Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/0 ... damp-squib
Ukraine intends a counter-offensive but they do not have the ammo for it. They also fear that there is a window before Russian mobilisation and re-arming gets deployed.
So US is leading some kind of fundraising campaign for Ukrainian offensive. British PM promises and recent Biden visit is part of that campaign (means Ukraine is low on ammo & might falter if it doesnt get some booster soon enough Biden visit was a desperate attempt. Biden cannot do more than this other than ofcourse sending more money). Its interesting. Will EU fall in line or not - as in commit more moolah. This war will end this year on a table, both sides are trying to get an upper hand in shorter time period.
Moscow needs - 1. A neutral territory b/w Ukraine & Russia 2. Friendly regime in Ukraine + no NATO guarantees (Possibly EU as well) in return withdraw and cease hostility. 3. Withdrawal of sanctions and all. They will get this if momentum is on their side, so withdrawing & ceasing hostilities means something.
Ukraine wants withdrawal and possibly parts of luhansk & donestk + allowed to join NATO. It has nothing to offer to Russia - elenky ha staken a maximalist position.
Ukraine intends a counter-offensive but they do not have the ammo for it. They also fear that there is a window before Russian mobilisation and re-arming gets deployed.
So US is leading some kind of fundraising campaign for Ukrainian offensive. British PM promises and recent Biden visit is part of that campaign (means Ukraine is low on ammo & might falter if it doesnt get some booster soon enough Biden visit was a desperate attempt. Biden cannot do more than this other than ofcourse sending more money). Its interesting. Will EU fall in line or not - as in commit more moolah. This war will end this year on a table, both sides are trying to get an upper hand in shorter time period.
Moscow needs - 1. A neutral territory b/w Ukraine & Russia 2. Friendly regime in Ukraine + no NATO guarantees (Possibly EU as well) in return withdraw and cease hostility. 3. Withdrawal of sanctions and all. They will get this if momentum is on their side, so withdrawing & ceasing hostilities means something.
Ukraine wants withdrawal and possibly parts of luhansk & donestk + allowed to join NATO. It has nothing to offer to Russia - elenky ha staken a maximalist position.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
^^^
Did some digging in. US has approved USD 113 Bn for Ukraine till now (in tranches of 30-40Bn). This amount is to last till Sep 2023. But there is a faction of house republicans that wants to stop this. So passing the next tranche will be outright difficult. So US can only pass 1/2 more tranches in most optimistic scenario totalling another 50-80 Bn. Add 20-40Bn from Europe. So under most optimistic scenario Ukraine has another 100Bn before the promise of West to indefinitely support Ukraine will no longer be true. Maybe another USD 50-60 USD is a more likely amount at great difficulty.
Ukraine's govt needs 3-4Bn USD/ Month for just govt. expenses like salaries and all. War spending apart.
In 2024, US will be in presidential cycle. Ukraine war will not win votes.
Private donations have dried up.
Russia can easily deploy another USD 200 Bn. over next 15 months. So Ukraine cant fight this war beyond next 15 months. Possibly beyond this year. This is the reason Biden is on a campaign for Ukraine rn. Because inspite of what they say, US military planners assume Ukraine has limited window before which it will become apparent that Ukarine cannot continue. So if Ukraine can create momentum, go to the table and get a deal. Everyone will be happy.
Putin knows longer this goes, better he can do. So its upto putin to find how to find enough men, weapons and morale for the money that Russia can deploy.
All this talk of pain US & EU with 20X economy can take is much more than Russia is not true. There are limits to how far US/EU can go. That limit is another USD 100Bn. As Ukraine approaches that limit, West has a window to break Russian ranks militarily & politically.
Did some digging in. US has approved USD 113 Bn for Ukraine till now (in tranches of 30-40Bn). This amount is to last till Sep 2023. But there is a faction of house republicans that wants to stop this. So passing the next tranche will be outright difficult. So US can only pass 1/2 more tranches in most optimistic scenario totalling another 50-80 Bn. Add 20-40Bn from Europe. So under most optimistic scenario Ukraine has another 100Bn before the promise of West to indefinitely support Ukraine will no longer be true. Maybe another USD 50-60 USD is a more likely amount at great difficulty.
Ukraine's govt needs 3-4Bn USD/ Month for just govt. expenses like salaries and all. War spending apart.
In 2024, US will be in presidential cycle. Ukraine war will not win votes.
Private donations have dried up.
Russia can easily deploy another USD 200 Bn. over next 15 months. So Ukraine cant fight this war beyond next 15 months. Possibly beyond this year. This is the reason Biden is on a campaign for Ukraine rn. Because inspite of what they say, US military planners assume Ukraine has limited window before which it will become apparent that Ukarine cannot continue. So if Ukraine can create momentum, go to the table and get a deal. Everyone will be happy.
Putin knows longer this goes, better he can do. So its upto putin to find how to find enough men, weapons and morale for the money that Russia can deploy.
All this talk of pain US & EU with 20X economy can take is much more than Russia is not true. There are limits to how far US/EU can go. That limit is another USD 100Bn. As Ukraine approaches that limit, West has a window to break Russian ranks militarily & politically.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Biden team has ‘deeply rooted hatred for Russia’ – US congressman
Senior State Department officials Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken are “dangerous fools” who are trying to drag the US into a world war, Paul Gosar declared
https://www.rt.com/news/572017-blinken- ... te-russia/
Senior officials at the US State Department are attempting to get the country “involved in another world war” with Russia, Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar tweeted on Friday. Gosar, Twitter CEO Elon Musk, and former president Donald Trump, have all named Victoria Nuland as the most dangerous among this group in recent days.
Responding to an RT article on Musk accusing Nuland of “pushing this war” in Ukraine, Gosar declared that the billionaire “is correct.”
“Both Nuland and Blinken have a deeply rooted irrational hatred of Russia, and they seek to get the US involved in another world war,” he continued. “These are dangerous fools who can get us all killed.”
In a follow-up tweet, Gosar wrote that “as a non-soldier, Nuland is quite willing to endorse violence and war.” The Republican lawmaker then quoted the article, which stated that Nuland had “endorsed regime change in Russia, celebrated the US’ destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, and called for the indefinite flow of arms into Ukraine.”
As assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs in 2014, Nuland was largely responsible for orchestrating the pro-Western coup that unseated democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovich. Nuland traveled to Kiev and promised military aid to the rioters, and was recorded plotting to install a successor to Yanukovich.
As Biden’s secretary of state, Blinken has promised to keep weapons flowing into Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” and advised Kiev in December not to seek the kind of negotiated settlement that would liken to a “phony peace.”
Gosar has been a persistent critic of the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy since Russia’s military operation began a year ago on Friday. However, although the Republican Party now controls the House of Representatives, there is little the Arizona congressman can do to change the administration’s course. A significant bipartisan majority supports continued military aid to Ukraine, with only 11 Republicans, Gosar included, sponsoring legislation that would cut funding for Kiev.
These Republicans are all allies of former president Donald Trump. In a campaign video released on Tuesday, Trump blamed the situation in Ukraine on Nuland and “others like her” in the Biden administration. Nuland, he said, was “obsessed with pushing Ukraine towards NATO,” adding that the conflict would have “never happened if I was your president.”
Senior State Department officials Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken are “dangerous fools” who are trying to drag the US into a world war, Paul Gosar declared
https://www.rt.com/news/572017-blinken- ... te-russia/
Senior officials at the US State Department are attempting to get the country “involved in another world war” with Russia, Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar tweeted on Friday. Gosar, Twitter CEO Elon Musk, and former president Donald Trump, have all named Victoria Nuland as the most dangerous among this group in recent days.
Responding to an RT article on Musk accusing Nuland of “pushing this war” in Ukraine, Gosar declared that the billionaire “is correct.”
“Both Nuland and Blinken have a deeply rooted irrational hatred of Russia, and they seek to get the US involved in another world war,” he continued. “These are dangerous fools who can get us all killed.”
In a follow-up tweet, Gosar wrote that “as a non-soldier, Nuland is quite willing to endorse violence and war.” The Republican lawmaker then quoted the article, which stated that Nuland had “endorsed regime change in Russia, celebrated the US’ destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, and called for the indefinite flow of arms into Ukraine.”
As assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs in 2014, Nuland was largely responsible for orchestrating the pro-Western coup that unseated democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovich. Nuland traveled to Kiev and promised military aid to the rioters, and was recorded plotting to install a successor to Yanukovich.
As Biden’s secretary of state, Blinken has promised to keep weapons flowing into Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” and advised Kiev in December not to seek the kind of negotiated settlement that would liken to a “phony peace.”
Gosar has been a persistent critic of the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy since Russia’s military operation began a year ago on Friday. However, although the Republican Party now controls the House of Representatives, there is little the Arizona congressman can do to change the administration’s course. A significant bipartisan majority supports continued military aid to Ukraine, with only 11 Republicans, Gosar included, sponsoring legislation that would cut funding for Kiev.
These Republicans are all allies of former president Donald Trump. In a campaign video released on Tuesday, Trump blamed the situation in Ukraine on Nuland and “others like her” in the Biden administration. Nuland, he said, was “obsessed with pushing Ukraine towards NATO,” adding that the conflict would have “never happened if I was your president.”
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
what is background of Blinken! is he another East European whose family was Nazi collaborator like Soros?
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Anthony Blinken is a Jew, whose US-born businessman/banker father was the US amby to Hungary, and his Grandfather came from Kyiv, Ukraine.IndraD wrote:what is background of Blinken! is he another East European whose family was Nazi collaborator like Soros?
Father was rich enough and socially well-positioned to get himself a diplomatic post.
However, his links are to Hillary Clinton - who wants to use US military power before US diplomacy (Albright DNA). And, like Ajay Banga, is a member of the Trilateral Commission - an org started by Brezenski (who views the world as a chess board).
Albright, Clinton, and now Blinken - all Sec of State - are short of patience, very short. So, they prefer using the US military to solve diplomatic problems. Albright was blunt about it and asked a US General (who went of to become a Sec of State himself) what use is the US military for.
Last edited by NRao on 24 Feb 2023 21:23, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
tanks saar!
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Does anyone have any links to Angela Merkel & others admitting that they negotiated in bad faith with Russia ?
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
On the anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, a destroyed Russian tank was installed in front of the Russian embassy in Berlin
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
https://archive.ph/4vZYlDoes anyone have any links to Angela Merkel & others admitting that they negotiated in bad faith with Russia ?
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
unsc council meet 2 days ago, discussing the seymour hersh article of the nordtsream sabotage by the us, do listen to ray mcgovern, former cia officer and noted political activist,
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Here is what you're looking for -- an extract from that article linked by Srutayus (a German-language interview of Merkel):Haresh wrote:Does anyone have any links to Angela Merkel & others admitting that they negotiated in bad faith with Russia ?
i.e. "And the 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. ".Und das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
@Haresh
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/12/13/m ... -tribunal/
This is one more, there are many. Merkel said this twice...
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/12/13/m ... -tribunal/
This is one more, there are many. Merkel said this twice...
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
The beggers in the West are as usual hunting with the hounds and running with the Hares.
Here is the Rybar in English excerpt
https://twitter.com/rybar_en/status/1629247895235878921
Here is the Rybar in English excerpt
https://twitter.com/rybar_en/status/1629247895235878921
This has to be the most shameless Country on Earth.GeoTV published a curious interview with EU Ambassador to Pakistan, Riina Kionka. She said the SMO seriously affected Pakistan due to its dependence on Ukrainian agriculture.
And at the end, she officially confirmed the sale of military products from Pakistan to the AFU.
Earlier, Islamabad had rejected all accusations of assisting Ukrainian formations, so the article immediately caused a violent reaction online. Later, the publication was edited, and the words of the EU ambassador to Pakistan were cut out.
Islamabad hopes very much for an energy deal with Russia and the supply of agricultural products at a discount. Information about the sale of weapons to Ukraine does not create the most favorable background for bilateral negotiations.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Reposting in this thread, on request, from the Combat Strategy thread, original post located here:
viewtopic.php?p=2580840#p2580840
Fu(k it, will do it now, so here goes (the narrative thrust will be interrupted by explanatory paragraphs, etc, so please bear with me - and it will be long):
After the collapse of the USSR, the world was immediately unipolar, but it is important to remember that the collapse was not the consequence of war - rather a consensus decision within the Soviet Union to end itself, so to speak - and Russia (in its identity an SSR) was one of the prime movers behind it. After some dithering, power moved into the hands of Yeltsin, who was propped up, and was eventually dancing to the tunes of, "the West" (I put this in quotes, because it needs explanation, later).
In that moment of unipolar exhuberance the West (led by the Anglosphere & continental Europe) moved in and began establishing their commercial activities, which were primarily extractive - and the Russians went through the most horrendous period in memory broadly from 1991 to 2000. Unsafe, poor and rudderless. There is plenty of literature on it, and I know it personally from a range of Russians as well as non-Russians as I was living in the Orthodox World, at that time. This was the period in which the oligarchs emerged, again with not little support from outside (not all, but very many) - if one does some profiling, there will great clarity. It was also the period, surprise surprise, in which NATO expanded quite considerably. Russia was at its weakest.
Meanwhile, during the same period, the Anglosphere (US/UK/Canada/Aus/NZ - five eyes and all the rest of it) had slowly begun to concretize its worldview for the unipolar world. I believe the term "Anglosphere" was itself first used in the 1990s (this needs Zoobearing) but the concept of "intercitizenship" between English speaking colonies was first used in late 19th century. Naturally, the primary pole by far would be the US. But its natural allies - native English speaking, familially inter-connected beyond extractability, collectively the largest economic bloc in the world with USD30 trillion plus GDP, culturally uniform with really only dialectic differences - would provide the common interest & mindset enabling this five-tiered unipolar hierarchy (US>UK>Canada>Australia>NZ) to sustain itself for the foreseeable future.
The Anglosphere's key feature was that they harken back to the British Empire, which has infused in a lot of them their world view. But apart from the historical linkages there is also the mindset commonality I mentioned above. This emerges from the fact that these are all "island" states of a sort. The US/Canada separated from the Eurasian continent by the Atlantic/Pacific oceans, Britain by the English Channel & Australia/NZ by the Pacific. None of these have the experience of a land-based attack. They can only be attacked by air or sea, which is a huge advantage (the associated disadvantage being they can also not attack via land, and I might come to this later).
This island mentality, combined with the British historic memory of Great Britain and her conquered colonies, her Empire, is shared by the native English speakers in some sense, and certainly among the Anglo-Saxon elites across the Anglosphere. In effect, after WWII, this empire was merely transferred to cousin (the US), albeit not entirely willingly, and quite naturally after a little tussle, not much. And the US proceeded to become what it has, the biggest superpower the world has ever seen. This lived reality of the elites of the Anglosphere, and of much of their Anglo-Saxon population - the reality of distance, of great power and of the imposition of will on the rest of the world - has given them a sense over time of both immunity and impunity. And, as one may expect, Hubris has accompanied them closely.
What we are seeing today playing out on the Eurasian landmass is the consequence of this situation, with attendant particularities which I will try to point out. One is the unusual role of the emigre East European (heavily Jewish) community in the current state of affairs, and why it is so. It is undeniable that many of the people in the Neocon (formerly "Vulcan" IIRC) group that is spearheading the NATO war against Russia are of East European origin, and very many of them are of Jewish extraction.
In my opinion, this is a consequence among other things of the outcome of WW2. The Allied war effort saved the Jewish people from extinction (even if that was not the primary intention) and many escaped the Stalinist reality from East Europe in the immediate aftermath, etc. Also the Jewish state of Israel was created after millennial absence. And since, the Anglosphere has been a primary guarantor of its existence. Consequently and naturally, many if not most Jewish people have both a sense of gratitude and obligation which has played out over the last three quarters of a century or so.
However, what has happened is that for domestic political reasons in the US - primarily, but I don't think only - many of the East European emigres coagulated within the national security conclave of the US, and they harboured a great deal of illwill towards Russia, and indifference towards the continental Western Europeans for historic reasons.
This sense of gratitude/obligation towards the Anglosphere, combined with illwill towards Russia/indifference towards Europe is one of the reasons why we see the strange collusion between the North American Jewry and the Ukrainian Nazis. We need to go a little further back towards the end of WWII, when it became immediately evident that the next war would be between the US and the USSR. Immediately, the Anglosphere repurposed their Nazi captives (the Gehlen gang of Galicia moved to Germany's intelligence & their Ukrainian network continued activites redirected towards the USSR). Funded by the OSS/CIA, this continued up until the collapse of the USSR, and then went dormant through much of the 1990s (this is a bit hazy, but I think the structure was revived in the late 1990s), which coincidentally is when Yeltsin handed over power to the new kid in town, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
By this time, the mainly Jewish neocons were well entrenched, and the Ukrainian Nazis were just a tool to be used against the Russians. Their ideology was not relevant to the job at hand. What was relevant was their willingness to go to any length to challenge the Russians - and this is what bound them together, a common visceral hatred of Russia. This works the other way too, i.e. on the Ukrainian side. Hence the Jewish billionaire Kolomoisky leads to the puppet Zelensky (also Jewish).
Bear in mind, this is just a re-tooling of "The Bear Trap" applied in Afghanistan, when a similar bunch of driven crazies - the Afghan mujahedin - were successfully used to kick Russia out of Afghanistan (although if one were to define pyrrhic victory - this would be the go to example). The key point here is that the guiding mind for both was the same man, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Polish emigre to the US. What the neocons do not realise is that they, too, are just tools of the Anglosphere, and their utility may have run out. We will come to that.
Coming back to the central narrative, Zbig in 1997 wrote the Grand Chessboard, his interpretation of the game that the Anglosphere had always been playing since the time of the British Empire which has been recrafted and retooled but not repurposed. As with the British since the time of Halford Mackinder's "Heartland Theory" (which is basically the Eurasian Landmass Theory), the objective is to keep the Eurasian Landmass as weak and fractious (chaotic) as possible to be ruled by the Island state of Britain, and today of course the island state conglomerate which is what I'm referring to as the Anglosphere.
Sometime, late in the 1990s therefore, the objective of the Anglosphere became chaos on the Eurasian Landmass, something accelerated by the 9/11/2001 attacks in the US. (An aside, because of the sense of immunity/impunity - any direct attack on the Island is seen as something extraordinary requiring extraordinary response. Think for example of the way in which the UK considers the Battle of Britain & V2 rockets to be). What has begun in late 2001 in Afghanistan has not stopped, working its way through Iraq, the Balkans, Syria, Libya, but the prize is Russia. And Zbig was clear that Ukraine should be used as a battering ram against it.
That is what is happening now, the battering of Russia by proxy, a combination of hubris by the Anglosphere and incompetence by neocon tools whose visceral hatred and ambition got the better of them. It is important in this context to acknowledge a few things.
1. This is not a conspiracy, but a negative development of superpower interest shaped by Anglosphere identity and strategic intent. In principle, one cannot hold that against any superpower. Whether or not it has the right to do what it does is not the issue. The issue is whether it has the capacity to do so in a way that leaves it with a net power advantage at the end of whatever project it takes up. That is the mistake, an inevitable one though not one that is timebound, which has been made here. It may be a terminal one, but it does not have to be.
2. When I refer to the Anglosphere, I am referring to the guiding elites - a combination of governmental, commercial and military - that set the path the bloc moves upon. The large majority of their own body public is not aware of this, may not be supportive of it, and often are not capable of grasping their situation in full. In fact, the largest part of the narrative control that the Anglosphere exercises is to shape the perceptions of their own people towards the path they have decided upon (and even that decision is not unanimous within the elites).
The consequence, however, of the Anglosphere strategic intent and the incompetence of the neocon tools of (substantially) Eastern European content is that through a great misreading of the situation, we are now at the cusp of a thermonuclear extinction event. Much closer than we might initially appreciate. And if there isn't one, then the entire environment can only devolve to one where the Anglosphere ends up with a net power disadvantage, with all the structures they have built (NATO) and shaped (EU) in its service becoming more fractious, less coherent and increasingly fragile.
On the positive side, if there is one, to me there appears to be some sense among the Anglosphere elites of what has happened and will likely happen if things continue as they are. There seems to be some move towards re-stabilising things. The growing reportage on Nordstream explosion responsibility (initiated by the superb scoop by Seymour Hersh, also Jewish) is an indicator. In my view, the Hersh report is itself a first shot across the bows by the uber elites to signal to the neocons that the time is up. I will not be in the least surprised if, in the final outcome, the scapegoats for the mess that the Anglosphere finds itself in will be the neocons and their associates. They will likely be identified and excreted from the system. And the Anglosphere will live on, slightly bloodied, but unbowed, and having to pick up the pieces of this hubris-inflicted setback literally from the seafloor.
(As an aside: one tragic outcome of all this, in my view (both personal and otherwise), is that the Jewish people will face a lot of the heat for the Ukraine fiasco. They will be vilified by the Ukrainians, only a slight twist in their national narrative is required, by the Americans to a great extent, and undoubtedly by the Europeans. Through, strictly speaking, no fault of their own. The neocons were, as it were, merely following orders, just a bit more enthusiastically than they should have. It also appears to me that Israel has seen this coming way back. This is the reason why they were all over the place trying to negotiate an end to things. The long interview Naftali Bennet gave to the vlogger in Israel some weeks ago, to me, showed some of the quiet desperation and to some extent heartbreak on the issue. They are our friends, we should wish them well and help in any manner we can).
In short, the place where we are at is a consequence not of evil intent, but the natural course of power play, strategic ambition, greed and of course gross incompetence at several levels. The Anglosphere looked in the mirror and it saw the fantasy that it had created for others to believe in, but it believed it too.
END
Added later: excuse the messy English folks, I just wrote it in one shot stream of consciousness sort of way. Even though the grammar and idiom may be off in places, I think you all get the gist of it - if you take the trouble to read it, that is.
viewtopic.php?p=2580840#p2580840
Fu(k it, will do it now, so here goes (the narrative thrust will be interrupted by explanatory paragraphs, etc, so please bear with me - and it will be long):
After the collapse of the USSR, the world was immediately unipolar, but it is important to remember that the collapse was not the consequence of war - rather a consensus decision within the Soviet Union to end itself, so to speak - and Russia (in its identity an SSR) was one of the prime movers behind it. After some dithering, power moved into the hands of Yeltsin, who was propped up, and was eventually dancing to the tunes of, "the West" (I put this in quotes, because it needs explanation, later).
In that moment of unipolar exhuberance the West (led by the Anglosphere & continental Europe) moved in and began establishing their commercial activities, which were primarily extractive - and the Russians went through the most horrendous period in memory broadly from 1991 to 2000. Unsafe, poor and rudderless. There is plenty of literature on it, and I know it personally from a range of Russians as well as non-Russians as I was living in the Orthodox World, at that time. This was the period in which the oligarchs emerged, again with not little support from outside (not all, but very many) - if one does some profiling, there will great clarity. It was also the period, surprise surprise, in which NATO expanded quite considerably. Russia was at its weakest.
Meanwhile, during the same period, the Anglosphere (US/UK/Canada/Aus/NZ - five eyes and all the rest of it) had slowly begun to concretize its worldview for the unipolar world. I believe the term "Anglosphere" was itself first used in the 1990s (this needs Zoobearing) but the concept of "intercitizenship" between English speaking colonies was first used in late 19th century. Naturally, the primary pole by far would be the US. But its natural allies - native English speaking, familially inter-connected beyond extractability, collectively the largest economic bloc in the world with USD30 trillion plus GDP, culturally uniform with really only dialectic differences - would provide the common interest & mindset enabling this five-tiered unipolar hierarchy (US>UK>Canada>Australia>NZ) to sustain itself for the foreseeable future.
The Anglosphere's key feature was that they harken back to the British Empire, which has infused in a lot of them their world view. But apart from the historical linkages there is also the mindset commonality I mentioned above. This emerges from the fact that these are all "island" states of a sort. The US/Canada separated from the Eurasian continent by the Atlantic/Pacific oceans, Britain by the English Channel & Australia/NZ by the Pacific. None of these have the experience of a land-based attack. They can only be attacked by air or sea, which is a huge advantage (the associated disadvantage being they can also not attack via land, and I might come to this later).
This island mentality, combined with the British historic memory of Great Britain and her conquered colonies, her Empire, is shared by the native English speakers in some sense, and certainly among the Anglo-Saxon elites across the Anglosphere. In effect, after WWII, this empire was merely transferred to cousin (the US), albeit not entirely willingly, and quite naturally after a little tussle, not much. And the US proceeded to become what it has, the biggest superpower the world has ever seen. This lived reality of the elites of the Anglosphere, and of much of their Anglo-Saxon population - the reality of distance, of great power and of the imposition of will on the rest of the world - has given them a sense over time of both immunity and impunity. And, as one may expect, Hubris has accompanied them closely.
What we are seeing today playing out on the Eurasian landmass is the consequence of this situation, with attendant particularities which I will try to point out. One is the unusual role of the emigre East European (heavily Jewish) community in the current state of affairs, and why it is so. It is undeniable that many of the people in the Neocon (formerly "Vulcan" IIRC) group that is spearheading the NATO war against Russia are of East European origin, and very many of them are of Jewish extraction.
In my opinion, this is a consequence among other things of the outcome of WW2. The Allied war effort saved the Jewish people from extinction (even if that was not the primary intention) and many escaped the Stalinist reality from East Europe in the immediate aftermath, etc. Also the Jewish state of Israel was created after millennial absence. And since, the Anglosphere has been a primary guarantor of its existence. Consequently and naturally, many if not most Jewish people have both a sense of gratitude and obligation which has played out over the last three quarters of a century or so.
However, what has happened is that for domestic political reasons in the US - primarily, but I don't think only - many of the East European emigres coagulated within the national security conclave of the US, and they harboured a great deal of illwill towards Russia, and indifference towards the continental Western Europeans for historic reasons.
This sense of gratitude/obligation towards the Anglosphere, combined with illwill towards Russia/indifference towards Europe is one of the reasons why we see the strange collusion between the North American Jewry and the Ukrainian Nazis. We need to go a little further back towards the end of WWII, when it became immediately evident that the next war would be between the US and the USSR. Immediately, the Anglosphere repurposed their Nazi captives (the Gehlen gang of Galicia moved to Germany's intelligence & their Ukrainian network continued activites redirected towards the USSR). Funded by the OSS/CIA, this continued up until the collapse of the USSR, and then went dormant through much of the 1990s (this is a bit hazy, but I think the structure was revived in the late 1990s), which coincidentally is when Yeltsin handed over power to the new kid in town, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
By this time, the mainly Jewish neocons were well entrenched, and the Ukrainian Nazis were just a tool to be used against the Russians. Their ideology was not relevant to the job at hand. What was relevant was their willingness to go to any length to challenge the Russians - and this is what bound them together, a common visceral hatred of Russia. This works the other way too, i.e. on the Ukrainian side. Hence the Jewish billionaire Kolomoisky leads to the puppet Zelensky (also Jewish).
Bear in mind, this is just a re-tooling of "The Bear Trap" applied in Afghanistan, when a similar bunch of driven crazies - the Afghan mujahedin - were successfully used to kick Russia out of Afghanistan (although if one were to define pyrrhic victory - this would be the go to example). The key point here is that the guiding mind for both was the same man, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Polish emigre to the US. What the neocons do not realise is that they, too, are just tools of the Anglosphere, and their utility may have run out. We will come to that.
Coming back to the central narrative, Zbig in 1997 wrote the Grand Chessboard, his interpretation of the game that the Anglosphere had always been playing since the time of the British Empire which has been recrafted and retooled but not repurposed. As with the British since the time of Halford Mackinder's "Heartland Theory" (which is basically the Eurasian Landmass Theory), the objective is to keep the Eurasian Landmass as weak and fractious (chaotic) as possible to be ruled by the Island state of Britain, and today of course the island state conglomerate which is what I'm referring to as the Anglosphere.
Sometime, late in the 1990s therefore, the objective of the Anglosphere became chaos on the Eurasian Landmass, something accelerated by the 9/11/2001 attacks in the US. (An aside, because of the sense of immunity/impunity - any direct attack on the Island is seen as something extraordinary requiring extraordinary response. Think for example of the way in which the UK considers the Battle of Britain & V2 rockets to be). What has begun in late 2001 in Afghanistan has not stopped, working its way through Iraq, the Balkans, Syria, Libya, but the prize is Russia. And Zbig was clear that Ukraine should be used as a battering ram against it.
That is what is happening now, the battering of Russia by proxy, a combination of hubris by the Anglosphere and incompetence by neocon tools whose visceral hatred and ambition got the better of them. It is important in this context to acknowledge a few things.
1. This is not a conspiracy, but a negative development of superpower interest shaped by Anglosphere identity and strategic intent. In principle, one cannot hold that against any superpower. Whether or not it has the right to do what it does is not the issue. The issue is whether it has the capacity to do so in a way that leaves it with a net power advantage at the end of whatever project it takes up. That is the mistake, an inevitable one though not one that is timebound, which has been made here. It may be a terminal one, but it does not have to be.
2. When I refer to the Anglosphere, I am referring to the guiding elites - a combination of governmental, commercial and military - that set the path the bloc moves upon. The large majority of their own body public is not aware of this, may not be supportive of it, and often are not capable of grasping their situation in full. In fact, the largest part of the narrative control that the Anglosphere exercises is to shape the perceptions of their own people towards the path they have decided upon (and even that decision is not unanimous within the elites).
The consequence, however, of the Anglosphere strategic intent and the incompetence of the neocon tools of (substantially) Eastern European content is that through a great misreading of the situation, we are now at the cusp of a thermonuclear extinction event. Much closer than we might initially appreciate. And if there isn't one, then the entire environment can only devolve to one where the Anglosphere ends up with a net power disadvantage, with all the structures they have built (NATO) and shaped (EU) in its service becoming more fractious, less coherent and increasingly fragile.
On the positive side, if there is one, to me there appears to be some sense among the Anglosphere elites of what has happened and will likely happen if things continue as they are. There seems to be some move towards re-stabilising things. The growing reportage on Nordstream explosion responsibility (initiated by the superb scoop by Seymour Hersh, also Jewish) is an indicator. In my view, the Hersh report is itself a first shot across the bows by the uber elites to signal to the neocons that the time is up. I will not be in the least surprised if, in the final outcome, the scapegoats for the mess that the Anglosphere finds itself in will be the neocons and their associates. They will likely be identified and excreted from the system. And the Anglosphere will live on, slightly bloodied, but unbowed, and having to pick up the pieces of this hubris-inflicted setback literally from the seafloor.
(As an aside: one tragic outcome of all this, in my view (both personal and otherwise), is that the Jewish people will face a lot of the heat for the Ukraine fiasco. They will be vilified by the Ukrainians, only a slight twist in their national narrative is required, by the Americans to a great extent, and undoubtedly by the Europeans. Through, strictly speaking, no fault of their own. The neocons were, as it were, merely following orders, just a bit more enthusiastically than they should have. It also appears to me that Israel has seen this coming way back. This is the reason why they were all over the place trying to negotiate an end to things. The long interview Naftali Bennet gave to the vlogger in Israel some weeks ago, to me, showed some of the quiet desperation and to some extent heartbreak on the issue. They are our friends, we should wish them well and help in any manner we can).
In short, the place where we are at is a consequence not of evil intent, but the natural course of power play, strategic ambition, greed and of course gross incompetence at several levels. The Anglosphere looked in the mirror and it saw the fantasy that it had created for others to believe in, but it believed it too.
END
Added later: excuse the messy English folks, I just wrote it in one shot stream of consciousness sort of way. Even though the grammar and idiom may be off in places, I think you all get the gist of it - if you take the trouble to read it, that is.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Another shot across the bows
_____________________
https://www.newsweek.com/time-end-war-u ... on-1782852
Time To End the War in Ukraine. Mediation Is the Best Answer | Opinion
STEVEN MYERS
Steven Myers is a former member of the U.S. State Department Advisory Committee on International Economic policy and the National Security Membership Committe.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
_________________
_____________________
https://www.newsweek.com/time-end-war-u ... on-1782852
Time To End the War in Ukraine. Mediation Is the Best Answer | Opinion
STEVEN MYERS
Steven Myers is a former member of the U.S. State Department Advisory Committee on International Economic policy and the National Security Membership Committe.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
_________________
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Forbes, a western source, but, it is more than likely China absolutely needs to get involved.
I would expect it.
A great use-case study for India.
And, as always, India needs to load up - today.
China May Provide Artillery And Drones To Russia—Despite Public Calls For Peace Deal
I would expect it.
A great use-case study for India.
And, as always, India needs to load up - today.
China May Provide Artillery And Drones To Russia—Despite Public Calls For Peace Deal
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Western diplomats playing "tough" on Russia.
Walking away the moment the Russian delegation expresses their view on the conflict.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the West is not willing to any begin for a peaceful solution to the war.
Morons!
(OSCE PC meeting) https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/162 ... 34657?s=20
Walking away the moment the Russian delegation expresses their view on the conflict.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the West is not willing to any begin for a peaceful solution to the war.
Morons!
(OSCE PC meeting) https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/162 ... 34657?s=20
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Tens of thousands of anti-war protesters are demonstrating in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin this afternoon.
Speakers at the rally call for immediate peace talks, an end to Germany's support for Ukraine and halting any further NATO enlargement. https://twitter.com/dana916/status/1629 ... 69185?s=20
Speakers at the rally call for immediate peace talks, an end to Germany's support for Ukraine and halting any further NATO enlargement. https://twitter.com/dana916/status/1629 ... 69185?s=20
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Kalkeya Naresh Z has said Putin eventually will die in hand of his inner circle https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... ns-latest/
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Ukrops placed a russian tank infront of the russian embassy in Berlin. Germans are bringing flowers "to show our government that we want diplomacy and not war"
https://twitter.com/Levi_godman/status/ ... 40994?s=20
https://twitter.com/Levi_godman/status/ ... 40994?s=20
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Kalkeya Z has asked Latinos & Africans to support Ukr but not India, any reason or just another cocaine rush?
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... y-ukraine/ China considering lethal aid (artillery ammo) to Russia, US is worried, China's jump in the war will change the trajectory https://archive.ph/yZ71u
(one cant but note that peace prastaav is flowing from all over as soon China is in picture)
(one cant but note that peace prastaav is flowing from all over as soon China is in picture)
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
JE Menon-ji
Your prediction of Anglosphere breaking away is coming true faster than I anticipated.
Here's Fiona Hill making a case (recommend playback speed 1.25X):
https://youtu.be/VKNeyCIpfs4
Your prediction of Anglosphere breaking away is coming true faster than I anticipated.
Here's Fiona Hill making a case (recommend playback speed 1.25X):
https://youtu.be/VKNeyCIpfs4
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
After Fiona Hill (British), a second speaker (Irish descent) coming to independent podcast indicating that the eventual outcome will have to be a negotiated settlement that includes giving up Ukrainian territory.
Common points from both: admitting that NATO expansion wasn't the smartest move, and the negotiations will have to be viewed more broadly than just Ukraine wins or loses.
https://www.youtube.com/live/A5MjNvw-Bxk?feature=share
Common points from both: admitting that NATO expansion wasn't the smartest move, and the negotiations will have to be viewed more broadly than just Ukraine wins or loses.
https://www.youtube.com/live/A5MjNvw-Bxk?feature=share
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
i suppose with china providing even limited military assistance to Russia, the west would have essentially lost the Ukraine war, their narratives and coffers., and worse the nail in US superpower status. Geopolitics would irrevocably change. China would enter the primary league of geopolitical powers as well.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
It will also cement the subordinate power status for Russia.
It will resolve the energy resources problem for PRC. Making PRC invincible in material terms.
Resulting in the defeat of US in any future conflict with the PRC.
It will resolve the energy resources problem for PRC. Making PRC invincible in material terms.
Resulting in the defeat of US in any future conflict with the PRC.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Back of the envelop calcs:
Amrican investment in China: FDI $181 billion
Chinse FDi in US: $38 billion.
Plus US treasury bonds: around $900 billion (both Russia and China have been shedding US Bonds)
___________________
Besides India will not allow China to win.
Already:
* India has opposed BRICS "currency" - that both Russia and China support (SA/Brazil oppose it too)
* India is actively attracting trade from other nations with China, draining China (plenty of material on this out there)
* LAC anyone? Did anyone catch Wang Yi in Moscow? He is opposed to any "third party" (doing whatever) between Russia and China. Hey Wang, India will get in no matter what. Russia has no options. Russia will NEVER rely on China - cannot, as long as Chinese populations eye Siberia. Not happening. Putin is not stupid
* India, through the G-20 mechanism, has decided to represent the Global South. China with her two recent papers is trying to do the same. IMO this will not end very well
The way I see it is that there are 5 circles in this Venn diagram: the US, China, Russia, India, and the EU. Of these 5, 4 are at war among themselves. IF India can wean the Global South, India will establish herself. India is and will remain the sole dependable link between the West and the Rest. And, if the Rest includes a weakened China so much the better.
Amrican investment in China: FDI $181 billion
Chinse FDi in US: $38 billion.
Plus US treasury bonds: around $900 billion (both Russia and China have been shedding US Bonds)
___________________
Besides India will not allow China to win.
Already:
* India has opposed BRICS "currency" - that both Russia and China support (SA/Brazil oppose it too)
* India is actively attracting trade from other nations with China, draining China (plenty of material on this out there)
* LAC anyone? Did anyone catch Wang Yi in Moscow? He is opposed to any "third party" (doing whatever) between Russia and China. Hey Wang, India will get in no matter what. Russia has no options. Russia will NEVER rely on China - cannot, as long as Chinese populations eye Siberia. Not happening. Putin is not stupid
* India, through the G-20 mechanism, has decided to represent the Global South. China with her two recent papers is trying to do the same. IMO this will not end very well
The way I see it is that there are 5 circles in this Venn diagram: the US, China, Russia, India, and the EU. Of these 5, 4 are at war among themselves. IF India can wean the Global South, India will establish herself. India is and will remain the sole dependable link between the West and the Rest. And, if the Rest includes a weakened China so much the better.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Ukr has been aided by two huge economic blocs - the US and the EU. Russia getting limited military support (which is not aid because the Chinese aren't giving anything for free) from China is hardly the sign of weakness if it has to take on a unified West.Pratyush wrote:It will also cement the subordinate power status for Russia.
It will resolve the energy resources problem for PRC. Making PRC invincible in material terms.
Resulting in the defeat of US in any future conflict with the PRC.
Russia will continue to have a huge landmass, a large army and formidable weaponry. They will continue to be a military superpower. The question is how badly will their economy be affected, whether the sanctions & technology denial regimes will set them back permanently, or will they work around it through China and other willing partners, or whether they will make investments to re-grow their own capabilities. The last is a hard path, but they have done it before and they can do it again, even if it is limited to reverse-engineering type efforts. Also a big question is how does this affect Russian demographics. Population, in my mind, is the true determinant of Russia's future because they have plenty of everything else.
PRC is facing a lot of headwinds, mainly of its own making. Regardless of how the Ukr-Rus conflict goes, it has little bearing on how a US-China conflict over Taiwan would end. It is reasonable to say that everyone would lose - Taiwan the most, then the PRC and the US.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
JEM: Excellent (and IMO right on the money) analysis. It now enjoys a permanent home on my PC personal archive.JE Menon wrote:Fu(k it, will do it now, so here goes (the narrative thrust will be interrupted by explanatory paragraphs, etc, so please bear with me - and it will be long):
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Thank you Roop. At some point I should make a powerpoint or canva of this stuff, with validation/reference links and all the rest of it. Pretty much everything in there is available in public open source (though the revival of the OUN Ukronazi network in the late 1990s by the US is just from memory, but I'm sure it is there somewhere in open source).
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
JEM, Gem of a piece. Brilliant identification of the Island menatlity of Anglosphere. Mackinder postulated the Eurasia land mass as the World Island as their opponent!!!
The Anglosphere's key feature was that they harken back to the British Empire, which has infused in a lot of them their world view. But apart from the historical linkages there is also the mindset commonality I mentioned above. This emerges from the fact that these are all "island" states of a sort. The US/Canada separated from the Eurasian continent by the Atlantic/Pacific oceans, Britain by the English Channel & Australia/NZ by the Pacific. None of these have the experience of a land-based attack. They can only be attacked by air or sea, which is a huge advantage (the associated disadvantage being they can also not attack via land, and I might come to this later).
This island mentality, combined with the British historic memory of Great Britain and her conquered colonies, her Empire, is shared by the native English speakers in some sense, and certainly among the Anglo-Saxon elites across the Anglosphere. In effect, after WWII, this empire was merely transferred to cousin (the US), albeit not entirely willingly, and quite naturally after a little tussle, not much. And the US proceeded to become what it has, the biggest superpower the world has ever seen. This lived reality of the elites of the Anglosphere, and of much of their Anglo-Saxon population - the reality of distance, of great power and of the imposition of will on the rest of the world - has given them a sense over time of both immunity and impunity. And, as one may expect, Hubris has accompanied them closely.
What we are seeing today playing out on the Eurasian landmass is the consequence of this situation, with attendant particularities which I will try to point out. One is the unusual role of the emigre East European (heavily Jewish) community in the current state of affairs, and why it is so. It is undeniable that many of the people in the Neocon (formerly "Vulcan" IIRC) group that is spearheading the NATO war against Russia are of East European origin, and very many of them are of Jewish extraction.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
This is the crux of Geopolitics.
No wonder Mahan came up with the Ocean strategy as basically he is an Islander.
No wonder Mahan came up with the Ocean strategy as basically he is an Islander.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Thanks Ramana, yes I have been thinking about this a while, and the only explanation that is both cogent & coherent is this one. Essentially, the British Empire disintegrated into disparate and strategically located "islands" over a few centuries, but kept the central common characteristics (English speaking, white, mercantile, imperial memory, etc. largely intact). The American Independence revolution merely sealed the fact that, eventually, it would become the new Rome to Britain's Athens (and they explicitly make this reference themselves often, they even call it "the Senate", while BoJo's recent ridiculous attempt to quote ancient Greek is another example).
Since then, the island conglomerate has begun the process of re-integration under "Rome" and have as been thick as thieves, literally, and have any number of organizations, and organizational arrangements for special preferences/treatments and security allegiances among themselves - the Five Eyes being just one of many. Plus, as a bloc, they make up the largest economic grouping in the world. And they brook no interference into their bloc, witness the speed at which AUKUS was formed following the squashing of the French submarine deal with Australia.
Since then, the island conglomerate has begun the process of re-integration under "Rome" and have as been thick as thieves, literally, and have any number of organizations, and organizational arrangements for special preferences/treatments and security allegiances among themselves - the Five Eyes being just one of many. Plus, as a bloc, they make up the largest economic grouping in the world. And they brook no interference into their bloc, witness the speed at which AUKUS was formed following the squashing of the French submarine deal with Australia.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
JEM: excellent piece. On Anglosphere there is the other aspect that you need to mention which I have elaborated in Indian Interest thread. The financiers for British Throne were Rothschilds (red shield in german) who kept all the critical financial controls for the East India Company. Their branches extended from Germany into various other nations.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
they are used to promote terrorism in india and having the MFN status with india at the same time.Aditya_V wrote:The beggers in the West are as usual hunting with the hounds and running with the Hares.
Here is the Rybar in English excerpt
https://twitter.com/rybar_en/status/1629247895235878921
This has to be the most shameless Country on Earth.GeoTV published a curious interview with EU Ambassador to Pakistan, Riina Kionka. She said the SMO seriously affected Pakistan due to its dependence on Ukrainian agriculture.
And at the end, she officially confirmed the sale of military products from Pakistan to the AFU.
.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
After Wang Yi met Putin earlier this week, the Saudi Foreign Minister is in Kiev today meeting Zelya. First ever visit of a high ranking Saudi official to Ukr. Something is cooking...
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Thanks bala, I will check out the link.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
https://www.ft.com/content/01b69c54-d67 ... Gi4CydhTxM
For many outside the west, Russia is not important enough to hate
Indifference to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine has left western analysts flummoxed
Ivan Krastev FEBRUARY 22 2023
The writer is an FT contributing editor, the chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, Sofia, and fellow at IWM Vienna
For many outside the west, Russia is not important enough to hate
Indifference to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine has left western analysts flummoxed
Ivan Krastev FEBRUARY 22 2023
The writer is an FT contributing editor, the chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, Sofia, and fellow at IWM Vienna
In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, American pundits would plaintively ask: “Why do they hate us?” A year into Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, a variation on that question has begun to take shape: “Why do they not hate them?”
“Them”, of course, refers to Putin’s Russia. The reluctance of non-western governments to impose sanctions on Moscow can be easily explained by economic interests. But how to explain why non-western publics do not feel more moral outrage at the Kremlin’s outright aggression?
A new study, United West, Divided by the Rest, reveals that the war and Russian military setbacks have not forced people in many non-western countries to downgrade their opinion of Russia or to question its relative strength. Russia is seen either as an “ally” or a “partner” by 79 per cent of people in China (unsurprisingly). But the same is true for 80 per cent of Indians and 69 per cent of Turks. Moreover, about three-quarters of respondents in each of these countries believe that Russia is either stronger, or at least as strong, as they perceived it to be before the war.
And while a plurality of Americans and Europeans want Ukraine to win even if it means a longer war and economic hardship for themselves, most Chinese, Indians and Turks who expressed a view said they would prefer the war to stop as soon as possible — even if that means Ukraine giving up part of its territory. They see western support for Kyiv as motivated by reasons other than the protection of Ukraine’s territorial integrity or its democracy.
Western support for Ukraine, particularly the delivery of advanced weapons, has made it easier for non-western nations to accept the Kremlin’s narrative of the conflict as a proxy for the confrontation between Russia and the west. This explains why Moscow’s military reverses at the hands of Ukrainian forces hardly register with many in the so-called global south. If Russia is facing off against the west as a whole, it is not surprising that it has been unsuccessful.
Confronted with such public attitudes, western analysts usually lament the corrosive effect of Russian propaganda and the legacies of colonialism. But much more important is that Europeans see the war as a return to cold war-style polarisation between two antagonistic blocs, whereas others tend to believe that the world is fragmenting into multiple centres of power. In the words of a former senior Indian diplomat, for many outside of the west “the war in Ukraine is about the future of Europe, not the future of the world order”.
Talking recently to journalists, writers and politicians in Colombia, I also detected a certain resentment at Europe’s geographic privilege. What exasperates the non-western “street” is that when something happens in Europe it is immediately treated as a global concern, while if it takes place in Africa or Latin America, this is almost never the case. By ignoring war in Ukraine, many outside the west, either consciously or unconsciously, question Europe’s centrality in global politics.
Although Putin and his propagandists may be relieved by the way non-western societies view what is happening in Ukraine, the question, “why do they not hate them” also has an answer that is less flattering to Moscow. Developing countries are not outraged by Putin’s aggression because Russia has ceased to be seen as a global superpower. For countries such as India and Turkey, Russia has become like them, so they do not need to fear it. The customary privilege of regional powers is to not be hated outside their region; Moscow now enjoys this privilege.
The Soviet Union was an ideological superpower. Soviet advisers in what used to be called the third world in the 1970s and 1980s were there to stir revolutions. Putin, on the other hand, does not have a transformative agenda outside of his imperial project in the post-Soviet space. The Wagner Group in Africa are mercenaries who fight for money, not ideas. Paradoxically, it is Russia’s lack of soft power that leaves the non-western world relatively unmoved by what Moscow is doing in Ukraine.
Now that it is just one “great middle power” among many, Russia’s wars blend into all the other conflicts around the world — they take their place alongside the violence in Syria, Libya, Ethiopia and Myanmar. The war in Ukraine is not a turning point in the non-western imagination. So the answer to the question, “why do they not hate them?” is simple. It’s because Russia is no longer important enough to hate.
Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout
Germans decorate destroyed Russian tank with roses parked outside Moscow embassy