IT'S TIME FOR AN AMERICAN GORBACHEV ?

 This at least is the opinion shared by the foreign news editor of Cotidianul daily from Romania

I think however that a much more appropriate analogy for the current situation the US finds itself in is not with the USSR in its last decade, but with Yeltsin's Russia.

Consider  this . By 1999, Boris Yeltsin was to ill to fulfill his duties as president, same as Biden is now. Both Yeltsin and  Biden  worked for decades as high-ranking officials in their parties, Yeltsin for the CPSU, Biden for the Democratic party. They were both elected presidents at the end of their careers, when they proved unable to adapt to a rapidly changing international environment. 

Moreover, the two were accused of allowing their children to profit from their positions in the state by taking bribes from foreign business people. And finally, given their medical condition , they were both unable in the end  to work for more than a few hours daily and we're eased out of their positions by their political allies and / or family.

Is the US Blameless for the War in Ukraine ?

 “Russia and the United States tend to view Ukraine as a key battleground in a cosmic proxy war between East and West. Both have a bad habit of trying to pick winners in Ukrainian politics. These interventions, naive in their own ways, tend to backfire, often at Ukraine’s expense.” (“The Difficulty of Being Ukraine” IHT, 2009 )

https://florianpantazi.substack.com/p/is-the-us-blameless-for-the-war-in

US IS PLAYING WITH ( NUCLEAR) FIRE

 

The US and NATO are fighting the wrong war in Ukraine. WWII nostalgia is evident in the preference of the CIA and Ukrainian services for clandestine operations, for sabotage missions inside Russia and for assassinating Vladimir Putin.  Unfortunately for the American strategists, Russia is not Nazi Germany, Putin is not Hitler and such tactics have the potential to ignite a nuclear war. Two things are clear, however : Putin is not bluffing and the Russian elite is very angry with the US and NATO.

 Stephen Bryen has recently published an article in Asia Times ,  describing how Western spy agencies led by the CIA,  present in large numbers in Ukraine, are hoping to provoke  regime change in Moscow by assassinating Vladimir Putin and other Russian political and military leaders.

According to Bryen ,  NATO cannot start a fully fledged conventional war with Russia due to the fact that after 2 years of war in Ukraine, the allies have emptied their weapons and ammunition depots. This , however, is no excuse for resorting to acts of state terrorism such as the assassination of leaders of the Russian military , a practice that will not solve the conflict, but make it exponentially worse. 

In doing this, the US's  international reputation as a superpower is reduced to that of the Islamic terrorist networks it fought with for the last two decades. In other words, the terrorist actions of American agencies may find a positive echo in the West, but not outside of it. The situation is not much different indeed from the actions of Islamic terrorist organizations  like Al Qaeda or ISIS,  which are appreciated only in the Islamic world, not outside of it.

If the CIA wants to have as dubious a reputation as Islamic terrorist networks, that's their business. For those in the know, however, the fact that the US and its allies resort to such terrorist actions is a clear indication - as in the case of Islamic terrorism - of their inability to wage a conventional war with Russia, having to resort to  asymmetric war strategies. To be sure, this is a sign of the alliance's weakness, not of its strength .

" Americans are impatient by nature. We want quick solutions, even to complex problems. That makes killing a foreign leader seem like a good way to end a war. Every time we have tried it, though, we’ve failed — whether or not the target falls. Morality and legality aside, it doesn’t work. Castro thrived on his ability to survive American plots. In the Congo, almost everything that has happened since Lumumba’s murder has been awful."  (  Stephen Kinder, Politico, 2022 )

 Theoretically speaking, the purpose of any foreign intelligence service is to protect abroad the interests of the state that finances it. It isn't to help launch missiles aimed at Putin's office or to attack his car, as it already happened in 2018 . Such reckless actions reminiscent of WWII - which did not work then and will not work now- have the potential to endanger the lives of millions. It is not clear how the CIA will be able to protect the inhabitants of New York or Washington from a nuclear attack by the Russians, in case the assassination of Russian leaders is successful. What will happen this time around to the buildings of the Pentagon, the White House or the financial center of New York if or when the Russians retaliate ? 

These  are questions that  should be answered by those responsible in an inquiry into the CIA's operations in Ukraine, which should be initiated by the US Congress. Anything less could lead to a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions in history .

Why NATO is now a zombie alliance

 With the exception of the Delian League and NATO, no other politico-military alliance has been kept operational after all its objectives were met. It is highly regrettable that the American political elite refuses to see NATO for what it really is: a zombie alliance that has become a menace to European and world peace.

*

Ever since the first city-states appeared in ancient times, most countries felt compelled to enter into military and political alliances. The most common reason for doing so was that of deterring conquest by a more powerful state that would force them to lose their military and economic independence. Other alliances sought to maintain their members' political status quo and, especially in the modern era, to prevent the spread of liberalism in their lands (the Holy Alliance between 1815-1822; the Concert of Europe until  1914 ). Some European powers, during the 19th and 20th centuries, entered into alliances aimed at preventing the emergence of a single power as sole hegemon on the Continent.

The 20th century saw its fair share of political and military alliances, starting with the Triple Alliance between imperial Germany, Austro-Hungary and Italy, which was directed against British hegemony. This alliance was followed in 1904 by the Franco-British Entente, aimed at containing Germany's expansionist drive in Europe and Africa, and joined by Russia in 1905. With American help, this coalition of states succeeded in defeating imperial Germany during World War I. 

In 1940 a new alliance, the Tripartite Pact, was concluded between Nazi Germany, imperial Japan and fascist Italy, with the objectives of defeating Britain with its European and American allies and of establishing themselves as the new hegemonic world powers. In order to thwart their plans and subsequent military expansionism, the US entered into an alliance with Soviet Russia between 1941-1945, which Great Britain also joined. Known as the Allied Powers, the Americans, the Soviets and the British succeeded in decisively defeating Germany, Japan and Italy.

In the aftermath of World War II, the world became bi-polar and witnessed the ideological confrontation between the USSR with its allies from Central and Eastern Europe and the Western European powers, allied this time under the leadership of the United States.

In order to preserve the ideological status quo in Western and Central Europe and to prevent a potential military invasion by the USSR, the Americans inaugurated the NATO alliance in 1949, in which Germany was also included as a member. Soon thereafter the Soviets created their own alliance coordinated by Moscow, the Warsaw Pact, with all the satellite countries from Central and Eastern Europe which -after 1945 - had been forced to adopt the communist system of government and accept the presence of troops on their territories. 

By 1989 the Soviets decided that the military occupation of satellite countries and the enforcement of communist orthodoxy there had become counterproductive. Accordingly, they decided to call back their troops, to give up their political monopoly within the satellite countries of Central and Eastern Europe and to dissolve the Warsaw Pact. Furthermore, in 1991 the USSR imploded and the emerging Russia abandoned its centrally-planned economy, adopting a version of a market-oriented capitalist system.

Finding itself victorious against Soviet communism and having successfully prevented a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, the United States made the bizarre decision, however, to maintain the NATO alliance even after its objectives had been fully met. Moreover, although Russia ceased to be the military threat it had once been to Western Europe, NATO expanded eastwards in 2 waves, in 1997 and 2004, via the inclusion of former Soviet satellites (Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria) or territories (the Baltic States), to the great disquiet of Moscow. 

In truth, over the past 3 decades NATO has become a veritable zombie alliance, which is highly detrimental to most of its European allies and -since 2014- a menace to peace in Europe. Its planned expansion to Finland and Sweden cannot hide for long its true character or the need to replace it with a pan-EU security organisation, as consistently requested by France since the Iraq invasion of 2003.

In the 21st century new military and political alliances have appeared. In Eurasia the most important is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which includes China, Russia, four of the five Central Asian "stans" and India. The main focus of this alliance is that of preventing or defeating Islamic extremism or terrorism in the region.

A few years ago the Japanese, the US, Australia and India have agreed to create the Quad, an organisation aimed at containing China, which - like CENTO and SEATO before it - would not live up to its objectives. 

Finally, the Americans, the Australians and the British decided to form the AUKUS alliance two years ago, aimed at managing the decline of US hegemony and at preventing its members from being attacked or defeated militarily (after the dissolution of NATO it is highly likely that Canada will join it as well). AUKUS is, therefore, one of the few new security alliances that are highly cohesive internally and it has all the chances of becoming one of the leading security organisations of this century.

Ditching the West to Join The Rest

By joining the Eurasian Economic Union, Ankara can greatly benefit as a result.

*

Nine years ago I wrote a post in which I alluded to the possibility of Turkiye joining the Eurasian Economic Union: 

"As was the case between France and Germany, Turkey had been Russia's number one enemy for centuries, the two countries had fought a long series of wars with each other. Both empires - the Russian and the Turkish - disappeared, however the states that emerged from their ruins enjoy excellent economic and diplomatic relations today.

Pushing the analogy with the EU further, we find that the new Eurasian Economic union needs a nucleus formed by two strong states around which new members from Eurasia can be attracted in the future.

Thus, according to a statistic published by Geo magazine (French edition) in December 2011, between 2002 and 2011 Turkey attracted a number of 27,000 foreign companies, of which 15,000 came from Russia. This being the situation, we can consider that the integration of the two economies - Russian and Turkish - has already reached an advanced stage."

As most of us know, the Eurasian Economic Community (EEC) appeared after the dissolution of the USSR and - in a way - because of it. Although headquartered in Moscow, the union was actually the brainchild of Nursultan Nazarbayev, the former president of Kazakhstan. 

After 2000, Russia wished to use the EEC as the nucleus of a larger common market, hoping to enlist Ukraine as a member. That prospect greatly upset the American Secretary of State at the time Hilary Clinton, who by 2011 campaigned internationally against it. The matter was put to rest by the Maidan coup d'etat, after which Ukraine decided to join the European Union instead.

Since then, the membership of the EEC has only included states like Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia.

During the same period, Turkiye all but gave up on its bid to join the EU after more than 50 years of waiting for a decision from Brussels. Geographically considering the matter, Turkyie is an Eurasian country with a different religion and culture from the rest of the EU members.

Taking the analogy between France and Germany after World War II and present-day Turkiye/Russia further, it is obvious to me that both the Russians and the Turks would greatly benefit economically from joining forces within the EEC.

Furthermore, the EEC includes republics from Central Asia whose populations are of Turkic descent. Finally, both Russia and Turkyie are governed by populist authoritarian leaders who strongly support traditional family values and reject Western-style liberalism with its current corollary, the LGBTQ agenda.

But there is more. 

For such a momentous transition for Turkiye to be complete, the Erdogan government should seriously consider joining the Cooperative Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). Over the past few years there have been quite a few calls within American policymaking circles, including The Atlantic Council, for Turkiye to be evicted from NATO.

Again, given the fact that the CSTO includes among its members some of the Turkic republics from Central Asia such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Turkiye could play a vital role in helping stabilise those republics which periodically experience political turmoil. Thus, the 5th of January 2022 Russian intervention in Kazakhstan could very well have been undertaken by a Turkish contingent instead.

Another area where Turkiye would have made an essential contribution is that of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia has obvious leverage in Yerevan, but very little influence in Baku where Turkiye has a big say. Clearly, with both Russia and Turkiye being part of the same security organisation, Central Asia and the rest of Eurasia could only stand to benefit as a result.

The Avoidable War

It's not that the US lacks competent experts. It's the fact that nobody in Washington heeds their advice.

*

The war in Ukraine is still raging 16 months after its start. Sadly, a totally neglected aspect of the conflict is being deliberately brushed aside by mainstream American politicians and military brass alike.

I am referring to the fact that for the United States this was very clearly an avoidable war. It took Russia 8 years and two abortive Minsk agreements to decide to put a military stop to NATO's designs in Ukraine, which were perceived by Moscow as an imminent threat to its security. During all this time no major American diplomatic initiative took place to lessen the tensions in the region and to avoid the outbreak of a war. This, to be sure, is a first in the diplomatic relations between the US and Russia.

Connected to all this is the fact that for almost a decade the bureaucrats in charge of framing American foreign policy have ignored their own experts' warnings about the high probability of an outbreak of hostilities with Moscow. 

Thus, James W Carden, former adviser to the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission at the State Department during the Obama administration, explains in a recent article how the current impasse was reached:

 "For years, the U.S. national security establishment was warned by voices from the right, left, and center that America needed to change its policy toward Russia. It was warned that Russia could not be defeated in their near abroad. It was warned that Kiev—by launching an “anti-terrorist” campaign against its Russian speaking citizens—was recklessly antagonizing Russia. It was warned that making a semi-deity out of a corrupt tool of Ukrainian oligarchs was an obvious mistake. It was warned against conflating the interests of ethno-nationalist far-right factions in Kiev and Lviv (and their allies in Warsaw, Riga, Tallinn, and Vilnius) with U.S. national interests. It was warned to take President Putin’s numerous protestations against NATO expansion seriously. Yet America’s bipartisan ruling elite decided to ignore these warnings, and the results speak for themselves."

This geopolitical entanglement in Europe is not only unnecessary for the US, but it has the potential, if unchecked in a timely fashion, to lead to an all-out nuclear war between America and Russia. 

The wisdom of reversing course in Ukraine and starting peace negotiations with Russia is clear for all to see. Alas, to date no one can claim that the current US administration has the required statecraft skills and political wisdom to come up with a negotiated solution.

How and Why the Democrats Botched the "Reset" with Russia

 Every American administration since Ronald Reagan has attempted to get on the Russians' good side and normalise diplomatic relations with Moscow. 

Some presidents, most notably Bill Clinton but also Donald Trump, have been more successful than others in this endeavour. The worst performer in this area -until now- has been president Obama with his ill-inspired choice of advisers and Russia policies.

The key actor responsible for Obama's failure was Stanford professor Michael McFaul, a mediocre Russia expert. In 2007 he was approached by then-senator Obama and was subsequently put in charge of the Russian Department in the National Security Council after 2008. In this capacity he initiated the ill-fated policy of the "reset" of relations between the two countries. 

McFaul's main helper was Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State at the time. Together with the neocons still lurking within the State Department's structures after the Iraq debacle, McFaul and Hillary Clinton tried to torpedo Vladimir Putin's 2012 presidential campaign through a plethora of American-backed NGOs. 

Such gross interference in Russia's internal affairs was quite unprecedented, save for the brief Yeltsin interlude during the 1990s. 

For all McFaul's multiple academic credentials, he failed to grasp a basic fact, namely that liberal democracy is totally ill-suited for a country like Russia.

All Obama's intended "reset" policy achieved in practical terms, therefore, was a near-total breakdown of relations between Washington and Moscow.

Obama's vice-president at the time, Joe Biden, took over from McFaul and since 2014 until today he oversaw the Maidan Square coup d'etat and the gradual but relentless escalation of US and Nato conflict with Russia.

As much as his political enemies would like to assign all the blame on Joe Biden's administration for the disastrous state of America's relationship with Russia, the truth is that the seeds of the discord were planted more than a decade ago by Obama's decision to appoint McFaul as his top Russia affairs adviser. 

Pivoting Great Powers

 In geopolitics, pivoting is not something only pivot-states do.

*

The current debate concerning the management of international relations centres around two key concepts: multipolarity and unipolarity. The opposition of the two concepts is creating a lot of tensions and global security headaches at present, as the Ukraine war illustrates. Consequently, it is worth recalling the origins of multipolarity and of its counterpart, unipolarity.

Multipolarity has a proven historical track record of keeping the peace between great powers, through its balance of power mechanism. It originated in Europe and flourished after the fall of Napoleon, when it included 5 great powers: Britain, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia. Through regular meetings between them, the five powers succeeded in keeping relative peace in Europe for a hundred years, until 1914.

Unipolarity was born out of the ashes of the bi-polar world around the year 2000, being the brainchild of American neoconservatives, with no precedent in modern history. In assuming the role of the only hegemonic power, the US has engaged in almost continuous warfare in the Middle East, Asia and now in Europe, violating - in the process - the UN charter and provoking the devastation of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Ukraine. 

In the first decade of the 21st century, a number of former and current military powers from Asia and Europe, such as China, France, Russia or Germany, have started to push for the demise of unipolarity and for the transition to a European-style multipolar world order, dominated initially by 4 great powers: the US, the EU (the Franco-German alliance), Russia and China. ( A 5th member, India, would join this exclusive great power club in the next few years). By the end of the current decade, this multipolar system will very likely replace the broken unipolar system put in place by the US two decades ago.

One other issue that is connected with the advent of multipolarity is that of pivot states, which I have already discussed elsewhere. There is, however, one essential aspect I have omitted to mention. That is, whilst no great power can be considered a pivot state, some of them are themselves pivoting quite significantly.

The first to do so was the United States. We all remember the Obama administration's "pivot to Asia". Disappointed by Western Europe's "ungratefulness" for the role the US played in the prosperity achieved by the continent after the devastation of WWII, the Obama administration decided to turn its back on Europe and pivot towards the Pacific region and China instead.

The second superpower pivoting was the EU, under the leadership of France and Germany. After refusing to endorse the US' invasion of Iraq, the two leading European countries started lobbying for "strategic autonomy" from both the US and NATO and pivoted economically towards Russia and especially China.

The latest great power to pivot was Russia, following the 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev. Disillusioned with repeated Western invasions of its homeland and the presence of NATO at its borders, Russia itself pivoted east towards China. By 2023, the two countries concluded a comprehensive alliance, directed against what they regard as NATO's expansionist drive in Europe and Asia and against the regime-change crusade promoted by Washington recently.

The only great power that does not need to pivot and keeps to its millenary Middle Kingdom tradition is China. For a few decades now, China's huge market has become a magnet for all the other great powers, which covet Chinese low labour costs and access to the pockets of its large and growing middle class. 

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that China has emerged as the only great power interested in maintaining global peace and stability, as its contributions to the peace efforts between Iran and Saudi Arabia have recently proved.

Accordingly, US policymakers would be well-advised to abandon their mindless quest to keep unipolarity going, and to take their rightful place among the other great powers. Such a course of action could only pay dividends for global peace and prosperity.

How Pivot States Can Affect Global Peace and Security

 The transition from American unipolarity to a multipolar world order is well and truly underway and cannot be reversed. When dealing with threats to international security, Western policymakers should contemplate action starting from this new reality. 

*

On the 1st of January 2014, four researchers from The Hague and London published a ground-breaking research report on pivot states and their role in regional and global security. The 57-page report identified 22 pivot states from Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America and listed 4 great powers currently in existence : the US, the EU, Russia and China. On its way to achieving the status of a great power, India is currently the only major regional country that still clings to its famed neutrality.

The basis of the report is - clearly - multipolarity, while the notion of spheres of interest and its importance in international relations is fully recognised as such. For the authors, the definition of pivot countries is as follows:

"Pivot states are states that possess military, economic or ideational strategic assets that are coveted by great powers. Pivot states are caught in the middle of overlapping spheres of influence of multiple great powers, as measured by associations that consist of ties that bind (military and economic agreements and cultural affinities) or relationships that flow (arms and commodities trade and discourse).

A change in a pivot state's association has important repercussions for regional and global security. States that find themselves in overlapping spheres of interest are focal points of where great power interests can collide and also clash. States located at the seams of the international system have at various moments in history been crucial to the security and stability of the international system.

Intra-state cleavages often divide pivot states. Such cleavages can be religious, ethnic, linguistic or cultural in nature, and more often than not they are a combination of all of the above. And it is precisely when these pivot states are caught in the middle, when opposing great powers push and pull in opposite directions, that they are torn apart. Hitherto weak centrifugal forces might suddenly become unleashed. Ukraine is currently succumbing to divisive forces, and Iraq is at real risk of falling apart.

In some cases there is an increased likelihood of great power conflict when pivot states fall victim to great powers encroaching on each other's spheres of influence. Great powers competing over respective spheres of influence (think here the US vs Russia) employ what is commonly called brinksmanship, either to change or, alternatively, to uphold the status quo. But brinksmanship can be exercised by pivot states too. These pivot states can be moral hazards or "rogue pivots" if they behave recklessly while betting on the opposing great power to come to their rescue. Georgia in the run-up to the 2008 war with Russia is a case in point. Georgia had been keen on bolstering ties with the West and was betting on Western assistance in its conflict with Russia, while the latter did not materialise in the end. Brinksmanship of pivot states also introduces a real risk of direct or indirect confrontation between great powers. The solution seems simple: do not let a rogue pivot state pull you into a great conflict."

The report provides a useful guide to understanding the current war in Ukraine, as well as the political instability in Georgia and elsewhere. It should be a must-read for policymakers and diplomats alike. 

By clinging to unipolarity, the US foreign policy establishment is actually depriving international relations of the needed shock absorbers and it could, unfortunately, lead the world to nuclear catastrophe.

Do the Americans and the British REALLY understand the nature of the Ukraine war ?

Western war propaganda has all but obscured the nature of the conflict in Ukraine. To better understand it, two recent analogies could help Americans and the British avoid the traps used by the Ukraine war spin doctors to pull the wool over their eyes.

The analogies of TG Carpenter from TAC and that of Anatol Lieven between the war waged by Russia in Ukraine and the American civil war or the potential secession of Scotland are both pertinent.

For Americans, TG Carpenter's analogy between the American civil war and the one in Ukraine is the most appropriate. Both the civil war and the one in Ukraine have in common their fratricidal character. Neither Russia today nor the USA in the 1860s can be classed as great military powers. What they have in common is their solid industrial base and human resources, superior to those of the enemy.

Anatol Lieven's analogy between Ukraine and Scotland is more relevant for European politicians and the public from the EU states, but especially from Great Britain, whose meddling in the conflict is incomprehensible, considering Scotland's own challenge :

" In the centuries since Russia captured Kiev from Poland in the 1660s and Peter the Great defeated the Swedes and their Ukrainian Cossack allies at Poltava in 1709, Ukraine has been in one way or another under Russian rule. As Scots from the British Empire, ambitious Ukrainians entered the Russian and Soviet bureaucracies and armies, and Ukrainian writers and filmmakers worked in Russian." (A.Lieven, Time )

In the case of the American civil war, England and France avoided intervening militarily on the side of the southerners, but they helped with weapons  and credits, in a manner similar to the financial and military equipments support offered by NATO to Ukraine today. Both the USA in the 1860s and Russia blocked the ports of their enemies. European powers did not intervene militarily in support of the Confederates because " The Confederate states were incapable of winning enough consecutive victories to convince European governments that they could sustain independence." ( US Office of the Hisorian, State Department ) Sounds familiar ? It should ...

The fact that the USA is fully involved today in the Russian-Ukrainian war is due to a totally erroneous understanding of the American national interest on the part of the current officials in Washington. In reality, the strategic and military interests of the USA are not and have not been harmed in any way by the war in Ukraine:

Who Are Ukraine's 'Palestinians' ?

 Last year in April I stumbled upon a project by Zelensky called the "Big Israel" which went largely overlooked by Western media until last week. A few days before the one-year anniversary of the start of the war in Ukraine, National Interest published an article by Leon Hadar about this outlandish project for post-war Ukraine.

Zelensky's " Big Israel" project advocates emulating Israel and building Ukraine up as a militarised nation, continuously at war with its internal and external enemies, i.e. mainly its Russophone citizens and Russia. Hadar considers that Zelensky's project has merit and he explains why:

'But the notion that Ukraine will try to be “like Israel” may not sound so farfetched. For instance, like the Jewish State, Ukraine enjoys wide public support among Americans and their representatives on Capitol Hill, who believe that the Ukrainians, like the Israelis, are “like them,” while the Russians, like the Arabs, are the detested “other.”

And, indeed, like in the case of Israel, Ukraine’s efforts to position itself as a natural ally of Washington, in both interests and values, has been accepted as a diplomatic axiom by powerful American foreign policy forces. Both Republican neoconservatives as well as many “conservative nationalists” on the political Right, and by liberal internationalists who dominate the thinking among Democrats, including the one currently occupying the White House, have come on board.'

One does not have to be an expert in international relations to realise how absurd and illogical such a project is. It is, however, revealing for the thinking that dominates  Kiev"s current political elite. For them, Western Ukrainians have much  in common with the Jews of Israel, whereas the Russophones from the Donbas region are viewed as Ukraine's equivalent of the Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and Ramallah.

The division of Ukraine along ethnic lines was envisaged first during the 1990s by Samuel Huntington, a valued National Interest contributor and leading national security expert. In truth, since Kiev refused the Minsk agreements, there just aren't any other solutions than the separation of the Donbas region inhabited by Russophones from the rest of Ukraine. 

This separation should not necessarily have caused a war, if the civilised parting of Czechia from Slovakia was any guide. Unfortunately, the Kiev regime knowingly preferred to emulate Yugoslavia's example in dealing with its internal ethnic strife. Worse still, it chose to involve the United States, which obviously saw an opportunity to advance their hegemonic agenda against Russia.

The project shows Zelensky and the other ministers or advisors of Jewish descent from his cabinet are trying to position Ukraine as America's 52nd state, immediately behind Israel. By putting an equal sign between Russia and the Arab countries in the Middle East and by forcing the Russophones of Ukraine to accept Kiev's rule, Zelensky hopes to position Ukraine geopolitically as the US's main outpost against its foe Russia in Europe.

The Jewish minority in today's Ukraine is minuscule. This large country cannot become a Jewish ethnic state in Europe, like Israel is in the Middle East. Indeed, Europe as a whole is unlikely to be fertile ground for the creation of such a huge US military outpost - potentially nuclearly armed - in its midst. Nor is Russia, with its old military tradition and its nuclear arms, willing to play the role of the Arabs for the US and Ukrainian military establishments. 

Although so far Zelensky's lobbying in Washington has proved lucrative, with the $130 billion already received, Ukraine is simply too big and situated in the wrong geopolitical region to be endlessly supported financially by the United States, as is the case with Israel. Last but not least, the Russophones from Donbas have demonstrated since 2014 that they resolutely reject the part of "European Palestinians" in this tragedy, directed by Zelensky on behalf of the Kiev regime.

UKRAINE IS A GEOPOLITICAL BLACK HOLE

 The readers of my blog can be forgiven if they are still under the illusion that what the world is doing in Ukraine is safeguarding the independence of a newly-minted country against the aggression of Russia. On a superficial level this seems indeed to be the case.

In fact, we should look at Ukraine as the ultimate - man-made - geopolitical black hole. 

Such a place sucks up the resources of neighbouring countries, human or material, leading to their economic and even physical destruction. This black hole has a sick form of nationalism at its centre of gravity, which is aggressive, domineering and intolerant with other ethnic groups happening to live within the same borders. 

The Ukrainian black hole has a history of 31 years and it started after the implosion of the USSR with Kiev's refusal to allow ethnic groups at its fringes to revert to the countries they were severed from, by Stalin or his successors.

The saga continued with the involvement in the region of the US, which since 2008 started sponsoring Kiev's intolerant nationalism in earnest, with a view to weakening, destroying or partitioning its old (new) foe, Russia. 

By 2014, all the essential elements that led to the creation of the Ukrainian black hole were in place, culminating with the Maidan coup against the Yanukovich government.

Gradually, the new geopolitical black hole, an initial creation of western services, went from bad to worse. From 2014 to 2022, the US, EU and Russia all fought a losing battle to use and control the political centre of this black hole. The Russians lost first, hence the Ukrainian intervention and their annexation of Donbas. This however does not mean that the Americans or the EU won, and this is why:

The peculiarity of a geopolitical black hole is that it eventually becomes uncontrollable. Its political leaders develop an agenda of their own and bleed their sponsors dry, financially, militarily or economically. Thus, it is enough to consider the 60+ billion dollars spent only by the US so far this year, or the economic disaster currently affecting Europe from London to Berlin, to grasp the danger of the existence on the edges of the continent of the Ukrainian geopolitical black hole.

Like Serbia before it, Ukraine will not ultimately end up in control of the territories - inherited from the USSR - it now claims as its own. We now know that the Serbian black hole was also a man-made one, having been the creation of a freemasonry bent on destroying the Austro-Hungarian and Tsarist empires. The Serbs ended up controlling parts of the former Austro-Hungarian territories like Croatia and Slovenia, but they lost it all some decades later. An identical fate is in store for Kiev's ultranationalist regime, although I suspect its territorial losses are coming much sooner, if the Russian annexation is any guide.

The task of politicians everywhere is to resist being sucked into the Ukrainian black hole - an occurrence that would have disastrous consequences for world peace. 

The Kiev regime has no intention to run a normal country. It refuses to correct the errors of its ways and negotiate an end to the conflict. This attitude, however, is in perfect accordance with the essential characteristics of a geopolitical black hole, whose gravitational pull towards generalised conflict is very hard, if not impossible, to resist.

Has the US Turned into USSR II ?

 As it often happens, a state entity fighting an enemy for too long runs the risk of ending up just like it. In my professional view as an historian, this seems to be more and more the case of the United States, especially after the implosion of its Cold War archenemy, the USSR. This unfortunate tendency is clearly visible with regards to Ukraine. 

Initially created as a republic by the bolsheviks, Ukraine declared its independence in 1991 with the ideological help of Orest Subtelny, a Ukrainian-American historian. 

At that time, Ukraine automatically incorporated into its national territory large areas belonging to Hungary, Romania, Poland and Russia. During the second world war these areas and their populations had been forcibly severed from the states to which they belonged by Stalin, who until 1941 acted as Hitler's ally. Large territories like Crimea  which was Russian or Bugeac which was Moldavian , were also arbitrarily gifted to the Soviet republic of Ukraine during the fifties by subsequent Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who happened to be Ukrainian by birth.

After the disappearance of the Tsarist and Austro-Hungarian empires, a host of new nations appeared in Central Europe and the Balkans, such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The Kingdom of Romania doubled its territory through the addition of former Austro-Hungarian (Transylvania, Bucovina) or Russian provinces (Moldova), overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Romanians.

In a bizarre twist of events, however, the implosion of the Soviet Union was not followed in Eastern Europe by a reallocation of territory according to the ethnicity of inhabitants, with a few exceptions. Instead, an ultranationalist Ukraine replaced the Soviet Union in the region, steadfastly refusing since 1991 to allow territories like for example Transcarpathia or northern Bucovina to be reunited with Hungary or Romania, originally dispossessed by Stalin. The fact has created continuous ethnic tensions between Kiev and the Russians, Romanians and Hungarians forced to live under a new, Soviet-style yoke, that of the current Ukrainian regime. The presence of the 14th Russian army in Tiraspol also ensured that Moldova would not be reunited with Romania, as it was the case before 1940.

Romania's case is probably the most dramatic of all. Thus, if in 1918 after the Versailles Peace Treaty its total territory was 296,000 square kilometres, this was diminished by Stalin to 237,000 sq.km. - a situation kept unchanged even after the fall of communism and of the USSR. In Ukraine, Romania has close to one million inhabitants living in Bucovina and Hertza. After 1991 the Romanian parliament timidly tried to ask Ukraine to revoke the territorial theft perpetrated by Stalin, to no avail. In fact, independent Ukraine decided to keep all its neighbours' territories which had been gifted to it by the communist dictators, and even victimised the hapless ethnic minorities unfortunate enough to find themselves within its borders.

As the sole superpower left after 1991, the United States chose to endorse the theft of territories perpetrated by the Soviet communists, together with the Nazis, against the nations of Central and Eastern Europe mentioned above. In principle, the inviolability of borders is guaranteed by international law. However, the State Department should not pretend - in Ukraine's case - as if its current borders are its natural established borders. Almost all of Ukraine's neighbours have legitimate, long-standing territorial claims against it. In overlooking these facts, the State Department is enforcing in that region the policies of the defunct Soviet Union, to the detriment of its own NATO members. 

This anomaly was highlighted on Wednesday by former Romanian foreign minister, the philosopher Andrei Marga, who is a sincere and committed supporter of democracy. Marga also has a preference for monarchy as a form of government. Now, everyone could agree that being a promoter of democracy and being sympathetic to monarchism does not make Marga a supporter of Vladimir Putin, who is staunchly opposed to both. Still, that is exactly the accusation levelled at the Romanian philosopher in the wake of his declaration. 

The State Department and the US polity should be well advised to think twice before unleashing the media dogs against a well-meaning and highly informed Romanian opinion leader. After all, Marga has done more for the promotion of democracy in Eastern Europe than many American intellectuals I am aware of. Assisting Ukraine to hang on to territories which do not rightfully belong to it is morally wrong and geopolitically dangerous, as current events amply demonstrate.

To be sure, Mr. Marga is neither pro-Russian nor anti-American. This episode can better be understood in all its complexity by comparing two American Democrat presidents, Woodrow Wilson and Joe Biden, who both left their mark on the history of Central and Eastern European nations.

Woodrow Wilson led the United States at the start of American hegemony in world affairs. Joe Biden today presides over the demise of American unipolarity, but without displaying the traditional Anglo-Saxon skill and restraint exercised by Great Britain, for example, when it lost its global pre-eminence. 

Thus, if one hundred years ago President Wilson enforced the principle of peoples' self-determination, the current US president inveighs against the right of the Russian population from Donbass to hold referenda concerning their future, among other things. In so doing, he forces the US to go against its own principles in the conduct of international affairs, and to act more as a de facto heir of the defunct USSR, "prison of nations and ethnic groups". 

It should come as no surprise, for example, that Soviet-born and educated communist nostalgics are not only welcome in the USA these days, but even proposed by the current Administration for positions of great trust within key federal institutions.

Subtelny's Imaginary Ukraine

 Orest Subtelny's efforts to present Ukrainian history as separate from Russia's were, sadly,  an exercise in futility.

Back in the 1970's, the West was mired in stagflation. By the end of the decade, however, a new Polish pope arrived in the Vatican and Margaret Thatcher took over as prime minister in the United Kingdom. To reverse the economic decline, a new doctrine - neoliberalism - was adopted, first in the countries of the Anglosphere and in subsequent years all over the Western world. The main tenet of the new economic philosophy consisted in the wholesale privatisation of state-owned enterprises, a measure deemed to make them leaner and more profitable. 

Moving forward to the 80's, the problem was that of finding new markets for the consumer goods that Western industries still produced in abundance. The natural choice was Central and Eastern Europe which, however, was still part of the Soviet sphere of influence. Taking advantage of a leadership vacuum until the arrival of Mikhail Gorbachev at the helm in Moscow, the Vatican and the CIA fatally undermined the communist regime in Poland. The new Soviet leadership was caught - by the events which continued to unfold in Central Europe - in the middle of a series of economic and political reforms that ultimately failed. Accordingly, Gorbachev agreed to end the USSR's domination of Central and Eastern Europe, which culminated in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

While Western politicians were cultivating Gorbachev and his wife assiduously, behind closed doors the British and American services were busy plotting the demise of the USSR. Thus, in 1988 two books were published practically simultaneously, authored by Jacques Rupnik, a Czech, and a Ukrainian-American historian, Orest Subtelny. 

Rupnik's book, The Other Europe, was aiming to sell in the West the necessity of doing away with the Iron Curtain, and the acceptance of Soviet satellite countries from Central and Eastern Europe as full members in the European family of nations.

Subtelny's book, Ukraine: A History, was published in an effort to offer Ukrainians - who never had a history separate from that of the Russian or Soviet states - a history of their own. The objective was clearly geopolitical.The book was aimed squarely at Moscow's leadership over the Ukrainian territory.

For British and American intelligence officials, Ukraine was considered "the linchpin of the Soviet Union", which would collapse without it. This is the reason why Subtelny's history book was the main propaganda tool in these efforts, although from a scientific point of view its value is highly questionable. Indeed, no other nation in Europe was born only on the basis of two disparate events, a brief independence spell in 1919 and the Stalin-engineered Holodomor (the famine that affected Ukraine between 1932-1933). The book was nevertheless hailed as the best history of Ukraine and was published in Ukrainian as early as 1990, before the country declared independence from the USSR (August 24, 1991).

For the neutral historian, the difficulty of presenting Ukrainian history as separate from that of Russia is simply enormous. For centuries, Ukraine was part of the Russian state and later of the Soviet Union. Ukrainians were not in any way disadvantaged by their association with the Russian state, on the contrary. Quite a few Ukrainians achieved positions of great responsibility within Russia and subsequently in the Soviet Union, one of their own, Nikita Khrushchev, becoming head of state. A history like Subtelny's, therefore, could only artificially claim that Ukrainians developed a separate national consciousness and that they would be better off founding a state of their own, to be integrated within the West. 

And herein lies the key as to why Subtelny's book was commissioned, written and aggressively promoted in the first place. The 130 million inhabitants of Central and Eastern European countries, former Soviet satellites, had become attractive enough for Western economic interests, but the addition of another 44 million Ukrainians and a very large territory would be even better. At any rate, for those involved in the planning, if this artificial nationhood were to take off, and it would then lead to the dissolution of the USSR, so much the better.

In later years, Subtelny himself became very unhappy with the nation-building efforts his history book helped ignite in Ukraine. He died in 2016, disillusioned with the way things turned out in the end. His is a cautionary tale for all other historians eager for recognition who agree to participate in secret service-sponsored nation-building efforts in foreign lands, allowing for their considerable skill and scholarship to be misused in this way.

Operation BARBAROSSA II

 The second Barbarossa operation against Russia in Ukraine is again led by Catholics. Unlike the original invasion of the Soviet Union from 1941, Russia is not facing a huge allied army, as the US and UK are maritime powers. Traditionally, such countries resort to sanctions and finance others to do the fighting and dying for them, but the outcome is essentially the same from the intended victims' point of view. The novelty of the plan is to make Russia appear as the aggressor and to set up the Jews of Washington and Kiev as scapegoats when it will all unravel.

* * *

When Hitler decided to invade the USSR in 1941 he called his invasion "Operation Barbarossa". His selection of the name of Frederick I - a known Catholic emperor and crusader from the 12th century, also known as Barbarossa - was indicative of the true Catholic nature of Hitler's invasion. 

Like his imperial predecessor, Hitler fancied himself as a Catholic crusader, in a fight against the godless Stalinist regime of the Soviet Union. He enlisted as allies the fascist Italian regime, Hungary and Romania and convinced Finland to join the invasion. The Western Ukrainians and the Balts also joined in, thinking the days of the Soviet Union were numbered and that the Russians could not resist an invasion force of some 4.5 million soldiers. 

The moral crusading has been picked up once again today by two of the most prominent countries of the Western alliance, led by 2 Catholics: US President Joe Biden and British prime minister Boris Johnson. Their crusade, which started by stealth in 2014 in Ukraine, is against the emergence of Russian nationalism, which threatens the global elites of the West. Being at the helm of maritime countries, the two leaders are waging war by proxy, by using the Ukrainians as cannon fodder and a Jewish president, Zelensky, as their point man. We can safely call this new Catholic conflict with Russia "Operation Barbarossa II", since the ultimate aim of the war in Ukraine is the same as Hitler's in 1941: Russia's defeat.

The Ukrainians, while they believe they are fighting for and animated by their own distinctive nationalism, are only being celebrated in the West as foot soldiers for globalism. "( Christopher Roach, The Chronicles Magazine) )

" One reason Zelensky has become so popular in the West is because he serves the globalist agenda. Zelensky is Jewish—a small ethnic and religious minority in Ukraine—and doesn’t even speak Ukrainian fluently. But Zelensky’s outsider background makes him a symbol for the deracinated, multicultural Ukraine of the future that Europe would prefer. All across the transformed Europe of the future, blood ties to the land and the preferences of the people will count for very little. "

The two Catholic leaders mentioned above have apparently learned from Hitler's errors and they are trying hard to avoid them this time around. While most of us know that the Catholic Church is not about God or preserving the Christian faith, but about world domination, we are able to grasp why a far-removed country like the United States under this particular president is now financing a war on Russia's doorstep (a Protestant US President would never have contemplated such actions). Indeed, for the first time in its long history, the global aims of the Catholic Church and those of the American state, not to mention those of the world's global corporations, happen to coincide. 

The US president tries to justify his involvement in the Ukraine conflict by portraying it as a crusade on behalf of democracy and a fight against autocracy. However as a Catholic he is a member of a church that is traditionally deeply anti-democratic. The Catholic Church has supported almost all dictatorial regimes of the 20th century, from Italian fascism and Spanish francoism to the fascist and military dictatorships of Latin America. Accordingly, a Catholic US president is the least qualified person to organise a crusade for democracy anywhere in the world, let alone in Eastern Europe.

Today's Western crusaders have enlisted the forces of Ukrainian ultranationalists and neo-Nazis and have even cooked up a method of hiding this fact by promoting as president and prime minister members of the Ukrainian Jewish community. This was deemed as the perfect cover for the largely fascist nature of the military and financial support extended by the West to Ukraine. Again, the usual allies are present, with Finland and Sweden anxious to join in as well.

Like operation Barbarossa I, operation Barbarossa II is doomed to fail. When that happens it will eventually take down its promoters and backers with it. Our collective concern should now be, however, to minimise the human casualties on both sides and to try to prevent any type of revenge actions, or even a second Holocaust.

A Blatant Case of Groupthink

 

"Participants in those critical decisions, Janis found, had failed to consider the full range of alternatives or consult experts who could offer different perspectives. They rejected outside information and opinion unless it supported their preferred policy. And the harsher the preferred policy -- the more likely it was to involve moral dilemma -- the more zealously members clung to their consensus " (Kathrin Lassila,Yale University)

 * * *

Nato's latest folly is its readiness to accept 2 new members, Finland and Sweden, from northern Europe. In today's world, it appears American neoconservatives cannot accept the institution of neutrality when it comes to fighting countries like Russia or China. All westernised countries have to line up behind the US, as Nato's leader, and share into its outlandish plans.

This time around the issue is not the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, and not even the present war effort in Ukraine. The obsession of the neocons is bringing down the current regime in Russia. This is why another round of Nato expansion is underway, not because it makes any strategic sense whatsoever. It is hoped that by expanding Nato to Sweden and Finland and by encircling Russia completely, the Russian people could be persuaded to oust Vladimir Putin and cease their resistance to American global hegemonism. This, to be sure, is not a military objective but a highly political one. Using Nato to achieve this goal only illustrates how toxic this alliance has become for the world as a whole.

Nato and G7's latest decisions concerning the war in Ukraine clearly indicate that Western decision-making is afflicted by groupthink. Groupthink has been known to lead to serious and sometimes catastrophic policy errors. Given the current strategic situation, trying to use Ukrainians to push back the Russian army and to regain lost territories like Crimea and Donbas is not only unreasonable, but also extremely dangerous from a military point of view. In the groupthink dynamic afflicting western policymaking, especially at Nato level, it's the American neoconservatives imposing the decisions, with all other western political and military leaders having to comply, however dangerous the outcome might be. 

In fact, promoting the fall of the current Kremlin government - taking into account the unresolved situation in Ukraine - would most probably bring to power a military regime in Russia. Such a change would not in any way favour the western alliance, I would say quite on the contrary. In that case, the war in Ukraine could only intensify and there would be a clear danger that the conflict would expand into neighbouring countries currently assisting Kiev with weapons and humanitarian aid. In other words, when it comes to regime change in Moscow, western leaders will be well advised to be careful what they wish for. Their decisions might have exactly the opposite result to what they intended, that is bringing Russia to its knees.

This is not to say that Vladimir Putin cannot do more to bring the war in Ukraine to an end. As no one in the West or in Ukraine has the slightest interest in restoring peace, the ranks of the Russian army fighting in Ukraine should probably be beefed up to the level required in order to bring the military conflict to a successful conclusion. This, in my view, is unavoidable, however regrettable it might be for Russians, Ukrainians and their families.

What Inspired America's "Drang nach Osten" Drive

 Democracy promotion is used by the current US government to hide the crypto-Nazi nature of its policies in Eastern Europe. This policy is actually emulating Athens' Delian League democracy promotion drive within allied city-states from the V-th century BC. In Ukraine, the US is unfortunately protecting a repressive regime with ultranationalists and neo-Nazis calling the shots.

* * *

Arnold Toynbee was right when he argued that civilisations are not destroyed by external forces, but disappear from history by committing suicide. Five hundred years since its emergence, this is exactly the stage that Western civilisation is going through right now.

It is interesting to note that both the rise and fall of this civilisation have been determined by Catholic leaders: the papacy and the kings of Spain and Portugal in the fifteenth century; respectively, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Boris Johnson today.

It is difficult for many to understand what has happened to the US and UK-led West. Why on earth has it come into conflict with Russia? The misunderstanding is justified. Its latest policy towards Russia is not rational, but pure suicide. To quote a famous American general, the Ukraine conflict is "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time and with the wrong enemy".

We can begin by recalling that the fundamental characteristic of the Western civilisation has been expansionism, either regional or global. Anyone who opposes such expansionism - economic, military, religious, or political - automatically becomes the sworn enemy of the West's leaders of the moment, whether we are talking here about the Spaniards, the French, the English, the Germans or about Americans today.

The French and Germans had mostly continental expansionist ambitions ("Drang nach Osten" was the official policy of the Third Reich and targeted Russian territories). The Spanish and Portuguese took over specific regions in the New World, Africa or Asia. The British colonised North America, but also Australia and New Zealand, and conquered India. All these past expansionist expeditions were supported in one way or another by the Catholic Church, which exponentially increased its fortunes and the number of believers.

In our own century however, US expansionism has global ambitions, although outside of the Western Hemisphere it has managed to impose itself only to a limited extent economically, but not from a military or political point of view, despite NATO's large membership. Americans have always been expansionists, their geopolitical thinking being dominated by what historians call the "frontier mentality." They managed to impose themselves on the entire North American continent and in Latin America in the 19th century, but the 20th century was not as favorable for them. In Europe, American expansionism was limited by the Soviets to the west and parts of the continent's centre. In Asia, the United States was stopped by China in its expansion into the Korean Peninsula and by Vietnam or Afghanistan in Southeast or Central Asia. 

The disintegration of the USSR and especially the separation of Ukraine and Georgia, unfortunately gave American neoconservatives the false impression that they could revive - in new forms - Nazi Germany's expansionist policy to the East, this time with them in control. This mega-error is now on the verge of destroying the entire Western civilisation, annexed as it is via NATO to the American locomotive. This despite many American political leaders realising that the era of Western expansionism is over and that its current chances of success are zero.

However, as America and Britain are now led by the abovementioned Catholic leaders, the Western alliance is making full use of age-old Catholic statecraft tools. To illustrate this, think of the massive use of private military contractors who currently fight to implement the US's global agenda, just as Spanish royalty used the conquistadores in the territories of the New World. This transfer of knowhow from the 15th century to the 21st cannot be but Catholic-inspired. These days, the American version of the conquistadores are the bosses of American PMC's, such as Blackwater or Titan, active in all theatres of operations, from Iraq and Afghanistan to Ukraine. This industry is now worth  240 billion dollars. The PMC's largely escape the control of US military authorities, being in the employ of the State Department or the CIA . People like Erik Prince, for example, are the modern-day incarnations of Pizarro or Cortes.

It is a tragic development that the West's current leaders prefer civilisational suicide - because that is what is going to happen if the US continues to fight Russia in Ukraine - instead of pursuing a rational policy of retreat to the Americas and of renouncing global ambitions. However, humanity as a whole may ultimately benefit from the downfall of Western civilisation, as ordinary citizens are fed up with the tragedies caused by the successive imperialisms of the West.

America's Imperial Apparatchiks in Eastern Europe

Upending constitutional order or undermining the political systems of Orthodox members of the EU or NATO will not work for the Alliance in the long run. Furthermore, cultivating hate of Russia in these countries is bound to backfire.

Very few Westerners know that in 2014 the actions in Maidan Square were mirrored in neighbouring Romania, albeit without violence. On the cusp of the presidential elections, American-backed Romanian secret services replaced the Liberal Party's president at the time with an ethnic German, Klaus Iohannis, who was hand-held to win the country's presidency that year. This, to be sure, was one of the freakiest developments ever in the country's political history, very similar to Ukraine being led by a Jewish president.

The former president of the Romanian Liberals was definitely an unsafe choice for the US in the region because he was friendly towards Russia. As Nato was gearing up for a major confrontation with Russia in Ukraine, neighbouring states like Romania, Bulgaria or even neutral Moldova had to have at their helm political leaders that the US could control 100 percent.

It's a well known fact that - generally speaking - Catholic Western politicians have always been mistrustful of politicians hailing from Orthodox countries. Even when they were accepted as EU members, for example, Romanians and Bulgarians were made to feel like tolerated, second-class citizens and prevented from enjoying the full benefits attached to their membership. Thus, even 15 years on since their accession to the EU, neither Romania nor Bulgaria have been accepted into the Schengen zone. 

These double standards in the way the EU is being managed, where its Catholic member states are favoured and where its Eastern Orthodox members are regularly derided or have their economic performances downgraded, are too well-documented to insist upon here. The important point to mention at present is that the meddling of the US and EU in the above-mentioned Orthodox countries' selection of their political leaders is not only extensive, but highly detrimental to the very ideas of democracy, freedom and self-rule.

In preparation for the current conflict in Ukraine, the US felt it needed to promote to executive office in Romania, Moldova and Bulgaria an Americanised breed of politicians who, although natives of the countries concerned, have been trained at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government or have done stints at the World Bank. Orthodox nations, it seems, are not to be trusted to make decisions about what is happening in their region: they have to be guided and kept on a short leash by Washington. 

Current events in Ukraine show why the US and the EU have worked in tandem over the last few years to demolish what was left of the Romanian or Bulgarian democracies which emerged after the 1989 revolutions. Like nowadays in Ukraine, opposition leaders have been regularly jailed on corruption charges that in the rest of Europe could attract at most a fine. In so doing, the US has made sure that the "right" politicians get into high office, and once there, they do America's bidding against its eternal foe Russia. 

At the end of the day, these countries are going to be left with quasi-dictatorial political regimes manned by Western-trained politicians who act as Washington's puppets and seriously affect their countries' national interest, if Bulgaria's recent loss of gas supplies is any guide. Furthermore, pushing these countries' leaders to prove their loyalty to the Western alliance and adopt a much more bellicose stance towards Russia than what their citizens would normally approve of, makes their territory prime targets of Russian missiles if and when the Ukraine conflict reaches boiling point. But who cares, right ? They are only some poorer, second-class citizens of an alliance lacking the most basic respect towards their traditions, religion and culture...

Welcome to Europe's "Big Israel" !

updated: April 21, 2022

Before writing this post, I have waited for more than a week to see how the piece of news I am about to share with you is reported in the mainstream Western media. But, surprise: it wasn't. 

Zelensky's plans for Ukraine after the war are extremely significant for Russia and the EU alike, and as such they more than deserved to be brought to the attention of the Western public. After all, the EU and American citizens are regularly being called upon to finance Ukraine's war effort and to put up with the almost 5 million refugees in need of their help. As it happened, however, this piece of news got published only in the main Arab media, followed by the Jewish press from Israel or the US. 

Here goes. Commenting on Ukraine's future after the war, Zelensky intimated that the country is going to be remade - from a securitary point of view - in Israel's image. As he puts it, Ukraine is not going to be liberal as the rest of Europe, nor an authoritarian country like Russia. Instead, the "New Israel", as Zelensky calls it, is going to be a state in which armed military personnel patrol the streets, the restaurants, the supermarkets, cinemas and so on, in a constant state of alert. Zelensky does not want to sacrifice territory for peace and, given his future plans for Ukraine, one can now understand why: the "New Israel" would need its own version of the Gaza strip - the Donbas region - and its own Palestinians (the Russophones) to provoke, boss around and eventually kill when they rebel. 

At this point in time, Zelensky is not mentioning the possibility that his new state would acquire nuclear weapons, but the fact is implied in the comparison made with the state of Israel. What we are given to read between the lines is the fact that his new Ukrainian state will be at odds with both its eastern neighbour Russia and, ultimately, with the European Union, whose liberal values he says he has to reject. We can also safely assume that such a state will exponentially increase instability in Eastern Europe and beyond, and that it will be in a permanent state of war with one or more of its neighbours (especially with Russia), like Israel has been for most of its existence as a state. Apparently, American experts working for the Atlantic Council are even willing to offer a "road map" to make such a project come to fruition.

What is really hard to gauge at this time is how the Ukrainian elites react to such a mad project. However, taking into consideration the big number of ultra-nationalists and outright neo-Nazi organisations in the country, I am inclined to believe that the New Israel project could find favour with them, as long as the US - like in Israel's case - undertakes to finance Ukraine's ongoing military expenditures. 

In case Zelensky succeeds in getting his project off the ground, Ukraine is not likely to end up like a Big Israel, however it may very well become an European version of Pakistan. Such an outcome would follow the law of unintended consequences and this does not bode well for Russia or for Ukraine's neighbours. In fact, in such a case, Moldova could easily become a version of Kashmir. Its possible invasion by Ukraine cannot be altogether ruled out, the presence of the Russian 14th army in Transnistria being an excellent justification for overrunning this militarily weak country. Like Pakistan,  Ukraine would also stand a very good chance of becoming a permanent haven for extremist organisations worldwide, further contributing to destabilising EU member states. It follows that European countries trying to assist Ukraine in its war efforts have to date made all the wrong choices in this conflict. The only beneficiary of such a development would of course be the US, bent as it still is on global hegemony.

The "New Israel" project proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that all those European powers assisting the Kiev regime with money and weapons are therefore ignorant of the consequences, and that they are helping build a type of state in Ukraine that nobody in their right mind would be able to tolerate, least of all the Russians.

It is high time, therefore, to seriously think whether Europe and, indeed, the world can really sustain the existence of Ukraine as a political entity. In my opinion as an historian, I think that the Ukrainians have proven over the last 30 years that regardless of what other gifts they might be endowed with individually, collectively they cannot be entrusted to have and run their own state without posing huge risks to European and world peace. Accordingly, Western politicians should take a hard and serious look at the "New Israel" project, because with it Ukraine's nation-building process has come full circle and it is not at all what anyone expected.