owed the West to play a Marvel hero to the bitter end. But in reality Ukraine is a normal, if badly misled country. Many of its citizens have long shown what they really think about dying for a toxic combination of Western geopolitics and the narcissism of a megalomanic comedian: by evading the draft, either by hiding in Ukraine or fleeing abroad. In addition, a recent poll shows that almost 54 percent of Ukrainians find the motives of the draft dodgers at least understandable. Kiev’s push for increased mobilization will not go smoothly.

But there is more evidence of the fact that Ukraine’s society is not united behind a Kamikaze strategy of “no compromise.” Indeed, under the title “The Line of Compromise,” Strana.ua, one of Ukraine’s most important and popular news sites, has just published a long, detailed article about three recent and methodologically sound polls.

They all bear on Ukrainians’ evolving attitudes to the war and in particular the question of seeking a compromise peace. In addition, Strana offers a rich sample of comments by Ukrainian sociologists and political scientists. It is no exaggeration to say that the mere appearance of this article is a sign that the times are changing: Under the subtitle “How and why attitudes to the war differ in the East and the West of Ukraine,” it even highlights “substantial” regional differences and, really, suppressed divisions. If you know anything about the extreme political – even historical – sensitivity of such divergences in Ukraine, then you will agree that this framing alone is a small sensation.

Read more

But that is not all. The article, in effect, dwells on ending the war by concessions – because that is what any compromise necessarily will take. Readers learn, for instance, that, according to the ‘Reiting’ agency polling on commission of Ukraine’s Veterans’ Affairs Ministry, in Ukraine’s West, farthest removed from the current front lines, 50% of poll respondents are against any compromise, while no less than 42% are in favor of compromise solutions as long as other countries (other than Ukraine and Russia, that is) are involved in finding them. For a region that, traditionally, has been the center of Ukrainian nationalism, that is, actually, a remarkably high share of those siding with compromise.

If you move east and south over the map, the compromise faction gets stronger. In the East, the proportions are almost exactly reversed: 41% against compromise and 51% in favor. In the South, it’s a perfect tie: 47% for both sides.

On the whole, Ukrainian sociologists are finding a “gradual increase” of those supporting a “compromise peace” in “one form or the other.” Even if, as one researcher plausibly cautions, this increase displays different rates in different regions, it still adds up to the national trend. One of its causes is “disappointment,” the loss of faith in victory, as the political scientist Ruslan Bortnik observes. In other words, the Zelensky regime is losing the information war on the home front. Notwithstanding its mix of censorship and showmanship.

The compromises imagined by Ukrainians include all conceivable solutions that do not foresee a return to the 1991 borders. In other words, there are ever more Ukrainians who are ready to trade territory for peace. How much territory, that is, of course, a different question. But it is clear that the maximalist and counter-productive aim of “getting everything back,” the all-or-nothing delusion, imposed for so long on Ukrainian society, is losing its grip.

The agency Socis, for instance, counts a total of almost 45% of respondents ready for compromise, while only 33% want to continue the war until the 1991 borders are re-established. But there are also 11% who still favor fighting on until all territories lost after February 2022 are recovered. That, as well, is now an unrealistic aim. It may have been closer to reality when Kiev dismissed an almost finished peace deal in the spring of 2022, on awful Western advice. That ship has sailed.

Polling results, it is important to note, do not all point in the same direction. The KMIS agency has produced results that show 58% of respondents who want to continue the war “under any circumstances” and only 32% who would prefer a “freeze,” if Western security guarantees are given. Such a freeze, while a favorite pipedream of some Western commentators, is unlikely to be an option now, if it ever was. Why should Moscow agree? But that is less relevant here than the fact that KMIS, for one, seems to have found a massive bedrock of pro-war sentiment.

And yet, even here, the picture is more complicated once we look closer. For one thing, the KMIS poll is comparatively old, conducted in November and December of last year. Given how quickly things have been developing on the battlefield since then – the key town and fortress of Avdeevka, for instance, finally fell only in February 2024 – that makes its data very dated.

KMIS also had interesting comments to offer: The agency notes that respondents’ proximity to the front lines plays an “important role” in shaping their opinions about the war. In other words, when the fighting gets close enough to hear the artillery boom, it concentrates the mind on finding a way to end it, even by concessions. As one Ukrainian sociologist has put it, “in the East and South … one of people’s main concerns is that the war must not reach their own home, their own home town.”

Read more

In addition, the executive director of KMIS has observed that the number of compromise advocates also grows when Western aid declines.

It remains difficult to draw robust conclusions from these trends, for several reasons: First, as some Ukrainian observers point out, the number of compromise supporters may be even higher – personally, I am sure it is – because the Zelensky regime has stigmatized any appeal to diplomacy and negotiations as “treason” for so long. Many Ukrainians are virtually certain to be afraid to speak their mind on this issue.

Second, what exactly the compromise camp understands by compromise is bound to be diverse. This camp may still include quite a few citizens who harbor illusions about what kind of compromise is available at this point.

Third, the current regime – which is de-facto authoritarian – is not answerable to society, at least not in a way that would make it easy to predict how shifts in the national mood translate into regime policies, or not.

And yet: There is no doubt that there is a groundswell in favor of ending the war even at the cost of concessions. Add the clear evidence of Western Ukraine fatigue – even a growing readiness to cut Ukraine loose – and the facts that the Russian military is creating on the ground, and it becomes hard to see how this basal shift in the Ukrainian mood could not become an important factor of Ukrainian – and international – politics.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Strikes on the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant are being leveraged to push for sanctions that could impact Western Europe

Ukraine says that in the wake of recent unattributed drone attacks on the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, Moscow just has to give it back. Not that Kiev had anything to do with it, of course. No doubt it was just the Ghost of Kiev and the Heroes of Snake Island making a comeback after spending some downtime consulting with Hollywood on some new superhero franchises.

Russia expressed concerns that Ukraine was attacking the plant again in a series of incidents over the past week. In denying it, Kiev issued a statement addressing ”recent Russian provocations at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant” – but then dodged the issue of the attacks themselves. “The only source of threats [to the nuclear powerplant] has been and remains the illegal and criminal actions of the Russian invaders,” it said.

“We once again insist that [the nuclear power plant] be returned under the control of its rightful owner, Ukraine, and Russia be held accountable for all its crimes.” So you’re implying that Russia wants to blow up a nuclear powerplant it controls, and that if it gives the power plant back, it will suddenly stop wanting to blow it up? Because that makes logical sense.

In its statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine refers to vague nuclear safety threats “created by Russia,” but it buried the lede in calling on its “partners” to sanction Russia’s atomic energy sector near the very bottom of the press release.

Read more

How convenient. It just so happens that the Russian atomic energy sector is virtually sanctions-proof. Even while French President Emmanuel Macron was talking recently about sending troops to fight Russia, there’s a joint innovation venture underway between French and Russian engineers from the state atomic energy corporations Rosatom and Framatome. The head of the global atomic energy agency has even warned against doing anything stupid sanctions-wise against Russia in the nuclear power sector. “I would warn against this point of good nuclear energy against bad nuclear energy,” International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi told an atomic energy summit last month. “I don’t think this is what we need to have in the global energy market.”

Germany isn’t happy about France and Russia working together on nuclear energy, according to Bloomberg. Prior to the Ukraine conflict, Berlin had been fighting against cheap French nuclear energy at the EU level in order to make the French economy less competitive, or at least improve its own prospects after it went “all in” on green energy. This was clearly shown to be not ready for prime time after Germany shrugged off Nord Stream being blown up along with its cheap supply of Russian gas. Now the US is seducing German green industry with promises of plentiful gas and tax breaks under Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. At the same time, Germany is now importing Russian-partnered French nuclear energy, which it has long sought to compromise under the pretext that it’s bad for the planet, all while resorting to firing its own coal plants back up.

So Berlin doesn’t sound like the best advisor on energy strategy. France, however, at least had a modicum of self-preservation kick in before it was too late, with Macron doing a 180-degree turn (or 360 degrees if you’re the German foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock) and revving its own decommissioned nuclear power plants back up when it realized that Nord Stream was dead. But Kiev’s latest statement demanding sanctions against Russia’s nuclear sector suggests that it’s pressuring Paris to abandon whatever’s left of its senses.

If anyone wasn’t aware that Russian nuclear energy was an obsession of Kiev’s, consider that its intelligence service (the SBU) has also just detained six design engineers in Kharkov accused of cooperating with Rosatom, via a contractor, in allegedly plotting to integrate the Zaporozhye power plant into the Russian nuclear network, according to the SBU’s own press service.

Read more

Despite these details, Kiev’s Western sponsors seem keen to play up the aura of “uncertainty” around the Zaporozhye powerplant drone attacks to try to convince Russia to take a hike. “Russia is playing a very dangerous game with its military seizure of Ukraine’s nuclear power plant,” State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said. Well then maybe just tell your Ukrainian buddies to knock it off, then? Or is the US lumbering up to blame any potential future nuclear disaster on one of the so-called “pro-Ukrainian groups” – the kind that unidentified US officials have conveniently accused, via Western press leaks, of taking out Nord Stream?

“Reckless drone attack against Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant increases risk of dangerous nuclear accident. Such attacks must stop…Russia should withdraw from Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant,” Tweeted EU chief diplomat Josep Borrell. Yeah, it totally doesn’t sound like you guys all share talking points or anything.

What’s glaring is that none of Kiev’s Western enablers are actually arguing that Russia attacked its own asset with drones, on territory that it controls. Guess that would sound just a bit too stupid. Instead, they’re implying that Russia’s presence could end up justifying a nuclear disaster. Which is super smart!

But by playing along with Kiev’s Russian blame game like indulgent parents of an unruly toddler, the Western establishment figureheads may be failing to realize how Kiev’s targeting of Russia’s nuclear industry could, yet again, result in them talking themselves into harming their own critical interests “for Ukraine.” Not that it would be more important than the nuclear fallout, which sounds like it could easily be prevented with a spanking, a time-out, and the withholding of entitlements.

Медиа: image / jpeg

New Delhi has followed Beijing’s strategy to attract EV manufacturers, but subsidies and tax cuts may not be enough – India’s real strength lies elsewhere

India is rapidly turning into a hotspot for electric vehicles with Elon Musk‘s Tesla reportedly looking at sites for a $3 billion manufacturing facility, and Korean auto giants Hyundai and Kia localizing their battery production through the Indian subsidiary of Exide Energy.

The developments come a week after the Indian government rolled out an electric vehicle (EV) policy aimed at attracting major global players and encouraging local production of premium EVs in the country.

According to Press Information Bureau data, India had around a million EVs on the road in July 2022. According to Bain and Company, EVs accounted for around 5% of total vehicle sales between October 2022 and September 2023.

The policy is a step in the right direction. It supports the Modi government’s “Make in India” initiative, and has set the table for a competitive EV market. However, if the country has ambitious plans of catching up with China, it needs to up its innovation quotient – an ingredient which would have made this policy a game-changer.

Let’s look at the policy first. It stipulates that companies looking to tap into India’s lucrative EV market are required to invest a minimum of $500 million. To be eligible, companies must set up manufacturing plants in the country and start commercial production of EVs within three years. This applies to greenfield projects.

Read more

For existing EV investors, as well as offering manufacturing incentives, they can also import a restricted number of vehicles at a reduced customs duty rate of 15% for vehicles valued at $35,000, subject to certain conditions. This benefit continues for five years if the company establishes its manufacturing unit on time and achieves localization levels of 25% by its third year and 50% by its fifth year.

More of the same?

Currently, the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of (Hybrid &) Electric Vehicles in India (FAME India) Scheme Phase-II is being implemented with total budgetary support of $1.2 billion.

EVs are also covered under the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme for Automobile and Auto Components, which was approved in September 2021 with a budgetary outlay of $3.1 billion for a period of five years, along with tax reduction on EVs.

So, will EV makers be enthused by these incentives? The answer is a feeble yes. For starters, one needs to understand how the EV manufacturing ecosystem was established in China – at a time when Tesla was in its infancy. India’s new EV policy follows the playbook of a different era, when the concept of EVs was in a beta phase.

In the early 2000s, prior to entering the electric car era, China’s automotive industry faced a challenging situation. While excelling in the production of traditional internal-combustion vehicles, domestic car brands that could measure up to dominant foreign manufacturers were almost nonexistent.

Read more

Then the Chinese government got into top gear. From 2009, with a combination of subsidies, tax breaks, and its inherent manufacturing prowess, China gained an enormous lead in the EV sector. With the help of subsidies at both national and local levels, its market share reached 15.5% in 2021. India has followed a similar strategy and is trying to catch up with its neighbor, but the question is whether that is enough?

India’s real strength

While China has inherent strengths in manufacturing, it is a no-brainer that India’s strength lies in software. Quality software is a crucial component of an EV’s competitive advantage.

The complexity of software in present-day Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles is considerable, often exceeding 150 million lines of code. However, as we transition to EVs, the software complexity is projected to increase significantly, potentially tripling or more, especially with the integration of advanced autonomous driving features.

Simply put, an electric car is bound to be a “supercomputer on wheels.” Currently, the approach with conventional vehicles is to provide computing power throughout a vehicle for localized processing. In an EV, this process is turned upside down – consolidating the processing of multiple electronic control units or even consolidating most of a vehicle’s computing into a handful of central processors.

With this approach, vehicle computing resembles more of a generalized computing platform in terms of hardware and software architectures, but with the processing power of a supercomputer, according to a study by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

Read more

Connected vehicles create up to 25 gigabytes of data per hour, a small portion of which is shared outside the vehicle. With increased data consumption, when vehicles interact with a multitude of external systems over a range of communication channels, that amount may reach four terabytes per hour, all of which will be captured, analyzed and monetized by multiple remote third-party systems.

Perhaps, in its early days, Tesla may have been more focused on manufacturing. Over a period of time, the world’s largest EV maker understands that software will be the differentiator. Here, India has an enormous lead – something which cannot be replicated by China overnight.

For example, almost every financial transaction in the world, amounting to trillions of dollars, has an Indian IT software footprint. Also, large software exporters such as TCS, Infosys, Wipro, and L&T Technologies have been developing software and maintaining IT systems for companies such as Mercedes Benz, Toyota, Kia, and others over the past two decades. Also, India has internationally recognized brands such as Tata Motors, Mahindra, Bajaj, which was not the case when China started out its EV play.

READ MORE: AI poses a threat to our planet, but not the one you might think

It is in this area that the government needs to formulate a strategy that can replicate the success achieved by India’s $190 billion software export industry. For Tesla and other EV makers, the luster of the EV space in the US is waning considerably over the past several quarters, and mass adoption rates are slowing down. This necessitates more innovation in manufacturing techniques as well as software.

Then, there is the EV battery supply chain factor. While India has unearthed some of the raw materials that go into an EV, it needs to have a larger and more reliable supply chain. Further, the procurement of essential battery components such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel frequently leads to environmental harm and human rights violations, including the use of child labor and hazardous working conditions. This brings sustainability to the forefront.

In many ways, the Indian government is touting the “double-engine” as its strategy for rapid economic development. “Manufacturing plus software bundle“ could well be another useful mantra for growth.

Медиа: image / jpeg

‘Progressive’ educators seem hell-bent on turning a passing state of confusion into irreversible decisions many come to regret

Thousands of children will likely regret going under the knife to change their sex as the majority of gender-confused kids have been found to shed the confusion by the time they are fully grown adults.

Search anywhere on social media these days and you’ll find endless chatter on the subject of young people ruminating over a sex change. Coming at a critical time in a child’s development, the messaging can sow tremendous confusion. And what has been missing from the conversation is how many of these young people eventually grow out of their feelings over time.

One such adolescent, ‘Rebecca,’ was 11 years old when she began to identify as transgender. At the age of 13, at the emotionally sensitive time when puberty sets in, she broke the unsettling news to her friends and family. That same year, the doctors prescribed her puberty blockers and testosterone. At the tender age of 16, she went under the knife for a double mastectomy. Less than a year later, however, she understood that she’d made a terrible mistake.

“I need to open up about my experience,” Rebecca told RT via email. “I want others to understand that they needn’t go through the same trauma that I did.”

Read more

At the age of 17, Rebecca belongs to a growing number of individuals known as “detransitioners,” those who hope to reverse a sex-change operation, often after coming to the conclusion that they are comfortable with their biological sex. But making the journey back from such extreme medical procedures is far from easy, and many young people will suffer for the rest of their lives with an irreversible decision they made as minors.

In the West, the number of minors experiencing gender dysphoria has exploded. Between 2009 and 2019, the number of children being referred for transitioning treatment in the United Kingdom surged 1,000% among biological males and 4,400% among biological females. In the US, the number of young people identifying as transgender has almost doubled since 2017, according to a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

Now, a landmark 15-year study concludes that what this new medicine recognizes as “being transgender” is, more often than not, just a passing phase for kids. Researchers from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands monitored more than 2,700 people from age 11 to their mid-twenties, questioning them every three years for sentiments about their gender.

At the start of the study, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, about one in ten children (11 percent) expressed ‘gender non-contentedness’ to varying degrees. By age 25, however, just one in 25 (4%) said they ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ were discontent with their gender, the Daily Mail reported.

The researchers concluded: “The results of the current study might help adolescents to realize that it is normal to have some doubts about one’s identity and one’s gender identity during this age period and that this is also relatively common.”

Will this revelation slow down the advent of sex-drenched lessons in ‘progressive’ Western classrooms? Will educators stop and consider the findings of the data and let kids enjoy their childhood years before they are introduced to these radical ideas? Of course, shielding kids from the messaging in the age of social media is virtually impossible, and questions will naturally arise from some of the students. So if teachers feel the need to breach the subject on an individual basis (as opposed to discussions in front of the entire classroom), this should be done privately in the company of parents and counselors as the children are reassured that they will likely grow out of their mixed feelings over time. The problem, however, is that the wheels of change have already been set in motion and it is doubtful they will reverse anytime soon.

In 2022, members of the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teacher’s union in the US, laid out ways for teachers to introduce gender pronouns to children starting in pre-kindergarten, in a webinar titled “Using Pronouns to Create a Safe, Welcoming, and Inclusive Environment.” It was recommended that schools ask students their preferred pronouns and add LGBTQ+ books to school library shelves.

Read more

In light of the latest findings, will these methods be re-evaluated? If doubting their gender identity is only a passing phase for most children, then aggressively pushing the ideas of transgenderism and things like gender fluidity seems like a sure-fire way to exacerbate this phase and turn it into full-blown gender dysphoria. This, in turn, can possibly lead to a sex-change operation somewhere down the road that will be largely irreversible.

Meanwhile, there are other ways that children are being set up to question their gender identity. Public libraries have gotten in on the action, hosting Drag Queen Story Hours where books heavily laced in sexual innuendo are the main feature and read by grown men dressed in women’s clothes, some of whom are convicted child sex offenders. It’s anybody’s guess what these salacious exhibitions do to the psychology of a developing child, but certainly nothing good. All this proves what is becoming increasingly obvious: Western society has become a lewd no-go zone for the most vulnerable segment of the population, where not even religious feast days can avoid getting caught up in the transgender net.

Trans rights were thrust onto the national stage this month after Easter was superseded in the US by ‘Trans Visibility Day.’ While President Joe Biden was accused by some of specifically targeting the holiday, the White House later clarified that the awareness day is recognized every year on March 31 and only coincided with Easter this year by chance.

But couldn’t the Biden administration have moved the celebration this year to a different date out of respect for one of Christianity’s holiest days? Nobody in the US should expect such miracles to happen anytime soon. Craziness is in the saddle and it’s riding America, and it will likely take many more studies to slow the gallop down.

Медиа: image / jpeg

African traditional governance models can and should be incorporated into modern socio-political life

In the discourse of global governance, Western democracy often stands as the epitome of political organization and representation. Yet, across the African continent, there exists a critical perspective on Western democratic models.

Many Africans, informed by their rich tapestry of tradition, history, and social structures, believe in the necessity of re-evaluating Western democratic paradigms and advocating for forms of governance that are more rooted in African realities. This critical view stems from a deep-seated belief that Africa should develop its own forms of democracy, inspired by indigenous practices, religions, traditions, and communal values.

At the heart of the African critique of Western democracy lies the recognition of the dissonance between imported political systems and the diverse socio-political landscapes of African nations. Western democracy, often characterized by ultra-individualism, elitist power structures, and a focus on “progressivist” values, may not fully resonate with the communal ethos prevalent in many African societies. In contrast, traditional African governance systems, such as those found in various kingdoms, chiefdoms, and tribal structures, prioritize consensus-building, communal decision-making, and the integration of spiritual beliefs into governance.

One of the primary reasons many Africans hold on to traditional ways of governance is the historical context of colonialism and its enduring impacts. The imposition of Western political systems during the colonial era disrupted pre-existing structures of governance and often marginalized indigenous institutions. This historical legacy has left a profound imprint on African societies, fostering skepticism toward Western models and a yearning to reclaim and revitalize indigenous governance practices.

Read more

Moreover, African traditional systems are often viewed as more inclusive and participatory, encompassing a broader spectrum of voices within the community. Decision-making processes in traditional settings typically involve consultation with elders, community leaders, and spiritual authorities, ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered and a consensus is reached.

This contrasts with the hierarchical nature of many Western democratic systems, which can further marginalize disenfranchised groups and perpetuate power imbalances. African religions and spiritual beliefs also play a significant role in shaping the concept of governance and policy-making on the continent. Indigenous belief systems often emphasize interconnectedness, reverence for nature, and collective responsibility.

Many Africans argue that incorporating these values into governance structures can lead to more sustainable and holistic approaches to development, as opposed to the often utilitarian and anthropocentric outlook of Western political frameworks.

African leaders of national liberation, from Patrice Lumumba to Gamal Abdel Nasser and Muammar Gaddafi, always attacked the economic inequality and liberal/neoliberal policies in the West which prioritize market-driven growth and privatization. In many African countries, these policies have exacerbated economic hardships, widened the gap between rich and poor, and perpetuated dependence on foreign aid and investment. This economic disparity undermines the democratic ideal of equal opportunity and social justice.

There is also the issue of Western values’ incompatibility with African cultural diversity. Western democratic norms and practices may not always resonate with the cultural diversity present in African societies. For example, issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, gender-centred divisions and secularist policies of state building may clash with traditional and national beliefs and norms in certain communities. This cultural incompatibility can lead to tensions between progressive democratic principles and local customs, potentially undermining social cohesion and stability.

Furthermore, African history is replete with examples of sophisticated governance systems that predate colonial rule. Kingdoms such as the Mali Empire (c. 1226 to 1670 AD), the Ashanti Empire (1701-1901 AD), and the Great Zimbabwe civilization (11th century- 15th Century AD) thrived through systems of governance that combined political authority with cultural and economic institutions.

They stand as remarkable examples of African societies that experimented with diverse forms of democratic governance, challenging conventional narratives of autocratic rule in pre-colonial Africa. The Mali Empire, renowned for its wealth and power under leaders like Mansa Musa, employed a system where power was decentralized among local rulers and their tribes, fostering a sense of participation and representation among its citizens.

Similarly, the Ashanti Empire, with its complex political structure and emphasis on consensus-building through councils of elders and popular assemblies, exemplified a form of participatory democracy that allowed for the expression of various viewpoints within society.

Read more

Meanwhile, the Great Zimbabwe civilization, known for its impressive stone structures and sophisticated trading networks, is believed to have operated under a system where decision-making was distributed among different levels of society, suggesting a form of decentralized governance and inclusion of traders, craftsmen, landowners and soldiers.

These examples challenge the misconception that democracy is a foreign concept to African civilizations, highlighting instead the rich history of democratic experimentation and innovation on the continent.

Since the 1950s, authentic experiments in African grassroots democracy conducted in Egypt, Tanzania and Liby have produced valuable outcomes worthy of thorough examination and advancement. In Egypt during the 1950s and 1960s, the widespread establishment of workers’ unions, farmers’ associations, and the democratic redistribution of arable land resulted in significant participation from previously marginalized groups in the political decision-making process.

Similarly, in Tanzania, Julius Nyerere – under his philosophy of Ujamaa (fraternity/familyfood in Swahili) – amalgamated ideals from African religion, tradition, and community to spearhead a movement of democratic involvement across various sections of the newly liberated and unified Tanzanian society.

Meanwhile, in Libya, Gaddafi employed a blend of Islamic tradition, particularly Shura (popular consultation), tribalcouncils, and a non-representative Direct Democracy approach to construct his vision of a new democratic alternative for the Global South.

Drawing inspiration from these historical and contemporary precedents, advocates for African-centred democracies argue for the adaptation and modernization of indigenous governance principles to suit contemporary challenges.

In recent years, there has been a growing movement across Africa to reclaim and reinterpret traditional governance practices. Initiatives such as the African Union’s Agenda 2063 emphasize the need for home-grown solutions to the continent’s developmental challenges, including governance reform.

Specifically, Agenda 2063 paints a vision of a continent where a shared commitment to good governance, democratic principles, gender equality, and human rights prevails. The African Union collaborates closely with its member states to craft and execute policies aimed at fostering robust, well-governed institutions. These efforts entail enacting legislation to ensure active participation of African citizens in policymaking and development endeavors, while also prioritizing the creation of safe and secure living environments.

To bolster the realization of these goals, the AU has instituted various organs focused on upholding good governance and human rights across the continent. These include the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR), the AU Commission on International Law (AUCIL), the AU Advisory Board on Corruption (AUABC), and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC).

Countries like Ghana and South Africa have incorporated elements of indigenous governance into their legal and political frameworks, recognizing the importance of cultural heritage in shaping national identity and governance structures. Resilient and time-honoured democratic mechanisms such as Councils of Elders, Community Assemblies, Rotation of Leadership, Customary Law, and Dispute Resolution are experiencing a resurgence in African intellectual and political discourse.

In Ghana, one prominent example of incorporating elements of indigenous governance into the legal and political framework is the institution of chieftaincy. Traditional leaders, known as chiefs, hold significant authority and influence within their respective communities. Their roles often include mediation of disputes, preservation of cultural heritage, and consultation on local governance issues. The chieftaincy system is recognized and respected by the Ghanaian government, with chiefs playing active roles in decision-making processes at the local level.

Read more

Another notable example of incorporating indigenous governance elements, in South Africa, is the recognition of customary law within the legal system. Customary law encompasses the traditional practices, norms, and customs of various indigenous communities. The Constitution of South Africa acknowledges the importance of customary law and provides for its recognition and application in certain matters, particularly relating to family law, inheritance, and land tenure. This recognition ensures that the legal system accommodates the diverse cultural practices and values of South Africa’s indigenous communities.

Engaging discussions on these topics are taking place on social media platforms and within the halls of African parliaments. I had the personal privilege of actively participating in and leading several of these discussions between 2009 and 2010. During this time, my Jamahiri Media Centre (a then budding Global-South media project in Tripoli, Libya) hosted the African Youth Conference, where we advocated for and promoted African democracies, diverging from imported neo-liberal Western democratic models.

Critics of the African-centric approach to democracy often cite concerns about potential regression into authoritarianism or the exclusion of minority voices. However, proponents argue that embracing African traditions does not imply a rejection of democratic principles but rather a reimagining of democracy that is more inclusive, participatory, and reflective of local contexts.

In fact, the African critical view of Western democracy reflects a profound desire to reclaim agency over governance and policy-making processes. By drawing upon indigenous traditions, religions, history, and social structures, many Africans advocate for the development of democratic models that resonate with the continent’s unique identity and address the complex challenges it faces. As Africa continues to assert itself on the global stage, the debate over the future of democracy on the continent will remain pivotal in shaping its political landscape.

Медиа: image / jpeg

A globally widespread turn against Israel is far from complete, but Managua’s case at the ICJ is one of its clearest indications

On April 8 and 9, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), often referred to as the World Court, will hold hearings on a case brought by Nicaragua against Germany. Managua is accusing Berlin of facilitating genocide and breaches of international law by Israel against Palestinians and seeks to end military aid to the Jewish state.

The outcome of the hearings is unpredictable. But this is clearly an important event that could have far-reaching consequences, for three reasons: First, this is the highest court of the United Nations. It has no independent capacity to enforce its rulings, but they carry political weight, whether in the short or long term. Second, while Israel is not directly present in the courtroom, its ongoing genocide in Gaza is at the core of the proceedings. Third, whichever way the ICJ ends up ruling, its decision will have implications for other countries, especially in the West, which have supported Israel and its assault.

Nicaragua’s main argument is not complicated: the UN’s 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (in short, Genocide Convention) codifies more than one offense. Under its terms, perpetrating a genocide – Article 3(a) – is only one way to commit a horrific crime. In addition, so is serving as an accomplice – Article 3(e). And, finally, all signatory states commit themselves not only not to be either perpetrators or accomplices, but they have also signed up to prevent and punish genocide – Article 1.

Managua’s representatives argue that Berlin is guilty on two main counts: “Germany is facilitating the commission of genocide,” they maintain, which means acting as an accomplice. And “in any case has failed in its obligation to do everything possible to prevent the commission of genocide.” In addition, Nicaragua also accuses Berlin of being in breach of international humanitarian law, also known as the law of armed conflict, as well as various other binding norms of international law – by helping Israel continue its illegal occupations, its apartheid system, and its “negation of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people.”

Despite persistent misinformation, the term “apartheid” does not refer only to the historic case of the racist South African regime between (formally) 1948 and the early 1990s. Rather, apartheid has been an internationally recognized crime against humanity for half a century already, as confirmed again by Article 7 of the Rome Statute (the basis of the International Criminal Court) of 1998. Put simply, apartheid is a crime of the same category as, for instance, “extermination” or “enslavement” and can occur, unfortunately, anywhere.

Read more

In the same vein, the right to self-determination is not a matter of ideology or political rhetoric or, for that matter, choice. Rather, it is a bedrock principle of modern international law. It was codified in the UN Charter and has been reaffirmed repeatedly in key conventions and treaties as well as perhaps most famously in the 1960 UN General Assembly “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.”

Nicaragua, in sum, is not fooling around: Its case appeals to numerous cardinal obligations under international law. It also digs much deeper than “merely” Germany’s actions during Israel’s currently ongoing genocidal attack on the Palestinians. In that respect, the case focuses on Germany’s continuing and, as a matter of fact, escalating military exports to Tel Aviv* and on Berlin’s decision to cut off financial support to the United Nations Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA). But Managua is also targeting the fundamentals of Berlin’s long-standing policy toward Israel and thus, inevitably, also toward Palestine. The stakes, hence, are even higher than they may appear at first sight.

The public response in Germany has been muted and often unserious: The arch-conservative Welt newspaper, for instance, suspects that Nicaragua is acting in Russia’s interest: Germany is a key supporter of EU sanctions on Russia over Ukraine, so Managua – caricatured in the best Cold War style as “Moscow-loyal” – must be trying to deliver payback on the Kremlin’s behalf. Evidence? Zero, of course. (Welt is of course a flagship publication of the Axel Springer media group, which is extremely pro-Israel. It also makes money from brokerage in Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.)

But Germany and its convoluted motivations and rationalizations are not, actually, the most interesting aspect of this case. That, instead, lies in its international implications: This is the first time the ICJ has been asked to rule on an accusation of complicity in the Gaza Genocide.

South Africa’s complaint against Israel was, of course, about Israel’s role as the main perpetrator of the crime. The ICJ, it is important to recall, found that there is a plausible possibility that Israel is indeed committing genocide, which at this point was the worst possible outcome for Tel Aviv (because full decisions in such cases always take years). The judges issued several instructions to Israel (all of which its government has treated with total contempt) and, of course, allowed the case to proceed. In view of the way in which Israel has since only escalated its lawless violence, it may, hence, well find itself fully convicted in the not so distant future.

Read more

Meanwhile, even the ICJ’s preliminary finding that genocide is plausible has increased the urgency of the complicity issue: If genocide is at least a plausible possibility, then so is being an accomplice. Hence, the key question becomes how the court will define complicity. It is hard to see how supplying arms and ammunitions would not qualify. Likewise, Germany’s suspension of financial support for UNRWA was absurd, based on Israeli allegations that, in turn, are likely to have involved extorting false confessions by torture.

There is a reason that many other countries (such as Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Türkiye, Spain, Portugal, and Saudi Arabia) never cut off support for UNRWA, while others that did initially stop paying resumed funding (France, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Canada, and the EU). Germany’s foul compromise – to partially restore funding but to specifically exclude Gaza, where help is most urgently needed – may not impress the judges.

Nicaragua, nonetheless, is unlikely to prevail with all its charges, even if – in this author’s opinion – they all make perfect sense. But even a partial victory for Managua would have implications far beyond Germany. If the judges follow the plaintiff’s key argument about complicity even to some extent, then every government and international body that has supported Israel during its current assault on the Palestinians will be at risk of facing similar charges. As they should be.

This potential precedent effect would be reason for deep concern for the US, Great Britain, France, and the EU as a whole, or at least its power-grabbing Commission under the ruthless Israel supporter Ursula von der Leyen. As the Washington Post has noted, there is a growing global momentum, at long last, for stopping arms supplies to Israel. The US and Germany, supplying almost 99% of all arms imports to Israel, are the two major holdouts, but they also appear increasingly isolated.

And not only institutions would have reason to worry, but individuals as well. Some British civil servants are already rebelling because they resent being made accomplices to a genocide. In the same vein, more than 600 important lawyers, academics and former judges, including former Supreme Court judges have publicly warned the British government “that it is breaching international law by continuing to arm Israel.”

This turn toward a more critical attitude toward Tel Aviv has been catalyzed mightily by the recent Israeli massacre of seven staffers of the World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid organization. While one of the victims was a young Palestinian, the others were, generally speaking, “Westerners.” Clearly, these deaths meant much more to Western elites and, on the whole, publics than those of over 30,000 Palestinians. Even in the US, dozens of Democrats in Congress have now publicly demanded that arms transfers to Israel stop. The signers included not only traditional critics of Israel such as Rashida Tlaib but also hardcore Israel supporter Nancy Pelosi.

Nicaragua filed its case with the ICJ on March 1. The hearings will take place now. As it has turned out, the viciousness of Israeli forces in general, and in the particular case of the attack on the WCK convoy, has meant that Berlin, and indirectly, Tel Aviv are now facing those hearings against a widespread, if far from complete, turn against Israel. The judges at the ICJ are, of course, jurists of the highest caliber. Their assessment of the case will not depend on this immediate background, and they may even decide to throw out Managua’s case, although they should not. But the issue of complicity in Israel’s genocide will not go away, one way or the other.

Finally, what many Germans seem to be missing, such as the hapless yet arrogant Welt with its blinkered and tired Cold War phraseology, is the fact that Nicaragua is a classical representative of both the Global South and the emerging multipolar world. In the shape of Germany, it is challenging an equally traditional, if secondary and crisis-ridden, representative of the West. The fact alone that the West is losing control of both key institutions and narratives marks fundamental change. In the infamously racist terms of EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, the “jungle” is paying a visit to the “garden.” And it’s the garden that is on the defensive: legally, morally, and in the eyes of most of humanity.

*Russia recognizes West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as shown on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Consular Department website

Медиа: image / jpeg

Washington maintains it doesn’t “support or enable” Kiev’s deep strikes, while Paris argues they’re legitimate

“It’s our policy from Day One, when it comes to Ukraine, to do everything we can to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression. At the same time, we have neither supported nor enabled strikes by Ukraine outside of its territory,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said while standing beside his French counterpart in Paris a few days ago, in the wake of Ukraine’s drone attack on the Nizhnekamsk oil refinery in Tatarstan, responsible for over 6% of Russia’s oil output.

“Ukraine is acting within the framework of legitimate defense. We consider Russia to be the aggressor. Based on this, there can be no other comments,” said the French foreign affairs minister, Stephane Sejourne, of the incident, chalking it up to the refinery being a military target, even though its oil output as one of the country’s five largest such facilities sounds pretty important for civilians.

The United Nations generally condemned “all attacks on civilian infrastructure” without getting caught up in the debate of whether this particular target was legitimately military or civilian. That’s for international law to decide years from now, if ever. France could have said something like that, but decided instead to go all-in on its support for this new escalation involving attacks deeper inside Russian territory – even when the target isn’t overtly and unambiguously military, or at least in the absence of any evidence from Paris for why it was qualifying it as such.

Why is France so keen to encourage strikes inside Russia while standing right beside Blinken, if the US truly condemns them? The answer is that maybe the US actually doesn’t. Just ask the Ukrainians. “The flights are determined in advance with our allies, and the aircraft follow the flight plan to enable us to strike targets with meters of precision,” an unnamed Ukrainian source told CNN for a report referencing the drone attack on Nizhnekamsk and Russia’s massive Rosneft Ryazan refinery, both hundreds of kilometers away from the Ukraine conflict front line.

Read more

Of course there’s always the possibility that the CNN report isn’t talking specifically about the US – just its Western allies – and the Pentagon has absolutely nothing to do with this targeting, and its hands are squeaky clean. Except that Ukrainian sources bragged to the press again in February 2023, in a “my daddy lets me play with these cool rockets” kind of way, telling the Washington Post that they were getting the coordinates for US-made HIMARS rocket attacks from Washington and its allies. A US official even confirmed it. “One senior Ukrainian official said Ukrainian forces almost never launch the advanced weapons without specific coordinates provided by US military personnel from a base elsewhere in Europe,” according to the Post. Is that any different now? Or is Washington just hoping to create a smokescreen using its allies and corporate lingo to deflect responsibility?

The Post quotes a “senior US official” who underscored that the role is strictly “advisory.” Sounds kind of like when Blinken says that the US neither “supports nor enables” strikes. If Washington happens to leave the HIMARS or drone coordinates lying around where you can see them, don’t go using them to blow stuff up, okay?

Some people’s parents don’t “support or enable” them doing drugs or alcohol, either, but then tell their kids that if they absolutely must, and are going to do it anyway, then just do it in the garage where it can be supervised. Nice parental supervision the US and its allies are doing here with Kiev. An audio recording, intercepted by Russian intelligence, just leaked back in February of German Air Force brass plotting to help Ukrainians target the Crimean Bridge with drones, which unlike refineries is an indisputably civilian target. A highlight of their musings was how they might go about doing it without leaving any German fingerprints. Of course, Washington would never entertain such thoughts.

We keep hearing how Washington doesn’t want Russian refineries to be hit because it risks driving up the global oil price, particularly if Russia retaliates proportionally. Yeah, that sounds totally legit in light of all the US-driven energy market deregulation that’s taken place so far as a result of the Ukraine conflict, including the mysterious explosion of the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Europe. Washington seems really broken up about that – and about the EU now having an overdependence on US liquified natural gas instead. How absolutely horrible would it be if oil prices spiked because of Ukrainian drone shenanigans at a time when headlines abound of US oil exports hitting record highs as it becomes the top global oil producer?

Read more

This latest performance in Paris by Blinken and Sejourne is on par with French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent Napoleonic musings about sending French troops to fight Russia while he posed up a storm for glamor shots with a punching bag. If there’s one country whose recent rhetoric makes the US look almost pacifist by comparison right now, it’s France. It’s like someone with a mild drinking problem hanging out with a raging alcoholic and looking reasonable by comparison.

Blinken flying over for this press conference in Paris had the vibe of an actor traveling to be on location for filming. Maybe they can record this new buddy movie and submit it to next year’s Oscars, where they can have fellow actor, Vladimir Zelensky, present it. Throw in some more footage of Macron preparing to fight Vladimir Putin with the help of Coach Photoshop, and Blinken holding the punching bag talking about how Macron’s such a maniac for wanting to go over to Russia and kick down doors against Blinken’s advice.

Something definitely seems to be up with these two. Since when does Paris stand there right in front of Washington like Sejourne just did with Blinken, and imply that Ukraine can risk escalation inside Russia now? Unless, of course, Washington is in fact totally cool with it. It would be nice to know what the US is offering France in exchange for playing the bad cop role, or if France is just dumb enough to be doing it for free.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Before turning to politics, Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of India’s Aam Aadmi Party, ruling the national capital and Punjab, was a tax department officer

An Indian court earlier this week remanded Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi and the leader of the opposition Aam Aadmi Party (AAP, Common Man Party), to judicial custody until April 15. Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), an agency that investigates revenue-related crimes, on March 21. He spent ten days in ED custody before being sent to Tihar Jail on April 1.

The ED says he skipped nine summonses for questioning in a bribery case related to changes in the Delhi Excise Policy governing liquor sales.

Though Kejriwal – the acting chief minister of India’s capital, which has the special status of union territory and has its own legislative assembly and elected government – is now in a high-security jail, he is someone that has been spoken about as a future prime minister, mostly by his own party and on social media campaigns that have gone viral. He himself, however, has said he is not a 2024 candidate for prime minister.

Even those who oppose the AAP talk about the open secret of Kejriwal’s prime ministerial ambitions, and say that if it happens, he will only continue India’s right-of-center politics. Supporters of the Congress, India’s grand old party which is now in opposition, and of left-of-center regional parties have occasionally branded Kejriwal and his politics as “soft Hindutva” (which refers to Hindu nationalism) – given that he and his party kept quiet about the Delhi riots of February 2020, or over various lynching incidents in which Muslims are the victims.

Incidentally, the only other person spoken about as a future prime minister in Indian political circles is Yogi Adityanath, who rules the country’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, and who is seen as “harder Hindutva.”

If a man sitting in India’s highest-profile jail ever does reach the political pinnacle of prime minister, it will have been quite the journey for Kejriwal, who comes from middle-class beginnings, has epitomized the middle-class dream, and who frequently adopts middle-class symbolism – a muffler covering his head during his early years as CM, and favoring trousers over the conventional white kurta-pajama – in his rise.

From bureaucrat to politician

Born in 1968 to an upper caste family in northern India’s Haryana, Kejriwal was a diligent student, and successfully aced the ultra-competitive entrance exams to the Indian Institute of Technology, which has produced many luminaries of the IT world.

Qualified as a mechanical engineer for India’s then-largest private concern, he began preparing for the civil services exam – the most competitive exam that the Indian middle-class most aspires to – and in 1995, he joined the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) as an assistant commissioner of Income Tax under the Finance Ministry.

Read more

Ironically, it was IRS officers of the same ministry who arrested him in 2024 over allegations of bribery that have remained not only undocumented and unproven, but based on hearsay – by people who subsequently joined the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). More on this later.

As an income tax official, what Kejriwal saw of the system shocked him, because a few years later – while still in service – he started a movement (along with journalist Manish Sisodia, who would later become deputy CM of Delhi) called ‘Parivartan’ (Change), which demanded transparency in the workings of the income tax department. It also addressed public grievances in various welfare schemes.

Kejriwal used several mechanisms, such as the Right to Information Act (enacted by the Delhi Congress government) to fight corruption that the average person faced, most commonly in the electricity departments, and to prevent the privatization of water in the capital city.

Kejriwal thus became known as an anti-corruption crusader. He resigned his government job in 2006, and was given the Ramon Magsaysay award for integrity in governance and service to people. He used the prize money to start the Public Cause Research Foundation, an institutional foundation for his anti-corruption work.

Prominent among his efforts was a campaign against corruption in the organizing of the Commonwealth Games of 2010, which became etched in the public mind after a bridge-roof collapse at the Jawaharlal Nehru stadium due to shoddy work. Then-CM Sheila Dixit was beleaguered by allegations of corruption against her government, and it led to her losing power a few years later.

A loner becomes a leader

In 2011, he joined with like-minded anti-corruption activists, such as eminent lawyer Prashant Bhushan, former police officer Kiran Bedi, and grassroots organizer Anna Hazare, to form India Against Corruption (IAC), and their main demand of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was the enactment of the Jan Lokpal Bill – to have a public ombudsman look into allegations of corruption (rather than a government-controlled agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation).

Coinciding with protests over the ghastly rape-murder of a medical student in Delhi, the IAC protests gained momentum and large crowds, marking a low point for PM Singh, who had to promise to put forward the Jan Lokpal Bill in parliament.

Read more

There were people who were not convinced by the IAC movement. Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy accused Kejriwal of funding his movement with money from the Ford Foundation, which the latter denied. She and others also claimed the IAC was run by the BJP’s parent outfit, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, whose larger goal was to dislodge the Congress using the anti-corruption campaign.

Incidentally, after the 2011 movement ended, some IAC members such as Kiran Bedi joined the BJP; natural remedies baron Baba Ramdev became a prominent supporter of the BJP; and Anna Hazare was silent on allegations of corruption during the next dozen years – waking up briefly only after Kejriwal’s arrest.

Kejriwal continued the Lokpal Bill protest in 2012, as the government backtracked on its promise. And then he launched a political party – the AAP.

The next year, Delhi legislative elections were held, and the AAP won enough seats to form a minority government. Kejriwal, who had contested Sheila Dixit in her constituency, defeated her. He was elected CM by his party.

But the minority government lasted only a year, and when elections were held in 2015, the AAP won a stunning 67 out of 70 seats. His has been a popular government on several fronts: He set up mohalla clinics (primary health centers) through the city; he gave a facelift to government schools, much to the relief of middle-class parents who could not afford private schools; he made electricity free up to a certain limit of consumption, on the condition that even slum-dwellers get meters installed instead of illegally tapping overhead wires; and his administration was the first to allow women free transport on government buses.

No wonder that when elections were held in 2020, the AAP repeated its sweep by winning 62 out of 70 seats.

The road to prison

For traditional Delhi politics, the AAP was an upstart; the Congress and the BJP had always dominated the city’s political landscape until Kejriwal landed on the scene. Since then, with the BJP ruling the central government in Delhi, it is no wonder that all their political aggression is directed towards Kejriwal and not the Congress.

Kejriwal has had a running dispute over the division of power with the lieutenant-governor of Delhi, appointed by the central government (a holdover from when Delhi was not a state but directly run by the central government’s Home Ministry). The Delhi police are under the Home Ministry, so the AAP government is powerless in all law-and-order matters. Plus, the police have likely been deployed against AAP workers more times than against other opposition workers.

Read more

Things came to a head when the ED filed a corruption case against the former anti-corruption activist. It related to the Delhi Excise Policy, which was changed in 2021; previously all liquor shops were run by the state government, but they were not well-spread geographically, and high prices resulted in consumers buying liquor from Haryana. The government decided to privatize the liquor trade and tax it.

The ED’s case is that the government favored private players from some southern Indian states in return for bribes, some of which were then used by the AAP for the Goa state elections. There has not been any documentary evidence to support it; the case rests on the testimony of former aides and traders from the south – who later either joined the BJP or bought electoral bonds favoring the BJP.

Yet, Kejriwal has not been granted bail. This is because the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was amended in 2018, making bail possible only if the judge is satisfied with the claims of innocence by the accused – something that could procedurally happen only when the trial/case is over. The BJP told parliament that the amendment was necessary to make bail difficult for terrorists.

2024 Elections

The arrest after the announcement of the 2024 parliamentary will no doubt result in the absence of Kejriwal during the campaign – and as the AAP is part of the opposition INDIA (Indian National Development Inclusive Alliance), he was expected to campaign not just in Delhi. The AAP won the state election in Punjab in 2022, and he was expected to help out with CM Bhagwant Singh’s campaign. Plus, the AAP has candidates in Gujarat, among other places.

The general election in India will run from April 19 to June 1 and is called “the largest democratic exercise in history,” as it will see 970 million people casting their votes. The results will be declared on June 4.

If Kejriwal’s absence is felt, it is because of a missing second rung of leadership that could have taken up the slack. Kejriwal has often been accused of driving potential rivals from the party, like Bhushan and political scientist Yogendra Yadav. Even Punjab CM Mann takes a backseat to Kejriwal.

It remains to be seen whether his absence from campaigning is prolonged, given how the ED allowed AAP parliamentarian Sanjay Singh to be released on bail, under questioning from the Supreme Court. June 4, when results are announced, will tell whether or not the move against Kejriwal was ill-advised.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The hardline Israeli government is pushing for the annexation of occupied land as the world’s attention is focused elsewhere

As the bulk of the media’s attention is directed at the horrifying war in Gaza, Israel has deployed more troops to the West Bank, while constructing more sections of a separation wall and setting up new checkpoints. Coupled with settlement expansion, this will mean a weakening the territory’s economy, and could lead to a larger confrontation between Palestinians and Israelis.

Even though Israel’s separation wall was deemed to be in contravention of international law, as per an International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion issued in 2004, Israel has continued to construct the barrier on Palestinian territory. Since the outbreak of the war in Gaza on October 7, Israel has silently continued its construction of the wall in the northern West Bank. According to Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, 86% of the separation barrier is inside the West Bank, de facto annexing 10% of the occupied territory.

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, decided to continue the construction of separation barriers in 2009, arguing that it provided “security” and prevented Palestinians from entering Israel without a permit, effectively isolating over 150 West Bank communities into “ islands”, while serving as a guard wall for illegal settlements. The UN human rights chief, Volker Turk, recently stated that Israeli settlements are expanding at record rates. While the US government recently responded to Israel’s announcement that they will build more illegal settler units by saying this is inconsistent with international law, nothing tangible has been done to punish the top US ally in the Middle East.

Widely ignored in the international media has been the recent construction work on a cement wall, to replace what was formerly a military fence placed inside the northern portion of the Tulkarem governorate in the West Bank. It should be noted that Tulkarem, more specifically the Nour al-Shams refugee camp in the area, has been a flashpoint for Israeli military raids and a location from which locally formed armed groups have used light weapons to confront those invading forces.

Another location where Israel has been constructing a new segment of its separation wall is in the West Bank governorate of Jenin. The structure's construction is continuing to the west of the northern West Bank city, and situated right behind it is an Israeli highway, followed by a settlement. Although Israel had already constructed a militarized fence in the area, to divide Palestinians from Israelis, erecting the wall on Palestinian land quite literally cements the annexation of the territory.

Yet, it is not only the Israeli separation wall and newly announced settlement expansion which is impacting the status quo inside the West Bank. The Israeli military has set up an unprecedented number of gates, dirt mounds, and other obstacles, to block roads throughout the occupied territory. In Palestinian villages surrounding the city of Ramallah for instance, Israeli forces set up 28 gates in a single day following the outbreak of war in Gaza. While there is often the most attention placed upon around 100 permanent checkpoints in the occupied territory, with temporary checkpoints bringing that total into the thousands yearly, roadblocks and gates can have an even more strangling effect on daily life for Palestinian residents.

As a result of the closure of gates, and roads with dirt mounds or cement blocks, Palestinians living inside villages or towns are effectively isolated from the rest of the territory. Instead of being able to travel in cars to their jobs, or to transport goods like foods or agricultural products, they are restricted to traveling on foot. Sometimes residents stay home altogether, especially when Israeli soldiers are present and they fear persecution at crossings out of their villages. Some of the worst areas for such closures are situated in the Southern West Bank governorate of al-Khalil (Hebron).

Ubai al-Aboudi, the executive director of Palestinian rights group ‘Bisan Center’, told RT that due to Israeli measures in the West Bank since October 7, “unemployment rates have increased dramatically, we have seen a huge number of Palestinians that are not able to provide food for their families”. He added that “what we have seen is a doubling of the number of Palestinians that are food insecure in the West Bank, there were 300,000 before October 7 and now there are 600,000”.

In February, the Israeli Knesset voted through a bill that backed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s voiced rejection of any unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State. This has again revived fears of a major de-jure annexation by Israel of areas inside the West Bank. The Netanyahu cabinet, in December 2017, managed to pass a bill which ordered the government to begin working to implement an annexation plan. Beginning in early 2023, the current Israeli ruling coalition began quietly handing over areas of the West Bank that were formerly under military control to civilian control.

According to Ubai al-Aboudi, the separation wall, gates and checkpoints are all components of Israel’s overarching plan to confiscate more Palestinian land: “The Apartheid wall has never been to do with security measures, but rather a means to steal more Palestinian lands and to exert and continue its control over the Palestinian population. The new parts of the wall that are being built are intended to confiscate land, they declare areas as “no access zones” close to the wall and this allows them to push back the people and take control of more territory.”

Under the cover of the Gaza war, while the cameras were focused elsewhere, Israeli state-backed settler groups called “defense squads” have expelled some 16 different Palestinian communities in the South Hebron Hills area. In addition to this, entire villages have been invaded and the populations displaced by settlers, drawing comparisons to the 1948 Nakba (ethnic cleansing of Palestine). At least 427 Palestinians have also been killed in the West Bank since October 7, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry while the number of Israeli soldiers operating inside the territory is now larger than the invading force present in Gaza. In fact, the Israeli military even transferred its elite Duvdevan unit from Gaza into the West Bank back in January.

Read more

When asked what has changed in terms of the environment of violence in the West Bank since the beginning of the Gaza war, Ubai al-Aboudi shared the following:

“Look, before October 7 there were 235 Palestinians killed in the West Bank that year, which was a record when compared to previous years. So, can I say that the Israeli forces have become more cruel or committed more violence? I’d say that they have been more open in their acceptance of violence, the army has lost its checks and balances in their system, and it has been more tolerated that Israeli settlers and soldiers attack Palestinians. Is this something completely out of the norm? No. Israeli soldiers and settlers have been attacking Palestinians since the start of the occupation, what has changed here is that they’ve lost control over the situation and the rate of attacks has intensified.”

As Israeli forces disrupt daily life for the Palestinian residents of the West Bank, with the construction of new walls, checkpoints, gates and road blocks, the armed confrontations between Palestinian localized armed groups and Israeli forces continue. If the rate of settlement expansion, settler violence and raids which aim at destroying infrastructure inside Palestinian refugee camps, is to be coupled with the economic decline that has come as a byproduct of Israeli aggression, it makes for a tough year ahead in the occupied territory. The US government asserts its position as favoring a Two State solution, yet the Israeli government’s actions inside the West Bank are making this solution even more impossible than prior to October 7. All of this occurs under the fog of war, where unprecedented measures are tolerated in the West Bank, as the international community fixates on Gaza.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The former head of the Reserve Bank of India Raghuram Rajan is not wrong about the economy being a “work in progress.” But he overlooks PM Modi’s strategy of growing it to $30 trillion by 2047

Last week Raghuram Rajan, former governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and former International Monetary Fund (IMF) Chief Economist, renewed his criticism of the management of the Indian economy, cautioning against falling for what he believes to be “hype” about the country’s current growth trajectory.

The context is India’s unexpected surge in economic growth for the third quarter of 2023. While most analysts expected a growth of 6.4% for the quarter, the actual numbers came in at a staggering 8.4% – given the momentum in growth, there is every reason to believe India will clock a very impressive 8% for 2023-24.

Implicit in this growth surprise was the suggestion that India was exploring a new trend rate of growth – around 7%, compared to the existing 6%.

Rajan’s reaction was an argument that it would be a mistake to buy into this claim.

“The greatest mistake India can make is to believe the hype [about growth]. We have got many more years of hard work to do to ensure the hype is real. Believing the hype is something politicians want you to believe because they want you to believe that we have arrived,” he said.

The official reaction was not long in coming. Economists like Arvind Virmani, former chief economic adviser and presently member of government policy think tank Niti Aayog, and Arvind Panagariya, chairman of the newly constituted 16th Finance Commission, dismissed Rajan’s criticism.

Read more

In an unkind cut, Virmani accused Rajan of thinking like a parachute economist – an expert attached to multilateral institutions but equipped with little or no knowledge on the local economy and offering just policy advice.

To be fair to the government, analysts, both in the private sector and in multilateral institutions, have collectively flagged India’s growth potential. They are inspired by its ability to ride out the unprecedented back-to-back shocks, beginning with the Covid-19 pandemic, and then to thrive in subsequent years. This resilience, they argue, is inspired by the series of structural reforms undertaken by the government in this period.

Message vs Messenger

Frankly, the problem here is not with the message but with the messenger.

Rajan, through his public association with Rahul Gandhi, the former President of the Indian National Congress, India’s principal opposition party, especially in talking up some quixotic economic ideas propounded by Gandhi, has moved out of the neutral corner. To be sure, officially he is not a member of the Congress party.

However, in public life, like in politics, it is not what you do, but what you are seen to be doing.

Rajan is perceived as aligning politically with a party that is dead opposed to the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA). As a result, the former governor’s trenchant critique has come to be viewed with suspicion as motivated.

Shorn of politics, Rajan is arguing that India is a work in progress. Ironically, the NDA, too, believes this.

Given that it is general-election season in India – with polling to begin on April 19 and continue till June 1, the NDA is showcasing its success in fixing legacy deficits with respect to access to basics like toilets, banking, cooking gas, electricity, drinking water, health insurance, internet, and so on.

Read more

Staking claim to this achievement, NDA coined a moniker around their star campaigner, Prime Minister Narendra Modi: “Modi ki guarantee” (Modi's guarantee). In almost every public rally or speech since then, Modi has invoked this slogan to promise “unprecedented prosperity” in the next five years if voted back to power.

Effectively, the prime minister is arguing that, having resolved the foundational handicaps, the stage is set to launch the next phase of India’s growth that would be far more inclusive than what had been achieved in the first six decades. Implicitly, the NDA is accepting the fact that India is a work in progress—exactly what Rajan is saying.

India@2047

Where they differ is in their respective beliefs and the plan to deliver on India’s growth potential.

Even before the general election bugle was sounded the NDA signaled that it had a plan for India to evolve into a developed country by 2047, when its economy would measure $30 trillion – an audacious claim, given that at present it is $3.7 trillion. It has already promised an active first 100 days in office, if reelected.

READ MORE: Top-down or bottom-up? As elections approach, Modi-led party is set to test two economic philosophies

The ideological underpinning of this strategy is that a strong economy is a necessary condition for India to acquire military and diplomatic clout. A teaser shared by Niti Aayog reveals that India’s per-capita income will double to $4,418 by 2030 and then grow to $10,021 by 2040 and $17,590 by 2047.

Indeed, if this was to happen, then the deficits cited by Rajan, such as literacy and skilling, must be overcome. While the NDA believes this will be achieved, Rajan disagrees. But this is a case of ‘he said, she said’. Either claim can only be verified over time.

Till then, whatever be the motivations, it is best for both sides to agree to disagree.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Washington and London are claiming Beijing sponsored a cybercrime campaign against them three years ago. Why did they wait until now?

In March, the UK, in conjunction with the US and other members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, accused China of engaging in a state-sponsored hacking campaign against them. In response to the alleged 'attack' they launched coordinated sanctions against a small group of hackers and their associated businesses.

The sanctions were particularly big news in Britain, where the government suddenly decided that Beijing had been behind a hack on the electoral commission three years ago. Notably, the country’s Conservative party-aligned newspapers all pushed this narrative in an aggressive fashion.

These accusations by the Five Eyes nations are not so much genuine concerns as they are a deliberate and opportunistic act of political theatre which, largely driven by the US, seeks to slander China for diplomatic and political gain. The sanctions, although narrow in scope and thus meaningless, are designed to try and send a message to and about China. It is essentially a fearmongering campaign, which seeks to both undermine Beijing’s engagement with other countries and serve domestic political purposes in the US.

The rhythm of US escalation and de-escalation with China

The US has an adept foreign policy whereby it intentionally chooses to escalate and de-escalate tensions with China at opportune moments, which is precisely why calls for “engagement” with Beijing coming from Washington D.C. cannot be trusted. The US does not change its goals or its policies, only its tactics in consideration of what suits it at that particular moment. Hence it has always alternated between overtures and deliberate provocations. It usually does so by having a certain report or development leaked to the media at an opportunistic time, in order to craft a particular narrative which mandates a certain set of reactions and policy responses.

Read more

To give some examples of such, the Trump administration played down tensions with China directly in 2019, even amidst the Hong Kong crisis, in order to secure a “trade deal” with Beijing. Once it got what it wanted by 2020, and the Covid-19 pandemic struck, it deliberately unleashed a full-on crusade against Beijing on every front. Similarly, the Biden administration came into office and then immediately upped tensions with China on the Xinjiang issue in order to damage China’s ties with Europe in a build-up to coordinated sanctions as a display of transatlantic unity.

After this was done, it then decided it wanted to “cool” things down for a bit and establish “guardrails” so the rhetoric guns went silent for a few months as Washington reached out to Beijing. Then, as the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics came, it took the “Xinjiang card” off the shelf again with a number of timed leaks and publications geared towards supporting a Winter Olympics boycott, as well as a sweeping ban on all Xinjiang goods under the premise of “forced labour” at that time.

What we see is that the US does not truly de-escalate with China, it “blows hot and cold” and essentially manipulates the media cycle to pursue its policy preferences as it sees fit. This means that major issues pertaining to China only tend to appear when there is an agenda serving it.

The newest phase

Now, the Biden administration has made a political design to escalate tensions with China by accusing it, in coordination with the Five Eyes, of state-backed hacking and cybercrime. The fact that the British government would sit on such an accusation for three years suggests both clear political purpose and timing. The question is, why? First, we are approaching a Presidential election in the US. It was always an inevitability that the administration would want to appear “tough” on China to prevent the issue from being used as an attack point by Biden’s rival, Donald Trump. As seen in 2020, an election year tends to become a year of very aggressive rhetoric and extreme theatrics.

Secondly, there is the goal of undermining China’s engagement with Europe. It has been publicly announced that Xi Jinping will visit a number of European countries in May, including France. As stated above, the US, with the support of the Five Eyes countries, actively seeks to damage Chinese diplomacy with Europe by weaponizing negative publicity in order to narrow political space for engagement.

What we see from this is that the US engages China on its own terms, but seeks to prevent those it deems as “allies” from doing the same, and thus resorts to psychological warfare through the manipulation of mass media.

In conclusion, when one sees these strategies being utilised, one recognises that the Western media has far less independence and impartiality than it claims to have, but is indirectly subject to the preferences of US policy. W

hen the White House says “jump”, reporters ask, “how high?” and thus we see that a new propaganda campaign has been cultivated against Beijing, but of course, we should not be blind to the reality that there is no greater weaponisation of cyberspace and espionage in the world than the system created by the Five Eyes. And are we really going to pretend the CIA doesn’t hack anyone?

Медиа: image / jpeg

Hundreds of millions of dollars is being funneled to religious NGOs to entice and support illegal immigrants across the southern border

At a time when millions of Americans are homeless and in need of medical treatment, Washington is more concerned with playing host to millions of illegal immigrants south of the border.

How many Americans would like to receive cash debit cards, food, clothing, medical treatment, shelter, and even “humanitarian transportation” for doing absolutely nothing, aside from breaking the law? Well, sorry, because American citizens don’t qualify for the massive handout that surpasses $1.6 billion dollars, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. The freebies are going to millions of US-bound migrants in 17 Latin American nations and Mexico instead.

In what was once a matter of quiet speculation is now an open secret: the Biden administration is using hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fund a variety of NGO initiatives aimed at helping illegal immigrants enter the US from Latin America and Mexico.

Under the auspices of a United Nations-led “Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan (RMRP),” the US State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have been sending taxpayer funds to various religious nonprofit organizations, which then dangle the juicy enticements before thousands of migrants, opening the floodgates to a wave of illegal US southern border crossings.

Read more

Exhibit number one. With an estimated 25% of the US population declaring membership in the Catholic Church, it might be expected that this denomination and its various offshoot organizations would spend the bulk of its funds tending to its American flock. Shockingly, that is not the case.

The prominent Catholic Charities USA and its various related agencies, for example, while not among those operating south of the border alongside the United Nations, receive “tens of millions of dollars in federal subsidies to oversee illegal immigrant transportation” north of the Rio Grande and resettlement operations to various sanctuary cities inside of the US.

At the same time, some 13 franchises of the nonprofit Caritas, whose website proudly pronounces that it is “inspired by the Catholic faith” and is “the helping hand of the Church,” will allocate $12.3 million to immigrants south of the border, much of it as hard cash, according to the UN database.

According to USA spending ( here and here), and cited by Todd Bensman of CIS, USAID and the State Department’s PRM have doled out in excess of $11 million to the NGO Caritas Brazil, since the mass migration program started in 2021, including $3 million pledged through December 2024 to “overseas refugee assistance programs for the Western Hemisphere” that include “food, non-food items, shelter, health, [and] psychosocial support.”

It can’t go unnoticed that the same sanctuary cities that are putting illegal immigrants up in hotels while giving them free meal tickets, are the same places where thousands of tent cities overflowing with homeless people – many of them with serious medical problems and deadly addictions – have popped up over the last five years. Are the churches and various religious organizations opening their doors to these needy citizens? Judging by the deplorable state of the streets in America, it certainly doesn’t look like it, nor does the Biden administration seem to care.

Another example of a religious nonprofit serving as “co-smuggler” in the illegal trafficking of human flesh is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, which has pledged $17.1 million in assistance to immigrants in at least seven Latin American nations during 2024, according to the UN’s RMRP planning documents. In fiscal year 2022, 47% of revenue reported by HIAS was the result of grants from government organizations, primarily from the State Department, but also from the Department of Homeland Security, according to the group’s tax filings and other sources, with the rest deriving from powerful corporate sponsors and other sources.

Read more

Meanwhile, in just the last year, the State Department’s PRM and USAID have forked over to the International Organization of Migration $1.4 billion, by far the highest amount on record, according to USAspending.gov.

So what’s going on here? Why is the Biden administration so obsessed with using taxpayer dollars to fund a massive influx of illegal immigrants into the country at a time when America already has enough poor people to take care of? Is it really the case that the Democrats are working on behalf of strictly humanitarian interests, or is something else at play? When dealing with the world of politics, it’s not a bad idea to think more in terms of power, not compassion.

In a nutshell, the Biden administration hopes to attract as many illegal immigrants into the country and turn them into loyal voters so Democrats can create a permanent one-party state. And judging by the outstanding numbers, the cynical strategy just might work.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) report for fiscal 2023 shows that the number of non-detained illegal immigrants has surged from 3.7 million in FY 2021 to nearly 4.8 million in FY 2022 and almost 6.2 million in FY 2023, making Joe Biden – in cahoots with faith-based NGOs – the greatest smuggler of human beings in the history of the United States.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Once the US has its claws in a country, it won’t let go easily – and friend or foe, you’ll be left drained and broken

‘March Madness’ is such a NATO thing. The Western military alliance routinely kicks off conflicts in foreign countries during this particular month, most recently Serbia (1999), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011). In that last case, it took a few years for the US to actually invade, but the sanctions and the covert support of anti-government forces began right away.

Remember Bashar Assad, the Syrian president who simply ‘had to go’, according to everyone from then-UK Prime Minister David Cameron, and then-Secretary of State John Kerry, to then-Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni Silveri. Whatever happened to Assad, anyway? Turns out that he’s still living a quiet life as president of Syria, and hardly ever finds his name being rolled around in the mouths of NATO’s regime change enthusiasts anymore.

Nearly a decade after mounting a propaganda campaign to support a US-led NATO invasion of the country, the State Department’s special envoy to the conflict, Ambassador James Jeffrey, confirmed in 2020 that the US was no longer seeking Assad’s ouster. Instead, he said, it wanted to see “a dramatic shift in behavior,” evoking Japan’s transformation in the wake of the US dropping a couple of bombs on it during World War II.

That’s quite the policy shift. But it can be explained in exactly the same way that a guy who lusts after a girl and gets shot down suddenly starts telling people that he was never really into her anyway. The attitude changed because Washington had no choice. It had tried just about everything, and failed.

Read more

The anti-Syrian propaganda, now virtually non-existent, had for years been relentless. We were told that Assad had simply lost control of the country, and that the US and its allies couldn’t risk having ISIS terrorists running around as a threat and trying to establish a caliphate in Syria because Assad simply wasn’t able to stop them. And whenever he did try, he was conveniently accused of humanitarian offenses. So of course, here comes Uncle Sam to ‘help’ get rid of ISIS, and also Assad – totally without any humanitarian issues, because American bombs aren’t like that.

In the process, the CIA and Pentagon spent billions of dollars training and equipping ‘Syrian rebels’, many of whom bailed out to join other jihadist groups, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda, taking their shiny new weapons with them.

There’s a glaring parallel here with Ukraine, which risks following a similar trajectory with Western involvement and patronage. Even before the current conflict, the CIA-linked Freedom House and others had questioned the extent to which far-right extremists controlled the country. Major Western media outlets were publishing pieces referencing Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem. So it looks like the same argument could someday be used on Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky – that he’s lost control of the country to extremists. And just like the West trained extremists in Syria under the guise of helping, they’ve done the exact same thing in Ukraine by training and equipping the Azov neo-Nazi fighters.

So what happened to those ‘Syrian rebels’, anyway? Since Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan didn’t want a festering jihadist nest right next door, and knowing exactly who those fighters were ever since a NATO base in Türkiye served as a staging ground for the mission to support them, he ultimately airlifted them en masse (an estimated 18,000 of them) to go fight – and die – in another war that NATO had also kicked off in Libya. So, problem solved. But the move raises a question for Ukraine’s future. What are all the Western-trained neo-Nazis going to do when the dust settles in Ukraine, if Russia doesn’t complete its stated mission of de-Nazification?

Former French intelligence chief Alain Juillet has noted that the terrorist troubles in Syria just happened to arise three weeks after Assad’s selection in 2011 of an Iranian-Iraqi pipeline through Syria, rather than a Saudi-Qatari pipeline. The competing pipeline plans would provide a way for either Iran or Qatar to ship natural gas to Europe from the Iranian-Qatari South Pars/North Dome gas field, thus eliminating the high cost of transporting the gas by tankers. So the impetus for intervention was likely economic, as is typically the case. There’s also little question that the West has always wanted to control Syria as a means of containing Iran.

Read more

Not only did that plan backfire, but spectacularly so. By 2015, then-US President Barack Obama, who at one point weighed conducting airstrikes on the country, was asking Syrian allies Russia and Iran to work with the US to “resolve the conflict.” He stated that “we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo.” The US had gone from guns ablaze regime-change mode, to asking ‘pretty please’ permission of Syrian allies Russia and Iran to help them do it.

Both Iran and Russia had entered the conflict militarily at the request of Assad’s government to help stabilize the country, with Moscow first entering the scene when fighting got too close for comfort to its warm water base for the Black Sea Fleet in Tartus. So basically, Russia was called in to help clean up the mess that the US and NATO had made of the country. And by December 2018, when I asked Russian President Vladimir Putin at his annual press conference whether then-US President Donald Trump was right about ISIS being defeated in Syria, he agreed.

So Trump yanked out the US special forces troops who had been deployed to the country, and declared that America would only keep hanging around where the oil was, in Syria’s eastern oil fields. “Our mission is the enduring defeat of ISIS,” the Pentagon chief said, attempting to reframe Trump’s crass admission. Yeah, right – because it’s not enough that ISIS isn’t really a problem anymore. Uncle Sam has to stick around to make sure that they never come back, ever again. Guess there’s no chance of just heading home and kicking back with a few beers and waiting to see if it’s actually going to be a problem in the future? Nope! Not when so much has been invested in establishing an in-country military footprint that just happens to be right on top of the biggest pile of Syria’s natural resources – the kind that have been the topic of CIA intelligence directorate reports since at least 1986. In December 2023, Syrian Oil Minister Firas Hassan Kaddour evoked the plan to “liberate” the oil fields from US occupation.

Peace in Syria was only possible because of Russia helping to eliminate the troublemakers. Has Zelensky considered what his own future might look like if Russia doesn’t actually succeed in doing the same in Ukraine – and that maybe Russia achieving its goals wouldn’t actually be the worst thing that could happen? The Ukrainian president is already being accused of “consolidating power,” by the State Department-backed media, and has canceled presidential elections. If he doesn’t get a handle on the hoodlums, like the ones in the Ternopol regional council busy giving out awards named after famous Ukrainian Nazis to other famous Ukrainian Nazis, then he’s ripe for the Assad treatment. And if he’s too harsh with them, then he risks being accused, like Assad, of undemocratic heavy-handedness. And at the very least, Ukraine ‘winning’ means that Zelensky is going to have to let his new friends hang out and take what they want for as long as they want to – as the Syria case proves. The West lost in Syria and still won’t go home. Imagine if it had actually been able to have free run of the place. Maybe there’s something worse than a Russian ‘win’ for Ukraine: Permanent occupiers who use friendship as a pretext to stick around and suck the country dry.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The CIA head’s vision for the future of America’s ongoing confrontation with Russia is depressingly shortsighted

William J. Burns has published a long piece in Foreign Affairs under the title ' Spycraft and Statecraft. Transforming the CIA for an Age of Competition'. This is an essay likely to be read with great attention, maybe even parsed, not only by an American elite audience, but also abroad, in, say, Moscow, Beijing, and New Delhi, for several reasons. Burns is, of course, the head of the CIA as well as an acknowledged heavyweight of US geopolitics – in the state and deep-state versions.

Few publications rival Foreign Affairs’ cachet as a US establishment forum and mouthpiece. While Burns’ peg is a plea to appreciate the importance of human intelligence agents, his agenda is much broader: In effect, what he has released is a set of strategic policy recommendations, embedded in a global tour d’horizon. And, last but not least, Burns is, of course, not the sole author. Even if he should have penned every line himself, this is a programmatic declaration from a powerful faction of the American “siloviki,” the men (and women) wielding the still gargantuan hard power of the US empire.

By the way, whether he has noticed or not, Burns’ intervention cannot but bring to mind another intelligent spy chief loyally serving a declining empire. Yury Andropov, former head of the KGB (and then, for a brief period, the whole Soviet Union) would have agreed with his CIA counterpart on the importance of “human assets,” especially in an age of technological progress, and he would also have appreciated the expansive sweep of Burns’ vision. Indeed, with Burns putting himself so front-and-center, one cannot help but wonder if he is not also, tentatively, preparing the ground for reaching for the presidency one day. After all, in the US, George Bush senior famously went from head of the CIA to head of it all, too.

There is no doubt that this CIA director is a smart and experienced man principally capable of realism, unlike all too many others in the current American elite. Famously, he warned in 2008, when serving as ambassador to Moscow, that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).” That makes the glaring flaws in this big-picture survey all the more remarkable.

Read more

Burns is, obviously, correct when he observes that the US – and the world as a whole – is facing a historically rare moment of “profound” change in the global order. And – with one exception which we will return to – it would be unproductive, perhaps even a little churlish, to quibble over his ideologically biased terminology. His mislabeling of Russia as “revanchist,” for instance, has a petty ring to it. “Resurgent” would be a more civil as well as more truthful term, capturing the fact that the country is simply returning to its normal international minimum status (for at least the last three hundred years), namely that of a second-to-none great power.

Yet Burns’ agenda is more important than his terminology. While it may be complex, parts of it are as clear as can be: He is eager (perhaps desperate) to prevent Washington from ending its massive aid for Ukraine – a battle he is likely to lose. In the Middle East, he wants to focus Western aggression on Iran. He may get his will there, but that won’t be a winning strategy because, in part thanks to multipolar trend setters, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, Iran’s escape from the isolation that the US has long imposed on it is already inevitable.

Regarding China, Burns’ real target is a competing faction of American hawks, namely those who argue that, bluntly put, Washington should write off its losses in Ukraine and concentrate all its firepower on China. Burns wants to persuade his readers that the US can have both its big fight against China and its proxy war against Russia.

He is also engaged in a massive act of CIA boosterism, clearly aiming to increase the clout of the already inordinately powerful state-within-a-state he happens to run himself. And last but not least, the spy-in-chief has unearthed one of the oldest tricks in the subversion and destabilization playbook: Announcing loudly that his CIA is on a recruiting spree in Russia, he seeks to promote a little paranoia in Moscow. Good luck attempting to pull that one on the country that gave us the term “agentura.” Moreover, after the horrific terror attack on Crocus City Hall in Moscow, it is fair to assume that Burns regrets having boasted about the CIA expanding its “work” in Russia. Not a good look, not at all.

What matters more, though, than his verbal sallies and his intriguingly straightforward, even blunt aims, are three astonishingly crude errors: First, Burns insists on reading the emerging outcome of the war in Ukraine as a “failure on many levels,” for Russia, revealing its, as he believes, economic, political, and military weakness. Yet, as the acknowledged American economist James K. Galbraith has recently reiterated, the West’s economic war on Russia has backfired. The Russian economy is now stronger, more resilient, and independent of the West than never before.

As to the military, Burns for instance, gleefully counts the tanks that Russia has lost and fails to note the ones it is building at a rapid rate not matched anywhere inside NATO. In general, he fails to mention just how worried scores of Western experts have come to be, realizing that Moscow is overseeing a massive and effective expansion of military production. A curious oversight for an intelligence professional. He also seems to miss just how desperate Ukraine’s situation has become on the ground.

Read more

And politics – really? The man who serves Joe Biden, most likely soon to be replaced by Donald Trump, is spotting lack of popularity and fragility in Moscow, and his key piece of evidence is Prigozhin and his doomed mutiny? This part of Burns’ article is so detached from reality that one wonders if this is still the same person reporting on Russian red lines in 2008. The larger point he cannot grasp is that, historically, Russia has a pattern of starting wars on the wrong foot – to then learn, mobilize, focus, and win.

Burns’ second severe mistake is his argument that, ultimately, only China can pose a serious challenge to the US. This is staggeringly shortsighted for two reasons: First, Russia has just shown that it can defeat the West in a proxy war. Once that victory will be complete, a declining but still important part of the American empire, NATO/EU-Europe will have to deal with the after-effects (no, not Russian invasion, but political backlash, fracturing, and instability). If Burns thinks that blowback in Europe is no serious threat to US interests, one can only envy his nonchalance.

Secondly, his entire premise is perfectly misguided: It makes no sense to divide the Russian and the Chinese potentials analytically because they are now closely linked in reality. It is, among other things, exactly a US attempt to knock out Russia first to then deal with China that has just failed. Instead, their partnership has become more solid.

And error number three is, perhaps, even odder: As mentioned above, Burns’ language is a curious hybrid between an analytical and an intemperate idiom. A sophisticated reader can only wince in vicarious embarrassment at hearing a CIA director complain of others’ “brutish” behavior. What’s worse: the tub-thumping or the stones-and-glasshouse cringe? Mostly, though, this does not matter.

Yet there is one case where these fits of verbal coarseness betray something even worse than rhetorical bravado: Describing Hamas’ 7 October assault as “butchery,” Burns finds nothing but an “intense ground campaign” on Israel’s side. Let’s set aside that this expression is a despicable euphemism, when much of the world rightly sees a genocide taking place in Gaza, with US support. It also bespeaks an astounding failure of the strategic imagination: In the same essay, Burns notes correctly that the weight of the Global South is increasing, and that, in essence, the great powers will have to compete for allegiances that are no longer, as he puts is, “monogamous.” Good luck then putting America’s bizarre come-what-may loyalty to Israel first. A CIA director at least should still be able to distinguish between the national interests of his own country and the demands of Tel Aviv.

Burns’ multipronged strike in the realm of elite public debate leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. It is genuinely disappointing to see so much heavy-handed rhetoric and such basic errors of analysis from one of the less deluded members of the American establishment. It is also puzzling. Burns is not amateurish like Antony Blinken or a fanatic without self-awareness, such as Victoria Nuland. Yet here he is, putting his name to a text that often seems sloppy and transparent in its simple and short-sighted motivations. Has the US establishment decayed so badly that even its best and brightest now come across as sadly unimpressive?

Медиа: image / jpeg

How did crown jewels from Ghana end up in London, and is there any way to bring them back home?

At the end of January, the British Museum and Victoria & Albert (V&A) Museum announced that more than 30 Asante ‘crown jewels’, gold artifacts that once belonged to the royals of Asante (or Ashanti) in modern-day Ghana, would be brought to the Ghanaian city of Kumasi in April.

This, however, is only a loan deal between the UK museums and the Ghanaian Manhyia Palace Museum. British laws ban museums from permanently returning contested artifacts to their original owners, which means that despite the announced ‘repatriation’, the golden items, illegally extracted some 150 years ago, will only be temporarily placed in Ghana. Will they ever be returned for good?

Historical artifacts aptly depict the culture of a people. Given the waning influence of African traditional institutions, largely eroded by Westernization and cultural importation, societal narratives find resonance when historical events and souvenirs are relied upon. When discussing the legacy of culture, tracing back to a time of overpowering community influence on legal, religious, and nuptial relationships, these artifacts lend credence to the veracity of handed-down stories.

Despite fluctuations in the gold trade over the years, Africa’s role as a significant player in the gold market is firmly established. In 2022, a cohort consisting of Switzerland, the UK, US, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates accounted for about 60.6% of global gold sales. However, Africa still holds over 40% of the world’s gold reserves. This reality underscores the enduring importance of the continent in the gold industry.

Central to this narrative is the story of the Ashanti Gold. The Ashanti region, formerly known as Asante, holds historical significance for its involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade during the 19th century. Despite this dark past, it was also renowned for its exquisite gold and brass craftsmanship, as well as its production of Kente, a brightly colored woven cloth. These contributions to the global trade market earned the region, which later became part of Ghana, the moniker ‘Gold Coast’.

It was an easily targeted spot for slave traders and gold grabbers who covertly masqueraded as traders. Therefore, it features prominently in the African historical narrative of capital and human exploitation by Europeans. Dr. Judith Spicksley, a historian at the Wilberforce Institute for the Study of Slavery and Emancipation (WISE) at the University of Hull, in her seminal article ‘Pawns on the Gold Coast’, describes how early in the trade relationship, Europeans took gold pawns as security for debt. However, as unorthodox rules for slave operations weakened and the lust for more gold overshadowed the emergent supply, Europeans turned increasingly toward the use of human pawns. This is no different from other exploitative processes that led to the loss of precious resources on the continent.

Read more

Official evidence of the looting of Ashanti Gold began during the Anglo-Asante War of 1874, when Britain’s military invasion of the Kumasi empire, sitting on the largest gold reserves in the region, inflicted much damage. Armed with explosives and superior firearms, the British military went on a sordid quest for Ashanti’s Gold Royal regalia – like the Mponponsuo sword created 300 years ago by the Kingdom’s Okomfo (spiritual leader) Anokye, which led the list of looted items in 1874. Under the pretext of ending slavery, British military incursions and lopsided trade treaties enforced with superior military might on African leaders occurred. Leaders who resisted were exiled, like the Asantehene Agyeman Prempeh, who was exiled to Seychelles in 1874.

The British established trading ports, ensuring Britain declared itself a legitimate ruler on foreign soil. The rulers of several African kingdoms acted as middlemen in these trades, often against their will, but had to consent for self-preservation. The spoils from these conquered kingdoms paid for these wars. In Asante, the Asantahene, ruler of the Ashanti people, signed the harsh Treaty of Fomena in July 1874 to end the war. A standout clause in the treaty between Queen Victoria and Kofi Karikari, King of Ashanti, was the payment of 50,000 ounces (over 1,400kg) of approved gold as indemnity for the expenses caused to the Queen of England by the war. Britain incurred costs from these wars at the expense of its opponents, destroying Africa’s biggest empires.

1874 wasn’t the only instance of looting. In 1896, ceremonial swords, cups, and other vital items measuring a palace’s royalty were stolen. In his 2020 book ‘The Brutish Museums: The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution’, Dan Hicks, a British archaeologist, anthropologist, and professor at the University of Oxford, repudiates the presence of these artifacts in Western museums, which perpetuates a narrative of colonial superiority and cultural dominance while erasing the histories and voices of the communities from which they were stolen.

Although discussions about the restitution of African artifacts predate independence in most African countries, they intensified in the latter half of the 20th century. Archaeologist and Nigeria’s head of the Federal Department of Antiquities, Ekpo Eyo, sent circulars to several European embassies in 1972 about the repatriation of the Benin Bronzes (thousands of 14th- to 16th-century plaques and sculptures taken by the British from the African Kingdom of Benin in the late 19th century) and spurred official pronouncements like the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. This convention offers a shared framework among state parties regarding actions required to prohibit and prevent cultural property import, export, and transfer.

The convention emphasizes that the return and restitution of these cultural properties are the linchpin of the convention, which mandates safeguarding the identity of peoples and promoting peaceful societies to strengthen the spirit of solidarity and stifle the expansionary rise of black-market trades across the continent.

Read more

After 150 years, the Ashanti Gold artifacts are held in various museums around the world, including major museums in Europe and North America. The British Museum in London holds 32 of the 39 historical artifacts, while seven treasures are at the Fowler Museum of the University of California in Los Angeles. Other minor artifacts, which receive little attention, are held in museums such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, the Musee du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac in Paris, and other smaller regional museums or private collections.

In restitution efforts for the Ashanti Gold artifacts, complex legal and logistical hurdles are at play. Firstly, there has to be established provenance through examining documentation, archives, and historical records, owing to the difficulty arising from the long years of history and multiple transfers. Variations in international laws governing the repatriation of cultural property also add to the myriad of challenges. Transporting the artifacts from current holders to their destination and settling associated legal disputes or financial concerns provides further complication. Collaboration among international partners toward this is essential for successfully repatriating these artifacts.

In conclusion, this extensive discussion about restitution aims to deepen existing Euro-African diplomatic relationships. The emphasis on restitution primarily lies in its utility as a building block for reconciliation; it aims to rectify pre-colonial injustices, foster international dialogue, and advance the growing bilateral trade between countries on both continents. The Ghana restitution experience will provide the policy framework and lead the roundtable engagement for restitution claims from other countries in Africa. As noted earlier, this action will not only demonstrate contrition but also make the most declarative statement from the West and other collaborators regarding their penitence during this ruinous expedition in colonial Africa.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Rising cost of living, disappointment with political leaders, and crushing loneliness are souring moods in the Land of the Free

From a sputtering economy and high inflation to a lack of trust in political leadership, Americans are expressing displeasure with many facets of their daily lives.

In the annual World Happiness Report, the United States plunged eight places to 23rd, a historic low for the land famous for its pearly white smiles. It’s the first time since the report launched back in 2012 that the US did not feature among the world’s 20 happiest countries.

So what’s dragging Americans down? Perhaps the best place to start is with the economy, which has left many people in the dust as the rich just keep getting richer. Consumer prices for basic grocery items remain above what they were in January 2021, when President Joe Biden assumed office. Prices for chicken (+26%), bread (+30%), sugar (+44%), and butter (+27%) are enough to trigger many shoppers, while a simple trip to a restaurant has become a rare luxury for many financially strapped consumers. Meanwhile, rent costs have surged by 20% over the same period.

Amid this sticker shock at the checkout line, Americans have also expressed a heavy amount of skepticism with the political system. A comprehensive Pew Research Center survey reveals high levels of dissatisfaction with the three branches of government, the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as the candidates for office.

Read more

Among the findings, just 4% of US adults say the political system is working extremely or very well; another 23% report it is working somewhat well. About six in ten (63%) express not too much or no confidence at all in the future of the US political system.

A growing proportion of Americans are expressing contempt for both political parties. Nearly three in ten (28%) express unfavorable opinions of both parties, the highest share in three decades of polling. And a comparable share of respondents (25%) do not feel well-represented by either party.

While trust in government has remained near historic lows for much of the last two decades, today it stands among the lowest levels dating back nearly seven decades. And now, three years after the January 6 protests at the Capitol Building, more Americans believe their country is heading for a political smash-up.

According to a CBS/YouGov poll released in January, 49% of respondents expect some sort of violence in future political contests, like the upcoming showdown between Donald Trump and Joe Biden on November 4. Meanwhile, a full 70% agreed with the statement that American democracy is ‘threatened’.

Not since the Civil War period have the American people witnessed such stark political divisions, and it seems to be just a matter of time before the Blue and Gray battle fatigues are back in style, albeit over entirely different issues.

The Democrats and Republicans are trapped inside of their own iron-clad echo chambers, where they are prevented from hearing their political opponents just across the aisle. This lack of a national dialogue, worsened by an overtly pro-liberal media, is what spawned the so-called insurrection on January 6, and could easily trigger a new bout of violence sometime down the road.

Feelings of loneliness is another thing dragging Americans down. In May 2023, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called loneliness a “public health epidemic.” The latest Healthy Minds Monthly Poll from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reveals that, early in 2024, 30% of adults said they have “experienced feelings of loneliness at least once a week over the past year, while 10% say they are lonely every day.”

Read more

Somewhat surprisingly, younger people were more likely to experience these feelings, with 30% of Americans aged 18-34 reporting they are “lonely every day or several times a week, and single adults are nearly twice as likely as married adults to say they have been lonely on a weekly basis over the past year (39% vs. 22%).”

Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that approximately one in ten Americans aged 12 and over takes antidepressant medication. More than 60% of Americans taking antidepressant medication have taken it for two years or longer, with 14% having taken the medication for ten years or more.

So what is it that has put the American people in a grand funk? Needless to say, runaway inflation has prompted a deep distrust of politicians and corporations, which, by the look of things, are only in business to fleece the powerless consumers.

This alienation from the powers-that-be, together with feelings of loneliness, triggered by a disconnected society that increasingly meets only online, has prompted a mental health emergency.

How can the American people begin to fix their broken society? It seems that the only answer is to begin breaking down the walls that separate the various segments of society so that a national conversation can truly begin.

So where are the world’s happiest places to live? According to the World Happiness Report, the majority of the top ten happiest places are primarily northern countries that just happen to have the least amount of sunshine: Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Australia.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The Crocus Hall terrorist attack rallied world sympathy massively for Russia, while Biden‘s prime concern is to sequester Zelensky so that all is not lost

With hindsight, it was not a coincidence that the retirement of US Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was announced on March 5 so soon after her return to Washington from Kiev, where after consultations with top Ukrainian security officials she announced dramatically: “I leave Kyiv… more confident that, as Ukraine strengthens its defenses, Mr. [Vladimir] Putin is going to get some nice surprises on the battlefield and that Ukraine will make some very strong success.”

Nuland did not divulge what those “nice surprises” might be, but her superiors in DC were certain to have been curious to know since they know her ingenuity is limitless. At any rate, we now know that within hours of the superhawk’s premature retirement on March 5, instructions went out from Washington to the American embassy in Moscow to issue an advisory that “extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts” and warning US citizens to “avoid large gatherings.”

The wording of the March 7 advisory suggests that Washington was in possession of some information credible enough in terms of its source. Meanwhile, the UK embassy in Moscow also issued a similar advisory cautioning British citizens against visiting shopping centers. However, the State Department scrambled to issue a statement within two hours of the horrific attack on the mall in Moscow’s Crocus City Hall on March 22, declaring that Ukraine was not responsible.

Yet, the very next day, President Putin stated in his address to the nation that what happened was “a premeditated and organized mass murder of peaceful, defenseless people,” harking back to the Nazis – “to stage a demonstrative execution, a bloody act of intimidation.” Importantly, Putin disclosed that the perpetrators “attempted to escape and were heading towards Ukraine, where, according to preliminary information, a window was prepared for them on the Ukrainian side to cross the state border.”

Read more

Plainly put, the perpetrators’ Ukrainian mentors or handlers gave them instructions to exit Russian territory after their mission through a particular route. What remains in the realm of the ‘known unknown’ pertains to the chain of command.

Precisely, does the trail end with Kirill Budanov, the chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine (GUR) since August 2020, who had previously served as deputy director of the country’s Foreign Intelligence Service and specialized in covert operations inside Russia?

Or – the big question is – does it go all the way to President Vladimir Zelensky, considering the far-reaching, explosive nature of the operation? This is the first thing.

Secondly, the perpetrators did not behave like vintage ISIS killers on suicide missions nor were they answering the call of ‘jihad’. They were ethnic Tajiks who admitted that they were lured by money.

Expert opinion based on the published videos is also that their movements inside the mall during the operation did not show battle skills characteristic of well-trained fighters, and they had ‘poor muzzle discipline’, which means they had only minimal rifle training. Simply put, the storyline that this was an ISIS attack won’t fly. It is intended as a red herring to confuse dumb-witted folks abroad.

That said, the US military has been ‘retooling’ erstwhile ISIS fighters who are largely unemployed nowadays after the deadly Russian-Iranian offensive in Syria to crush them. Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) went on record as recently as February 13, saying that the US is recruiting the erstwhile jihadist fighters to carry out terrorist attacks on the territory of Russia and CIS countries.

Read more

According to the SVR statement, “Sixty such terrorists with combat experience in the Middle East were selected this year in January… they are undergoing a fast-track training course at the US base in Syria’s Al-Tanf, where they are being taught how to make and use improvised explosive devices, as well as subversive methods. Particular emphasis is paid to planning attacks on heavily guarded facilities, including foreign diplomatic missions… In the near future, there are plans to deploy militants in small groups to the territory of Russia and the CIS countries.”

The SVR noted that “special attention was paid to the involvement of natives of the Russian North Caucasus and Central Asia.”

This is not to say that the four perpetrators set out from Al-Tanf like the four knights in TS Eliot’s play ‘Murder in the Cathedral’. As a matter of fact, the men could have been picked up from anywhere.

Significantly, US President Joe Biden who is not lost for words to vilify Russia on any account — even using abusive epithets — has in this case chosen to keep mum and would rather wait for the findings of the Russian investigators. The Americans appear to be nervous about what the Russian side already knows about their involvement in the affair. Not a single leader in the non-western world parroted the US narrative about the ISIS role.

The high probability is that US intelligence had gotten wind of something brewing in Budanov’s kitchen after Nuland’s visit. Evidently, the prime concern of the Biden Administration is to sequester Zelensky so that all is not lost downstream.

Indeed, the Crocus City Hall attack rallied world sympathy massively for Russia. It is a huge challenge of statecraft for Putin now to garner this outpouring of world sympathy and yet act decisively to completely uproot the dark forces entrenched next-door, which may involve shaking up the very foundations of the house that Washington built in Kiev after the 2014 coup. Eliot’s immortal lines come to mind: ‘What peace can be found / To grow between the hammer and the anvil?’

Meanwhile, it is going to be an even bigger challenge for Biden to figure out the pathway for future dalliance with the Frankenstein he created at the doorstep of what used to be a well-groomed garden that was Europe.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Washington was in a difficult position at the UN Security Council over its traditional ally

In a historic move on Monday, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) achieved a breakthrough by passing a binding resolution aimed at securing a “lasting, sustainable ceasefire” in Gaza and advocating the release of all hostages held by Hamas since the October attacks on Israel last year.

This momentous step forward in international diplomacy signals a potential turning point in the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict, offering a glimmer of hope for peace in a region long plagued by violence and discord.

The decision by the UNSC comes after several failed attempts to broker a ceasefire. It underscores the growing global consensus on the urgent need to address the root causes of the conflict and pave the way for a peaceful settlement. The resolution, which was passed with overwhelming support from the international community, reflects a shared commitment to upholding international law and promoting stability in the region.

The US, traditionally a staunch ally of Israel, notably abstained from vetoing the resolution this time, signaling a shift in its approach and a willingness to engage constructively in multilateral efforts to end the violence – though it has said that it does not represent a change in policy. This decision reflects a recognition of the need for a balanced approach that takes into account the legitimate concerns and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Read more

With the UNSC resolution now enshrined as international law, all UN member states are bound by its provisions, setting a clear mandate for concerted action to implement its objectives. This presents a unique opportunity for diplomatic initiatives and coordinated efforts to de-escalate tensions, rebuild trust, and create the conditions necessary for lasting peace and stability in the region.

However, despite the optimism surrounding the UNSC resolution, significant challenges remain on the path to peace. The Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has vowed to carry out operations in Rafah, a densely populated area where millions of displaced Palestinians now reside. This escalation threatens to further exacerbate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve a ceasefire and pave the way for meaningful negotiations.

Moreover, Israel’s position as a key strategic ally of the United States poses a dilemma for Washington, which has long maintained unwavering support for Israel’s security and sovereignty. While the US remains committed to its alliance with Israel, the changing geopolitical landscape and evolving strategic priorities have complicated its stance on the conflict.

The Biden administration faces pressure from both domestic and international stakeholders to balance its support for Israel with a commitment to upholding international law and promoting peace in the Middle East. Should the US allow Israel to destroy the last remaining Palestinian holdout in Gaza, Biden will almost certainly lose the 2024 presidential election to Donald Trump. Additionally, relations with Muslim countries would be shattered beyond repair, as well as endangering US military personnel in the region.

The prospect of a full-scale war looms large, with Israel’s military capabilities and the broader implications of its actions raising concerns about the potential for a regional conflict. The possibility of an invasion by neighboring Arab states adds another layer of complexity to an already volatile situation, highlighting the need for concerted diplomatic efforts to prevent further escalation and find a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

Read more

Further, Israel’s nuclear ambiguity and so-called “ Samson Option,” its rumored unofficial retaliatory policy, raise serious questions about whether spillover in the conflict, prompted by the state’s potential ground operation in Rafah, could trigger a international thermonuclear war. The situation in the Middle East thus represents a major threat to international security, underscoring why major countries like Russia, China, and Brazil have been adamant about a ceasefire.

Despite these challenges, there are reasons for cautious optimism. The UNSC resolution represents a significant step forward in international efforts to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and provides a framework for meaningful dialogue and engagement. By building on this momentum and redoubling efforts to promote reconciliation and mutual understanding, there is hope for a brighter future for the people of Gaza and the wider Middle East.

While the road to peace remains long and arduous, the UNSC resolution offers a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak landscape. By seizing this opportunity and working together in good faith, the international community can help pave the way for a just and lasting peace in the region. Now is the time for bold leadership, unwavering commitment, and a shared vision of a future defined by cooperation, coexistence, and prosperity for all.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Western officials were too quick to attribute blame for the Moscow attack in ways agreeable to their political goals

In the wake of the terrorist attack that killed over 140 people in Moscow, the White House is sure about a lot of things – that it had nothing to do with Ukraine, and that the fact that Washington's intelligence-based prediction came to fruition is proof-positive that American counterterrorism efforts are working. Excuse me?

What just transpired in Moscow strikes me as the kind of thing that suggests it’s not actually working all that well, considering a bunch of people were killed. If the US has a long-standing policy of warning even countries that it’s at odds with – like Iran and Russia – of terrorist chatter that comes to its attention, like Russia has also done for the US in similar situations (the Boston Marathon bombing warning, perpetrated by Chechens, comes to mind), then frankly, it did a pretty poor job.

Granted, the US Embassy issued a statement warning of a non-specific attack in Moscow two weeks before one actually occurred. And it coincided with Russia liquidating an ISIS-K cell consisting of two Kazakhs, claiming that they were targeting a synagogue southwest of Moscow. Nothing in the warning provided a description of suspects to the general public, and after the cell roll-up, it seemed like the case was closed, with no further warnings or clarifications from those in Washington who claimed to have the inside scoop.

American and Western counterterrorism efforts are working so well that ISIS-K – an offshoot of the ISIS group in Syria to which some Western-backed ‘Syrian rebels’ defected with CIA and Pentagon training and weapons – happened to spring up in Afghanistan in 2014, under the watchful eye of the US counterterrorism operation.

Read more

Then the West became so caught up in its stick-measuring contest with Russia in Ukraine that it trained up a bunch of neo-Nazi mercenary fighters who are now integrated into the Ukrainian army, presided over by the likes of military intelligence chief and guerrilla warfare aficionado Kirill Budanov. Add to the West’s complicity in the recruitment of foreign fighters from all over the world to serve in the ‘International Legion for the Defense of Ukraine’ – including, apparently, fighters from Tajikistan, like the Moscow terrorists, if an unconfirmed online recruitment post by the Ukrainian Embassy in Tajikistan is any indication. In light of that alone, perhaps it’s time for Moscow to cancel its visa-free regime with Tajikistan and other Central Asian countries?

Looks like the US has done everything in Ukraine to sacrifice the fight against terrorism in order to stick it to Putin – who’s been America’s partner in fighting terrorists since he and former US President George W. Bush committed to cooperation against global terrorism in a joint statement after the September 11, 2001, attacks on American soil. French President Emmanuel Macron even said back in 2019 in an interview with The Economist that NATO was brain-dead and should pivot from its Russia obsession to a counterterrorism focus – which just happens to be something on which the West has successfully cooperated with Russia in the past. Although the latest example of ‘cooperation’ mostly involved the US going into Syria on the pretext of fighting ISIS, then spending much of its time in a failed attempt to oust President Bashar Assad by training and equipping jihadists from a NATO staging base in Türkiye. When all the trainees dined and dashed on the CIA and Pentagon’s tab to the tune of billions, it was Russia (with an intelligence assist from Iran) that handled the mop-up at the Syrian government’s request, eliciting the wrath of ISIS in the process. But ISIS in Syria failed in its effort to establish a caliphate and hasn’t really been a problem there for years.

Unconfirmed reports and online videos are now emerging of the Moscow attack suspects allegedly training in NATO member state Türkiye for two months, and dozens of suspects recently being detained by the Turkish authorities in Istanbul. If confirmed to be true, it would not be unlike the Western-backed ‘Syrian rebel’ jihadists who trained on NATO’s Incirlik Air Base in Türkiye and were subsequently released into Syria. This is the same base that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan closed in the wake of a failed coup against him in 2016, and in which he implicated Washington. It looks like terrorists of all kinds now have another playground to choose from: Ukraine.

White House spokesman John Kirby made a point of underscoring that Ukraine absolutely was not involved, as did his colleague, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. “This was a terrorist attack that was conducted by ISIS. Mr. Putin understands that. He knows that very well. And look, there is absolutely no evidence that the government of Ukraine had anything to do with this attack,” Jean-Pierre said. That’s interesting wording coming from the same country whose officials told the New York Times that the Nord Stream pipeline from Russia to Europe was blown up by “pro-Ukrainian groups.”

Read more

The language used by both the White House in the Moscow attack case and unnamed American officials commenting on the Nord Stream sabotage to the NYT is careful to absolve the Ukrainian state itself. It gives the impression that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky can’t be blamed for anything, although the opposite was argued by the West in an effort to oust Assad from power in Syria by saying that he had lost control of the country and turned it into a terrorist cesspool.

So in light of the Moscow attack perps making a run for the Ukrainian border where they were apprehended, about 400km from Moscow, the US is a bit too quick to absolve itself of any responsibility for turning Ukraine into a giant anti-Russian training camp for guerrilla wannabes run by fans of asymmetric warfare, and loading it up with training and weapons. It’s also a bit too keen to preemptively clear Ukraine of any responsibility whatsoever.

French President Emmanuel Macron put the blame entirely on ISIS. Just so everyone got the message in France, the government hiked up the terrorism alert to maximum level. No one here really knows what that means because the terror alert has been in place nonstop for the better part of two decades now, to the point where the bright red on many of the terror alert signs in the front windows of public buildings has faded to bubblegum pink.

Maybe if the French and their US and Western allies hadn’t been so busy destabilizing countries and turning them into terrorist Disneylands for regime change purposes, then maybe they could actually get a handle on the issue. Then they wouldn’t have to whine, like Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis did recently on Twitter: “Let’s not lose focus.” Because apparently, jihadism is just a minor speed bump on the regime change highway.

Медиа: image / jpeg

ISIS claiming responsibility for the massacre doesn’t end matters, while Washington and Kiev’s reactions raise even more doubts

It is baffling why the powers that be, instead of trying to prevent the conflict in Ukraine from going out of control, seem actually bent on intensifying it. The horrific terror attack in Moscow at the Crocus City Hall that has resulted in 139 dead and 182 wounded has added fuel to the fire. Russia is bound to react to this grave provocation.

The US took military action against Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on its soil, even though the terrorists were not Afghan. In 2003, President Bush attacked Iraq on the grounds that it had terrorist ties, which was not the case. Russia would have these precedents in mind while considering its response to the terrible terror attack it has suffered.

President Putin has stated several times in the past, and once again in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson, that the CIA was involved in the Islamic insurgency in the Caucasus. As far back as 2015, he said in an interview with Rossiya-1 television channel host Vladimir Solovyov for a documentary film ‘President,’ commenting on The Second Chechen War, that the West was trying to tear Russia apart by supporting terrorists, and that North Caucasus elements were in direct contact with representatives of US intelligence in Azerbaijan.

Read more

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the US, along with Saudi Arabia, mobilised Islamic extremists to launch a jihad from Pakistani soil against Soviet forces. Central Asia, with its Muslim population, was considered the soft underbelly of the Soviet Union and the strategy was to de-stabilise it by provoking a religious conflict in the country. While Central Asian countries are today independent, they can still be used as springboards to strike at Russia.

Moscow is watchful about this possibility. Russia has a large Muslim population and preserving religious harmony in the country would be crucial for internal stability.

President Putin in his address to the nation after the terror attack has pointed a finger at Ukraine. The terrorists, he said, were heading towards the Ukrainian border and there were arrangements to take them across it.

In his second address on Monday night, he went a step further, saying the attack may be only a link in a whole series of attempts by those who have been fighting Russia since 2014, “using the neo-Nazi Kiev regime as their hand.” This is a grave charge, with very serious implications.

READ MORE: Ukrainian bar mocks deadly Moscow concert hall attack

The US is trying to deflect attention away from any Ukrainian involvement. Immediately after the terrorist mayhem in Moscow, the White House spokesperson stated that Ukraine was not involved. This is unusual. Even before any investigation has taken place the US seems to have reached a conclusion about Ukraine’s non-involvement. For the spokesperson to affirm this so categorically would suggest that the US agencies would be aware of who is involved.

The US, and the UK, had in early March warned their citizens in Russia to avoid mass gatherings, concerts etc. Very often countries do issue such advisories as a precaution because they have got a whiff of some terrorist attack being planned. But, for the White House spokesperson to immediately after the attack in Moscow rule out Ukrainian involvement raises some questions. It is not clear why Ukrainian extremist elements intending to target Moscow would share their plans with the US.

On the issue of terrorism there is consensus in so many forums, be it the UN, the G7, the G20, BRICS and SCO, on collective action by the international community to combat terrorism. It is repeated in many multilateral documents that no cause justifies a recourse to terrorism.

Read more

In this light, whatever the current differences between the US and Russia, if the US had hard information about the planned terrorist attack in Moscow one could argue that they should have alerted Moscow more precisely. More so to stave off the real possibility of Russia holding Ukraine responsible for this act. The Russians have long accused Ukrainian nationalists of terrorising the Russian ethnic civilian population in Donbass and also cite the case of pro-Russians set on fire in a building in Odessa by Ukrainian nationalists in the early days of the conflict, in May 2014.

More recently, Moscow has accused Kiev of numerous terrorist attacks, including two bombings of the Crimean Bridge, in which civilians were killed, as well as the targeted assassinations of Russian public figures, including journalist Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin in August 202, and military blogger Vladlen Tatarsky. Last year, the Washington Post reported that Ukrainian security agencies “have carried out dozens of assassinations against Russian officials in occupied territories, alleged Ukrainian collaborators, military officers behind the front lines and prominent war supporters deep inside Russia.”

Many are questioning the narrative of the West, led by the US, that ISIS is responsible for the Moscow attack. In their view the political intention is to deflect attention away from any Ukrainian complicity because such a massive attack against innocent civilians could negatively affect world opinion, especially in the Global South, on Ukraine as a victim of “unprovoked” Russian aggression.

No doubt Russia has acted against Islamic State in Syria and remnants of ISIS could have planned this attack. However, its timing raises some doubts. It could have been planned just before the presidential elections in order to seriously disturb them. But then, it could have been reasoned that in that case the public would line up more solidly behind Putin. Committing this monstrosity after the presidential election would, however, “spoil Putin’s party,” as it were. And so the choice was made.

It is widely believed that the West has used Islamic extremists in Syria to fight the Assad government. President Putin, while targeting ISIS in Syria, has voiced concern that these elements could present a potential terrorist threat to Russia, with Russia’s experience of the conflict in the Northern Caucusus in mind, when the sympathy of the West lay with the insurgents.

Read more

It would not be difficult for intelligence agencies to manipulate Islamic extremists from behind the scenes, organise funds and arms for them, and even have them claim responsibility. This would be standard practice to ensure deniability. The fact that ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Crocus City Hall attack does not definitively close the matter.

If it was ISIS that was behind this monstrous act of terror, the four suspects arrested and interrogated do not fit into the profile of ideologically committed Islamic extremists. They do not come across as persons ready for martyrdom for a cause they deeply believe in. Rather, they come across as small-time mercenaries, ready to do a job, however heinous, for some money.

The narrative propagated by some in the West, and in Ukraine in particular, that this is a false-flag operation carried out by Russian agencies in order to create grounds for more mobilisation of troops and an all-out assault on Ukraine, is going too far.

Russia does not need the excuse of a major terror attack to step up its operations against Ukraine. With President Macron ready to send French troops into Ukraine – 2,000 soldiers to begin with, according to the Russian intelligence chief Naryshkin – and General Pierre Schill of France expressing French readiness to show “strength” in an Op-Ed in Le Monde, the Baltic states egging for NATO intervention in Ukraine, the move to supply F16s to Ukraine, the clear warning by Russia that French/NATO troops would be legitimate targets, are enough reasons for a worsening military conflict in Ukraine.

Ukraine could have officially distanced itself from the Moscow attack in sober language. Instead, President Zelensky has abusively attacked Putin and Russia. It does not help Ukraine’s case.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Many of the responses to the tragedy betray both the narrow-mindedness and meanness of some of the world’s most demented Russophobes

Only a few days ago, one of the worst terrorist attacks in recent history occurred in Russia. The perpetrators stormed concert venue Crocus City Hall on the outskirts of Moscow, systematically and in cold blood massacring as many victims as they could, then starting a devastating fire that destroyed much of the adjacent shopping mall.

Numbers cannot convey the depravity of the attackers or the suffering of the victims – and of their families and friends – but they can convey some of the scale of this horror: As of March 25, 137 were reported as killed and over 180 as injured. As always in such cases, many more will have to struggle with severe psychological trauma.

Like numbers, comparison is inadequate yet necessary to try to grasp the significance of this event. The 2015 Paris attacks that centered on a concert at the Bataclan venue, for instance, were similar in scope: They left at least 130 victims dead and more than 350 injured. The French government responded with an immediate countrywide state of emergency, massive security sweeps, and – as Encyclopedia Britannica sums it up – a “ dramatic escalation of French military intervention in the Syrian Civil War” as well as an equally “ dramatic increase in domestic security spending.”

There was also, of course, a great wave of international solidarity not only with the victims of the attack but, as was proper, with France as a nation. No Western or, for that matter, Russian commenters who care about their reputations would have dared make perverse claims about French authorities somehow being behind this horrific attack and prepared to sacrifice their own people and to, in effect, betray their country.

Yet, things have turned out differently after the Crocus City Hall massacre in Moscow. While the Russian security services and authorities got to work in a manner fundamentally similar to the French response in 2015 (capturing 11 suspects, four of them “immediate” shooters who’d mass-murdered innocents at a concert, on the run towards the Ukrainian border), a disturbingly large number of Western politicians and media figures responded with a combination of glee, generally transparently concealed but at times stunningly open, with hypocritical equivocating, and, last but not least, with insane conspiracy theories. In other words, with anything but genuine compassion and respect.

A German X user (here anonymized) with over 30,000 followers delivered an example of pure sadistic pleasure by posting a picture of the Crocus mall in flames, with the comment “May it burn, may all of Moscow burn.” Perhaps realizing he sounded as if tweeting from the Nazi Reich Chancellery, the over-excited user subsequently deleted this message. But without displaying any signs of remorse.

Some X user, even if with a substantial number of followers indicating a concerning popularity, may not strike you as very representative. But consider the case of Michael Roth, an extremely vocal member of the German parliament (for Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s SPD) and chair of its Foreign Policy Committee. He showed enough smarts to abide by minimum decorum, just enough to admit that Russia had suffered a “cruel act of terror” that cannot be justified.

But his real message was something else, namely that with Russia such a minimal concession to common decency (insincere as it may be) can and must immediately be accompanied by some Russophobic ranting: Roth carefully hedged that his “compassion” was (clearly: only) for “the innocent victims,” which translates into withholding any acknowledgement of the fact that – as with Bataclan in France – the Crocus attack is also an attack on a whole country and nation. He then proceeded to slander Russia as a “terror state,” caricaturing its war in Ukraine as a campaign of terror. (Roth, by the way, is a great fan of Israel, who has loyally stuck with Tel Aviv through its Gaza genocide with true Germanic “Nibelungentreue.” Go figure…).

Meanwhile, Roderich Kiesewetter, a militaristic foreign-policy hardliner from the CDU (Angela Merkel’s party and the conservative rivals of the SPD) has publicly fantasized about the possibility of a “false flag operation.” Bereft of any evidence or plausibility, the idea of Russia bizarrely launching a massive terror attack on itself, Kiesewetter had an urge to say, can nonetheless, “not be excluded.” In Germany, baseless accusations and insane speculation are bipartisan, as long as the target is Moscow.

If Kiesewetter and Roth, influential if not (yet) first-rank German politicians, illustrate the toxic brew of Russophobia, deranged conspiracy fantasies, and sheer lack of decency that is now ‘normal’ in Berlin, Germany has had no monopoly on perverse responses to the Crocus massacre. Let’s look at some by-no-means marginal representatives of Western media, traditional as well as social.

Read more

US-based Igor Sushko, a popular purveyor of deep-frosted neo-Cold War hype with over 300,000 X followers, raced into overdrive, rapidly promoting a black legend of “ Putin’s false flag terror attack at the Crocus City Hall,” as if he had to hurry to get the fake news out before reality hits. And that, come to think of it, may well have been the idea: As every propagandist knows, dirt flung first can stick around – at least with the badly informed – even once the facts have been established.

Alexey Kovalyov, formerly of ‘Meduza’ (a website based in Latvia, which has spent recent years waging information war against Russia – such as warning of imminent martial law which never happened) and a stalwart representative of that ‘liberal’ Russia that the West loves to promote, joined the monotonous ‘false flag’ chorus with a gratuitous display of a lack of logical acumen by absurdly concluding from a terror attack which did take place that the Russian authorities are not preventing any such attacks. He also sensed an opportunity to warm up old fairy tales, repeating the allegation that Putin was to blame for terrorist bombings in Russia in 1999. Never mind that the best – and very critical – biographer of Putin, Philip Short, has explained in detail why that old canard makes no sense.

Oliver Carroll, another staunch warrior on the (ideological) eastern front rushed to frame the Crocus massacre with aberrant references to the Berlin Reichstag Fire of 1933 and the Kirov murder of 1934. These incidents have in common that it’s either virtually certain (with Reichstag Fire) or at least a widespread belief (with Kirov murder) that they were staged by state authorities. In other words, yet again ‘false flag’ operations. Carroll, too, has zero evidence to offer. But then, he works for The Economist, so none needed. Not when it’s about putting the boot into Russia and its government.

It would be tedious to catalogue the full emerging swampish ecosystem of “Crocus Truthers.” Suffice it to say that it features famous old hands of the propaganda war, such as Garry Kasparov and, from Ukraine, Sergei Sumlenny (a lesser practitioner, conspicuous perhaps above all for combining an almost grotesque Russophobia with a very long stint as a de-facto point man for the German Green Party in Kiev) and, last but not least, Sarah Ashton-Cirillo.

Read more

In case you are blessed with not remembering him (or her? I admit, I have lost track), that is the person who volunteered as a clownish yet vicious spokesperson for the Ukrainian military – in a sadly transparent attempt to deploy a little “queer-washing” to please (some) Western audiences. In that capacity, Ashton-Cirillo launched a deranged, violent rant against the blogger Gonzalo Lira. Lira later died in a Ukrainian prison, abandoned by his own government in Washington and killed by a combination of massive medical neglect and – it is virtually certain – torture.

What to make of this odd alliance? Influential mainstream politicians and journalists, oddball (to put it mildly) social-media types, and a gaggle of eternally bitter Russian oppositionists in exile, who have never figured out how to square their intense dislike of Putin’s Russia with an adult sense of the West’s capacity to use them…

Two things seem certain: This degree of hatred of Russia makes the haters blind in a manner that leads to reputational self-damage, if not today, then tomorrow. And it also comes with an unsurprising inability to face the reality of the Zelensky regime in Ukraine.

For, tellingly, the absurd ‘false flag’ accusations are almost always accompanied by an adamant refusal to even consider that the Kiev regime may have been involved, in one way or another, in the Crocus massacre. And yet, as a matter of fact, it could well turn out that there was some form of Ukrainian hand behind the attack.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Ferdinand Marcos Jr, the president of the Philippines, is a stark contrast to his predecessor – and besides, Washington has dirt on him

The Philippines has been a treaty ally of the United States since 1951, almost as long as it’s been an independent country. Before that, it was a colony of the US, which had won it as spoils of war from Spain. Because of this, it is hard to characterise the Philippines as anything but an unabashedly pro-American nation.

In the past few years however, it took a different line. Under the presidency of the very blunt and frank Rodrigo Duterte, the archipelago became more geopolitically ambiguous in its foreign affairs, pursuing closer relationships with Russia and China, while still being cordial to the US.

This unusual “hedging” was part of Duterte’s strategy to adopt a more centralised approach to governing the country, which suffers from high levels of poverty, crime and disorder. Duterte was a hardliner, and also saw economic opportunity in getting closer to Beijing, despite highly contentious disputes over the South China Sea. His relationship with Washington suffered during this period, as it effectively contributed nothing to the development of the country despite the US post-colonial “overlordship”. Instead, Duterte opted for the Belt and Road initiative and sought to turbocharge the islands with Chinese investment.

Yet, just a year or so after Duterte’s departure, the return to power of the Marcos family has seen Manilla do an effective 180° turn in its foreign policy, and go from being pro-Beijing to an effective antagonist of the country in favour of the US again. Ferdinand Macros Jr, also known as “Bongbong,” is the son of Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled the Philippines as a right-wing, anti-Communist dictator from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. The family was notorious for its corruption and theft of national assets for its own personal gain, but got away with it precisely because it was unequivocally pro-US. For during the Cold War, Washington would support figures of any brutality on the condition that they were anti-Communist.

Read more

Bongbong, like is father, is not innocent, and was elected president of the Philippines as a compromised man who is at the mercy of the US. Ironically, he faces prosecution in the US as a court order requires him to pay $353 million to victims of his father’s regime, thus he cannot enter the country. What does this translate to in political terms? Leverage, on Washington’s behalf. Noticeably, the American authorities do little to enforce the ruling or seize assets pertaining to Marcos or his family, for diplomatic reasons. What is the quid pro quo here? It is clear that as long as Bongbong steers the Philippines' foreign policy where the US wants it, Washington will look the other way when it comes to the court order against him.

And it is absolutely no surprise that on attaining office, Marcos Jr initiated a U-turn on the country’s stance regarding China, and has dramatically escalated tensions with Beijing. While the Duterte administration sought to keep matters cool over the South China Sea territorial dispute, Marcos Jr has deliberately antagonised Beijing, pushing boundaries, and drawing international attention to the situation, provoking the US to say it will defend the Philippines in the event of conflict. Similarly, dozens of senior US officials have visited the country as part of a sweeping US charm offensive.

But not only that, he has agreed to increase the number of bases the US can access in the Philippines, has congratulated Taiwan’s president-elect, actively scaled back Manila's participation in the Belt and Road initiative by cancelling a number of projects, and has instead sought to court a relationship with Japan as an alternative to China, with the US, Japan and the Philippines set to have a trilateral leaders’ summit for the first time. In a nutshell, the Philippines has gone from being a China-friendly state in Southeast Asia to easily the most antagonistic, a difficult position to take, due to the relative economic weakness of the country and its trade dependence on China.

For China, this situation is a headache and there are no easy answers. This is because Beijing has a resolute and uncompromising position on the South China Sea, most of which it claims as its own. The rigidity of this position not only clashes with Southeast Asian states but creates an easy political wedge for the US to exploit. China makes itself look weak if it backs down, and US policy of course is to incentivise such countries to actively resist Beijing and give them the military backing to do so. So how can China mend its relations with the Philippines? It may simply have to avoid creating a crisis and wait until a more Beijing-friendly president is voted into office, because quite clearly, Marcos Jr is a compromised politician, with Washington being able to exploit his weakness and disastrous family legacy to its own advantage.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The imagined threat of Russia being about to march on Western Europe is a very lucrative idea for warmongers and arms dealers

NATO’s peddling of a “Russian threat” is reaching telethon levels of relentlessness – worse than a house alarm salesman in TV advertisements talking up the scary burglar.

Poland’s top general, Wieslaw Kukula, said recently that “Russia is preparing for a conflict with NATO, aware that the alliance is a defensive structure.” For French President Emmanuel Macron, playing “defense” apparently involves sending a bunch of players deep into the other guy’s end-zone to score. Macron has been overtly talking about sending troops to fight Russia while giving the impression that he’s personally training to take on Russian President Vladimir Putin by posing for black and white glamour shots complete with boxing gloves and flexed biceps that may or may not have been the result of having Monsieur Photoshoppe as his personal trainer. Estonia’s foreign intelligence chief conveniently describes Russia’s strategy as “long-term confrontation.” The European Union’s internal markets commissioner, Thierry Breton, has said “we need to change the paradigm and move into war economy mode.” Andre Berghegger, head of the association of German city councils, is talking about reviving the bomb shelter business. “During the Cold War, Germany had more than 2,000 public shelters. Only 600 of these still exist, providing protection for around 500,000 people. There is an urgent need to put decommissioned bunkers back into operation. And we need to build new, modern shelters. In urban centers, underground car parks and subway shafts can certainly be used,” the official said.

Sure, why not? If the military industrial complex is going to try convincing taxpayers to let the government take all their money to make weapons, then why shouldn’t the bomb shelter business also get in on the action? Not a bad time to resurrect the bunker industry, actually. With energy costs and interest rates becoming a problem for Europeans, maybe everyone can just save some money and move into government-funded bunkers and hang out while waiting for Putin to show up.

Read more

What do you do when you’ve devastated your own normal economy “for Ukraine,” and have nothing to show for it? Announce that you now self-identify as a wartime one and attempt to scare up some cash from your taxpayers for the transition.

So now what we’re seeing is European countries ramping up defense spending while at the same time saying they don’t really have any cash to spare for things like social programs, or to sufficiently compensate their own farmers being screwed over by the EU’s free trade policy favoring Ukraine’s farming industry over Europe’s own. Don’t like it? Well then, do you really want Putin rolling right up to a Left Bank Parisian café in a battle tank? They’re talking like that’s where he’s literally going to be – ordering foie gras from the mid-day menu – if the European taxpayers don’t start wrapping their heads around the idea that making weapons is now suddenly Europe’s big priority. So how’s that sell-job actually working on the taxpayers? Not that great. Which might explain why they’re ratcheting up the rhetoric to ridiculous levels.

Poland in particular has been a big beneficiary of all the fear porn, with US Congress having approved $288 million worth of foreign military financing in 2022 for Poland under the guise of countering Russia. Warsaw has also scored $34 million in security assistance to improve intelligence capabilities and military mobility over the past six years, with $1.2 billion in sales of US defense articles to Poland between 2019 and 2021 alone, according to the US State Department. Last year, Warsaw scored a $2 billion “loan” from Washington for military equipment to purchase American weapons, plus a gift of $60 million to offset its financing.

All the Russian threat rhetoric has been conveniently non-specific. But why get precise when it would run the risk of being debunked? There are two exceptions, however: the Suwalki Gap and Transnistria.

NATO has long been obsessed with the Suwalki Gap – the hundred-kilometer strip along the Polish-Lithuanian border, sandwiched between the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad in the west and Belarus in the east. Last summer, the Polish defense minister conveniently flipped out over the fact that Russian private military Wagner Group fighters who were formerly active in the Ukraine conflict had effectively been exiled to Belarus in the wake of their public meltdown and long march towards Moscow over differences with Russian military leadership. Just the thought of Wagner fighters sitting around, maybe cracking open a few beers, somewhere in the vicinity of Minsk, was apparently enough for NATO to start having visions of the Wagner guys making an armed road trip to Poland from the east while Russian troops in Kaliningrad come in from the west. Who knows why NATO thinks they’d want to do that. But pretty much any excuse or pretext will do when it comes to Poland being able to load up on weapons and play the role of NATO attack dog that always seems like it’s on the verge of chewing through its harness.

Read more

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko suggested to Putin at the time that Poland planned to attack Belarus, with a thousand Polish soldiers recently cozying up to the border under the pretext that Wagner troops were now hanging out with Belarusian troops on the other side of it. But Lukashenko also offered another explanation for Poland’s military buildup, explaining that south of the Suwalki Gap, just below Belarus, is western Ukraine, and that Poland wanted to get its hands on a piece of it. Lukashenko’s suggestion that Poland was itching to get its hands dirty in Ukraine echoes what Putin told the Russian Security Council, that Poland wanted to get more deeply involved in Ukraine to nab for itself a slice of what Warsaw considers to be its historical territory.

Much NATO handwringing has also taken place over the so-called Russian threat to Transnistria — a demilitarized zone that broke away from Moldova at the end of the Cold War and is now a de facto independent republic. If you haven’t heard much about Transnistria until recently, if at all, it’s because it’s stable, with Russian peacekeeping troops holding down the fort. Back in June 2023, at the European Union Political Community kiddie table summit for countries wanting to join the EU, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky said that he wanted the EU to go bang on Transnistria’s door, as though he didn’t have enough of his own problems. Zelensky said that Ukraine was willing to help fight the Russian peacekeeping troops in Transnistria, but would just need a request from Moldova.

Nice “defensive alliance” you’ve got there, guys. You really sure that Russia’s the problem here? Or maybe your worldview is as detached from reality as the idea of Macron’s newly bulging biceps being, as his wife Brigitte says, the result of two 45-minute weekly workouts?

Медиа: image / jpeg

US rulers decry the lack of choices for Russian voters, even as they try to take down America’s most popular 2024 candidate

America’s legacy media and political ruling class have thrown a predictably massive hissy fit over last weekend’s Russian election, insisting that President Vladimir Putin’s landslide victory was “preordained” and “stage-managed.”

Every protest and anti-Putin statement before, during, and after the election was amplified. Every allegation of misconduct was reported with zero scrutiny or skepticism. Washington and its allies decried the results, arguing that the vote wasn’t free or fair. UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron went so far as to call it “illegal.”

The pearl-clutching over Russia’s vote was the most intense I’ve ever seen over a foreign election. It was so inordinate, in fact, that it reminded me of the nonstop media coverage last month after Russian political activist Alexey Navalny died in a Siberian penal colony. The same media that showed no concern over the death of US journalist Gonzalo Lira in a Ukrainian jail – after he had been tortured, at American taxpayer expense, for daring to criticize the Kiev regime – huffed and puffed for weeks about the death of a Russian citizen in a Russian prison.

Lost in all the hysteria over Putin’s victory is the fact that most of the Russian people like their president. The incumbent won over 87% of the votes, and as even CNN begrudgingly acknowledged before the election, a poll last month showed that Putin had an 86% approval rating. That compares with a 9% approval rating for Navalny, the great Western hope for destabilizing Russia, in a January 2023 poll. And by the way, it also compares with US President Joe Biden’s approval rating of around 38%.

As US policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs explained in an interview this week with Russia-hating podcaster Piers Morgan, Putin’s popularity and reelection reflect the will of the Russian people. “It’s part of Russian culture,” said Sachs, who advised the Moscow and Kiev governments after the breakup of the Soviet Union. “He’s a strong leader. The Russian people expect a strong leader, and we have to deal with a strong leader in Russia.”

Therein lies the problem. Team America is unwilling to accept strong leadership of Russia with broad public support. Having failed to cripple Russia or its leadership through the proxy war in Ukraine, the US and its allies are in no mood to accept the political reality in Moscow. The political pouting was so bad in Berlin that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government refused to refer to Putin as Russia’s president. This is the same government that is mulling plans to ban one of Germany’s most popular opposition parties.

Read more

However, for all the Western criticism of Putin and his policies, it’s not easy to argue that he doesn’t try to represent the interests of the Russian people. Unlike most Western leaders, Putin is on the side of his own citizens. He hit the nail on the head when he said Western attacks were directed not at him, but at “the forces that stand behind me, which seek to strengthen Russia – to improve its sovereignty, defense, and economic independence.”

Shrugging off a landslide election as illegitimate is difficult enough. US rulers and their media mouthpieces are doing so with – as usual – a sociopathic lack of self-awareness. Even as Washington condemns the alleged suppression of political opposition in Russia, the Biden administration and its allies are using the court system to prosecute the incumbent’s chief rival, former President Donald Trump, as this year’s US presidential election approaches. By the way, Trump is leading Biden in most polls.

The US ruling class has shown no hesitance to put its thumb on the scale to help Biden and other establishment puppets. For example, just weeks before the 2020 election, over 50 former US intelligence officials helped contain the damage from a New York Post report on Biden family corruption by falsely claiming that it had the “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation. Thanks partly to some preemptive nudging by the FBI, social media platforms censored commentary about the bombshell report, which stemmed from documents on a laptop abandoned by Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

America’s rich and powerful banded together to defeat Trump. As Time magazine bragged shortly after Biden took office, an “informal alliance of left-wing activists and business titans” helped change US voting systems and laws leading up to the 2020 election. Among other achievements, the magazine said, the alliance “got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time,” and “successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation.”

As we know, in the Western legacy media’s lexicon, ‘disinformation’ means ‘information that conflicts with our narratives’. The election manipulation in 2020 wasn’t new. A report released on Tuesday by the Media Research Center claimed that US search-engine monopoly Google has been helping Democratic candidates since 2008 by censoring pro-Republican voices. Google’s censorship and manipulation of search results shifted 2.6 million votes to Democrat Hillary Clinton in her failed run against Trump in 2016, according to an estimate by US researcher Robert Epstein.

As usual in an election year, US officials are hyping potential security threats, including foreign interference. Biden and the establishment media outlets that work on his behalf are touting Trump as a danger to democracy. Ironically, these same voices are demonizing efforts to make elections more secure.

Read more

For instance, when Georgia lawmakers passed a bill requiring voters to show ID, the Biden administration sued the state. The administration also sued Arizona for requiring proof of US citizenship for voter registration. It turns out that requiring voters to prove their identity – just as would be required to get a job, board a flight, rent a dwelling, drive a car, open a bank account, receive public benefits, or buy a bottle of wine – is somehow a racist conspiracy to suppress Democrat votes.

Washington wouldn’t be Washington without its blatant hypocrisy and absurdity. The same country that has refused to respect the will of the people in Crimea and Donbass violently defended the right of self-determination in Kosovo. Some of the same politicians and media voices that branded Trump as an insurrectionist for refusing to accept his 2020 defeat previously refused to accept Bad Orange Man’s 2016 victory.

Also, the same government that condemned Russia’s election as illegitimate has expressed no concern that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky refuses to hold an election at all. Somehow, defending ‘freedom and democracy’ – in a country that has neither freedom nor democracy – does not entail suggesting that the citizens should be allowed to vote.

What really made Washington angry was that residents of formerly Ukrainian territories were allowed to vote in the Russian election. The US and dozens of its allies issued a statement on Monday decrying Moscow’s “illegitimate attempts” to organize voting in “temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.” Residents of those same areas previously voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, but then again, from Washington’s point of view, the democratically expressed will of the people isn’t always an acceptable feature of democracy.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Trade, energy, security and more - Russia and African countries have multiple avenues for cooperation and a long journey ahead

In June 2023, a delegation of seven African leaders traveled to St. Petersburg on a self-styled “peace mission” where they met President Vladmir Putin in an effort to explore possibilities for mediating in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa who was part of the delegation that also met Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, was quoted saying that the conflict was affecting Africa negatively. According to Dr. Mustafa Ali, a Kenyan based lecturer and geopolitical analyst, the visit clearly showed that Africa stands to benefit more from a stable Russia. “Just take a look at how the conflict led to the skyrocketing of fuel and commodity prices, inflation and financial instability and it will show you Russia’s direct influence on Africa’s economy," Dr. Ali told RT.

‘African nations are keen on embracing partnerships with Russia’

As Russia has just gone through its presidential election, Dr. Ali observes that most Africa nations are keen on exploring deeper relations with Russia because “there are huge untapped benefits laying in wait’‘, citing the promise made by President Putin during the inaugural 2019 Russia-Africa summit of doubling Russia-Africa trade to US $40 billion in five years, a promise he says is waiting to be fulfilled.

“Just like they did with China, African nations are keen on embracing partnerships and relationships with Russia which come without attached prescriptions and strict conditionalities as happens with partnerships with Western nations and their controlled Bretton Woods institutions," Ali explains.

Read more

He adds, “In Africa, Russia is keen on investing in areas where Western powers have either failed investing in, neglected or been reluctant to invest in and this is an approach African leaders can capitalize on and reap maximum benefits".

Ali cites examples of infrastructure development, transportation, energy and telecommunication as some of the sectors Africa stands to attract investments from Russia. “Infrastructure construction investments and partnerships between African nations and Russia will not only help in fostering economic growth and development across the continent but is also creating jobs for millions of Africans, and thereby helping deal with the scourge of unemployment and high poverty levels on the continent".

‘Russia moves to consolidate its place on the continent’

Moving forward, Erastus Mwencha, a former Kenyan diplomat who served as Deputy Chairperson of the African Union Commission, told RT that Africa stands to benefit from Kremlin’s continued expansion of its economic footprint on the continent.

“African capitals which invest in relationships with the Kremlin will stand a better chance of having a share of Russia’s direct foreign investment in the continent which is likely to rise as Russia moves to consolidate its place on the continent through trade, financial credit facilities and direct investments," Mwencha told RT.

In terms of trade, between 2013 and 2021, trade revenue between Russia and African countries almost doubled and reached more than $20 billion. At least 30 percent of Africa’s grain imports come from Russia. Africa’s imports from Moscow include wheat, coal, refined petroleum, and electronics while Russia imports fruits, sugar, and vegetables from Africa.

During the 2023 Russia-Africa summit, President Putin promised free grain to six African nations significantly impacted by the cancellation of the Black Sea grain deal. Initially brokered by the UN and Türkiye in 2022, the deal aimed to facilitate the export of Ukrainian grain to global markets, particularly to impoverished countries in Africa. In return, Moscow was promised that Western sanctions would be lifted from its own agricultural exports. Russia abandoned the deal, arguing that it was still unable to get any of its grain or fertilizer out to world markets, and that the West had failed to fulfil its obligations.

Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, Eritrea, and the CAR already benefitted from the Putin’s pledge, as the promised 200,000 tons of grain were fully delivered by the end of January to all the six states.

Mwencha cites the oil and gas sector’s investments as some of the critical benefits Africa stands out to gain from its close interaction and partnership with Russia.

“Majority of African states do not have the financial, technical and technological power to initiate and drive huge oil, gas and energy initiatives. Russia on the other hand has all the three and any African leader who works and walks with Putin, will not miss on such investments if at all their country needs them", Mwencha believes.

In 2022, Russia’s nuclear power company, Rosatom received clearance to start building Egypt’s first nuclear power plant, following a 2017 agreement signed between President Putin and President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi with the project expected to become fully completed and operational by 2030. Construction for the 4800 MW plant will cost a total of $60 billion with Rosatom, providing a $25 billion loan for the project. Additionally, Rosatom has signed cooperative agreements with other 17 African governments, including Ethiopia, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Zambia.

Mwencha observes that for President Putin to win over more support from the African continent, he will have to fulfill all the promises made during the first and second Russia-Africa summit.

“Africa stands to benefit from Russia’s strong economy, resources, technology, and expertise in developing and building its energy, mining, and technology sectors, industries and infrastructure and Moscow is keen on creating more partnerships and strengthening her voice on the continent both diplomatically and economically,” he said.

‘When the two sides treat each other as allies’

George Musamali, a Kenyan security analyst says that Africa will continue enjoying the existing strong defense and security ties with Russia, which he says come with favorable terms for the continent. Musamali cites arms sales and joint military training programs between Russia and African nations as initiatives that will directly help Africa states enhance their capacity against continued emerging security threats and challenges.

Read more

“Africa states that are prone to conflict and those battling security challenges stand to gain more from Russia’s advanced security and military technology and this can only happen when the two sides treat each other as allies," Musamali told RT.

Between 2018 and 2022, 40% of Africa’s imported weapons came from Russia – compared to 16% from the US, 9.8% from China and 7.6% from France.

Musamali further argues that Africa stands to gain more benefits from its military and security engagements with Russia because Russian-made weapons and security equipment are usually cheaper compared to those from Western countries. According to Musamali, “Russia does not attach stringent conditions to her arms sales unlike other countries”.

Musamali also cites Moscow’s military diplomacy in Africa as one area where the continent stands to reap big through enhancement of the defense capabilities of African nations, something he says will contribute to regional security and stability.

During the 2023 Russia-Africa summit there was an agreement to establish a new permanent Russo-African security mechanism, aimed at combating terrorism and extremism on the continent.

‘Pushing for more trade deals’

Mwencha argues that Africa can bank on its mutually beneficial relationship with Russia to negotiate for and lure more investments for key sectors like agriculture, hydrocarbons, technology, energy, transport, and digitization which he says still need massive investments.

He wants Africa heads of states to push Moscow into increasing and expanding its trade opportunities for the continent, noting that Africa needs to move from the current $20 billion trade value with Russia to the same trade levels as it is with the EU, China, and the United States.

“Trade between Africa and Russia is such a fertile and prime potential that African leaders must exploit. They must focus on negotiating and pushing for more trade deals that will open up the Russian market for more imports from Africa," Mwencha said. Currently, Russian exports to Africa are seven times higher compared to her imports from the continent.

“Russia has an extremely large consumer base which African exporters can tap. Strengthened ties between Russia and Africa will open up more markets for African goods and services and this will provide more opportunities for African nations and exporters to diversify their markets and increase their foreign earnings,” Mwencha explained.

‘Closer ties with Russia can provide African countries with diplomatic support’

In 2006, President Vladimir Putin made a high profile visit to South Africa while former President Dmitry Medvedev made similar visits in 2009 to Egypt, Angola, Nigeria, and Namibia in Moscow’s bid to establish its strong diplomatic presence on the continent. Russia’s longest serving Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, has in the recent years led other high ranking government officials from Moscow in visiting several African nations for signing of multiple bilateral military, economic, and security cooperation agreements.

Alex Awiti, a Kenyan researcher and academic specializing in African geopolitics and international relations observes that the 2018 decision by former US President Donald Trump to scale back U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Africa despite the growing terror threat in the region gave Moscow a perfect opportunity to fill the void and become Africa’s key security.

Read more

“President Putin used the 2019 first ever Russia-Africa summit in Sochi to sell Russia as a reliable and strategic partner for the continent.” The second Russia-Africa summit in July 2023, saw the signing of several agreements between Russia and African nations on prevention of arms race in space, cooperation in information security, as well as combating terrorism. “These are benefits that African leaders will not resist," Awiti told RT.

According to Awiti, Russia’s status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council can work in favor of Africa because it gives Moscow more and significant influence in global affairs. “Closer ties with Russia can provide African countries with diplomatic support on international issues and help amplify their voices on the global stage,” Awiti told RT.

Awiti notes that there is no doubt Russia will be seeking to expand its foreign direct investment, trade and investments with Africa to rival that of the European Union, China, and the United States, a competition he says will work in favor of Africa both diplomatically and economically.

A new Foreign Policy Concept published by Russia earlier this year portrayed both Russia and Africa as struggling for the goal of a “more equitable polycentric world and elimination of social and economic inequality”, a clear indication of Moscow’s keen interest of portraying itself as a friend and defender of Africa.

Overall, Awiti concludes that a strong relationship with Russia can bring about economic development, infrastructure improvement, enhanced security, and increased diplomatic leverage for African countries. “However, it’s essential for African nations to ensure that such partnerships are mutually beneficial and aligned with their long-term development goals,” he concludes.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Vengeance on Biden, curbing illegal migration, ending support for Kiev – The Donald will have a busy schedule should he win the presidency, but how much can he accomplish?

In the event of another Trump presidency, will the Orange Man restrain the desire to seek vengeance on his political enemies, or will he succumb to the temptation to play ‘dictator for a day’, unleashing mayhem in the process?

Perhaps it would be the understatement of the century to say that Donald Trump has a grudge to bear. Not only was his first term as president overshadowed by the dual hoaxes known as Russiagate and Ukrainegate, but the legal entanglements continue to follow him out of office as well. This has made Orange Man the first former president in American history to be hounded with state and federal lawsuits. And should he get elected to another four years in the Oval Office, nobody should be surprised if the reprisals against his arch-nemesis begin in earnest.

“If I don’t get Immunity, then Crooked Joe Biden doesn’t get Immunity,” Trump fumed in January on his social media site. “With the Border Invasion and Afghanistan Surrender, alone, not to mention the Millions of dollars that went into his ‘pockets’ with money from foreign countries, Joe would be ripe for Indictment.”

This sort of vendetta mentality is more worrisome in light of Trump’s stated desire to play “dictator for a day.” While it’s unclear what sort of cases the former president intends to bring against Biden, we can expect every legal channel available from the height of his office will be explored – investigations into high treason, abuse of office, corruption, mishandling of classified documents, etc.

Read more

As he wraps up his business with the Biden clan, Trump won’t waste any time revisiting the signature issue that got him elected president in 2016, which was his promise to secure the border and build a wall. This will prove to be a messy affair as the US military, working in cahoots with local law enforcement, will be tasked with carrying out sweeping raids aimed at deporting millions of illegals around the country.

Trump floated the idea of doing something similar during his first term, but he was refuted by attorneys over fears of legal repercussions. This time around, however, he will surround himself with more obedient staff, who are already dreaming up ways to make a militarized border “perfectly legal.”

Despite fierce criticism from human rights organizations, the Trump administration will also suspend asylum requests by people arriving at the border, while halting birthright citizenship for children born on US soil to undocumented parents. Meanwhile, the concept known as ‘sanctuary cities’, which gives illegal migrants the ability to settle around the country at huge expense to taxpayers, will be abandoned altogether due to ‘violations of constitutional law’.

On the question of crime, which has exploded on Biden’s watch, Trump proclaimed that our “once great cities have become unlivable, unsanitary nightmares, surrendered to the homeless, the drug-addicted, and the violent and dangerously deranged.” His plan to address the crisis is to prohibit urban camping and contain the homeless in tent cities, which will be overseen by “doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, and drug-rehab specialists.” Trump said the money the US saves from “ending mass, unskilled migration” will cover the costs.

On the energy front, Trump will roll back Biden’s policies, which are ostensibly engineered towards saving the planet from climate change, a concept that does not resonate in Republican circles. Trump will shelve the Democrat’s solar and wind projects, while bringing back his own vision of delivering endless supplies of oil from Canada through the Keystone XL pipeline.

Read more

On the foreign scene, Trump began a trade war with China in 2018, and that reckless policy looks set to continue. As an integral part of his ‘Make America Great Again’ program, the Republican candidate continues to view the Asian economic superpower as an enemy rather than a robust trading partner (trade between the US and China amounted to $758 billion in goods and services last year). Trump has pledged to begin “aggressive new restrictions on Chinese ownership of assets in the US, bar Americans from investing in China and phase in a ban on importing key categories of Chinese-made goods like electronics, steel and pharmaceuticals.”

Trump has an equally suspicious view of Washington’s relations with NATO, especially those members of the Western military bloc that are in arrears on their membership payments. The presidential candidate’s campaign website contains one cryptic line on the matter that will keep Brussels up at night: “We have to finish the process we began under my administration of fundamentally re-evaluating NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission.”

Despite tense relations with the bloc, Trump says that, should he be elected president, he will end the Ukraine conflict “in twenty-four hours.” How would he pull off that magic trick? By cutting Kiev off from the gravy train, which has already delivered Zelensky and the military industrial complex tens of billions of dollars of US taxpayer money. Considering the latent militancy the pervades Capitol Hill, however, curbing this appetite for destruction may represent the toughest uphill slog for Trump 2.0.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The Sahel States’ newly formed joint forces will be effective only if a complex approach is taken by the three nations

The Sahel states have been facing numerous security challenges in recent years, such as terrorist threats, intercommunal conflicts, drug and arms trafficking, and difficulties relating to governance and economic development.

In light of this, the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), represented by new leaders Assimi Goïta in Mali, Ibrahim Traoré in Burkina Faso, and Abdourahamane Tiani in Niger, decided to establish a common force to enhance their capacity to combat threats and ensure the region’s security. The chiefs of staff of the three nations’ armies announced this on 6 March. The joint force will be led by Niger.

Several reasons motivated this initiative. First of all, the Sahel countries have observed the inability of national armed forces to address these security challenges alone, mainly due to their limited resources and lack of coordination. By establishing a common force, they hope to pool their efforts and resources to better combat terrorist groups and other threats facing the region.

The establishment of a joint AES force to address security challenges is a significant and necessary initiative in a region which faces many security challenges, such as terrorism, organized crime, and armed conflicts, often inspired by imperialist powers like the United States and France. These powers have a vested interest in persistent instability in this part of the Sahel region, which is rich in natural resources.

Read more

The three countries in the AES – Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso – have experienced a rise in terrorism threats since 2011, following the NATO intervention in Libya that resulted in the killing of Colonel Gaddafi.

In fact, the establishment of the Alliance itself (the three states signed a charter in December 2023) already reflected a recognition of the need for Sahel countries to work together to ensure the security and stability of the region and to counteract any internal or external threat to their sovereignty. All three also cut military ties with France, citing meddling and the failure of French troops to defeat Islamic insurgencies in the region, despite more than a decade of involvement.

The leaders of the Alliance understand the urgency and the fact that they cannot rely on Western countries like France and the United States, who do not really seem willing to help fight terrorism, but rather seek to preserve their own geopolitical agenda in Africa, as they already do in the Middle East.

By establishing a common force, the Sahel states will be able to coordinate their efforts in a sovereign spirit, share information and resources, and carry out joint operations to combat security threats to their countries and to the region. Therefore, to work effectively, the Sahel states affected by this scourge must urgently adopt military agreements at the regional level with other Sahelo-Saharan countries or on the international scale with countries such as Russia, Iran, Turkey, etc., regarding specific acts of terrorism on their occupied territories.

The Alliance of Sahel States must decide on a number of measures, sometimes coercive but mainly preventive, to combat insecurity and terrorism within the framework of the alliance. There is a need to implement sanctions targeting individuals or terrorist groups. Parliamentary resolutions are to be adopted to strengthen national legislative, judicial, police, and military mechanisms, so they can better prevent and combat the recruitment, organization, or financing of these terrorist groups. Additionally, efforts should be made to combat arms proliferation.

Joint military operations among the Sahel states will also be required regularly instead of operations by American or French military forces in certain Sahel countries. Regional intelligence cooperation is essential, even if it remains sometimes non-existent in African countries affected by terrorism, or difficult due to underlying national interests.

However, one of the major problems faced by the states of the region affected by insecurity caused by terrorist groups is that they have almost no internal or external intelligence services, nor powerful counterespionage capabilities to anticipate attacks on their territories or against their populations.

Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger should also focus on this method, as terrorism cannot only be fought with military actions but also by infiltrating, tracking down accomplices, and neutralizing leaders through secret missions. The fight against terrorism will not be won as long as surveillance and intelligence means are entrusted to former colonial powers like France.

Read more

There is one more important issue. While not forgetting social justice, in the fight against terrorism, a more comprehensive approach has to be taken through development plans, education, protection of property and population rights, and countering radicalization. If the Alliance of Sahel States and their regional partners do not address these crucial elements, the fight against terrorism and insecurity will lead to nothing but noise, posturing, and smoke and mirrors. The populations will continue to suffer, and territories occupied by the criminals will expand with each attack, despite the will of leaders and armies.

All these things will also help strengthen the capacity of local security and defense forces to face the complex and transnational challenges threatening the countries of the region. The fact that this force is led by Niger, and this was decided with no conflicts, shows the willingness of alliance members to cooperate and share responsibility for ensuring the security of the region. It is important to note that setting up a common force led by Niger will not be without challenges. Political, cultural, and institutional differences between alliance members are to be overcome, as well as mobilizing the human and, most importantly, financial resources necessary to support this initiative in the long term, which will yield results if implemented effectively by the Sahel states.

In conclusion, the establishment of a common force by the Alliance of Sahel States to address security challenges is a positive step in consolidating peace and security in the region. Hopefully, this initiative will contribute to strengthening regional cooperation and sovereignty, improving the security of the Sahel populations, and promoting economic and social development in the region.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The final day of the Russian presidential election coincides with the anniversary of the utterly meaningless move against the incumbent

One year ago, on 17 March 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued two politically important – to put it neutrally – arrest warrants, one for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the other for Maria Lvova-Belova, the Commissioner for Children’s Rights, a position within the Office of the President.

The warrants reflected that the ICC, to be precise its Pre-Trial Chamber following the court’s Prosecutor Karim Khan, found what it considered “reasonable grounds to believe that President Putin and Ms. Lvova-Belova bear criminal responsibility for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.” Khan further argued that “these acts… demonstrate an intention to permanently remove these children from their own country.” In sum, the arrest warrants depicted an extensive kidnapping operation during wartime.

Public – and published – opinion in the West preponderantly celebrated the warrants as not only justified but salutary. They were supposed to promote the protection of civilians during war and put pressure on Russia by increasing its international isolation, a geopolitical aim that the West was struggling to achieve.

As the Wall Street Journal proclaimed, this was “the first time the leader of a nuclear superpower” was “called to account before the court, an independent institution established … to end impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.” The American President, Joe Biden, thought the ICC operation made “a very strong point.” Not to be outdone, reliably extremist Senator Lindsey Graham and equally reliably conventional publicist Fareed Zakaria both displayed historical illiteracy by absurdly claiming that Putin was copying Hitler. Historian here: Hitler’s victims would have disagreed.

Read more

Some Western commentators warned that the warrants were unlikely to be enforced and that convictions were even less likely. Yet such reservations did not challenge the overall Western consensus that the ICC move was both correct and, in some way, useful, even if mostly in a “symbolic,” that is, really, political manner.

Russian officials, unsurprisingly, responded very differently. They rejected both the charges as “ null and void” and the jurisdiction of the ICC. Russia, like the US, is (after withdrawing in 2016) not a signatory state to the 1998 Rome Statute, on which the court is based. Hence, the decisions of the ICC have “no meaning for Russia,” as Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs put it. Russia even started its own investigation against members of the ICC, and later Graham.

Russian commentators, as well as dissenting voices in the West, also denounced the ICC warrants as an abuse of judicial procedures for political purposes, amounting to a form of information war or lawfare against Russia. The Grayzone’s Jeremy Loffredo and Max Blumenthal, for instance, investigated the ICC’s evidence and found that it was fundamentally flawed. Their work was thorough, and their findings were detailed as well as, for the ICC and Karim Khan personally, deeply embarrassing.

The key point was that Khan had based much of his case on a report produced by the Humanitarian Research Lab (HRL) at Yale University, an organization “funded and guided” by the US State Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, an entity the Biden administration established in May 2022 to advance the prosecution of Russian officials.” In addition, the executive director of HRL, Nathaniel Raymond, started contradicting himself. Whereas he had initially made grandiloquent public statements in the Graham-Zakaria register – even including a bizarre reference to “genocide” – he greatly toned down his allegations once challenged by investigative reporters. No wonder, as the HRL report was weakly sourced, and its content actually contradicted Raymond’s inflammatory rhetoric.

In other words, the ICC prosecutor had relied on a tainted source that crudely served the information warfare purposes of Russia’s main geopolitical opponent, to such a degree that even its executive director ultimately got cold feet. That this badly undermined Karim’s case and his reputation as a professional needs no further belaboring. Washington will be Washington, but why should the ICC join it? If, that is, it seeks to be respected.

In legal terms, the cases have already been shown to be shoddy. They are unlikely to succeed, and not only because of practical and political obstacles, but, more importantly, because there is much more politics than evidence behind them. In terms of those politics, ironically, they have also failed: The warrants have not led to or increased the isolation of Russia or its president. If they have weakened anything, then it is the standing of the ICC, and, in particular, of its Prosecutor Karim Khan. The ICC is already struggling with a deserved reputation as a willing tool of Western geopolitics, while turning a blind eye to the West’s crimes. The attempt to engage in geopolitical lawfare on Russia during a Western proxy war against it has made this image problem worse. Whether a coincidence or not, the fact that one of the judges who issued the warrant for the Russian president has just become the ICC’s new president will only deepen this impression of bias.

Read more

Yet what has recently cast an especially harsh new light on the ICC’s campaign against Russia is a matter of comparison, namely between the ICC’s treatment of Russia and of Israel. And, to get a popular piece of nonsense out of the way: comparison is not “whataboutism.” Justice, and that is what courts are supposed to be about, cannot exist without consistency. To assess consistency requires comparison. The cry of “whataboutism” is merely the last refuge of the special pleaders, that is, those who want bias and thus injustice as long as it favors their own side.

As early as April 2023, another Grayzone piece of reporting found that Khan was stalling “the ICC’s case against Israel, frustrating human rights lawyers who represent the victims of grisly violence in the besieged Gaza Strip.” As critical lawyers pointed out even then, a court genuinely interested in the unlawful displacement of civilians, should have put decades of Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians at the center of its activity.

In addition, the ICC stopped investigating American war crimes in Afghanistan. The US, in return, started displaying a favorable attitude – and offering generous financial support – to the ICC, which, previously, it had threatened with invasion in case it should ever dare prosecute Americans.

And all of that before Israel’s current genocidal campaign in Gaza, which began after the Hamas attack in early October 2023. Tel Aviv and its Western supporters – in criminal terms, which do apply here, accomplices – have pretended Israel has responded with a “war” on Hamas. But, in reality, everything – explicit Israeli statements, tactics, and, last but not least, the open display of sadism by many of its soldiers and civilians as well – show conclusively that this is not “war,” terrible as the latter is. Instead, this is a genocide executed with the purpose of ethnic cleansing, to be precise, the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza (at least).

Prompted by South Africa, even the International Court of Justice – in a sense, the ICC’s “sibling” organization – has already recognized that genocide is at least a plausible possibility. It is important to understand that ICJ cases take years to conclude. At this point, a finding of a plausible possibility of genocide is the worst imaginable outcome for Israel already. In view of the fact that Tel Aviv has since then resolutely disregarded all the instructions the ICJ issued to restrain its assault, it is all the more likely that, in the end, Israel will be fully convicted.

Read more

And yet while the ICJ deals with cases between states, the ICC tries individuals – and has been conspicuous by its reticence to charge Israeli citizens. Critics have pointed out that the court and Khan himself have, once again, been very slow in reacting to Israel’s crimes. Mick Wallace, an Irish member of the European Parliament, has denounced Khan as a “pawn of US Empire” who has displayed pro-Israeli bias and cannot “be trusted to deliver justice.” Only Khan’s removal, says Wallace, could save the ICC from irrelevance. The BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanctions) movement, a key player in Palestinian and international resistance to Israel, has even accused Khan of being an accomplice to Tel Aviv’s genocide and, unsurprisingly, also called for him to be fired.

Only recently, as we are now looking back on half a year of unrelenting Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians in Gaza (and, as a matter of fact, elsewhere, too) have Khan and the ICC slowly started stirring themselves. Yet even now their efforts appear disingenuous. For instance, when finally appointing a prosecutor to lead the investigation into Israel’s actions against the Palestinians, Khan managed to find perhaps the worst candidate imaginable. Andrew Cayley is obviously well-embedded in the British establishment. He used to serve as the UK’s chief military prosecutor. He is a committed and open Conservative, while claiming that that does not tarnish his objectivity. Last but not least, according to The Guardian, Cayley “played a key role in a process that resulted in” the ICC giving up on a “long-running investigation into allegations that UK military personnel committed war crimes in Iraq.” Ask yourself: If you were Palestinian, would you expect fair treatment from a man with this CV?

As if to make things even worse for its own reputation, the ICC has recently added arrest warrants against two high-ranking Russian officers. In their case, the essence of the charges is that they are held responsible for attacks on infrastructure in Ukraine that, the court alleges, went beyond what humanitarian law permits. Really? The same court that has never issued similar warrants against US officers, while the comprehensive devastation of infrastructure – on a scale that Russia has not matched in Ukraine – is routine in American warfare? The same court that is dragging its feet over Israel’s assault on Gaza, which is all about mass killing of civilians not “only” directly but by the deliberate and virtually total destruction and crippling of infrastructure?

The ICC is neither promoting nor protecting human rights and international law. In reality, its obvious and indecently manifest political bias is undermining both. Is it possible that, one day, the ICC will change course, abandon its current role as an instrument of Western geopolitics, and finally do its job: pursue justice without bias? Maybe. No one knows the future. But one thing is predictable: If the ICC continues in what we might call the Khan mode of flagrant subservience, then it will become irrelevant, and soon.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The Red Sea crisis has shifted attention to the Eastern Maritime Corridor (EMC) – the proposed trade route for coking coal, crude oil, LNG, fertilizers and containers

The trajectory of India’s oil demand growth reflects the shifting contours of the global energy landscape. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) estimates India’s oil demand in 2024 at 5.59 million b/d, a marginal rise from 5.37 million b/d in 2023.

India’s oil imports reached unprecedented levels in January 2024, with inbound shipments of 5.33 mb/d, a significant jump from 4.65 million bpd in December 2023.

Russia’s role in India’s oil imports remains significant – contributing over 35% of total crude imports in 2023, amounting to 1.7 million bpd, as reported by S&P Global. Russia has maintained its position as India’s top supplier, despite a notable decline in oil imports from Russia for the second consecutive month in January 2024 amidst the backdrop of sanctions. According to LSEG data, imports from Russia decreased by 4.2% to 1.3 mb/d, while Vortexa’s data showed a more significant decline of 9% to 1.2 mb/d. The drop particularly impacted the supply of the light sweet Sokol grade.

The increased appeal of Russian crude to Indian refiners, despite tightening sanctions, is compounded by escalating tanker premiums due to the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea region. The crisis has disrupted global shipping and supply chains, impacting commodities and crude oil prices. The Suez Canal is one of the most vital links for international shipping – based on data from Kpler, typically, 10-12% of worldwide crude exports and 14-15% of oil product exports, including gasoline and diesel, transit through the Red Sea. Moreover, UNCTAD reports that the most significant impact has been observed in liquefied natural gas carriers, which have ceased operations entirely since January 16, 2024.

This underscores the need for resilient trade mechanisms to navigate unforeseen crises, shaping the future of trade relations. India, heavily reliant on the Suez Canal for trade with Europe, West Asia, and Africa, faces significant repercussions from the Red Sea crisis, given that approximately 60% of its crude oil imports come from the Middle East.

Read more

This crisis has not only heightened India’s energy and security concerns but has also escalated transportation costs and time. It’s estimated that the closure of the Suez Canal could inflict daily losses of around $200 million on India’s trade.

Additionally, the conflict has driven up shipping expenses by 40-60%, leading to a substantial surge in rates for transporting 20-ft containers to Europe and the US, now priced at an average of $2,000, up from $500 prior to the crisis. Similarly, freight rates for shipping containers to Saudi Arabia have doubled, climbing from $700 to $1,500.

The Red Sea crises, therefore, has shifted attention to the Eastern Maritime Corridor (EMC) – the proposed trade route, especially for coking coal, crude oil, LNG, fertilizers and containers, connecting the Indian port of Chennai and the Russian port of Vladivostok, passing through the Bay of Bengal, the Andaman Sea, the Malacca Strait, the South China Sea, the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan. The route was used by the two countries during Soviet era, but as trade volumes decreased post 1990s, the route was practically dormant.

Today, the EMC is becoming pivotal for the future development of bilateral ties.

At present, Russian vessels and shipments going through the Suez Canal route are not the primary focus of these attacks. Nonetheless, the diversion of ships away from the Suez Canal and Red Sea, opting instead for longer routes around the southern tip of Africa, has resulted in extended voyages. Consequently, this redirection has led to a scarcity of vessels and an increase in freight rates.

In this context, the EMC has several advantages over the existing routes for India-Russia trade (apart from Red Sea route those are the Cape of Good Hope route and the North Sea route). The EMC offers a significant reduction in both cargo transit time between India and the Far East of Russia, potentially up to 16 days, and in distance by up to 40%, promising substantial efficiency gains in transportation.

Currently, the route from Mumbai to of St. Petersburg, Russia, via the Western Sea Route and Suez Canal spans 8,675 nautical miles or 16,066 km. In contrast, the distance from Chennai to Vladivostok via the EMC is significantly shorter, at only 5,647 nautical miles, or 10,458 km. This translates to substantial savings of 5,608 km in distance, promising significant reductions in logistical costs and enhancing the efficiency of cargo transportation between the two nations.

??? & ?? fortifying mutual trade & commerce
?Eastern Maritime Corridor unlocking opportunities
?Chennai-Vladivostok sea route (EMC) to reduce transit time from 40 days to 16 days
? @PortofChennai opens trade opportunities in Southeast Asia?Access to Russia’s Far East pic.twitter.com/zS7MKcSucO

— Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways (@shipmin_india) September 20, 2023

The EMC is not only a trade route, but also a strategic corridor that can enhance cooperation between India and Russia in the energy sector, as well as in other areas such as the Arctic and the North Sea route (NSR).

The Arctic region is a key area for Russia’s economy, holding about 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its undiscovered gas. India has shown significant interest in investing in Arctic projects and using the NSR, which is a shorter and cheaper path to Europe and North America than the Suez Canal route.

As for investments, India has been actively involved in the Arctic region for years. For instance, in the first seven months of 2023, India accounted for 35% of the eight million tons of cargo handled by the Murmansk port, which is about 2,000 km north of Moscow.

India and Russia have already taken some steps to operationalize the EMC. In September 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Vladimir Putin launched the Chennai-Vladivostok Maritime Corridor during their annual summit in Vladivostok.

The EMC is a game-changer for India-Russia trade, as it offers a new and viable route for their energy and economic cooperation, amid the Red Sea turmoil. It can also boost the strategic partnership and mutual interests of the two countries, as they seek to diversify their markets and sources, and to counter the challenges posed by the sanctions and the crisis. It can revolutionize India-Russia trade, and pave the way for a more stable and prosperous future for both countries.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The act, like most of the bloc’s virtue signaling, is the opposite of what its name ought to herald

The EU’s new Media Freedom Act has now been voted into law, with 464 votes for, 92 against, and 65 abstentions.

There are some news outlets whose coverage of the vote I’d like to see. Like RT’s, where you’re reading this right now. But anyone who’s viewing this from inside the European Union’s bastion of democracy and freedom is likely doing so via a VPN connection routed through somewhere outside the bloc, to circumvent its press censorship.

Nothing in this new law suggests that this will change, or that there will be increased access to information and analysis for the average person. Such improved freedoms might lead to people making up their own minds rather than having various flavors of a similar narrative served up for mass consumption. As has become par for the course in so-called Western democracies, inconvenient facts and analysis will still be dismissed as “disinformation” and criticism of the establishment still qualified as an effort to sow division – as though dissent itself wasn’t supposed to be proof of a healthy and vibrant democracy.

So, now that we’ve gotten out of the way any hope of lifting the EU’s top-down censorship in the absence of due process, exactly what kind of lip service does this new law pay to the lofty notion of media freedom?

Read more

No spying on journalists or pressing them to disclose their sources. Well, unless you’re one of the countries that lobbied to be able to keep doing this – like France, Italy, Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Sweden, and Finland – so basically, a quarter of EU countries. Oh, but they have to invoke national-security concerns in order to do so. Which, as we know, they’re very discerning about. Like, they didn’t at all implement a virtual police state and extend its powers under the guise of fighting a virus with which French President Emmanuel Macron kept saying they were “at war.” Nor did Amnesty International point out the sweeping “Orwellian” trend across Europe, at least as far back as 2017, of exploiting domestic terrorist attacks to permanently embed what were supposed to be extraordinary powers into criminal law, via measures like “overly broad definitions of terrorism.” So, no doubt they’ll be equally reasonable when slapping the “national security threat” label on a journalist whose work they want to peek at.

At least now, under this new law, they do have to fully inform any targeted journalist of the steps being taken against them.

Another thing that changes is that there’s to be a centralized database into which “all news and current affairs outlets regardless of their size will have to publish information about their owners,” according to an EU press release. May we propose a first candidate for that? The NGO Reporters Without Borders has praised this new law as a “major step forward for the right to information within the European Union.” The same NGO also just launched a “Svoboda” (Russian for “freedom”) satellite package eventually consisting “of up to 25 independent Russian language radio and television channels” aimed at Russia, Ukraine, and the Baltics. The launch took place at the EU parliament, in the presence of EU “values and transparency” commissioner (yes, that’s a real title), Vera Jourova, who has said in support of the new media law that “it is a threat to those who want to use the power of the state, also the financial one, to make the media dependent on them.” But she has also said about this new Russia-targeting initiative that the EU state needs to “use all possible means to ensure that their work, that facts and information can reach Russian-speaking people.” This is the same person who advocated in favor of banning Russia-linked media outlets in the EU.

Read more

Anyway, you first, guys. Show everyone else how it’s done. Also, does this mean that all financial interests in the form of advertising spending will also have to be declared by corporate media? Because state-backed media platforms are already transparent; it’s the much more discretionary interests underpinning the more commercial platforms that tend to be much less obvious to audiences. Audiences may not know or understand, for example, why a particular corporate media outlet might focus on a particular nation state with softball interviews, travel pieces, and fluffy documentaries, and treating it with kid gloves in news coverage, when in reality the same country is pumping a ton of ad revenues into the place.

In any case, Queen Ursula von der Leyen’s battalion of bureaucratic desk jockeys is set to grow in ranks now with a new “European Board for Media Services” coming online as a result of the new law. Because freedom isn’t going to police itself, pal.

The name itself Media Freedom Act really is the first clue that it’s probably not all that much about freedom. Kind of like how the “European Peace Facility” fund is used to buy weapons, or the “election” of the handpicked EU Commissioner is really just what any normal country would call a confirmation vote.

It’s a pretty safe bet that whenever the EU kicks the virtue-signaling into overdrive, using feel-good language to sell it, the reality is probably the opposite of what’s advertised.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Macron’s latest sallies and the spat they’ve caused show that Western Europe must finally be honest about the causes of the Ukraine conflict

The current situation in the conflict between Ukraine – serving (while being demolished) as a proxy for the West – and Russia, can be sketched in three broad strokes.

First, Russia now clearly has the upper hand on the battlefield and could potentially accelerate its recent advances to achieve an overall military victory soon. The West is being compelled to recognize this fact: as Foreign Affairs put it, in an article titled “Time is Running Out in Ukraine,” Kiev and its Western supporters “are at a critical decision point and face a fundamental question: How can further Russian advances… be stopped, and then reversed?” Just disregard the bit of wishful thinking thrown in at the end to sweeten the bitter pill of reality. The key point is the acknowledgment that it is crunch time for the West and Ukraine – in a bad way.

Second, notwithstanding the above, Ukraine is not yet ready to ask for negotiations to end the war on terms acceptable to Russia, which would be less than easy for Kiev. (Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, reiterated in an important recent interview that Moscow remains principally open to talks, not on the basis of “wishful thinking” but, instead, proceeding from the realities “on the ground.”)

The Kiev regime’s inflexibility is little wonder. Since he jettisoned a virtually complete – and favorable – peace deal in the spring of 2022, President Vladimir Zelensky has gambled everything on an always improbable victory. For him personally, as well as his core team (at least), there is no way to survive – politically or physically – the catastrophic defeat they have brought on their country by leasing it out as a pawn to the Washington neocon strategy.

The Pope, despite the phony brouhaha he triggered in Kiev and the West, was right: a responsible Ukrainian leadership ought to negotiate. But that’s not the leadership Ukraine has. Not yet at least.

Third, the West’s strategy is getting harder to decipher because, in essence, the West cannot figure out how to adjust to the failure of its initial plans for this war. Russia has not been isolated; its military has become stronger, not weaker – and the same is true of its economy, including its arms industry.

Read more

And last but not least, the Russian political system’s popular legitimacy and effective control has neither collapsed nor even frayed. As, again, even Foreign Affairs admits, “ Putin would likely win a fair election in 2024.” That’s more than could be said for, say, Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak, Olaf Scholz, or Emmanuel Macron (as for Zelensky, he has simply canceled the election).

In other words, the West is facing not only Ukraine’s probable defeat, but also its own strategic failure. The situation, while not a direct military rout (as in Afghanistan in 2021) amounts to a severe political setback.

In fact, this looming Western failure is a historic debacle in the making. Unlike with Afghanistan, the West will not be able to simply walk away from the mess it has made in Ukraine. This time, the geopolitical blowback will be fierce and the costs very high. Instead of isolating Russia, the West has isolated itself, and by losing, it will show itself weakened.

It is one thing to have to finally, belatedly accepted that the deceptive “unipolar” moment of the 1990s has been over for a long time. It is much worse to gratuitously enter the new multipolar order with a stunning, avoidable self-demotion. Yet that is what the EU/NATO-West has managed to fabricate from its needless over-extension in Ukraine. Hubris there has been galore, the fall now is only a matter of time – and not much time at that.

Regarding EU-Europe in particular, on one thing French President Emmanuel Macron is half right. Russia’s victory “ would reduce Europe’s credibility to zero.” Except, of course, a mind of greater Cartesian precision would have detected that Moscow’s victory will merely be the last stage in a longer process.

The deeper causes of EU/NATO-Europe’s loss of global standing are threefold. First, its own wanton decision to seek confrontation instead of a clearly feasible compromise and cooperation with Russia (why exactly is a neutral Ukraine impossible to live with again?) Second, the American strategy of systematically diminishing EU/NATO-Europe with a short-sighted policy of late-imperial client cannibalization which takes the shape of aggressive deindustrialization and a “Europeanization” of the war in Ukraine. And third, the European clients’ grotesque acquiescence to the above.

Read more

That is the background to a recent wave of mystifying signals coming out of Western, especially EU/NATO elites: First, we have had a wave of scare propaganda to accompany the biggest NATO maneuvers since the end of the Cold War. Next Macron publicly declared and has kept reiterating that the open – not in covert-but-obvious mode, as now – deployment of Western ground troops in Ukraine is an option. He added a cheap demagogic note by calling on Europeans not to be “cowards,” by which he means that they should be ready to follow, in effect, his orders and fight Russia, clearly including inside and on behalf of Ukraine. Never mind that the latter is a not an official member of either NATO or the EU as well as a highly corrupt and anything but democratic state.

In response, a divergence has surfaced inside EU/NATO Europe: The German government has been most outspoken in contradicting Macron. Not only Chancellor Scholz rushed to distance himself. A clearly outraged Boris Pistorius – Berlin’s hapless minister of defense, recently tripped up by his own generals’ stupendously careless indiscretion over the Taurus missiles – has grumbled that there is no need for “talk about boots on the ground or having more courage or less courage.” Perhaps more surprisingly, Poland, the Czech Republic as well as NATO figurehead Jens Stoltenberg (i.e., the US) have been quick to state that they are, in effect, not ready to support Macron’s initiative. The French public, by the way, is not showing any enthusiasm for a Napoleonic escalation either. A Le Figaro poll shows 68 percent against openly sending ground troops to Ukraine.

On the other side, Macron has found some support. He is not entirely isolated, which helps explain why he has dug in his heels: Zelensky does not count in this respect. His bias is obvious, and his usual delusions notwithstanding he is not calling the shots on the matter. The Baltic states, however, while military micro-dwarfs, are, unfortunately, in a position to exert some influence inside the EU and NATO. And true to form, they have sided with the French president, with Estonia and Lithuania taking the lead.

It remains impossible to be certain what we are looking at. To get the most far-fetched hypothesis out of the way first: is this a coordinated bluff with a twist? A complicated Western attempt at playing good-cop bad-cop against Russia, with Macron launching the threats and others signaling that Moscow could find them less extreme, at a diplomatic price, of course? Hardly. For one thing, that scheme would be so hare-brained, even the current West is unlikely to try. No, the crack opening up in Western unity is real.

Regarding Macron himself, too-clever-by-half, counter-productive cunning is his style. We cannot know what exactly he is trying to do; and he may not know himself. In essence, there are two possibilities. Either the French president now is a hard-core escalationist determined to widen the war into an open clash between Russia and NATO, or he is a high-risk gambler who is engaged in a bluff to achieve three purposes. Frighten Moscow into abstaining from pushing its military advantage in Ukraine (a hopeless idea); score nationalist “grandeur” points domestically in France (which is failing already); and increase his weight inside EU/NATO-Europe by “merely” posturing as, once again, a new “Churchill” – whom Macron himself has made sure to allude to, in all his modesty. (And some of his fans, including Zelensky, a grizzled veteran of Churchill live action role play, have already made that de rigueur if stale comparison.)

While we cannot entirely unriddle the moody sphinx of the Elysée or, for that matter, the murky dealings of EU/NATO-European elites, we can say two things. First, whatever Macron thinks he is doing, it is extremely dangerous. Russia would treat EU/NATO-state troops in Ukraine as targets – and it won’t matter one wit if they turn up labeled “NATO” or under national flags “only.” Russia has also reiterated that it considers its vital interests affected in Ukraine and that if its leadership perceives a vital threat to Russia, nuclear weapons are an option. The warning could not be clearer.

Read more

Second, here is the core Western problem that is now – due to Russia undeniably winning the war – becoming acute: Western elites are split between “pragmatists” and “extremists.” The pragmatists are as Russophobic and strategically misguided as the extremists, but they do shy away from World War Three. Yet these pragmatists, who seek to resist hard-core escalationists and reign it at least high-risk gamblers, are brought up short against a crippling contradiction in their own position and messaging: As of now, they still share the same delusional narrative with the extremists. Both groupings keep reiterating that Russia plans to attack all of EU/NATO-Europe once it defeats Ukraine and that, therefore, stopping Russia in Ukraine is, literally, vital (or in Macron’s somewhat Sartrean terms “existential”) to the West.

That narrative is absurd. Reality works exactly the other way around: The most certain way to get into a war with Russia is to send troops to Ukraine openly. And what is existential for EU/NATO-Europe is to finally liberate itself from American “leadership.” During the Cold War, a case could be made that (then Western) Europe needed the US. After the Cold War, though, that was no longer the case. In response, Washington has implemented a consistent, multi-administration, bipartisan, if often crude, strategy of avoiding what should have been inevitable: the emancipation of Europe from American dominance.

Both the eastward expansion of NATO, programmed – and predicted – to cause a massive conflict with Russia and the current proxy war in Ukraine, obstinately provoked by Washington over decades, are part of that strategy to – to paraphrase a famous saying about NATO – “keep Europe down.” And the European elites have played along as if there’s no tomorrow, which, for them, there really may not be.

We are at a potential breaking-point, a crisis of that long-term trajectory. If the pragmatists in EU/NATO-Europe really want to contain the extremists, who play with triggering an open war between Russia and NATO that would devastate at least Europe, then they must now come clean and, finally, abandon the common, ideological, and entirely unrealistic narrative about an existential threat from Moscow.

As long as the pragmatists dare not challenge the escalationists on how to principally understand the causes of the current catastrophe, the extremists will always have the advantage of consistency: Their policies are foolish, wastefully unnecessary, and extremely risky. And yet, they follow from what the West has made itself believe. It is high time to break that spell of self-hypnosis, and face facts.

Медиа: image / jpeg

As Beijing helps revamp the Iranian capital’s metro system, a bigger picture of counter-hegemony takes shape

Last week, Masoud Dorosti, the managing director of Tehran’s bustling metro system, dropped a bombshell: After seven years of intense negotiations, the Iranian capital is gearing up to welcome a whopping 791 sleek metro trains from China. It’s a move set to transform the city’s transit scene, injecting new life into a system that hasn’t seen a serious upgrade in half a decade.

But that’s not all. Tehran’s mayor, Alireza Zakani, threw in another ace from his sleeve last month, unveiling a flurry of contracts inked with Chinese giants aimed at giving the city’s infrastructure a serious facelift. From major transportation projects to ambitious construction ventures, China’s fingerprints may soon be all over Tehran’s urban landscape. Heck, they’re even rolling up their sleeves to erect housing units in this sprawling metropolis of nearly 9 million souls.

For anyone who’s ever wandered the bustling streets of China’s megacities, the thought of Tehran sporting a metro system rivaling any of China’s tier-one cities isn’t just a pipe dream; it’s a tantalizing glimpse into the future. With its sleek trains zipping through immaculate stations, China’s urban rail network sets the gold standard for public transportation worldwide. Could Tehran, a city boxed in by international sanctions, really outshine the likes of New York City’s aging subway system?

Well, that wouldn’t actually be that hard – but it’s worth rewinding a bit.

This metro makeover isn’t just a spur-of-the-moment fling; it’s part of a grand strategic partnership inked back in 2016 between Iran and China, and later bolstered in 2021 with a 25-year plan. With a target of $600 billion in annual bilateral trade by 2026, an increasing amount of which is done in the Chinese national currency, this pact isn’t just about shiny new trains – it’s about forging a bond that runs deep, touching on everything from trade and economics to transportation and beyond.

Read more

At its core, the China-Iran partnership is a symphony of economic, political, and military notes, echoing across the Middle East and beyond. While the US grapples with its own internal squabbles, Beijing and Tehran are busy cozying up, flexing their muscles, and throwing down the gauntlet to Western hegemony in the region.

Economically, this partnership is a match made in heaven. China’s insatiable hunger for energy dovetails perfectly with Iran’s vast oil and gas reserves, while Tehran sees Beijing as a lifeline amid mounting economic pressures and diplomatic isolation. With Western sanctions breathing down its neck, Iran’s embrace of China isn’t just strategic – it’s survival instinct.

Beyond economic ties, the China-Iran partnership holds significant geopolitical implications, challenging the traditional hegemony of Western powers in the Middle East. As China expands its presence in the region through ambitious infrastructure projects and strategic investments, it seeks to carve out a greater role in shaping regional dynamics, countering Western influence, and advancing its own strategic interests.

By aligning with Beijing, Tehran aims to enhance its strategic autonomy, diversify its diplomatic and economic partnerships, and bolster its leverage on the global stage, presenting a united front against Western pressure and isolation.

However, the burgeoning China-Iran alliance is not without its challenges and complexities. As Beijing deepens its engagement with Tehran, it risks alienating key regional players and drawing the ire of Western powers wary of China’s expanding influence.

The stakes are high, with Beijing’s expanding influence drawing scrutiny and skepticism from all corners.

Yet, within Iran itself, the path forward is anything but smooth. There is domestic dissent, with voices like Ahmad Khorram, a former minister under President Mohammad Khatami, decrying Beijing’s encroachment on local turf as an affront to Iran’s engineering prowess. And while trade figures paint a rosy picture, with a paltry $12.5 billion exchanged last year compared to the lofty $600 billion goal, tensions simmer beneath the surface.

Read more

Troubles don’t end there. Recent squabbles over oil prices and diplomatic jousting in the Red Sea hint at deeper fissures within this budding alliance. But amidst the turbulence, one thing remains clear: The stakes are too high to ignore. Zooming out, the geopolitical chessboard takes shape, with China and Iran’s strategic gambit reshaping the regional landscape. A 25-year deal signed in 2021 sets the stage for a bold new era of cooperation, with Beijing’s vision for regional security and stability taking center stage.

But not everyone’s on board. Traditional adversaries such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States eye this burgeoning alliance cautiously, wary of the shifting tides in Middle Eastern politics. Yet, even amid lingering tensions, glimmers of hope emerge, with China’s role as a mediator facilitating a thaw in Saudi-Iranian relations last year.

And then there’s the elephant in the room – the US and its band of allies, forever casting a shadow over regional affairs. As China lends a helping hand in revamping Tehran’s metro, one might wonder if Uncle Sam is jealous given that its handful of metro systems are rat factories.

The bigger picture is clear: It’s no longer the US that has a monopoly on trade, technology, or foreign direct investment. China is already the world leader in global infrastructure development and is outpacing the US in research and development. Before long, Washington’s sanctions will be, as Jean Dujardin’s character described a subpoena from the US Department of Justice in ‘The Wolf of Wall Street,’ papier toilette.

Медиа: image / jpeg

New Delhi pursues multipolarity as the conflict highlights the serious limitation of Western influence over the “third world” and hastens the collapse of American supremacy

Just as 9/11 legitimized an era of American global expansionist policymaking since 2001, the Ukraine crisis of 2022 might well signal the end of unipolarity once and for all. The rise of alternative power centers has challenged the dominant narratives espoused by the American elite and their European allies with non-Western, post-colonial counter-narratives.

For India, which follows a time-tested policy of strategic autonomy and balancing, the heralding of multipolarity – a more balanced and complex global system where several states or regions have relatively equal levels of influence – works in its favor.

Diplomatic juggling

In the unipolar model, India would run the risk of being exposed to entrapment by the hegemonic power in contradiction to its own state interests. Within a bipolar world, Indian strategy would rest on the little wriggle space existing between the contending great powers. In contrast, multipolarity works hand-in-hand with the Indian way of balancing its relations with one set of stakeholders on an issue while interacting with other powers on a different problem. Such delicate diplomatic juggling is the hallmark of Indian diplomacy.

Importantly, the Ukrainian crisis has led to another, deep-seated crisis within the Western system – the increasing irrelevance of the liberal international order. Despite the US and its allies stating the crisis as “affecting the whole world,” the truth of the matter remains that it’s the unilateral sanctions imposed by Western governments that have stunted the global economy.

Read more

The international world is driven by two interlinked factors: military and finance, which explains why the US has been the world’s sole hegemonic state for decades. Militarily, US defense expenditures alone are equivalent to the military spending of the next eleven largest competitors combined, according to SIPRI. Financially, American supremacy is maintained through the dominance of the US dollar in the international monetary system. The US wielding its influence to exclude Russia from the SWIFT international messaging system for banks or imposing unilateral sanctions on states that failed to live up to the standards of American foreign policy is just another example of how this dominance works. Although in direct violation of the UN Charter, international law, international humanitarian law, and the Geneva Conventions, the use of sanctions in US foreign policy has become customary.

However, in the wake of the Ukraine crisis, instead of isolating Russia, the West, ironically, has instead alienated itself from the hearts and minds of the Global South. Hijacking multilateral forums to divert the spotlight back to Ukraine has led to disaffection among the “third world” nations. Such tactics only work to weaken the Western-led liberal internationalist “rules-based” project.

Within this unraveling world order, we are moving from institutionalism, globalization, and Responsibility to Protect (R2P) towards the 3 R’s – regionalism, realignment, and realpolitik. Shivshankar Menon, a former Indian national security adviser, opined, “We are headed for a poorer, meaner, and smaller world.”

Multi-alignment strategy

During the Cold War, the newly independent Indian republic was careful not to get entangled in alliances. This striving to maintain its independence and territorial integrity stemmed from its dark colonial history of exploitation. Such a singular focus of New Delhi on preserving its sovereignty extends up to the present day, especially after it witnessed Britain hand over the mantle of maritime dominance to the US. This also explains why today, despite being a democracy, India doesn’t “promote democracy” in the international realm as the US does.

The end of the Cold War left India’s foreign policy in peril. One of its staunch and greatest allies – the Soviet Union – had disappeared from the world map. Worse still, in 1991 New Delhi underwent an economic crisis of its own. A serious balance of payments deficit, exhausted foreign exchange reserves, and lack of allies in the international realm forced it to open up its economy under pressure from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund – organizations largely under American influence.

Read more

The consequent restructuring of the economy from a closed, bureaucratic-socialist to a mixed-market economy has produced remarkable growth in the world’s largest democracy. The crisis also compelled New Delhi to search for new allies and relationships, thus beginning a steadfast commitment to engaging multiple partners simultaneously while balancing stakeholders between global issues.

A closer analysis of India’s foreign policy pillars would reveal that its foundational bedrock is based on 'Panchsheel', or Five Values, declared during the Indo-China Agreement of 1954. These are mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful co-existence.

This has evolved to govern India’s relationship with other states over time. Another pivotal pillar has been the strategic balancing of partners. With the rise of alternate centers of power, a policy of multi-alignment became key.

India’s rise also coincided with the resurgence of Russia and China in the international realm with their 1997 joint UN declaration on a multipolar world. Ironically, the watershed moment arrived 25 years later in the culmination of the Ukraine conflict.

The rift with Europe has pushed Russia towards China and, by extension, Asia. At the same time, the Western bloc is becoming aware of its limitations in countering Russia even as it feels threatened by a resurgent China. The states of the Global South feel that a “European war” is hijacking critical global issues such as food security, climate change, and alleviating poverty. Within this new era of realignments, India has risen as a prominent power that has successfully walked the tightrope of preserving its old friendships while forging new relations.

Superpower redefined

Some critics see India’s rise as overrated since New Delhi’s foreign policy has remained aloof and avoided restrictive alliances and entrenched positions. It is no secret that India deliberately follows a policy of strategic ambiguity. Diplomacy is used to provide subtle overtures to allies, partners, and rivals regarding Indian intentions while abstentions at international organizations such as the UN are implicitly used to show covert support for its allies or the lack thereof.

Read more

Some scholars mark such careful balancing as a weakness, rather than as a state’s source of power. In countering such criticism, India’s rise is questioning the traditional definition of what a superpower is. The term is often defined negatively in terms of aspirations for global domination, pursuit of entrenched alliances, and rhetoric of war and conflict, but India is posing difficult questions to traditionally held definitions of a great power.

Why can’t a superpower be seen as a balancer and a bearer of peace and stability? Why should a superpower always promote a hidden agenda through forever wars? Why must a superpower always forge and maintain alliances to merit the title of a great power?

Such revisions, especially originating from the Global South, are crucial to both reforming international relations and ensuring stability in an uncertain world of plurality. The demise of the liberal international order will pave the way for a new set of rules, which will encompass the aspirations and ambitions of the emerging powers.

In a multipolar world where the US isn’t a hegemonic power but just another “big kid on the geopolitical block,” it is imperative to follow partnerships instead of alliances, establish economic relations instead of neocolonialism, and focus on harmony rather than conflict.

India’s foreign policy had been chastised for avoiding alliances during the Cold War. In a new world where balancing is key, India’s internationalist foreign policy is emerging as a model of stability, sovereignty, and sustainability in the face of global uncertainty.

Медиа: image / jpeg

France has just made abortion, already legal, a constitutional right – a sign of the country’s morbid drive to self-destruction

The Olympics will not be the only big event and source of euphoria in Paris in 2024. While Russian President Vladimir Putin is encouraging his population to have more children, Macron’s France is celebrating the ‘enshrinement’ of abortion in the constitution. What does this say about France and the West in general?

In 2022, there were 234,300 abortions in France. The procedure is legal upon request until 14 weeks after conception. These figures are interesting when one considers that French politicians (and elderly voters, who are the majority of the electorate) insist on maintaining the extremely costly pension system and say that it has a price. Someone needs to pay. That is, the active population needs to pay. You would think that to sustain the requisite size of the active population, it would be more logical to encourage having more new births than to ‘enshrine’ having fewer. But that’s not an issue if you import the population.

In 2022, France welcomed 320,330 new people to the country – not counting illegal immigrants. Immigration in the country has nothing to do anymore with the fact that France has been a colonial power and that it is dealing with the consequences of its former policies. More and more people are coming from countries or regions such as Pakistan, Eritrea, Chechnya… where France never meddled in local affairs whatsoever.

Something important that goodhearted Frenchmen seem to forget and French politicians feign to ignore, is that these populations, especially those from Africa, come with traditions which do not quickly disappear with time. Having multiple children is one of them, as these populations have for centuries been accustomed to having ten children or more because most of them would die young. French women usually have one or two. And the women who go for abortions are in the vast majority local French women. It should be noted that the situation is the same in most of the European Union.

Read more

Besides political decisions, the euphoria that took hold after this reform of the constitution is also worrying from a psycho-social point of view. Abortion has been legal in France for decades. There is indeed nothing new in this symbolic gesture of President Emmanuel Macron’s government. The fact that many women celebrated this strictly formal political decision as a ‘victory’ is a sign that many, unconsciously, want to die, to disappear as a population, as a civilization. This neo-feminism has gone too far. It leads to pure infantilization. A child thinks that he is the center of the world; neo-feminists think that their uterus is the center of the world. A child doesn’t care about the consequences of his deeds; neo-feminists do not want to think about consequences. The real message of this ‘victory’ is the following – you can screw around with as many people as you want, there will be no consequences. Even when the existence of your people is at stake. No consequences.

But their wish to be fully infantile does not stop here. Jacobinism emerged in France during the Revolution. It is nowadays seen as a centralized political organization, a system that imposes to other regions the views of the center of power. Many new ideas emerged in France and spread, first to the US, mainly, where they attained their real strength, before spreading to the rest of the world. The philosophical movement of the Lumières is certainly the most important in modern history, the most famous human rights document was written there, ‘French Theory’ has had an enormous influence on the world, etc. Now, some French women, after the ‘enshrinement’ of abortion in the constitution, say that the fight is not over, that they need to do everything they can in order for women from other European countries, from Russia, Japan, Pakistan, Iran, from the whole world, to obtain the same ‘right’. The enshrinement of abortion in the Charter of the United Nations would be a minimum for them. The Jacobin mentality of the West is not dead.

Now that abortion is a constitutional right, Macron, ahead of the European elections, and to position himself as the champion of progress and modernity against Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party, is considering introducing a new law, making euthanasia legal. The West, step by step, is adopting a policy of controlling the entire cycle of life. As Macron does not have any children, he may be indifferent to the death of millions of children-to-be. But maybe an adviser should remind him that Brigitte Macron is already 70.

Медиа: image / jpeg

A bill moving through the House offers a mafia racket-style ‘choice’ to both the Chinese social media app and American digital distributors

TikTok is the world’s most downloaded social media app. With over 1 billion active monthly users, it has become a global sensation and surpassed other social media platforms to become the newest craze of its time.

But for American politicians, there’s one big problem with it that they have never accepted – it’s Chinese. TikTok was not created by a Silicon Valley company, as has been the case for all other social media apps, but a Chinese company called ByteDance. This has continually made it the subject of political paranoia in Washington, DC and an obsession with Republican politicians to try and ban it.

As is the case with most things from China, such politicians denounce it spuriously, without evidence, as a conspiracy by the Communist Party of China to infiltrate, influence, or spy on their country in some way. There has never been any serious evidence of wrongdoing by the app, yet the political narrative has continued because it is convenient to do so.

There have already been a number of failed bans against it, including a botched attempt by the Trump administration in 2020 which was struck down by a legal challenge, and then an effort to ban it at the state level in Montana, also defeated in court.

But the hysteria is not going away. Republican Representative Mike Gallagher, the head of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, has introduced a new congressional bill which will once again attempt to effectively ban the video platform. The bill has advanced through the committee stage and is likely to get a floor vote. President Joe Biden has said he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

The act has produced outrage from TikTok’s 170 million users in the US who have bombarded their members of congress with calls to oppose the ban, but as with most things related to China in Washington, DC, it tends to fall on deaf ears. Gallagher insists that his bill is not an outright ban of TikTok – technically, what it envisions is making it illegal for distributors to provide apps controlled by ByteDance, and the company can choose to relinquish control to let TikTok stay in the US market. Obviously, this ‘choice’ is simply a mafia-style racket to force ByteDance to sell the most popular app in the world.

Read more

In other words, let the US smash and grab your social media product, or have it banned. It’s little more than legalized extortion, but this reflects a lot about the mentality of American politicians. America clearly has a big problem with the fact that one of its rival countries could create a globally acclaimed social media application. The US, after all, has until recently led the social media world hands down and there has been no contest, with Facebook, Twitter, and others all being American products which have changed the world.

The idea that China has created the next-generation social media app is a blow to the American ego, a ‘Sputnik’ moment that represents a shock to the American system comparable to the Soviet Union’s Cold War-era achievement. There is a fundamental difference here, however – in this case, America is not ‘looking in from the outside’ like it was at the standalone achievement of the USSR. TikTok has become a cultural sensation in America itself, and thus a projection of ‘soft power’.

It has become a defining characteristic of America’s struggle with China that the US in its own insecurity has increasingly responded by turning inwards in reaction to Beijing. Whereas during the Cold War, America turned outwards to compete, with its own cultural products, markets, aid, and support, here the US fears it cannot compete with China on many levels and instead resorts to negative measures, such as bans, blacklisting, sanctions, export controls, bad faith allegations, and forcing allies to endure costs, rather than giving them incentives.

This of course reflects the reality that China has pursued a very different strategy to the Soviet Union, one that has been premised on much more global economic and commercial engagement, as well as technological successes. TikTok is seen as an emblem of this, because if Chinese companies with their skills in AI are starting to beat the old guard of Silicon Valley now, what is going to happen in the future? Seemingly, US politicians have no answer to this other than to become defensive. It is likely, however, that even if the bill passes, the ban will once again fail to withstand legal scrutiny.

Such a ban creates problems for the First Amendment, because if the US government can arbitrarily ban a platform on the basis that it constitutes ‘propaganda’, then arguably, this creates a disturbing precedent which can be used to strike anything down. Yet the fact that politicians are so readily willing to ban something on this premise might tell us how insecure, paranoid, and seemingly unsettled they have become regarding the rise of China. It is fair to say that even if nothing comes of this potential ban, the issue of TikTok is going to keep ticking and won’t go away.

Медиа: image / jpeg

There are more obese people in the world than hungry ones – which may sound like a good thing, but it really isn’t

World Obesity Day was marked this week and, with over a billion people afflicted worldwide, obesity is now considered more dangerous to global health than hunger. The numbers are staggering.

Sometime in the mid-20th century a cameraman captured an unforgettable black-and-white photo depicting thousands of American sunworshippers crowded onto Coney Island, New York City. What is most conspicuous about the iconic photograph, aside from the sheer number of beachgoers, is the lack of excessive cellulite packed into the assorted bathing suits and bikinis. Sadly and not a little tragically, those halcyon days are over.

While hunger overwhelmingly afflicts the poverty-stricken nations of the world, obesity represents a unique type of affliction in that it targets both rich and poor alike. Between 1990 and 2022, global obesity rates quadrupled for children and doubled for adults, according to a new study by the Lancet (The World Health Organization classifies obesity as having a body-mass index equal to or greater than 30 kilograms per square meter).

In the WHO's top-ten 'hefty' list, it may come as some surprise that the tiny Polynesian nations of Tonga and American Samoa had the highest prevalence of obesity in 2022 for women, while American Samoa and [nearby] Nauru had the highest rates among men. In those picturesque island paradises, more than 60% of the adult population were clinically obese. Other surprises included Egypt, weighing in at number ten in the female category, while Qatar took tenth place in boys’ obesity levels.

Read more

Among the wealthy countries, the United States was the heavyweight representative and is tenth in the world for obesity among men. Shockingly, the US adult obesity rate increased from 21.2% in 1990 to 43.8% in 2022 for women, and from 16.9% to 41.6% in 2022 for men, placing the nation of 330 million fast-food consumers 36th in the world for highest obesity rates among women and, for men, tenth in the world. By contrast, the adult obesity rate in the United Kingdom increased from 13.8% in 1990 to 28.3% in 2022 among females, ranking it 87th highest in the world, while the obesity rate for males surged from 10.7% to 26.9%, placing Britain at 55th.

Among children, the study found the US obesity rates increased from 11.6% in 1990 to 19.4% in 2022 for girls, 11.5% to 21.7% for boys. In 2022, the US ranked 22nd in the world for obesity among girls, 26th for boys.

Considering the rapid rates of change among Americans, the US will be predictably dominating the charts in just a few years, creating what could be considered a national emergency.

None of this should have been unpredictable. After all, what does a society expect that can’t even park the car and walk several steps into the restaurant? And it’s not like consumers are ordering homemade soup and salads at the drive-thru window. The junk food served at fast food enterprises is loaded with sodium content in order to prolong its shelf life, as well as saturated fatty acids that increase cholesterol levels in the body, clog the blood vessels and restrict normal blood flow, leading to heart disease. And that’s not even mentioning the high-fructose corn syrup found in the cola drinks.

The real challenge, however, is how to combat obesity at a time when so many people have become addicted to a sedentary, order-online lifestyle. It probably comes as no surprise that the same people who demand their food fast and fried, will also expect an easy cure as well.

Read more

Americans anxious about having to purchase a new wardrobe have taken to various diet pills, like Ozempic, a diabetes drug that is being used off-label as an appetite suppressant, and which got a shout out by none other than Elon Musk. The investment bank Morgan Stanley was panicked enough by the potential dent in junk-food profits that it released a white paper detailing how the diet pills could make Americans’ consumption of snack foods around 3% lower.

But do the American people really need another drug to combat the battle of the bulge, or is there a better, more natural way forward?

Back in 2022, the World Health Organization adopted an obesity response plan that includes a number of lifestyle changes, including the promotion of breastfeeding, restrictions on marketing unhealthy food and drinks to children, nutrition labelling, and physical activity standards for schools.

Now, if the WHO can just get Big Business behind the initiative, it just might make an impact.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Recent massacre of civilians lined up for food aid highlights deliberate nature of humanitarian catastrophe inflicted on Palestine

Following the February 29 Israeli slaughter of at least 115 starving Palestinians lined up for food aid, there was little or no outrage by the same Western media which would have howled if the perpetrator were Russia or Syria.

According to the Gaza Health Ministry, early morning on Thursday, February 29, Israeli forces opened fire on unarmed Palestinians waiting just southwest of Gaza City for desperately needed food aid. As a result, 115 civilians were killed and over 750 wounded.

Popular US commenter Judge Andrew Napolitano said in a recent interview with award-winning analyst Professor Jeffery Sachs, “Innocent Gaza civilians were lined up to receive flour and water from an aid truck, and more than 100 were slaughtered, mowed down, by Israeli troops. This has got to be one of the most reprehensible and public slaughterings that they’ve engaged in.”

The official Israeli version of events, unsurprisingly, puts the blame on the Palestinians themselves. The deaths and injuries were supposedly caused by a stampede, and the Israeli soldiers only fired when they felt they were endangered by the crowd. The BBC even cited one army lieutenant as saying that troops had “cautiously [tried] to disperse the mob with a few warning shots.” Mark Regev, a special adviser to the Israeli prime minister, went as far as to tell CNN that Israeli troops had not been involved directly in any way and that the gunfire had come from “Palestinian armed groups.”

Testimonies from survivors and doctors tell a different story, though, saying the majority of those treated after the incident had been shot by Israeli forces. Legacy media reports, however, use characteristically neutral wording when evidence starts to stack up against Israel. “112 dead in chaotic scenes as Israeli troops open fire near aid trucks, say Gaza officials,” a Guardian headline reads. Palestinians always seem to just “die,” not get killed, and Israeli troops seem to have just “opened fire” nearby. The skewed wording conventions persist even despite the attribution to Palestinian officials present in that same headline – officials like the Palestinian Foreign Ministry, which was quite clear in accusing Israel of perpetrating a ”massacre” as part of a “genocidal war.”

Read more

The article does eventually cite the acting Director of al-Awda hospital as saying most of the 161 casualties treated appeared to have been shot. The confusing headline was likely intentional, counting on most people not bothering to read the article in full.

In a report published on March 3, Euro-Med stated members of its field team were present at the time of the incident and “documented Israeli tanks firing heavily towards Palestinian civilians while trying to receive humanitarian aid.” The report goes on to cite Dr Jadallah Al-Shafi’i, head of nursing at Shifa, Gaza’s main hospital, saying, “paramedics and rescue workers were among the victims,” and that at Shifa “they observed dozens of dead and injured, hit by Israeli gunfire.”

The report also cites Dr Amjad Aliwa, an emergency specialist at Shifa who was also on site when Israel opened fire. According to Aliwa, the Israeli fire began, “as soon as the trucks arrived on Thursday at 4 am”

But the February 29 massacre, tragic as it is, is only a part of the current stage of Israel’s war on Gaza: the deliberate starvation of Palestinians. And like the massacre itself, the whole issue is being subjected to the hands-off wording treatment by establishment media.

On February 29, the New York Times published an article whose headline, “Starvation Is Stalking Gaza’s Children,” suggests starvation is a mysterious malicious force with a will of its own, skirting the mention of the Israeli siege as its obvious cause.

Again, as with the Guardian article, a few paragraphs in, the NYT piece does state that the “hunger is a man-made catastrophe,” describing how Israeli forces prevent food delivery and how Israeli bombardments make aid distribution dangerous.

As Professor Sachs stated, ”...Israel has deliberately starved the people of Gaza. Starved! I’m not using an exaggeration, I’m talking literally starving a population. Israel is a criminal, is in non-stop, war crime, status now. I believe in genocidal status.”

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that the February 29 massacre was not the first such incident, and likely not the last. A thread on Twitter/X outlines this, noting, ”Before yesterday’s “Flour Massacre”, the IDF has been shooting indiscriminately for WEEKS at starved Gazans awaiting aid trucks at the exact same spot, virtually every single day!”

Read more

The thread (warning: graphic images!), compiled by Gazan analyst and Euro-Med chief of communications Muhammad Shehada, gives examples of Israeli soldiers firing on Palestinians every single day in the week prior to February 29.

You can bet that, were these Syrian or Russian soldiers firing on starving civilians, the outrage would be front page, 24/7, for weeks. Scratch that, they wouldn’t even have to do it – just a hint of an accusation would have been enough to get the presses going.

Starvation in Syria was another matter

The NYT article mentioned above notes that “Reports of death by starvation are difficult to verify from a distance.” But ‘verifying from a distance’ is precisely what the NYT and other Western media did repeatedly in Syria over the years.

In areas occupied by (then) al-Nusra, Jaysh al-Islam, and the other extremist terrorist gangs which the West and corporate media dubbed “rebels,” food aid was always taken by the respective terrorists and withheld from the civilian population, causing starvation in some districts. Madaya, to the west of Damascus, eastern Aleppo, and later eastern Ghouta were districts most loudly campaigned over in legacy media, providing covering fire for the broader US-led campaign to overthrow the Syrian government.

Backing the claims that the government was starving civilians were mostly “unnamed activists” or activists whose allegiance to Nusra, or even ISIS, was very overt.

As I would see and hear whenever one of these regions was liberated, ample food and medicine had been sent in, but civilians never saw it. Time and again, in eastern Aleppo, Madaya, al-Waer, eastern Ghouta, to name key areas, civilians complained that terrorist factions hoarded food and medicine, and if they sold it to the population, it was at extortionist prices people couldn’t afford.

In the old city of Homs in 2014, back then dubbed by legacy media as the “capital of the revolution,” starved residents I met told me the West’s precious “rebels” had stolen every morsel of food from them, stealing anything of value as well.

Yet, media headlines about these regions screamed about starvation, outright blaming the Syrian government, and were accompanied by disturbing images of emaciated civilians (some of which were not even from Syria) meant to evoke strong emotions among readers and viewers. The same media largely opts not to show you gaunt, starving, Palestinians in Gaza.

Tellingly, Syrian towns surrounded by terrorist forces, besieged, bombed, sniped and starved, got virtually no media coverage. It didn’t fit NATO’s narrative of “rebels”=good, Assad=bad.

But in Gaza the world watches in real time as Palestinians die from the ongoing, preventable, starvation.

Read more

Open the borders

Some days ago, the CEO of Medical aid for Palestinians, Melanie Ward, in an interview with CNN, named Israel as the cause of starvation in Gaza.

“It’s very simple: it’s because the Israeli military won’t let it in. We could end this starvation tomorrow very simply if they would just let us have access to people there. But it’s not being allowed. This is what they said [on October 9], ‘Nothing will go in’,” Ward said.

She described the starvation as “the fastest decline in a population’s nutrition status ever recorded. What that means is that children are being starved at the fastest rate the world has ever seen. And we could finish it tomorrow, we could save them all. But we’re not being able to.”

This is echoed by UNICEF. The press-release for its February 2024 report notes that 15.6 % (one in six children) under two years of age are “acutely malnourished” in Gaza’s north. “Of these, almost 3% suffer from severe wasting, the most life-threatening form of malnutrition, which puts young children at highest risk of medical complications and death unless they receive urgent treatment,” UNICEF notes.

Even worse, “since the data were collected in January, the situation is likely to be even graver today,” UNICEF warns, likewise noting the rapid increase of malnutrition is “dangerous and entirely preventable.”

Professor Sachs made an important point: “This will stop when the United States stops providing the munitions to Israel. It will not stop by any self control in Israel, there is none...They believe in ethnic cleansing or worse. And it is the United States which is the sole support...that is not stopping this slaughter.”

Air-dropping paltry amounts of food aid into Gaza is not the answer. It both legitimizes Israel’s deliberate starvation of Gaza and also makes those Palestinians who run toward the aid sitting ducks for the Israeli army to maim or kill. The only solution is to immediately open the borders and allow in the hundreds of aid trucks parked in Egypt. And end the Israeli bombardment of Gaza.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Building Novorossiya back up after Ukrainian neglect and war is a monumental but unavoidable task

Tucker Carlson’s confused exasperation over Russian President Vladmir Putin’s extemporaneous history lesson at the start of their landmark February interview (which has been watched more than a billion times), underscored one realty. For a Western audience, the question of the historical bona fides of Russia’s claim of sovereign interest in territories located on the left (eastern) bank of the Dnieper River, currently claimed by Ukraine, is confusing to the point of incomprehension.

Vladimir Putin, however, did not manufacture his history lesson from thin air. Anyone who has followed the speeches and writings of the Russian president over the years would have found his comments to Carlson quite familiar, echoing both in tone and content previous statements made concerning both the viability of the Ukrainian state from an historic perspective, and the historical ties between what Putin has called Novorossiya (New Russia) and the Russian nation.

For example, on March 18, 2014, during his announcement regarding the annexation of Crimea, the president observed that “after the [Russian] Revolution [of 1917], for a number of reasons the Bolsheviks – let God judge them – added historical sections of the south of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic composition of the population, and these regions today form the south-east of Ukraine.”

Later during a televised question-and-answer session, Putin declared that “what was called Novorossiya back in tsarist days – Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev and Odessa – were not part of Ukraine then. These territories were given to Ukraine in the 1920s by the Soviet Government. Why? Who knows? They were won by Potemkin and Catherine the Great in a series of well-known wars. The center of that territory was Novorossiysk, so the region is called Novorossiya. Russia lost these territories for various reasons, but the people remained.”

Novorossiya isn’t just a construct of Vladimir Putin’s imagination, but rather a notion drawn from historic fact that resonated with the people who populated the territories it encompassed. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was an abortive effort by pro-Russia citizens of the new Ukrainian state to restore Novorossiya as an independent region.

Read more

While this effort failed, the concept of a greater Novorossiya confederation was revived in May 2014 by the newly proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. But this effort, too, was short-lived, being put on ice in 2015. This, however, did not mean the death of the idea of Novorossiya. On February 21, 2022, Putin delivered a lengthy address to the Russian nation on the eve of his decision to send Russian troops into Ukraine as part of what he termed a Special Military Operation. Those who watched Tucker Carlson’s February 9, 2024, interview with Putin would have been struck by the similarity between the two presentations.

While he did not make a direct reference to Novorossiya, the president did outline fundamental historic and cultural linkages which serve as the foundation for any discussion about the viability and legitimacy of Novorossiya in the context of Russian-Ukrainian relations.

“I would like to emphasize,” Putin said, “once again that Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an integral part of our own history, culture, and spiritual space. It is our friends, our relatives, not only colleagues, friends, and former work colleagues, but also our relatives and close family members. Since the oldest times,” Putin continued, “the inhabitants of the south-western historical territories of ancient Russia have called themselves Russians and Orthodox Christians. It was the same in the 17th century, when a part of these territories [i.e., Novorossiya] was reunited with the Russian state, and even after that.”

The Russian president set forth his contention that the modern state of Ukraine was an invention of Vladimir Lenin, the founding father of the Soviet Union. “Soviet Ukraine is the result of the Bolsheviks’ policy,” Putin stated, “and can be rightfully called ‘Vladimir Lenin’s Ukraine’. He was its creator and architect. This is fully and comprehensively corroborated by archival documents.”

Putin went on to issue a threat which, when seen in the context of the present, proved ominously prescient. “And today the ’grateful progeny’ has overturned monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. They call it decommunization. You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunizations would mean for Ukraine.”

In September 2022 Putin followed through on this, ordering referendums in four territories (Kherson and Zaporozhye, and the newly independent Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics) to determine whether the populations residing there wished to join the Russian Federation. All four did so. Putin has since then referred to these new Russian territories as Novorossiya, perhaps nowhere more poignantly that in June 2023, when he praised the Russian soldiers “who fought and gave their lives to Novorossiya and for the unity of the Russian world.”

The story of those who fought and gave their lives to Novorossiya is one that I have wanted to tell for some time now. I have borne witness here in the United States to the extremely one-sided coverage of the military aspects of Russia’s military operation. Like many of my fellow analysts, I had to undertake the extremely difficult task of trying to parse out fact from an overwhelmingly fictional narrative. Nor was I helped in any way in this regard by the Russian side, which was parsimonious in the release of information that reflected its side of reality.

In preparing for my December 2023 visit to Russia, I had hoped to be able to visit the four new Russian territories to see for myself what the truth was when it came to the fighting between Russia and Ukraine. I also wanted to interview the Russian military and civilian leadership to get a broader perspective of the conflict. I had reached out to the Russian Foreign and Defense ministries through the Russian Embassy in the US, bending the ear of both the Ambassador, Anatoly Antonov, and the Defense Attache, Major-General Evgeny Bobkin, about my plans.

While both men supported my project and wrote recommendations back to their respective ministries in this regard, the Russian Defense Ministry, which had the final say over what happened in the four new territories, vetoed the idea. This veto was not because they didn’t like the idea of me writing an in-depth analysis of the conflict from the Russian perspective, but rather that the project as I outlined it, which would have required sustained access to frontline units and personnel, was deemed too dangerous. In short, the Russian Defense Ministry did not relish the idea of me being killed on its watch.

Under normal circumstances, I would have backed off. I had no desire to create any difficulty with the Russian government, and I was always cognizant of the reality that I was a guest in the country.

Read more

The last thing I wanted to be was a “war tourist,” where I put myself and others at risk for purely personal reasons. But I also felt strongly that if I were going to continue to provide so-called “expert analysis” about the military operation and the geopolitical realities of Novorossiya and Crimea, then I needed to see these places firsthand. I strongly believed that I had a professional obligation to see the new territories. Fortunately for me, Aleksandr Zyryanov, a Crimea native and director general of the Novosibirsk Region Development Corporation, agreed.

It wasn’t going to be easy.

We first tried to enter the new territories via Donetsk, driving west out of Rostov-on-Don. However, when we arrived at the checkpoint, we were told that the Ministry of Defense had not cleared us for entry. Not willing to take no for an answer, Aleksandr drove south, towards Krasnodar, and then – after making some phone calls – across the Crimean Bridge into Crimea. Once it became clear that we were planning on entering the new territories from Crimea, the Ministry of Defense yielded, granting permission for me to visit the four new Russian territories under one non-negotiable condition – I was not to go anywhere near the frontlines.

We left Feodosia early on the morning of January 15, 2024. At Dzhankoy, in northern Crimea, we took highway 18 north toward the Tup-Dzhankoy Peninsula and the Chongar Strait, which separates the Sivash lagoon system that forms the border between Crimea and the mainland into eastern and western portions. It was here that Red Army forces, on the night of November 12, 1920, broke through the defenses of the White Army of General Wrangel, leading to the capture of the Crimean Peninsula by Soviet forces. And it was also here that the Russian Army, on February 24, 2022, crossed into the Kherson Region from Crimea.

The Chongar Bridge is one of three highway crossings that connect Crimea with Kherson. It has been struck twice by Ukrainian forces seeking to disrupt Russian supply lines, once, in June 2023, when it was hit by British-made Storm Shadow missiles, and once again that August when it was hit by French-made SCALP missiles (a variant of the Storm Shadow.) In both instances, the bridge was temporarily shut down for repairs, evidence of which was clearly visible as we made our way across, and on to the Chongar checkpoint, where we were cleared by Russian soldiers for entry into the Kherson Region.

At the checkpoint we picked up a vehicle carrying a bodyguard detachment from the reconnaissance company of the Sparta Battalion, a veteran military formation whose roots date back to the very beginning of the Donbass revolt against the Ukrainian nationalists who seized power in Kiev during the February 2014 Maidan coup. They would be our escort through the Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions – even though we were going to give the frontlines a wide berth, Ukrainian “deep reconnaissance groups”, or DRGs, were known to target traffic along the M18 highway. Aleksandr was driving an armored Chevrolet Suburban, and the Sparta detachment had their own armored SUV. If we were to come under attack, our response would be to try and drive through the ambush. If that failed, then the Sparta boys would have to go to work.

Our first destination was the city of Genichesk, a port city along the Sea of Azov. Genichesk is the capital of the Genichesk District of the Kherson Region and, since November 9, 2022, when Russian forces withdrew from the city of Kherson, it has served as the temporary capital of the region. Aleksandr had been on his phone since morning, and his efforts had paid off – I was scheduled to meet with Vladimir Saldo, the local Governor.

Genichesk is – literally – off the beaten path. When we reached the town of Novoalekseyevka, we got off the M18 highway and headed east along a two-lane road that took us toward the Sea of Azov. There were armed checkpoints all along the route, but the Sparta bodyguards were able to get us waved through without any issues. But the effect of these checkpoints was chilling – there was no doubt that one was in a region at war.

To call Genichesk a ghost town would be misleading – it is populated, and the evidence of civilian life is everywhere you look. The problem was, there didn’t seem to be enough people present. The city, like the region, is in a general state of decay, a holdover from the neglect it had suffered at the hands of a Ukrainian government that largely ignored territories that had, since 2004, voted in favor of the Party of Regions, the party of former President Viktor Yanukovich, who was ousted in the February 2014 Maidan coup. Nearly two years of war had likewise contributed to the atmosphere of societal neglect, an impression which was magnified by the weather – overcast, cold, with a light sleet blowing in off the water.

As we made our way into the building where the government of the Kherson Region had established its temporary offices, I couldn’t help but notice a statue of Lenin in the courtyard. Ukrainian nationalists had taken it down in July 2015, but the citizens of Genichesk had reinstalled it in April 2022, once the Russians had taken control of the city. Given Putin’s feeling about the role Lenin played in creating Ukraine, I found both the presence of this monument, and the role of the Russian citizens of Genichesk in restoring it, curiously ironic.

Vladimir Saldo is a man imbued with enthusiasm for his work. A civil engineer by profession, with a PhD in economics, Saldo had served in senior management positions in the “Khersonbud” Project and Construction Company before moving on into politics, serving on the Kherson City Council, the Kherson Regional Administration, and two terms as the mayor of the city of Kherson. Saldo, as a member of the Party of Regions, moved to the opposition and was effectively subjected to political ostracism in 2014, when the Ukrainian nationalists who had seized power all but forced it out of politics.

Aleksandr and I had the pleasure of meeting with Saldo in his office in the government building in downtown Genichesk. We talked about a wide range of issues, including his own path from a Ukrainian construction specialist to his current position as the governor of Kherson Oblast.

We talked about the war.

But Saldo’s passion was the economy, and how he could help revive the civilian economy of Kherson in a manner that best served the interests of its diminished population. On the eve of the military operation, back in early 2022, the population of the Kherson Region stood at just over a million, of which some 280,000 were residing in the city of Kherson. By November 2022, following the withdrawal of Russian forces from the right bank of the Dnieper River – including the city of Kherson – the population of the region had fallen below 400,000 and, with dismal economic prospects, the numbers kept falling. Many of those who left were Ukrainians who did not want to live under Russian rule. But others were Russians and Ukrainians who felt that they had no future in the war-torn region, and as such sought their fortunes elsewhere in Russia.

Read more

“My job is to give the people of Kherson hope for a better future,” Saldo told me. “And the time for this to happen is now, not when the war ends.”

Restoration of Kherson’s once vibrant agricultural sector is a top priority, and Saldo has personally taken the lead in signing agreements for the provision of Kherson produce to Moscow supermarkets. Saldo has also turned the region into a special economic zone, where potential investors and entrepreneurs can receive preferential loans and financial support, as well as organizational and legal assistance for businesses willing to open shop there.

The man responsible for making this vision a reality is Mikhail Panchenko, the Director of the Kherson Region Industry Development Fund. I met Mikhail in a restaurant located across the street from the governmental building which Saldo called home. Mikhail had come to Kherson in the summer of 2022, leaving a prominent position in Moscow in the process. “The Russian government was interested in rebuilding Kherson,” Mikhail told me, “and established the Industry Development Fund as a way of attracting businesses to the region.” Mikhail, who was born in 1968, was too old to enlist in the military. “When the opportunity came to direct the Industry Development Fund, I jumped at it as a way to do my patriotic duty.”

The first year of the fund’s operation saw Mikhail hand out 300 million rubles (almost $3.3 million at the current rate) in loans and grants (some of which was used to open the very restaurant where we were meeting.) The second year saw the allotment grow to some 700 million rubles. One of the biggest projects was the opening of a concrete production line capable of producing 60 cubic meters of concrete per hour. Mikhail took Alexander and me on a tour of the plant, which had grown to three production lines generating some 180 cubic meters of concrete an hour. Mikhail had just approved funding for an additional four production lines, for a total concrete production rate of 420 cubic meters per hour.

“That’s a lot of concrete,” I remarked to Mikhail.

“We are making good use of it,” he replied. “We are rebuilding schools, hospitals, and government buildings that had been neglected over the years. Revitalizing the basic infrastructure a society needs if it is to nurture a growing population.”

The problem Mikhail faces, however, is that most of the population growth being experienced in Kherson today comes from the military. The war can’t last forever, Mikhail noted. “Someday the army will leave, and we will need civilians. Right now, the people who left are not returning, and we’re having a hard time attracting newcomers. But we will keep building in anticipation of a time when the population of the Kherson region will grow from an impetus other than war. And for that,” he said, a twinkle in his eye, “we need concrete!”

I thought long and hard about the words of Vladimir Saldo and Panchenko as Aleksandr drove back onto the M18 highway, heading northeast, toward Donetsk. The reconstruction efforts being undertaken are impressive. But the number that kept coming to mind was the precipitous decline in the population – more than 60% of the pre-war population has left the Kherson region since the Russian military operation began.

According to statistics provided by the Russian Central Election Commission, some 571,000 voters took part in the referendum on joining Russia that was held in late September 2022. A little over 497,000, or some 87%, voted in favor, while slightly more than 68,800, or 12%, voted against. The turnout was almost 77%.

Read more

These numbers, if accurate, implied that there was a population of over 740,000 eligible voters at the time of the election. While the loss of the city of Kherson in November 2022 could account for a significant source of the population drop that took place between September 2022 and the time of my visit in January 2024, it could not account for all of it.

The Russian population of Kherson in 2022 stood at approximately 20%, or around 200,000. One can safely say that the number of Russians who fled west to Kiev following the start of the military operation amounts to a negligible figure. If one assumes that the Russian population of the Kherson Region remained relatively stable, then most of the population decline came from the Ukrainian population.

While Saldo did not admit to such, the Governor of the neighboring Zaporozhya Region, Yevgeny Balitsky, has acknowledged that many Ukrainian families deemed by the authorities to be anti-Russian were deported following the initiation of the military operation (Russians accounted for a little more than 25% of the pre-conflict Zaporozhye population.) Many others fled to Russia to escape the deprivations of war.

Evidence of the war was everywhere to be seen. While the conflict in Kherson has stabilized along a line defined by the Dnieper River, Zaporozhye is very much a frontline region. Indeed, the main direction of attack of the summer 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive was from the Zaporozhye region village of Rabotino, toward the town of Tokmak, and on towards the temporary regional capital of Melitopol (the city of Zaporozhye has remained under Ukrainian control throughout the conflict to date.)

I had petitioned to visit the frontlines near Rabotino but had been denied by the Russian Ministry of Defense. So, too, was my request to visit units deployed in the vicinity of Tokmak – too close to the front. The closest I would get would be the city of Melitopol, the ultimate objective of the Ukrainian counterattack. We drove past fields filled with the concrete “dragon’s teeth” and antitank ditches that marked the final layer of defenses that constituted the “Surovikin Line,” named after the Russian General, Sergey Surovikin, who had commanded the forces when the defenses were put in place.

The Ukrainians had hoped to reach the city of Melitopol in a matter of days once their attack began; they never breached the first line of defense situated to the southeast of Rabotino.

Melitopol, however, is not immune to the horrors of war, with Ukrainian artillery and rockets targeting it often to disrupt Russian military logistics. I kept this in mind as we drove through the streets of the city, past military checkpoints, and roving patrols. I was struck by the fact that the civilians I saw were going about their business, seemingly oblivious to the everyday reality of war that existed around them.

As was the case in Kherson, the entirety of the Zaporozhye Region seemed strangely depopulated, as if one were driving through the French capital of Paris in August, when half the city is away on vacation. I had hoped to be able to talk with Balitsky about the reduced population and other questions I had about life in the region during wartime, but this time Aleksandr’s phone could not produce the desired result – Balitsky was away from the region and unavailable.

If he had been available, I would have asked him the same question I had put to Saldo earlier in the day: given that Putin was apparently willing to return the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions to Ukraine as part of the peace deal negotiated in March 2022, how does the population of his region feel about being part of Russia today? Are they convinced that Russia is, in fact, there to stay? Do they feel like they are a genuine part of the Novorossiya that Putin speaks about?

Saldo had talked in depth about the transition from being occupied by Russian forces, which lasted until April-May 2022 (about the time that Ukraine backed out of the ceasefire agreement), to being administered by Moscow. “There never was a doubt in my mind, or anyone else’s, that Kherson was historically a part of Russia,” Saldo said, “or that, once Russian troops arrived, that we would forever be Russian again.”

But the declining population, and the admission of forced deportations on the part of Balitsky, suggests that there was a significant part of the population that had, in fact, taken umbrage at such a future.

I would have liked to hear what Balitsky had to say about this question.

Reality, however, doesn’t deal with hypotheticals, and the present reality is that both Kherson and Zaporozhye are today part of the Russian Federation, and that both regions are populated by people who had made the decision to remain there as citizens of Russia. We will never know what the fate of these two territories would have been had the Ukrainian government honored the ceasefire agreement negotiated in March 2022. What we do know is that today both Kherson and Zaporozhye are part of the “New Territories” – Novorossiya.

Russia will for some time find its acquisition of the “new territories” challenged by nations who question the legitimacy of Russia’s military occupation and subsequent absorption of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions into the Russian Federation. The reticence of foreigners to recognize these regions as being part of Russia, however, is the least of Russia’s problems. As was the case with Crimea, the Russian government will proceed irrespective of any international opposition.

The real challenge facing Russia is to convince Russians that the new territories are as integral to the Russian motherland as Crimea, a region reabsorbed by Russia in 2014 which has seen its economic fortunes and its population grow over the past decade. The diminished demographics of Kherson and Zaporozhye represent a litmus test of sorts for the Russian government, and for the governments of both Kherson and Zaporozhye. If the populations of these regions cannot regenerate, then these regions will wither on the vine. If, however, these new Russian lands can be transformed into places where Russians can envision themselves raising families in an environment free from want and fear, then Novorossiya will flourish.

Novorossiya is a reality, and the people who live there are citizens by choice more than circumstances. They are well served by men like Saldo and Balitsky, who are dedicated to the giant task of making these regions part of the Russian Motherland in actuality, not just in name.

Behind Saldo and Balitsky are men like Panchenko, people who left an easy life in Moscow or some other Russian city to come to the “New Territories” not for the purpose of seeking their fortunes, but rather to improve the lives of the new Russian citizens of Novorossiya.

For this to happen, Russia must emerge victorious in its struggle against the Ukrainian nationalists ensconced in Kiev, and their Western allies. Thanks to the sacrifices of the Russian military, this victory is in the process of being accomplished.

Then the real test begins – turning Novorossiya into a place Russians will want to call home.

Медиа: image / jpeg

New Delhi’s new island chain naval base will have far-reaching consequences for its military presence in the region

The Indian Navy on Wednesday commissioned its new base INS Jatayu at Minicoy Island of Lakshadweep to bolster its operational capabilities in the strategically important Indian Ocean Region (IOR). The naval base will also enhance operational reach, and support the Indian Navy’s efforts in anti-piracy and anti-narcotics operations in the Western Arabian Sea, New Delhi stated.

The base will provide New Delhi with significant geopolitical leverage to counter any perceived Chinese aggression along the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC), while significantly extending the power projection capabilities of Indian naval forces, allowing them to ensure greater maritime security and connectivity within the IOR.

The development of an Indian naval base at the entrance is the ultimate sword of Damocles for Beijing’s economy. While the island sits a mere hundred miles away from the Malacca Strait, any Chinese response to a crisis in the area would be at least 1,500 miles away from Sanya, the nearest naval base.

Apart from levelling the geostrategic scales in India’s favor, a base at the Great Nicobar combined with the information exchange agreements as part of the Quad framework, puts India squarely in a position to exercise total maritime information dominance over the region.

Read more

Such a move also shores up India’s maritime warfighting capabilities by greatly enhancing its anti-access area denial (A2/AD) systems, which advanced regional powers such as Russia and China routinely deploy to counter their American rivals.

Coupled with India’s ambitious submarine modernization and expansion program, the geopolitical implications of these are far-reaching. In the coming years, Beijing would effectively be forced to consider New Delhi as an equal in its future dealings, lest it invite one of its few major vulnerabilities to become China’s Waterloo.

The commissioning of the new base comes against the backdrop of another strategic plan to modernize the Great Nicobar Island of the Andaman and Nicobar Island chain. A total of 720 billion rupees ($8.68 billion) has been approved for the project, which will also include the development of a “greenfield city.” This has colossal and far-reaching geopolitical implications for the region.

Maritime dominance

The emerging era of multipolarity is both a boon and a bane for India. On one hand, it perfectly complements New Delhi’s foreign policy, where multilateral engagement is considered one of the foundational pillars.

On the other hand, the emergence of new poles and the rise of China in the Indo-Pacific means a greater number of actors for India to strategically balance with. Complicating matters is the gradual crumbling of the US-led international order at a time when the rules for the new emerging order have not yet been established.

During such times of uncertainty and disruption, New Delhi has aptly chosen to bolster its naval presence in the IOR, which will undoubtedly have great geostrategic consequences for the region.

Beijing’s rapid rise in the international sphere has been followed by an equally rapid modernization of its naval forces, namely the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), which since the 1990s has transformed from being a restricted brown-water naval force to a full-fledged blue-water navy. Current US Congressional estimates consider the PLAN to be the largest naval force on the planet, in terms of the total number of combat vessels.

Read more

This rise of the PLAN has also coincided with the increasingly assertive Chinese foreign policy, especially in the South China Sea, which Beijing considers to be its own backyard.

The American naval presence in the region, therefore, is seen by the Chinese leadership as intruding within its sphere of influence. Beijing has been quite aggressive in its quest to regain control of the South China Sea – to the chagrin of smaller states such as the Philippines and Vietnam, which also lay claim to some of the disputed islands in the region.

The United States, on the other hand, claims it is undertaking ‘freedom of navigation’ exercises to counter what it sees as a Chinese challenge to the American-led international order. However, Washington is in a sensitive position since it is the sole major non-signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) yet ironically claims to defend it.

The struggling American dominance leaves its allies in the Indo-Pacific anxious. Questions are raised, too, on how long the US can sustain maritime dominance within the region.

Read more

China, at the same time, is still unable to resolve its Malacca Dilemma, i.e., safeguard its commercial maritime routes through which around 65% of its total energy need is shipped. In the event of a conflict, any disruption or blockade by a rival fleet of the Strait could effectively cripple the Chinese economy with disastrous results.

Therefore, partly driven by Chinese efforts to address the Malacca question and partly to offset American regional superiority, the PLAN incursions have expanded into the IOR, an area that India sees as its backyard.

These Chinese forays have acquired a semipermanent presence within the region. New Delhi considers these unwanted incursions as a threat and part of Beijing’s larger String of Pearls theory aimed at encircling and isolating India through a series of strategically placed bases around it.

Since New Delhi can’t compete with the PLAN in attaining comparative conventional superiority, it is exploring other innovative means to deter the Chinese threat – and the new base in Lakshadweep is a significant move. The current assertive posture of India within the IOR should induce a strategic change towards transforming New Delhi from a land-based to a dual-based power, with formidable capabilities in both land warfare as well as the maritime battlespace. Only with a strategic shift towards making India a naval power will it be able to establish itself as a future world power backed by a full-fledged blue-water navy.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Some officers seem to have forgotten which country they are sworn to defend – and they are really bad at deception, too

Since Russia has revealed that on February 19 high-ranking Luftwaffe officers discussed – on a basically open conference platform – how German Taurus cruise missiles could strike Russian targets (let’s call it the ‘Taurus Huddle’), the public reaction in the West has taken two main forms: In Germany, the key register has been clumsy damage control; among Berlin’s allies, embarrassment has ensued, as well as barely concealed anger at multiple indiscretions – particularly regarding British and US covert operations in Ukraine.

The allies’ exasperation has come through in scathing headlines such as The Telegraph’s ‘Germany spills British military secrets … using off-the-shelf video phone technology in one of Berlin’s worst security breaches since the Cold War’. Berlin’s fumbling attempts to contain what chancellor Olaf Scholz has called “a very serious” matter have consisted of two insipid moves. First, make it all about Russia: “How wicked, they hacked us!”

Obviously, moralizing about routine eavesdropping among opponents comes across as rather silly from a government that does not mind blown-up pipelines and weaponized de-industrialization between “allies.” The rather whiny complaint also makes the German elite look even more sophomoric. Public Service Announcement for the all-new “Zeitenwende” Germany: Yes, states, especially states against which you are co-waging a proxy war, will gather intelligence on you. If your top brass is klutzy enough to spill the beans via eminently hackable online communications, you’ve only got yourself to blame.

Read more

In the same vein, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has called Russia’s exposure of Berlin’s shenanigans “ a hybrid disinformation attack.” In reality, what inconveniences him is not “disinformation” but the opposite: facts that even Germany has had to acknowledge as authentic. Berlin’s reaction only shows that its and Kiev’s techniques of dodging responsibility are now converging: As it happens, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has already – prophylactically, so to speak – blamed any future Ukrainian rebellion against his literally catastrophic leadership on Russian “disinformation.” Between German Tweedle-Dee and Ukrainian Tweedle-Dum, the principle is the same: Mess up yourself, blame others (i.e. Russia).

Berlin’s second move to blow smoke over its fiasco is to avoid talking about its substance. Insofar as the content of the Taurus Huddle is even summarized, then only to, misleadingly, claim that it was all harmless routine: Planners will plan, you know; just some hypothetical brainstorming. Moreover, they were merely following orders (an “oldy but goldy” of German political culture) by preparing a briefing for the minister. Again, Pistorius has taken the lead in the whitewash, declaring the officers were “ only doing what they are there for.” That, actually, is a stunningly self-revealing statement: If the Taurus Huddle is really part of the ordinary “job” – as Pistorius also put it – of German officers now, everything is so much worse again.

To understand why, we must do what so many Germans love to skirt: Delve into the details of the scandal.

The basics are simple: The recording of the conversation is almost 40 minutes long; there were four participants. Two with high-ranking and important functions: The head of the German air force, Ingo Gerhartz, and the head of the Operations and Training Department, Frank Grafe. Both are generals. In addition, two experts of lower rank (Oberstleutnant) from the Air Operations Command at the Space Operations Center, called Fenske and Frohstedte (or possibly Frostedte), also took part. The discussion details the options for the use of Taurus missiles – formally by Ukrainians, but with irreplaceable German and potentially British and US input – against either the Kerch Strait Bridge or Russian munitions depots. Two participants tend to stress how feasible such operations would be (Fenske and Frohstedte), one – to his credit – is more ambivalent, pointing out obstacles and emphasizing that German involvement is hard to conceal (Grafe). Alarmingly, Gerhartz, head of the air force, can’t detect what he calls a “showstopper,” that is, a clear reason not to launch a covert missile attack on Russian targets via Ukraine.

In the original, the tone is informal and the language often slovenly: an odd hybrid German (a “Kauderwelsch,” as Germans used to say), frequently barely grammatical and saturated with comical calques from English (“to cheat” becomes “den Trick pullen” (to pull a trick); an attack is “doable” as long as the Ukrainians are taught “das Ding zu schiessen,” (to shoot the thing) for instance). Ernst Jünger’s high style this is not.

Read more

To get two diametrically opposed misinterpretations out of the way: The discussion does not amount to an explicit conspiracy. This is not a meeting of out-of-line officers openly discussing how to drag their political leadership into a covert cruise missile attack on Russia by using Ukrainian proxies. But that is also the best that can be said about the Taurus Huddle, which is a very low bar. Because – here’s the second popular misunderstanding we need to get rid of – this is not a normal meeting either. These are not, as Pistorius wants to pretend, politically disengaged staff officers dispassionately playing through military thought-experiments (as bad as that would be with this kind of scenario). In reality, the best single phrase to describe the essence of the affair is “gray zone.” Think of it as a messy mix between a rudimentary pretense of professional analysis and a massive dose of bias, politics, and indiscretion.

Perhaps the most striking single feature of the Taurus Huddle is that all participants take breathtaking cheating for granted. No one sees any problems except of a technical nature in the idea of a de facto German attack on Russia as long as German input can be concealed or denied. That is the spirit in which the officers mull over details such as transferring targeting information by either secure data line (oh, the irony…) or maybe personal courier through Poland. (Germans painting a big fat target on Poland for Russians? Qui mal y pense!) Or how the company producing the Taurus (MBDA) could serve as a cut-out to hide the military’s involvement. Their ideas are surprisingly crude, but what’s more important is the sheer criminal energy and boyish recklessness they betray.

In war, all is fair, some may say. But there are two flaws with that response: First, Germany is not, actually, at war with Russia – and the participants of the meeting are not assuming it will be (at least not to begin with, and “the day after” seems not to interest them). Hence, secondly, while deception is a traditional and, principally, legitimate element of warfare, what these officers consider normal is something else, namely replacing deception within a war by covert operations against a state Germany is not and would not be at war with. That is the domain of, perhaps, intelligence services and special forces (and it’s still not a good idea). There are very good constitutional reasons why officers of the traditional military are not even supposed to think of such methods as either admissible or (listen up, Boris Pistorius!) “their job.”

A high point of this attitude occurs when one of the Taurus Huddlers admits that with all the anticipated German training of Ukrainians to handle the German missiles in Ukraine, at least the “first missions” would have to “take place by us in support.” Those who do not know German well may misread this phrase – muddled in the original, not merely in this translation – as simply reiterating that the Ukrainians would need help. But that would be wrong: Read carefully in the context of the preceding discussion, it clearly is a euphemism for Germans actually carrying out at least planning and targeting for these attacks.

Another remarkable feature of the Taurus Huddle is the extreme nonchalance with which highly sensitive and damaging information regarding NATO allies and Ukraine is tossed about. We hardly learn anything surprising about deep British, US, and French involvement in attacks on Russian forces. What is shocking is the slapdash attitude with which German officers shoot off their mouths about these covert operations that are not even their own. As to Ukraine, its air force must have been thrilled to hear the Luftwaffe confirming how few planes of a certain type (“in the single digits”) it has left. It is certain that none of this was news to Russia. But I can imagine Russian officers shaking their heads in a mix of sorry disbelief and wry amusement about their German counterparts.

Read more

And last but not least, there is the fact that even moments of realism do not make the Taurus Huddlers stop and think. The meeting features the head of the air force, Gerhartz, himself acknowledging that even if the Taurus were brought into play, their numbers would be limited to a maximum of 100 missiles and that their use would not “change the war,” that is, in Kiev’s favor, of course. Grafe, meanwhile, the other Huddler with a general’s rank, stresses that the Kerch Strait Bridge is not an easy target and may well survive an attack. Futility all around; and admittedly so.

And yet, at the same time, none of them even raises the most serious risk that such an operation would involve. Grafe is worried the media could get wind of the German military’s underhanded methods. Yet that would be child’s play compared with the worst that could happen. Because a strategy of childish-cheating-with-Taurus could, actually, “change the war”: by making Russia give up its policy of turning a blind eye to most of Western de facto belligerency and, instead, start to retaliate, for instance, against Germany.

These are officers sworn to defend Germany. But their only genuine concern seems to be to figure out how to help Ukraine fight Russia, while the risks to which their schemes would expose Germany escape their attention. The first problem here is that, in practical terms, they seem to have lost any sense of the difference between their obligations to Germany and to Ukraine (or NATO, for that matter). The second one is that their defense minister, their chancellor, and much of the German public seem to be unable to make the distinction either. In that sense, the Taurus Huddle may feature in history as a triumph of Ukrainian policy, even if a futile one.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The returning politician’s recent electoral win on the back of the Gaza-Israel debate is rightfully alarming for both Labour and Tories

Last week’s exchange of insults between newly elected MP George Galloway and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak highlighted the festering political divisions that have recently emerged in Western democracies over the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

Their vituperative exchange also made clear that rational debate over Gaza is virtually impossible in those Western nations in which both major political parties uncritically support America’s pro-Israel foreign policy in Gaza.

Debates over domestic culture war issues in the West have for decades been characterized by irrationality, demonization of opponents, the abolition of history, and the refusal to acknowledge the right to express a view contrary to dominant woke ideologies.

Within such a neo-totalitarian intellectual culture, it would be foolish to expect that a debate over a historically contentious issue like Gaza could be conducted rationally.

Read more

Nevertheless, last week, Galloway won a by-election in Rochdale, a poor Midlands electorate in the UK formerly held by the Labour Party.

It was an astounding and comprehensive victory. Galloway received 12,335 votes – over 40% of the votes cast – while the Conservatives gained 3,731 votes, and Labour, 2,402.

Galloway labeled his win as “a thumping victory” over both major parties – and he described Keir Starmer and Sunak, in characteristically provocative fashion, as “two cheeks of the same backside” that he had just “spanked.”

Galloway is a controversial and charismatic political figure. He is a former Labour and Independent MP who courageously opposed Tony Blair and George Bush’s war against Iraq, and he has been a trenchant defender of the Palestinian cause for decades.

In the Rochdale by-election – an electorate with a Muslim population of around 30% – Galloway focused his campaign on calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

In the UK, the Gaza conflict has become a deeply divisive political issue over the past six months. During that time, more than 30,000 people have been killed by the Israeli military, most of them civilians and many of them women and children.

Many citizens in the West – to their credit – have refused to turn a blind eye to the distinction between terrorists and civilians, and the humanitarian crisis that America’s continuing support for the Netanyahu government has created in Gaza.

It cannot be disputed that America’s persistent refusal to support a ceasefire in Gaza has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians.

In the UK and Australia, the governments and major opposition parties have, up until now, resolutely supported America’s stance and refused to call for an immediate ceasefire. In these countries, it has fallen to minor left-wing parties to oppose America’s position – in the UK, it has been Galloway’ Workers Party, and in Australia, it has been the Greens.

But principled opposition to America’s Gaza policy does not end there.

Deep-seated divisions have emerged within the Democratic Party in America, the Labour Party in the UK, and the Labor government in Australia – as a result of significant segments of these parties strongly opposing the stance on Gaza taken by US President Joe Biden, UK Labour leader Keir Starmer, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

The British parliament recently descended into complete chaos when Starmer pressured the speaker of the House of Commons to breach parliamentary convention and prevent debate over a Scottish National Party (SNP) motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

If the SNP motion had been permitted to proceed, at least 60 Labour MPs would have voted in favor of it – thereby provoking a serious political crisis for Starmer and his Labour Party.

Recent polls in the UK suggest that 65% of voters are in favor of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. It is this popular sentiment – together with the large number of Muslim voters in the electorate – that enabled George Galloway to achieve his stunning victory in Rochdale last week.

In his victory speech, Galloway said, “Keir Starmer, this is for Gaza. You will pay a high price for the role that you have played in enabling the catastrophe presently going on in Gaza.”

He went on to say that “the misnamed Labour Party” has “lost the confidence of millions of their voters,” and that “the plates have shifted tonight.”

Galloway took pride in the fact that both major parties had been “well and truly spanked” and “thoroughly and soundly beaten” on the issue of Gaza.

He vowed to get rid of the Rochdale Labour Council in the council elections next month, and foreshadowed standing candidates in the upcoming general election with the aim of defeating Labour candidates.

Read more

Whether Galloway will be able to win other seats in the general election is doubtful – Rochdale is an atypical electorate, which is why he ran there – but he has certainly tapped into widespread popular discontent with the major parties’ position on Gaza.

Galloway also won over traditional Labour voters disenchanted with Starmer’s elite, woke-oriented Labour party – which has spent the last few years driving old-style working-class leaders like Jeremy Corbyn out of the party.

In an interview with Sky News after his victory, Galloway turned his attention to Sunak, who he described as “a rather diminutive, diminished and degraded politician” who is “in the fag end of his Prime Ministership.”

He said bluntly, “I despise the Prime Minister… as do millions of people in this country.”

Galloway reiterated that he had “a democratic mandate” and that he looked forward to taking his place in the House of Commons.

The following day, in an extraordinary address to the nation delivered outside 10 Downing Street, Sunak responded to Galloway’s electoral victory.

He began by describing Galloway’s win as “beyond alarming” – an odd comment from an unelected prime minister who is supposedly committed to democracy.

Sunak painted a picture of pro-Palestinian protesters engaging in “extremist disruption and criminality.” These people, according to Sunak, were “spreading a poison” and “trying to tear us apart.” Democracy itself is apparently “under threat” from extremists who “want to destroy our confidence and hope.”

He claimed that “MPs do not feel safe in their homes” and vowed to order the police to clamp down on extremism. “The time has now come for us all to stand together to combat the forces of division,” he urged. The hypocrisy and cynicism are simply breathtaking.

For decades, the Conservative Party has promoted cultural diversity as a positive good, in order to win over ethnic groups to the Conservative cause, and stave off much needed economic and political reform.

But acceptance by the Tories was never absolute – it was always conditional upon ethnic groups uncritically adopting the values and world view of the elites that govern the UK, many of whom have been sitting on the Tory benches for the past decade or so.

Benefits and privileges were showered on talented individuals from ethnic groups who acquiesced in this sordid arrangement. The Conservative Party today is full of such people – Sunak himself is a classic example, as is former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.

Those ethnic groups, however, who oppose elite ideologies – even by dint of exercising their democratic right to vote in elections – soon find themselves demonized and cast out of what Sunak calls Britain’s “multi-ethnic and multi-faith democracy.”

Sunak and his Conservative supporters have now cynically decided that it is time to cast British Muslims out of the fold – for daring to protest over what is happening in Gaza.

Yesterday, Conservative politician Jacob Rees-Mogg criticized the Muslim voters of Rochdale for “allowing religion to determine votes in UK politics.”

Is the Church of England no longer the established church in the UK? Do 26 of its bishops no longer sit by appointment – rather than election – in the House of Lords? Don’t Rees-Mogg and other Conservative politicians bang on about Judeo-Christian values in political argument on a regular basis?

Conservative politicians also bemoaned the fact that a foreign policy issue has now seemingly defiled domestic politics for the first time in British history. Did the Crimean War not become a domestic political issue? The Boer War? World Wars I and II? Suez? Vietnam? Kosovo? Iraq? Afghanistan? It appears not.

And are we to seriously believe that, up until the recent pro-Palestinian protests, political protests in Britain have never attracted some extremist elements.

A former Conservative politician yesterday quite correctly described the Conservative Party’s response to Galloway’s electoral victory as “a toxification of political culture.”

Not surprisingly, more pro-Palestinian protests have been scheduled for this weekend.

Read more

Sunak’s belated and cynical embrace of the politics of division will not save him. Committed right-wing members of his own party who have nothing but contempt for him, the most notable being Braverman, as well as minor parties further to the right of the Conservatives, have already condemned him for his hypocrisy and for not going far enough. Sunak does, however, have a staunch supporter in Starmer, who said that he was “right to advocate unity.”

Sunak’s ill-advised and pathetic speech can only create further division and social unrest within the UK. Precisely how demonizing British Muslims and spreading rank prejudice will promote ‘unity’ is not readily apparent.

Weak governments and political parties that uncritically support flawed American foreign policies very often pay a heavy price for doing so.

Sunak’s Conservative Party has been slowly cannibalizing itself for over a decade, and Gaza has just sped up the process of its self-destruction. As for Starmer’s Labour Party, it remains to be seen what price it will pay for cravenly supporting the collapsing American Empire and one of its proxy states.

Galloway has resurrected his political career by opposing America’s policy on Gaza on a principled basis.

Whether he will be able to engender a rational debate in the House of Commons over Gaza – and bring about a change in UK policy – are open questions at the moment. One thing is certain however – George Galloway will definitely give it his best shot.

Медиа: image / jpeg

EU nations are pledging more lethal weapons to Ukraine while refusing to accept Moscow’s insistence that it harbors no intention to attack NATO into their comfortable war narrative. This could be a serious misjudgment

Any serious and objective non-Western observer of geopolitics would be baffled by the conduct of European nations in the Ukraine conflict. The US and its G7 partners seem determined to prolong the proxy war with Russia in the belief that by supplying increasingly lethal weaponry to Kiev and raising the level of confrontation, they can force Moscow to the negotiating table.

The logic appears to be that this strategy will force a negotiated solution rather than inexorably lead to a conflict between Russia and NATO.

The West has progressively raised its involvement by supplying long-range artillery, advanced air defense systems, tanks, and air-launched cruise missiles, as well sea-based ones, to hit Russian targets. Satellite intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) has been provided to Ukraine for more accurate strikes.

The New York Times has revealed, somewhat surprisingly, that the CIA has been “financing” and “partly equipping” several underground bunkers near the Russian border to gather vital information on defenses and equipment, as well as assisting the Ukrainian military in directing fire. The Dutch have announced their decision to supply 18 F-16s to Ukraine, despite strong Russian warnings.

Read more

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told Radio Free Europe that Ukraine’s right to self-defense includes attacking legitimate Russian military targets outside Ukraine. Elsewhere, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has revealed that UK and French special forces are on the ground in Ukraine to operate the advance equipment supplied to Kiev.

Scholz seems opposed to the supply of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine – because if these are used for strikes inside Russia, it may draw Germany into a direct conflict with Moscow. However, the leaked exchanges between German officers on the efficacy of using Taurus missiles to target the Crimean Bridge and ammunition dumps to its north, and how this should be done without directly involving the German government by using the manufacturer of these missile – the MBDA Deutschland – to act as a front, suggest a huge disconnect within the German establishment.

As a potential step that could cause the situation to spiral out of control, at a summit in Paris of 20 European leaders on February 26, French President Emmanuel Macron aired the possibility of putting European troops on the ground in Ukraine – disregarding Russian warnings that this could trigger a direct war between NATO and Russia.

The US, Germany, UK, Poland, Czech Republic, and Slovakia, among others, have ruled out sending their troops to fight in Ukraine. Macron, however, believes that the people saying “never” to this idea today are the same ones who said “never” to the supply of tanks, planes, or long-range missiles to Ukraine two years ago. In the face of rebuffs and political opposition at home, Macron insists that what he said was well thought out and that the intention is to put Putin in a “strategic dilemma,” without explaining what that could be or why it would be only one-way.

Read more

The thought behind the proposals to increase EU military support for Ukraine is that European countries must take more responsibility for their own security, especially with the prospect of Donald Trump returning as US president. The Republican warned Europeans that if they don’t ramp up their defense spending, rather than relying on the US for security, he will leave them to fend for themselves against unstated threats from Russia. EU members are now increasing their defense budgets even when their economies are under pressure, with Germany and the UK facing a recession and social unrest spreading in several European countries, as indicated by the widespread protests by farmers, for instance.

France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Italy, Denmark, and Canada have signed bilateral security agreements with Ukraine. What these precisely entail is not clear, but the objectives seem to be to give assurances of support to Ukraine, should there be a change in the US administration; to give Kiev confidence that despite flagging public support for the conflict in European societies, aid will continue; and, last but not least, to signal to Russia that the EU’s investment in the conflict will continue, undeterred by Ukrainian losses and the war of attrition favoring Moscow. There is also a hint that Ukraine’s entry into NATO may not be imminent. Kiev needs assurance that individual European countries are willing to commit themselves to Ukraine’s defense.

The Baltic states are the most vociferous in pushing for a confrontation with Russia, both within the EU and in international conferences. Many countries of the Global South believe that the Ukraine conflict is “European,” which has adverse consequences for them economically because of the disruptions it is causing in food, fertilizer, and energy supplies. The Europeans argue this conflict goes beyond their continent and involves the international community as a whole, claiming that it violates the UN Charter, international law, and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. This is not a convincing argument as European nations are themselves guilty of such transgressions, and there is no guarantee that this will not continue in the future.

Read more

Russia has not attacked the Baltic states, which are members of NATO and have the bloc’s troops stationed on their soil. These countries are hardly central to international geopolitics, have a combined population of only 6 million, and negligible military strength. That, based on their deep grievances against Soviet rule, they should want to be the driving force of an increasingly dangerous conflict in Europe, along with Poland, and now Finland and Sweden, is a matter of concern to non-Western countries.

The argument that if Russia wins in Ukraine it will attack other countries to satisfy its imperial ambitions is factitious. Putin has been in power for 24 years now, NATO has expanded five times, the bloc’s troops and US missiles are stationed close to Russia’s borders, without any aggressive Russian riposte – except in the case of Georgia and now Ukraine. In both cases, Putin warned Russia will take action if these two countries were drawn into NATO.

Putin’s repeated declarations that Russia has no intention of attacking any European country are being dismissed as they do not fit the narrative of Moscow’s threat to Europe. Why Russia would enter into a conflict with NATO is not explained. As for Russia’s imperial ambitions – it has refrained from tightening control in erstwhile Soviet territories in Central Asia, with Armenia being the most recent example.

READ MORE: Global public square: India sets the stage for geopolitical dialogue that the divided world needs now

The other argument by the European hawks that a Russian victory in Ukraine will embolden China to intervene militarily in Taiwan is equally trumped-up. The Taiwan issue long pre-dates that of Ukraine, China will take decisions based on its own judgment of the rapport of force between it and the US and its allies in the region. Washington has committed itself to the One-China policy, though it is against the use of force by Beijing to take over Taiwan. China also has to take into account that its biggest trading partner is the US.

The prevailing belief among European nations is that, considering Russia’s past reactions to the West’s incremental support for Ukraine – such as providing lethal weaponry to Kiev – Moscow is unlikely to escalate militarily, even if the West continues to do so by supplying Ukraine with additional means to defend itself and potentially inflict damage on mainland Russian territory. This may explain why Europeans are not deterred by Russia’s formidable nuclear arsenal. But this could be a serious misjudgment – potentially leading to the West dragging itself, and the world, into a nuclear nightmare.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Ukraine now self-identifies as a weapons maker and wants help transitioning

What do you do to boost GDP when your country is neck-deep in military conflict and your allies’ main interest is using you to wash taxpayer cash into their own military industrial complexes? Make that your whole national identity! And demand that the West help you transition.

“Our country will become one of the world’s key producers of weapons and defense systems. And this is no longer just an ambition or a prospect, it is a potential that is already being realized,” Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky said in September 2023. That plea has echoed all over the Western press. You’d think that it may have thought to “realize” that “potential” before it went live with the big “Ukrainian counteroffensive” show. But hey, making lemonade from lemons, there’s definitely a business opportunity in losing on the battlefield that wouldn’t exist if Ukraine had proven to be adequately stocked up and victorious. Any ambulance-chasing weapons salesman would be attracted by that. And on top of that, Russia’s whole stated objective from the very outset has been “de-militarization.” Right now, Ukraine is to Western weapons producers what the Cheesecake Factory is to a fat kid.

Those slightly less cynical might be tempted to view all this as the path to victory for Ukraine, but a recent incident strongly suggests otherwise. In a leaked audio recording obtained by Russian intelligence and authenticated by the German government, senior Luftwaffe officers, including the Air Force’s chief, are overheard talking about how even the delivery of the German Taurus missiles to Kiev wouldn’t change the course of the conflict in Ukraine’s favor. If even the gold standard German cruise missile that doubles the strike distance of its Western rivals isn’t considered a game changer in the overall conflict with Russia at this point, then odds don’t sound too good for much else.

Read more

And who’s going to pay for Ukraine’s identity change, anyway? Western Europe and the US will pay for the transition, of course. Just as they’re also paying to keep all of Ukrainian society afloat, funding salaries and pensions. It’s not like investors are flocking to Ukraine right now. Much of the weapons-making infrastructure from the Cold War has been decimated, and in a country that ranks near the top of the global corruption index, it probably won’t come as a surprise that the industry itself is rife with “mismanagement.”

While it’s clear who’s going to pay, what’s less obvious is who will actually benefit from turning Ukraine into a giant factory showroom for Western weapons.

Some Western arms manufacturers have rushed into Ukraine to set up shop, such as Germany’s Rheinmetall, which started operating an armored vehicle plant in the country last year. Guess it’s just good business to be cranking out tanks right on the battlefield where they can be blown up coming off the assembly line. May as well just set fire to that Western taxpayer cash funding this charade the moment that it pops out of the ATM.

Rheinmetall also announced last month it’ll be setting up a joint ammunition factory in Ukraine, as well. Does this attempt to outgun Russia in conventional warfare at this late stage in the game come from a place of genuine belief? Or is it just Germany’s way to keep up the racket for as long as it can? After all, Rheinmetall never had it so good. No doubt it’s just a coincidence that its stock started soaring a few days after the conflict popped off in Ukraine and has only gone up astronomically since, from €133.6 beforehand to €214.80 on March 1, 2022, and €429.10 on March 1, 2024.

Read more

In August 2023, Britain’s BAE Systems announced its plans to “facilitate the production of 105mm Light Guns in the country.” The Guardian reported shortly thereafter that the opportunity would provide a much-needed job boost for the war-torn economy. Not just for Ukraine, but for the EU, too. Pretty tough to produce weapons when it requires energy that’s now almost prohibitively expensive. No doubt it’s much cheaper to produce European weapons in Ukraine, which still gets its gas from Russia – unlike those in charge in the EU who have deliberately shunned their own supply of Russian energy to impress Kiev. Sticking it to Putin by leeching off Russian energy supplied to Kiev to make weapons to then use against Russia sounds about right.

All these projects are joint ventures with a local Ukrainian partner. Let’s just say that the one who ends up wearing the pants in that partnership won’t be the country whose president, a former comedian, once went viral for his hands-free, pantless piano playing routine. Do they really think that German industry is going to be trusting these Ukrainian partners with sensitive defense manufacturing information and trade secrets? It’s a wonder that the Germans even trust the French with anything more than handling the interior decor in Europe’s Airbus venture. But we’re talking here about a war zone with eyes and ears everywhere. The point was proven when Russians recently disabled an American Abrams M1 A1 tank on the battlefield and found it stripped of sensitive technologies, likening the supposedly game changing weaponry to an “empty tin can.”

Bilking Western taxpayers for cash under the guise of active warfare won’t last forever. So it seems like it’s a race against the clock to pivot to a new way to keep the flow open before peace breaks out and ruins everything.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s age and mental fitness are being questioned, and some transparency is long overdue

With American voters increasingly of the opinion that neither President Joe Biden nor his potential general election rival, Donald Trump, are mentally fit to lead the nation, it’s time to set some tough restrictions on the highest office in the land.

At a time when the American people need strong and vibrant leadership more than ever before, they are forced to choose between two politicians whose combined age is 158 years. Already the oldest president in US history, Biden is 81 and would be 86 should he complete a second term. Trump, the probable Republican presidential nominee this year, will turn 78 in June.

According to a Quinnipiac University poll published this week, 64% of respondents said Joe Biden, the man who manages the nuclear briefcase, among other daunting tasks, is mentally unfit for another term, while 51% of voters voiced the same opinion about Donald Trump.

The shocking poll results came shortly after Special Council Robert Hur, presiding over a case to determine if the US president had mishandled classified documents, described Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Biden’s legal team called that description of the US commander-in-chief “inappropriate.”

Read more

“I’m well meaning, and I’m an elderly man, and I know what the hell I’m doing,” Biden told reporters in a heated news conference at the White House. “My memory is fine.”

What came next, however, strongly suggested otherwise.

After defending his cognitive condition, the flustered leader apparently confused the US border crisis for one in the Middle East, as he referred to Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi as the “president of Mexico.”

“As you know, initially, the president of Mexico Sisi did not want to open up the gate to allow humanitarian material to get in [to Gaza]. I talked to him. I convinced him to open the gate,” the president said.

If Biden hoped to mitigate voters’ concerns about his age and mental condition, he failed miserably.

Since then, Biden’s age and related mishaps have been under closer scrutiny than ever, and several such incidents came over the following weeks – such as when Biden tripped not once but twice as he attempted to board Air Force One for a flight to California, or when he confused Gaza and Ukraine when announcing the recent aid airdrop.

With the US presidential election just nine months down the road, 84 House Republicans penned an open letter demanding that Biden submit to a cognitive test to prove his mental fitness, or face impeachment under the 25th Amendment. At the same time, Dr. John Gartner, a renowned mental health expert, confided in an interview with Salon that while Biden is merely “ageing,” former President Trump “is dangerously demented.”

Read more

For whatever reason, in no other occupation do people resist the temptation to retire more than in the jungle of US politics. Indeed, despite America’s deceptive reputation as a youthful and dynamic nation, that image does not carry over into the realm of politics, where 105 lawmakers are over the age of 70. The median age for House legislators is 57.9, and in the Senate, the median age is 65.3 years, thus comprising one of the oldest legislative bodies in the free world. Yet none of these aging individuals are required to prove that they are still fit for the job.

It’s worth noting that among the 46 individuals who have served as commander-in-chief since George Washington’s election on April 30, 1789, it wasn’t until Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was elected on January 20, 1953, that America had its first 70-year-old leader in the Oval Office. And just barely. Eisenhower, who was first elected when he was 62 years old, left office when he was 70 years, 98 days old.

The Founding Fathers were insightful enough to set a minimum age requirement on political service, yet failed to do the same for a maximum requirement – probably due to the fact that few people lived into their 70s and 80s at the time. Now that many Americans can expect to live a long life, the US government has turned into a gerontocracy, with all of the risks and embarrassments that it entails.

How to fix the situation? One way would be to follow the same procedures that some 30 states have imposed on motorists, which mandate extra testing when a person reaches an advanced age. After all, it goes without saying that steering the nation is no less serious an activity than steering an automobile.

Медиа: image / jpeg

American industries are trailing behind, but Biden will leverage protectionism to win the 2024 election

The Biden administration has announced that it's launching a probe into Chinese “smart cars,” vowing to protect the American automobile industry. As is conventional, the White House branded the cars a “national security threat” and claimed, baselessly, that they can transmit data back to China.

Of course, any seasoned and good-faith observer should know that the rhetoric of “national security threats” is always used as a justifying premise, often without evidence, in order to blacklist a given Chinese product or service and merit its exclusion from the American market. Hence Huawei among other Chinese companies has also been treated similarly.

This rhetoric has often been borderline hysterical, one of the recent examples being Florida Senator Rick Scott saying that Chinese-exported garlic was a national security threat. That may be an outlier, but when it comes to technology, anything and everything from China is usually accused of espionage, with the political consensus of paranoia being used to justify such harsh policy measures.

In reality, the Biden administration’s foreign policy is to attempt to block China’s technological and industrial advancements in order to stop Beijing moving up the global value chain and eroding American dominance of key industries, and thus undermining the hegemony of the US. Most prominently, the White House has been focused on attempting to crush the Chinese semiconductor industry, weaponizing an ever-growing scale of export controls to try and deprive Chinese companies from access to advanced semiconductors and associated manufacturing equipment. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has called this a “small yard, high fence” strategy.

Read more

The US is famously protectionist about its automobile industry on all fronts, and is tough on both friends and foes alike over it. In the past few years, there has been a political push to advance the renewable energy industry, which has led to a surge in demand for electrical cars, batteries, solar panels, and other goods throughout the world. As it happens, China has positioned itself as the largest single manufacturer and exporter of renewables on the planet by a mile, and has overtaken Japan to become the world’s largest car exporter. Demand for Chinese electric cars is booming.

Although Chinese-made cars are subject to a 25% tariff in the US already, the competitive and cheaper prices of such models mean this serves as little deterrent and their numbers are growing. Not only that, but China has been able to exploit loopholes by initiating manufacturing of its vehicles in Mexico, allowing the cars to get inside of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and thus experience even less of a tariff. This is putting political pressure on the Biden administration, which, with an election coming up, will naturally be inclined to demonstrate toughness against China in the coming months.

This is because he will face a political opponent who is calling to be even tougher on China and has already, in his previous presidency, changed the conversation of American economic policy towards protectionism. In other words, Biden will be politically pressured to pay lip service to Trumpist economic ideas in order to offset Trump himself. To get the votes of American workers, he needs to show that he is fighting for American jobs, therefore targeting Chinese electric vehicles is going to be on the agenda. You might add that key automobile manufacturing states, such as Michigan, can win or lose the election for him, and this cost Hillary Clinton the 2016 election.

READ MORE: Car sales in Russia give China edge over Japan

Of course, because of that, the White House is also diving into anti-China hysterics, including by saying that Beijing will remotely control electric and smart cars to shut down US roads and systems, among other things. It is the characteristic of American politics to utilize smears, fear and hysteria in order to manufacture consent for policies, especially in today’s polarized environment. So, even though things have been calm on a high level between the US and China in the first quarter of 2024, we can expect this year to become turbulent and unpredictable, as it did in 2020, albeit without the even more chaotic situation of the Covid-19 pandemic. But either way, on a macro level, the US also doesn’t want China to dominate global industries or, as Biden put it, “the technologies of the future.” Therefore, while the US trails China immensely in the manufacturing of electric vehicles, it is likely to take measures in order to protect its own markets.

Медиа: image / jpeg

With Macron refusing to rule out a troop deployment, and a leaked conversation between German officers, more escalation is certain

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have disagreed publicly over how to support Ukraine – which has been ruthlessly deployed by the West as a geopolitical proxy – in its conflict with Russia. Macron used a special EU meeting he had convened, rumor has it directly inspired by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, to state, in effect, that sending Western combat troops into Ukraine was an option.

Of course, the West already has troops on the ground, including those flimsily camouflaged as volunteers and mercenaries, or otherwise participating in the conflict (for instance by planning and targeting), as a recent leak of US documents has confirmed. But an open intervention by ground forces would be a severe escalation, directly pitting Russia and NATO against each other, as Moscow has quickly pointed out, and making nuclear escalation a real possibility.

Russia has deliberately tolerated a certain degree of Western intervention, for its own pragmatic reasons: In essence, it seeks to win the war in Ukraine, while avoiding an open conflict with NATO. It is willing to pay the price of having to deal with some de facto Western military meddling, as long as it is confident it can defeat it on the Ukrainian battlefield. Indeed, the strategy has the added advantage that the West is bleeding its own resources, while the Russian military is receiving excellent hands-on training in how to neutralize Western hardware, including much-touted “miracle weapons.”

You do not have to believe Moscow’s words, but simply consult elementary logic to understand that there is an equally hard-headed limit to this kind of calculated tolerance. If the Russian leadership were to conclude that Western military forces in Ukraine were endangering its objectives (instead of merely making achieving them harder), it would raise the price for certain Western countries. (Selective treatment would be adopted to put under stress – quite possibly to breaking point – Western cohesion.)

Consider Germany, for instance: Berlin is by far Ukraine’s biggest bilateral financial supporter among EU states (at least in terms of commitments). Yet militarily, for now, Russia has been content with, in essence, shredding German Leopard tanks as they arrive on the battlefield. And, in a sense, punishing Germany’s meddling can safely be left to its own government: the country has already taken massive hits to its economy and international standing.

Read more

But if Berlin were to go even further, Moscow’s calculations would change. In that case, as little as German mass media allow German citizens to think about it, a “sobering” (to use a term from Russian doctrine) strike – initially probably non-nuclear – on German forces and territory is possible. The domestic consequences of such an attack are unpredictable. Germans might rally round the flag, or they might openly rebel against an already deeply unpopular government that has been sacrificing the national interest with unprecedented bluntness to Washington’s geopolitics.

If you think the above sounds a little far-fetched, I know of someone who clearly does not share your complacency: the German chancellor. Stung by Macron’s provocation, Scholz countered with telling alacrity. Within 24 hours after the surprise French move, he publicly ruled out the sending of “ground troops” by “European nations or NATO nations,” underlining that that this red line has always been agreed on.

In addition, the chancellor also chose exactly this moment to reaffirm that Germany will not deliver its Taurus cruise missiles to Kiev, as escalation that proponents have long demanded, including inside Germany. With, according to Scholz, the capability of striking Moscow, Berlin’s missiles in Ukrainian hands and Macron’s hypothetical ground forces have one thing in common: they come with a serious risk of spreading direct fighting beyond Ukraine, in particular to Western Europe and Germany.

In other words, the leaders of the two countries traditionally recognized as the core of the European Union have displayed profound disagreement on a key issue. Macron, it is true, often says more than he means or will care to remember. Scholz is an extreme opportunist, even by the standards of professional politics. In addition, clearly intentional indiscretions from the two men’s teams point to mutual and heartfelt antipathy, as Bloomberg has just reported. We could dismiss the spat between them as nothing but the result of incompatible political styles and personal animosity.

Read more

But that would be a grave mistake. In reality, their open discord is an important signal about the state of thinking, debate, and policy making within the EU, and, more broadly, NATO and the West. The real challenge is to decipher what this signal means.

Let’s start with something the two leaders will not openly admit but, it is virtually certain, share: The background to their quarrel is their fear that Ukraine and the West are not only losing the conflict, but more importantly in the information-streamlined West, that this defeat is about to become undeniably obvious. For instance, in the shape of further Russian advances, including strategic victories like the taking of Avdeevka and a partial or total collapse of Ukrainian defenses. Even the robustly bellicose Economist, for instance, is now admitting that Russia’s offensive is “heating up,” that the fall of Avdeevka has not made the Russian military pause, and that Ukrainians themselves are “ becoming pessimistic.” Both Macron’s remarks and Scholz’s hasty disclaimer are indicators of a growing and well-founded pessimism, perhaps even incipient panic among Western elites.

Yet that does not tell us much about how these elites really intend to react to this losing game (assuming they know themselves, that is). In principle, there are two strategic options: raise the stakes (again) or cut your losses (finally). At this point, the “raise the stakes” faction is still dominating the policy debate. The negative response to Macron’s show-stealer move has overshadowed that the general trend of the NATO and EU strategy is still to add fresh resources to the fight, for instance by agreeing to source ammunition from outside the EU, a move long resisted by France. At least as far as the public is permitted to see, NATO and the EU are still run by sunk-cost-fallacy addicts: The more they have failed and lost already, the more they want to risk.

In reality, however, the option of deception and the temptation of self-deception (they easily blend into each other, an effect commonly known as “drinking your own Kool Aid”) make things more complicated: Take, for instance, Russia’s evidence, in verbatim transcript detail, of high-ranking German military officers discussing – or was it “brainstorming”? – how Ukraine could, after all, use Taurus missiles to attack the Kerch Strait Bridge that connects Crimea with the Russian mainland, while maintaining, in effect, plausible deniability. Scholz’s public statement that “ German soldiers must at no point and in no place be linked” to Taurus attacks is proof that evading responsibility – or the impossibility to do so – are on his mind. As you would expect from a politician whose only strategy is finding the path of least resistance.

Read more

The muddled German response to this embarrassing intelligence fiasco (Why exactly was something so obviously sensitive discussed via hackable telecommunications instead of in a secure room, for instance?) only confirms that the Russian evidence is authentic. Instead of denying that the discussion took place, Germany has reacted – in typical authoritarian manner – by blocking social media accounts reporting it, and by trying to spin the conversation as nothing but a harmless thought experiment.

And yet, Scholz’s suspiciously elastic phrasing and the German officers’ discussion do not mean that such a course of naively transparent cheating will be adopted by Berlin. It may even have been a way of figuring out why that would not work.

Especially if this information is not entirely new, Russia’s choosing to publicize it now and perhaps even risking some (minor) intelligence disadvantage by revealing the extent of the German military’s penetration is, of course, also a signal to Germany’s leadership: Moscow will not play along with plausible deniability (a “don’t even try” message) and is deadly serious about this red line (a “we mean it” message). This as well may help focus minds in Berlin and make cheating less likely.

In any case, the evidence of German officers thinking about how to help attack Russia without leaving fingerprints does underline two things: Western public statements can easily be deliberate lies; and even when they are not, they are always open to radical revision. Indeed, Macron, too, alluded to that fact, pointing out that even if direct military intervention is not a consensus yet, it could become one in the future, just as other red lines have been crossed before.

In that light, Macron’s loose talk could be read as just another bluff – or, as they say in France, “strategic ambiguity”: a desperate attempt to strut so fiercely that Russia will not press its military advantage. If that was the French president’s intention, it has backfired spectacularly: Macron has provoked not only Germany but other, bigger Western players as well to clarify that they do not agree with him. Note to the Jupiterian self in the Élysée Palace: It’s not “ambiguous” when everyone who counts says “No way!”; it’s not very “strategic” either.

Read more

Yet it would be complacent to take solace from Macron’s current isolation. First, it is not complete: There are hardcore escalationists, such as the Estonian leader Kaja Kallas, in the EU and NATO who have praised him precisely because they want to drag everyone else into a direct clash with Russia. It is good that these especially zealous warmongers do not have the upper hand for now. But they have not been defeated or even appropriately marginalized either, and they will not give up.

Second, a strategy of escalation and threats can get out of hand. Consider the too-little-known fact that, in the July Crisis of 1914, just before World War I started, even the German emperor Wilhelm II had moments where he privately felt that it could still be avoided. That, however, was after he and his government had personally done their worst to bring the big war about. Lesson: If you take too many risks, at some point you may no longer be able to dial down the escalation you have promoted yourself.

Third, and most fundamentally, while rationally applied dishonesty is not unusual in international politics, for an international system to produce stability, it must first produce predictability. That, in turn, requires that even deception is kept within tacitly agreed limits and is, to a degree, predictable (because of its underlying rationality). The problem with the post-Cold War West is that it has chosen to forget and flaunt this basic rule of global order. Its addiction to unreliability is so severe that signals of escalation are inherently more credible than signals of de-escalation, as long as there is no principal, general, and clearly recognizable change of approach.

Put differently, Macron’s current isolation does not count for much because its due-diligence interpretation from Moscow’s perspective has to be that he merely went a little too far too soon. Neither Scholz’s nor other Western disavowals make a difference. What would make a difference is a united and clear signal by the West that it is now ready for genuine negotiations and a real compromise settlement. For now, the opposite remains true.

Медиа: image / jpeg

African countries should be aware and act in their own interests, not Western ones, when facing global challenges

Climate change is an existential threat to Africa, and Africa is bearing the brunt of it despite its negligible contribution to carbon emissions. Africa’s weak states are often poorly governed, so climate change is bound to accelerate Africa’s governance challenges and political instability. Owing to unpredictable weather patterns, climate change has contributed to resource scarcity, food insecurity (due to low yields or failed harvests), prolonged droughts, regular floods, wildfires, locust invasions, and a rise in the disease burden.

Conflicts over scarce resources and mass unrest in urban areas due to failing economies are likely to increase in Africa. Poverty and inequality are already rife because of the debt burden, unfavorable terms of trade, endemic corruption, and the exploitation of Africa’s resources by external actors in concert with predatory local political elites. This is a powder keg.

Governance is integral to the mitigation of climate change. Africa’s vulnerability stems from its weak institutions, and external meddling in its affairs, which takes the form of predation by imperialist forces. A vicious colonial legacy characterized by environmental degradation, crushing poverty, inequalities, and protracted violence undermines the state in Africa. In the extant global order, the West exercises outsized power, resulting in poverty and chaos in far-flung regions - the periphery, according to world-systems theory. Thus, the climate change problem falls within the center-periphery problem.

Climate change, therefore, is about more than just ecology. Africa’s political elite are not innocent bystanders, either. They hoard power and the attendant economic benefits at the expense of the masses and facilitate imperial exploits. This widespread ecosystem of inequality, social injustice, exploitation, and violence is the crux of the problem.

Read more

Adaptation efforts, unless sensitive to inequality and the power imbalance that pivots international relations, are not sustainable. Climate change negotiations are mired in a historical ecology of predation, colonialism and imperialism that has had Africa in a chokehold for millennia. Thus, the inequitable global power divide runs insidiously throughout the climate change discourse. The greatest carbon emitters, the Western countries, have a moral responsibility to reverse the effects of climate change but tend to insist on sharing the burden. China and India, which are also carbon emitters because of rapid economic advancement, also bear responsibility.

Due cognizance must be accorded to the indigenous knowledge systems in Africa for the sustainability of climate change adaptation measures. Amid the green energy transition initiatives, Africa must assert itself regarding indigenous seeds and time-tested traditional forms of knowledge to ensure equity, justice, and sovereignty.

The implementation of well-thought-out action plans across Africa, political will, financial and technical support from the West, and cooperation with fast-developing China and India are prerequisites for climate change mitigation strategies. Africa, however, must be cautious, because underneath this support could lie strings. China’s energy demand, owing to its ambitious development agenda, now rivals the West. This renders China indispensable to climate change negotiations. Africa should devise strategies that do not replicate conventional Western consumption models. Furthermore, the top-down approach that undergirds the lopsided West-Africa relationship is no longer tenable.

How capitalism is responsible for climate change

Transportation and communication, which are necessary for the movement of goods, services, and capital, require energy. Until now, fossil fuels - oil, and natural gas - coupled with technology have been the lynchpin of capitalism. The consumption of fossil fuels, however, produces carbon emissions. The share of Africa in carbon emissions is minuscule because of minimal industrialization. Africa is not energy sufficient, having not invested in solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric power, or the latest, lithium battery technology, due to its lack of capital and technical expertise, bad governance and external meddling. All this means that Africa’s reliance on ‘dirty’ energy such as oil, coal, and wood shall persist for years.

Innovation, creativity, invention, and expansion are at the heart of capitalism. Through technological advancement, manufacturing increases through mass production. Agriculture, the nucleus of economic sophistication, requires mechanization. Global supply chains and markets depend on transportation and communication. These energy-intensive processes have propelled the West to economic prosperity. However, the corresponding demand for consumer goods and services, courtesy of high incomes, threatens the very survival of the Earth.

Industrialization birthed early urbanization, but Africa’s cities are no more than a refuge for the vulnerable – the disenfranchised, dispossessed, and marginalized. Due to the absence of industrialization, cities in Africa are largely sprawling shantytowns without commensurate social amenities, security, or even dignity for the majority of the inhabitants. Urbanization, in fact capitalism, thrives on an apartheid-like template. It enhances separate development – an oxymoron. Privileges are reserved for the few, naturally the self-entitled political elite and their cronies, while the rest of the population is bogged down in violence, crime, grime, and poverty. The high cost of living, whose hallmarks include lack of sanitation, potable water, clean energy, and housing has forced the marginalized to resort to survival tactics that degrade the environment and their well-being.

African countries are indebted to the West, as well as emerging powers such as China. The legacy of colonialism, imperialism and retrogressive politics accounts for this state of affairs. The mainstay of Africa’s economies is a combination of tourism, agriculture, and fishing, which are all at risk because of climate change that, it must be underscored, is not a factor of geography or fate but a historical process tied to unequal global power relations. The debt burden, because of neoliberal economic policies, accounts for vast inequalities globally that put African countries in a precarious state. Since climate change mitigation is costly, it means that peripheral regions in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific Islands will lag.

The hegemonic discourse

Read more

In the climate change discourse, the North-South relations are ubiquitous, but it hardly captures aspects of domination, given that practices meant to reduce carbon emissions promote consumption in the West and precipitate ecological effects in Africa. Ironically, innovation meant to ramp up agriculture threatens Africa’s food security.

The replacement of traditional agriculture in Africa with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), for instance, is aimed at improving food production with drought and disease resistant and high yielding seed varieties. This adaptation measure, however, could render traditional seed varieties in Africa extinct. Local farmers are perilously reliant on GMO producers for their food security. The GMO technology, as well-intentioned as it may be, effectively threatens to obliterate indigenous seeds, rob local farmers of seed sovereignty, and could cause a humanitarian catastrophe in the event that the GMO seed fails. Only the patent owners, multinationals, could “rescue” the besieged population in such an unenviable scenario. In a way, climate change provides a pretext for the West to encroach further on Africa’s identity, its knowledge systems and sovereignty through seed engineering.

Climate change mitigation strategies are hegemonic in the sense that they have been devised and are championed by the West with little or no input from Africa. The influence of Western entities in Nairobi, Kenya, during the maiden Africa Climate Summit in September 2023 was telling.

Some civil society activists were alarmed: “Rather than advancing Africa’s interests and position on critical climate issues, the summit has been seized by Western governments, consultancy companies, and philanthropic organizations hell-bent on pushing a pro-West agenda and interests at the expense of Africa. Even more worryingly … the lead of African officials and ministers has been pushed on the backburner,” observed activists in an open letter signed by more than 500 civil society organizations.

The summit evoked the donor-recipient binary and had neocolonial and imperial undertones. Bill Gates’ interest in agriculture in Africa and its food security, for instance, is not value-free, given that he has shares in Monsanto (now Bayer). This US multinational, which produces GMOs and pesticides, has been accused of environment degradation, and, through patent rights and intellectual property, the erosion of seed and food sovereignty among local farmers, in Africa and the Global South generally. Monsanto, naturally, is constantly at loggerheads with farmers in these regions.

Greenpeace has sounded the alarm on the stranglehold of Monsanto-Bayer on the food industry in South Africa, saying: “For years Monsanto’s number one tool for waging war on our soil was glyphosate, but you probably know it by a more familiar name: Roundup. Roundup is marketed as a systemic weed killer but experts say that it impacts the health of the soil by damaging the presence of some beneficial microbes in the soil, reducing soil fertility in the long run and representing a serious threat to food security; it kills beneficial plants like milkweed which is the primary nesting foliage for Monarch butterflies; it leads to the production of superweeds; glyphosate has also been deemed a probable carcinogen by the WHO, with one analysis asserting that long-term exposure to Roundup increases your chances of contracting non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of cancer, by 41%.”

The Kenyan government, for instance, lifted a ban on GMO and critics viewed the decision as inspired by the interests of multinational such as Monsanto, while the government has maintained that it was informed by food security aspirations. Be as it may, the thinking, interests, and profits of the elite in the West trump the wellbeing of the poor and other vulnerable people in Africa. The rapacious profit motive of the Western elite is invariably presented as the norm and therefore universal. It is downright ethnocentric; it is racist. Africa’s peculiar circumstances, needs and heritage are cavalierly ignored.

The global elite and their surrogates in peripheral regions such as Africa dominate in uneven climate change negotiations. It is unsurprising therefore, that the face of youth awareness in climate change is Greta Thunberg, a young Swedish woman. In 2020, her Ugandan counterpart Vanessa Nakate addressed a press conference with fellow young white climate activists in Davos but was cropped out of a group photo. This was a poignant metaphor for Africa’s legendary erasure, silencing and invisibility.

Africa’s natural resources with elusive benefits

Uganda, Kenya and Mozambique have recently discovered deposits of natural gas and oil and are being dissuaded by Western financiers, which are otherwise critical in providing capital for exploration, from investing in fossil fuels. Instead, the countries are being encouraged to invest in green energy. These countries are wondering why they cannot benefit from these natural resources that have powered developed economies for decades. Compelling as their concern is, the reasoning is equally sobering. In the years to come, it is projected that non-renewable sources of energy will cease being central to the world economy, thus the need to shift away from oil and natural gas exploration.

Read more

Africa needs to invest in research so as not to overly rely on the West for scientific advice about climate change and other pressing concerns since some of this advice could be dubious. Africa needs to build on its traditional knowledge systems, and traditional seeds attuned to the continent’s soil types, instead of embracing seed varieties tested and modified in the West and thrust upon them for profit rather than food security. Africa must only borrow what is critical, not wholesale, as the trend tends to be.

I have argued that governance is the starting point in addressing climate change, otherwise political instability in Africa can only worsen. The political and other elite in Africa must ‘walk the walk’ and scrutinize consumerism, poverty and inequalities. It is counterintuitive of them to wax lyrical about climate change while living large through unnecessary travel locally and abroad, use fuel-guzzling cavalcades, and abet deforestation and other consumption habits that harm biodiversity. Like the Covid-19 pandemic, climate change hurts more countries that are already doing badly in terms of governance and other human development indices.

The climate change discourse must be seen as an extension of an ecosystem of imperialism, elitism, classism and subjugation that has disadvantaged Africa without interruption for millennia. It is laced with bigotry. Africa should be cautious not to fit into the Western template, that is, not to naively adapt the mitigation and adaptation strategies imposed on them. Climate change is an existential threat but of greater concern to Africa is poor governance, and mimicry combined with a rapacious global order.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Today’s Western leaders exhibit a strange mix of self-assuredness and anxiety that’s characteristic of those defending the status quo during times of sweeping change

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has become the latest to add her voice to the growing chorus of Western officials calling for the seizure of Russia’s $300 billion in frozen foreign-exchange reserves for the benefit of Ukraine. This comes after UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak penned an op-ed over the weekend in which he called for the West to be “bolder” in moving toward confiscating the assets.

Notwithstanding the reticence being displayed in some quarters of Europe and various admonitions that such an action would be both blatantly illegal and also detrimental to the integrity of the financial system, the idea seems to be taking on a momentum of its own, particularly in Washington and London.

What we are seeing is a vivid example of the type of thinking that places perceived short-term gains ahead of a commitment to preserve the integrity of an institution that derives its potency precisely from widespread confidence in that integrity. It is also, as we will see, a manifestation of a particular type of paradoxical impulse that arises during times of momentous change.

In this case, the institution in question is the Western-led global financial system, at the very heart of which is the US dollar. Outright confiscation of the Russian central bank reserves that have been immobilized since shortly after the Ukraine conflict began in February 2022 would deliver another jolting blow to the credibility of this system. Even as most of the assets are actually held in Europe, there would be no confusion about who was calling the shots and whose credibility is on the line.

Of course, views differ about how much integrity the dollar-centric system ever had, and certainly the entire Bretton Woods framework established in the waning days of World War II very much served the interests of the victorious Americans. But it cannot be disputed that for decades the dollar was widely viewed across the geopolitical spectrum as not just a market-determined reference point and currency for trade but as a safe store of value. As trade became increasingly liberalized, assumptions about a safe and dependable dollar system were built into all manner of economic and trade policies. Such assumptions became part of the very fabric of the global financial system.

Read more

Where risks related to the dollar were understood to exist, they were largely seen as lying in the realm of interest-rate policy – in other words, these were market risks rather than risks inherent to the system itself. A series of emerging-market crises in the 1980s and ‘90s left many countries chastened about the perils of excessive dollar debt and the dangers that US interest-rate hikes can unleash.

But one of the conclusions that many countries drew from these episodes was the necessity of holding greater dollar reserves as a bulwark against shocks. Between 2000 and 2005, right on the heels of two decades of crises often triggered by rising dollar interest rates, emerging markets actually accumulated dollar reserves at a record pace of about $250 billion per annum, or 3.5% of GDP – a level five times higher than in the early 1990s.

In other words, countries responded to shocks emanating from the dollar realm by increasing holdings of dollars. This only underscores the nature of how dollar-related risk was perceived at the time. It simply didn’t occur to anybody that greater exposure to the dollar was itself a risk. The idea that hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of reserves could simply be confiscated if a country found itself at odds with the overseers of the system didn’t factor into any of the equations.

The weaponization of the dollar in recent years has introduced a heretofore unimagined source of risk. That there is now a political risk premium to using the dollar is already a serious deviation from how the currency was viewed for decades. The consequences of this are already apparent for all to see – the widespread de-dollarization trend – although many in the halls of Western power remain dismissive about what is happening.

Read more

But perhaps even more insidious is that those advocating for the seizure of Russia’s reserves have turned on its head a fundamental principle of the entire liberal idea. This is best thought of as a conflation of outcomes and processes. A liberal society or rule-of-law-based system – call it what you want – is held together not because all agree on outcomes and policies, but because there is a consensus on the set of processes and rules by which those outcomes and policies are implemented. The processes and rules do not exist to ensure particular outcomes and, in fact, may produce outcomes that are at odds with the interests of those who preside over those rules.

With the plan to confiscate the Russian assets, what we are seeing is a desired outcome being trumpeted as an act done in defense of the liberal order (punish the liberal-values-stomping Russia and support the liberal-democracy aspirant Ukraine), whereas the integrity of the processes is now entirely secondary. Since the desired outcome does not emerge from any reasonable application of existing processes, what is being sought is a radically different interpretation of those processes. When Western officials call for finding “a legal way” to confiscate the assets, what they really mean is that the outcome is paramount and that any legal fig leaf will do.

To put it plainly, the liberal order is no longer being defended by an appeal to its deeper principles but by efforts to advocate outcomes that superficially seem to advance its interests – even if those outcomes emerge from a distinctly illiberal approach.

When this extremely critical distinction undergoes corrosion – as is happening now – the challenge is to see the deeper change not in terms of a different outcome but in terms of a transformation of the processes that produce the outcome. For quant geeks, think of it in terms of statistical process control, where one tries to determine whether or not a process has remained within specs or has undergone some sort of shift.

The 20th century Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset described the rise to prominence in Western civilization of a certain type of person who takes for granted the institutions he has inherited and presides over, enjoying their benefits while giving scarce thought to how these institutions arose and what must be done to maintain them. Ortega likened such a person to a spoiled child or a hereditary aristocrat. Ignorant of the fragility of his inheritance and supremely confident in himself, he inevitably ushers in a degradation of the very institutions he has been entrusted with.

Such is the essence of the current crop of Western leaders, particularly those in Washington. Born mostly in the decades immediately following World War II, they take as a given the supremacy of the liberal, rules-based order and its economic wing – the dollar-based financial system. They speak of this world order not with reverence and a deep understanding of its roots but in emotionally laded yet vacuous cliches. While benefitting themselves greatly from the liberal order, they show little interest in the actual principles that purport to underpin it. They invoke it constantly, but mostly in order to bludgeon various foes and adversaries.

A recent op-ed in the New York Times by Bret Stephens titled ‘How Biden Can Avenge Navalny’s Death’ listed seizing Russia’s $300 billion in frozen funds as a potential avenue for making good on a warning Biden gave to Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2021 of “devastating” consequences should the opposition leader die in prison.

Read more

Stephens does mention concerns that such a move could trigger flight from the dollar, but concludes that such an argument “might otherwise be persuasive if the need to save Ukraine and punish Russia weren’t more urgent.” In other words, the very dollar system that the US relies on for what’s left of its prosperity can be sacrificed at the altar of the symbolic gesture of, as Stephens puts it, pursuing “the strategic imperative of demonstrating to a dictator that American threats aren’t hollow.”

Janet Yellen, a paladin of the liberal global order if there ever was one, was dismissive in recent comments of the threats that seizing Russia’s reserves would pose to the system itself. It is “extremely unlikely” that tapping the funds would harm the dollar’s standing because “realistically there are no alternatives,” she believes. For Yellen, her support marks an about-face from her earlier view that such a move was “not legally permissible in the United States.” But the winds have now changed and the legal case is apparently looking more promising.

Such is the prevailing insouciance among the ruling class. Like a soon-to-be-deposed king who takes for granted the permanence of the monarchy, today’s leaders simply cannot contemplate at any depth what constitutes the true foundation of the system they preside over.

But there is something else at play. It bears recalling what has animated the discussion of seizing Russia’s assets in recent weeks in the first place: it is the panic setting in over the drying up of funding for the clearly failing Ukraine proxy war against Russia. In other words, notwithstanding the self-assured tones from the likes of Yellen, the plan has not emerged from a place of strength. The willingness to take such a dangerous step for very short-term aims (putting aside the question of whether $300 billion can even save the West’s Ukraine project) can be seen as akin to burning the furniture as a last resort to stay warm – it reeks of desperation.

Read more

Thus we can say that the type of thinking driving the push to seize the Russian assets derives from the self-assuredness about which Ortega speaks but also from a burgeoning anxiety. The former is due to Western leaders’ apparent belief in the indestructability of the institutions that they are actually undermining; the latter because they are facing a cascade of crises and are increasingly frantic in seeking stopgap solutions at whatever long-term cost.

The inversion of outcomes and processes that we spoke of earlier is another manifestation of this essentially schizophrenic mindset. There is a belief that the system can withstand such blows to its integrity: assets can be stolen and rules subverted but the dollar will always be on top. And yet the act of subordinating processes to outcomes is itself a reflection of a fear that the system is too fragile to withstand undesirable outcomes. If Russia retaining possession of its $300 billion in reserves is an outcome too dangerous for the liberal order to survive, then things are in bad shape.

These two seemingly irreconcilable traits – self-assuredness and deep anxiety – are often found coexisting among those in positions of power who are trying to cling on to the status quo during times of epochal change. It is what drove the arrogant and clueless Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu to call a large rally in Bucharest in 1989 that would prove to be his final undoing. Historians may very well look back at the arrogant and clueless Janet Yellens and Rishi Sunaks as caught up in historical processes that they could neither comprehend nor control.

Медиа: image / jpeg

By locking away one journalist and abetting the misery of an entire people, the West combines oppressive structure with disregard for law

Recently, two of the defining injustices of the contemporary West have been the object of legal proceedings. And while one involves mass murder and the other the torture but not murder of a single victim (at least not yet), there are good reasons to juxtapose the two systematically. The suffering involved is different, but the forces that cause it are intricately linked and, as we will see, reveal much about the nature of the West as a political order.

In The Hague, the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) – also known as the World Court – has held extensive hearings (involving 52 states and three international organizations) on Israel’s post-1967 occupation – or de facto annexation – of Palestinian territories. These hearings are connected to, but are not the same as, the genocide case against Israel also currently proceeding at the ICJ.

All of this is happening against the backdrop of Israel’s relentless genocide of the Palestinians by bombing, shooting (reportedly including small children, in the head), blockade, and starvation. As of now, the constantly growing – and conservative – victim count stands at about 30,000 killed, 70,000 injured, 7,000 missing, and at least 2 million displaced, often more than once, always under horrific conditions.

In London, the Royal Courts of Justice have been the stage for Julian Assange’s fight for an appeal against Washington’s demand to extradite him to the US. Assange, an activist and publisher of investigative journalism, has already been in confinement – of one kind or the other – for more than a decade. Since 2019, he has been held in the Belmarsh high security prison. In fact, what has already happened to him is the modern equivalent of being locked away in the Bastille by royal “lettre de cachet” in absolutist, pre-revolutionary, Ancien régime France. Multiple observers, including a UN special rapporteur, have argued compellingly that Assange’s treatment has amounted to torture.

Read more

The essence of his political persecution – in reality, there is no good-faith legal case – is simple: Through his WikiLeaks platform, Assange published leaked materials that exposed the brutality, criminality, and lies of the US’ and UK’s (and, more generally, the West’s) post-9/11 wars. While leaking state secrets is not legal – although it can be morally obligatory and even heroic, as in the case of Chelsea Manning, who was a major WikiLeaks source – publishing the results of such leaks is legal. Indeed, that principle is an acknowledged pillar of media freedom and independence. Without it, media cannot fulfil any kind of watchdog function. Yet Washington is obstinately and absurdly trying to treat Assange as a spy. If it succeeds, “global media freedom” (for what it’s worth…) is toast.

This is what makes Assange objectively the single most important political prisoner in the world.

If extradited to the US, whose highest officials have at times plotted his assassination, the WikiLeaks founder will definitely not get a fair trial and will die in prison. In that case, his fate will irreversibly turn into what Washington and London have been working on for over a decade, namely making an example of him by delivering the most devastating blow imaginable against free speech and a truly open society.

That Gaza and Assange have something in common has occurred to more than one observer. Both stand for a plethora of political pathologies, including merciless cruelty, politicized “justice,” mass media disinformation, and, last but not least, that old specialty of the “garden” West, peak hypocrisy.

There also is the grotesquely arrogant American sense of global entitlement: The Palestinians’ rights or, indeed, humanity count for nothing if Israel, Washington’s closest and most lawless ally, wants their land and their lives. Assange, of course, is an Australian citizen.

Assange and Gaza also connect in concrete ways: While there is a Russia Rage (aka “Russiagate”) subplot to Washington’s revenge campaign against the WikiLeaks founder, what he is hated for the most is that he dared show the world just how callous and bloodthirsty the US and its allies have been in waging their wars in the Middle East, the same region in which Washington is now at least an indispensable accomplice, if not a co-perpetrator in the genocide of a population that is largely (though not exclusively) Muslim and “brown.”

Read more

Yet there is another aspect of the Gaza-Assange complex that we should not miss. Together, these two great state crimes reveal a pattern, a syndrome that points to what kind of real political order is now developing in the West.

A few things are obvious: First, while always more of an aspiration than reality, the rule of law (national and international) is compromised in an especially flagrant manner. It is as if the West wants us to know that it does not give a damn about the law.

Just consider two facts: Even after the ICJ issued instructions (here called “preliminary measures”) to Israel that would have, in effect, ended most its genocidal attack if obeyed, Israel simply has not complied. And its partners in the West have joined it demonstratively in this defiance, among other things by helping Israel disrupt UNRWA, thus making the starvation blockade of Gaza even worse. As for Assange, his wife Stella, who is a lawyer, has stated it best by noting that all the egregious abuse of her husband is “on the public record and yet it continues.”

Second, the West is not, actually, an orderly “garden” but quite a fierce “jungle” of cooperating but also rival interest groups and establishments. It is rhetorically obsessed with celebrating not only its so-called “values,” but also its unity. Yet, in reality, that is an indication of how precarious that unity really is. So is the West’s escalating use of scare campaigns, massively exaggerating or even inventing threats from outside (Russia and China are the main targets of this technique) and, at the same time, denying even the possibility of diplomacy and compromise.

At the same time, this is the same West whose members have now reached the stage of blowing up each other’s vital infrastructures and cannibalizing each other’s economies. Not to speak of spying on each other and, certainly, also blackmailing each other with the compromising information produced by that spying.

Third, while bending and breaking its own laws – not to speak of the professed “values” and “rules” – somehow the West is still also capable of acting and doing damage as one vast, if not always well-coordinated, machine, when it is asserting its rapacious – if often also ill-conceived – interests.

Read more

What kind of political order is this? I believe our best bet to size up this wild yet colluding, lawless yet institution-based West is to go far back into the past, to the key concepts of two early and brilliant analysts of Nazi Germany, Franz Neumann and Ernst Fraenkel. Neumann’s key to understanding the violent mess that was the Third Reich was to imagine it as a Behemoth in the sense of the English political philosopher and natural born pessimist Thomas Hobbes. Unlike Hobbes’ almost perfectly authoritarian “Leviathan,” his “Behemoth,” Neumann explained, stood for a state that was really a “non-state, a situation characterized by complete lawlessness.” Fraenkel suggested a different model. For him, Nazi Germany could function, despite its inner chaos, because it was both a state that still had laws (if often very unjust ones) and a state that imposed measures, free of legal restraint.

Of course, the current West is not literally the equivalent of the Nazi Reich. Although if you consider that it is complicit in Israel’s ongoing genocide, you will realize that not quite matching the Nazis is a rather low bar – and scant consolation for a Palestinian father or mother whose child has just deliberately and slowly been starved to death, for instance. In another wrinkle, Neumann rejected Fraenkel’s theory as, in essence, still according too much of a system to the German monster state. But then, academics will academic.

The larger, really important point is that it is impossible not to see striking and disturbing tendencies in the contemporary West that resonate with both Neumann’s “Behemoth” and Fraenkel’s state of laws and measures, or, if you wish, of rules and arbitrariness. Shocking? Of course. Far-fetched? Those who keep telling themselves that are in for a very rude awakening if they ever find themselves where both the Palestinians and Assange are, in their different ways: On the very dark side of what is probably the most dishonest and unreliable political order on the globe at this point.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Regime Change Karen has said the quiet part out loud, complaining that Putin’s Russia is “not the Russia we wanted”

US State Department fixture and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, aka “Regime Change Karen,” apparently woke up one day recently, took the safety off her nuclear-grade mouth, and inadvertently blew up the West’s Ukraine narrative.

Until now, Americans have been told that all the US taxpayer cash being earmarked for Ukrainian aid is to help actual Ukrainians. Anyone notice that the $75 billion American contribution isn’t getting the job done on the battlefield? Victory in military conflict isn’t supposed to look like defeat. Winning also isn’t defined as, “Well, on a long enough time axis, like infinity, our chance of defeat will eventually approach zero.” And the $178 billion in total from all allies combined doesn’t seem to be doing the trick, either. Short of starting a global war with weapons capable of extending the conflict beyond a regional one, it’s not like they’ve been holding back. The West is breaking the bank. All for some vague, future Ukrainian “victory” that they don’t seem to want to clearly define. We keep hearing that the support will last “as long as it takes.” For what exactly? By not clearly defining it, they can keep moving the goal posts.

But now here comes Regime Change Karen, dropping some truth bombs on CNN about Ukrainian aid. She started off with the usual talking point of doing “what we have always done, which is defend democracy and freedom around the world.” Conveniently, in places where they have controlling interests and want to keep them – or knock them out of a global competitor’s roster and into their own. “And by the way, we have to remember that the bulk of this money is going right back into the US to make those weapons,” Nuland said, pleading in favor of the latest Ukraine aid package that’s been getting the side eye from Republicans in Congress.

Read more

So there you have it, folks. Ukrainians are a convenient pretext to keep the tax cash flowing in the direction of the US military industrial complex. This gives a whole new perspective on “as long as it takes.” It’s just the usual endless war and profits repackaged as benevolence. But we’ve seen this before. It explains why war in Afghanistan was little more than a gateway to Iraq. And why the Global War on Terrorism never seems to end, and only ever mutates. Arguably the best one they’ve come up with so far is the need for military-grade panopticon-style surveillance, so the state can shadow-box permanently with ghosts while bamboozling the general public with murky cyber concepts that it can’t understand or conceptualize. When one conflict or threat dials down, another ramps up, boosted by fearmongering rhetoric couched in white-knighting. There’s never any endgame or exit ramp to any of these conflicts. And there clearly isn’t one for Ukraine, either.

Still, there’s a sense that the realities on the ground in Ukraine, which favor Russia, now likely mean that the conflict is closer to its end than to its beginning. Acknowledgements abound in the Western press. And that means there isn’t much time left for Europe to get aboard the tax cash laundering bandwagon and stuff its own military industrial complexes’ coffers like Washington has been doing from the get-go. Which would explain why a bunch of countries now seem to be rushing to give Ukraine years-long bilateral security “guarantees,” requiring more weapons for everyone. France, Germany, Canada, and Italy have all made the pledge. Plus Denmark, which also flat-out said that it would send all its artillery to Ukraine. If security for Europe is the goal, that sounds kind of like the opposite. Particularly when Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba told the EU that “Russia has gotten closer to your home” in the wake of the most recent defeat in Avdeevka. He sounds like one of those guys in TV ads trying to peddle burglar alarms. Seems like Russia only exists in the minds of the West these days to justify sending weapons to Ukraine to get blown up, while also justifying to taxpayers why they should continue funding this whole charade.

Meanwhile, the West’s drive towards peace seems to be taking the scenic route. “As we move forward, we continue our support to Ukraine in further developing President Zelensky’s Peace Formula,” G7 leaders said after a recent meeting with Zelensky in Kiev. Nice to see that he’s devoting all his time to this magic peace formula instead of running around extorting his friends for cash by threatening them with Putin.

It was already a pretty big hint of what’s really been going on when the EU decided to use the taxpayer-funded European Peace Facility to reimburse EU countries for the unloading of their mothballed, second-hand weapons into Ukraine, where Russia can then dispose of them before anyone could be accused of overcharging for clunkers. Now, with the clunker supply running dry, they just have to make more weapons. Maybe funneling cash into weapons for themselves will be the Hail Mary pass that saves their economies that they’ve tanked “for Ukraine”?

Read more

Thanks to Nuland’s nuking of any plausible deniability on Ukrainian “aid” not going to Washington, it’s now clear that Ukrainians continue to die so poor weapons makers don’t end up shaking tin cans on street corners. She has also removed any doubt about the ultimate US goal being Russian regime change, calling Putin’s leadership “not the Russia we wanted,” and sounding like someone who chronically sends back a meal to kitchens of a dining establishment. “We wanted a partner that was going to be Westernizing, that was going to be European. But that’s not what Putin has done,” she told CNN. That’s exactly what Putin has done, actually. It’s the West that’s moved away from itself and is becoming increasingly unrecognizable by its own citizens. Pretty sure that it goes beyond just wanting a country to be “European,” too. Because Germany’s European, and an ally, and Nuland wouldn’t shut up about how much she hated its Nord Stream gas supply — until it mysteriously went kaboom.

Regime Change Karen saying the quiet part out loud has decimated the Western establishment’s narrative so badly that it’s a miracle no one has yet accused her thermonuclear mouth of being an asset of Russia’s weapons program.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Media commentary gleefully proclaiming the end of China’s rise fail to take into account the global realities that Beijing is effectively adapting to

If there’s one thoroughly unoriginal strand of thought on China present in the mainstream media today, it is the idea that China’s economy has been wrecked, and that Xi Jinping’s policies are to blame.

Such commentary, pushed by every major mainstream outlet on a weekly basis, frequently promotes a narrative of the “end” of China’s rise, often talks about “decline” and squarely places responsibility on Xi Jinping, who supposedly ended the dynamic of an open and prosperous China for increasingly centralized, authoritarian rule and a return to communist fundamentals.

Such an article was pushed this week by the editorial board of the Washington Post, in a piece titled “Xi is tanking China’s economy. That’s bad for the US”. The article was hardly original in its premise, stating the above argument pretty much word for word. When this argument is pushed, it always conveniently ignores the broader context that the world economy is in dire straits, and moreover the more pressing elephant in the room, that American foreign policy has been deliberately detrimental if not outright antagonistic to global economic prospects as a whole.

The idea of this narrative is to push the psychological warfare aspect that China is failing in order to dampen the optimism of businesses, undermine the Chinese economy and therefore push US foreign policy goals. This deliberately paints over the geopolitical, economic, and domestic considerations which have all driven a change in China’s own strategy and position. It is easy to denounce the “tyrannical rule of Xi Jinping” in a cliché and blame him for everything that has apparently gone wrong, but more difficult to paint an assessment as to why China’s internal and external environment today is not the same as it was ten years ago.

First, what is always, always ignored is that Xi Jinping deliberately set about changing the structure of China’s economy in order to end a growth boom based solely on real estate and debt. The newspapers love to waffle on about the “real estate crisis” and Evergrande, but can you imagine how big the problem would have been had previous policies been continued and China pushed for obscene 10% growth targets based on an explosion of debt? Xi Jinping ended this and initiated a process of deleveraging which deliberately slowed down China’s economic growth to around 6% when he came to power. Why? Because debt is not a sustainable mechanism and his policy has been literally to push the real estate industry into a managed recession, even if that has short-term repercussions.

Read more

Secondly, Xi Jinping’s policy has been to reinvent China’s economy to meet upcoming challenges by transforming it from a low end, export, real estate boom economy, into a high-end technological powerhouse. Instead of investing aimlessly in local government real estate booms, China has redirected state money to building up high-value industries including renewable energy, computing, semiconductors, automobiles, aviation, among other things. It is primarily this bid to become the global technological leader (by default of size) that has triggered the backlash from the US on an economic level and thus the bid to try and cripple China’s technological advance through export controls, which in fact show little evidence of working.

In addition to that, the global economic environment China operates in, has changed. The US has terminated its longstanding policy of open economic integration in favor of protectionism, bloc alignment, and the geopoliticization of supply chains. It has, in turn, created geopolitical conflicts with Russia and China and demanded its allies cut or reduce economic ties to the targeted countries. In doing so, the US has also attacked Beijing on a number of fronts using issues such as Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan and Hong Kong as weapons to smear China’s image, implement sanctions, and of course an all-embracing campaign of negative publicity to create uncertainty and destroy the optimism of China’s rise.

These policies inevitably have consequences on Beijing, which makes the country feel less secure, more suspicious, and therefore less open to the outside world. That isn’t as much a possible indictment of Xi Jinping as it is a structural reality of politics. The CIA for example, is relentless in trying to strengthen its presence in China, but if China arrests someone or links them to spying, the media will respond by calling Beijing paranoid, insecure and coercive, showing how the narrative will skewer the country no matter what. However, the point still remains that it is more challenging for China to grow in this environment than it was before. New challenges create new policies, and when the mainstream media pretend that Xi is the instigator of all the change and “spoiling” China’s chances, they are simply lying on multiple levels. It is a multifaceted psychological warfare campaign which opts for simple explanations rather than telling you the bigger picture of why China changed.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The Raisina Dialogue showcased New Delhi’s commitment to mitigating polarizing chaos worldwide, aiming to foster dialogue instead

“A large part of foreign policy today is communication,” Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said as the 9th Raisina Dialogue, an annual conference on geopolitics hosted by New Delhi, came to a close on Saturday. From regional conflicts and disruptive economics, to climate change and the threats posed by AI, the forum saw an exchange of intellectual viewpoints to predict plans towards the unfolding yet uncertain future.

A central note touching almost every topic was India’s meteoric rise and how it will respond to crises in the emerging global order. “India will be bigger in everyone’s lives in the coming decades,” Jaishankar predicted in a one-on-one session with Samir Saran, the president of the Observer Research Organization.

Perhaps the biggest indicator of India’s objective and peaceful rise in the world was New Delhi’s choice for the event’s chief guest – alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Greek PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis graced the inaugural session of the flagship conference.

“India has transformed this event from a regional to a global public square for dialogue and exchange of ideas,” he said in his opening remarks, highlighting the unique significance New Delhi holds in contemporary international affairs. Just as the Dialogue was a “Made in India version of a global public square,” in the words of Dr. Jaishankar, similarly, India aspires to be the “global public square” for nations to come together and find common ground on global issues.

Read more

Additionally, the choice of the chief guest for the conference sent out important hints regarding how India wants the event to the perceived. Firstly, in today’s polarizing times when regional conflicts are dividing the global geopolitical balance, choosing a Greek representative to be the chief guest signifies and affirms India’s objective standing towards the myriad multilateral issues facing the world.

The decision to refrain from inviting a leader of a major global power underscores New Delhi’s dedication to minimizing polarizing disruptions worldwide. It also wanted to avoid sending mixed signals to its partners. “India is a Vishwa Mitra [friend of the world] – a friend who maximizes relationships,” Jaishankar said, “We are a bridging power to a great degree as displayed during the G20 [Summit].”

However, some may characterize India’s decision not to invite a debate on polarization based on the appointment of the chief guest as the reluctance of a power that is not quite ready for the world stage. A counterargument could be that India does not necessarily need to take sides to show that it is a rising power. “There are no longer two sides to a question anymore, there are many sides to many questions,” Jaishankar said. “What may appear a hedge to you, is actually my side.” He added that “The guys who are accused of being hedgers, balancers, swing states will actually now end up as poles. So, they now own a side; [they] own a position.”

India’s choice of chief guest also shows that despite dealing with the great powers, it has not forgotten about relations with the middle and small powers. India sought to highlight that despite being the leader of the Global South, it has not lost touch with the Southern Global North, or the small powers within the Industrial First World. The Greek prime minister stressed this by noting that the 2023 visit by Modi to Athens was the first visit by an Indian prime minister since 1983. Mitsotakis emphasized the vibrant civilizational history of both countries with their deep democratic traditions.

Read more

During the course of the Dialogue, sessions were held on the North-South, East-West split dominating global geopolitics, the ongoing onslaught of climate change amid inadequate measures to stem the rising tide, and the fractured geo-economics of the world which is pushing the world into realignment. As one speaker claimed, “We are in an era of reglobalization rather than deglobalization.”

An interesting takeaway was the structured, comparatively objective manner in which discussions were conducted – a further testament to India as a bridging, intellectual space and as a promoter of constructive debate. However, there were some exceptions.

In one instance, in a session in which the restructuring world order and the loss of credibility for multilateral institutions were discussed, Peter Mandelson, the chairman of the Global Counsel and former European Trade Commissioner from the UK, lashed out at Russia for “fighting a colonial war against a European country to establish a post-Soviet empire.” The moderator, Samir Saran, noted the irony of a Lord of the UK making a statement on colonialism. Maneesh Gobbin, the minister of foreign affairs of Mauritius, who was also a speaker at the session, stepped in to say that “territorial integrity” should also be applied to the Chagos Archipelago, in reference to the continuing occupation of the Diego Garcia atoll by US and UK forces despite protests by the native population.

In another instance, a session on the Arctic, which talked about the region’s future in the face of the climate crisis and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, included speakers from largely Arctic states. An unusual addition was Estonia, which claimed its legitimacy through its historical relations with the Arctic region. What was stark was the absence of a Russian speaker in the session, given that Moscow is by far the largest stakeholder in the region.

Read more

While some expressed the belief that NATO is the only organization capable of providing security in Europe, and by extension the Arctic, some members, such as the state secretary from Norway, stressed that despite what they consider to be ‘Russian aggression’ in Ukraine, other states still need to find ways to work with Moscow since it is still a member of the Arctic Council. Ironically, no one talked about the ‘ Arctic Spirit’ (a concept of the Arctic as a region of peace and cooperation) that had mysteriously vanished from the innumerable public statements of European states.

Jaishankar also argued that working with Moscow is “in the global interest.” When asked whether India remains uncomfortable with the growing closeness of Beijing and Moscow, he suggested that Russia is a power that possesses an enormous tradition of statecraft. “It’s kind of funny – on the one hand you have people who set policies [and] bring the two together, and then you say beware of them coming together,” adding that “it makes sense to give Russia multiple options. If we railroad Russia into a single option and say that’s really bad because that’s the outcome, then you are making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

In previous forums, Jaishankar praised Russia as an “exceptionally steady” and “time-tested” partner. Following the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict, India and Russia have seen meteoric growth in economic ties even as the West imposed sanctions on Russia for what it sees as unprovoked aggression in Ukraine. New Delhi has refrained from taking sides, while calling for a cessation of hostilities and peaceful dialogue to end the crisis.

Overall, this year’s Raisina Dialogue excelled in its role as ‘global public square’ in eliciting views and opinions on issues that matter and bringing nations together to the diplomatic table rather than the battlefield. As the Dutch foreign minister said during the Dialogue, “If you speak [with each other], you don’t fight.”

Медиа: image / jpeg

Russia’s supposed imperial ambitions get a lot of airtime, but Israel gets a free pass to do what it wants with Palestine

The hypocrisy of the US-led West regarding how it reacts to Russia, a geopolitical opponent, on one side, and to Israel, a favorite with special privileges, on the other, is so flagrant that even The Guardian has noticed. While the West uses rhetoric about “rules” and “values” to cloak its proxy war against Russia via Ukraine, it tolerates and supports Israel’s genocidal attack on the Palestinians in Gaza. That even the United Nations’ top court, the ICJ, has by now found genocide a plausible possibility, simply makes no real difference.

This is a failure that goes beyond cynical political elites. During the war between Russia and Ukraine (and de facto the West), many Western academics, journalists, and experts have not been able to get enough of displaying their rhetorical toughness. While badly misled Ukrainians have been doing all the dying, going to verbal extremes was all the rage among the West’s chairborne brigade.

Some tried to accuse Moscow of genocide. Others felt that the least they could do was demand that Russia cease to exist. That fantasy of disintegrating a geopolitical rival was usually dressed up as a call to “decolonize Russia,” also disparaged as “the last empire.” These labels were handy because they implied three fashionable – if silly – ideas: First the claim that the modern, post-Soviet Russian Federation consists of a colonizing center and colonized peripheries. Second, the wish that Russia simply must fall apart because all empires do (never mind it’s not an empire). And third, that Ukraine can be recast as a victim of imperialism on par with, say, the Belgian Congo or Vietnam fighting off first the French and then the Americans.

Read more

None of the above makes sense. Russia is a federation, its population features more than one ethnic identity, and there are imbalances. If you think that’s the definition of colonialism, go right ahead and take apart Great Britain or France. As for a “last empire,” maybe try the US first. After all, that is the one country on Earth that considers itself officially “indispensable,” thinks the whole globe is its God-given (literal) sphere of influence, has just used up Ukraine as a proxy in Europe, and is reducing its EU vassals to penury, sponsoring an ongoing genocide in the Middle East, and gearing up for a big war in Asia to defend its “primacy.”

But the inherent absurdity of these clearly politically – propagandistically, really – motivated charges is not really their most interesting aspect. For one thing, it’s just too obvious. What is really intriguing is something else, and it has happened only recently. We are now in the fifth month of witnessing – 24/7 and in real-time – the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza. That is the outcome of Israel’s very structure, its Zionist source code: that of a classical European settler colony whose existence in its current form is premised on the removal of indigenous populations.

And yet, the same brave voices courageous enough to loudly shout what every political leader (and editor, and employer) in the West has wanted to hear about Russia – where are they now? Where are their demands to “decolonize Palestine,” that is, free the Palestinians from Israeli oppression and mass murderous violence? Where are their demands to end the “last settler colony”?

And, make no mistake, ending Israel as it is now, a state based on persistent violence, in permanent violation of UN rules with impunity, does not require or imply indiscriminate mass violence against Israelis. It simply means that this state commits the very imperialist crimes Western talking heads keep accusing Russia of.

Where is the concern for Palestine, a country that, clearly, is a real victim of imperialist violence at the hands of Israel and the West? Where are the calls for arming the Palestinian Resistance with the best of NATO’s arsenals? Transferring tens of billions of euros and dollars to the Palestinians so they can sustain their fight against Israeli aggression? Nothing. With very few exceptions, the silence of the Western intellectuals is deafening.

The contrast with past grandiloquence is stark, even grotesque. Take, for instance, the Washington Post op-ed “What’s happening in Ukraine is genocide. Period.” of April 5, 2022. Authored by Eugene Finkel, a political scientist originally from Lviv in Ukraine and based at Johns Hopkins University, the piece argued what its title would make you expect: Finkel had no doubt that he was able to identify a clear-cut case of genocide. He has not been silent with regard to Gaza either: On November 16, 2023, he used an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times to tell us about “a bout of violence that includes atrocities, indiscriminate targeting, bombings and hostage taking, leading to claims about a potential genocide or genocidal massacres committed by the warring parties.”

Read more

Spot the difference? Whereas Finkel rushed to the far-fetched conclusions he wanted with regard to Russia, he is careful to speak only of “claims” when it comes to Israel and Gaza – and, of course, he both-sides the Israeli perpetrators and Palestinian victims. And yet, Israel has clearly and deliberately targeted civilians with a strategy of forcing ethnic cleansing. The methods of warfare used by Israel – for instance, systematic starvation blockade; the publicly encouraged mistreatment of civilians, including children and women, as combatants and of combatants as without any rights; the destruction of all medical infrastructure and the systematic murder and abuse of medical staff; the systematic mass slaughter by bombing – have no parallel in Russia’s fighting in Ukraine. And, for Israel, there can be no doubt about “intent,” which is a key factor in proving genocide.

If Finkel were remotely honest and unbiased, the very least he would have to do is invert his position: The case of Israel’s genocide in Gaza is crystal clear; the case for accusing Russia of this crime in Ukraine is anything but.

Regarding “decolonization,” there’s Janusz Bugajski, a Senior Fellow at the Jamestown Foundation in Washington and author of “Failed State: A Guide to Russia’s Rupture.” Bugajski has been an ardent advocate of disintegrating Russia, urging Western policy-makers to get ready for Moscow’s defeat and collapse, and then “ capitalizing on Russia’s de-imperialization.” He has, unsurprisingly, also reveled in the “falling empire” cant. His ability to get his facts and predictions ridiculously wrong is one thing. Poland, whose glorious strategic future his next book will predict, may worry about that.

So, what about Bugajski’s take on the Gaza Genocide? Simple: It’s Moscow’s fault, of course. Or, at least, what we must think about is not the Israeli genocide but Bugajski’s contention that Russia somehow benefits from this crisis. As to what is actually happening on the ground, Bugajski can only spot “Israel’s retaliation against Gaza to eliminate the terrorist threat.” Genocide? What genocide? He has, to be fair, noticed that the US faces “international condemnation” for its support of Israel. But that fact as well he can only mentally process as yet another “win” for nefarious Moscow.

We could add more examples. But the problem should be clear by now: Too many Western intellectuals are betraying the first obligation of their professions: to at least strive to be honest. The almost compulsive urge to weaponize themselves, their positions, and reputations against Russia has overcome any respect for facts and consistent standards. That alone is a sad picture of ethical decline. But their response – or often complete failure to respond – to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, however, is so much worse again. It is at that point – that is now – that their blatant disregard for the Palestinian victims and their needs and rights reveals them not only as biased careerists and ideologues, but as bereft of conscience and compassion.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The warmongering US senator has laughed off the label Moscow slapped on him, but the joke is on him

Let’s play a little game, shall we? It’s called: “Who said it: a famous terrorist or US Senator Lindsey Graham?”

“I have been saying for six months now... hit Iran. They have oil fields out in the open, they have the Revolutionary Guard headquarters you can see from space. Blow it off the map.”

“Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military? The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take [Putin] out. You would be doing your country – and the world – a great service.”

“The goal is to get rid of [Libyan leader Muammar] Gaddafi. The people around Gaddafi need to wake up every day wondering ‘will this be my last?’ The military commanders supporting Gaddafi should be pounded. So I would not let the UN mandate stop what is the right thing to do.”

“All the damage that would come from a war [with North Korea] would be worth it in terms of long-term stability and national security.”

“The only Iranian we killed in Syria or Iraq is some dumbass that doesn’t know to get out of the way.”

Read more

“I will submit to jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if you do. Come and make your best case. See you in The Hague.”

Indeed, it really isn’t such a big mystery why, this week, Russia would slap a terrorist designation on the guy who actually said all these things aloud, and who just happens to also be an elected official and not a teenager playing a World War-themed video game. Graham’s response would have you believe otherwise, though. “There goes all my rubles!” the South Carolina Senator wrote on X, of a designation that would freeze any of his assets in Russia, of which he obviously has none. Oh, mic drop! Boom! (Don’t get too excited, Lindsey, the explosion is only metaphoric.)

So, what did Graham say this time to catch Moscow’s attention and score the effectively symbolic designation? That the US should designate Russia a state sponsor of terrorism in the wake of opposition figure Alexey Navalny’s death in prison. Look, if you’ve been going around robbing banks, then maybe you shouldn’t go public with talk about the need to crack down on bank robbers.

The EU already passed a non-binding resolution back in 2022 to pin the same designation on Russia, and the result, beyond the initial bit of PR buzz, was a big shrug. Notice how member states didn’t bite when Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky called on individual EU countries, like France, to do the same? There’s a good reason for that.

One major implication of slapping Russia with a terrorism state sponsorship designation is that it could prompt Moscow to play a similar card against the US or its allies for their support of Ukrainian fighters with weapons, financing and training, particularly of Azov regiment neo-Nazis folded into the Ukraine army and designated a terrorist group by the Russian Supreme Court in 2022. Thankfully, Graham isn’t actually responsible for anything on the foreign policy front. That falls on Biden. Whose role requires taking into account all the various implications of actually doing whatever Graham suggests in firing off his mouth of mass distraction.

Read more

Not that Graham cares. He figures that all is well because he can launch rhetorical grenades while safely hiding behind Uncle Sam. What he continues to miscalculate, however, is the blowback that he’s creating against his own neoconservative interventionist ideology at home.

America has enough problems of its own, and its people know it, especially the younger generations who are sick of nonstop conflict spending and misplaced priorities – and yet Graham can’t ever pass up an opportunity to create more pretexts for it. Not exactly a surprise when Graham himself once told USA Today: “If I were a defense contractor, I’d be big time for Lindsey Graham, because I’ve been forward-leaning on rebuilding our military.” Which would explain why he scored much of the $2.9 million in donations to his presidential primary campaign from defense contractors, as The Intercept reported at the time. You’d think that the fact of having lost to Trump in that primary race – one of the few presidents not to have started a new war while in office – would have ultimately been instructive.

“Step right up, folks, get your next world war right here.” That’s basically the message that’s always coming out of US Senator Lindsey Graham’s mouth. It’s all fun and games – and profit – regardless of how many of the “little people” end up paying with their lives.

Shooting one’s mouth off nonstop in favor of triggering war (anywhere but inside America, of course) by advocating attacks on foreign countries is Graham’s whole brand. He pounds the desk, but really couldn’t care less where the dust settles afterwards. That’s for someone else, with actual responsibility, to deal with. Guys like him, and his BFF the late Senator John McCain, and former Ambassador and Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton are all basically the same dude. Graham and McCain were the ones who actively lobbied their Republican colleagues to get Obama appointee, Victoria “Regime Change Karen” Nuland, confirmed into the role of assistant secretary of state for Europe in May 2013. They succeeded. And just a few months later she was in Ukraine as Euromaidan popped off, handing out cookies and getting caught on tape telling the US Ambassador to Kiev who should comprise the post-coup Ukrainian cabinet.

Read more

They all represent a bygone era before social-media-driven transparency and diversity of analysis and freedom of information. Neoconservative narratives driving endless war enjoyed much less pushback from more marginalized dissenting voices. The results of their policies, from the Middle East to Africa, have been so disastrous that they’ve lost any benefit of the doubt. Their party is now dominated by a populist, Trumpist doctrine of military nonintervention (or, at least, minimal intervention) favored by younger generations, but also by those who are just done being manipulated into supporting one war after another over the past few decades, and with disappointing returns.

So, while Graham is busy sticking out his tongue at Putin, laughing about how Moscow took its shot and missed – he might want to consider where the ricochet actually ended up. And how much of a reckless jackass he made of himself, yet again, in front of increasingly war-weary Americans.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Scared of being abandoned by the US under Trump, European officials are floating the idea of the bloc’s own nuclear force

With its farmers rebelling, its economy declining, and its traditional parties decaying, you’d think the European Union has enough to worry about at home. Yet its thoroughly detached elites love to think big. And what’s bigger than nuclear weapons? That’s how they have ended up falling for one of Donald Trump’s typically blunt provocations. The former – and likely future – American president has warned that NATO members not spending enough on defense won’t be able to count on US protection on his watch.

Eminently sensible – why do declining but still comparatively wealthy EU states keep behaving like defense beggars? – Trump’s threat has triggered various predictable meltdowns. The White House archly tut-tutted about the “appalling and unhinged” rhetoric of a man who is not, unlike the current president Joe Biden, overseeing a genocide together with Israel. Go figure, as they say in the US. On the other hand, many Republicans have displayed demonstrative insouciance, if not outright agreement. And that is certain to reflect what many ordinary Americans think as well; that is, if they think about Europe at all.

And as if the Big Scary Orange Man hadn’t done enough damage yet, next came the Pentagon, which (sort of) revealed that Russia – that famous gas station sending out its shovel-wielding soldiers to capture German washing machines – is building, if not a Death Star, then at least something equally sinister out there in space: Sputnik déjà vu all over again, as America’s greatest philosopher might have said. All of that, of course, against a background of incessant NATO scaremongering, which, it seems, has succeeded in spooking NATO most of all.

No wonder then that inside EU-Europe, reactions to Trump’s taunting sally have been marked by serious abandonment anxiety. One of its symptoms has been a call for the bloc – or Europe’s NATO members; the issue is fuzzy – to acquire its own nuclear force. One way or the other, Christian Lindner, Germany’s minister of finance, made time from razing the state budget in an economy that his cabinet colleague, the children’s book author and minister of the economy, Robert Habeck, has just labeled “dramatically bad,” in order to pen an article calling for France (not subordinating its nukes to NATO) and Britain (not even in the EU anymore) – two small nuclear powers – to step in as the new security sugar daddies by expanding their nuclear umbrellas over everyone else.

Read more

Katarina Barley, eternally fresh-eyed vice president of the European Parliament and the top EU election candidate of the German Social-Democrats – a party leading a deeply unpopular government while approaching extinction in the polls – and Manfred Weber, head of the conservative faction in the European Parliament, have kept things more general: They simply suggest that the EU should get its own doomsday weapons, somehow. Donald Tusk, freshly re-established as Poland’s EU-subservient viceroy, has made similar noises. Well, who cares about details, right? That attitude of “on s’engage et puis on voit” has, after all, proven a smashing success in Ukraine.

In reality, this is not a problem caused by Trump: That, in a world of more than one nuclear power, the US nuclear umbrella over any place other than the US itself is – and can only be – fundamentally unreliable is, of course, a perennial, structural problem. Those who prefer realism to wishful thinking have always understood this.

Henry Kissinger, for instance, a sinister yet sometimes brutally frank practitioner of realpolitik, explained as much as early as the 1950s – perhaps most succinctly in a television interview in 1958 – just a little over a decade after the dawn of the nuclear age. If any clients abroad were to be attacked so severely or successfully that only a US nuclear strike would be left to respond, any American president – whatever treaties are in place or promises have been made – would always face an impossible choice: Drop the client or suffer a retaliatory strike on America itself. It is true that various policies have been devised to mitigate this dilemma (“limited” nuclear war, nuclear sharing, or the NATO medium-range missiles of the 1980s), but, in reality, it cannot be resolved.

Yet here we are. An EU that seems to suffer from historical amnesia produces chatter about a search for nukes of its own. Not the nukes that are already in US-aligned Europe anyhow, in the national arsenals of France, Britain, and at American bases in five NATO countries, so that, at least, we are already used to them, but different nukes, new nukes. Nukes the acquisition, politics, and rules of which are all still to be figured out. What could go wrong? Everything, really. But let’s be a little more detailed.

First of all, the elites of EU-Europe have, expectably, immediately displayed disunity and confusion. In essence, while no one meant the call for nuclear weapons as a challenge to the US, it was still too much for hard-core Atlanticist compradors: Germany’s minister of defense, Boris Pistorius, NATO’s figurehead General-Secretary Jens Stoltenberg, and the head of the German parliament’s defense committee – and “jokingly” “Volkssturm”-nostalgic (no kidding) – uber-hawk Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann all scrambled to contain the inadvertently mildly subversive idea that Europe could possibly try to do anything significant on its own. Perish the thought! A house so divided against itself is not a safe place to own nukes.

Secondly, nuclear weapons are, of course, meant for extreme emergencies, means of last resort either to serve deterrence by the threat of we-will-take-you-with-us retaliation when all is lost anyhow (the purpose of Britain’s and France’s arsenals) or, at best, in a situation of imminent, catastrophic defeat. One implication of this fact is that the decision to use them would end up with either one person or a very compact group hunkered down in a bunker. Who would that be in the case of the EU? The head of the commission, for instance? Someone like Ursula von der Leyen, a self-promoting, shortsighted, and reckless power-grabber, free of any electoral legitimacy, who is really serving the US and not Europe? Good luck!

Read more

And how would the EU overcome the fact that any such ultimate decider would also have national allegiances: An Estonian or a Pole perhaps, from states, that is, that have their own risky agendas and, to be frank, national(ist) complexes? Or someone from Spain or Greece perhaps, from, that is, countries that may well largely escape the direct effects of a large-scale fight in central Europe, and therefore would have no sane incentive to have Madrid or Athens incinerated to make a last point about Latvia or, indeed, Germany? Set up a committee (unanimity rules or majority voting on when to push the very last red button?), and all you will get is a multiplication of clashing and divided loyalties.

Thirdly, more generally, can you imagine today’s EU – or anything growing out of it – in possession of weapons of mass destruction? That is, a club of states most of which are now stubbornly complicit (International Court of Justice be damned) in an ongoing genocide in the Middle East (committed by Israel against the Palestinians), many of which have a pathological obsession with crusading against Russia, and none of which can even grasp that the greatest threat to their sovereignty comes from their “allies” in Washington.

And that leads us to the final and most fundamental problem: This whole debate about nukes for Europe is based on bizarrely blinkered premises that betray that EU-Europe is by far not politically mature enough to have such weapons (if any state ever is). Because if it were, then its strategists and politicians would honestly acknowledge and discuss one simple fact: A nuclear force would have to deter every possible vitally dangerous opponent, that is, of course, including the US. Yet these are the same leaders that have simply ignored that the greatest act of war, eco-terrorism, and vital-infrastructure demolition against the EU – the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines – was launched by Washington, whether hands-on or via proxies.

The EU is a large bloc of countries in an increasingly unstable and lawless world where the ever-wider proliferation of nuclear weapons will be inevitable. Hypothetically, such an entity would be a candidate for owning such weapons. Yet, in reality, the EU lacks three essential qualities to even consider acquiring them: It is far too fractious, it has no serious concept of its own interests as apart from and, indeed, opposed to the US, and it lacks an elite that could remotely be trusted with weapons capable of ending the world. There, it is of course, not alone. But isn’t one US on planet Earth bad enough already?

Медиа: image / jpeg

An abandonment of reason is among the symptoms of a nation suffering from a collapse in the prevailing narratives

Bloomberg recently foretold the end of Germany’s days as an industrial power in an article that begins with a depiction of the closing of a factory in Dusseldorf. Stone-faced workers preside with funereal solemnity over the final act – the fashioning of a steel pipe at a rolling mill – at the century-old plant. The “flickering of flares and torches” and “somber tones of a lone horn player” lend the scene a decidedly medieval atmosphere.

Intentional or not in their inclusion of such evocative detail, the Bloomberg writers offer potent imagery for Germany – not only because the country is regressing economically but because its elites are increasingly guided by an atavistic force: the abandonment of reason.

As hard economic realities lay bare the futility of its utopian energy plan and the consequences of numerous terrible decisions mount, Germany is experiencing what Swedish essayist Malcom Kyeyune calls “narrative collapse.” The peculiar offspring of this, Kyeyune argues, is a turn toward ritual, superstition, and taboo. It is a malaise afflicting the entire West, but Germany is suffering a particularly acute case.

Kyeyune defines this as an occurrence “when social and political circumstances change too rapidly for people to keep up, the result tends to be collective manias, social panics, and pseudo-religious revivalist millenarianism.”

The abandonment of reason can be conceived of in various ways. Quite a lot of ink has already been spilled about the irrationality behind Germany’s fantastically improbable climate policy. Indeed, the quasi-religious verve with which this program has been rolled out speaks to something of a loosening of the country's moorings. But as we will see shortly, the problem goes far beyond an attachment to unattainable policy goals.

Prominent German business executive Wolfgang Reitzle argued that for the government to deliver on its climate and energy policy, capacities for wind and solar power would have to be more than quadrupled, while storage and back-up capacities would have to be massively increased. Such a plan is “neither technically feasible nor affordable for a country like Germany,” Reitzle argues. What it is then, he concludes, “is simply insanity.”

Read more

Michael Shellenberger, in a piece for Forbes magazine in 2019, points out that the initial impetus for seeking to transition to renewables emerged from the idea that human civilization should be scaled back to sustainable levels. He cites German philosopher Martin Heidegger’s 1954 landmark essay ‘The Question Concerning of Technology’ and subsequent work by the likes of Barry Commoner and Murray Bookchin as espousing what emerged in the 1960s as a much more austere vision for the future of civilization.

Shellenberger concludes that the reason why “renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could.”

The cohort who suddenly began thinking they could is the German political and intellectual elite in the early 2000s. Gone was the bucolic environmentalism of the 1960s and in its place came an aggressive and utterly detached-from-reality agenda that was imposed with millenarian fervor.

Before circling back to the idea put forth by Kyeyune – that the German elite is now mired in superstition due to the onset of narrative collapse – we must back up for a moment and examine what animated Germany prior to Bloomberg’s flickering flares and melancholy horn.

Modern Germany has long been an object of admiration for the West’s liberal elite, upheld as the ideal incarnation of the post-Fukuyama ‘history-has-ended’ world where liberal democracy triumphed and ideological conflict is a thing of the past. Germany, a nation with a penchant for militarism and authoritarianism, had expurgated its past sins and humbly assumed its place in the grand liberal order, magnanimously refusing to translate its economic prowess into bullying of others.

The country’s status was enhanced even further when the US and UK went off the rails, as the elite saw it, with the populist rebellions of Donald Trump and Brexit. Germany, with its staid, consensus-driven, common-sense politics, was the ‘adult in the room’, in stark contrast to the Anglosphere.

Read more

Meanwhile, its economy was humming. The hyper-globalization of the 2000s played right into Germany’s hands. It was a confluence of propitious global circumstances. China was growing at astronomical rates and needed cars and machines – Germany provided both. The expansion of the EU into Eastern Europe opened up new markets for German exports. Germany was prospering and its success was an important driver of economic development across Europe.

All of this helped foster what was perhaps the primary trait of the German elite during this time: a supreme confidence. It was this confidence that led Angela Merkel to famously assert “wir schaffen das” (“we can do this”) when confronted with the task of assimilating over a million migrants. It was the same confidence that led to the idea of jettisoning both nuclear power and coal at essentially the same time, an announcement that was met with a certain disbelief but also awe. “If anyone can do it, it’s the Germans,” was a commonly heard response.

However, the last few years have witnessed a shaking of that assuredness and unraveling of the prevailing narratives as Germany’s vaunted stability and prosperity have been challenged and the benevolent globalized world that nurtured it began fading. But narrative collapse, like many other forms of collapse, at first happens slowly and at the margins before being catapulted forward by some trigger into its more rapid terminal phase.

What was happening at the margins was that the economic model that sustained Germany over the past two decades came under increasing strain as China moved up the value chain and began importing less of Germany’s manufacturing output; it had also become a competitor in the automobile market. Meanwhile, Germany’s economy largely failed to diversify and has been slow to embrace innovation.

Likewise, doubts about the prospects for the energy transition had begun creeping in, again at the margins, long before the events of 2022. Germany has made little progress toward its 2030 emissions target, and it is laughably far behind in its aim of putting 15 million electric vehicles on the road by 2030. It has had to delay plans for the phase-out of coal, and in fact even as of 2021 coal still accounted for a quarter of electricity output. In other words, rather than effecting an actual transition, Germany had merely set up a clean energy system that ran parallel to the dirty one. The clean one spoke to the narrative while the dirty one still powered much of the country. This could not help but plant the seed of the cognitive dissonance that would later assume such bewildering proportions.

Read more

Nevertheless, it was undoubtedly the start of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022 that has precipitated the cascade of failure we see now. Certainly, Germany has made many poor decisions during this time, not the least of which was its headlong plunge into supporting the US-led proxy war against Russia. Relatedly, watching Russia’s sanctions-ridden economy rebound and return to growth – while their own economy struggled – defied everything the German elites would have imagined. That in itself is a narrative-shaking development.

But perhaps more important than the particular economic and political setbacks has been a sense that the benevolent, familiar world of recent decades is receding ever faster and in its place is coming something ominous, as if from a strange and turbulent dream.

To quote Kyeyune again, it’s as if “the future that they were promised – and that they promised the rest of us – was one of continued Western progress, prosperity, and geopolitical dominance. But that’s looking less and less plausible, and they neither like nor understand the future that is coming into view.”

For the elites, the world is crumbling around them and nothing is playing out as they had desired, which has deeply shaken their confidence.

The quotes from public officials and business leaders offered in the Bloomberg piece are bleak and a far cry from the “wir schaffen das” confidence of a few years back.

Stefan Klebert, the CEO of a company that has been supplying manufacturing machinery since the late 19th century, said: “To be honest, there is not much hope. I’m not really sure if we can stop this trend. Many things have to change quickly.”

Read more

Finance Minister Christian Lindner told a Bloomberg event earlier in February: “We are no longer competitive. We are getting poorer and poorer because we are not growing. We are falling behind.”

Volker Treier, foreign trade chief at Germany’s Chambers of Commerce and Industry, remarked: “You don’t have to be a pessimist to say that what we’re doing at the moment won’t be enough. The speed of structural change is dizzying.”

The last quote, a lament about the speed of structural change, is particularly telling and makes us recall Kyeyune’s assertion that when social and political circumstances change too rapidly for people to keep up, strange flora can sprout.

This sense of no longer being able to control events and the fear this has engendered have bred a sense of impotence among the European elites – a sort of ‘deer frozen in the headlights’ paralysis – with Germany at the vanguard of this. No longer confident that their actions can produce certain desirable outcomes, the elites have shed their sophisticated modern veneer and technocratic sensibility and retreated into symbolism and superstition.

In a way this should come as no surprise. It is an age-old human response to the lack of control – think about rain dances instead of irrigation – that once again confirms the words of George Bernard Shaw that “the period of time covered by history is far too short to allow of any perceptible progress in the popular sense of evolution of the human species. The notion that there has been any such progress since Caesar’s time is too absurd for discussion. All the savagery, barbarism, dark ages and the rest of it of which we have any record as existing in the past, exists at the present moment.”

As a result of this, actions, emptied of their utilitarian contents, come to be seen as inherently meaningful only if they conform to the prevailing superstitions and carry the necessary symbolism. The policies being pursued are thus detached from reason in the sense that they are no longer evaluated or even undertaken with an expectation of a particular outcome – in fact, the outcomes are often quite the opposite of the presumed intention, leading to all manner of absurdities.

Read more

The EU’s rush to approve an absolutely token package of sanctions by February 24 – the anniversary of the beginning of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine – is not being carried out with the slightest expectation that a motley assortment of obscure companies and third-tier public officials coming under EU sanctions will achieve any policy aims. The entire value of the endeavor is in its symbolism. Because the symbolism is ‘correct’ the action becomes important.

Germany’s Green Party, a leading voice both in the fanatical climate program and the anti-Russia camp, has in the last two years promoted policies that have directly led to an increase in the burning of coal in the country. This is certainly not an outcome the party would have ever lobbied for. But its actions no longer have anything to do with specific desired outcomes; rather they exist entirely in the mist-filled world of symbolism and, in the logic of this new age of superstition, are to be evaluated only in relation to their symbolic potency.

Kyeyune gives what may be the most vivid example of this principle at work. “Germany still has one functioning pipeline through the Baltic Sea but refuses to use it,” he correctly notes, referring to one line of Nord Stream 2 that was not damaged in the sabotage attack carried out in September 2022. “The problem is that the alternative approach to meeting its energy needs means buying liquefied natural gas… and some of this gas comes from Russia. In other words, Germany still buys natural gas from Russia, less efficiently and at a higher cost, in order to maintain a quasi-ritualistic prohibition against use of the pipeline.”

Meanwhile, he continues, a similar operation takes place with Russian oil, which is now sent to India or China to be refined before being imported by Europe. It is “as if the act of mixing it with other oil in a foreign refinery removes the evil spirits contained in it.” In other words, Russian oil must undergo some sort of purification process before it can enter the EU garden. European refiners, meanwhile, suffer, while all sorts of middlemen are enriched along the way, and consumers are left paying higher prices. There is not an ounce of economic logic to it – but we have now passed into a realm beyond economic logic.

Policies governing energy, the lifeblood of industrial civilization, are now subject to the tyranny of ritual, taboo, and superstition. Such is the predicament of the German elite as it seeks to navigate the country through a turbulent period of epochal transition. The abandonment of reason is quite a handicap in carrying out that job.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The unity of the continent built on regional integration will help strengthen the economic and political autonomy of its states

France’s historical presence in Africa dates back to the 16th century with the beginning of the exploration and colonization of the continent by Europeans. Over the centuries, France extended its influence in many regions of Africa, establishing colonies and protectorates, and imposing its language, culture, and institutions on local populations.

There are several reasons for France’s presence in Africa. On the one hand, France sought to expand its colonial empire in order to rival other European powers, particularly England and Germany. It was also motivated by economic interests, such as the exploitation of African natural resources, including rubber, ivory, wood, minerals, and later, oil. Thus, France established colonies in West Africa (Senegal, Ivory Coast, etc.), Central Africa (Congo, Gabon, etc.), and North Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, etc.).

These colonies were administered by French governors and populated by French settlers who exploited African lands and resources. However, in the 20th century, national movements began to develop, demanding independence from France and other colonial powers. These claims led to struggles for independence in many African countries, ultimately leading to the decolonization of Africa.

France’s withdrawal from Africa was thus a complex and sometimes tumultuous process. Independence was gradually granted to different African countries during the 1960s and 1970s through negotiated agreements or armed conflicts. However, despite this newly-won independence, France continued to exert significant influence, particularly through economic and military agreements with former colonies. This close link between France and Africa has sometimes sparked controversies and criticism, fueling the debate on France’s presence on the continent.

Read more

The post-colonial presence of France in Africa: Worth it or not?

The post-colonial relationship between France and Africa is a complex and controversial subject that sparks numerous debates. After African countries gained independence in the 1960s, France maintained strong ties with its former colonies, particularly through economic agreements.

These links are often seen as asymmetrical, with France benefiting from certain economic and political advantages, while African countries find themselves in a position of dependence. For example, France continues to exert significant political influence in several African countries, sometimes intervening militarily to protect its interests or support regimes favorable to its interests.

A key aspect of this relationship is the maintenance of the CFA franc from 1945, a common currency used by 14 African countries, including 12 former French colonies. The abbreviation CFA first meant ‘Colonies Françaises d’Afrique’ (French colonies of Africa); then stood for ‘Communauté Française d’Afrique’ (Franco–African Community), and since the 1960s, it has stood for ‘Communauté Financière Africaine’ (African Financial Community). This currency is managed by the Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) and the Bank of Central African States (BEAC), both based in France. The CFA franc is pegged to the euro, and African countries are required to deposit a portion of their foreign exchange reserves with the French Treasury.

This system has garnered much criticism as it is perceived as a form of economic neo-colonialism. Some argue that the maintenance of the CFA franc limits the monetary autonomy of African countries and prevents them from pursuing their own economic policies. It is also claimed that the system fosters economic dependence on France, particularly by favoring trade with the former colonial power at the expense of other partners.

This asymmetry has had consequences for the economic development of African countries. Some economists argue that the post-colonial relationship with France has hindered industrialization and economic diversification in African countries by keeping them in a position of supplying raw materials for the French economy. This has contributed to perpetuating economic and social inequalities between France and Africa.

Despite these criticisms, some defend the maintenance of the CFA franc, arguing that it provides monetary stability and facilitates trade. They also stress that France continues to provide financial and technical assistance to African countries, particularly through development and cooperation programs. They believe that the relationship between France and Africa can be beneficial if based on mutual respect and equitable cooperation.

Read more

French interference in Africa

Since the post-colonial period, France has been accused of excessively intervening in the internal affairs of African countries, calling into question their sovereignty and political stability. One of the main accusations of interference concerns French military interventions in Africa.

France has conducted several military operations on the continent, including in Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, and the Central African Republic. The official objective of these interventions was often to maintain stability and prevent the spread of terrorism, but some view these actions as a form of neo-colonialism.

France’s intervention in Côte d’Ivoire in 2011 is a frequently cited example of this interference. Following the political crisis that erupted after disputed presidential elections, France deployed troops to support pro-Ouattara forces against the forces loyal to the other candidate, Laurent Gbagbo (Alassane Dramane Ouattara is the current president of the country). Although this helped to quickly resolve the crisis, many observers criticized the French intervention, calling it interference in the country’s internal affairs and a violation of its sovereignty.

The French military presence in Africa is also perceived as playing ‘regional policeman’. France maintains permanent military bases in several African countries, including Gabon, Senegal, and Djibouti. Some accuse France of using these bases to exert political and economic influence over the host countries, promoting its own interests rather than those of the local populations.

Furthermore, the French presence in Africa is often criticized for its support of authoritarian regimes. France has long maintained close relationships with certain African leaders, even when they were accused of human rights violations and undemocratic practices. This has led to accusations that France has sacrificed democratic values for its own economic and political interests.

Ultimately, French interference in Africa remains a complex subject. It is important to analyze each situation individually to fully understand the motivations and impacts.

What prominent Pan-African activists think of France

Pan-Africanism is a political and intellectual movement that promotes the unity and solidarity of African peoples, as well as their liberation from colonialism and oppression. It developed in the 20th century as a response to the injustices suffered by Africans under colonial rule and the marginalization of African peoples in the global order.

The movement, however, is not a singular institutional entity with leaders, formal charter, etc. Instead, it encompasses a wide range of organizations, political parties, think tanks, intellectuals, and activists who share a common vision of African unity and emancipation. There are also Pan-African forums and organizations, such as the African Union and the Pan-African Parliament, which seek to promote these ideals on a continental scale.

The Pan-African movement has left a significant legacy in African and global history. It has contributed to the collective consciousness of Africans regarding their common identity, the defense of their rights, and the fight against neocolonialism. It has also played a crucial role in promoting regional cooperation and integration in Africa.

One of the main ideas and demands of the Pan-African movement has been the withdrawal of colonial powers, including France, from Africa. This desire for independence and sovereignty has been supported by many Pan-African leaders and intellectuals, such as Frantz Fanon, Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara, and Cheikh Anta Diop.

Read more

Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist and anti-colonial writer, highlighted the detrimental consequences of colonization on the psychology of Africans. According to him, France’s continued presence reinforces the sense of inferiority among African peoples and hinders their psychological and intellectual development.

Kwame Nkrumah, the first president of independent Ghana, emphasized the importance of political autonomy for African economic development. In his view, France’s presence in Africa limits the ability of African countries to make their own political and economic decisions, thus impeding their autonomous development.

Patrice Lumumba, the former prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, denounced France’s economic exploitation of Africa. According to him, France profits from African natural resources at the expense of local populations, thereby perpetuating economic dependence for African countries.

Thomas Sankara, the former president of Burkina Faso, emphasized the need to break free from former colonial powers to allow for true political and economic independence in Africa. He believed that France’s presence is an obstacle to this emancipation and to the construction of a more just and egalitarian society.

Cheikh Anta Diop, a Senegalese historian and anthropologist, stressed the importance of restoring the cultural pride of Africans by liberating themselves from French cultural influence. According to him, France’s presence keeps African countries in a state of cultural subordination, limiting their ability to value their own cultural heritage.

These Pan-African leaders and intellectuals also put forth economic, political, and cultural motives to justify France’s exit from Africa. Economically, they argue that France’s presence limits economic development opportunities for African countries by controlling natural resources and imposing unfair trade agreements.

Politically, they denounce France’s interference in the internal affairs of African countries and the perpetuation of pro-French political regimes that do not serve the interests of local populations. They believe that France’s exit would allow African countries to regain control of their political destiny and establish democratic governments that meet the needs of their populations.

Culturally, they believe that France’s presence keeps African countries in a state of dependence, thereby preventing the valorization and preservation of African cultural heritage. They argue that France’s exit would enable African countries to reclaim their cultural identity and promote their cultural heritage to the rest of the world.

Regarding the potential consequences for the development and emancipation of African countries, they could be varied. Some argue that France’s exit could empower African countries to take control of their own destiny and develop more favorable economic policies for growth and development. It could also encourage greater intra-African cooperation and consolidation of regional institutions.

How African countries try to reduce French presence

In recent decades, some African countries have taken steps to reduce their dependence on France. These measures aim to strengthen their economic and political autonomy and reduce French influence on their internal affairs.

Benin has developed partnerships with other African countries to enhance regional economic integration, particularly through trade agreements and cross-border infrastructure. This initiative aims to reduce Benin’s dependence on France, its former colonial power.

Rwanda is another example of an African country seeking to reduce its dependence on France. The Rwandan government has adopted a technology and innovation-focused development policy to diversify its economy and reduce reliance on raw material exports. Furthermore, Rwanda has sought to strengthen its ties with other international partners, including by developing economic relationships with countries such as China and the US. This policy aims to reduce French influence on the country’s affairs and enhance its economic autonomy.

However, these initiatives are not without challenges. In many cases, France continues to exert significant economic and political influence over these countries, despite their efforts to diversify their international partnerships. For example, France maintains preferential economic agreements with its former African colonies, limiting the room for these countries to pursue alternative economic policies.

Furthermore, some African countries face structural challenges that hinder their ability to reduce their dependence on France. For instance, many African countries lack adequate infrastructure, which limits their capacity to attract foreign investments and diversify their economies. Demographic pressures, as well as political and social conflicts, also continue to hinder economic development in many African countries.

While some African countries have undertaken initiatives to reduce the French presence and strengthen their economic autonomy, these efforts face numerous challenges. Nevertheless, the emergence of alternative economic and monetary policies, as well as the diversification of international partners, offer opportunities for African countries to enhance their autonomy and reduce their dependence on France.

Strong and united Africa, free from neo-colonial influence

Africa has long been divided and weakened by the neo-colonial influence of foreign powers. These influences have created artificial divisions, arbitrary borders, and economic dependence which have limited opportunities for development and progress on the continent. However, it is important to highlight that the prospects for a strong and united Africa are full of potential and opportunities.

Read more

Firstly, the construction of an independent and united Africa would allow for true regional integration. Currently, the African continent is fragmented into numerous countries with different economies, political systems, and cultures. A united Africa would facilitate the free movement of people, goods, and capital across the continent, thus creating a larger market and increased economic opportunities. Regional integration would also foster political stability by enabling countries to peacefully resolve internal conflicts through robust regional institutions.

Furthermore, a united Africa would be able to strengthen economic cooperation. By combining the natural resources, skills, and expertise of different countries, Africa could leverage its immense economic potential. It could specialize in specific areas such as agriculture, manufacturing, or services, and develop regional value chains to enhance its competitiveness in the global market. Economic cooperation would also help reduce dependence on foreign countries for investments and technology, and enable African countries to mutually support each other in their economic development.

Lastly, an independent and united Africa could enhance its political position on the international stage. Unity would make Africa a stronger voice, capable of defending its common interests and actively participating in global decisions. It could play a mediating role in regional conflicts and contribute to addressing global issues such as climate change, poverty, and inequality. A united Africa would also be better positioned to tackle current and future challenges, such as mass migrations, violent conflicts, or health crises.

In conclusion, the prospects of a strong and united Africa are promising. The construction of an independent Africa would enable regional integration, economic cooperation, and political empowerment that would foster the development and progress of the continent. It is time to break free from neo-colonial influence and build a better future for all Africans.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The European Commission president did her best to obfuscate both the real cause and the real impact of the renewable energy agenda

It’s hard to tell if she’s blaming him or crediting him, but European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told a meeting of the Paris-based Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on February 13th that “[Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s attempt to blackmail our union has utterly failed. On the contrary, he really pushed the green transition.”

The word “pushed” is telling – and projecting. Because that’s exactly what she’s been doing – evoking Putin to manipulate EU citizens into acceptance of a profitable system of greenwashed authoritarianism. Putin’s been a busy guy here in Europe lately. Just the other week, he was apparently pushing Europe’s farmers and their tractors onto highways.

Why does Queen Ursula always have to sound so shady? “Last year, in 2023, for the first time ever, we produced more electricity from wind than from gas,” she said. How many ways did her battle-hardened brigade of bureaucratic paper-cut Purple Hearts have to parse the data to come up with that bright spot? Because the truth is that, at 37% of the EU’s electrical power, renewables are still only just a half a percent more prevalent than fossil fuels at 36.5%, according to the EU’s own data – and that really hasn’t changed much over the past several years.

And it’s not like wind, at 13% of the bloc’s electrical production, is doing the heavy lifting in powering Europe’s industry when 60% of its energy is still imported, most of which is from fossil fuels. If wind and solar were actually capable of maintaining European industry, then why was the economy minister of the bloc’s economic engine, Germany, bragging to citizens that he was doing his part to stick it to Russian President Vladimir Putin by taking ever shorter showers? Why did I personally have to freeze my arsch off at some of the local swimming pools in Berlin last month as the water temperature plunged to accommodate an energy austerity plan if wind was such a panacea?

Read more

Germany is the canary in the coal mine for the EU green transition, having gone all-in, and clearly wind and solar weren’t ready for prime time when the cheap Russian gas tap was effectively turned off – first through the EU’s own anti-Russian sanctions that complicated payment for sales, then when it was blown up altogether.

This is why the German economy is taking a hit, with the country’s own national statistics office now qualifying the economic environment as “marked by multiple crises,” as last year’s GDP dropped by 0.3%, with high energy prices as one of the top contributing factors. If mighty gusts of wind could singlehandedly prevent German deindustrialization as industry bails to less fantasy-powered jurisdictions, then Queen Ursula’s speeches alone would have long since done the job.

In this latest one, von der Leyen laments the Russian president’s attempt to “blackmail” Europe with fossil fuels while at the same time saying that whatever’s left of them can’t disappear fast enough. If that seems like a contradiction, it is. The truth is that Putin just served as a convenient pretext for something that Brussels had long wanted to do anyway, but was prevented from doing because of how it feared the average EU citizen would react.

It’s now obvious what the impact of the green transition is on inflation as energy costs have skyrocketed. If the EU had pulled a stunt like this by simply caving to Washington’s relentless insistence that it renege on Nord Stream pipeline gas, telling Europeans that it was pivoting to far pricier US liquified natural gas – at least until it could figure out how to use the basic elements of earth to live like a developed country using tactics from the Stone Age – people would have gone ballistic and wondered what the heck was really going on.

Putin came along just in time to rescue the transition from the growing skepticism of the climate-change excuse, fueling popularity for the right-wing populist parties calling the Brussels establishment out for its use of it to manipulate citizens into compliance with their agenda.

What agenda, exactly? Profits, first and foremost. Ask the farmers currently protesting all across Europe against a heavy-handed Brussels bureaucracy put into place that increasingly controls their production using everything from climate change policies that put precious farmland into the state’s hands through buyouts of climate change policy offenders, to pro-Ukraine trade policies that crush domestic production in favor of Ukraine’s Western-backed corporate Big Farming, like Bayer, Monsanto, Cargill, and DuPont.

Read more

When the Ukraine conflict went hot, Queen Ursula just substituted Putin for the climate-change excuse, then kept hammering the need to plough cash into renewable energy projects that just happen to be dominated by European and American big finance and their investors, like US defense contractor General Electric, Germany’s BASF, Shell, and BP. Von der Leyen dropped a hint herself that all this is about not wanting to share the pie outside of her coffee klatch.

“The old fossil fuel economy is all about dependencies. The new clean energy economy is all about inter-dependencies,” she said, pointing out that “clean energy can be produced anywhere.” And that means being able to keep the profits among your friends and supporters. Interesting that she used the term “inter-dependencies” rather than “independence.” You’d think that national sovereignty would be a good thing. But apparently not when it could mean a country being able to tell Brussels to bugger off.

Both climate change and national security are profitable causes, first and foremost. They should just be honest about that rather than trying to hard-sell it with virtue-signaling and bogeymen. But it’s the increased authoritarianism to control emissions or the ubiquitous “Russian threat” by introducing policies and tools that can also be used to quash domestic dissent, that are even more troubling. And for Brussels that seems to be a nice bonus.

It all smacks of increased supranational consolidation and control over a system that’s being reoriented to profit members of a certain political caste and their cronies. And they’re apparently willing to use whatever fearmongering they figure works best to subdue the masses into compliance. Putin should really start charging appearance fees for being constantly used in their advertising.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Deliberate neglect, followed by a blockade and now war have failed to break the resolve of the peninsula’s inhabitants

As the Russian military operation against Ukraine approaches its third year, the focus on the ongoing conflict has allowed another anniversary to go relatively unnoticed – it’s now around ten years since the violent events in Kiev’s Maidan square that put in motion the circumstances which precipitated the current conflict.

Over the course of five days, from February 18 to 23, 2014, neo-Nazi provocateurs from the Svoboda (All Ukrainian Union ‘Freedom’) Party and the Right Sector, a coalition of far-right Ukrainian nationalists who follow the political teachings of Stepan Bandera and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, engaged in targeted violence against the government of President Viktor Yanukovich. It was designed to remove him from power and replace him with a new, US-backed government. They were successful; Yanukovich fled to Russia on February 23, 2014.

Soon thereafter, the predominantly Russian-speaking population of Crimea undertook actions to separate from the new Ukrainian nationalist government in Kiev. On March 16, 2014, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, both of which at that time were legally considered to be part of Ukraine, held a referendum on whether to join Russia or remain part of Ukraine. Over 97% of the votes cast were in favor of joining Russia. Five days later, on March 21, Crimea formally became part of the Russian Federation.

Shortly afterwards, Ukraine built a concrete dam on the North Crimean Canal, a Soviet-era conduit transporting water from the Dnieper River that provided around 85% of the peninsula’s water supply. In doing so, Ukraine effectively destroyed Crimea’s agricultural industry. Then, in November 2015, Ukrainian nationalists blew up pylons carrying power lines from Ukraine to Crimea, thrusting the peninsula into a blackout that prompted a declaration of emergency by the regional government.

Read more

The Ukrainian assault on Crimea’s water and electricity was merely an extension of the lack of regard shown to the Crimean population during the two-plus decades that Kiev ruled the peninsula. The local economy was stagnant, and the pro-Russian locals were subjected to a policy of total Ukrainization. In general, the Gross Regional Product (GRP) of Crimea was well below the average of Ukraine (43.6% less in 2000, and 29.5% less in 2013.) In short, the Kiev government made no meaningful attempt to develop Crimea culturally or infrastructurally. The Crimean Peninsula was in a state of decay perpetrated by Ukrainian governments.

The damming of the North Crimean Canal and the destruction of the electrical transmission lines were simply the radical expression of the indifference shown by Kiev.

In the years that followed the return of the peninsula to Russian control, there has been a gradual improvement in the economy of Crimea. The Russian government undertook a $680 million program to bolster water supplies which involved repairing long-neglected infrastructure, drilling wells, adding storage capacity, and building desalination plants. While this effort wasn’t sufficient to save much of Crimea’s agriculture, it did provide for the basic needs of the population. The Russian government also constructed the Crimean ‘Energy Bridge’, laying down several undersea energy cables across the Kerch Strait that effectively compensated for the loss of power brought on by the destruction of the Ukrainian power lines.

But the greatest symbol of Russia’s commitment to the people of Crimea was the construction of a $3.7 billion, 19-kilometer-long road-and-rail bridge connecting Krasnodar Region in southern Russia with the Crimean Peninsula. The bridge is the longest in Europe. Construction began in 2016, and it was opened for car traffic in a little more than two years. It has become a symbol of pride for the Russian people and their leadership; President Vladimir Putin personally drove across the bridge during its formal opening ceremony in 2018. The rail line was opened to passenger traffic in 2019, and freight traffic in 2020. The construction of the Crimean Bridge coincided with the building of the Tavrida Highway, a 250-kilometer, $2.5 billion four-lane road connecting the Crimean Bridge with the cities of Sevastopol and Simferopol. Construction of the road began in 2017 and is still ongoing.

From 2014 to 2022, Crimea saw its population grow by more than 200,000 (from 2.28 million to nearly 2.5 million) as families forced to flee from Ukrainian oppression arrived, and other Russians were attracted by the business opportunities that came with Crimea’s economic revival. With the population surge came new investments by the Russian government in schools, roads, hospitals, and power stations. Tourism flourished as Russians flocked to the beaches of the Crimean coast. A modern airport was built in Simferopol to help manage the flow of visitors.

Life in Crimea was looking up.

And then came the war.

The drive across the Crimea Bridge is an awe-inspiring experience. Coming in from the southern Russian region of Krasnodar at night, one is struck by the lights that line the highway leading to the bridge, a seemingly never-ending line of illumination. However, since the twin attacks on the bridge by the Ukrainian government (the first on October 8, 2022, involving a truck bomb, the second on July 17, 2023, involving unmanned sea drones), the transit now involves an element of risk manifested in the heightened security procedures put in place – barges and nets blocking the water approaches, and extensive physical inspections of vehicles entering the bridge.

I was aware of the attacks against the Crimean Bridge when I drove across it on the night on January 14, taking note of the moment when we crossed the sites of the two attacks, which had dropped a span of the highway each time, and scanning the skies for any evidence of an attack by Kiev’s British-made Storm Shadow missiles. I must admit to breathing a slight sigh of relief when we crossed over onto Crimean soil, cognizant for the first time of the daily reality of Crimeans who look to it as their lifeline.

Read more

Coming off the bridge, one enters the Tavrida Highway where, after bit of a drive, the city of Feodosia appears on the horizon. It has a rich history spanning over two millennia, over the course of which it had been an ancient Greek colony, a Genoese trading port, an Ottoman fortress, and part of the Russian Empire. Now, Feodosia is one of the prime destinations for Russian tourists, and its coast is lined with hotels and restaurants. Like much of Crimea, Feodosia bears the scars of the years of neglect at the hands of the Ukrainian authorities – crumbling buildings, abandoned structures painted in graffiti, and roads in need of repair. But it is a vibrant city nonetheless, and the people are getting on with their daily lives.

War has not escaped Feodosia. On December 26, 2023, the Ukrainian air force launched several Storm Shadow cruise missiles at Feodosia, some of which penetrated Russian air defenses, hitting the Novocherkassk, a large landing ship, and lighting up the night sky in a dramatic fireball. And anyone driving in and around Feodosia cannot but help notice the presence of Russian defenses.

This reality touches the lives of all who live there. Driving northeast out of Feodosia along the Black Sea coast, one comes to the tiny village of Batalnoye. This was the birthplace of my host, Aleksandr Zyryanov, the director general of the Novosibirsk Region Development Corporation. Aleksandr’s family left Batalnoye in 2007, following a new wave of Ukrainian nationalist oppression brought on by the so-called Orange Revolution of 2004-2005, which saw Viktor Yushchenko installed as Ukraine’s president. When Aleksandr returned to Batalnoye in 2014, after Crimea rejoined Russia, he didn’t know what he would find – his family home had been abandoned. Instead of ruins, however, he found a building painted in immaculate white, its contents preserved intact. Alexander’s neighbors, a Crimean Tatar family whose matriarch, Fatima, had helped raise him as a child, had made it a point every year to paint the house in anticipation of the return of its rightful owners.

The loving bond between Aleksandr and Fatima’s family was evident to anyone who bore witness, as I did, to their reunion. Fatima, her husband, and her two sons were gracious hosts, laying out a table typical of Tatar hospitality. Life was not easy for Fatima and her family – they made a living off the land, and the war had suppressed the demand for the milk Fatima brought forth from her cows, and the vegetables she grew in her garden. Her sons were able to find work helping build the Tavrida Highway, but the construction had moved on closer to Simferopol, making the commute prohibitive.

They had felt their house shake when Ukrainian missiles struck the Novocherkassk, and their nights were often interrupted by the sounds of Ukrainian drones flying overhead, and the launch of Russian air defense missiles in response. It’s a hard life, made even more so by the neglect shown the village during the time of Ukrainian rule.

Since the Russians took over, improvements have been incremental – a new school, and some road work. But when I visited Fatima in May of last year, they had no gas, no sewage, and their water came from the initiative of the villagers, who dug their own well despite a water line existing on the village boundary. Now, in January 2024, Batalnoye had been connected to the water line, and the infrastructure for bringing gas to the homes in the village was being installed.

But still no sewage lines.

There are hundreds of Batalnoyes across Crimea, small villages and towns which lack the priority of the big cities when it comes to infrastructure repair and development. But they have not been forgotten – the work in Batalnoye is evidence of that. It’s just that progress takes time, especially when trying to undo years of Ukrainian neglect and the ongoing consequences of the present conflict. This was one of the many points made to me by the head of the Crimean Republic, Sergey Aksyonov, during our meeting on January 15, 2024.

Sergey Aksyonov, who had been a thorn in the side of Ukrainian authorities during Ukraine’s 22-year rule over the Crimean Peninsula, is a man on a mission. To say that Crimea is his passion would be an understatement – Crimea is his life. Even before he was picked by Putin to serve as the head of the Crimean Republic, Aksyonov worked hard to protect the Russian character of Crimea, working to prevent Ukrainian nationalists from erasing the history, culture, language, and religion.

Today, with Crimea returned to Russia, Aksyonov has turned his attention to the task of improving the lives of the citizens of Crimea – Russian, Tatar, and Ukrainian alike. Undoing two decades of neglect is a tall order. Doing so under a veritable economic siege imposed by Ukraine and the West in the aftermath of 2014 verges on the impossible. But Aksyonov is in the business of doing the impossible, a task made somewhat more bearable given the high priority that the Russian government has placed on restoring Crimea to its rightful status as the jewel of the Black Sea. Aksyonov was proud – rightly so – of all he had accomplished. Before we ended our meeting, he issued an invitation for a group of Americans to come to Crimea, all expenses paid, to see for themselves the miracle that he and the Russian government had created.

Russia is at war with Ukraine and the Collective West, and Crimea has found itself on the front lines of this conflict. As Aleksandr and I drove out of Crimea, north toward Kherson and the New Territories (a collective name used in Russia to denoted the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and the regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye after they officially became part of Russia), I was struck by the reality of this conflict, manifested in the form of Russian military vehicles which crowded the highway in both directions. The highway itself was a mess. In 2022, it was freshly paved. But in the two years that have passed since Russia started the military operation, the heavy military traffic has taken its toll, the road buckling under the weight of the trucks, tanks, artillery pieces, and armored fighting vehicles that plied its asphalt surface.

We crossed the Northern Crimean Canal, its channel filled with water in the aftermath of the Russian military blowing up the dam Ukraine had built for the express purpose of choking off the Crimean people and their economy. Now, the life-sustaining liquid flows freely. Crimea is coming back to life. We paused at the border between Crimea and Kherson to make sure our personal protective equipment (flak vests and helmets) fit properly and was readily available. We were about to enter an active war zone and had to be prepared for all eventualities.

Read more

But even as Aleksandr adjusted the straps of my flak vest, my mind kept drifting back to Crimea, and the offer Sergey Aksyonov had made. I thought of Fatima, her family, and the citizens of Batalnoye. I thought of the men and women I met on the streets of Feodosia, Sevastopol, and Simferopol, both last May, and in January of this year. I thought of the pride in Sergey’s eyes, a pride that was shared by everyone I met.

Crimea is their home. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is Tatar. Crimea is.

And it was important for all these people to make sure that the rest of the world knew and understood this fact, this reality.

The Russian ‘Path of Redemption’ through Crimea may have some potholes in it, but it exists nonetheless. The people of Crimea have been redeemed from the sin of more than two decades of Ukrainian misrule, and the further sins on the part of the Collective West and the Ukrainian nationalists in trying to violently suppress the desire of the majority of the Crimean people to live as part of the Russian Federation.

I don’t know if I will be able to take advantage of Sergey Aksyonov’s kind offer – the reality of Western sanctions has a chilling effect on initiatives of this sort. But I will never shirk from my status as an eyewitness to the reality of Crimea today, from telling the truth about what I experienced during my visits to the remarkable land.

Fatima and all the people I met in Crimea deserve nothing less.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Indonesia, the world’s fourth-most-populous country, is treading carefully between China and the US as it gathers strength

It is tempting to frame global geopolitics as a binary struggle between China and the US, as a competition between two economic giants, each of which has grown to see the other as the fundamental obstacle to its own security and success.

Yet the world is more complicated than that. International affairs are not moving towards a bipolar world in which two superpowers create rival systems and force all other countries to take sides, but is rather moving to a multipolar world, where there are many great powers all competing against each other.

Multipolarity is preceded by the disintegration of unipolarity, whereby one hegemonic power finds itself increasingly declining amid a rise of others. Thus, China is not the only rising power to reshape the global environment, even if it is at this time the largest, and because of this it is unlikely that Beijing will ever be a hegemon in the same sense as America was, for we must take other rising powers into account such as India and Russia, among others.

However, one often-overlooked country is emerging as geopolitically consequential, and that is Indonesia. This massive, diverse, multiethnic archipelago state is home to 273 million people and is the fourth-most-populated country in the world. It is also one of the fastest-growing economies in Southeast Asia whose Gross Domestic Product surpassed $1 trillion in recent years, having increased at a steady pace over time. This makes it one of the world’s most important emerging economies and markets.

The increasing prominence of Indonesia has led the island nation to become subject to a geopolitical tug of war, that is the question of who will win its “allegiance” as part of the macro struggle between the US and China. Stretched out across thousands of islands, the geostrategic location of the country is critical, because it occupies the fundamental passage between the Pacific and Indian oceans known as the Malacca Strait, forming an effective bridge between Asia and Oceania, as well as the South China Sea. The West consequently sees the country as essential in attempting to contain China within its own neighbourhood, while Beijing, on the other hand, sees partnership with Indonesia as equally important for the opposite reason.

Read more

But when it comes to geopolitics, Indonesia is the archetype of a non-aligned nation, as well as an important voice of the Global South, hence the famous Bandung Conference of African and Asian states was held on its territory in 1955. Because of this neutrality and because it is a Muslim nation, Indonesia is not pro-West, but neither is it pro-China. Instead, it pursues a “best of both worlds” foreign policy which seeks to simultaneously court both sides to derive benefits. As the largest market and economic benefactor on its doorstep, Jakarta cannot ignore Beijing, thus it makes conscious choices in terms of trade, technology (such as Huawei) as well as other things, to align with Beijing.

On the other hand, Indonesia naturally does not want to be militarily subjugated by the rise of China and therefore seeks other partners to bolster its own autonomy to ensure it does not become a “subordinate” party, and is thus also a strategic partner of the US. However, this is the hallmark of a multipolar world, whereby nations sense that they do not have to be subject to the “hegemony” of a third party and are able to seek multiple options rather than having to follow the orders and preferences of a superior power. Indonesia is thus neither pro-China nor pro-American, it is pro-Indonesia and will use this to become a pivotal power in the future.

Yet, this also inevitably signals the end of Western domination in on a global scale. With the rise of new economies such as Indonesia with its huge population, “older powers” like Britain and France increasingly become smaller and less relevant. It is one thing to look at the rise of China’s economy, but what happens when other economies such as India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria, et al become larger in scope than Western ones thanks to their large populations and markets? There is an undeniable shift in the balance of power going on here, and this of course also means American dominance cannot last forever. The US, and thus China too, must ultimately win the allegiance and court these new tier economies, thus ending the Euro-Atlantic dominance of global affairs which has lasted for four hundred years. This is precisely why America is now so-focused on what it describes as “The Indo-Pacific” and countries like Indonesia will ultimately serve as kingmakers as they establish their global influence.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The Biden administration has publicly disclosed sensitive details of a potential UAV sale to New Delhi, drawing the interest of its hostile neighbors

Indian Army Chief Gen. Manoj Pande concluded a four-day visit to the US on Friday. During the trip, he held high-level talks with his American counterpart Gen. Randy George and other senior military officials, visited I Corps Headquarters at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) and was briefed about the Stryker Unit (Infantry Combat Vehicle) which has been offered by the US for co-manufacturing in India.

But a big question hangs in the air. Many in Indian defense circles are questioning whether New Delhi will be wiling to get into another military sale in the wake of a much-touted, and now well-known, MQ-9B Sky Guardian drones deal.

The US announced earlier this month that Congress had been notified of the potential sale of the UAV, a version of the Predator drone, to India, estimated at around $3.99 billion. It can not be said conclusively if Gen Pande has raised the MQ-9B issue with India's US partners as the final statement from both sides is yet to be released, however, the announcement of the deal by Pentagon has irked India.

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) released a statement on February 1 that the State Department had approved a possible deal, which includes the sale to India of 31 MQ-9B Sky Guardian UAVs and other weapons and electronics, spare parts and accessories. The Indian public sphere went into a frenzy. Indeed, the South Asian nation would be finally getting the most lethal combat drones in the world, deployed during the Afghanistan war and for targeting top ISIS and Al Qaeda leadership.

According to the Pentagon, “the proposed sale will improve India’s capability to meet current and future threats by enabling unmanned surveillance and reconnaissance patrols in sea lanes of operation.”

However, authorities in the Indian defense and security establishment were rattled by the official statement, according to sources familiar with the situation. This is largely because the statement not only disclosed which missiles, bombs, radars, and other related military equipment are part of the MQ-9B deal but also the exact numbers to be delivered.

Read more

According to the US statement, the whole MQ-9B RPA deal consists of 31 MQ-9B Sky Guardian aircraft, 170 Hellfire missiles, 310 Laser Small Diameter Bombs, 161 Embedded Global Positioning & Inertial Navigation Systems, and other related equipment. Even the number of training missiles (16) and laser bombs (8) were also mentioned, besides the radars, transponders, IFF (Identification of Friend and Foe), radio sets, and terminals.

While it has been noted that US military sales announcements generally contain such details, this is not the case for every defense deal. The US has a pick-and-choose policy when it comes to disclosing information about weapons and military equipment, depending on its relations with the country involved. This US ‘double standard’ has kept Uncle Sam away from India for a long time, offering one hand for a strong relationship but snubbing the other hand soon after.

To be sure, it is not the first time India has suffered this snub from the US. Post the 1965 war with Pakistan, the US had stopped all arms supplies to India, which had begun soon after the ‘62 war debacle against China. That was the period when India turned towards the Soviet Union (and now Russia) for its defense needs.

The announcement of the drone deal with Washngton coincided with media reports suggesting the US might stall the deal due to ongoing diplomatic issues involving pro-Khalistan movement activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, based in the US. The Pro-Khalistan movement is active in both Canada and the US, as well as in the UK and several other countries with large Sikh populations. New Delhi has on many occasions raised concerns with its partners in the West over the “freedom” given to activists in their countries despite their alleged threats to public figures in India, including to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Read more

The country’s ties with Canada and the US encountered severe turbulence last year when the Canadian prime minister linked “Indian agents” to the killing in British Columbia last June of prominent Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, sparking a diplomatic rift, in particular between Ottawa and New Delhi. Two months later, a US court indictment alleged that an Indian government official was involved in an assassination attempt against Pannun that had been foiled by the FBI. While New Delhi dismissed the Trudeau government’s allegations as “absurd” and “motivated,” and demanded that Ottawa provide evidence, in the case of Pannun the Indian government formed a high-level committee of investigation.

The sale of 31 MQ-9B RPAs, announced a day after the murder fallout reports appeared, was seen as a gesture to improve US-India relations. It also followed US President Joe Biden’s decision not to attend India’s Republic Day celebrations, despite being invited by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the G20 leaders summit the previous September.

Biden didn’t show up in Delhi, despite his own diplomats previously announcing he would be at both the celebration and the QUAD group meeting scheduled around the January 26. The strain on relations was partly attributed to concerns over alleged conspiracy charges involving Pannun. While the US cited Biden’s State of the Union address in March as the reason for his absence, the QUAD meeting was postponed at America’s request.

Read more

What truly matters is that India is in desperate need of high-altitude long-endurance (HALE) drones, particularly as its arch-rival and neighbor, China, possesses a strong flotilla of armed drones, which it supplies to African and Gulf countries.

India currently does not have any combat drones deployed. It does have two-decade-old Israeli drones used for surveillance purposes. Recently, India procured four Heron Mark-2 drones, which can be armed. The indigenous medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) Tapas drone is yet to be fully ready, and the future of the project hangs in uncertainty. Since 2020, the Indian Navy has been operating two MQ-9 Reaper drones leased from the US manufacturer, General Atomics.

This comes at a time when the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Middle East crisis arising from the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza have demonstrated that future, or rather present-day, wars will be fought using unconventional weapons and destructive technology.

READ MORE: India should ‘expect the unexpected’ – defense minister

India is even more concerned about unconventional warfare as another neighboring adversary, Pakistan, has also procured combat drones, specifically the Bayraktar TB2, from its close ally Turkey. Reports suggest Pakistan is all set to deploy these lethal UAVs in Lahore, close to India's border. Neither Pakistan nor Turkey, however, have disclosed any details of the Bayraktar drone deal in public so far.

While the proposed sale of the MQ-9B to India will, as the US statement claims, support its foreign policy, national security objectives and help “improve the security of a major defense partner,” it could potentially alter the basic military balance in the region. While India had disclosed its intention to purchase the drones, the discussions in the public space revolved around the Reaper version of the MQ-9B drones that are generally meant for surveillance and reconnaissance. With the details of the combat drones that India is likely to get (the deal is yet to be concluded) in public, the country’s strategic capabilities turn into vulnerabilities.

Where India Meets Russia – We are now on WhatsApp! ‎Follow and share RT India in English and in Hindi

Медиа: image / jpeg

The deeply unpopular vice president says she’s ready to replace Joe Biden, but that would likely destroy the party’s hopes for a 2024 win

With President Joe Biden’s advanced age and cognitive decline taking central stage just months before the presidential election, Democrats need to discuss ‘the Kamala problem.’

As the US speeds towards the 2024 presidential election, the Democrats find themselves in a rather untenable position. Not only is the incumbent US President Joe Biden suffering visibly on the mental front – reminiscing aloud over meetings he’s never had with long-dead world leaders – but his second in command lacks the essential support of the Democratic base.

While Biden’s approval rating sits in the basement at 39%, Vice President Kamala Harris has managed to outdo him with 37.5%. This should come as no surprise considering that Harris was polling at 1% when she dropped out of the presidential nominee race in 2019. How did she manage to alienate so many people within her own party?

Earlier in her career as California’s district attorney, Harris, the child of immigrants from Jamaica and India, had a reputation as a ‘top cop’ who worked against the interests of victims. She frequently failed, for example, to exercise her authority to investigate charges of misconduct and abuse by police and prosecutors. At the same time, she often kept people – many of them poor black people – behind bars even when there was ample evidence of wrongful convictions, while opposing legislation that would have demanded her office to investigate fatal police shootings.

Read more

During the 2019 Democratic presidential debate, Representative Tulsi Gabbard called out Harris over her record.

“She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations, and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana,” Gabbard said. “She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California. And she fought to keep cash bail systems in place that impacts poor people in the worst possible way.”

Harris never denied the charges, only saying that she was responsible for “reforming California’s justice system.”

More recently, Harris’ popularity has taken a hit because she has failed to show any real accomplishments in the past four years on the VP job.

On the most important issue that Biden tasked Harris with, which was to investigate what was driving waves of illegal immigrants to America, she dropped the ball, neglecting to even visit the US-Mexico border.

A former Biden administration senior official told Axios: “She’s been at best ineffective, and at worst sporadically engaged and not seeing [the border] was her responsibility. It’s an opportunity for her, and she didn’t fill the breach.”

This is what happens when you elect a candidate based on their identity, not their competence – it’s nearly impossible to relieve them of their duties. Should the Democratic Party take the decision to replace Harris, 59, at this particular juncture, the fallout would be fierce and swift. Anyone who dares criticize Harris, the first woman and first Black American to hold the office of vice president, will be accused of holding her to a higher standard than past (male, white) politicians.

As far as Harris is concerned, she firmly believes that she can lead the nation should something untoward happen to Joe Biden. “I am ready to serve. There’s no question about that,” Harris told the Wall Street Journal in an interview last week, just days before the release of a damning report emphasizing her boss’ failing memory.

The report, penned by Special Counsel Robert Hur after an investigation into Biden’s mishandling of classified documents, said Biden displayed “diminished faculties” in interviews and derided him as an “elderly man with a poor memory.”

Read more

The public relations fallout has become so critical for the White House that there are rumors of invoking the 25th Amendment, which outlines presidential succession. This empowers the vice president and cabinet to remove the president from office through a majority vote in the event it’s determined he or she is no longer fit to hold office.

The amendment has never been invoked in US history, and it probably won’t be invoked now since the specter of a Harris presidency is even less attractive than sitting through a Biden speech.

Whatever the case may be, Donald Trump will not miss an opportunity to throw a spotlight on Harris and her inglorious stint as vice president, nor should he, considering that chances are high that Biden won’t serve out his term through age 86. In other words, Trump would be reminding Americans that a vote for Joe Biden is essentially a vote for Kamala Harris. Such a strategy will likely attract many swing voters into the Trump camp.

All of this strongly suggests that the Democratic Party would be wise to rethink its entire ticket. Neither Biden in his present condition, nor Harris, are presidential material, and judging by the opinion polls the majority of Democrats understand this. Best to revitalize the party with new blood, even if it means offending the progressive wing of the party.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The country’s resilience and strength have been abused and betrayed by a regime that has sold out to Western interests

In a recent post on X, Aleksey Arestovich – the former consigliere of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and now his sworn enemy (and would-be rival, too) – has addressed his “dear countrymen” to tell them that Ukraine appears “collectively insane.” A ruthless spin master and, at times at least, intelligence asset, Arestovich also claims to be a psychologist. In that capacity, he had even more – and worse – to announce: Not only is Ukraine a case of nationwide “pure progressive lunacy,” but also of “individual” madness. It is a fair guess that this was a specific reference to his former master Zelensky and his team.

Clearly, Arestovich has chosen his words for maximum effect. But he also added plausible examples of striking absurdity in Ukraine’s politics and public sphere. These included the back-and-forth over the removal of the military’s top general Valery Zaluzhny; bizarre statements by men with power and guns that those not quick enough to submit to cannon-fodder hunters should be “shot in the knee” (making Ukraine’s army, as one commentator aptly noted, the first one you can get invalided into instead of out of); and a general spirit of “Let them all croak, as long as we get national unity.”

And to add insult to injury, the former Zelensky collaborator comes to a damning conclusion: The test of war, he decreed from the safety of exile, has shown that Ukraine is “extraordinarily psychologically weak” because, he asserts, “a massive” share of Ukrainians of all ages and kinds has rapidly entered a “zone of anomality.”

That spreading “psychosis,” Arestovich claims, is payback for “building your house on sand,” on illusions instead of a realistic assessment of Ukraine’s place in the world and its capacities. What Ukrainians have fought for will now crush them, he darkly concludes.

So far, so harsh. (And wrong as well, on at least two important counts, but we’ll get to that.)

Read more

Arestovich may or may not play an important role in future Ukrainian politics; he obviously wants to. But let’s not focus on him. It’s more fruitful to acknowledge that he has raised a valid question, even if his answers are flawed. What are the psychological effects of the war on Ukrainian society?

It is easy to guess that they must be profound and pervasive by now. Notwithstanding the years of low-intensity conflict starting in 2014, if the large-scale war that began in February 2022 had ended quickly, this would not be the case. But since the West and the Zelensky regime decided to waste the peace opportunity of spring 2022 and instead continue the proxy war on behalf of the US, Ukrainian society has now been affected deeply and widely.

Military casualty numbers are not published, but we know that they run in the hundreds of thousands. Civilian casualty rates, fortunately, approach nothing comparable to the genocidal massacre inflicted by Israel on the Palestinians in Gaza. Russia has clearly not pursued a strategy of targeting civilians but focused on genuine military targets or infrastructure (such as power grids) that is dual-use, as does the US, routinely and, if anything, more thoroughly. Yet, over time, the total of civilian losses has accumulated. According to the UN’s OHCHR, since February 2022, 10,382 civilians have been killed, and 19,659 injured.

Displacement and economic hardship have been much more common. As of late 2023, the UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) counted 6.3 million Ukrainians displaced abroad and almost 3.7 million internally. Some 4.6 million have, as of now, returned from temporarily leaving the country. Of course, different kinds of being affected by the war interact. As The Lancet pointed out as early as spring 2022, the “cumulative effects of war and displacement since 2014 are likely to predispose many Ukrainian people to adverse mental health outcomes.”

Regarding Ukraine’s economy, suffice to say that 14.6 million of those Ukrainians in Ukraine will be in need of humanitarian assistance in 2024, as the UN estimates.

Clearly, Arestovich’s cynical comment that Ukraine’s society has proven “weak” is not only offensive but factually wrong. Instead, it has been resilient under pressure – by no means as severe as that suffered by Palestinians in Gaza but substantial, nonetheless. That the Zelensky regime has abused this resilience for an unpatriotic (to put it mildly), misguided, and lost cause is a different matter to which we will return.

But their resilience does not mean that Ukrainians have not suffered great psychological stress. Some effects of the war are exactly what you would expect. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) – in essence, a persistent condition of ramifying shock – is mostly (but not exclusively) associated with military veterans and their families, plus those of the fallen. According to a quasi-official Ukrainian estimate, this group alone – with an especially increased likelihood of lasting stress disorders – will end up including between 4 million and 5 million Ukrainians. While it is impossible to predict how many of them will actually develop clinical conditions, historical experience points to around 20%. Yet keep in mind that that will still be the (large) tip of the iceberg, because those suffering less acutely will still be suffering. Their lives as well will have been changed.

Read more

Regarding the population as a whole, even for summer and fall 2022, a study based on standardized questionnaires and published in the Cambridge University Press journal Psychological Medicine found substantial increases in anxiety, depression, and loneliness. By the spring of 2023 – that is, even before the catastrophic failure of the Zelensky regime’s wasteful summer offensive – a Ukrainian poll-based study found consistently worsening mental health among Ukrainians. A Ukrainian psychologist commented that their psychological resources had been used up. That is almost a year and much bad news ago.

Research also published last year in the International Journal of Mental Health Systems has come to even more dramatic conclusions, stating that “the war has had devastating effects on the health and well-being of the Ukrainian nation, and has led to a rapid escalation of a mental health crisis,” while the mental health care system, not strong to begin with, has been weakened further.

It is certain that the problems sketched above have only become worse. Yet they are also not specific to Ukraine. This kind of trauma is what modern war does to society, any society.

There is a more complicated issue, though, which many Ukrainians and their Western “friends” (friends from hell who will use you for their proxy wars, that is) are loathe to face, but it is there nevertheless. The question is not only how much damage the war has done to the minds and souls of Ukrainians, but also in how far the Zelensky regime and its intellectual collaborators and media surrogates are responsible for making their mental lives even more miserable. And behind that question there is another one: Is the Zelensky regime itself sane or insane?

It is in this regard that Arestovich’s X post displays some real insight, perhaps because he used to be part of that regime and, in his day, did his level best to help make his countrymen delusional with nationalist propaganda, while criminally downplaying the risks inherent in war.

His most important point is that illusions – deliberately cultivated – are at the core of Zelensky’s regime and, I would add, personality. That “house built on sand” is a toxic fabrication of three main components. First, Zelensky’s own delusions of grandeur, his “Churchill complex,” which was fed by the West in a way similar to how Bill Clinton used to ply Boris Yeltsin with drinks.

Secondly, as I have argued before, there is a larger ideological-psychological complex of national messianism, cultivated by Ukrainian elites (with the help of Western war enthusiasts like the publicist Tim Snyder). In this delusion, Ukraine is imagined as a fore-post of the West. That West, in that construction, is, of course, not the real, proxy war-waging, genocide-complicit one, but yet another delusional, self-flattering fantasy of “liberal” values, democracy, and, last but not least, moral superiority.

Read more

And not only is Ukraine accorded the “honor” of serving as its bulwark, but also as a sort of youth elixir, a place where a West still wonderful but sometimes tired, can steel itself again. In reality, this complex is toxic for Ukraine, part of those things that Arestovich has aptly described as fought for by Ukraine only to crush it now.

Thirdly, there is a pathological voluntarism in Ukraine’s elites, again exacerbated by their Western friends – a long unquestioned belief that everything Ukraine and its sponsors want hard enough will happen. Instances of this form of madness include the repeated hyping of miracle weapons, such as Western tanks, planes, and missiles, or, indeed, NATO doctrine. This magical thinking is supplemented by a bizarre tendency even among Western experts with (some) reputation left to lose to build strategic castles in the air, such as in recent attempts to “re-imagine” Ukraine’s desperate military situation as a viable base for successful attritional warfare. Freudian Reality Principle? Not so much.

In all his arrogance, Arestovich has a point. But not about Ukraine as a whole. Ukraine is not “weak.” Rather, its tragedy is that its considerable resilience and strength have been abused and betrayed by a regime that has sold the country to Western, in particular US, interests. To do this, that regime has done its best to drive Ukrainians into a delusional state. To an extent it has succeeded, but that will pass. The ultimate irony, however, is that that same regime, its domestic elites, and its Western “friends” have also drunk plenty of their own Kool-Aid. They, unlike most Ukrainians, are unlikely to ever recover. Even after defeat.

Медиа: image / jpeg

A recent report shows just how deep the split between wealthy university graduates and the rest is

From their views on climate change to their views on education, the detached top one percent of the US populace has voiced a range of opinions so dramatically different from the status quo that it could sink the country.

At a time when there is anxious talk of people being forced to eat bugs, embrace illegal immigrants, inhabit 15-minute cities and own absolutely nothing – all the while ‘being happy,’ or else! – there is no better time to examine the mindset of the people who throw their hefty weight behind such bold initiatives, namely, the elite.

According to the Committee to Unleash Prosperity (CUP), the elite are defined as people who have at least one post-graduate degree, earn at least $150,000 annually, and live in high-population areas, primarily urban coastal zones, like New York City, Boston and Los Angeles. Members of this pampered tribe of overachievers are also likely to have graduated from one of America’s 12 prestigious Ivy League universities, which include Harvard, Cornell, Yale and Princeton, and are increasingly becoming bastions of woke ideology.

The elite are also conspicuous in terms of their unabashed hypocrisy, for example, spewing tons of carbon dioxide emissions as they embark on the annual pilgrimage to Davos, Switzerland aboard private jets and luxury yachts to hear Klaus Schwab eulogize on the grim fate of mankind due to climate change.

Read more

If you’ve already guessed that these folks are primarily liberal and Democratic in their political outlook, you are not mistaken. It is these people who ”live in a bubble of their own construction”; they determine public policy from the college campus, in the legacy media, and corporate board rooms without the participation of the average taxpaying American citizen. To better understand their power, suffice it to recall the massive full-court press that they put on display during the ‘fiery but mostly peaceful protests’ over George Floyd.

According to CUP, ”the Elite class – regardless of party – is an exclusive club that sees and experiences America through a different lens than ordinary Americans.” In other words, without so much as a drop of spilt blood, the American people have come to inherit two distinct nations: one is ”wealthier, more highly educated, and attended the best schools,” and the other is, well, everybody else. The ”deplorables,” as Hillary Clinton once infamously called the other side of the political aisle, namely those God-fearing, gun toting folks who inhabit the ‘flyover states.’

The elite place tremendous faith in big government ”to solve people’s problems.” It is this type of entrenched thinking that goes far at explaining the radical takeover of the public school system, for example, by progressives pushing all sorts of experiments on children, involving everything from White-hating critical race theory to transgender ideology. When parents attempt to fight back against this particular form of brainwashing, they are put on FBI watch lists.

It should come as no surprise that a report by the Institute for Family Studies and the Ethics and Public Policy Center found that average Americans want far less government in their lives, not more.

“Parents are not simply looking for government to get out of the way; they support proactive steps to make it easier to raise a family. Parents, particularly Republican ones, are concerned not just about the economic stresses on families, but the cultural challenges they must navigate.”

In stark contrast to the rest of America, two-thirds of the elite (67%) are of the opinion that teachers and other educational professionals should be allowed to decide what schoolchildren are taught as opposed to letting parents make the decision. While that may have been a plausible notion just 10 years ago, America is a radically changed place to the point where teachers, many conservatives believe, can no longer be trusted with their kids.

At the same time, 70% of the elite trust the government to “do the right thing” and almost 60 percent believe there is “too much individual freedom in America” – double the rate of all Americans. It’s hard to fathom that any American, living in a country founded on the powerful belief in individualism and private initiative, would ever foster the notion that freedom is something to be feared.

Read more

Thus, between half and two-thirds of America’s gilded aristocracy favor banning consumer goods like SUVs, gas stoves, air conditioning, and non-essential air travel to “protect the environment.” Such draconian measures, however, will never affect the rich, whose close proximity to the establishment will always protect them from the very agendas they embrace. That is why 60 percent of the elite hold a positive view of lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, and journalists; they understand what it takes to maintain their grip on power and privilege.

The average American, meanwhile, views all of this as a severe overreach of government authority and an effort to essentially turn the country into a gulag for the 99 percent. Yet their ability to turn the tide is severely limited, which goes far in explaining the huge popularity of the populist Donald Trump, the omnipotent Orange Man who promises to go to war against the ‘deep state’ on their behalf. By comparison, President Joe Biden enjoys an 84% job approval rating among the elite – which is about twice as high as the public at large.

Unsurprisingly, the difference of opinion on the economic front reveals another stark contrast. During the post-pandemic period of economic hardship, when many Americans have been forced to get a second or third job just to make ends meets, 74% of elites say they are financially better off today than in the past versus 20% of all Americans.

None of this bodes well for the United States, and even less so in a major presidential election year. Will the average American conservative feel some relief with the (possible) reelection of Donald Trump, or will the world witness another ‘January 6th,’ albeit this time with a high degree of very real civil unrest? Increasingly, with the chasm separating the elite and everyone else widening every day, those seem to be the only two likely futures awaiting the country.

Медиа: image / jpeg

For two years politicians and analysts have offered grim forecasts that never seem to materialize

Ever since Russia’s military operation against Ukraine began in February of 2022, there has been a steady flow of predictions from Western politicians, analysts, and commentators about the impending demise of the Russian economy.

In fact, the prognosticating started even before those fateful days in February. A few weeks prior, when the Russian troop buildup on the border with Ukraine was eliciting a palpable anxiety in the halls of finance, I remember meeting an expat Western financial analyst in Moscow.

“If Russia ‘invades’,” my interlocutor told me, “they’re going back to the Soviet Union of the 1980s – a primitive, impoverished economy with Western goods available mostly on the black market.”

He spoke as if the Western financial system were the umbilical cord Russia’s economy depended on to sustain itself. He was hardly alone in this view.

The initial wave of forecasts (if you can call the overwrought proclamations emanating from the US and Europe at the time ‘forecasts’) were triumphant and self-confident in tone – and also downright apocalyptic. The Western elite truly believed they held in their arsenal a financial weapon of mass destruction and had deployed it with devastating effect on Russia.

“We will provoke the collapse of the Russian economy,” French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire bluntly told a local news channel less than a week after the conflict began.

Read more

US President Joe Biden struck an even more dire note. “Our sanctions are likely to wipe out the last 15 years of Russia’s economic gains,” he said. “We’re going to stifle Russia’s ability for its economy to grow for years to come.” Those comments came after his now-infamous mocking of the ruble as having turned to “rubble.”

Grave historical comparisons were rife and not only from politicians. JPMorgan likened what Russia was facing to the 1998 crisis, when the ruble lost two-thirds of its value, savings were wiped out, and the country defaulted on its debt. The bank predicted an 11% drop in GDP in 2022.

Not to be outdone, political analyst Maximilian Hess went further, saying that Russia was headed “not only back into the chaos of the 1990s, but into an even graver situation more akin to 1918.”

Russia was also facing what one economics professor at the University of California at Los Angeles called the “complete isolation from the rest of the world, which is indeed a catastrophe in many different ways.” It is, of course, unclear how that assertion was squared with the fact that countries representing two-thirds of the world’s population have not sanctioned Russia.

Already by early April, however, just a little more than month into the conflict, some tempering of the exuberance could be detected. Russia, after all, hadn’t exactly collapsed and in fact the initial acute panic had subsided very quickly. Among the first to make note of Russia’s nascent resilience was The Economist, which penned an article in which it posed the question: “Is the West’s strategy still going to plan?” It was, to the credit of the publication, a fairly balanced portrayal of how things had played out over the first month.

This roughly marked the beginning of a shift in the tone of the ‘Russia-is-collapsing’ narrative over the next few months. No longer were the four horseman of the apocalypse riding into the Kremlin. The extravagant historical comparisons subsided. But make no mistake, Western analysts assured, the Russian economy is in bad shape – it was just that the descent was turning out to be a little slower and a little less dramatic than anticipated.

Read more

An Atlantic Council piece from June 2022 embodies this shift, bearing the title: ‘Sanctioning Russia is a long game. Here’s how to win.’ Foreign Policy magazine stuck with the collapse theme but the headline of a piece from July 2022 (‘Actually, the Russian Economy Is Imploding’) has that very telling word ‘actually’ added. It roughly translates as: there is a lot of evidence to the contrary but we are still asserting this.

By September of 2022, the euphoria of the first weeks had decidedly given way to a creeping frustration. CNN ran an article titled ‘Russian sanctions slow to bite as US officials admit frustrations over pace of pain in Moscow.’

In the piece, “senior US officials” told CNN that there was disappointment that the restrictions hadn’t had a bigger impact so far, but they believed that the harshest effects probably wouldn’t materialize until early 2023. Early 2023, of course, came and went.

Meanwhile, a face-saving operation about the true aim of sanctions was already in effect and could be seen in that article and many others. Another official told the outlet that those crafting the sanctions had actually “always believed that the steepest impacts would not necessarily be immediate,” adding that “we’ve always seen this as a long term game.” In other words, they knew all along nothing much was going to happen anytime soon. Maybe somebody could have told Biden that and saved him the embarrassment of waxing lyrical about erasing the last 15 years of economic gains.

In February of 2023, a series of “sanctions one year in” pieces came out. The overall tone was decidedly one of warding off disappointment by focusing on the long game. The author of a Martens Centre report on sanctions wrote: “Don’t look at the watch every five minutes to see if sanctions are working. Exercise strategic patience.”

Indeed, for the first part of 2023, the predominant tenor was largely a grudging acknowledgement of the resilience of the Russian economy mixed with still-upbeat insistences that Russia’s day of reckoning would yet come. Meanwhile, quite curiously, the articles that began appearing in the Western press seemed to have been written using the same template: begin with a blunt admission that Russia is not actually collapsing before launching into a discussion of how under the surface all sorts of problems are accumulating.

Read more

In August, the ‘Russia-is-collapsing narrative’ got a bit of wind under its sails when the ruble entered a rough patch and even broke through the psychologically important 100 barrier against the dollar. It was at the time down about 20% on the year and was among the worst performing emerging-market currencies. A spate of articles emerged discussing the ruble’s woes and asserting that the weakening currency was indicative of the long-awaited fissures starting to appear.

A Bloomberg opinion piece discussing what it called the “sickly ruble” had the sub-headline: “Sanctions have not breached Russia’s economic fortress, but they have put a time bomb under its foundations.” But the lede of the story stuck to the above-described template: “Western countries have imposed more than 13,000 sanctions on Russia – yet the Russian economy shows no sign of collapsing.”

The very next day, Timothy Ash, an influential veteran emerging-market analyst, wrote an article that also began with a bit of backtracking. “A commonly heard complaint… is that Western sanctions are not working,” the piece begins. “Let’s acknowledge this from the outset – Russia is showing great economic resilience and durability.”

But eventually he got to the main point, which is that the weakened ruble is a “flashing red light that the sanctions are indeed working.” As evidence, he says that “no country likes to see its currency devalue, as this implies economic problems, particularly a weakening balance of payments position and causes high inflation.” The central bank, he maintains, “would not have let the ruble slide unless it was in difficulty.” Exactly how the central bank was “in difficulty” is not explained, but something menacing must have been lurking under the floorboards.

To shore up the ruble last autumn, Russia tightened currency controls and hiked interest rates and the currency has subsequently stabilized. Certainly, these are stop-gap measures that the authorities were compelled to take in response to an imbalance. But Ash and other sanctions cheerleaders clearly thought they would get more mileage out of the ruble’s volatility.

With the ‘flashing red light’ reduced to a faint glow, the narrative moved on. We haven’t seen many ruble stories recently. The next and most recent theme that the ‘Russia-is-collapsing’ crowd latched on to is the idea that the Russian economy is overheating. An economy is considered to be overheating when it is expanding at an unsustainable rate that reaches the limits of its capacity to meet demand.

Read more

The overheating theme caught on and, predictably, a wave of articles ensued. The Economist ran a piece in December discussing Russia’s elevated inflation rate, high percentage of GDP spent on defense, and burgeoning labor shortage. While admitting that “predictions of an economic collapse – made almost uniformly by Western economists and politicians at the start of the war in Ukraine – have proved thumpingly wrong,” – the template holds! – it asserts that the Russian economy cannot take such levels of growth.

Although the piece goes on to acknowledge the steps that can be taken to mitigate the effects of this overheating, it concludes with the words, “[but] in Russia there are more important things than economic stability,” implying that Russia’s leadership is sacrificing the economy to win the Ukraine conflict. It’s a remarkable observation coming from the Western camp, where many politicians – think Germany first and foremost – have been all too willing to sacrifice economic stability at the altar of the Ukraine fantasy.

On the heels of The Economist came a long piece in Foreign Affairs magazine penned by Alexandra Prokopenko, a Russian-born scholar at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin. Titled, ‘Putin’s Unsustainable Spending Spree,’ it was also crafted out of the same template, acknowledging that Russia’s economy has defied forecasts before proceeding to share the bad news. The bad news is the economy’s overheating. Her point is that Russia’s surprisingly strong growth figures, “rather than signaling economic health [are] symptomatic of overheating.”

Similar to the article in The Economist, Prokopenko touches on high government spending – particularly on defense – as well as rising wages due to a labor shortage, and high inflation, all of which adds up to “an illusion of prosperity.” One wonders what the Berlin-based Prokopenko would have to say about her new adopted country, where all traces of prosperity – illusory or otherwise – are rapidly fading.

Read more

Although Prokopenko indulges in the usual Russophobic rhetoric and shopworn Western tropes, some of her concerns about overheating have been expressed by the Russian authorities themselves. In other words, the risk of overheating is an acknowledged problem. In September, for example, the central bank warned that the economy may have grown beyond its productive potential. Historically, a particularly dangerous aspect of overheating has been asset bubbles, which tend to wreak havoc on an economy when they pop. Russia has been witnessing a phenomenal surge in real estate prices – a fact, again, not lost on the central bank, which has urged a generous government subsidized mortgage program to be wound down so that a bubble does not form.

Debates about overheating aside, it bears pausing for a moment to reflect on where we started and where we have arrived. What began as predictions of imminent economic collapse have evolved to ruminations that the Russian economy is growing too quickly! Perhaps the last stand of the ‘Russia-is-collapsing’ crowd is the idea that the rapidly expanding economy will overheat itself off a cliff.

It remains to be seen where the Russian economy will go from here, but if the past nearly two years are any indication, it will continue to develop and adapt. Meanwhile, the expat bankers are mostly gone and I haven’t been to any black markets. Surveying the bustling streets from a busy Moscow café, what strikes me is how mundane the scene is. People pass by alone and in groups, they converse, stare into their phones, sip coffee, and I overhear no chatter about the economy or the ruble.

The Western pundits and officials invariably trotting out the latest narrative of economic implosion will keep barking, but the caravan moves on.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Why the choice of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger to exit ECOWAS and establish the Alliance of Sahel States was obvious

For many centuries, Africa has been a theater for atrocious operations, mainly devised and implemented by the Western powers. These terror operations always have the same specific goal: looting African human, natural, and cultural resources for the economic, cultural and political hegemony of the West.

In the 16th century, the first great systemic criminal attack the Western powers launched against Africa was the organization of the black slave trade. By deciding that black skin was a good criterion for discriminating between freeman and slave throughout the globe, the Western powers created a prism for viewing humanity though absolutely absurd and insane biological concepts. Walter Rodney explains it very clearly in his essay How Europe Underdeveloped Africa,published in 1972.

In the early 19th century, Africa had to fend off the same Western powers in a second massive attack, after their first capitalist accumulation, by enslaving millions of African people, had been accomplished. The colonial invasion of Africa by France, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium became a massive era of crimes against humanity.

After the Africans succeeded in their struggle against colonial occupation during the 20th century, notably with the help of the Eastern Block led by the USSR and China, a third attack was launched against Africa: a fake decolonization process which occurred in the former French colonies. On the one hand, French President Charles De Gaulle, who liberated his country from Nazi domination with the help of African colonial troops, formally acknowledged African independence. On the other hand, the same Monsieur De Gaulle organized a neocolonial system by keeping French troops in Africa. French West Africa was divided into fifteen countries, and control was maintained by the French central bank in fifteen African economies through the CFA franc, a colonial currency. France supported the worst African dictators as the heads of those states, and controlled African ideas through the Francophonie system of values and media.

Read more

Libyan trace

The birth of ECOWAS (the Economic Community of West African States) on May 28, 1975 occurred in that context of continued domination. While the UK was reorganizing its hegemony in Africa through the Commonwealth system, France was creating the system of Françafrique, a mafia of French and African political élites which targeted the rights and the lives of the African people. Two of the main creators of ECOWAS in 1975, General Yakubu Gowon of Nigeria and General Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo, were putschists under Anglo-American and French control. De facto, ECOWAS was created under the big Western alliance, NATO. All the NATO powers continue to have their hands in ECOWAS affairs today, one way or another. The principles and rules of the ECOWAS’ charter have never been seriously respected by its members, especially those who participate in in its highest decision-making body, the Conference of the heads of states.

Here is an example to illustrate the obvious weakness of ECOWAS. When Libya was attacked in 2011 by NATO, which led to the actual takeover of the country by the terrorist forces of Al-Qaida and ISIS, no African political organization considered the attack an infringement on African sovereignty. Even better, many African ECOWAS and African Union (AU) leaders supported the West and NATO, and repeated NATO’s false narrative concerning Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. They pretended Gaddafi was executing his own people, and thus justified the NATO aggression. Their attack against Africa was led by the USA under Barack Obama, the United Kingdom under David Cameron and France under Nicolas Sarkozy. How can one understand that some African governments could later accept the so-called help of the same country to fight terrorism in Africa? How can Africa accept cooperation in the struggle against terrorism with the West’s pyromaniac firefighters?

“As was suspected at the time - and was later shown in the published emails of Hilary Clinton - NATO acted to prevent Gaddafi founding an African central bank with its own gold-backed currency. That institution would have challenged the power of the dollar and finally allowed Africa to escape its colonial shackles”, writes Ellen Brown, an American writer and public speaker who is founder and president of the Public Banking Institute.

When, after the NATO attack, the terrorist organizations invaded the whole Sahelian zone, and notably Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, Nigeria and Cameroon, these countries continued to cooperate with NATO in the AU and in ECOWAS, while clearly knowing that NATO was deeply involved in the destabilization of the entire African continent.

Main principles of the Alliance of Sahel States

Malian leader Assimi Goita, Burkinabe leader Ibrahim Traoré and Nigerien leader Abdourahamane Tchiani are the three inheritors of the pan-Africanist ideology in Africa today. Their political engagement is inspirated by the works of the greatest African thinkers, including Kwame Nkrumah, Amilcar Cabral, Marcus Garvey, Franz Fanon, Cheikh Anta Diop, Theophile Obenga, and many others. These leaders believe that there is no hope for the people of Africa unless they secure African sovereignty first and then act to fulfil this precise vision of Africa’s destiny.

This is why the creation of the Alliance of Sahel States on September 16, 2023, is a real revolution in African geopolitics. Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger have decided to rebuild the interaction in West Africa on radically different principles. First of all, the three leaders came to the oath through revolutionary and internal political processes in their countries. Their legitimacy is not an external one, but the result of an endogenous movement of their people. In Mali, leader Assimi Goita appeared at the top of the state after a long struggle between civil political society and Ibrahim Boubacar Keita’s regime. Keita’s system was fought by the Malian people for its corruption, its dependence to French and Western neocolonialism, and its inability to overcome terrorism. In Burkina Faso and in Niger, the regimes of Roch Christian Kabore and Mohamed Bazoum were confronted by the civil societies for the same reasons. This resistance process of the West African people got inside the armies, and so patriotic, revolutionary and pan-Africanist forces emerged at the same time in all the bodies of these African societies.

The Alliance is set to establish new West African geopolitics based on three principles: sovereignty, freedom of choice of strategic partners among the world’s powers, and defense of African peoples’ vital interests. Sovereignty is impossible without the security of those who decide. So, the reconquest of the three countries’ territories by their armies is a crucial priority. At the same time, sovereignty means accountability of the leaders of each country to the only sovereign, the people.

Read more

The diversification of partnership means the countries will not fight against terrorism in Africa while cooperating on the field of war with the Western powers. That is why the Alliance is deeply involved in military, diplomatic, and economic cooperation with the greatest powers of the Global South, or the Multipolar World. Clearly, the destiny of the Alliance is to be involved in the dynamical construction of the BRICS, avoiding the supremacy of the dollar and the euro.

Finally, the Alliance is fully engaged with the internal dialog between the leaders and the people of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. That is why the Alliance is self-financed and works hard to secure economic and cultural cooperation, as well as political integration as a confederation of states.

When ECOWAS threatened to attack Niger for the defense of illegitimate French control of the country’s strategic uranium resources, Mali and Burkina Faso stood up in unison to defend their Nigerien neighbor. They clearly understood that the threats facing Niger are the same, rooted in the slave trade and colonial aggression, as well as Western neocolonial occupation, for many centuries now. It is that deep memory of the shared tragedy of African history that constitutes the cement of the new African sunrise of conscientiousness and justice.

The difference between ECOWAS and the Alliance of the Sahel States is obvious. While the first has many times shown its dependence on Western interests and powers, the latter is working openly for a sovereign and powerful Africa, free in its minds, free in its hands, and able to shape the renewal of hope among all African nations. We need, at the same time, to have a look in our own mirror. The most difficult part of the African Struggle in the 21st century, is to recover African genius through a critical memory of ourselves, and to keep our eyes open with a lot of lucidity to understand the reality of the game of this world’s powers.

Медиа: image / jpeg

For the first time in modern India, the government has come out openly in support of economic reforms, and spoken out against populism at the same time

Last week, India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) tabled a white paper in Parliament chronicling the last two tumultuous decades of the national economy.

It was the NDA’s version of a comparison of its decade in office versus the tenure of its predecessor and arch political rival, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), between 2004 and 2014. To be sure, the Congress sought to rain on NDA’s parade by coming out with a “black paper” of its own.

Effectively these two papers document the clash of two economic ideologies piloted by the two prime ministers, the incumbent Narendra Modi and former leader Manmohan Singh – asking the nation to choose between Modinomics and Manmohanomics.

The timing of the paper, just weeks before the Election Commission of India kicks off the general election cycle, suggests that the NDA is looking to score political brownie points against its rival.

Read more

While this is indeed the case, it is also the first time in recent economic history that an incumbent government is making its electoral case based on its record in office pioneering unprecedented and often disruptive economic reforms.

More importantly, it held out the promise of more reforms to come in its third term – which the NDA believes is its for the taking.

Significantly, all this ‘chutzpah’ comes from a government facing the difficult odds of a two-term anti-incumbency. This bold political gambit is why NDA’s white paper on the Indian economy is so significant. It seeks to mainstream the idea of economic reforms by linking it to the current government’s reelection.

Splitting hairs

On the face of it, the two regimes, NDA and UPA, are at either end of the ideological spectrum. Broadly, the UPA led by PM Singh made pro-poor its cause and batted for the entitlement of those at the bottom of the pyramid. This is best summed up by the UPA’s signature social safety net program, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), with an annual average spend of 750 billion rupees ($9 billion) – something the NDA retained despite expressing reservations.

In contrast, the NDA led by PM Modi opted for the strategy of pro-poor and pro-business, preferring empowerment over entitlement. This meant universalizing access to basics – electricity, cooking gas, banking, housing, drinking water, health insurance, and so on – and thereby empowering people and creating a stronger economic fabric to sustain business opportunities. A strategy of teaching people how to fish, rather than giving them fish.

Read more

The NDA is, through the white paper, showcasing to potential voters its ability to have successfully pulled this off in its last ten years in office. Despite being bitter political rivals, the NDA and UPA have far more in common, especially with respect to economics, than they would care to admit.

Both regimes are committed to the idea of economic reforms. This bipartisan consensus has enabled the two regimes to pivot India towards a market-based economy. But they differ on the scale and calibrating the pace of such change.

While the UPA preferred an incremental approach, the NDA opted for an aggressive, risky, and calibrated approach to economic reforms. It however sequenced the roll-out of basics first and staggered disruptive initiatives like the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which has integrated multiple indirect taxes on goods and services varying from state to state into one unified tax, and the privatization of government-owned companies – which included the sale of the national air carrier Air India to the private sector conglomerate Tata Sons.

Ironically, the NDA was able to accelerate the roll-out of basics by leveraging its inheritance from the UPA. ‘Aadhaar’, the 12-digit identity for all residents, was rolled out by the Singh-led government in 2009. Though the UPA erred in failing to provide legal cover for the idea, this did not deter it from experimenting with it to test direct benefits transfer (government payments to the citizens living below poverty line) through pilot projects. The lack of a political will meant that these ideas largely remained experiments.

READ MORE: West ‘spares no effort’ to undermine Moscow’s dialogue with New Delhi – Russian envoy

The Modi-led NDA, on the other hand, was endowed with abundant social capital – earned by the BJP when it became the first party to win a majority on its own since 1984. It seized on the opportunity it inherited, and successfully implemented direct benefits transfer by pairing an individual’s bank accounts (‘Jandhan’) created under a government scheme to provide easy access to financial services and ‘Aadhaar’ with their mobile, arriving to a ‘JAM’ formula (Jandhan-Aadhaar-Mobile) – akin to an ‘economic GPS’ to identify a beneficiary.

As a result, not only was the NDA able to target welfare programs, but it also managed to reduce leakages and theft – resulting in cumulative savings of a staggering 2,750 billion rupees ($33 billion) to the national exchequer. This double whammy earned it more social capital, making it easier for Modi to convincingly link the benefits of development with continued reform of the economy.

More in the offing

Beginning with the president of India’s address to both Houses at the start of the just-concluded budget session of Parliament on January 31, the Modi-led government has continued to signal its commitment to reforms. This was then echoed in the interim budget presented by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on February 1 and Modi’s reply during the motion of thanks for the president’s address. The PM argued that the UPA government, unlike the NDA, had failed because it had been timid and pursued economic reforms only “incrementally.”

Read more

In fact, the white paper presented to Parliament, while being an elaborate listicle of the NDA’s development successes, also makes clear that it wants to stir an “informed debate on the paramountcy of national interest and fiscal responsibility in matters of governance and political expediency”. To be fair, this regime has already stirred the pot of competitive electoral freebies which pose a severe drag on the exchequer.

Significantly, a few days earlier, Sitharaman’s interim budget strikingly stuck to the committed path of fiscal consolidation and eschewed any electoral freebies – the first time a pre-poll budget has done so.

To be sure, in 2019 the NDA announced a stipend to small farmers which costs the exchequer 600 billion rupees ($7.23 billion) annually – matching the 600 billion rupees farm loan waiver announced by the UPA in the run-up to its reelection in 2009. Implicitly, the NDA is signaling its willingness to walk its talk to shun populism.

Finally, the white paper makes clear that the third term of the NDA, assuming it is reelected, will press the accelerator on economic reforms.

Indeed, this is the first time that any regime in modern India has come out so openly in support of economic reforms and spoken out against populism at the same time. To a large degree, the majority mandate – the first in three decades – won by the BJP in two successive general elections has enabled it to manage this pivot. And now, in its own words, it wants to raise the bar. We will have to wait till May to see how this political gambit plays out on the ground with India’s 700 million-plus voters.

Where India Meets Russia – We are now on WhatsApp! ‎Follow and share RT India in English and in Hindi

Медиа: image / jpeg

The US president has predictably been let off the hook for mishandling state secrets and jeopardizing national security

A US prosecutor’s report rationalizing why President Joe Biden won’t face justice for his mishandling of classified documents contained an excuse that ought to trigger some major soul-searching about the state of America’s leadership and how it got there. It won’t.

Instead, in a nation where gaslighting and thick-faced contempt take the place of serious political discussion, Americans are expected to accept that Biden shouldn’t be prosecuted partly because he’s a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” If that explanation – proffered in a report released on Thursday by US Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Robert Hur – isn’t absurd enough, citizens are also told to accept that the same guy who’s too addled for a jury to convict him is perfectly competent to serve as president and commander-in-chief.

The whole episode says a lot about how unjust, corrupted and broken Washington has become. For starters it comes at the same time Biden’s DOJ is prosecuting his chief political rival, ex-President Donald Trump, for mishandling classified documents. For another, as in the case of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, a prominent Democrat is being let off the hook for exposing state secrets despite investigators admitting that they found evidence of criminal conduct.

This isn’t a minor violation of protocol, either. Hur found evidence that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed” classified materials from his two terms as vice president. As pictures included in Hur’s 345-page report showed, the documents were stashed in multiple locations, including cardboard boxes stacked in the garage of one of Biden’s homes.

The special counsel also found that Biden’s conduct “presented serious risks to national security, given the vulnerability of sensitive information to loss or compromise to America’s adversaries.” The mishandled documents contained information “implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods,” including White House deliberations on the US occupation of Afghanistan.

Read more

Biden’s defenders argue that his case wasn’t as bad as Trump’s because unlike Bad Orange Man, the president cooperated with investigators and surrendered his documents when they were discovered. That’s both unmitigating and untrue.

Being cooperative after committing a criminal offense doesn’t make one less guilty of the crime. Moreover, Hur found a recorded conversation with the ghostwriter of Biden’s memoirs in which the former VP said he had “just found all this classified stuff downstairs.” That was in 2017, five years before one of Biden’s lawyers reported the discovery of classified materials at his think-tank office in Washington.

Incidentally, Biden’s ghostwriter deleted some of his recordings after learning of the special counsel’s investigation, but unlike the resort employees who allegedly helped hide Trump’s documents, he won’t be prosecuted. Another key difference in the cases was that Trump retained documents from his time as president and therefore had the authority to declassify such materials. Biden had no such power as vice president at the time his state secrets were retained. On the other hand, some of Trump’s charges concern alleged obstruction of justice, which could apply even if he were exonerated for keeping sensitive documents.

The more preposterous wrinkle in the case is Hur’s commentary about Biden’s mental state, as well as the White House’s reaction. During interviews with investigators, the president couldn’t even remember such details as when he served as VP and roughly when his son Beau died, the special counsel said. The recorded 2017 conversations with the ghostwriter were “painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.” Biden displayed “diminished faculties and faulty memory.”

At 81, Biden is already the oldest president in US history. “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt,” Hur said. “It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his 80s – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

In a nutshell: It’s about who you are, not whether you broke the law. Never mind that crimes were probably committed, and that national security was jeopardized, Biden’s DOJ concluded. The president is so scatterbrained and demonstrably old that jurors wouldn’t feel comfortable sending him to prison. But like the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, said in sparing Clinton prosecution in 2016, a criminal indictment wouldn’t be the “appropriate” remedy for this particular wrongdoing. Biden, who has been getting away with serious misconduct since he plagiarized his work as a college student nearly 60 years ago, will face no consequences.

Read more

Although Biden initially cheered the special counsel’s report in a written statement, noting that he was cleared of possible criminal charges, he later seethed in a hastily arranged press briefing at the White House. “Look, my memory is fine,” he insisted. He also claimed to be the “most qualified person in this country to be president.”

Biden and his defenders were angry that Hur said the quiet part out loud. Democrat politicians, such as Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, called it “unfair” and “despicable” for Hur to discuss Biden’s cognitive state – apparently forgetting that the assessment was used to help keep the president out of prison.

Everybody knows that when it comes to Biden’s mental fitness for the job, this emperor has no clothes. We’ve all seen him speaking gibberish, falling down and getting lost on stage. An NBC poll released earlier this month showed that 76% of US voters, including over half of Democrats, have concerns about whether Biden is mentally and physically fit to serve a second term as president. Most voters don’t believe Biden would even be able to finish a second term, by which time he would be 87 years old.

Ironically, at the same press conference called to deny that he has a faulty memory, Biden referred to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as the leader of Mexico. At political fundraisers earlier in the week, he misremembered conversations with the leaders of France and Germany shortly after he took office in January 2021.

He claimed to have met with France’s Francois Mitterrand and to have spoken with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, neither of which happened. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Biden struggled to remember the name of Hamas, the Islamist group that’s at war with Israel.

Read more

Nevertheless, a White House spokesman later said it’s “inappropriate” to criticize Biden’s mental state. The administration also blamed the Israel-Hamas war for causing Biden’s struggles to remember key dates during his interviews with Hur, which were conducted shortly after the crisis began.

This is par for the course in Biden’s America, where farcical claims are confidently asserted by the authorities and reinforced by the establishment media. The 2020 presidential election was the “most secure in American history,” we’re told. The January 2021 US Capitol riot was a racially motivated “insurrection” in which police were killed – even though it had nothing to do with anyone’s skin color and the only person killed was a Trump supporter who was shot by an officer.

The list goes on. Investigators still can’t figure out who placed pipe bombs at the Republican and Democratic Party headquarters on the day before the riot; nor can they identify who left cocaine in the West Wing of the White House, one of the most secure buildings in the world. It’s also a total mystery as to who is trying to get Republican politicians killed through “swatting” calls making false emergency reports of violent crimes at their homes. There is no crisis at the border, except now Biden says that there is, but it’s not his fault.

US taxpayers are sending billions of borrowed dollars to help defend freedom and democracy in Ukraine – a country that has neither freedom nor democracy – and the White House says it’s “utterly false” to suggest that Washington had anything to do with blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline (despite Biden’s earlier vow to “end” it). The US government preaches the “key principles” of respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity in select locales, such as Ukraine, while continuing its nearly decade-long illegal occupation of Syria.

If Americans can stipulate to all that, why not accept that Biden is running the most powerful country in the world and is perfectly competent to do so? That will remain the official position of the ruling class and its media mouthpieces, and if they can keep Trump off this year’s election ballot, the “elderly man with a poor memory” will get another four-year term.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Valery Zaluzhny’s political ambitions have been boosted by Ukraine’s president, who just removed the commander from leading a doomed war

In his masterpiece, the pre-World War II ‘Le fil de l’épée,’ a young Charles de Gaulle observes that soldiers and politicians usually can’t get along well: They’re too different by temperament, socialization, and purpose. And yet the man who would brilliantly succeed at being both a military and a political leader also insisted that, ultimately, they must cooperate to serve their country. That cooperation is precisely what has just broken down in Ukraine, in the middle of a large war that is going very badly for Kiev.

For, make no mistake, while there are several important aspects (discussed below) to the drawn-out dismissal of Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, Valery Zaluzhny, the fundamental fact remains that it is a story of failure, the failure of a key relationship in any state, but especially one fighting a war it is losing.

Zaluzhny, it is important to note, was not a particularly bad commander-in-chief. It is true that Kiev’s war effort is failing but there is no good reason to blame him or, at least, him most of all. He is a mediocre strategist instead of the quiet genius that some silly Western hype used to depict. Yet, the causes of Ukraine’s current, quite-possibly fatal difficulties on the battlefield in logistics and manpower are fundamental, not a matter of one less-than-brilliant general. Remember: Once short on clients, soldiers, and supplies, even Napoleon (and Zaluzhny definitely is no Napoleon) was defeated: There are things in war, especially in a war of attrition, that crushingly outweigh individual talent.

Hence, the ouster of his commander-in-chief is precisely what President Vladimir Zelensky is trying to pretend it is not: a political operation, not a result of level-headed analysis of strategic necessity and a systematic reboot.

Read more

It is also an anticlimax: The tensions between Zelensky and Zaluzhny have been no secret for a long time. In particular from January 29, the general’s dismissal was preceded by a wave of leaks and rumors. There was speculation about two key issues: Would Zaluzhny go quietly or would he – or his many supporters, including on the far right – protest, riot, maybe even mutiny and, in the worst case, try to stage a coup against the Zelensky regime? And, if not, who then would succeed Zaluzhny as commander-in-chief?

Two candidates were widely discussed: the head of military intelligence, Kirill Budanov, and the former commander of Ukraine’s ground forces (and thus the core of the military), Aleksandr Syrsky.

Budanov was the more exciting of the two, if in an ill-boding way. While Syrsky’s reputation as a tactically cack-handed, dour “butcher” (of his own men, that is) has reached even the sleepy New York Times, Budanov represented a loose cannon: Bereft of any experience of commanding large forces, the Budanov trademark is black ops: assassination, sabotage, and provocation. Some observers thought that his potential appointment as commander-in-chief would signal a wholesale turn to guerrilla and terrorist methods to compensate for losing the war.

In the end, though, Syrsky, the less colorful candidate, standing for perfect obedience to Zelensky and a particularly unimaginative, if wasteful, type of ordinary warfare, came out on top as Zelensky’s new commander-in-chief (despite plausible rumors that at least the spy-besotted UK was pushing for Budanov); and there have been no coup attempts, riots, or mutinies, either. At least, not yet.

But here is the thing about anticlimaxes: If you feel an outcome does not measure up to what you expected, your disappointment may have less to do with that outcome than with your expectations: You may have anticipated either too much or the entirely wrong kind of thing. In the latter case, you risk missing what is really important, while fixated on all those dogs that did not bark.

Let’s ask two simple questions: First, what things are unlikely to change because of Syrsky replacing Zaluzhny? And in what area, on the other hand, does Zelensky’s move make a difference?

What will not change is that Ukraine is losing this war. Its Western sponsors are either dropping it (the US) or offering it far too little aid (the EU) to even hold out, let alone turn the tables. And even with all the aid in the world, Ukraine could not do so: The country is exhausted. The struggles over a new mobilization law, which were also part of the conflict between Zaluzhny and Zelensky, show two things: First, Kiev is running out of Ukrainians to use up and, secondly, Ukrainians are running out of patience with being fed into their leadership’s proxy-war meat grinder.

Read more

In terms of the state budget and the economy as a whole, Ukraine is a hollow shell, kept together and standing only through, again, Western support, which, again, is faltering. Syrsky is a general with a bad reputation. But even if he enjoyed a better one, he would still not be a miracle worker. But that is what it would take to save Kiev. The outcome is a matter of time, now, and probably not much time.

Yet, for the moment the Zelensky regime is not showing any (public) signs of opting for mediation, negotiation, and a compromise peace. Zelensky’s once stellar popularity is declining. In particular it is lagging well behind that of Zaluzhny. Indeed, the increasingly self-centered president is likely to have made things worse: As prominent Ukrainian commenters, like the robustly anti-Russian and warmongering Vitaly Portnikov, have observed, the way in which Zelensky got rid of Zaluzhny was also a PR disaster, for the president. For John Mearsheimer, an always realistic observer, the messy, protracted process of firing Zaluzhny made the president look weak and indecisive.

Zaluzhny, it is important to note, may have been a thorn in Zelensky’s side. But he also was an asset, precisely because, inside Ukraine, he appeared to be a little less dishonest than the usual sycophants serving the self-aggrandizing “servant of the people.” To clear-sighted observers outside Ukraine, Zaluzhny comes across as a savvy general with much-denied yet obvious political ambitions, who has efficiently milked his knack for playing to the crowd with his bullheaded, man-of-the-people/salt-of-the-earth image.

Yet, from within a society living under the deeply reality-phobic Zelensky regime, addicted to self-dramatization, spin, and lying, Zaluzhny looks like a rare straight-talker who, occasionally at least, has dared speak truth to power. This is a point made, for instance, by Ukrainian journalist Ianina Sokolova, who has deplored the inability of Zelensky and his team to tolerate or accept criticism and has praised Zaluzhny for telling the truth about the “ dead end” that the war has become.

Yet the Zelenskyites will not give up and, in a deeply unpatriotic way, that makes sense: Zelensky and his team are very unlikely to survive (politically, at least) the coming defeat. And by now their military position is so bad that even they probably understand that they will not be able to spin the end as anything else. They are trapped.

And, finally, what will not change either is the deep influence of the Ukrainian far right on the country’s politics. For the fact that the far-right groups have not rebelled against Zaluzhny’s ouster is not a sign of its weakness. On the contrary, it shows two things: First, not only Zaluzhny but Zelensky as well, of course, has his leverage with the far-right movement and they their investment in him. Secondly, the far right has decided to bide its time: Why try to take over now, just to own a losing war?

And that question brings us to what has changed.

Zelensky’s problems have increased. Not only because he has gone against a man much more popular than he is himself, but also because his chosen general, Syrsky, is ethnically Russian – to the extent that he still speaks Ukrainian with a Russian accent. It is true that much of his Russian family has disowned Syrsky, but that won’t help him much once Kiev’s defeat moves from the realm of the very likely to that of accomplished fact. Then, the search for scapegoats will be on (again), and Syrsky’s lack of ethnic credentials will be used against him, not only by the far right as a whole but also by top Zelensky rivals (and Zaluzhny allies), such as former president Poroshenko or Kiev’s always-ambitious mayor Vitaly Klitschko. And Vladimir Zelensky will be blamed for appointing “the Russian.”

Read more

Zelensky’s exposure to the political cost of battlefield setbacks has also grown: He has not, of course, repeated the grievous mistake of former Russian emperor Nicholas II, who took over military command in the middle of World War I and thus made himself a perfect target. But, in principle, Zelensky has run a similar risk: When the war turns even worse than now, Ukrainians will ask who was responsible for replacing a commander-in-chief they at least believed in with one most of them dread. And they will also ask about Zelensky’s reasons, which are obvious, no matter how much the president tries muddying the waters: Zaluzhny had to go because Zelensky fears his political potential.

Which brings us to the third thing that is different now: Ironically, Zaluzhny’s chances in future Ukrainian politics have greatly improved, thanks to Zelensky’ short-sighted attempt to curtail them. The president has removed the commander-in-chief from responsibility before defeat can harm his image. Indeed, Zelensky has laid the foundations of a future myth, in which Ukrainians will tell each other that all could have been different, if only good old Zaluzhny had not been kicked out. It won’t be true, but it will be resonant.

One statement Zelensky has made with respect to Zaluzhny may very well come to haunt him. Asked about his relationship with his top general, before the commander was replaced, the president answered that one day Zaluzhny might not be around anymore and that “ Ukraine as a state is not about the personal.” Indeed. Nor should it be. But it’s a risky thing to stress for a man whose whole legitimacy is based on what is, in effect, a personality cult. A badly declining one.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Distorting casualty counts, failing to critically analyze statistics and misrepresenting facts, Western media is exposing its anti-Palestinian bias

Shortly before the International Court of Justice’s highly anticipated decision to pursue South Africa’s case accusing Israel of genocide, the New York Times released a report titled ‘The Decline of Death in Gaza’.

The article attributed this alleged decline to a change in Israel’s battle strategy in Gaza, yet the piece omitted key data that contradicted its claims. Then, in the aftermath of the ICJ preliminary ruling, the NYT became the first news outlet to receive and publish information from an Israeli dossier that accused UNRWA staff of complicity in the armed activities of Hamas.

Since the beginning of the war between Israel and Gaza, which began with the Hamas-led attack on October 7, Western corporate media have shown what can only be described as pro-Israeli double standards. On January 9, The Intercept published a quantitative analysis of over 1,000 articles in US mainstream media, including by the NYT, proving the undeniable bias demonstrated in favor of Israeli life and underreporting on Palestinian suffering.

An even more targeted analysis was published by researchers Jan Lietava and Dana Najjar, who specifically looked at the BBC’s coverage of the conflict between October 17 to December 2. The study documented that words like murder(ed), massacre(d) and slaughter(ed) were used by the BBC to describe Israelis 144 times, while Palestinians had only been described as having been murdered or massacred one time each; the word slaughter had never been used to describe the killing of Palestinians. The study clearly shows the disparity in humanizing language used and the number of stories on Palestinian deaths, despite the Palestinian death toll being far higher than the Israeli one.

Read more

The Israeli death toll throughout the war officially stands around 700 civilians and 600 combatants, while for Palestinians it is roughly 27,600, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. The estimates are that between 61% to 75% of the Palestinians killed in Gaza are women and children. Ranging estimates as to how many Palestinian combatants have been killed are not trustworthy. Israeli spokespeople claim between 7,000 to 10,000 Hamas fighters, depending on the time of day, but provide no estimate for the number of fighters killed who are members of the dozen or so other armed groups in Gaza.

While the NYT report attempts to make the point that deaths in Gaza are steadily declining as the Israeli operation goes on, statistics released by the authorities in Gaza, from January 17 (when the NYT data chart ends) until January 24, clearly show the opposite trend. For reference the daily death tolls read: 163, 172, 142, 165, 178, 190, 195, 210.

The piece also lacks any evidence showing a correlation between the Israeli announcement of what it calls “ phase 3” of its battle plan and the death toll charts that showed a downward arc in the daily fatality rate. Israel began announcing its intention to implement its new phase at the beginning of January, yet the argument presented in the article attempted to draw the conclusion that pressure from the US government had contributed to a lowering of fatalities between early December and January 17.

There was a decline in the daily reported death toll, but this occurred prior to any stated change in the military strategy. Also observable is that during the week that the report was released, the daily Gaza death toll actually jumped to 188. Monday through to Sunday of that week there were some 1,317 Palestinians killed by Israel. The week prior, a total of 1,110 were killed.

The NYT also pointed to the Israeli withdrawal of forces from northern Gaza, attempting to use this as evidence of a change in tactics in January that had been brought about due to efforts from the Biden administration. Israel actually reinvaded the north, briefly, after the article was published.

Furthermore, Israel didn’t start withdrawing from northern Gaza in January – it began this process around December 21, when it withdrew the elite Golani Brigades. In late December, five brigades were withdrawn and the reservists amongst them were released for economic reasons. Then, earlier last month, a further four brigades were withdrawn as the Israeli army implemented a retreat from most of the built-up areas in northern Gaza.

Read more

Israeli authorities claim that the reason for the change in the war strategy, shifting from the high-pressure tactics of the first two phases, was due to their desire to continue the fight for the whole of 2024. If Israel is planning to fight a year-long war, it makes sense for it to use fewer munitions and soldiers, as munitions are finite and the cost of the initial battle strategy would have been a significant economic burden.

Another crucial point is that the report completely left aside all other considerations as to what could explain a decline in death tolls across certain periods of time. A major issue that is faced today is a lack of a properly functioning health sector in Gaza altogether; according to the World Health Organization (WHO), only 16 hospitals out of 36 remain operational and all are “ minimally or partially functioning.”

One of the last remaining professional journalists in northern Gaza, Anas al-Sharif, reported to Al Jazeera Arabic, on January 16, of the intensifying bombardments in the area and the underreporting of casualties there. A resident named Akram based in the Jabalia Refugee Camp told RT that “the bombing over those few days returned to how it was at the start of the war, it was terrifying and it seemed like it didn’t stop at all for over a day.”

With a health sector that has all but collapsed, properly accounting for the dead is a tough challenge, which is why the Gaza Health Ministry routinely includes the caveat to its daily death tolls that there are others under the rubble who are unaccounted for. To demonstrate how big of a difference the death toll is, when those missing under the rubble are factored in, take the statistics released by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, which stated that 31,497 Palestinians had been killed by January 14.

Aside from us not having a full picture of the true daily death toll, Israel is also being accused of using starvation as a weapon of war, and the statistics that are being cited do not include those who are now dying due to disease and starvation. Some 400,000 people living in northern Gaza are without aid altogether, as efforts by international organizations to transport medical, food and fuel aid to the north have repeatedly been blocked. On December 9, Save The Children warned that the primary cause of death in Gaza could soon be starvation and disease, instead of bombs, with the humanitarian situation having severely deteriorated since then.

Read more

When the Israeli government later released its allegations that 12 UNRWA employees – out of 13,000 working in Gaza – had participated in the Hamas-led attack of October 7, the New York Times was the first to get its hands on the Israeli dossier that detailed its allegations. The newspaper failed to report that most of the allegations were based on interrogations conducted by the Shin Bet (Israeli secret police), which is renowned for extracting confessions through torture. The article that the NYT published on the issue made the dossier’s information seem somewhat credible, yet, when the UK’s Channel 4 obtained it and quoted it directly to the public, it concluded that “ no evidence” was contained within the dossier.

The NYT’s reporting on Israeli allegations that Hamas conducted a premeditated mass rape campaign have come under fire also. In one case family members of an Israeli woman killed on October 7 had to take to social media to denounce the NYT’s attempts to suggest she had been raped, which the newspaper allegedly failed to tell the family it was planning to include in its article.

At every turn, Western corporate media has used distortions, linguistic manipulation, and outright lies to mislead its audiences on the truth about what is occurring in Gaza. It does not get lower than playing with statistics in order to downplay what the highest judicial body on earth has overwhelmingly ruled is plausibly a genocide, or what UN aid chief Martin Griffiths has called “ the worst ever” humanitarian crisis.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Will Western media outlets look past their egos and establishment narratives to take advantage of the insights from the conversation?

American establishment media spent the days in the run-up to Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin pre-judging it as propaganda, and soliciting the opinions of establishment figures, like former US secretary of state, first lady, and presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who dismissed Carlson a “useful idiot.”

All this before they even had the slightest notion of the interview’s content. All they knew was that Putin would have an opportunity to speak, and that ever since Carlson left Fox News and turned independent, there wasn’t any obvious establishment figure to babysit him or control what went out. Worse, it would air on the X platform (formerly Twitter) owned by Elon Musk, who describes himself as a “free speech absolutist.” So it did not bode well for the kind of propagandistic framing that the Western establishment enjoys when it comes to locking down narratives under the guise of fighting a war on fake news.

The fact that journalists balked at the very notion of Carlson interviewing Putin reeked of professional jealousy. There isn’t a credible journalist out there who wouldn’t leap at the same opportunity if given the chance. Which is why, as journalists from CNN and the BBC confirmed, they’d long sought their own interviews with Putin — unsuccessfully. Presumably, Carlson’s format, audience reach, and freedom from establishment media constraints were appealing enough to land him the opportunity. Good for him. And for the journalistic record that can only benefit from any and all contributions.

Read more

It’s not like other media outlets don’t also benefit from their Western colleagues questioning Putin. I experienced this myself when invited to ask a question during one of Putin’s marathon press conferences. For the record, no one had any clue what I’d be asking. Neither did I, actually, as about five or six different themes suddenly went on spin cycle in my mind as I stood to speak. My question ultimately ended up being what Putin thinks about then President Donald Trump’s assertion that Islamic State had been defeated in Syria — Trump’s rationale for announcing the withdrawal of American troops just the day before. Putin’s response, in agreeing with Trump’s assessment, was newsworthy, and was quickly picked up by CNN and other Western media. The difference between me and Carlson? No competitors had to credit me as the source of the question. So the information Putin provided could safely be used without having to credit a “competitor” and denting any egos, as is often the case in press conferences. Not so with exclusive interviews.

Focusing on Carlson as some kind of flawed messenger serves as a convenient pretext for ignoring critical information and analysis. The fact that some journalists may think that Carlson’s questioning or approach was misguided — or that he didn’t push back enough for their tastes — doesn’t mean that they can’t subsequently take what Putin said and analyze it themselves. Every bit of information, analysis, or interview of any world leader is a valuable contribution. Litmus tests have no place in objective, impartial journalism. Many of those who criticize Carlson are the same ones who routinely search the Wikileaks database for leaked and dumped classified information to flesh out their own stories about various political issues and events that have since materialized — all while refusing to acknowledge that the publisher, Julian Assange, is as much of a journalist as they are.

Carlson’s flaws arguably even served the American and global public. Much like Carlson erroneously claimed prior to the interview that other journalists couldn’t be bothered to interview Putin before he came along, he also played fast and loose with his very first question to the Russian president, stating that Putin said in his February 22, 2022, national address, at the onset of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, that he “ had come to the conclusion that the United States, through NATO, might initiate a, quote, ‘surprise attack’” on Russia. “I didn’t say that,” Putin interjected. “Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?” Carlson’s lack of precision, sounding like a guy who thought he was having a chit-chat with another dude over beers in a bar, created an opportunity for Putin to launch a history lesson going back 2,000 years on how the Ukraine conflict came about. It’s the kind of long-form discussion that the US mainstream media rarely does anymore, but which is commonplace in Europe. It could only benefit an American audience accustomed to a strict diet of sound bites — particularly in a country where just 14% of eighth graders are considered proficient in history, according to national testing.

Read more

There were a lot of things Putin said that a large cross-section of Western audiences would likely be learning for the first time. That the notion of Russia being a nuclear threat to the West is fear-mongering to extract more cash from US taxpayers for war. That Russia has always been open to negotiations with Ukraine, but that President Vladimir Zelensky has a decree prohibiting them. That former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, serving as Washington’s lapdog, intervened to stop a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine a year and a half ago. That the troubles in Ukraine started in 2013 when the Ukrainian president at the time refused an association agreement with the EU because it would effectively cause the trade border with its main partner, Russia, to close for Moscow’s fear of being flooded with the EU products coming into Ukraine. That Germany could choose to open the one remaining pipeline of Nord Stream 2 right now if it wanted to, and ease the pressure on its economy and people suffering from a deficit of cheap Russian gas — yet Berlin still chooses not to. That Russia has no territorial ambitions, and just wants the weapons to stop flowing into Ukraine and into the hands of neo-Nazis who remain unconstrained by Ukrainian legislation. That the only reason Russia would ever invade Poland or any other part of Europe is if Russia was attacked.

Finally, Carlson wrapped up with a plea for the release of Wall Street Journal reporter, Evan Gershkovich, imprisoned in Moscow on espionage charges. “I don’t know who he was working for. But I would like to reiterate that getting classified information in secret is called espionage. And he was working for the US special services, or some other agencies,” Putin said. During the Cold War, the Church Committee hearings in Washington found that dozens of American journalists had been used as spies for the CIA. It’s a convenient way for spies to get what they need while hanging someone else out to dry, and the activities can look the same. The difference is in who’s directing the activity (a media outlet or the government) and who’s the end consumer (a spy agency or the public). And it’s a practice that absolutely still continues today, as many journalists who have worked overseas can attest. It’s an unfortunate one, that NGOs have persistently pleaded with governments to stop. Without providing details, Putin suggested that’s what was going on here, and that the issue is being worked out between the US and Russian services. Not exactly the clear-cut narrative that’s being spoon-fed to the Western public.

The biggest achievement of Carlson’s Putin interview is arguably that it added some much-needed grey matter to the Western depiction of a black and white global landscape. The problem for the Western establishment is that grey areas are notoriously difficult to control, and hard to manipulate for the purpose of driving an agenda.

Медиа: image / jpeg

While overt belligerence no longer dominates the discourse over the island, Washington is very much gearing up for a confrontation

The year 2024 has been muted when it comes to tensions between the US and China so far. Despite the looming unpredictability of the US election, high politics in Washington has been overwhelmingly focused on Israel and Ukraine, and since Joe Biden and Xi Jinping met in San Francisco, things have been relatively calm between Washington and Beijing.

But that does not mean there is nothing going on underneath the surface. While the US has avoided high level antagonism with China for the time being, Washington’s ambition to contain Beijing, as well as preparing for a potential war over Taiwan, remains as steadfast as ever. Recently, it was reported that the US has permanently placed special forces in the Taiwan-governed island of Kinmen, where they are said to be training local soldiers.

Kinmen is essentially the last territory that can be considered ‘part of the mainland’ still ruled by Taiwan, officially known as ‘the Republic of China’. Located just 20 miles or so off the coast of Fujian province, it is isolated from the island of Taiwan itself and has subsequently become a target of Chinese retaliation against Taipei over the years, especially during the Mao era. In an invasion scenario, it is expected that Beijing would seize Kinmen Island first, making it a stepping stone and therefore the first line of defense.

Although the US formally committed in the three communiques with China in 1972 not to place soldiers on the island, it has gradually been undermining its commitment to the One-China policy by increasing military assistance to Taipei in various forms, despite claiming that it “does not support independence” in the process. In doing so, the US strategy has been to claim it supports the ‘status quo’, ‘opposes the use of force’, but nonetheless is attempting to move the goalposts in Taiwan’s favor by preventing reunification from occurring on Beijing’s terms.

Read more

This has been made vastly easier by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) repeatedly winning elections in Taiwan, even though it has lost control of the island’s legislative Yuan. China has nonetheless insisted that reunification will be completed, by force if necessary, and has aimed to put pressure on the island, advancing its own military presence and capabilities. The US in turn has moved to sell more and more weaponry to Taipei, attempting to hold back the change in the balance of power and communicate the message that conquest will come with severe costs for China, even if it succeeds.

For the US, the military stakes of losing Taiwan are incredibly high. While US support for Taiwan is communicated in the typical ideological terminology of ‘democracy’, in reality, the island’s fate will ultimately determine who is the hegemon of the Asia-Pacific. This is because Taiwan is an integral piece in the ‘first island chain’ which spans down all the way from the islands of Japan to the South China Sea. Whoever controls Taiwan island subsequently controls all the critical shipping lanes on China’s periphery, and this also can militarily checkmate Japan itself, which is precisely why Taiwan became Japan’s first colonial acquisition in 1895.

In other words, if Taiwan is lost, the South China Sea is also lost and therefore America’s ability to project military power in this area and against China itself is also severely reduced. The geopolitical effect of such an outcome is that the neighboring nations of Asia would ultimately be resigned to accepting Chinese dominance, with the role of the US reduced, allowing Beijing to subsequently build its own regional subsystem as was seen in the days of Imperial China. Thus, Taiwan itself has become a symbolic struggle over the region’s future and of course a matter of ‘destiny’ in terms of China’s own rise and revival, as framed by Xi Jinping.

Therefore, even as US-China tensions are not as high now as they were, the Taiwan issue is going to keep ticking with developments like this under the surface. We should not expect either side’s position on the issue to change, especially when the more provocative pro-independence president, William Lai, takes office. The US may not engage in extreme stunts such as Nancy Pelosi’s visit to the island again, but they will continue to move incrementally to change the status quo in a way to block reunification and stifle China’s ambitions, and Beijing will ultimately be forced to respond to that and contemplate how it can play its own hand, wary of the consequences it might face.

Медиа: image / jpeg

It’s no coincidence that Israel found cause to deprive the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency of funding right after the ICJ genocide ruling

After more than four months of a bombing campaign that has killed over 27,000 people in Gaza, Israel’s recent accusations that UNRWA employees were involved in Hamas’ October 7 insurgency led many Western nations to immediately cut critically needed funding.

This means the most vulnerable Palestinians – over 2 million people in Gaza, starving and in desperate need of medical care and shelter – will go without support from the UNRWA, the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency, when the current funding dries up. According to the UNRWA, this could be by the end of February, and, “not only in Gaza but also across the region.” The UNRWA also supports Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

Not coincidentally, the Israeli claims against 13 of the UNRWA’s 13,000 Gaza employees came immediately after the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. While the ICJ did not demand a halt to Israel’s relentless bombing throughout Gaza and firing on Palestinians lining up for food aid, it did order Israel to prevent genocide (which many, myself included, would say Israel has already been committing).

Under the ruling, Israel is to “take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” The body in place to do this is the UNRWA, but Israel wants to ensure it cannot operate.

Deflecting from the ICJ spotlight (and any media focus on genocide), Israel did the opposite of taking measures to address starvation in Gaza – it caused the UNRWA to lose its major funding. The UNRWA supports Palestinian refugees’ most basic needs, including food aid and healthcare, both urgently needed for Palestinians bombed continuously since October, without drinking water, without food, undergoing mass (preventable) starvation.

Read more

Additionally, many of the Palestinians requiring surgery or amputations due to injuries have undergone these procedures without anesthesia and in dank conditions causing further illness and disease. After Israel bombed nearly all of Gaza’s hospitals and attacked medical personnel and ambulances, all following a continuously tightened 16-year-long blockade, healthcare is all the more urgently needed in the enclave.

At the end of January 20, aid organizations issued a joint statement of outrage and concern over the cuts to the UNRWA, noting it will “impact life-saving assistance for over two million civilians, over half of whom are children... The population faces starvation, looming famine and an outbreak of disease under Israel’s continued indiscriminate bombardment and deliberate deprivation of aid in Gaza.”

The statement noted that 145 UNRWA facilities have been damaged by Israeli bombing. Many of these facilities are schools in which displaced Palestinians were sheltering. By this point, the attacks on such schools have been numerous, killing Palestinians who fled bombing elsewhere only to then be killed in what they thought might be off-limits to Israel – a UN school.

But as we have seen in previous Israeli bombardments, including during one of the two wars which I personally documented, such schools housing displaced Palestinian civilians are routinely targeted.

Over a million Palestinians are taking shelter “in or around 154 UNRWA shelters,” the statement said. “The countries suspending funds risk further depriving Palestinians in the region of essential food, water, medical assistance and supplies, education, and protection,” it added.

Where’s the evidence?

According to Israel, its claims that UNRWA workers were complicit in Hamas attacks are based on intelligence data. However, while a summary of the allegations was shared with media, the intelligence in question was never shown to the media, the public, or apparently even to Western officials.

As mentioned earlier, it isn’t coincidental that Israel sprung the accusations immediately after the ICJ ruling. But what some may not know is that even back in December, The Times of Israel reported that Israel is hoping to push the UNRWA out of Gaza post-war. The original source was a “high-level, classified Foreign Ministry report.”

The recommended plan apparently begins with “a comprehensive report on alleged UNRWA cooperation with Hamas.” This would be followed by replacing the UNRWA and transferring its responsibilities to “the body governing Gaza following the war.” It would seem that Israel has now started enacting this plan… after creating the conditions for mass starvation in Gaza.

Read more

Cutting aid funding while supporting terrorists elsewhere

Cutting funding to an agency providing desperately needed life basics to a population under siege is not only unethical – it also goes against UN convention and is inconsistent with the ICJ ruling (albeit the latter only applies to Israel).

American human rights lawyer and professor of international law Francis Boyle made this point recently, stating: “For the governments who did this, they are now in violation of article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention: ‘Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.’”

Boyle also made the point that the US and UK, among other Western countries, have been “aiding and abetting Israeli genocide against the Palestinians,” and that the US is “in violation of its own genocide convention implementation act.”

Let’s recall that the same Western nations (the US, UK, and Canada) that so hastily cut aid to the UNRWA were happy to fund the White Helmets in Syria, in spite of the abundance of evidence of their participation in crimes against Syrian civilians, as well as of the links at least some of them had with Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. Their backers wrote this off as “a few bad apples,” but don’t apply the same logic to the 13 Palestinian UNRWA employees (out of 13,000) in Gaza whom Israel condemns.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Africa’s human resource growth is a major concern for Europe and the US, who struggle to control it. But what are they so afraid of, and what’s their real goal?

Africa’s population is currently about 1.4 billion people; by 2050, that number is expected to be 2.5 billion and, by 2100, four billion. The continent’s population growth is a result of demographic transition: mortality rates are decreasing faster than birth rates, which causes exponential growth of the population in a number of regions.

There is nothing unusual or exclusive about Africa’s demographic transition. For example, in Europe, this transition occurred in the second half of the 19th century, though it went smoother: the population of Europe grew from 224 million in 1820 to 498 million in 1913.

The demographic transition in Africa is a result of decreasing infant mortality and increasing life expectancy, partly due to new medical solutions that help fight infections.

Myths and fears

Almost any analytical report on the situation in Africa starts with mentioning its population growth. These figures are usually followed by myths, falsifications and fears, which have influenced how some view the situation.

The greatest myth is the one about the overpopulation of Africa (and the entire world). For many, it is also their biggest fear. It is based on the misconception that the planet’s resources and space are running out, and there is not enough food and land for everyone. Another aspect is the racism which is deeply ingrained in the minds of many Europeans, who believe that the growing population of the Global South “will take our place.”

Read more

Reliability of the data

It is important to note that population growth rates mentioned by various sources cannot be considered totally reliable. In Africa, censuses are conducted rarely and selectively, and only some countries have electronic registers of citizens. Most of the data is based on field reports, and local authorities are more inclined to exaggerate the number of residents than conceal a possible population increase. Moreover, families are more likely to forget to register deaths than births, so the actual population growth rate may be slightly lower than reported.

However, international organizations that present the overpopulation of Africa as a serious threat ( African Development Bank, United Nations Population Fund and other) are quite satisfied with this situation. They rarely question the reliability of local data and readily include it in their reports.

Nevertheless, population growth in Africa is indeed rapid and huge in scale. The continent’s population increases by tens of millions of people per year, and these figures raise concern in good old Europe – concern that is based on deep-rooted fears and prejudices.

The Rwanda case

Rwanda survived a devastating genocide in 1994, and soon we will commemorate the 30th anniversary of those tragic events. Experts had long-ago reached a consensus as to who was responsible for the tragedy, which exposed some of the darkest parts of human nature. However, by the end of the 90s, different interpretations of what may have caused the genocide began to appear. Among these was the thesis of overpopulation and the social contradictions caused by it. The case of Rwanda was presented as a precursor of similar catastrophes in bigger “overpopulated” countries.

30 years have passed since then. Rwanda’s population has doubled and it remains one of Africa’s most densely-populated countries. However, it also has some of the best indicators of economic growth, and is an exemplary case of successful economic solutions – the country boasts some of the lowest hunger and unemployment rates on the continent. How come?

Population growth equals market growth

If the population density in Nigeria reaches that of modern-day Rwanda, it will be home to 450 million people and, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the population will reach 1.51 billion. However, the example of Rwanda has demonstrated that this doesn’t necessarily mean that the countries would be overpopulated.

In fact, three or four billion Africans will be better nourished than the current 1.4 billion. When the population in Ethiopia grew from 67 million to 126 million people, the number of regularly malnourished or hungry people decreased from 53% to 26%. One of the main reasons for this was the development of domestic food production and infrastructure, which would’ve been impossible without the growth of the population and the resulting market growth.

An important question comes up when we consider the predicted surge in Africa’s population: where will all these people work? There is still no clear and brief answer, but it is definitely tied to the development of domestic markets.

Moreover, if the quality of life in African cities continues to grow and work is available, Africans will no longer need to migrate to cold and unfriendly Europe, with its near-zero economic growth.

Read more

Growth limits

Some people in Europe believe that Africa’s population growth can help with the decline in the “aging” Northern Hemisphere. This sound idea contradicts the myth of “Africa’s demographic bomb” posing a threat to humanity.

However, statistics show that only 540,000 people migrate from Africa every year, at the birth rate of 46 million per year, and mortality rate of 12 million per year. This means that 99% of the population growth affects only the African continent. It also means that, for better or for worse, Africa will have to deal with the issue on its own. The rest of the world has nothing to fear – and nothing to hope for.

The population growth is a boon and an advantage for Africa, and no one else.

Food security

Of course, there is no reason to definitively claim that an increase in population density directly leads to improved food security. The level of food security depends on many factors, including global supply, the availability and accessibility of infrastructure and information, the efficient work of government structures, international assistance, and armed conflicts.

However, there is definitely no indication that a larger population is more prone to suffer from hunger. The fertile land-man ratio is higher than the global average in many African countries affected by food insecurity. The lack of irrigation systems, fertilizers, machinery, technology, skills, and, most importantly, investments, lead to low agricultural productivity, poverty, and hunger.

All this means that population growth – not in itself, but when combined with the due infrastructural and governance solutions may be part of a solution aimed at eliminating the problem of hunger in Africa.

The West disapproves

The West consistently acts in favor of reducing birth rates. The systematic increase in the cost of raising a child, the restriction of parental rights, the reduction of financial benefits for mothers – all these are policies and measures indirectly aimed at reducing birth rates in Europe (and, with certain exceptions, in the US). And that’s not to mention the propaganda of LGBT ideas, childlessness, and gender reassignment, which also affects birth rates.

The same ideas intended to limit birth rates are then exported to the South. In the West, birth rates steadily decreased most likely under the influence of growing prosperity and (in this case, real) historical overpopulation. Europe’s rejection of traditional values affirmed the transition to the concept of “one child after 30” (and not necessarily one’s biological child). However, the “export” of such “new ethics” to Africa is meant to control birth rates there in advance – before the continent attains the desired level of prosperity and population density.

Why would the West do that? We don’t know for sure. However, the increasing global influence of the Global South and the emergence of such an actor as the “global majority” is tied to population growth. The continuous decline in the population of Europe and the US will eventually lead to their respective political and economic declines, while growing migration will increase their political and cultural dependence on the Global South.

We should bear in mind that Western colonialism developed at a time when Europe maintained demographic dominance over the rest of a world that was sparsely populated. Now, when Europe is able to accept and integrate barely 1% of Africa’s growing population, the West is losing its grip on power – and this is partly due to the decline in and aging of its own population.

Read more

Population growth in Africa and Asia accelerates and reinforces Europe’s inevitable decline. Therefore, Europe is interested in stopping this growth and preserving the world’s current demographic balance. And it will resort to any means to achieve this.

Russia’s interest

Russia may well be the only global power in the world that is interested in the growth of Africa’s population, as is naturally indicated by demographic transition.

Of course, just like Europe, Russia is interested in accepting migrants from Africa. This isn’t only due to the country’s aging population and low birth rates, but due to our vast territories that are becoming habitable because of global warming, and need to be developed. However, migration is unlikely to ever become the key aspect of our relations with Africa.

Russia does not want a unipolar world order that operates by NATO’s rules. Neither does it want a bipolar world bound by the confrontation between Beijing and Washington. We feel comfortable in a world that has many flexible “centers” with their own spheres of influence – and this concept is also familiar and understandable to Africans. In order for this to happen, the significance of Africa – i.e. the continent with its decision-making centers and the individual countries within it – must increase. Africa’s strength and future depends on the growth and youth of its population – and Russia is interested in this growth more than anyone else.

Медиа: image / jpeg

A massive explosion of interest in the pop sensation’s love life has triggered a surge in conspiracy theories. Do any have merit?

Psyop: a military operation usually aimed at influencing the enemy’s state of mind through noncombative means (such as distribution of leaflets).

Even if you’re no fan of pop superstar Taylor Swift, it’s nearly impossible that you have not seen her image splashed across the paparazzi mags and on television screens in the last several months.

As ZeroHedge reported, “story count in corporate media for Swift has exponentially exploded, averaging above 1,000 per day since late September.” A slim majority of US adults (53%) identified as fans of Swift, according to a recent Morning Consult survey, while 16% identified as “avid” fans of the “Anti-Hero” singer.

The singing sensation recently maximized her persona by hooking up with Travis Kelce, a tight end with the Kansas City Chiefs American football team. And as whimsical fate would have it, wouldn’t you know that the Chiefs are on the road to the Super Bowl, the most celebrated sporting pageant in the US? These days, football announcers spend almost as much time covering Swift’s zany antics from the stands cheering her man as they do covering the action on the field.

But many people on the right think there is something too contrived, too stage-managed, too polished and picture-perfect about this American Love Story, as though some powerful puppet-master was manipulating the made-for-TV saga from high above. In fact, none other than former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy suggested that Swift and Kelce’s relationship paved the way for some free Democratic Party advertising.

Read more

“I wonder who’s going to win the Super Bowl next month. And I wonder if there’s a major presidential endorsement coming from an artificially culturally propped-up couple this fall,” Ramaswamy wrote on X (formerly Twitter).

One name who has got the Republicans up in arms is George Soros, who seems to have played a part in Swift’s career, albeit briefly. In much the same way that Soros invests in liberal district attorneys in Blue states around the USA, it seems the powerful financier has a soft spot in his heart for pop divas as well. In 2019, Swift attacked Soros and the “toxic male privilege” in the music industry, alleging that the billionaire had bought out her music catalog by backdoor shenanigans.

“After I was denied the chance to purchase my music outright, my entire catalog was sold to Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings in a deal that I’m told was funded by the Soros family, 23 Capital and the Carlyle Group,” Swift revealed at the Billboard Woman of the Decade awards.

23 Capital is a financing firm backed by Soros Fund Management, while in 1993 Soros invested $100 million in the Carlyle Group, the shady firm that was awarded million-dollar contracts to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure that the Pentagon destroyed during its 2003 invasion. Regarding Swift’s catalog, she reportedly won it back after she re-recorded the entire body of work. Were there any stipulations attached to Swift winning back her work, like perhaps promoting the Democratic Party, and more specifically Joe Biden? Nobody can say for sure, but theorists suspect Swift could be connected to another powerful entity as well.

Few people would expect to find the names Pentagon and Taylor Swift in the same sentence, but that’s what happened at a 2019 conference held by NATO CCD COE (officially the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence), located in Tallinn, Estonia. As it turned out, the Pentagon’s psychological unit used Swift as an example for confronting on-line ‘misinformation.’

“The most common method is working with famous people,” said Alicia Marie Bargar of John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. “I include Taylor Swift here because she’s a fairly influential on-line person…This is a cropped image but she’s standing next to a ‘Go Vote’ sign. And actually celebrities, at least in the US, will regularly post pictures of themselves with an encouragement for people to go vote and that has a measurable effect on voter turnout.”

In August 2019, just months before Swift publicly denounced Soros, who was holding the golden key to her musical fortune, the Pentagon was holding up Swift as a prime example on how to sway popular opinion towards a particular idea or agenda, and not just those related to military matters. After all, with Trump’s brash pronouncements about slashing or even terminating NATO were he voted back into the White House, there is certainly no small incentive on the part of powerful folks to make sure that Biden gets reelected. And this is where an insanely famous and influential person like Swift and her football-star boyfriend enter the picture.

Many commenters are of the opinion that the romance between Swift and Kelce (who, incidentally, featured in a vaccine promotional ad for Pfizer), is a carefully scripted love story designed to influence one or more events. Naturally, it is impossible to provide proof of such things. For the conspiracy theorists, however, the fact that the Pentagon and George Soros are mentioned together with the pop star is enough to confirm their darkest suspicions.

Read more

But let’s back up here. As far as anybody knows, Swift’s relationship with Soros ended when she won back ownership of her song collection, while the NATO psyop team only mentioned the diva as an example of someone who fits the bill as a potential ‘agent provocateur.’ What we do know is that US President Joe Biden is apparently pursuing an endorsement from Swift ahead of November’s election. And it’s not difficult to understand why.

Last year, a single social media post from Swift led to the registration of 35,000 new voters in the US, the New York Times reports, and Democrats are certainly eager to weaponize her estimated 280 million Instagram followers as Biden’s popularity continues to plummet.

Of course, these seemingly damning connections could be nothing more than mere coincidence and happenchance, the fever dreams of the conspiracy theorists. The potentially painful reality is that Taylor Swift’s sudden climb in the popularity charts, alongside her boyfriend, is due to a completely natural romance. As for Biden and the democrat-leaning media, they are only too happy to exploit the lovebirds for their own political gain, much as the Republicans would do if the tables were turned.

Perhaps the worst thing that could happen to Trump and the MAGA bandwagon at this stage is for Swift to appear in a Super Bowl commercial (which are oftentimes more watchable than the game itself) or in the half-time show, where she belts out to the fireworks and light display, possibly with Kelce at her side, or even old Joe Biden, “Get out and vote!” So long as there is no humiliating “Let’s go Brandon!” retort from the increasingly disenchanted audience, it could be the unexpected silver bullet that sinks Trump’s presidential ambitions once and for all.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Carefully chosen words and turns of phrase serve as lubricant for US-backed military machines

With Israel’s punitive operation against Gaza now in its fourth month, it’s impossible not to compare Western outrage regarding other conflicts with the selective morality now being applied when dealing with Israel.

Even the briefest assessment of how the West’s innumerable wars have been portrayed in a client media quickly yields irrefutable evidence that the marketing of conflicts, as justified by Western powers, is central to their continued legitimization.

Since the Second World War, the US has been directly and indirectly involved in dozens of wars and coups d'état alongside innumerable covert and overt conflicts across the globe. Given the vast resources required to perpetuate this aggressive global mechanism of influence, its important to recognize that the taxpayers being asked to fund these “forever wars” may never have gone along with them without the assistance and covert alignment of a client media.

Language and terminology are, of course, a central and fundamental element when you need to portray a war as morally acceptable. This is glaringly obvious when we examine how Western media are portraying the current escalation in Gaza. American and British media subtly portray victims on one side as more expendable as opposed to the other, for example, by referring to Israeli casualties as having been “killed” while Palestinian ones are described as having simply “died”, while minors held captive by Israel, who have been detained without trial in some cases for several years, are referred to as “prisoners” while Israelis held by Hamas are referred to as “hostages.”

Read more

This willful deployment of language to sterilize and dehumanize a victim, or indeed an entire ethnicity, is by no means accidental. It is an essential element of a psychological endeavor to tip the scales in the viewers’ (physically far removed from the conflict) subconscious calculation of culpability. It’s simple to consider the elimination of “terrorists” as justifiable, whereas the mass killing of many thousands of defenseless children, women, and sick and elderly people is a far harder task to sell to an increasingly informed Western public.

The manipulation of the Western client media is by no means a departure from the norm. Current consumers of “trustworthy” news in the West should recall the CIA’s widespread use of journalists, both at home and abroad, to influence public opinion in the 1960s, widely believed to be part of ‘ Operation Mockingbird’, a labyrinthine and vastly resourced operation which set out to influence the messaging of the mainstream media. While the existence of that particular operation was never confirmed, the CIA’s past efforts to recruit journalists – hundreds of them, both at home and abroad – was exposed in a US Senate investigation.

Today, given the eye-watering price tag for the proxy war in Ukraine, the average observer would be exceptionally naive to presume that similar influence is not currently being applied to the media when it comes to the justification of conflicts and the vilification of perceived “enemies” of Uncle Sam, such as Russia and China. It’s worth remembering that we’re talking about media outlets that rely almost exclusively on “good relations” with the White House and Downing Street to access “leaked” information and stay on the “inside track” of the news business. Dirty your bib once by asking the wrong question, and it’s into the information wilderness with you. It’s not called the “spoon fed narrative” for nothing.

Examining the language around the conflict in Ukraine provides a good idea about how a bias is instilled in the viewer and the reader. Despite the complex and long-running issues that contributed to the Russian intervention in 2022, the Western media opts for a shamelessly one-sided narrative, intentionally apportioning exclusive culpability to Russia. The dehumanization of living and dead Russians seems to be a keystone of this tactic alongside selective revisions of history. The indefensible failure of a media that touts itself as the champion of equality and freedom to tackle the essentially xenophobic impulse that forms the core of this strategy, speaks volumes.

Anyone watching the ebb and flow of Western coverage of the Ukrainian conflict will notice the emergence of a centrally formed, “fact-light” narrative that suggests Ukrainians are utterly blameless, in a conflict which did not, in fact, begin on February 24, 2022, but with a CIA-back coup in Kiev in 2014, powered by ultra-nationalists and the far right. Its roots stretch even deeper, decades back, to the attempts at the destabilization of the Ukrainian SSR by Western intelligence agencies.

Of course, the Western viewer is conveniently spared such details. The skill of deceit by omission of fact has been well honed by the likes of the BBC and CNN. Additionally, the Western media has also been adept at memory-holing Kiev’s crimes against its own people in the aftermath of the 2014 Maidan coup. There is no space to report the gross corruption, the punitive neo-Nazi battalions unleashed on the Donbass region, or the murder, abduction and rape deployed against the Russian-speaking populations who refused to accept the illegitimate mandate of the post-Maidan government.

Read more

So, while The Western media gleefully attaches itself to this centralized narrative, there are very hard questions to be asked about the motivations and psychological tools being used in licensing and peddling the justification of war, and when it comes to Palestine, one of these uncomfortable realities is the deployment of subconscious racism.

Let’s look at the convenient demonization of Islam. It is by no means an accident that the majority of victims of America’s catastrophic post-9/11 “war on terror” were Muslim. Decades of demonization of Islam as a savage religion bent on world domination have had a subconscious effect on the “collective mind” of the West. This is then energetically exploited by the Western media as required.

When Syrian and African refugees from wars stimulated by the Western powers sought refuge in Europe, they were met with protest and in many cases violent objection. However, when it came to the Ukrainian conflict, some Western commentators openly talked about the fact that the Ukrainian refugees “looked like us,” that they could be “our own people,” that they were blonde-haired and blue-eyed. It was a jarring display of how Ukrainians are treated as fellow human beings while thousands of brown Muslims drowning in the Mediterranean struggle to hold column inches in the same newspapers.

The intimate relationship between the client media and the military industrial complex also requires deep investigation and analysis. Media empires such as Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp exert vast and overwhelming influence on the public discourse when it comes to the justification of war. The relationship between the critically important military industrial complex and the creation of a defensible war narrative is undeniable yet persistently denied. So as the world shifts its gaze from Ukraine towards the Middle East, it’s remarkable how quickly the Ukrainian conflict has slipped from the top of the news feeds in the West. It’s also remarkable how criticism of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has become suddenly acceptable, whereas the same criticism only months ago was universally suppressed in the Western media.

All of this also suggests that a sinister centralized narrative is being deployed in the interest of a political will rather than in a search for truth by the establishment media. Any objective observer has to work very hard to convince themselves that the media is not now playing a critical role in the justification of the conflict “of the day.” Willful misrepresentation of one group as opposed to another, the crafty selective deployment of history in the cultivation of narratives, and the poorly veiled use of racism to describe one side as essentially culpable for their own brutal treatment by the other.

It now seems shockingly obvious that the Western media is determined to suppress any informed debate around the rationale for conflict when that conflict emanates from the US or one of its clients or allies. It is also now increasingly apparent that even when established media changes its tune, it does so to lubricate a pre-agreed political shift in direction, as is currently happening in Ukraine. Western media outlets like the Washington Post, the New York Times, and The Independent in the UK are now openly portraying a Ukrainian regime on the verge of collapse. The much-vaunted Ukrainian “counteroffensive,” once incessantly peddled by the media as a “game-changing” maneuver led by brilliant minds and fought with unassailable Western weaponry, has now become a source of open derision.

What would have been unthinkable to point out merely months ago, has now become mainstream. Detailed reporting has miraculously emerged from “anonymous sources” about the fractious nature of President Zelensky’s regime, and Shakespearean intrigue in Kiev as Armed Forces Chief Zaluzhny faces off with the endemically corrupt Ukrainian establishment. This narrative has suddenly become acceptable to the client media in the West. Does anybody actually believe that this shift in opinion has not been centrally okayed or fashioned? Given the history of the American intelligence services’ intimate relationship with the media in the US and beyond, anyone who believes the CIA’s DNA isn’t all over this sea change in reporting is exceptionally naive.

The playbook for licensing war is actually quite simple. First, demonize your enemy – call him an orc, call him a terrorist, cultivate fear among your own population and convince it that its enemy is not the grossly incompetent government that consistently spends billions of its tax dollars on foreign wars, but the peoples of far-off lands who most likely suffer their own privations due to those very same perpetual wars.

Read more

Then, convince the taxpayers that the political elites they elect are blameless in these wars and economic policies of domination, which have led to vast migrant crises such as the huge droves of individuals pouring across the southern border of the US. Does anybody suggest that American foreign policy has had no bearing on these mass movements of people? Does anybody suggest that the migrants dying in their thousands in the Mediterranean Sea as they clamor desperately for a better life in Europe have not been driven there by the innumerable wars in the Middle East? These wars are fought against almost exclusively Islamic communities and countries which have become hardened and radicalized, not necessarily by the religion itself, but by the vacuous and idiotic foreign policies which sprang from Western meddling and interference in the Middle East over centuries.

For those of us who wish for a just peace and an end to forever wars, there is an absolute obligation to challenge the client media’s deceptive licensing of conflict. These needless wars impoverish and immiserate not only the victims but the duped populations of the countries from which they emanate. It is, after all, Western taxpayers that unwittingly fund this grotesque circular profit mill, a meat grinder that sucks in human lives and spits out vast wealth for a tiny elite, the same tiny elite intimately related to the political class seeking to justify those needless conflicts. All licensed and peddled as morally defensible by the ever loyal client media.

Медиа: image / jpeg

It has long been on the minds of doomsday preppers and fiction media creators alike – but how likely is it, really?

Let’s sketch a big country in three broad strokes:

First, its population is over 333 million. These citizens privately own about (or at least) 339 million guns. They are unique in that no other state in the world has more private guns than people. They easily outdistance, for instance, Yemen, a country with a martial culture that has gone through years of civil war and yet there are only about 53 firearms per 100 inhabitants.

Second, polarization is unusually high and virulent: As of 2020 already, a political scientist at one of America’s most prestigious universities, found that “ political polarization among Americans has grown rapidly in the last 40 years — more than in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia or Germany,” for instance. The result: America is special, but not in a good way. “None of the wealthy, consolidated democracies of East Asia, Oceania, or Western Europe,” a 2022 paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace pointed out, “have faced similar levels of polarization for such an extended period.”

Last year, another Carnegie Endowment paper found that even while some of the perception of polarization on specific policy questions (such as gun control or abortion) is exaggerated, that perception itself is detrimental to the country’s cohesion. Because “the people who are most involved in civic and political life hold the least accurate [here meaning: highly negative] views of the other side’s beliefs” and there is a high degree of what political scientists call “ affective polarization.” Put simply, all or many of those citizens, collectively hoarding so many guns that over 40% of households are armed in one way or the other, do not like or even merely respect “the other side” of the political spectrum – not at all and ever less.

Third, the country also displays a pronounced cultural preoccupation, really almost obsession, not merely with the idea of civil war as such or the specific history of its own very bloody civil war in the nineteenth century. Rather its elites and general population are fixated on a coming civil war, which, as of 2022, a whopping 43 percent considered likely in the next ten years. Debates, high-brow books, articles, and popular culture feature this fantasy prominently and persistently.

Read more

We are talking, of course, about the United States of America. While it would be easy to adduce more criteria and data points, there is no need. The above is sufficient to demonstrate that it would be shortsighted to pooh-pooh the risk of a second civil war in America, for two reasons: It is not a mere fantasy, owing its current national resonance to “hype” and the titillation of imagining a liberatingly apocalyptic future of chaos and every man and woman for themselves (and, in the US, I guess, every other gender that wishes to participate).

Smart Americans realize this as well. Barbara F. Walter, for instance, is a prominent political scientist who has worked extensively with the CIA to develop a model of civil war predictors, for any country but the US, of course. She has now come to warn that the model begins to fit America itself disturbingly well. She may have her centrist biases – the usual exaggeration of “Russian influence” included – but her core points are valid: The US is turning into an anocracy, that is, in essence, a regime that only pretends to be a democracy. (In fact, that is what it has always been, I would contend.) And there is a substantial constituency of those who feel threatened by losing their former social status and preeminence. Those happen to be phenomena strongly correlated with a risk of civil war.

Let’s also not forget that America is proving its enormous capacity for global disruption every day, even without civil war at home. While some observers may – even gleefully – hope that Americans fighting each other would finally have to let go of the rest of us, that is a very dicey bet. With an elite narcissistically obsessed with global “primacy” and “indispensability,” about 800 bases worldwide, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads, and a nasty habit of blaming others for its own failures, a new American civil war would not exclude aggression abroad. Moreover, declining as it is, the US is still a key part of the global economy, much more so than in 1860, when its first civil war already had serious repercussions for the rest of the world.

In sum, it may attract preppers with camo baseball hats, beards, and pump guns, but don’t let that fool you: American Civil War 2.0 is a serious issue. So, what about it? What can we reasonably guess about how likely it really is and what shape it might take if it happens?

Read more

To start with the latter question, perhaps the first thing to note is that big civil wars can start small and local. That is, by the way, the real significance of the recent, open tensions over migration and border control between the state of Texas and the federal government in Washington. They did involve armed forces and much foreboding rhetoric, but, fortunately, no shots were fired. Yet those glibly dismissing the incident as mere political theater are wrong. Because, as the New York Times has noted, it was not only Texas that defied the US government. Rather, “many Republican state leaders publicly expressed defiance in terms that echoed armed conflicts.”

Indeed, the second thing to note is that, due to America’s federal structure, a new civil war would most likely begin with secession. In the fracas between Washington and Texas, 25 Republican governors openly sided with rebellious Texas. This was a perfect illustration of how one local flashpoint could quickly suck in the rest of the country by creating a logic of ultimate polarization and then secession. This logic has not yet fully unfolded. Its contours, however, have emerged clearly.

It is worth noting that many of the fiction narratives about Civil War 2.0 make the same point: Whether it is the cult graphic novel series “DMZ,” the bitterly ironic novel “American War” (it’s obvious in-joke is that it has some Americans treat other Americans the way Americans and Israelis now treat Palestinians, Iraqis, or Syrians), the small-budget yet clever movie “Bushwick,” or the big-budget “Civil War” about to hit American cinemas now: Again and again the basic premise is a scenario of secession escalating into massive domestic warfare.

Third, while the humongous pile of private firearms would certainly play a large role in a new civil war, it would be misguided to assume that such a fight would only pit gangs of private citizens, organized in militias, against official police and military forces. In reality, a dynamic of secession, once set in motion would lead to parts of the US’s manifold “siloviki” choosing their own allegiance, splitting, and starting to fight each other. If you believe that, in such a situation, the formal chains of command ultimately linking them all back to Washington would remain intact, I have a whole-and-indivisible Yugoslavia to sell you.

Read more

And, last but not least, in such a development, the war would be both severe and long. In that respect, it would resemble the first Civil War. Although, due to advanced technologies and declining inhibitions, it could be even more devastating and cruel. In Netflix’s recent and tellingly successful “Leave the World Behind,” the protagonists never learn who exactly is blowing up their country, but by the end of the movie two things seem reasonably clear: No, it’s not enemies from outside, but an inside job, and nukes are being used. That, by the way, was the premise as well of the earlier, initially unsuccessful but now cult television show “Jericho.”

How likely is such a dark future? Obviously, we do not know. But let’s note two things: We could, a priori, be looking at an America where no one is much interested in thinking about it. Yet we are seeing the opposite. If you think that means nothing, fine. Just don’t mistake your guess for a good policy or planning basis.

There are, of course, alternatives to civil war. One is peaceful de-polarization under the current anocratic conditions, which, hypothetically, can happen. The other is full-blown authoritarianism: one way to suppress the possibility of a civil war is to impose dictatorship.

But here’s the catch: A country can end up with both civil war and dictatorship. Ask the ancient Romans. Those Romans, that is, who were so much on the mind of the founders of the American Republic.

Медиа: image / jpeg

In my recent visit, I met with people who once fought a bitter war against Moscow, but are now the country’s fiercest defenders

Over the course of 24 days – from December 28 to January 20 – I was able to take in the sights and sounds of Moscow and Saint Petersburg, as these two cities celebrated both the New Year and Russian Orthodox Christmas (I also got to experience the freezing cold of the Russian winter, which was very much part of the experience!)

I viewed my winter sojourn in Russia as an extension of the journey I began in May 2023, when I embarked on a mission of trying to discover the country's essence in a manner that could be made discernible to my fellow Americans as sort of an antidote to the poison of Russophobia. The combined experiences of observing the Christmas Eve service hosted by Kirill, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in the center of Moscow and watching Pyotr Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker performed live in St. Petersburg’s renowned Mikhailosky Theatre on Christmas Day, January 7, helped ground me in the importance of family and culture in the lives of the Russian people.

Russia’s mettle, however, can't be measured by its social and cultural accomplishments alone. The true test of a people comes only when the foundation of their society is threatened, and the nation is called upon to rally together in its collective defense. Amidst all the holiday celebration and fanfare that I witnessed there lurked an underlying reality that Russia was very much a nation at war. This war was defined in the mindset of those people I met not so much in terms of a Russian-Ukrainian conflict as it was an existential struggle between Russia and the collective West – led by the US – in which Ukraine is being used as a proxy.

Read more

Let there be no doubt, everyone I spoke with about this conflict was weary. They wanted the fighting to end, and to be able to get on with their lives. But they were all likewise united in their conviction that the war could only end in a Russian victory that resolved once and for all the issues that underpinned the current conflict – blocking NATO expansion into Ukraine, eliminating a Ukrainian armed force that has become a de facto extension of NATO military power, and the extermination of the odious ideology of Ukrainian ultra-nationalism as defined by the legacy of Stepan Bandera and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.

To a person, the Russians I spoke with were insistent that the time for compromise had long passed and that, given the investment in blood and treasure that Moscow had made to date, there is no alternative to a decisive victory. Yes, the Russian people are tired, but they also understand that the war is a necessary evil which has to be endured all the way to a final comprehensive victory if there is ever to be a chance of a lasting peace. I was able to glimpse the character of the Russian people during the portions of my sojourn to Russia that took me out of its two largest metropolitan centers, and to the south of the country – into what I have come to call the “Russian Path of Redemption” – Chechnya, Crimea, Kherson, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, and Lugansk.

Redemption is the action of saving or being saved from sin, error, or evil. In the case of Russia’s conflict with Kiev, the six named territories all play a role that precisely matches this definition. Of them, Chechnya stands out as having no geographic, historic, ethic, religious, or political connection with Ukraine. And yet it is with Chechnya that the Russian Path of Redemption begins.

It was the scene of two bloody wars between Moscow and separatists fought between 1994 and the early 2000s (with the final counter-guerilla operations concluding in 2009) that killed tens of thousands of people. The fighting that transpired was bloody and ruthless; little mercy was shown by either side. By 2002, Chechnya’s capital city, Grozny, had been completely leveled.

The rancor and bitterness produced by a conflict that witnessed so much violence between people with different religions, cultures, and languages made the notion of reconciliation all but impossible to imagine. Add to this was the fact that the Chechens possessed a history that lent itself to prejudice and resentment against the Russians, even without the horrors of the two wars. The exile of the Chechen people by Joseph Stalin's Soviet government during the Second World War saw nearly 610,000 Chechen and Ingush forcibly evicted from their homes and relocated to Central Asia, where nearly a quarter of them died due to poor conditions. The survivors were allowed to return to their homeland in 1957, following Nikita Khrushchev's reforms. But the resentment generated by the years of suffering was passed down through the generations that followed.

Read more

And yet, despite all the negative energy generated by the tragic history of Russian-Chechen relations, the two peoples have found a pathway to peace and prosperity. A visitor to Grozny today is greeted by a city that has been completely rebuilt from the ruins, a place where Russians and Chechens live side-by-side in peace, respectful of their respective linguistic, cultural, and religious differences. I call this transformation “the Chechen miracle”, and yet divine intervention had nothing to do with it. Instead, the Chechen and Russian people were blessed by the leadership of two remarkable men – Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the Chief Mufti (religious leader) of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Akhmad Kadyrov – who realized that continued violence would only hurt the people they were tasked with serving, and that the best chance for peace was for the two to sit down a talk in an effort to find a pathway to peace.

They succeeded.

Today, throughout the Chechen Republic, the visages of Vladimir Putin and Akhmad Kadyrov can be seen on display, side-by-side, in recognition of the role both men played in overcoming the history of violence, mistrust, and resentment that had defined the relationship, and instead forging a new path forward governed by the notion of mutual respect and shared prosperity. The success of their joint work is manifest in the fact that while the Chechen people today maintain their distinct identity, defined in large part by the Muslim faith, they very much identify themselves as being part of the Russian Federation, something that was unthinkable back in the 1990’s when they fought for independence from Russia.

While in Chechnya, I had the opportunity to meet with several prominent Chechen figures, including former deputy interior minister Apti Alaudinov, State Duma member Adam Delimkhanov, chairman of the Chechen republican parliament Magomed Daudov, and the head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov. What these four individuals all had in common was that, at some point in their lives, they had taken up arms against Russia. But they were also united in the fact that, at some point during their resistance against Russia during the Second Chechen War, they realized that the cause of an independent Chechen Republic had been hijacked by foreign jihadists whose passion for violence had superseded any logical notion of Chechen nationalism, and instead created the conditions where continued conflict threatened to consume the Chechen people.

“We have witnessed for ourselves how outside parties sought to infect us with their foreign ideology in order to further their larger struggle against Russia,” I was told. “We ended up realizing that the best way to protect ourselves from being destroyed by these foreign agents was to align ourselves with Russia. In doing so, we discovered that the Russians shared our same desire to live in peace, free from outside manipulation. This is why we have made fighting alongside Russia in the Special Military Operation such a high priority. We see in the Banderist forces in Ukraine the same evil that we saw in the foreign jihadists who came to fight in Chechnya. We worked with Russia to destroy this evil back in the early 2000’s, and today we are working with our Russian brothers to destroy the same evil as it has been manifested in Ukraine.”

Read more

Actions speak louder than words. Daudov was responsible for organizing, training, and dispatching formations of Chechen fighters to the Donbass, where they played a central role in the liberation of Lugansk, the siege of Mariupol, and in the heavy fighting that took place in Zaporozhye and Donetsk. Delemkhanov commanded Chechen forces in Mariupol, and Alaudinov was given command of joint Russian-Chechen forces in Lugansk, where the courage and commitment of the Chechen soldiers played a major role in Russia’s battlefield victories. In conversations over lunch, Ramzan Kadyrov underscored the narrative described by each of these Chechen leaders – that the Chechens considered themselves to be part of the Russian nation and would willingly sacrifice themselves in defense of Russia. And, as if to drive this point home, Ramzan Kadyrov invited me to join him on stage after lunch as he addressed the 25,000-strong Grozny garrison about the conflict in Ukraine.

If someone had suggested in 2002 that there would come a time in the not-to-distant future where 25,000 Chechen warriors could be assembled in Grozny not for the purpose of fighting against the Russians, but instead fighting side-by-side with the Russians against a common enemy, they would have been dismissed as delusional. And yet I bore personal witness to this very phenomenon, watching in amazement as Ramzan Kadyrov exhorted these heavily armed men to fight for the memory of his father, for their faith, and for the cause of greater Russia.

The Chechen miracle is the living manifestation of Russian redemption.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The unelected European Commission head made her priorities crystal clear by praising another cash dump on Ukraine

“Agreement! The European Council delivered on our priorities. Supporting Ukraine…. A good day for Europe,” tweeted unelected European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Thursday, as EU farmers “high-fived” her by throwing eggs, lighting fires and dumping manure in Brussels, where a reported 1,300 tractors had gathered in protest.

Surely it must have been in anticipation of this “great day for Europe” that Brussels rolled out the barbed wire to keep the bloc’s own struggling farmers at bay while its leaders cut yet another check for Ukraine — after threatening the one anticipated holdout with national economic “blackmail,” as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban qualified it. It’s hard to believe that this meeting actually took place in Brussels. These officials are so disconnected from reality that it may as well have been held on a whole other planet.

Unlike the Ukrainian products making their way onto Western European dinner plates to stick it to Russian President Vladimir Putin (because turtlenecks and short, cold showers apparently failed to do the job), this crisis is certifiably EU-made. No one knows this better than the farmers, who also realize that it makes more sense to blockade the streets of Brussels than the national highways of their home countries, which they’ve been doing with overwhelming public support – from nine out of every ten citizens in the case of France, according to a recent Odoxa poll.

It was the EU with its climate change obsession that imposed a Common Agricultural Policy on farmers across the entire bloc, managed by bureaucrats divorced from the reality on the ground. Pencil pushers use EU Copernicus satellite images to spy and crack down on farmers whose paperwork doesn’t match – even if any discrepancies can be chalked up to uncontrollable but temporary conditions like the weather.

It was also the EU that piled on regulations under the pretext of ensuring the quality of farm products, while at the same time flooding the bloc with grain, poultry, and other imports from Ukraine. Does “Chernobyl chicken” mass-produced by workers who are paid a pittance represent a threat to the physical health of citizens and economic health of farmers? If not, then why can’t Brussels take its jackboot off the necks of its own farmers so they can compete on a level playing field? The EU has also suddenly decided to ease up on some pesticide bans, angering greens. Paris is promoting the idea that ideologically-driven bans need to end, which seems like a tacit admission of their uselessness. So what should we be more worried about now – ideologically-driven authoritarianism under the guise of health consciousness, or an actual health threat?

Read more

And what about that Ukrainian grain that EU officials demanded Russia unblock to feed the poor in developing countries? It turns out that Turkey and Russia were right when they raised the alarm about it just being dumped right next door in Europe, and it sounds like Russian President Vladimir Putin was effectively a bigger defender of EU farmers’ interests than Brussels was. But who’s even surprised anymore by Brussels’ misplaced priorities, given the image that has now emerged of another €50 billion ($54 billion) going out the door to Kiev, in support of a country that’s undercutting the EU’s own farmers without even being in the EU itself?

It was also the EU that screwed itself, its entire population, industry, and farmers out of cheap Russian energy, driving inflation that caused consumers to turn to cheaper food products and, in turn, driving industrial distributors to buy more cheaply, favoring Ukrainian imports. French President Emmanuel Macron said that he’d now be merciless with those industrials, as he limbers up to toss them under the tractors instead of taking responsibility for his own inaction or blaming Brussels for a top-down anti-Russia policy that’s doing far more harm than good.

The farmers’ problems are existential. And while some French farming union chiefs have called for the suspension of blockades in light of the most recent series of promised reforms announced by Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, it’s not clear whether the rank and file will actually listen in the long term. These are people who don’t talk much, but when they do, they’re direct and concrete. As one farmer told me, “Our feet may be in the dirt, but the dirt is clean” – in contrast to some politicians who have different narratives depending on their audience. Even with the suspension of the blockades on Friday, union reps admit that if government action and implementation doesn’t follow shortly, then the blowback from the same farmers risks being “catastrophic.”

For many farmers I’ve spoken with, it’s far too little, and way too late. The average French farmer’s income, estimated by government statistics back in 2021 at around €17,700 a year (for people who regularly work 70 hours a week), has since been subjected to even more blows. Yet governments have insisted on milking this particular cow until there’s nothing left. How else to explain the careless decision to raise taxes on farm fuel by 3 cents a liter, every year, and the insistence on maintaining such a policy at a time when the price of energy had skyrocketed as a result of knee-jerk anti-Russian ideological choices imposed by the EU? Until the tractors spilled onto the highways in France, Paris showed no interest in reversing this tax policy, which was implemented to drive the “green transition” away from conventional energy, and against all pragmatic reality. Clearly French officials knew of its devastating impact, as it was one of the very first concessions that Attal tried tossing like a speed bump in front of the advancing tractors on January 26 – and which the farmers rolled right over, demanding more.

Read more

Then there’s Queen Ursula briefly breaking from her fawning over the EU farmers’ current nemesis, Ukraine, to propose easing their “administrative burden.” Too bad she didn’t do that before letting Ukraine into the market in the first place. Guess she could always just blame Putin for making her do it. The bureaucracy is so overwhelming at this point that her proposal to the farmers is like offering to save people drowning in the ocean by tossing them a bucket. She could have stopped the paperwork pile-on at any time, but didn’t.

And how exactly could she know this demagoguery was killing European farming? You’d think that the first clue would have been the fact that EU policies ended up strong-arming Dutch farmers to sell their land to the government because their cattle’s nitrogen emissions exceeded climate policy limits.

Macron has now started to lobby the EU to restrict Ukrainian imports. Wow. You’d think these tractors were Decepticon Transformers about to rise up and kick their behinds, the way that all these EU leaders are suddenly springing into action. But the fact that an elected president even has to go cap in hand to plead with unelected Brussels bureaucrats, rather than make sovereign decisions in the best interests of his own country, is pathetic. Like, what if they say no? Then what? Does Macron think that he’s going to single-handedly and permanently derail the new Mercosur free trade deal, ready for signature, and set to flood the EU with even more farm products from Brazil and the rest of South America?