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...

The US is about to Cancel Itself

 After initiating bombing campaigns over the last 23 years in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, and fomenting "color revolutions" in Eastern Europe, American politicians have lost the moral authority necessary to lecture the Kremlin about its military actions in Ukraine.

The average European or American TV viewer can naturally be excused for believing that Russia, and especially its president Vladimir Putin, bears the blame for what is happening in Ukraine. After all, citizens of Western countries are being bombarded on a daily basis with sickening images of buildings in ruins, crying women with babies, with the occasional cat or dog being thrown into the mix for good measure. To top it all off, Putin's latest actions in Ukraine are being presented as the acts of a madman, a bloodthirsty dictator, whose expected downfall justifies the adoption by Western countries of the harshest possible sanctions ever devised. The objective is clear: Russian people have to suffer for supporting their president, until they take to the streets to bring down those responsible.

The sorry spectacle of Russian bombs falling over Ukrainian cities and of millions of refugees heading towards the borders cannot obscure the fact that the heaviest responsibility for these horrors belongs to the neoconservative-dominated US foreign policy establishment. As known, they are now the main backers of the Zelensky regime, the ones writing his speeches and the ones opening doors for him in the West.

The harshness of the sanctions against Russia is the result of applying woke ideology to the field of international relations. Indeed, these sanctions are not meant to lead the Ukrainian conflict to a resolution, or the Russians to the negotiating table, far from it. The true goal of American neoconservatives is, astoundingly enough, to "cancel" Russia both as a country and as a menace to America's status as sole hegemon left after the demise of the bipolar world.

Taken together, the US' actions directed over the past few years against Russia and especially against China can only be explained by the desire of American foreign policy circles to keep America on top, at the expense of all other military and economic powers, established or emerging ones. To this end, crippling entire economies and vast geographical areas of the world and reigniting the spectre of war in Europe seem a small price to pay for the initiators of American unipolarity in world affairs.

There is currently talk in Washington about hegemonic transition and the Thucydides trap which, if not carefully managed, could finally erupt into an all-out war between the US with its NATO allies, on the one hand, and Russia & China on the other. This time around, however, the leadership of the would-be hegemon supposed to replace the US, namely China, is a hell of a lot smarter than American policymakers ever were. To be sure, China deserves a much more important role in world affairs than is currently the case. To their credit, however, the Chinese do not want to replace the US as the world's sole hegemon, but instead prefer to see the world run in multipolar fashion, by a kind of revamped G7 in which nobody is at the head of the table, but where all major participants share into decisionmaking concerning global affairs. 

In the first decade of this century, the US hoped that they could enlist Russia to organise a Washington-operated balance of power aimed at containing China's rise. American policymakers sensed, rather correctly, that no policy of containment towards China can be successful without having Russia on board. This was the main reason why , between 2009 and 2012, the Obama administration tried to mend fences with Moscow during the so-called reset. Fortunately, the Russians felt the danger of being used for the wrong ends and refused the US's overtures, siding over the last decade with China instead. As Russia refused to come on board, America's architects of unilateralism in international affairs, the neocons, have supported the 2014 upheavals in Ukraine and practically took over the political management of that country in order to turn it against Russia. What we are now witnessing is Russia's military reaction to the threat on its western borders. Regardless of how strident the Biden administration is now in framing the resulting competition as a fight between democracies and autocracies, from an IR point of view the strategy is shallow and is backfiring.

Coming back to the sanctions regime and NATO's posturing in the media, these have only proved to the Western public and to the new allies in Eastern Europe how ineffective the US has become in managing global affairs, especially in Europe. As much as American neocons would like to treat Putin like Saddam and Russia like Iraq and sanction them out of existence, the truth of the matter is that the use of the financial A-bomb (cutting out Russia from SWIFT) and of the financial H-bomb (freezing its central bank reserves in Western banks) is hugely counterproductive and can be fully met by the Russians -if pushed too far- with real atomic and hydrogen bombs. 

Now everyone would agree that this is not the type of global leadership with which the world could put up for long. America's extreme tactics call into question the current arrangements in global affairs: the fact that most commercial transactions are conducted in US dollars, and that all countries have to obey US diktats or else. In fact, all the US has succeeded in doing by interfering in Ukrainian internal affairs since 2014, and by supporting the war against Russia, has been to speed up its own demise as the sole world hegemon. By "cancelling" Russia, the US has initiated the process of cancelling itself. 

Zelensky's Manipulation of Western History

"Politicians and analysts in the United States and Europe not only celebrated the [2014 Maidan] uprising as a triumph of democracy, but denied reports of Maidan’s ultranationalism, smearing those who warned about the dark side of the uprising as Moscow puppets and useful idiots". Lev Golinkin, The Nation

In yet another shameless performance, Zelensky has appealed to the emotions of the US Congress members and portrayed his country as the innocent victim of Russian aggression. He has likened this to the surprise attack of the Japanese on Pearl Harbor in 1941. How ridiculous can this man get ?

The Russian army had been waiting for almost a year at Ukraine's borders for Zelensky's government and its American backers to do the right thing by Russia's security concerns. When the advance notice was ignored, Russia saw no other option but to intervene militarily in Ukraine. 

But wait, there's more. In Europe, Zelensky has portrayed himself as a new Churchill, fighting for the freedom & democracy of the entire world. For reasons beyond my comprehension, major European newspapers like Le Figaro have picked up the Zelensky-Churchill comparison and ran with it. Never mind the fact that the real Churchill was a true blue representative of the British establishment and an Englishman to boot, whereas Zelensky is an Ukrainian of Jewish descent.

The democracy he claims he is defending is no democracy at all, but a successful de facto national-legionary state very similar to the one inaugurated in Romania by the Iron Guard in September 1940, even inspired directly by it, albeit with some democratic trappings about it, to fool foreign observers. The only major difference is that instead of killing Jews, the Ukrainian neo-nazi thugs go after the Russophones from the Donbas.

When I first heard Vladimir Putin claim that Ukraine had been taken over by neo-nazis, I thought he might be exaggerating and that he was probably looking for a pretext for an intervention. Alas, how wrong I was. After researching the issue, I have realised that he told the truth and that Ukraine is being run by gangs of thugs, like the Klitschko brothers in Kiev, by the Azov battalion - whose supporters infiltrated all the major state institutions like the police, army and public administration - and by a constellation of many other neo-nazi armed gangs gravitating around Azov as their benevolent sun. The Ukrainian parliament is there only to deceive foreigners about the true nature of the Ukrainian state. To make an analogy, this cosy relationship between Azov-type gangs and the Ukrainian police or the army would be akin to US southern states' police forces enlisting KKK members to help maintain law and order.

Sure, there are many neo-nazi organisations around Europe and the USA, but as a British reporter has discovered, Azov is the only neo-nazi group that has been gifted by a state (Ukraine) with plenty of weapons, armoured cars and tanks and been given a licence to kill as many Donbas Russians as possible. Its financial backer is - bizarrely enough for such a rabid anti-semitic organisation - Ihor Kolomoisky, a Jewish oligarh who also enabled Zelensky to become president of Ukraine. Now this is a true description of the Ukrainian "democracy" which Zelensky claims he is defending. This, to be sure, is an insult to the memory of Britons who gave their lives during the Second World War in order to protect true freedom and true democracy, that still existed in the world at that time. The fact that the spirit of freedom and democracy has vanished, with only a skewed version of it being currently promoted around the world by the United States is a different matter altogether. 

"Both Ukrainian human rights activists and leaders of rival extreme Right-wing groups have complained to me, in interviews, about the unfair advantage Avakov’s patronage gave the Azov movement in establishing its dominant role in Ukraine’s Rightwing sphere — including official functions as election observers and state-sanctioned auxiliary police. Ukraine is not a Nazi state, but the Ukrainian state’s support — for whatever reasons, valid or otherwise — of neo-Nazi or Nazi-aligned groups makes the country an outlier in Europe. The continent has many extreme Right-wing groups, but only in Ukraine do they possess their own tank and artillery units, with the state’s support." (Aris Roussinos)

Hang on, there's still more to the "democratic Ukraine" story. The emulation of Romanian history goes further than the national-legionary state model. Within their constitution, the Ukrainians have decided to adopt, like in Romania, the "national unitary" state model of French inspiration. This has prevented the implementation of the Minsk 2 accords, which would have solved the Donbas' problems for good. Zelensky, as the head of such a state is now asking the Congress of the United States - the prototype of federal states around the world - to prop up and help defend this inappropriate formula of state organisation in Ukraine.

Finally, Zelensky has played on the American obsession of retaining its status of global hegemon (he wants Joe Biden to be the"leader of the world", in his speech), which was simply a never-to-be-repeated accident which came about in the aftermath of the collapse of the bipolar world. Zelensky knows that the same forces that were behind Maidan are hard at work in Washington trying to prop up the US' flawed claim to global leadership, and he is trying to manipulate American politicians and public opinion to his advantage. 

Needless to say, American politicians should be wary of Zelensky's pleas and warped arguments and take America's national interest into consideration when dealing with the neoconservatives' push to maintain the status quo in world affairs. One thing is very clear, however. What neither Russia nor Europe need at their respective doorsteps is a nightmarish national-legionary state that would have made Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, the Romanian Iron Guard captain, proud. (Incidentally, Zelea Codreanu was of Ukrainian-German ethnic origin, his father's real name was Zelinski)

This is the main reason why, instead of blaming and piling sanctions on Russia, Americans should assist it in cleaning up the mess they helped create in Ukraine.

All Hegemons Have an Expiry Date

 A day after Jake Sullivan's 7-hour meeting with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi, questions remain about the true objectives of the American "negotiators".

I, for one, am inclined to believe that Sullivan was instructed to use a carrot-and-stick approach with China. Over the past few years, China-bashing by various White House administrations has not yielded any practical results, so the overused threat of sanctions if China does not align itself with the US against Russia would not have worked by itself. 

It is entirely conceivable, therefore, that during the 7 hours of talks Sullivan might have alluded to "giving" China chunks of Russian territory in case wider conflict erupted and the Chinese came on board. Similar techniques were used by Henry Kissinger in the 70s to divide the former communist bloc and they worked. 

This time, however, China is a much more prosperous country and, as such, cannot embark on an anti-Russian course without risking serious consequences, nor does it want to. The United States cannot conceivably hope to stop China helping Russia, if needed, as both countries share the same continent and the same strategic interests, while being the targets of various sanctions and hostile propaganda from Washington.

The role of "masters of the universe" played by the United States over the last 20 years is fast becoming untenable , as the demise of the US as the sole hegemon is approaching. Sadly, instead of opting for a more rational organisation of decisionmaking in world affairs, officials of the current American administration prefer to evade reality and cling to the forlorn hope of keeping the world still, with them on top.

Now more than ever, the American foreign policy establishment needs to display clear thinking and set for the United States achievable objectives instead of ideological ones. This means that its top diplomats should stop pushing liberal democracy worldwide, as this lacks exportable qualities and is intensely disliked by at least two thirds of the world, from Russia and Asian countries, to the Islamic world and Africa. By the same token, the Americans should stop lecturing and moralising foreign leaders and countries and instead sit down with them at the negotiating table, fully taking into consideration their grievances and security concerns. 

Unfortunately, by walking the current path, the White House team - from the President down to Victoria Nuland at the State Department, who were the original architects of the events in Ukraine's Maidan - run the huge risk of getting their country into nuclear conflict with Russia.

Why Ukrainians Should Stop Listening to Zelensky

March 10, 2022. I have recently researched Dmytro Kuleba's entry on Wikipedia and the news is disastrous. Ukraine's foreign minister suffers of Asperger's syndrome, like Greta Thunberg. (The Wikipedia  entry about his syndrome was deleted on March 12th). Him holding such a high position in Kiev in these calamitous times for Europe calls into question the sanity of the entire Ukrainian leadership and that of their enablers in the Anglo-Saxon world.

March 9, 2022. If Ukrainians were in any doubt whether the armed resistance Zelensky and his team have organised against the Russian army was not about their own country or their people, now they have the proof. Their president's speech to the British lawmakers and Boris Johnson's televised reply show that Ukraine and its people have been used from the outset by the United States and Great Britain to provoke regime change in Moscow.

By asking for more weapons and tighter sanctions, Zelensky is fulfilling this particular agenda, which has nothing to do with the deaths and the suffering of ordinary Ukrainians. He has even had the cynicism to end his speech with a Shakespearean quote - "to be or not to be"- proving to the world that once an actor always an actor.

If Zelensky, Kuleba and the rest of the team had indeed been animated by strong patriotic feelings, the Russian intervention would never have taken place. Solutions to prevent it existed of course, but the two were not prepared to heed any sensible advice whatsoever. 

Thus, one month before the Russian troops crossed the Ukrainian border, I wrote the following letter to Dmytro Kuleba, which naturally remained without a reply:

"January 23, 2022

His Excellency Kuleba Dmytro

Ukrainian Minister for Foreign Affairs

Kiev

Ukraine

zsmfa@mfa.gov.ua

Your Excellency,

I would like to approach your office, during these tense times for your country as well as for the whole of Eastern Europe, with a proposal that might defuse the threat of military action in Ukraine.

When it comes to achieving lasting peace in Ukraine, the key is not in Washington, Moscow or Brussels, but in Kiev. This is because you and your colleagues are the only ones capable of deciding to adopt a full neutrality status for Ukraine, forgoing any military alliances with the East or with the West which may jeopardise the territorial integrity of your country.

As an Australian historian born in Romania, I am of course familiar with the issues affecting peace and security in Eastern Europe. On the 18th of December last year I wrote a post about Ukraine on my geopolitical blog, recommending a status of neutrality for your country. My professional opinion has recently been echoed by the renowned International Relations professor Stephen M. Walt, who is also of the opinion that your best hope for peace in Ukraine is to become a neutral country, although he seems to believe that Ukrainian politicians lack the will to select this option (please see links below). 

I would further like to suggest to you the adoption of a federal formula for Ukraine, which would be the most useful in putting to rest the current ethnic tensions you are experiencing. 

I take this opportunity to mention to you that the more than 500,000 citizens of Romanian heritage living in Ukraine are very unhappy with the nationalist policies adopted lately by Kiev and would welcome a larger degree of autonomy in education and public administration within their native lands.

If successful in these two endeavours, Ukraine would be able to join a group of prosperous and influential nations such as the United States, Canada, Australia or Germany and Belgium in Europe.

Needless to mention, the alternatives are dire and involve more or less permanent military conflict with Russia, which would only make Ukraine a permanent customer of the military-industrial complex of the United States.

[...]

Yours faithfully

"

A once prestigious Western institution like the Westminster Parliament yesterday has become the scene of a grotesque Zelensky & Johnson political show aimed not as much at British voters, but at the Ukrainian public, whose support for their president is understandably faltering. To be sure, more weapons and sanctions would not lead, as Boris Johnson told the British parliament, to regime change in Moscow, but to even more deaths and destruction in Ukraine. 

Naturally, it is up to Ukrainians themselves to decide if they want to continue to die for a country and a leadership that has practically been at war since the 2014 violent change in government. Before doing so, however, they should consider the opinions of colonel Douglas Macgregor from the United States, who knows best who bears the main responsibility for the carnage now taking place in Ukraine:

"  Meanwhile, the Washington elite remains committed to any course of action that promises to prolong the conflict and kill more Ukrainians. No one inside the Biden Administration or in the Senate seems remotely interested in crafting a ceasefire, let alone developing the basis for a potential solution that will save lives and halt the destruction.

Europeans must realize that Washington and London, along with their obedient media, will forgive any sin—deception, graft, murder—if it is committed against Moscow. Before it accepts any change in the regional status quo, Washington is prepared to sow chaos in Eastern Europe. This is hardly in Europe’s interest."

A Post about Ukraine from the 2nd of March, 2014

I wrote the following post on the 2nd of March 2014 on my Facebook wall. This document correctly assesses the impact of Maidan on Russia from a geopolitical angle and accurately anticipates today's events.

 As none of the architects of the 2014 Ukraine policy have been held responsible by the US Congress, the world is now closer to nuclear war than it has ever been.

Today one thing is clear: sanctioning Russia for Western policy failures is morally wrong and it is only adding insult to injury. The events now unfolding in Ukraine are the harbingers of NATO's  future demise and probably that of the EU itself.

 2 March, 2014. HOW TO EXPLAIN THE RUSSIAN REACTION. Russia, the largest state on the planet, a state with huge resources, a strong army and sophisticated nuclear weapons, feels attacked today in its security zone, Ukraine.

The British lent a helping hand in the 19th century to craft and guarantee the security of the Belgian state: that meant when Belgium and the Netherlands   - that is, the British isles'  protection zone on the European mainland - were attacked , Britain automatically went to war against the aggressor. The island of Hawaii has the same geo-strategic situation for the United States: when it was attacked by the Japanese, the United States automatically went to war.

What the US and the EU have planned for Ukraine with the help of dissatisfied citizens in the west of that country is a huge error of the North Atlantic Alliance. All the Western officials in charge of managing the situation there for the last few years or months deserve to lose the positions they currently hold. The hard times we are going through now are ultimately the responsibility of these officials, who have obviously made the wrong career choice for themselves.

The phony outrage displayed now by some Euro-Atlantic political leaders, the threats, cannot hide the fact that Russia's security needs, its economic and geo-strategic interests, have been trampled on by all those who have made possible,  logistically and tactically, the mob insurrection that led to the overthrow of the Kyiv regime.

Russia could not tolerate the way the events in Maidan unfolded, nor the belligerence and threats of politicians - perceived in Moscow, not without reason, as representatives of a puppet regime - installed by Western countries to deal a deadly blow to the security interests of Russia in its own backyard.

 Through the policies they adopted, the new leaders which were appointed in the wake of Maidan  have shown that they do not understand the enormity of the mistakes they made, from the repeal of the law on nationalities, to the threat of suspension of the Russian naval base agreement in Crimea, or their anti-Russian rhetoric. Consequently, the possibility of a major military conflict in the area can no longer be ruled out, but it is even very likely.

(Author: Florian Pantazi 

Posted on Facebook on the 2nd of March, 2014

Translated from Romanian by the author)

The US are Acting on the Wrong Philosophical Assumptions about History

 When foreigners or Americans themselves are complaining about the US, they usually take aim at its political and economic elite, institutions, its foreign policy, the military or America's cultural or global ambitions.

Few, however, are aware of the fact that powerful nations are run according to an agenda that incorporates a specific interpretation of history:  a historical algorithm, so to speak. By and large, this philosophical interpretation of world history goes a long way towards explaining why nations like the United States behave the way they do.

From the Age of Enlightenment we have inherited a conception about the historical evolution of humanity which in most cases is depicted as both irreversible and unidirectional, or as some specialists call it, linear. In the 19th century Hegel, a German philosopher of history, refined this approach by adding a final destination to this linear historical evolution, which he called "the end of history" (in his view, German history ended with the formation of the Prussian state). Karl Marx was one of his students and he devised his own end-of-history , which was supposed to happen when the proletariat would get on top of the capitalist class for good. The type of society he imagined was called communism, in which exploitation of any kind would completely disappear and  perfect equality would reign among all members of society.

One of the legacies that Marxist philosophy of history left behind was a partition of history according to different types of societies, defined by their specific modes of production. Thus, humanity advanced from prehistorical hunter/gatherers to the classical, slave-owning ancient societies, on to feudal societies, which gave birth to what Marx called capitalist societies, in their turn the harbinger of future communist societies. And herein lies one of his biggest errors. According to a number of social scientists like Eugene Buret, or renowned economists such as J.A. Schumpeter,  capitalist society is not a new and entirely different type of society if compared to the feudal one, but just the decaying phase of medieval Western society. 

In other words, what we were conditioned by Marx to believe about the existence of capitalist and communist societies is basically wrong. If, on the other hand, we look at capitalism (in the west) and communism (in the east) as simply the decomposing phases of feudal societies, many aspects about the organisation and functioning of capitalist or communist societies become more comprehensible from a sociological point of view. What is important to note at this point is that whereas decaying medieval Western societies turned capitalist, decaying feudal Eurasian or Asian societies turned communist. 

It is useful to remember that both capitalism and communism have facilitated the transition of entire nations from agricultural countries to industrialised and urbanised ones in a relatively short period of time, albeit using vastly different methods in achieving these goals. Both types of transition, however, have been marred by extremely painful dislocation, misery and in some cases millions of casualties.

The most problematic part of the historical algorithm used to elaborate political, geostrategic and military agendas is that which refers to the evolution of humanity as a whole. Thus, if Hegel and Marx were right, then under certain conditions historical evolution will stop after reaching a peak, after which the history pages in the book of life will remain blank. A version of this misguided interpretation of historical evolution was given to the American public by Francis Fukuyama, who in 1992 published his essay "The End of History and the Last Man".

Like Hegel before him, Fukuyama believed that after the 1991 implosion of the USSR the end of history was in sight. In his view this consists of the universal adoption of market economics principles and of liberal democracy as a political system. His interpretation of world history and especially his end-of-history thesis has informed  the political action of the US and that of American neoconservatives since 2000. To this day, neocons wrongly believe that because the US is the only superpower left, it should retain the status of world hegemon for at least another century.

What actually happened after the implosion of the bipolar world was - after a brief unipolar moment - the advent of the multipolar world, which the US alone adamantly opposes.

In fact, a much more fruitful approach to understanding the historical evolution of humanity could be found in the writings of Italian philosopher of history Giambattista Vico. In his "Scienza Nuova", he postulated that human societies have a cyclical - instead of linear - evolution. Vico's definition of progress differs from that of Kant or Hegel, for example, who were firm believers in the infallibility of human reason. For Vico too, reason was the catalyst for human progress. However, Vico believed in the possible collapse of reason at some point, which in turn could cause civilisational collapse. In other words, he was convinced that a breakdown in reason can cause man to revert to an earlier, barbarous state.( His approach could for example better explain how the excesses of nazism and even communism were ever possible.)

In this cyclical paradigm of evolution, a fallen empire like Rome, for example, partially re-emerged in a different form in 800 under the name of The Holy Roman Empire (considered by Popes as the secular arm of the Church), and it was arguably the most powerful European feudal state during the Middle Ages. The Holy Roman Empire lasted for a thousand years until 1806, when it was replaced by the Confederation of the Rhine by Francis II, the Austrian emperor. After the reunification of German states around Prussia in the 19th century, the rise and the fall of the German empire in the 20th century, the partition of Germany after 1945 and its reunification in 1991, the German federal state is still the most powerful country in the EU.

Yet another example is the recent re-emergence of China as an economic powerhouse, after what the Chinese call "the century of humiliation", with the Chinese share of global GDP  approaching again 25 percent, as it did around the year 1800. 

Russia, too, has put the trials and tribulations of empire collapse and 70 years of communism behind her and is fast re-emerging as the leading Eurasian military power, a status that it used to hold undisputed from the middle of the 18th century. 

Such examples conclusively prove that today's American policymakers would be well-advised to discard theories of history, like Fukuyama's, that can only lead to huge errors, especially in foreign policy. Adopting a cyclical approach to assessing historical developments could indeed yield much more positive outcomes for American experts and politicians alike.

Accordingly, German reunification and de facto leadership of the EU, the re-emergence of Russia as a major military power in Eurasia, or China's rise as a global economic actor should be considered normal historical developments . Moreover, even these countries' quest to have their spheres of influence recognised has deep historical roots and should be considered by Washington as legitimate, instead of being treated as offensive, as it is now the case.

US: from Nation-Building to all-out War

"Billions spent on the Kennedy School, grand strategies seminars, and the Georgetown School of Foreign Service has bought us an elite that's about to blunder us into a Ukraine war."(J.D. Vance)

In a few days from now, President Biden will host German Chancellor Scholz in Washington. The expectation of Washington neocons is that he will succeed in pressuring Germany to join a pan-European alliance against Russia. 

To be sure, the German refusal to send weapons to Ukraine - and thus help ignite a fratricide war between Ukraine and Russia - makes sense. Germany was right in refusing to join the neocon-inspired war against Iraq in 2003 and is even more justified in refusing to join NATO in sponsoring a war against Russia now.

Unfortunately, France is no longer led by a president as experienced or astute as Jacques Chirac: Macron seems willing to send troops to Romania, regardless of how pointless this is from a military point of view.

Since 2001 the US have embarked in quite a few military interventions or coups around the world, which were followed by a disastrous drive to promote nation-building: in Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011) and Ukraine (2014). All these ill-conceived nation-building efforts have backfired miserably. Undaunted, the Washington neocons who have monopolised American foreign policy for the last two decades are now promoting a war by proxy, encouraging the Ukrainians to fight the Russians.

Since 2007 onwards, Vladimir Putin has cautioned the West against pushing the boundaries of NATO eastwards. His pleas went ignored and - at the NATO summit in Bucharest one year later -  the George W Bush administration officially announced the intention of the US to include countries like Georgia and Ukraine in the alliance (these efforts were thwarted by the refusal of France and Germany to endorse the expansion). In 2014, the US engineered a coup d'etat in Kiev, replacing Yanukovich with an American puppet regime that ultimately bled Ukraine dry and is at the origin of today's crisis.

Unfortunately, after 14 years of unsuccessfully calling for a stop to NATO's eastward expansion, the Russians were deliberately left with no other option by US negotiators than to put a stop to this expansion through military action against Ukraine. 

The fact is that the treaty they are seeking to guarantee Russia's security can only be concluded after fighting a war, not before.

Since the Age of Enlightenment, Western intellectuals have elaborated projects aimed at achieving "perpetual peace". Some of the fruits of this labour have been the multilateral institutions such as the League of Nations and the United Nations. Sadly, however, humanity has been confronted with some of its biggest and most devastating military conflicts regardless of such well-intentioned efforts. To this day, no lasting peace treaty has been able to be concluded without fighting it out on the battlefield first.

The recent, ill-conceived US nation-building efforts abroad have coincided with a period in American history when consensus has evaporated, the nation is deeply divided and American society itself is in danger of internal collapse. Sure, the Pentagon and the US Defence Department are against a war breaking out in Ukraine, but the neocons in Washington and their supporters in the military-industrial complex want it and will most probably get it. 

As long as the American polity remains unable to expunge from their ranks the neocons putting America's future in jeopardy, however, the string of military and nation-building failures experienced by the US is set to continue.

UKRAINE AND THE END OF PEACE IN EUROPE

In an unfortunate turn of events, it seems Ukrainians are intent on finalising their nation-building at the expense of European peace.

Today Romania celebrates 163 years since the double election of Alexandru Ioan Cuza as ruler of the United Principalities of Moldova and Wallachia. The double election capped a 3-year diplomatic offensive by Romanian intellectuals in leading European capitals, aimed at securing  international recognition for the new state - formed through the unification of Moldova and Wallachia - by the great powers of the day. 

Cuza's double election was the gimmick used by the founders of the modern Romanian state in order to circumvent the restrictions imposed on the unification of the two principalities by the European great powers during  the 1856 Paris peace congress . The unity of the new Romanian state was thus obtained peacefully, albeit by defying the will of Western and Central European rulers, most notably those of Great Britain and the Austrian empire. Less than a decade later, the Romanian state became a kingdom and in 1877 it obtained its independence from the Ottoman empire.

This outstanding example of diplomatic skill and statecraft allowed the new state to survive and prosper. At the end of WWI, the Romanian kingdom more than doubled its territory and population, reuniting within its borders all the Romanians hitherto living in Austro-Hungarian or Russian empires. To this day, for all its shortcomings, Romania is a functioning democracy, a stable and peaceful nation of Europe.

Europe is unfortunately witnessing today the different saga of yet another new state, Ukraine, at its doorstep. The evolution of Ukraine since 1991 has not matched Romania's peaceful model in any way shape or manner. The initial Western enthusiasm from the 1990's having evaporated, Ukraine is barely functioning and looks set to put an end to peace in Europe - a peace that has lasted largely uninterrupted since 1945. 

In my professional view, this is happening because Ukraine lacks a patriotic elite. Sure, there are pro-western politicians and parties, as there are pro-Russian parties and politicians. What Ukraine badly needed, however, is a breed of politicians and intellectuals who are pro-Ukrainian, that is, exclusively dedicated to advancing a purely Ukrainian agenda on the international stage. 

The lack of such an elite was and is currently being used by interested parties, like Russia and the United States. Their geopolitical designs, however, have very little to do with the core interests of the new nation. Sadly, however, the Ukrainians have failed to prove to them both that they have what it takes to build a strong and peaceful nation.

The very latest developments are a case in point. In an open-for-all-to-see international conspiracy, some politicians from the UK and the United States are using the Russian military build-up on the Ukrainian border to sell rumours and unconfirmed stories to the Western public about Moscow's intention to install a puppet regime in Kiev. Echoing the London or Washington storyline, current Ukrainian authorities have vowed to round up all the local politicians who might be part of the plot. In so doing, they seem to overlook the fact that they behave as a puppet regime of the West themselves. Moreover, Ukrainian leaders are showing a bizarre willingness to send their own citizens to the slaughter , by beating the drums of war with Russia on behalf of the West.

In truth, taking part in a conspiracy against peace in Europe is not the way to advance Ukrainian nation-building. As an historian, I am more convinced today than ten years ago that what we are dealing with in Ukraine's case is the failed launch of the new state. In other words, over the past 30 years Ukrainians have proved to the rest of the world that they are not mature enough to have their own state and to govern themselves peacefully , with only minimal foreign interference.

Unfortunately, as Ukrainians rejected neutrality out of hand - which is the only realistic solution to their problems -  they are running the serious risk of disappearing again from the map of Europe as an independent state. In case that happens, they will not be able to blame Russia or the West, but only themselves.

US DIPLOMACY AND THE SPHERES OF INFLUENCE

 Today's American diplomacy refuses to accept the existence of spheres of influence. Both Hillary Clinton and Blinken have unequivocally stated that spheres of influence belong to the past, although the 50-year long peace that characterized the Cold War period was based on the existence of two spheres of influence, one American and the other Soviet.

The United States has consistently pursued a foreign policy based on spheres of influence since the adoption of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, completed in 1904 by the Roosevelt Corollary . Thus, the United States has reserved for itself the status of regional policeman in the Western Hemisphere and the right to intervene militarily in the internal affairs of any South or Central American state.

The hypocrisy of American diplomacy and its current representatives is devoid of pragmatism and could lead to serious military conflicts, which can be avoided by simply acknowledging that there are other great nations in the world - such as Russia or China - with major geostrategic interests in their immediate vicinity.

US Diplomacy v. the Military-Industrial Complex

 The last time the United States achieved lasting peace with its former enemies was in 1945. Since then America has been dragged into an endless succession of regional wars, with its diplomats being forced to play second fiddle to the hawks in various US administrations.

Nowadays it's not diplomats who come up with solutions to solve tensions between states, but the direct or indirect representatives of the American, Russian or French military-industrial complexes, that is - military attachés or secret service chiefs posted  in embassies. The situation arose after 1945 and gradually worsened as the military-industrial complexes in question gained increasing levels of influence over politicians.

Of course, unlike diplomats, the people of the military-industrial complex (MIC) do not aim to settle conflicts between states, but to stall solving them in order to keep the level of arms sales as high as possible.

A recent example from Australia illustrates how toxic a MIC can be for the conduct of normal diplomatic relations between states. Thus, a country like France - hitherto known to have the oldest and most prestigious diplomatic service in Europe - recalled its ambassadors from 2 of its oldest Western allies, namely the US and Australia, simply because the French MIC lost an order to supply submarines to the Australian Navy in favour of the Americans.

The Russian MIC is also a strong competitor to the American MIC when it comes to sales of military hardware.Thus, the Russians have succeeded in selling sensitive military hardware even to NATO members like Turkey. Cash-strapped nations like India are also traditional customers. The huge success of the Russian MIC, however, lies elsewhere. Twenty-odd years ago one of their own - Vladimir Putin - took over the presidency and made sure that no traditional politician will ever gain power in Russia again. The domination of the Russian MIC over state institutions is so complete due to the fact that no alternative power centres have been allowed to exist.

" Russian defense companies do not need to spend money on lobbyists (as their U.S. counterparts do) because key individuals working for them simultaneously hold senior political posts and already take part in high-level decision-making. Thus, Russia’s defense-industry lobbying, such as it is, focuses on access to the federal budget—funds distributed by the government with the active participation of the presidential administration and Putin himself for arms procurement, R&D and industrial modernization programs. " ( Pavel Luzin )

Many analysts and Western politicians have mistakenly compared Putin to the likes of Stalin or Hitler. For a start, unlike them, Putin is not a politician and has never aspired to be one. Secondly, unlike Stalin, he has an excellent working relationship with the top generals of the Russian army, or with the heads of Russia's main secret services like the GRU and the FSB. Thirdly, Vladimir Putin has demonstrated that when his country is backed into a corner, he and his army commanders act as one in pushing back against what they see as trespassers to the Russian security sphere. And finally, Putin and the other top leaders of the Russian MIC take a dim view not only of traditional politicians, but also of the role diplomats can play in solving international crises. In other words, unlike his Western counterparts, Putin is not a politician but the leading PR representative of the Russian MIC.

In the United States, the typical political representatives of the MIC are the  neo-conservatives, the most belligerent of Americans. They are often found in important positions, either in the White House or in the state or defense departments , where they exert a strong influence on US foreign and defense policy. (Two best-known such people are Paul Wolfovitz or Victoria Nuland.)

Even worse, four of the top 5 corporations in the military-industrial complex in the US are run by women , who unfortunately have a dubious reputation for being more aggressive in negotiations than men ...

Whenever the issue of diplomatic negotiations between states  comes up -  such as the planned Biden Administration negotiations with Russia this month - representatives of the mass media associated with the complex fill up the public space with articles describing the diplomatic efforts as being a sign of weakness on the part of the US, insisting instead on the need to send more weaponry to the US' allies.

In other words,  when it comes to extinguishing armed conflicts,  the tactic of ​​the American military-industrial complex is to pour more gas on the fire, in order to be able to provide as many weapons as possible to the conflict zones of the world.

TIME TO GET OUT OF HISTORY

Once economic modernization is completed, all communist regimes have to face up to their lack of legitimacy. The Chinese communist regime is no exception. Taking into account the recent history of communist regimes worldwide, China's current leadership will soon have to make a choice between 2 options. The first is the one Gorbachev chose in 1991. The second is the one that Ceausescu opted for in December 1989. Unfortunately, there is no third option available.

One of Lucian Blaga's brilliant remarks - which referred to the period in which there is an absence of data on the Romanian people in medieval European historiography - is that Romanians "went out of history to remain in history."

Nowadays, I would apply Blagian thinking to the impossible situation currently facing the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party. For several years now, the latter have been making furious plans aimed at perpetuating the unbroken political monopoly they have held  since 1949.

Like the USSR communists in the interwar period, the Chinese Communists succeeded in the economic modernisation of China, which in a few decades was transformed from a poor agrarian nation into a strong and prosperous industrial nation.

However, Chinese leaders - like Ceausescu before them - believe that they can stay in power forever with the help of electronic means of mass surveillance or by putting tanks in the streets. They do not seem to understand that the only way to secure a prestigious role in Chinese history is to voluntarily relinquish power - yes, as Gorbachev did - and to allow other political forces to take over and continue China's institutional and political modernization. In other words, to go out of history in order to remain in history.

Any communist society, no matter how economically  or militarily advanced, suffers from a major flaw in the logic of its governing program. When communist governing programs reach this point - like China today or  the USSR in the 1980's - the system goes haywire. The solution chosen by the Chinese leaders - that of strengthening political repression and mass surveillance of the population - only aggravates the situation.

Of course, China's problem is  not the system's lack of economic performance, as in the case of the USSR. However, China urgently needs the demonopolization of its political system, even a controlled one,  as well as numerous institutional and legal reforms that would guarantee, not violate, the fundamental rights of Chinese citizens in their relations with the state.

In conclusion, a minimum of political intelligence should prompt the current Chinese leaders to leave power now, while they are still on top. The growing complexity of the problems facing the Chinese society today imposes this. The intensification of the Marxist education of the population and of the repression and surveillance of citizens are only pseudo-solutions, totally inadequate for this moment in history.

Unfortunately,  the Chinese communist leaders do not seem to be able to understand a simple fact, namely  that their historical role has ended and that  time has come to "get out of history in order to remain in history", since their governing program no longer meets  the needs of Chinese society and has even become toxic.

THE CRISIS OF DIPLOMACY II : " MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR " ☺

 

With each passing day, Western states are taking resolute steps towards becoming  irrelevant.

Woke ideology, left-wing feminism, critical race theory  are all undermining a civilization that seems determined to shed its  past achievements and give up the pre-eminent role it has played until recently.

States that are much less economically developed or that are more primitive from a social or political point of view are, as a result, becoming much more insolent and confident that they will soon take over the world.

A last-minute trend in the demise of the West is the so-called " feminist foreign policy, " which is sure to strike a blow at the diplomatic profession,  already badly affected  by the changes of the past 30 years.

Feminists who fancy themselves  as diplomats do not seem to understand that the essential role of diplomats is to sign peace treaties, to settle conflicts between states, not to catalyze them. Feminist assumptions about diplomacy being mistaken, their "contributions"  are useless. It's enough to consider the performance in office  of Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton or  Victoria Nuland and one gets the picture.

Thus, if  Albright had tempered the Baltic states' desire to become NATO members, for example, Russia would not have a casus belli today against the West. She was also responsible for botching the peace negotiations with Milosevic and for the bombings in Bosnia and Serbia from 1999. There are a few American IR specialists who have deplored the way NATO turned out after 1989. Thus from a military alliance tasked with keeping the peace in Europe, NATO has emerged as an aggressive organisation which started quite a few wars since 1999. In no small measure, this shocking shift in NATO's mission is the legacy of the first woman to become Secretary of State in the history of the US, and not that of  any "toxic" NATO general.

We should also remember the disaster in Libya patronized by the then head of American diplomacy, Hillary Clinton. Counter to the advice of the Defence Department , which was opposed to military action against Gaddafi, Hillary Clinton convinced Obama to authorize the bombing campaign in Libya, with devastating consequences .

One should not forget the "contribution" to peace in Ukraine made by Nuland , who personally oversaw the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime in Kiev...

So far, therefore, the presence of women in diplomacy has not shown that they are better negotiators, less aggressive than men, or better trained professionally. So where are the exaggerated claims of German feminists coming from?

Ukraine and the Crisis of Diplomacy

  I propose to look at the current crisis from another angle, that of the crisis of the diplomatic profession.

200 years ago, in a turbulent European context marked by the Napoleonic Wars, a neutral state appeared on the map of the continent, a republic in the middle of the kingdoms of the time: Switzerland.

This was made possible by the support of Tsarist Russia and the diplomatic genius of its Foreign Minister Ioannis Kapodistria . Thanks to his talent and sustained efforts, Switzerland's independence and neutrality have been recognized and guaranteed by all the great European powers.

Fast forward to the 21st century, when the tradition of competent diplomats has almost completely disappeared. The main cause for this situation is without a doubt the usurpation of the competencies specific to the diplomatic profession by the heads of Western states, eager to appear as great international crisis solvers (they are not!) in the spotlight of the TV cameras. This has delegitimized the field of diplomacy and marginalized career diplomats, who would now have been the only ones able to negotiate a neutral status for Ukraine and help resolve the political-military stalemate the tensions have reached.

What's worse is the fact that seasoned diplomats like Kennan or Kissinger have been replaced by militant women, either feminists like Hillary Clinton or neoconservatives like Victoria Nuland, who have greatly aggravated the geostrategic situation throughout Eastern Europe. Such "diplomats" not only did not help ease geostrategic tensions, but even catalyzed them (see Victoria Nuland's actions in Maidan Square in 2014). It is well known that in diplomacy the persons for whom ideological options prevail cannot function effectively, regardless of the nature of their ideology.

It is interesting to note that the role of diplomats in international negotiations, which has been severely eroded over the last hundred years, has never before been so completely affected, not even by interwar dictators, such as Hitler or Stalin. The latter did not take any interest in Soviet foreign policy until 1936, leaving the field almost exclusively in the care of Litvinov, the USSR's foreign policy commissioner. Litvinov's replacement in 1939 was followed by one of the great failures of Soviet diplomacy: the signing of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, the treaty in question was negotiated and signed on behalf of the two states by Ribbentrop and Molotov, respectively, on behalf of the USSR.

The trend for summits between the leaders of the world's most important states started during World War II, with Churchill, Rosevelt and Stalin meeting in Tehran and Yalta. It was resumed in 1989 when Presidents GH Bush and M. Gorbachev met in Malta, and summits have remained in fashion to this day.

The most important successes during the Cold War, however, such as the policy of detente or the signing of strategic arms reduction treaties, are attributed to diplomacy corps led by Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko, not Leonid Brezhnev. The signing of the peace treaty that ended the Vietnam War was negotiated by Henry Kissinger, not by Richard Nixon, etc.

Let's be serious, the United States (and for some time Russia, France or the United Kingdom) no longer have well-trained diplomats who will play a key role in reducing tensions between states or blocs of states. In crisis situations, such as now on the Ukrainian border, it is not Blinken or Lavrov who are called to resolve the stalemate, but President Biden or Vladimir Putin directly.

The conclusion to the above is clear. In the absence of competent senior diplomats, fully in charge of the foreign policy of their states, crises between blocs can degenerate into military conflicts, which jeopardize peace in Europe or elsewhere in the world. The absence of the diplomatic buffer is therefore very ominous for all parties involved in economic or military conflicts. However, until the role of diplomats in international relations is restored, situations of this kind can only degenerate.

When History repeats itself as a Farce

 

On the 20th of October the US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin visited Bucharest, where he met with President Iohannis and Defence Minister Ciuca. A day later, President Iohannis designated Ciuca as the next Prime Minister of Romania, to replace the disgraced Vasile Citu. 

At first, General Ciuca sought a parliamentary vote of confidence in a PNL minority government and failed. For his second attempt, President Iohannis enlisted the help of Romania's social democratic party (PSD), which he brought - against the wishes of many Liberal party members - into a coalition with the ruling Liberals, not before destroying the former coalition between the Liberals and a smaller centre-right party, USR Plus.

Iohannis - who for years has campaigned and got re-elected as president on an anti-PSD platform (which was regularly labelled by him as the "red plague") - has thus stunned most members of his Liberal party, as well as the country's leading writers and artists who had hitherto supported his policies and presidential bids. Moreover, he single-handedly imposed Citu as the new president of the Liberal party and provoked the expulsion of the incumbent party president, former PM Ludovic Orban, who was against undoing the coalition with USR Plus. (To fully understand the character of Iohannis, it's worth mentioning the fact that it was Ludovic Orban who had convinced his party members in 2014 to accept Iohannis and to support his presidential bid.)

Lloyd Austin came to Bucharest in the middle of the crisis provoked by the political clumsiness of the Romanian president. In all probability, he was the one who advised Iohannis to promote general Ciuca to the post of Romanian PM, the first general to lead the government since the end of WWII.

A historical retrospective is in order here. In 1940, Hitler was preparing the invasion of the USSR and badly needed Romania's oil reserves and military help. As a result, general Ion Antonescu was the prime minister selected to lead Romania during the war, with the support of Nazi Germany. The tragedy of Romania after 1945 sprung from the nefarious alliance concluded by Antonescu with Hitler, which ended up in the occupation of the country by the victorious Red Army.

As Marx was fond of reminding his readers, history can only be repeated twice: first as a tragedy, and the second time as a farce. 

To put things into perspective, it is fair to say that Putin is nowhere near as fierce an enemy of the West as Stalin once was. Lloyd Austin's efforts to prepare the Eastern flank of NATO for a Russian invasion of Ukraine are largely misguided. What's more, the American Secretary of Defence is guilty of gross interference in Romania's internal political affairs and of playing an identical role in Romanian eyes to that of Hitler in 1940. In other words, Lloyd Austin behaved in Bucharest like a Hitler 2.0 of sorts, provoking the ire of the Romanian intellectual and artistic elites who feel they're witnessing a grotesque political farce all over again.

Is the US Following into the Footsteps of Latin America ?

 One of the unintended consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic has been the exacerbation of the cancel/woke wars taking place in some Anglo-Saxon societies and especially in the United States.

The trend had been obvious for decades. In 2004, for example, Samuel Huntington cautioned his peers - in one of his most widely-read essays - that American elites have turned their backs on their own country and sowed the seeds of mistrust in the American government and institutions.

Since then things have gone from bad to worse. The enemies of America, radicalised activists belonging to the African-American, Chinese or other ethnic minorities have ignited the culture wars that are entering their final phase under our own eyes.

American politicians have responded inadequately to this extremely worrisome development, especially those on the left of the political spectrum. To be sure, the solution to the current predicament experienced by American society does not lie in appointing representatives of African-American or any other member of ethnic minorities  to the highest offices in the land. As the current crisis is truly an existential one, adopting the ostrich approach or trying to appease those bent on destroying the cultural heritage of the West is not only wrong but self-defeating, as well.

Nor are these developments restricted to the American nation. In true Marxist fashion, the representatives of the cancel/woke movement have made huge strides in exporting their anti-white, anti-European policies to all corners of the West, from other English-speaking countries to France and Germany as well.

The ultimate goal of these radical activists is not only the wholesale cancellation of the US' European cultural heritage, but also of the European stock itself, of natives or immigrants individually. In other words, the objective seems to be to replace the white leadership and bureaucrats, Latin-American style, starting with the United States as the model. European descendents of the original settlers and European recent immigrants to America are thus faced with practical consequences of this cancel culture. It has become difficult if not impossible for them to work successfully in academia, state agencies and even in the private sector. In my 40-year experience as an immigrant to Australia, what has shocked me is the utter inability of many Asian immigrants to learn and subsequently to uphold - in a work environment -  Australian traditional values, as well as their propensity to replace these with their own values, which they deem "superior".

The neo-marxist nature of the woke/cancel culture movements, in the US and elsewhere, is unmistakable. Their revolutionary aim is also abundantly clear: Western societies - which are accused of being racist and supremacist- need to be replaced with societies led by hitherto marginal minorities. According to this revolutionary scenario, political leaders have to be selected, like in Latin America after the Bolivarian revolution, from the ranks of mixed race groups. The historical experience of such an endeavour is, unfortunately, nothing short of disastruous. Thus, it is a known fact that the Bolivarian war of independence that took place in Latin America in the 19th century has never brought economic prosperity, peace and stability to the South American continent, quite on the contrary.

We are used to thinking that the world is undergoing a geopolitical shift from the Western alliance to the Eurasian continent, without realising that the bigger danger facing the West is actually the wholesale replacement of its elites and politicians by a consortium of African-American and Asian immigrants. Their racial designs are not hidden anymore, and they are causing enormous damage to the social fabric of the Western societies in which these ethnic minorities have representatives in sufficient numbers. 

The continuation of such policy errors can only bring about the demise of the West from its current leadership position. Furthermore, if the racial designs of African or Asian minorities against white European natives or immigrants are not stopped and reversed soon, America is in danger of losing not only its leadership of world affairs, but control of its own society as well. In this existential fight, no American - or Western politician, for that matter - can afford to be complacent, because for the vanquished there isn't going to be a safe place to hide this time.