We are hearing more and more suggestions that Kiev should get ready for a compromise peace. In particular, there are mountings calls to cede territory to Russia.

Two things have changed in both the West and Ukraine: First, there are now growing demands for a “plan B,” as the former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko calls it, and, more importantly, the taboo on talking about this need is gone.

Given Ukraine’s difficult and dangerous – not to mention that things could quickly get much worse – military, financial, and political situation, these calls are no surprise. The real question is not why this is happening, but what it may mean for the future: Do these calls signal a real readiness to make peace? And if so on what terms? And is it a realistic prospect?

Let’s start with a voice from the West: James Stavridis – a retired American admiral, former military head of NATO, and dean emeritus of the prestigious US Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy – has used his perch as a Bloomberg columnist to ask how the war will end. He finds that Ukraine is unlikely to retake what has been lost to Russia and, in effect, recommends it “consider temporarily or even permanently ceding Crimea and the ‘land bridge’ connecting it to Russia.”

A few months ago, such a statement would have been scandalous; now it’s part of the new normal. Despite the fact that it directly contradicts Ukraine’s official war aims, namely, to make no territorial concessions at all. And note that such a scenario is what Stavridis pitches as the desirable outcome of continuing Western support: This is a former NATO commander telling the West that the new best-case result is a compromise peace that Kiev officially abhors.

What do we hear from Ukraine? The single most resonant statement there has come from Timoshenko. Once a cunning and energetic top player in Kiev politics and still leader of her own ‘Batkivshchyna’ party, she has clearly not given up trying for a comeback: Recently, she made headlines by resisting a new mobilization law and launching an offensive against LGBTQ politics. The two issues have little in common except they both show her angling for popular appeal: On the mobilization law she poses as the defender of the next cohort of young recruits to go into the meatgrinder (she suggests sending police and other “siloviki [security professionals]” instead…); and regarding LGBTQ, she presents herself as upholding traditional values.

And then there is Aleksey Arestovich. A former adviser to Zelensky and top promoter of war against Moscow, when it could still have been avoided, he has recently made a splash by suggesting that Ukraine and Russia should make peace and then unite against the West. That would be yet another way of ending the war, if it were realistic.

But what about the conditions that Stavridis, Timoshenko, and Arestovich foresee?

The former NATO commander is an example of how even those in the West who have rediscovered some realism, still suffer from wishful thinking as well. Stavridis’ scenario for ending the fighting involves not only Ukraine ceding territory to Russia, but also Moscow acquiescing in Kiev acceding to EU and NATO membership. If he is serious about this, then he is outlining what is a perfect non-starter for Russia. As its President Vladimir Putin has just reiterated, Moscow’s war aims still include Ukraine’s neutrality.   

Timoshenko’s ideas don't look much more hopeful. She may have only one real aim: to embarrass Zelensky and his “leadership.” Her “plan B” is still a plan “of victory,” and her rhetoric has remained generally strident: In a recent op-ed, she insists that Ukraine has “already won” multiple battles, such as being acknowledged as part of “the West” (good luck with that…), achieving domestic unity, and dismantling Russian influence. And yet, she is a wily operator: Could her list of victories already claimed also be read as signaling that, perhaps, for now at least, more may not be needed?

Which one is the real Arestovich: the one calling for an anti-Western alliance with Russia, the one who says (on a YouTube channel that he seems to assume no one in the West will ever hear about) that that was merely a bluff to cajole the West, or the one who hovers high above such tactical plays to ponder the very big picture, namely, how to secure global peace?

And yet, here as well, things may be more complicated: In the same interview and following the recent revelations of former Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Chaly, Arestovich also spends much time on the great missed opportunity of the Istanbul talks in spring 2022, confirming that Moscow then offered very advantageous conditions to Kiev and that peace was almost made. A “parade of unexpected generosities” from Russia he now calls what was on the table then.

Before Istanbul, Arestovich was also involved with the Minsk Agreements. Between the spring of 2015 and early 2022, Minsk II in particular, endorsed by the UN, could have served as a basis for a peaceful resolution of the then comparatively small-scale conflict. Yet neither the Ukrainian leadership nor its Western sponsors were interested in making the deal work, as Ukrainian politicians boasted at the time (usually on Ukrainian media) and Western leaders admitted in retrospect. It is no surprise to find Arestovich deriding the Minsk Agreements as a “trap” and a “dead end.” Yet while that merely confirms the Ukrainian obstructionism we already knew about, it is still interesting to note that, for him, Kiev got much better out of the Istanbul talks.

In that sense, Arestovich’s new statements about Istanbul 2022 can be read as implying future possibilities as well: If peace was so close once, it cannot be entirely impossible now. Yet the former presidential adviser also warns – realistically – that terms as good as were available then to Kiev are not likely to return. Indeed, he confesses his pessimism as to finding an end to the war soon.

The “Plan B” team is daring to join the debate, albeit cautiously. That’s good news. But a closer look is disappointing. We find few serious, concrete, and explicit suggestions as to how to make peace. Stavridis, who has the freedom to be the most outspoken, combines his realistic call for territorial concessions by Kiev with NATO membership for Ukraine, an idea that he must know will never fly in Moscow. Timoshenko and Arestovich remain ambiguous, even self-contradictory. And none makes a genuine effort to think through what Stavridis – in his most insightful aside – at least mentions: that any plans will depend on Russia agreeing.

Relations between New Delhi and Moscow have grown steadily despite the Western sanctions on Russia. Exercising its strategic autonomy, India, to the West’s disappointment, refrained from openly criticizing Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, according to Arvind Gupta, the director of New Delhi-based think tank Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF), ahead of the first Valdai Club Russian-Indian Conference, which will be held in New Delhi on January 8. 

The bilateral conference, titled ‘India and Russia: Views on Alternative World Orders, Regional Problems and Bilateral Ties’ and organized by Russia’s leading think tank, the Valdai Discussion Club, in partnership with the VIF, will discuss trends in the transformation of the world order and key developments on the bilateral front. 

International environment

Global tensions are currently running high and the mechanisms to resolve them have been ineffective. The ongoing Ukraine conflict and the Israel-Hamas war have exposed the international community’s inability to resolve conflicts and lessen tensions. Most multilateral mechanisms are dysfunctional as the world becomes fragmented and polarized along multiple axes. 

The risk of a wider military conflagration is considerable. Arms control and disarmament mechanisms are non-existent or at a standstill. Global nuclear and missile arsenals are being expanded at a rapid pace. The risk of the weaponization of cyberspace and outer space has also increased. The indiscriminate use of sanctions as a weapon causes economic and social disruptions globally. 

In a multipolar world, a sovereign nation has many options – but there is no guarantee that a world such as this would necessarily be peaceful and stable. Russia and India, along with other countries, can and should contribute to the evolution of a peaceful, stable multipolar world based on the idea of harmony in diversity, the rule of law, cooperation, and accommodation, in which the aspirations for security and growth for all are taken into account.   

New trends in bilateral ties

Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s visit to Moscow from December 25-29, 2023 reaffirmed that Indian-Russian ties remain healthy despite the current geopolitical turbulence in the world. Jaishankar was received by President Vladimir Putin, who expressed satisfaction at the state of relations and invited Prime Minister Narendra Modi to visit Russia. He said that he has kept Modi informed about the Russia-Ukraine conflict and has studied proposals made by India.

Conveying a message from Modi to Putin, Jaishankar described the relationship between the two nations as “very strong, very steady,” due to a convergence of strategic interests. The foreign ministers of the two countries also exchanged views on global and regional issues. 

As the international environment changes, Russia and India are taking steps to further deepen their “special and privileged strategic partnership” which was set up in 2010. Their cooperation involves a wide range of topics, including energy, defense and security, trade and investment, education and culture, science and technology, global and regional issues, and connectivity. A strong institutional framework for bilateral exchanges has been set up.  

The latest innovation is a ‘2 plus 2’ mechanism involving the defense and foreign ministers of both sides. The inaugural meeting of the group was held in Delhi in 2021. The two countries also engage with each other in the multilateral formats of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), BRICS, RIC, G20, and the UN. India has also begun a discussion on a free trade agreement with the Eurasian Economic Union. 

As a result of these measures, bilateral ties have grown stronger. Two-way trade is set to exceed $50 billion in 2023-24. Russia is now India’s fourth-largest trading partner. Both sides have also set a target of bilateral investment of $50 billion by 2025. Russia has emerged as a top supplier of crude oil to India, particularly since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict. India is a major supplier of pharmaceuticals to Russia. Russia is building six nuclear power plants in India, two of which have already been commissioned, and the other two are nearing completion. 

Two joint ventures are co-producing Brahmos cruise missiles and AK203 rifles. Brahmos missiles are also being exported to third countries. India has procured the S-400 missile defense system from Russia despite US pressure. Russian companies are looking to participate in India’s ambitious ‘Make in India’ program aimed at enhancing the production of military hardware indigenously. Russia has also started exporting fertilizers to India, thus strengthening India’s food security. These are a few examples of successful cooperation in recent years. 

It is noteworthy that India’s ties with Russia have grown steadily despite the Western sanctions on Russia. Exercising strategic autonomy, India, to the West’s disappointment, has not openly criticized Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. Instead, Modi conveyed to Putin that this “should not be an era of wars,” and that the conflicts should be resolved through peaceful means. Russia has shown appreciation for India’s position. Putin praised Modi for his leadership in ensuring a balanced G20 Leaders’ Declaration in which Russia was not criticized. 

India and Russia have a long tradition of cooperation in science and technology, particularly in space and defense. Moscow is working with New Delhi on the Gaganyaan human spaceflight program. High technology cooperation between the two countries has good potential. India is now a major technological power in the world. Both India and Russia have launched major programs in artificial intelligence and quantum computing. Projects of a commercial and strategic nature can be developed in areas of emerging technologies. India can also benefit by sourcing critical minerals from Russia needed to enter the era of electric vehicles.

In 2019, India formulated its Act Far East policy to focus on Russia’s resource-rich and relatively underdeveloped Far East region. The two countries decided to build maritime connectivity between Chennai and Vladivostok, passing through the Indian and Pacific Oceans. New Delhi announced a soft credit line of $1 billion to encourage Indian investments in Russia’s Far East, which will lessen Russia’s anxieties about India’s involvement in the Indo-Pacific. 

Russia is a major player in the Arctic, with around 5,600 kilometers of coastline along the North Sea Route, which has opened up for summer passage due to the thawing of the Arctic Ocean on account of global warming. Although the Arctic is a sensitive region geopolitically, India cannot ignore this area. New Delhi announced an Arctic policy in 2022, and Moscow can be an important partner in implementing it. 

Geopolitics

Although both sides have managed the current global turbulence reasonably well, they should remain alert to the fact that the geopolitical factors are uncertain and can have an unexpected impact on bilateral relations. A sound appreciation of each other’s security concerns is needed. India has deep strategic interests but also security vulnerabilities in Eurasia, as well as the vast Indo-Pacific region. Russian security is closely tied up with Europe, the Balkans, the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the Eurasian regions. Both countries are affected by issues of terrorism, radicalization, and instability in Afghanistan.  

India-China relations were adversely impacted by clashes in Eastern Ladakh in the Galwan region in 2020. This comes at a time when Russia-China ties have become more strategic, particularly after the start of the Ukraine conflict. Thus, Russia and India have a different lens through which they perceive China. Likewise, Russia and China have different perceptions about the US and the West in general. 

In Russian strategic circles, there is some anxiety over the perceived Indian ‘tilt’ towards the West. The fact is that India follows an independent foreign policy guided by strategic autonomy. India’s participation in the Quad, a grouping of the US, Japan, Australia, and India in the Indo-Pacific region, is seen in Russia with anxiety. Likewise, Russia’s growing strategic closeness with China and Pakistan cause some concern in India. Both sides need to have a proper assessment of each other’s strategic priorities and concerns. 

Way forward

To give further impetus to bilateral ties, it is important that the tradition of annual summits between the leaders of India and Russia, which was interrupted in 2022, is restored. There are some structural issues the two sides need to address to take relations to the next level. 

Following the imposition of Western sanctions on Russia, payment mechanisms to settle trade transactions have been found to be inadequate. Although India has purchased large quantities of Russian oil, stable payment mechanisms have yet to be formulated. This issue must be addressed urgently and creatively so that bilateral ties are not affected adversely. Similarly, the two sides should conclude a bilateral investment protection treaty soon to facilitate investments. Non-tariff barriers to trade should also urgently be removed. The relationship between their banks and insurance companies are inadequate and underdeveloped. These issues need to be resolved to buttress the trade and economic potential of the two sides. 

India has an ambitious target of installing 500 GW of renewable energy by 2030. Presently, it has a combined renewable energy installed capacity of 180 GW, which includes 44.5 GW of wind power and 72.3 GW of solar power. India took the lead in setting up the International Solar Alliance (ISA) in 2015, which now has 110 members, and a Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI), with 39 members. 

It is necessary to strengthen individual contacts between the two countries, particularly among young people. Russia has a rich tradition in the field of Indology. This must be revived. Russian academics could focus more attention on India’s 5,000-year-old civilization, going back to the Indus-Saraswati Civilization. The vast treasure of Indian strategic thinking, culture, and civilization needs to be approached from a non-Western, non-colonial perspective.

Likewise, Indian institutions of higher learning should pay greater attention to Russia, its history, culture, and civilization. There needs to be joint programs of research, studies, and dissemination among experts on both sides. Indian academics have regularly participated in high-level conferences organized by prominent think tanks such as the Valdai Discussion Club. These types of contacts should be expanded. 

During its G20 presidency, India put forward the civilizational idea of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’, a vision of one planet, one world, and one future. This vision recognizes multiplicity, plurality, and diversity in the world, envisioning a world of mutual cooperation, accommodation, caring and sharing, respect for nature, the environment, and biodiversity. A multipolar world requires this type of inclusive vision – otherwise, there will be chaos. Both India and Russia are in a unique position to contribute to the emergence of a harmonious, peaceful, and stable multipolar world. 

At the end of 2023, Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans Frontieres, RSF), the international organization ostensibly advocating for freedom of information, released its annual report. The paper massively downplays the widespread and deliberate targeting of Palestinian journalists in the Israel-Gaza war.

The report's announcement, titled, “Round-up: 45 journalists killed in the line of duty worldwide – a drop despite the tragedy in Gaza,” excludes most of the Palestinian journalists killed by Israel in 2023, particularly in the past few months. It claims 16 fewer journalists were killed worldwide in 2023 than in 2022. This doesn't reflect reality.

The report claims that (as of December 1, 2023), only 13 Palestinian journalists were killed while actively reporting, noting separately that 56 journalists were killed in Gaza, “if we include journalists killed in circumstances unproven to be related to their duties.”

Other sources put the overall number of Palestinian journalists killed in the enclave much higher. The UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported on December 1 that 73 journalists and media workers had been killed, citing to the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate (PJS).

While The Committee to Protect Journalists' (CPJ) December 20, 2023 numbers are lower (at least 61 Palestinian journalists killed since October 7), CPJ at least didn't disregard dozens of slain Palestinian journalists like RSF did.

In fact, in contrast to RSF's cheerful “things are much better for journalists than previous years” tone, CPJ emphasized that in the first 10 weeks of Israel's war on Gaza, “more journalists have been killed than have ever been killed in a single country over an entire year.” It voiced its concern about, “an apparent pattern of targeting of journalists and their families by the Israeli military.”

However, in the methodology section near the end of its more detailed report, RSF notes it “logs a journalist’s death in its press freedom barometer when they are killed in the exercise of their duties or in connection with their status as a journalist.”

Many Palestinian journalists in Gaza have received death threats from officers in the Israeli army precisely due to their status as journalists. And many of those threatened have subsequently been killed, along with family members, when Israeli airstrikes targeted their homes or places of shelter.

We also have the precedent in prior wars (in 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021) of Israel bombing Gazan media buildings (including one I was in in 2009) with varying severity, damaging and finally destroying two major media buildings in 2021. This is clearly intended to stop the flow of reports from Gaza under Israeli bombs, and so is the killing of journalists.

On December 15, the Palestinian Journalists' Syndicate criticized the RSF report, going as far as accusing RSF of complicity with Israel's war crimes against Palestinian journalists through whitewashing.

This is the same PJS whose statistics the UN's OCHA cites, statistics which PJS says are “accurate and based on professional and legal documentation that follows the highest standards in documenting crimes against journalists.” This documentation includes journalists who Israeli airstrikes targeted in their homes, killed precisely because they are journalists.

In response, RSF claimed it, “did not yet have sufficient evidence or indications,” to state that any more than 14 journalists in the Gaza Strip (as of December 23, the date of its response) “had been killed in the course of their work or because of it.”

At least three journalists were shot dead, at least three killed by an Israeli airstrike on media outlets in central Gaza City, and many more were killed by Israeli airstrikes on “safe” areas – areas south of Wadi Gaza, which Israel had commanded civilians to flee to for their “safety.” In spite of this command, Israeli bombings continued all over the strip, including all the way south to Rafah.

Still many more – in Gaza City, as well as to the north and to the south of it – were killed at home with their families, including one journalist in Khan Younis, killed along with 11 members of his family when an Israeli airstrike targeted his home on November 2. On November 23, a journalist was killed in an Israeli airstrike on his home in Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza, along with 20 family members.

The Cradle reported that, “The Israeli army sent a letter to legacy news outlets, Reuters and AFP.” The letter said, “The [Israeli Army] is targeting all Hamas military activity throughout Gaza. Under these circumstances, we cannot guarantee your employees' safety.”

One Israeli bombing of a journalist's home on November 7 killed him and 42 family members. Like many of his slain colleagues, he was a journalist for Palestinian Authority-run Wafa news. Many of the other murdered journalists worked for: Palestinian Authority-run Palestine TV, independent news agencies, local TV and radio programs, and larger outlets like al Jazeera. Others worked with Hamas-affiliated media and radio. Still others were freelancers.

On November 5, PJS reported that at least 20 of the journalists killed (since October 7) “were intentionally targeted by strikes on their homes or during their work covering Israel’s attacks.” This tally is already greater than RSF's reported total of 13 journalists killed at work or because of their work, even though the RSF report covers a period of almost a month more.

Israel threatens journalists, kills family members

Many Gaza journalists report being threatened by the Israeli army. CPJ noted it is “deeply alarmed by the pattern of journalists in Gaza reporting receiving threats, and subsequently, their family members being killed.”

One such incident followed a threat to Al-Jazeera Arabic reporter Anas Al-Sharif. CPJ noted he had received multiple phone calls from officers in the Israeli army instructing him to cease coverage and leave northern Gaza. Additionally, he received voice notes on WhatsApp disclosing his location. His 90-year-old father was killed on December 11 by an Israeli airstrike on their home in the Jabalia refugee camp.

On November 13, CPJ noted, “eight family members of photojournalist Yasser Qudih were killed when their house in southern Gaza was struck by four missiles. Qudih survived the attack.”

On October 25, an Israel airstrike on the Nuseirat refugee camp in the center of Gaza killed the wife, son, daughter, and grandson of Al-Jazeera’s bureau chief for Gaza, Wael Al Dahdouh.

The popular young independent journalist, Motaz Azaiza, reported receiving multiple threats from anonymous numbers urging him to cease his coverage, CPJ reported, noting that another Al-Jazeera correspondent, Youmna El-Sayed, said her husband received a threatening phone call from a man who identified himself as a member of the IDF and told the family “to leave or die.”

RSF bias: Not only in Palestine

Whereas RSF only reluctantly, as an afterthought, mentioned Palestinian journalists killed in “circumstances unproven to be related to their duties,” in a 2021 report on Syria, it stated, “at least 300 professional and non-professional journalists have been killed while covering artillery bombardments and airstrikes or murdered by the various parties to the conflict,” since 2011, going on to say, “this figure could in reality be even higher.”

Aside from reporting numbers it could not confirm, RSF cited a body in no way impartial or credible. As an investigative article noted, the SNHR is “based in Qatar... funded by foreign governments and staffed by top opposition leaders,” and “has openly clamored for Western military intervention.”

In 2017, Stephen Lendman wrote of RSF's attempt to shut down a panel sponsored by the Swiss Press Club in which British journalist Vanessa Beeley would be participating. “An organization that defends freedom of information is asking me to censor a press conference,” the club's executive director Guy Mettan said at the time. He refused to cancel the event.

RSF's 2023 roundup also didn't include two Russian journalists killed this year, one by a Ukrainian cluster bomb strike and the other by a Ukrainian drone attack (targeting journalists).

Sputnik pursued the matter and reported that RSF, “refused to give any comments to Sputnik” citing “editorial policy.”

Journalist Christelle Neant likewise noted RSF's glaring omission of the Russian journalists. She wrote about the body's funding from various governments, and more notably from regime change agencies: the Open Society foundation, The Ford Foundation, and the National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.

RSF's notorious funders explain why it cherry picks or inflates its reports. The borderless organization has lines it won't cross. It reports a grain of truth but otherwise whitewashes the crimes of Israel and Washington.

The names of some 200 individuals connected to accused sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein were publicly released this week, but nobody should expect justice to be served in this sensational case involving members of the global elite.

In the first tranche of documents released on Wednesday involving Epstein and his powerful, globetrotting friends, there were no bombshell revelations –no smoking guns, as it were – and such an anticlimactic trend will most likely continue. After all, we are talking about individuals – businessmen, politicians, celebrities, and even royalty – for whom the justice system has a curious way of never really working, at least in the way the public would like it to.

But first, for those still recovering from their New Year’s revelries, who was Jeffrey Epstein? A native of New York City, Epstein has been described as an “enigma” who traversed the social spectrum from college drop-out to a financial advisor to the rich and famous. The Associated Press described his dazzling success on Wall Street as “shrouded in mystery,” while others believe he was an agent for Mossad or the FBI, tasked with blackmailing his unsuspecting associates as they unwittingly compromised themselves with underage girls.

Whatever the case may be, Epstein, who was found dead in his jail cell on August 10, 2019 of an apparent suicide, had a knack for finagling his way into affluent social circles in New York and Palm Beach. It was at these locations where the billionaire was accused of recruiting and sexually abusing underage girls at his residences in the early 2000s.

Epstein’s white-knight facade began to slip in 2005, as police in Florida opened an investigation over reports that he had sexually abused a 14-year-old girl. After a four-year trial, which saw the charges dramatically watered down, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges, which included one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count of solicitation of prostitution with a minor under the age of 18. He was given a relative slap on the wrist with 18 months in prison under lax conditions, and released five months early.  

Despite his newfound reputation as a predatory pedophile, many of Epstein’s friends did not abandon him at this point; in fact, public figures who should have known better, like Bill Gates, Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton, continued their friendship, traveling aboard the so-called ‘Lolita Express’ to Epstein’s private Caribbean getaway known as Little Saint James, and later as ‘Pedophile Isle.’

In the ultimate Christmas gift, Manhattan federal Judge Loretta Preska ordered the release of the sealed documents against Epstein and his associates in a previously settled defamation lawsuit that Virginia Giuffre, 40, brought against Epstein’s madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, back in 2015. Maxwell is now serving a 20-year prison sentence. Giuffre alleged that Epstein sex-trafficked her to Prince Andrew, and in a lawsuit against the royal she claimed the Duke of York had sex with her on three separate occasions. The prince publicly denied the accusations in perhaps the most cringeworthy interview of all time.

As mentioned, much of the information contained in the 900 pages of court files has either been already reported or comes across as no surprise. Nevertheless, the descriptions make an Epstein party resemble a visit to the Barnum & Bailey’s Circus while under the influence of strong drugs. Imagine discovering, for example, the likes of pop-star Michael Jackson, the Duke of York, US politician Al Gore (apparently his fear of climate change did not stop him from flying on Epstein’s private jet), and the magician David Copperfield all in the same room. It’s enough to make one’s head explode. And by way of crude details, we also learn that former US President Bill Clinton 'likes them young', physicist Stephen Hawking allegedly participated in an underage sex party, and Epstein, allegedly, forced minors to engage in sex with the Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who vehemently denies the claims. Incidentally, since we have just entered a momentous election year in the US, it’s crucial to note that while former President Donald Trump’s name does appear in the documents, witnesses maintain he did nothing wrong.

While it’s important to remember that inclusion in the documents does not equate to guilt, it beggars the imagination to explain such wildly diverse individuals and their affiliation with Mr. Epstein. And while the public is invited to examine the salacious details of this degenerate party, there are other things –far more damaging to the perverts-that-be – that we will never know about. This involves the intelligence information that was reportedly vacuumed up by the FBI.

Many social media users have speculated that the information contained on the computers removed from Epstein’s residence were so-called ‘blackmail files’ that the deceased sex offender, together with whatever intelligence agency he may have been working for, used to control high-powered individuals in high places. In other words, a massive intelligence operation.

Around the time of the raid, then Attorney General William Barr vowed that the investigation into Epstein’s alleged misconduct would continue and the perpetrators would face justice.

“Any co-conspirators should not rest easy,” Barr said. “The victims deserve justice and they will get it.”

Today, more than four years after Jeffrey Epstein’s death, not a single individual involved with the late socialite and financier has spent a single day in jail, and that will most likely not change. The rich and powerful may occasionally suffer from blackmail, but they rarely suffer at the hands of a justice system, predicated as it is on money and influence.

Here’s a little experiment that you can replicate at home: Type ‘Russia Danger’ into Google (or Bing, or whatever search engine you like, but it probably has to be in English or another NATO-affiliated language; say German or French or Polish). Peruse the results.

Then type ‘Russia Weak’ and repeat.

Funny, isn’t it? Both searches will net you a rich catch of links and titles, of opinion pieces, longform articles, surveys and so on, depicting a dangerous or a weak Russia, as the case may be. And many of those sources will be high-quality or, at least, thoroughly mainstream: Reuters, The Telegraph, The New York Times, NPR, reputable think tanks, institutes, and experts – that sort of thing.

In other words, the West is producing two roughly equally prominent narratives about Russia that are mutually exclusive. True, there are some attempts – vaguely reminiscent of medieval scholasticism – to reconcile them. Almost a year ago now, Reuters, for instance, ran the headline that “even a weak Russia is a problem for Europe.”

How convenient from a Western point of view! That way, you can have your triumphalism (because the phrase “Russia weak” here, of course, implies “West strong”) and, at the same time, you can still spread the fear of big bad Russia, with all that means for intra-NATO politics (i.e. US dominance), military budgets, and arms manufacturers. The latter have been doing very well out of yet another war that has – surprise, surprise – turned out to be a racket, in the famous words of US Marine Major General Smedley Butler.

Yet, on the whole, we are looking at a stark contrast. You may think that this is simply reflecting a healthy debate, with two opposing opinions clashing or that differences are due to time passing and things, especially in Ukraine, changing on the ground. To an extent, you’d be right: It is obvious, for instance, that the Western mood has become more pessimistic after the failure of Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive had to be acknowledged.

But the above is far from the whole explanation for the striking Western bipolarity (to use a term from clinical psychology) about Russia. For as so often with Western narratives about that country, they may not help you much to understand the real Russia, but if you read them against the grain, they can tell you a lot about the West’s imaginary Russias (yes, there is  more than one). And that, in turn, offers some timely insights into the real West.

Let’s look at a sample of points habitually made about Russia in the two big Western narratives.

For ‘Russia Danger’ we get: obsessively imperial (wants the Soviet Union back or, at least, something similarly dominant); supremely devious (never means what it says and not even the opposite, either); very subversive (able to make or break American presidents, for instance); militarily powerful and ruthless (its forces are battle-hardened and learning, its weapons advanced and adaptable, and, worst of all, its war economy is effective – unlike the West’s); well-connected (it gets ammunition from North Korea, sells oil to India, China just won’t stop siding with it, and, exasperatingly, much of the world is not heeding the West’s command to isolate it); and last but not least, politically “totalitarian,” of course (just disregard here that that term makes absolutely no sense with regard to Russia now).

For ‘Russia Weak’ we find: Not all it’s cracked up to be and really just a fraud (this is where almost no one can resist that deadly tired cliche about “Potemkin” this and “Potemkin” that); primitive in terms of, well, really, everything: values, politics, organization, technology (Remember German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s Wayward Washing Machine Theory regarding how Russians get their microchips? No? Lucky you.); savage (This one easily blends with “primitive,” of course – see under “Russian soldiers without guns but with sharpened shovels”); isolated (at least by the very proper crowd in the West), and, last but not least, always brimming with repressed popular discontent and, potentially at least, on the verge of color revolution and regime change (so to speak, authoritarian enough to condemn, but terribly bad at that, too – see under “Potemkin” and “primitive”).

We could refine the picture, but the outlines should be clear enough. And here is what it reveals: what is behind the West’s two Russias is not merely a debate or differences of opinion and assessments, but the latest iteration of a deep cultural pattern with a long history, reaching back to, at least, the moment when Peter the Great gate-crashed the European Great Power club in the early 18th century.

On one side, the West loves to imagine Russia in what – after the great Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said – we have learned to call an Orientalist framing, as a Backward Other: a part of that perennial fantasy ‘East’ that the West simply can’t imagine – or accept – as its equal. That’s the root of all those descriptions of today’s Russia as a kind of shovel-wielding gas station running on empty (if you will forgive a metaphor as muddled as the thinking it designates).

But there is another powerful register in the West’s Russia imagination: the Sinister Other. Whereas in the Orientalist key, Russia is ultimately always seen as reassuringly weak, the Sinister Other is different: a kind of evil mirror image of the West’s self-idealization, this Russia appears as modern, wielding up-to-date means of power across multiple domains from information, to the economy, to the battlefield. The Sinister Other can also mobilize its population well; it has, like the West, solved the political challenge of bringing the masses into politics, only in a way the West likes to imagine as morally inferior to its own brand of manufacturing consent.

Consider the issue of how Russia has been fighting the current war between it, on one side, and Ukraine and (de facto) NATO on the other. Initial – and gleeful – Western observations about Moscow’s mistakes and predictions that, with its call-up of September 2022, Moscow would fall flat on its face and even trigger large-scale rebellion, if not revolution, were a classic example not only of wishful groupthink but of the Orientalist, Backward-Other register. Put crudely: “Those Russians just can’t hack it, because – they are Russians.”

Yet, when Russia did succeed in mobilizing and also adjusted its military tactics, at least some Western perceptions shifted into the Sinister-Other key: as Barry R. Posen, an unusually perceptive Western observer wrote in Foreign Affairs, “the most alarming thing about Russia’s bombing campaign is that Moscow knows what it is doing.” Indeed. But where’s the news?

It is crucial to understand that this Western pattern is not merely about passive observation. On the contrary, there is a proactive aspect to it: We can read the last decades, essentially since the end of the Soviet Union, as marked by the West’s obstinate attempt to not only imagine Russia as backward and weak. Rather, Russia – and Russians – were supposed to fit that image: Under Western eyes, Russia was to be relegated in the real-existing hierarchy of international politics – a big country (and market), sure, but still one that, when push comes to shove, can be coerced and even defeated. And because Moscow has resisted this demotion successfully, Russia is now the Sinister Other again.

That shift illustrates the single most depressing thing about the West’s views of Russia: the West may change its tone from time to time, it may even produce two very different, mutually exclusive narratives about Russia at the same time, when stuck in a moment of transition or confusion. But it never actually learns. All it does, collectively and with all too few exceptions, is alternate between different frameworks of stereotypes. What a missed opportunity. Again and again.

An American court this week released over 900 documents relating to the sordid and seemingly never-ending Jeffrey Epstein saga.  

Epstein was the very well-connected billionaire financial adviser – with a fondness for being “massaged” by teenage girls from Miami trailer parks – who committed suicide (so it is said) in a Manhattan prison cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

The Western media had, of course, conferred celebrity status on Epstein – in tandem with his lover and partner in crime, Ghislaine Maxwell, long before his controversial and opportune death. Maxwell, no stranger to scandal in her own right, is the daughter of disgraced billionaire publisher Robert Maxwell - who committed suicide in 1991 on the eve of being exposed for having stolen hundreds of millions of pounds from his companies’ pension funds.

Epstein was one of Robert Maxwell’s financial advisers, and when Ghislaine moved to New York after her father’s death, they became romantically involved. She needed and valued his financial advice, and he was impressed with her wide range of social connections within elite circles globally – that extended even to the British royal family.

Ironically, Epstein and Maxwell were brought down by one of the young girls that they exploited sexually – an Australian, Virginia Giuffre, who pursued them both relentlessly through the American legal system. Giuffre also took legal proceedings against the hapless Prince Andrew – a close friend of Epstein and Maxwell with whom she says she was forced to have sex on numerous occasions – that resulted in a multi-million dollar out-of-court settlement and the Prince’s banishment from public life two years ago.

The inherently salacious nature of the long-running Epstein tale and its #MeToo subtext no doubt account for the Western media’s ongoing fascination with Epstein and Maxwell. But there is also another factor at work – a desire to expose and bring down those individual members of the global elites who associated with Epstein and were beneficiaries of his hospitality and largesse.

There is, however, an element of political naivety in this – after all, haven’t Western elites always sexually exploited young girls from the lower orders? More importantly, surely the widespread fraudulent financial activities of these powerful individuals and the corporations they govern are more deserving of exposure?

It should come as no surprise that a clever and ambitious spiv like Epstein (who did not come from a privileged background and was a teacher before becoming a financial adviser to the global elites) should also regularly supply his clients with young working-class women at his private residences.

Media coverage of this week’s document release – and there are more releases to come – has therefore focused on the identity of those prominent individuals who are named in the pleadings, depositions, and exhibits that have now been disclosed.

Famous American lawyer and academic Alan Dershowitz receives numerous mentions in the documents – including one allegation that he had sex with an underage girl while staying with Epstein. Dershowitz, who acted for Epstein and obtained a favourable plea bargain for him in relation to sex charges that he faced in 2008, has strongly denied this allegation. He admits, however, that he often visited Epstein’s residences and that on one occasion had a massage – but denies any impropriety or knowledge of Epstein’s egregious misconduct. Dershowitz’s denials are strengthened by the fact that he sued Giuffre over allegations that she made about him a few years ago, and she settled the action after admitting that she may have mistaken Dershowitz for someone else.

Prince Andrew, again not surprisingly, figures very conspicuously in the released documents – but his very close association with Epstein and Maxwell is old news, as is his liaison with Ms Giuffre and his subsequent denial of it. Michael Jackson is mentioned once in the documents – although it is very unlikely that he committed any sexual impropriety while enjoying Epstein’s hospitality. The documents make absolutely clear that only young women were on offer at Epstein’s residences. Donald Trump is also mentioned in passing – but it is a matter of public record that Trump’s relationship with Epstein ended decades ago.

Of more interest are those members of the global elites with lesser public profiles who are mentioned in the documents.  These individuals include Tom Pritzker, billionaire head of the  Pritzker Organisation and Executive Chairman of Hyatt Hotels; Glenn Dubin, billionaire investor and co-founder of Highbridge Capital;  Marvin Minsky, AI pioneer and MIT Professor; and Bill Richardson, former Governor of New Mexico, where Epstein had one of his homes.

No doubt, the release of the Epstein documents this week – and the subsequent releases – will be front-page news in the Western media. Details of the sexual crimes allegedly committed by Epstein and his friends will be salaciously pored over by readers excited by such scandals, and the reputations of a few individual participants will be so damaged that they will not be invited to Davos next year.

But the corrupt financial system that created Epstein and allowed him to prosper – he had amassed a fortune of $700 million – will continue to operate completely unchecked and beyond effective scrutiny. And even at the level of exposing those individuals who exploited the young girls that Epstein supplied them with – most will simply escape unscathed.

Portions of many of the documents released this week are redacted, and only Epstein and Maxwell know the names of all the elite individuals who were actually involved in their activities. Epstein is conveniently dead, and Maxwell has remained silent on this issue throughout her trial and incarceration - a wise move, perhaps given Epstein’s fate. Media coverage of the Epstein saga in the West purports to be investigative journalism – but its defects disclose the real scandal, namely that genuine investigative journalism no longer exists in the West.

Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s 2023 year-end visit to Moscow was a focused initiation of a preparatory effort that will reorient Russia-India relations when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Russia this year.

Defense, nuclear, and space will continue to be the core elements of the bilateral relationship. In the coming months and medium to long term, other poles will be added: an important role for the Indian diaspora in Russia, connectivity, tourism, fin-tech and info-tech.

Among such a mix of old and new pillars, the much-discussed energy collaboration will have to find its feet. Both sides are looking to convert their flourishing energy business from a buyer-seller relationship into a strategic energy partnership similar to what Modi has built with Gulf states.  

Hinting at changes to come in bilateral relations, Putin told Jaishankar that at the Putin-Modi summit next year, “we have to cover a lot of ground.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov acknowledged at his joint press conference with Jaishankar on the same day that “we are respectful of the aspiration of our Indian colleagues to diversify their military and technical links.” 

Indians who know about Russia-India defense ties concede that this will take decades in view of the depth, diversity, and history of them. However, a public discourse on India’s aspirations point to steps in that direction beyond the 22nd Russia-India summit this year.  

Jaishankar’s crowded itinerary during his December 25-29 visit included a pioneering effort to turn to and seek support from the Indian diaspora in Russia to help augment bilateral relations. There are 30,000 Indians living in Russia, according to figures available with the Indian embassy in Moscow. Some of them have lived in Russia for more than three decades. It is being planned that when Modi visits Russia this year, he will address this numerically significant community at an agreed location to be decided in the coming months. 

Interacted with the Indian community in Moscow. Appreciated their contribution to building a strong and steady collaboration between India and Russia.

The Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership reflects experiences and sentiments of last 75 years. Urged the community to… pic.twitter.com/rl06FPhbeh

— Dr. S. Jaishankar (@DrSJaishankar) December 26, 2023

Diaspora engagement has been a pillar of Modi’s overseas outreach all over the world in the nearly ten years he has been prime minister. Jaishankar’s initiative to meet a cross-section of this community in Moscow on December 26 was enthusiastically welcomed by those who attended this meeting.

Attendees claimed this was the first time that a visiting Indian foreign minister had addressed the diaspora in Moscow. The claim was not challenged. The Indian embassy’s archives have records of external affairs ministers meeting sections of the diaspora – such as students at universities in the Soviet Union – but not the Indian community as a whole.  

Jaishankar was unfazed. The next day, in his opening remarks at a press conference with Lavrov, the minister brought up this subject. He said India had recently increased the number of flights to Russia from 52 to 64 every week, adding, “We are open to increasing it further.” Greater air connectivity is now an important bilateral agenda item. 

Jaishankar acknowledged at his various interactions, including one in Saint Petersburg with indologists, that culture has always been a very strong element in Russia-India relations. Even on his latest visit, the minister went to see a school named after Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore.

But a new and changing world requires additional, innovative drivers in bilateral relationships. It is relevant in this context that the character of the Indian diaspora in Russia has changed. They now belong to professions such as financial technology, business consultancy, information technology and other areas that did not exist in the heyday of Indo-Soviet amity. 

“Many people in Russia are not familiar with what has changed in India,” he said. In Jaishankar’s view, if the diaspora fills this knowledge gap about opportunities for doing business, the present bilateral trade of $50 billion – an all-time high – could double to $100 billion. All in all, the Indian community in Russia now has its task cut out for them. It is a new leap that brings them on par with the Indian diaspora in the Gulf, Far East and North America. 

Beyond the obvious, Modi has not given up hope for an end to the conflict in Ukraine. Putin told the Indian Minister: “We know the position of Prime Minister Modi ... his attitude to complicated processes, including hot spots, the situation in Ukraine. I know about his striving to resolve this problem through peaceful means.” 

A few days before traveling to Moscow, Jaishankar pointedly recused himself from discussing Ukraine when he launched a book in New Delhi by his multilateralist diplomat colleague Ambassador Mohan Kumar. From what Putin said, it was clear that Ukraine was discussed in depth with Jaishankar more than meets the eye. “Now, we will talk about this [Ukraine] in more detail ... I know that our colleagues have spoken about this, but nonetheless we will give you additional information on the situation.” Jaishankar’s visit was not a substitute for the interrupted annual summit, but it was a good augury for Russia-India relations in the new year. 

Where India Meets Russia – We are now on WhatsApp! ‎Follow and share RT India in English and in Hindi 

For years now, the US has been strongarming the Netherlands into accepting technology restrictions on the export of advanced lithography machines to China. These machines, produced by the Dutch firm ASML, use lasers to help create circuits for microchips.

Although ASML is a world-leading specialist company, its foundational patents are derived from the US, which allows Washington to coerce it into following unilateral export controls as the Americans see fit.

American restrictions have come in several waves, building on the sweeping export controls introduced in 2022. One such update concerning a specific kind of lithography machine came into effect on Monday, January 1, 2024. ASML attempted to rush through the sale of several such machines to China before the deadline but canceled it at the last moment – reportedly due to pressure from the US.

The news caused ASML’s US shares to drop. The fundamental goal of US foreign policy here is to try and crush China’s semiconductor industry and hobble its high tech ambitions, which has become one of the critical strategies to try and curb China’s military and economic rise as a whole.

In doing so, the US has blacklisted Chinese technology firms and has increasingly tried to stave off the exports of semiconductor equipment to China, describing it as a “small yard, high fence” approach. Despite this, there is overwhelming evidence at this stage that such sanctions are not working, not least because China is pursuing a coordinated state and industry effort to forcibly advance itself in semiconductor technology which has seen Huawei, the original US target of sanctions, effectively piece together its very own semiconductor supply chain.

However, moves targeted at companies such as ASML show that the US continues to represent an obvious threat and challenge to European economic competitiveness and prosperity. Why? Because EU firms are being forced, by command of a third party, to sever ties with their most lucrative market, in order to meet American goals. The US likes to claim that it supports free and fair trade in a market governed by the rule of law, but what kind of “rule of law” is there in a system where a firm you operate has secured a large number of sales in anticipation of a restriction deadline imposed by a third party outside of your legal system and then has to cancel those sales anyway because the same third party doesn’t want to wait for the deadline?

China is the world’s largest semiconductor market, whose high-tech development fuels a greater demand for microchips than anywhere else in the world. The US believes it can hamstring China’s long-term prospects by blocking this ascension as the country moves away from low-end manufacturing. Washington’s plan to stop China’s development and induce stagnation is based on faulty logic that China is incapable of innovating or moving forward without Western technology, which goes against all evidence to the contrary.

Instead, in the long-term, this approach will effectively cut off Western firms from the critical and lucrative Chinese market, as the US aims to create a new global supply chain in technology which it dominates, and therefore make the EU dependent upon it. This reminds us that the EU is the biggest loser of America’s war on China as it seeks to break a lucrative trading relationship but also, more critically, undermine European competitiveness, as it has done by depriving it of Russian energy over the war in Ukraine, and therefore absorb the market space for itself. To follow American wishes on China is to sacrifice sovereignty, geopolitical autonomy, and prosperity to serve the goals of the United States. It is a lose-lose situation. What happens to ASML when the time comes that China is capable of creating its own high-end chips and lithography equipment? And no longer has need of it for its domestic market, and offers the same solutions to other countries? You need to be in China to compete in the game, you don’t win by refusing to participate when the other side is still kicking the ball.

Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s five-day official visit to Russia was timely and significant for more than one reason. 

India and Russia had held annual summits at the leadership level since 2000. This sent an important message in terms of the value attached by the two countries to bilateral ties, but it also conveyed a broader geopolitical message to other international partners of the two countries.

But this practice was broken largely because of Russia’s pre-occupation with the Ukraine conflict and its fallout. The last annual summit took place in 2021.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin could have held a summit on the margins of the BRICS summit in Johannesburg in South Africa or the G20 summit in New Delhi, but Putin did not attend either. While Jaishankar’s visit does not substitute for a summit meeting, it was intended to fill a political gap. 

Jaishankar and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have met six times during the year, and the Indian external affairs minister also met with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov during the year on the economic agenda. For Jaishankar to visit Russia before the end of the year, undeterred by the Russian winter and holiday season, reflects the importance both sides attach to the further expansion of ties.

This is high and unusual praise by Putin. It can be interpreted on several levels – particularly as an acknowledgement that India has resisted pressure from the US and others to condemn Russia over the Ukraine conflict, impose sanctions, and reduce defense ties with Russia. India has, on the contrary, bought discounted Russian oil to the point that Russia has become its biggest oil supplier. It has argued that ensuring this market flow of Russian oil has helped avoid a major spike in oil prices and checked global inflation. Indian-Russian trade has expanded, while the G7 has broken economic and trade ties with Russia.

India played a major role as G20 president in negotiating the part in the Leaders’ Declaration on the Ukraine conflict despite the hardening of the G7 position and that of Russia and China after the G20 summit in Bali. The final text does not mention Russia by name, while the G7 was satisfied that the general formulations in it could be sold as being directed at Russia’s military operation in Ukraine.

It is against this backdrop that Putin received Jaishankar at the Kremlin, the first time that such a gesture has been made to him personally. The general unavailability of Putin to visiting foreign ministers is well-known.

Jaishankar delivered a personal message from Modi to Putin. During the meeting, Putin invited his “friend Modi” to visit Russia in 2024 and noted that Indian-Russian ties were on the whole developing well. He said that he had been briefing Modi on developments in Ukraine, remarking that he understands the Indian prime minister is willing to do his utmost to resolve the matter by peaceful means. He added that he would give additional information to Jaishankar on Ukraine. 

Putin’s praise for Modi and India and the gesture of receiving Jaishankar takes into consideration these realities of India’s foreign policy which are meant to safeguard the larger national interests. At the core of this is Russia’s respect for India’s policy of strategic autonomy. Jaishankar’s high-profile visit and the vigorous language used to mark the importance of India’s traditional ties with Russia would have caught Washington’s attention.

Indian-Russian trade is at an all-time high, exceeding $50 billion last year, and should pass that figure this year. It includes energy, fertilizers, coking coal, and other items, for which long term arrangements were discussed. India intends to expand investments in Russia’s oil and gas sector.

On the nuclear side, two important amendments were agreed to which will take the Kudankulam nuclear power project forward. Mutual investments, progress on a bilateral investment treaty, and the resumption of negotiations between India and the Eurasian Economic Union for a free trade agreement will be resumed in the second half of January 2024.

Moscow and New Delhi will expand cooperation in the Russian Far East. India expects a large representation from this region at the Vibrant Gujarat Summit in January 2024.

The talks between Jaishankar and Lavrov were comprehensive. They discussed the global strategic situation, Ukraine, Gaza, the Indo-Pacific, ASEAN, Afghanistan, UN-related matters, the challenges facing the Global South, and the building of a multipolar order. China would undoubtedly have been discussed, but diplomatic discretion here would be normal.

In the joint press conference, Lavrov spoke of prospects for more defense cooperation, including joint production of modern weapons under New Delhi’s ‘Make in India’ program, and, importantly, expressed respect for India’s efforts to diversify its defense ties. He noted bilateral cooperation in rocket engine manufacturing and satellite navigation systems.

Jaishankar’s visit was productive in maintaining the momentum of Indian-Russian ties, which have been built over 60 years, a relationship that he believes is not just about politics, diplomacy, or economics, but is much deeper.

Where India Meets Russia – We are now on WhatsApp! ‎Follow and share RT India in English and in Hindi 

As we conclude the year 2023, we look back on another 12 months of global turmoil, upheaval, and uncertainty. Conflicts such as the war in Ukraine continued, while another full-scale war broke out in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. While tensions between China and the West cooled after reaching a boiling point, they still remain in the same geopolitical frame and could easily explode at any unpredictable moment.

Because of this, the past year has undoubtedly been one of the starkest periods of global turmoil since the run up to the first World War, and the historical parallels are uncanny. As a unipolar political order fragments with new challenger powers emerging, the world has descended into a security dilemma fraught with explosive regional conflicts, widespread struggles for influence, arms races and weaponization of trade. Following on from 2022, this has ushered in a new and less secure era.

The decline of unipolarity

A unipolar political order is a system where one power has exclusive dominance or hegemony over all the rest, and therefore is free to shape the rules and outcomes of the system to its own ends and interests. When the United States overcame the Soviet Union in the Cold War, it became an undisputed global hegemon and used this status to permeate the entire world with its cultural, economic, political and military influence, aiming to shape what it described as a “New American Century.” To this end, the US engaged in unrestrained military adventurism all over the world.

Similarly, an earlier unipolar order was known as “Pax Britannia,” which after the defeat of Napoleon’s France as its sole challenger, saw the British Empire become the global hegemon with France as a junior partner. However, in both instances, the “peaks” of those unipolar eras only lasted for a few decades until new challengers began to emerge, which transformed the world into a multipolar system where multiple great powers compete for influence, with often destructive consequences. The British Empire’s dominance was challenged by the rise of Imperial Germany, Japan, and Italy, three new empires which emerged at the end of the 19th century, subsequently paving the way for the events of World Wars I and II.

The new, dangerous era

Likewise, US unipolarity began to wane by the 2010s following the resurgence of Russia, as well as the rise of China. The years of 2018-2023 have been exceptionally consequential in opening a new period of geopolitical turmoil and struggle, as the US pivoted its foreign policies to confront both powers with a view to containing them and sustaining its dominance over the entire planet. No hegemony, of course, goes down without a fight. Britain fought both World Wars precisely for this reason but was exhausted to the point it was forced to pass the baton on to the US. Similarly, in the modern day, neither will America go down without a fight.

But beyond this, what has been more important to this year, and ultimately what lies ahead, is the fate of the Middle East. In October, war broke out after Hamas decided to launch a full-scale assault on Israel from Gaza. The war was triggered by US appeasement of Israel’s hardline policies through the Abraham Accords, as well as the emerging multipolarity providing more political space for Hamas to resist. Israel responded with an overwhelming bombardment and invasion of Gaza, invoking strong condemnation from around the world. It aims to militarily occupy the strip, a series of decisions which will push the Muslim world’s relations with the Zionist state to the point of no return and therefore pose consequences for the entire region, which in turn will impact the West’s engagement with the Global South and the power struggle there with Russia and China. Ultimately, the war is also a marked failure of the hardline US policies on Iran and unsuccessful attempts to try and contain it by force.

Although Tehran is not a competitor for hegemony, it is nonetheless a formidable regional adversary for Washington, boasting significant power and population, with growing military capabilities, and is fighting to force the influence of the US and Israel out of the Middle East. To this end, Washington’s decision to give Israel free rein to destroy Gaza is a strategic setback in multiple domains. The US will have to commit to a new chapter of violent struggle across the Middle East to sustain its position, whether the it wants to or not.

Then of course, there is the top priority of American foreign policy, the ongoing struggle with China. Washington seeks to contain the rise of Beijing as a military and technological superpower, and militarily encircle it in the region it calls the Indo-Pacific. Although presently the two sides are undergoing a detente after Xi Jinping met Joe Biden in San Francisco, with the Taiwan issue likewise less critical in 2023, the relationship nonetheless remains the overall driver of the strategic environment we live in today, and there is little expectation the US will relent. Beijing is patient and prefers to play ‘the long game’ but is certainly rising to the challenge, which enables every other actor to assert its position, and thus further stretch the international order.

Thus, 2023 has been a geopolitically divisive year that will certainly be remembered by the history books, especially in reference to the Middle East, and will usher in 2024 as another decisive year which may determine the outcomes of many of these conflicts. The old world, the comfortable world of American privilege, is evaporating, and we potentially now face the return of a world we had hoped was confined to the experiences of our forefathers. Who said history was over, Francis?

Ukraine needs to come to an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and then Kiev and Moscow should unite to sue the West.

You may think the above idea is rather radical and unusual. Sue the West? Where? In what court? The same West that has no issue with either Ukraine or the US (or both) blowing up Germany’s – and the EU’s – vital energy pipelines? Or the West that ignores its leaders' complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, a crime explicitly proscribed – the complicity no less than the act itself – in Article III (e) of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention?

But wait till you hear about the fertile mind that produced this very outside-the-box idea. It’s none other than Aleksey Arestovich, once an adviser to Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky. Not necessarily a household name (yet) outside Ukraine, Arestovich was, until very recently, a man of extraordinary influence in Kiev, and used it to energetically promote the very proxy war that he'd now like to end and to then blame on the West alone.

University dropout, sleazy pop psychologist (of the how-to-manipulate-others-to-succeed type), former military and virtually certainly also intelligence officer, blogger and would-be-geopolitics guru with very adaptable views, and, of course, Zelensky aide from 2020 to 2023,  Arestovich is not merely an individual but a syndrome: He stands for a social type, the smart but psychopathically empathy-less conman who managed to ruthlessly exploit the disorientation left behind in post-Soviet societies with a coldhearted cynicism that would have made Machiavelli blush.

Arestovich’s 180-degree turn is yet another absurdity produced by the theatrical politics of the Kiev elite. But, embittering as it may be to hear this former warmonger extraordinaire speak about peace and who's blame, the stark contrast between the old anti-Russian jingoist Arestovich, and the new, would-be-friend of Russia and foe-of-the-West Arestovich, provides a depressingly accurate measure of just how irresponsible Ukrainian politics has become under the de facto authoritarian Zelensky regime.

In 2019, it was Arestovich who infamously 'predicted' a big and devastating war (beyond the conflict which started in 2014) with Russia over Ukraine’s attempt to join NATO, which, eventually, in 2022, left some naïve Western commenters gushing over his “eerie” foresight. 

Except Arestovich did not really predict the big war in 2019. Instead, he sold it as good as he could. Ruling out any possibility of peacefully ending the then-ongoing, smaller-scale conflict with the Donbass republics (Minsk II, anybody?), he used the usual baseless talking points (“Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union, destroy NATO, and the EU, dominate Europe” and so on, the whole hogwash then fashionable from Annalena Baerbock to Tim Snyder) to present an escalation into a bigger war as absolutely inevitable: Because not only did Minsk II hardly appear on this great fantasy-strategist’s radar, he also insisted that neutrality was impossible for Ukraine and misled his followers into believing that NATO would easily (“all very simple now”) accept Ukraine, even if it had unresolved territorial conflicts with internal insurgents or with Russia.

At the same time, Arestovich presented the future big war as Ukraine’s great chance. Having posited the false alternative – at least back then – of either joining NATO after that big war against Russia (which he recklessly assumed Ukraine would win) or being absorbed by Moscow in the near future, he wholeheartedly recommended course number one: war with Russia. Even three such wars in succession seemed to him both inevitable and advisable; back then, that is.

And, finally, he also invited Ukrainians to indulge in the West’s favorite fantasy, namely that Russia might suffer collapse and undergo a regime change. “Some kind of liberals” would come to power, he claimed, and say “we are a nice country again.” That part of his sales pitch for a steadfast “no” to diplomacy, compromise, and peace is particularly ironic now. For he has announced an utter and complete change of heart in an interview with Russian journalist and broadcaster Yulia Latynina.

Even good old Europe is still too soft on simple people for her: All that “social-democratic” mumbo-jumbo about human rights, etc. won’t cut it for Latynina; her true European 'values' are about property, innovation, and competition. So much for those regime-change fantasies, then. It’s the Latynina type that Arestovich was wagering on. No wonder most Russians, including those critical of President Vladimir Putin, say “anybody but that.”

Yet in their recent tête-à-tête on YouTube, the Ukrainian conman and the Russian libertarian couldn't see entirely eye to eye. Even Latynina felt that Arestovich’s idea of joining up Russia to sue the NATO states was a bit of a non-starter. Moreover, as much in awe of the West as she is, she had to remind him that it “doesn't owe Ukraine anything.” Arestovich, carried away by his newest brainwave, insisted it does. 

Both were missing the point: It does not matter what the West owes or does not owe you. The West will always only give you what is best for the West (and that usually means the US). And when that is “nothing,” then that is what you will get. If only arrogant former warmongers like Arestovich could finally start facing reality. All of it.

“There is an active hunt not only for promising research, the data and parameters of our weapons, but also for our specialists who are especially valuable,” Russian Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov recently said, referring to Western spies and their efforts to seek information about Russian defense production by targeting industry experts.  

Well, approaching “soft target” experts for info is certainly a better bet for spies than trying to chat up a soldier whose BS-detector is more finely tuned to espionage. And Western spooks know this better than anyone else since they’ve been busy practicing – among themselves. 

Ultimately, all spying is about getting an economic advantage – whether in conflict or war, where the outcome determines the prominence of any future economic foothold, or more directly through theft of economically valuable secrets or the subversion of trade or competition. The current focus on the military conflict between Russia and the Western military alliance via Ukraine obscures the fact that for all the public proclamations of unity and solidarity by Western leaders, they’d all screw each other over economically if given even the slightest chance.

The Ukraine conflict has really underscored the American view of Germany as an economic rival, which once translated into Washington’s systemic criticism of Germany’s Nord Stream economic lifeline of Russian gas (before it was mysteriously blown up). Now, it’s seen in the form of Uncle Sam’s enticing of German companies to US shores with green tax breaks and plentiful energy as limited and pricey replacement American liquified natural gas sold to Europe has sparked German deindustrialization. It was a longtime dream come true for the US, having considered Germany a key competitor on the global stage since the early ’90s. 

By 1999, the European press was reporting the theft of wind turbine blueprints from German company Enercon, to the benefit of an American rival. The US electronic espionage service (the National Security Agency) was blamed for it, and for targeting at least 30 German firms. 

Berlin was apparently so outraged by US spying that its BND foreign spy service actually helped the same NSA industrially spy on German business interests and on its neighbor and fellow US ally, France, for over a decade in the wake of this incident, as the German press reported in 2015. It’s no secret that the Franco-German-led Airbus Group (the known as EADS) is really the only major global rival to Pentagon contractor and commercial jet maker Boeing, yet Germany’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported at the time that Germany helped the US spy on it, too. So when current German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stood beside Biden before the Ukraine conflict and smiled while the latter mused like a mafioso about taking care of the Nord Stream pipeline of cheap Russian gas, it wasn’t the only time that Berlin appeared enthusiastic about bending over for Washington. 

Washington also long considered France to be an industrial powerhouse, particularly under former President Charles de Gaulle, whose official policy of nuclear power development turned the country into a cheap energy powerhouse to rival American industry – and therefore into a target for US industrial spying. The CIA station in Paris was rolled up and expelled in a 1995 French domestic intelligence operation that ended with Paris publicly accusing the US of economic espionage. While the details of that spy operation still remain murky after all these years, it appears to be the same kind of trade-related espionage that the US also practiced during the Clinton administration on another ally, Japan, amid automobile-related trade negotiations, as the Los Angeles Times reported in 1995. 

More recently, acquisitions of French industrial knowledge by US competitors have been the visible tip of the iceberg of Washington’s cut-throat methods of securing industrial advantages – like when France’s nuclear know-how division of Alstom was acquired by Pentagon contractor General Electric, as the heat was turned up on Alstom executives, including the CEO, jailed and charged in the US under American extraterritorial law for alleged corruption in developing countries.  

Of course, what remains unseen is far more egregious. About 100 French companies were targeted by NSA spies, Wikileaks reported in 2015 – “including almost all of the CAC 40” index of the country’s top businesses, according to France’s Liberation newspaper. 

Not that the French have been immune from dabbling in a little ami-on-ami spying. In 1993, two French officials were sent back to Paris after being caught spying on US industry under diplomatic cover. Around the same time, a French intelligence report leaked to the press cited “49 high-technology US companies, 24 financial services companies and US officials handling sensitive trade talks… which are being targeted by spies for their negotiating strategies,” Britain’s Independent reported at the time.  

Not to be forgotten is America’s “best ally,” Israel, cited by the US government in targeting American business people for research and development intelligence as far back as 1992 – and more recently through its military-grade Pegasus spyware and its larger cyber-surveillance industry, whose separation from the state is highly questionable at best and nonexistent at worst. 

Moscow’s public acknowledgement that it’s now actively the target of the West’s orgy of industrial espionage means that it now has the same choice as every cat owner. It can interpret any bite as an act of aggression, or just do what the West does among themselves and chalk it up to a love bite, all while plotting how to step on the offending cat’s tail – with plausible deniability, of course.

As the five-day visit of External Affairs Minister of India Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar wraps up, along with the year 2023 – which happened to be truly unmatched for bilateral relations between old friends New Delhi and Moscow – one can assume that the countries are now on a clear path to reenergizing their strong, predictable, mutually beneficial, but somewhat sluggish ties. 

As part of his official schedule, Jaishankar met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov, engaged with the Indian community in Moscow, and interacted with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which is a rare deviation from the Kremlin’s protocols.

Jaishankar’s visit holds importance due to the conflict in Ukraine, which has created deep geopolitical divisions in Europe and globally. India has consistently maintained a neutral stance by calling on all parties to pursue a resolution through peaceful means. Therefore, the current visit highlights the importance that Russian-Indian relations play despite Western calls for sanctions on Moscow and a boycott of Russian exports, notably oil and armaments.

Officially, Indo-Russian relations enjoy the unique title of Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership. Since the start of the Ukrainian crisis, while Russia and Europe have suffered a break in their geopolitical relationships, Russia’s subsequent eastward focus and Indian neutrality have resulted in an explosion of trade and commerce between the traditional Cold War allies. Highlighting the significance of ties, Dr. Jaishankar stressed the great care taken by previous leaders to nurture this relationship.

Russia has found an eager market among Indian oil buyers as Western states have imposed restrictions on Russian oil imports. Led by the United States and its European allies, a new price cap of $60 per barrel was declared on Russian seaborne crude. India has quietly refused to recognize the Western price ceiling.

During his address, Jaishankar also highlighted that while the economic relationship between the two nations has shown tremendous growth, increasing Indian exports to Russia would be welcomed. Some other challenges identified during his public interaction were the lack of familiarity with some of the economic players, solutions, and platforms emerging in both countries. Enhancing cultural exchanges, business-to-business interactions, tourism, and collaboration between civil society organizations of both nations, were some of the areas singled out as holding potential for growth.

The Indian external affairs minister also interacted with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin on December 28. Highlighting the increased economic partnership between India and Russia, Putin noted that commercial collaborations between the two states have seen greater investments, especially in the oil, coal, and high-tech sectors.

Oil imports have also given new economic impetus to a relationship that had become restricted to mainly defense equipment for the past few years. Both countries are now searching for ways to expand and reinvigorate commercial ties, as Moscow looks for greater integration with Asian markets and India searches for new business partners to fuel its rising economic status. 

Vladimir Putin extended an invitation to Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi to visit Russia next year. “I know about his desire to do everything to resolve this problem through peaceful means,” he said, noting that Modi was “repeatedly informed” and kept in the loop on the Ukraine crisis. 

When discussing broadening collaboration with Russia in the defense, nuclear, and space sectors, Jaishankar highlighted a point that won't escape the attention of keen observers: “These are collaborations you only do with countries with whom you really have a high degree of trust,” he said during his interaction with the Indian community. He added that significant agreements were signed on expanding the Kudankulam nuclear power plant (KNPP) joint project.

The current visit is indeed being closely watched in Western capitals, especially since India has successfully walked a difficult diplomatic tightrope between expanding relations with Western states while also deepening its partnership with Moscow. The visit is also a way for New Delhi to signal its independent foreign policy and strategic autonomy in pursuing its interests, at a time when India is drawing closer to the United States and its allies. 

The perennial India-Russia ties are best described by Jaishankar’s recent post. It contained a picture of a 1962 Soviet visiting card to Red Square when he was there with his father, and his recent picture in front of the Kremlin with the captions, “How it started; How it’s going.”

The year 2023 was a banner year for change, underscoring the reality of a world transforming away from American hegemony toward the uncertainty of a yet-to-be-defined multilateral reality. This transformation was marked by many events – here are the five most important ones.

The failed Ukrainian counteroffensive

Perhaps the most-hyped event of the year, Ukraine’s much-anticipated spring/summer counteroffensive was NATO’s version of the German Ardennes offensive of December 1944 – a last-gasp effort to throw all remaining reserves into a desperate attempt to score a knock-out blow against an opponent who had seized the strategic initiative. Any sound military analyst could have predicted the inevitability of a Ukrainian defeat – one cannot responsibly speak of launching a frontal assault on a heavily defended, well-prepared defensive position using forces who are neither equipped, organized, or trained for the task.

The amount of delusion surrounding Ukrainian and NATO expectations only underscores the desperation that underpinned their cause – the West’s support of Ukraine was always of a superficial nature, where domestic politics trumped global reality. The ignorance of those who believed Ukraine could pierce the Russian defenses was easily matched by those who thought that a Moscow Maidan movement could be created through the combined impact of economic sanctions and a forever war against Ukraine.

The counteroffensive is the manifestation of the Russophobia that has gripped the collective West, where ignorance trumps fact, and delusion supersedes reality. The failed NATO/Ukrainian counteroffensive, far from weakening Russia, proved to be the incubator for the birth of a more powerful, confident, and resilient Russia that will no longer allow itself to be classified as a second-class citizen in the world community.

On October 6, 2023, Israel was sitting on top of the world. It had cowed the administration of US President Joe Biden into forgetting about a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem. Instead, it embraced the vision of a greater Israel, which glossed over the continued theft of Palestinian land through unchecked support for illegal Israeli settlements by focusing on the broader geopolitical benefits of normalized relations between Israel and the Gulf Arab states. The Israel Defense Forces were the best military in the region, backed by an intelligence and security establishment possessing a legendary reputation for knowing everything about all potential enemies.

Then came October 7 and the Hamas surprise attack.

All talk of Israeli-Arab normalization is finished. The IDF is being embarrassed by Hamas and defeated by Hezbollah. The Israeli intelligence service has been exposed as an empty shell whose greatest accomplishment is an AI-assisted targeting system that facilitates the killing of Palestinian civilians.

The new reality of the Middle East is now shaped by two related issues – the necessity of a Palestinian state and the inevitability of a strategic Israeli defeat. The paths toward resolving each of these issues will not be easy ones to follow, and they may unfold over the span of years rather than months, but one thing is certain – this new geopolitical reality would not have been possible without the events of October 7.

Africa: The Sahel revolt

In the span of three years, Françafrique, or the post-colonial French-dominated sphere of influence in the Sahel region of Africa, has gone from serving as the springboard for the projection of French-led American and EU efforts to project military power in an attempt to defeat the forces of Islamic insurgency, to being humiliated and defeated at the hands of nationalists who overthrew traditional pro-French governments and replacing them with anti-French military juntas. Starting with Mali in 2021, then Burkina Faso in 2022, and finally Niger in 2023, the collapse of the Sahel component of Françafrique has been as dramatic as it has been decisive. There was seemingly nothing France nor its supporters could do to reverse the tide of anti-French sentiment in the region. In the end, the threat of outside military intervention to change the July 2023 coup in Niger collapsed in the face of a unified collective defense posture taken by the three former French colonies.

The dramatic eviction of France from the region was matched by the emergence of a new regional power – Russia. The rise of the new tripartite regional alliance between Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger coincided with a more assertive Russian foreign policy, which looked to form common cause with an Africa still straining from the bonds of post-colonial existence manifested in geopolitical relationships like those formed under Françafrique. The Russian approach was borne out in the success of last summer’s Russian-African Summit, held in St. Petersburg, and the growing economic and security relationships between Russia and many African states – including Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, that have emerged since. The Russian tricolor flag, it seems, has replaced that of France as the most influential symbol of foreign involvement in that region.

BRICS

In 2022, China hosted the 14th Summit of the Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South African economic forum best known by the acronym formed from the first letters of its five-nation membership – BRICS. At that summit, BRICS aspired to greatness but was unable to accomplish anything more than talk about the creation of a so-called “currency basket” designed to challenge the global supremacy of the US dollar and speak wistfully about the possibility of opening its membership to other nations.

The South African-hosted BRICS Summit proved to be the perfect counterpoint to the combined pathos of the G-7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan, and the NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. In Japan and Lithuania, western impotence was on full display for the world to see. In sharp contrast, the virility of the BRICS phenomenon provided a multilateral alternative that proved to be attractive to many nations, including the six that were accepted into BRICS as part of its expansion strategy (Argentina, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, although Argentina withdrew its membership package following the election of Javier Milei as president in December 2023), and the fourteen other nations who have formally submitted applications to join in 2024, when Russia takes over the chairmanship. BRICS has surpassed the G7 in terms of collective economic clout, and the geopolitical influence of its collective membership is such that it will exceed both the G7 and NATO forums in terms of overall international relevance in the years to come.

The US: The Naked Emperor

The United States spends nearly $1 trillion a year on its defense – more than the combined defense expenditures of its ten closest rivals for the top spot. This money funds the strategic nuclear deterrence force and the conventional military power projection potential of the US. Given the enormous sums involved, one would anticipate that the dominance of US military power worldwide would be unmatched. Curiously, this is not the case.

By spending a fraction of what the US does for similar services, Russia has overtaken the United States when it comes to strategic nuclear forces. The US needs a major upgrade to its nuclear triad – the land-based and submarine-launched ballistic missiles and manned bombers – that comprise its nuclear strike capabilities. While replacement systems are in the works, it will take more than a decade to get these systems online, and the cost of doing this will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars – or more, given the history of US defense industry inefficiencies and cost overruns.

Russia, meanwhile, has begun putting advanced missiles into service – missiles designed to defeat US missile defenses, along with new submarines and manned bombers. Traditional venues used by the US to offset Russian strategic advances, such as arms control, are no longer available due to short-sighted US policies that rejected arms control for the potential of achieving a strategic nuclear advantage. The script, so to speak, has been flipped, and it’s now the US that finds itself on the short end of the atomic power equation. This disadvantageous position will be even further exacerbated by the growth of China’s strategic nuclear force, which is in the process of expanding from possessing some 400 nuclear weapons to matching the US and Russia’s 1,500 deployed warheads.

In the Pacific, the US is facing the fact that it lacks sufficient military power to defend Taiwan in the face of any potential Chinese military operation. There have been advances in the accuracy and lethality of Chinese stand-off weapons, including new advanced hypersonic missiles, which, in theory at least, could overcome US air defense systems that protect the centerpiece of American power projection – the aircraft carrier battlegroup. This weakness is not just limited to any potential conflict with China—the US Navy has deployed carrier battlegroups off the coast of Lebanon, in the Persian Gulf, and to the Red Sea, where they have been prevented from engaging in any decisive military intervention out of fear that missiles fired by Hezbollah, Iran, and the Houthi of Yemen could damage or sink the most visible symbol of American military power today.

With a budget of nearly $1 trillion, one would expect the US to be parading itself worldwide via a military second to none in terms of capabilities and lethality. Instead, the US has been exposed as an emperor with no clothes whose nakedness is a source of embarrassment on a global stage that had grown accustomed to the finery and pageantry of American military power. The humiliation of the US Navy at the hands of the Houthi is but the most recent manifestation of a trend exposing US military weakness. This trend will only expand in 2024.

The well-known Russian-American journalist Masha Gessen – author of bestselling books and a staff writer at the New Yorker magazine – has become embroiled in a scandal about the Holocaust and Israel’s ongoing assault on the Palestinians.

Comparing the Warsaw Ghetto with Gaza earned Gessen, who is Jewish, a canceling, if in an oddly roundabout way: She had been awarded the German Hannah Arendt Award for Political Thought. While the prize was not rescinded, its two sponsors, the Heinrich Boll Foundation and the City of Bremen, publicly signaled their displeasure with the recipient: Bremen’s top burghers, in effect, harumphed they would not host a ceremony for such an author, then the Foundation demonstratively declared its withdrawal from an event that was no longer happening anyhow, and, to top it all off, the University of Bremen also hurried to let everyone know that its doors are closed to Gessen as well.

Gessen was not even as daring as the Palestinian scholar and writer Refaat Alareer, who thought Gessen’s comparison through to its logical conclusion long before she even made it: If Gaza resembles the Warsaw Ghetto, then the Palestinian Resistance resembles those Jews rising up in that Ghetto in 1943. Gessen is a New York intellectual, while Alareer is one from Gaza.  His “cancelation” turned out to be all-encompassing: He was deliberately murdered, together with several family members, by Israel. His killing was preceded by social-media character assassination, which involved the prominent American-Jewish culture-war bully Bari Weiss.

Gessen still got the prize in the end, but in a “scaled-down” ceremony and not in public, at an undisclosed venue (Gessen bizarrely cited fear of “Russians” as the reason for the semi-secrecy, but let’s not dwell on silly things).

Especially in Germany, treating a Jewish awardee in this manner should have been a self-evident no-no. For it is painfully reminiscent of how, in the worst old days, all too many ethnic Germans who were not themselves card-carrying Nazis but adapted to its creed and treated their (former) Jewish acquaintances when the regime pressure mounted as such: “Surely you understand I have nothing against you, but could we please avoid being seen with each other from now on? Nothing personal, you know.”

How did this happen? German tact is legendary, of course, but in this case, more serious issues are at stake. Gessen is no stranger to controversy. Indeed, as her off-hand blaming of “Russians” in the context of a very German fiasco reveals, she and the Russian state have not seen eye to eye for a long time, and the relationship has not been improving recently: Gessen has just been put on an Interior Ministry wanted list under the charge of spreading misinformation about the Russian army. The core of the issue is that she has accused Russian forces of atrocities in the Ukrainian town of Bucha, and Russia rejects these accusations as false.

Against that background, it is a special irony of the Arendt Award affair that Gessen has now been attacked for, in essence, agreeing with Russian President Vladimir Putin: The latter warned as early as October that Israel should not adopt tactics similar to those used by Nazi Germany in its 1940s siege of Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), where Putin’s family suffered severely. Gessen took much longer to arrive at the same place, but her comparison between the Warsaw Ghetto and Gaza points in precisely the same direction. Canceled together with Putin – that must be a whole new experience for Gessen.

The long-standing tension between Gessen and the Russian authorities did not cause the scandal in Germany. On the contrary, Gessen’s criticism of the Russian government is really her main stock-in-trade and played a key role in getting her the Hannah Arendt Award in the first place. That part of Gessen's work was welcome, especially, it is fair to assume, at the Boll Foundation. The foundation is, after all, the key civil-society influence organization of the hyper-“Atlanticist,” fiercely anti-Russian, and militarist Green Party, which has given Germany – and the world – Berlin’s comically undiplomatic and incompetent diplomat-in-chief, Annalena Baerbock.

Clearly, the good old Western double standards are alive and well. Criticism of Russia gets a big cookie (sprinkled with €10,000 in prize money); but criticism of Israel is not welcome. Since, in this case, both came from the same person, the scandal has shown with preposterous precision that Western elites follow the geopolitics of friend and foe: Our friends can get away with, literally, mass murder. In fact, we will help them commit it. Never mind that complicity in genocide is punishable under the UN 1948 Genocide Convention no less than the crime itself, and there already are attempts to launch charges accordingly.

The West’s foes, however, are held up to stringent standards. The overall impression is one of breathtaking hypocrisy. The ultimate irony here is that that impression, in turn, has real geopolitical effects: The West has become so proficient at discrediting its own claims to “value” superiority that it is undermining its own global influence. A “tectonic shift” in the world order was well underway before the Israeli-Western slaughter in Gaza. But the latter is now certain to catalyze it. And the West has only got itself to blame.

Gessen’s case shows how impervious to learning that Western pattern is, for two reasons. First, even in Germany, Gessen’s Jewish identity did not protect her. You would think that Germans would think twice before going after a Jewish author who has something to say about Israel and the Holocaust. Nope. It is tempting to think of this failure as a German particularity, but, unfortunately, it is more widespread. In fact, there is a general Western pattern of not “only” suppressing Palestinian and pro-Palestinian voices but of censoring “even” Jews when they dare criticize Israel.

Second, Western Russophobes will howl with rage and pain, but Russian President Vladimir Putin is right: Even on the worst possible reading, Russia’s record in Ukraine, almost two years after the February 2022 invasion, is substantially better than that of Israel in Gaza after two months of relentless, indiscriminate bombing, starvation, siege, and systematic and wholesale destruction of vital infrastructures.

Finally, there is the issue of comparison. Gessen has walked into a trap so obvious that one has to ask if she did it on purpose. Israel, its extremely aggressive lobbies in the West, and those Western elites complying with both have developed an absurd habit: According to their rules, comparing the Holocaust with anything is absolutely verboten, as if this horrific genocide had been an event outside human history. Yet, especially those who can’t stop shouting “never again,” make no sense when condemning all and any comparison. How, then, are we supposed to know when something similar is happening “again” if we cannot even compare?

But the underlying issue is, of course, not one of intellectual confusion but of deliberate, politically motivated dishonesty. Ask yourself a simple question: What is a comparison? It is holding up different (not the same, by definition) things against each other in your mind on the suspicion that they may have similarities. To be precise – enough similarities so that the comparison can offer you fresh insights. If it works – great, you have learned something. If it doesn’t, you’ve also learned something: Namely that the two things aren’t that similar.

Those afraid of such an elementary procedure which should make ourselves smarter and maybe even a little better, morally, simply fear its results, most likely because they know them all too well. And that is the core of this scandal: Gessen was not really semi-canceled because she joined those who have long made plausible comparisons between Nazi methods and current Israeli methods in Gaza, but because the comparison does produce terrible similarities.

No, the Holocaust and Israel’s devastation of Gaza are not the same (frankly, duh…), but they are both instances of genocidal attacks. And of bystanders who abandon the victims or even support the perpetrators. Hannah Arendt would have seen this no less than Gessen. No wonder many Zionists could not stand her either.

The main trouble with the “rules-based order” promoted by the West is that the ‘rules’ in question keep changing. Take, for example, Sunday evening’s riot in Belgrade, which saw sympathizers of the ‘pro-Western democratic civic opposition’ try to break into City Hall and declare themselves winners of the recent municipal election.

At least 2,000 protesters gathered outside the building known as the Old Palace, smashed its glass doors, and attempted to force their way inside. Riot police held the line, used teargas to push them back, and then batons to disperse the mob.

What the opposition claimed had happened, however, was that they were just peacefully protesting a “stolen” election against a “tyrannical” regime, which had the police break the doors so it would have an excuse to engage in brutality. 

Obviously, the protesters didn’t get the memo from Our Democracy – meaning the US – dated January 6, 2021, and spelling out that any questioning of electoral results makes one a criminally liable “denier,” while smashing the doors of a government building amounts to a “deadly insurrection” allowing the police to indiscriminately use deadly force.

However, these protesters were working off a different American precedent: the color revolution that first brought their ideology to power in Serbia on October 5, 2000. Back then, a motley “pro-democracy” coalition cobbled together by the US Embassy, trained by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and funded by “suitcases of cash” smuggled across the border stormed the parliament, torched the ballot boxes, and insisted they had actually won the presidential election. The tactic worked, and was then repeated in Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004 and 2014), among other places. So imagine their shock when the US ambassador in Belgrade disavowed them instead!

“Violence and vandalism against state institutions have no place in a democratic society,” Christopher Hill pronounced. “Grievances should be raised through legal, peaceful, nonviolent means.” 

In the hours and days ahead, Serbia's leaders and its citizens should remember: The legitimacy of democratic processes depends upon transparency and on the readiness of all parties, winning or losing, to respect the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

— Ambassador Christopher R. Hill (@usambserbia) December 25, 2023

“All of Serbia’s citizens have a right to be heard and a responsibility to express their political views peacefully and without resort to violence,” added Hill.

So political violence was OK in Serbia in 2000 – and in the US in 2020, according to some people – but not now, according to Hill, who asserts to be the proper arbiter of such matters, even though on paper he is a mere ambassador bound by the Vienna Convention rules.

For the past week, they coped with the loss at the polls by insulting the electorate as too stupid, uncouth, and primitive to appreciate their greatness – when they weren’t lying about 40,000 Bosnian Serbs supposedly showing up to illegally vote in Serbia, that is. These people certainly seem as thick as the Belgrade Fortress wall.

The joke could be on the rest of us, however. For while both the government and the opposition in Belgrade are obsessing about an election, the US-backed ethnic Albanian regime in the breakaway province of Kosovo is destroying Serb cemeteries and illegally seizing churches, and generally refusing to abide by signed agreements. Because, again, the “rules-based order” means that those who have the blessing of Washington and Brussels can do no wrong.

These days, Hollywood produces endless quantities of cultural dross – superhero franchise epics that Martin Scorsese has said have nothing to do with cinema at all; boring, lengthy, reverential biopics (‘Oppenheimer’ and ‘Maestro’); and the crude #metoo propaganda of the ‘Barbie’ movie.

Yet last month a remarkable American film was released that stands out for its political realism and insight.

The film is ‘Leave the World Behind’ – a dystopian political tract directed, written, and produced by Sam Esmail, and based on a novel by Rumaan Alam published in 2020.

The movie features Julia Roberts, Ethan Hawke, and Kevin Bacon – three Hollywood stars of note – and their involvement in such an iconoclastic film is not only surprising, but very much to their credit.

Esmail was born in New Jersey. His parents were Egyptian immigrants. Alam was born in Washington, to parents who emigrated to America from Bangladesh. It is surely their immigrant backgrounds that account for the film’s unique and critical perspective on contemporary America.

Leave the World Behind is not easily categorised – thematically, it is similar to the 2022 European film ‘Triangle of Sadness’, but it is much more politically sophisticated. The film also harks back to the science fiction films that Hollywood churned out with monotonous regularly in the 1950s and 60s.

That entire film genre was, of course, the ideological product of the Cold War.

In science fiction films of that era, the irrational fear of an imminent Russian invasion was cinematically transformed into attacks by aliens from remote galaxies – and a powerful, liberal-democratic America was pictured as being threatened by these sinister forces from without.

Inevitably in these films, after a stirring heroic conflict, a victorious America prevailed over those malevolent alien forces that had sought to destroy the home of liberty and the land of the free.

Now that a weakened America is seeking to wage a recalibrated Cold War – against China as well as Russia – it is hardly surprising that an American film should echo the science fiction films of the Cold War era, albeit in a radically different form and with more realistic content.   

Leave the World Behind is firmly based in current American political reality – no need to resort to fictitious aliens, as the threat the global elites pose to liberal democracy in America is all too apparent – and the film resolutely refuses to provide the bogus solace that was an integral ideological component of the science fiction films of the 1950s and 60s. 

The film is bleakly pessimistic – a reflection of America’s dramatic decline as a world power since the 1960s, as well as its current state of acute internal cultural and political disintegration.  

This is perfectly understandable – no intelligent and politically aware contemporary American filmmaker could embrace the complacent optimism that characterised America in the 1950s and 60s.

The plot of the film – a middle class Brooklyn family holiday in a mansion on Long Island, only to be caught up in a series of cataclysms that are gradually revealed to be part of an unfolding elite political coup – could only take place in a post-Trumpian America.

In fact, the film eerily reflects a prediction made by the astute conservative political commentator P. J. O’Rourke shortly before he died in 2022.

O’Rourke despised Donald Trump and regarded him as a buffoon, but realised that his political significance lay in the fact that he was a crude and inept harbinger of an America that could easily come to be ruled by a competent elite dictatorship.

O’Rourke’s insight into Trump is, in fact, the central theme of Leave the World Behind – the film is about a successful coup, of which Trump was the harbinger, that a culturally and politically disintegrating America is unable to comprehend, let alone resist.

The January 6 riots were a crude insurrection fomented by Trump in order to prevent Vice President Mike Pence from certifying the 2020 election result. The riots were not an attempted coup – and Trump, as O’Rourke recognised, has more in common with the farcical 19th century French politician General Boulanger (whose attempt to overthrow the Third Republic in 1889 failed) than with a Hitler or Mussolini. 

Leave the World Behind depicts a successful modern political coup – qualitatively different from fascist coups – carried out by global elites. 

The coup’s genesis is revealed in an exchange between the owner of the mansion, a wealthy black funds manager played by Mahershala Ali, and the misanthropic wife of the Brooklyn family, played by Roberts, who have rented his palatial residence on Long Island. 

As the family’s holiday is disrupted by a series of catastrophes – their technological devices cease to work; an oil tanker runs aground on the beach where they are swimming; airplanes fall from the sky; leaflets falsely suggesting that foreign invasions are occurring are dropped from drones; and hundreds of self-driving Teslas crash into each other, blocking highways – Ali tells Roberts about a conversation that he had recently with one of his wealthy clients with links to the defense department and arms manufacturers. 

The client recently moved his considerable fortune offshore and told Ali in some detail how easy it would be to stage a coup in advanced Western societies.

First, the populace would be isolated by disabling all their technological devices. Havoc would then be created by spreading disinformation amongst the populace. Finally, internal fighting would break out, and society would collapse as a result of its own internal divisions and political apathy. 

As the catastrophes pile up around them, Ali and Roberts realise that this is precisely what is happening – and that they are powerless to do anything about it.    

Shades of C. Wright Mills’ ‘power elite’ and Eisenhower’s ‘military-industrial complex’ in a modern, more frighteningly totalitarian guise – save the elites behind the successful coup that engulfs America in the film are global elites, a reflection of the fact that the world economy is now a truly globalised one.

The themes of cultural decadence and dependence upon technology are depicted in graphic detail in the film. The scene involving the out-of-control Teslas is both prophetic and horrifying. 

Roberts and Ali understand what is happening only because Ali has a close connection to the elites that are staging the coup. No one else in the film – including Roberts’ genial academic husband, played by Ethan Hawke, has any notion of what is occurring. 

The real horror at the heart of the film, however, arises from the depiction of the main characters’ millennial teenage children.

The three children are portrayed as mindless victims of a completely worthless popular culture that deprives them of any understanding of themselves or the society in which they live.

They are completely dependent upon technology, and immersed in a vacuous celebrity culture that is utterly divorced from reality. Even their relations with their parents are meaningless and perfunctory.

Roberts’ teenage son spends his time masturbating and taking salacious pictures of Ali’s daughter as she sunbathes in a bikini by the swimming pool. She in turn tries to sexually entice the middle-aged Hawke in Lolita-like fashion.

Roberts’ and Hawke’s young daughter is obsessed with the television program ‘Friends’, and the only affection that she is capable of is fixated upon the characters of that mindless soap opera.

As the nuclear cloud spreads, she gains entry to a fallout shelter in the basement of the house and compulsively watches the final episode of Friends – completely oblivious to what is happening outside and her own fate.

The film ends with her grinning and gazing narcissistically and moronically at the television screen. 

In interviews since the film was released last month, Esmail and Roberts have attempted to place a positive spin on the film – by suggesting that the other characters may have also eventually found their way to the fallout shelter.

Given the relentlessly pessimistic tenor of the film, however, this is surely beside the point. As D. H. Lawrence once said. “Always trust the tale, never trust the teller.”

Leave the World Behind is an extraordinary and compelling film. Anyone with an interest in the cultural and political decline of contemporary America should make the effort to see it.

German farmers rolled into Berlin on their tractors last week to have a very public word with the managers who have revoked their long-standing discount – a subsidy on diesel fuel, which powers their farm equipment. 

It seems that up until now, the government figured that feeding Germans was important enough to support, outweighing any ‘green’ obsessions. But that all changed abruptly for reasons that have little to do with the climate change agenda and more with its desperation for spare change. 

The drama kicked off when Germany’s coalition government led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz found itself in a bit of a bind recently. Team Scholz had quietly moved €60 billion from a Covid-19 pandemic support fund into a green energy transition fund. The opposition noticed and finked to the court – which told Team Scholz to put the cash back because the sneaky move was a blatant violation of a law that had been ushered in under former Chancellor Angela Merkel specifically in an effort to ensure that the government was never able to bury itself in debt. Whoops, too late. Subsequently finding themselves underwater on the overall annual budget by an estimated €17 billion, they set about looking for ways to plug the hole.  

Farmers, Team Scholz apparently figured, can at least be bilked for cash on the pretext that the government tax subsidies for the sinful diesel fuel that powers their equipment deserve to be canceled – sacrificed on the altar of climate change. It all sounds so virtuous, and not at all like scrambling to compensate for a major screwup.  

So with Germany now strapped for cash, surely it’s time to really get radical about focusing on the most critical interests of the average citizen’s daily life – Ukraine, Ukraine, and Ukraine.

“We are forging ahead with the climate-neutral transformation of our country. We are strengthening social cohesion. And we are standing closely by Ukraine’s side in its defense against Russia,” Scholz said, as parliament agreed on a budget deal. “However, it is clear that we will have to make do with significantly less money to achieve these goals,” he added. No doubt Germans were thrilled to know that Ukraine wouldn’t be going without – unlike Germans. 

In addition to taxing farmers, jacking up the carbon tax on things like fuel will help get the job done, the government figures. Way to rip off French President Emmanuel Macron’s failed plan that sparked France’s Yellow Vest movement, which gave rise to months of violent unrest. Looking forward to seeing what color vests Germans end up choosing. Green would be fitting. 

Has anyone bothered pointing out to Scholz that increasing taxes on productive farmers in the name of fighting climate change takes some nerve considering his own government has overseen coal plants being brought back because their green dreams turned out to be a massive flop when wind and solar wasn’t sufficient to power the country’s (and the EU’s) economic engine after shunning Russian gas? When a wind farm has to be dismantled to expand a coal mine, as was the case in North Rhine-Westphalia, that doesn’t exactly scream strategic victory – more like a green wet dream that didn’t survive the glaring light of reality. 

This trend of EU governments trying to throw farmers under their own tractors is rampant. The Netherlands has expropriated farms that failed to comply with EU climate change legislation, citing research on the impact of belching and defecating cows. Surely it’s just a coincidence that Brussels is pushing for relaxed rules on lucrative industrial genetically modified crops, now that they have all this farmland becoming available in the EU’s top beef exporting country. According to a leaked draft of EU legislation obtained by Politico earlier this year, EU countries won’t be able to ban genetically modified (GMO) crops produced with new technology. Sounds like a looming windfall for companies like Bayer, Syngenta, and Corteva, in the same way that green tech shareholders have made out like bandits thanks to underperforming taxpayer-funded climate change projects. 

And it’s not just climate change that has served as a pretext for impoverishing farmers to the ultimate benefit of the establishment special interests. Ukraine must be allowed to feed the world’s poor, the EU cried. And who could be cold-hearted enough to argue with that?

So at this point, some folks may still be thinking, “Well, at least the establishment is only targeting farmers, and it’s all being done in the greater interests of helping the climate and Ukraine.” Newsflash: the British government-funded ‘Center for Ecology and Hydrology’ has just published, in the Public Library of Sciences Journal, a study underscoring the impact that “human breathing is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.” The research recommends “caution in the assumption that emissions from humans are negligible.” Better hope that no one shows it to the bureaucrats in Brussels or Berlin responsible for actionable policy. 

Twelve years ago, the so-called Arab Spring visited Libya, ending Muammar Gaddafi’s rule and plunging the country into chaos, leaving it divided along tribal and regional lines. Gaddafi himself was murdered at the hands of Western-supported militias.

NATO’s disguised military invasion of Libya

What started in February 2011 as a small and limited civilian demonstration against the Gaddafi government in Eastern Libya turned out to be Western-supported regime change endeavour involving military intervention by NATO disguised as “protection of civilians.”

The UN Security Council was forced by the US, UK and France to adopt Resolution 1973, which opened the door for the use of force against Libya simply because Western powers wanted to depose Gaddafi in a blatant violation of the resolution itself. The rest is history.

Confused Libyans were told that democracy, prosperity, and freedom were just around the corner. However, once they turned that corner they discovered that Gaddafi may have disappeared but, in a way, he took Libya with him.

Years later, the country is at a stand-still with little progress towards freedom and stability. Many of its sovereign decisions are made by others, while armed militias dominate the country, acting as proxies for foreign powers.

Most Libyans feel that their country has lost its independence and fallen under a new form of occupation. Politicians can hardly decide on anything without foreign input. The same countries that destabilized Libya over a decade ago are impeding its progress now.

National sovereignty and independent domestic and foreign policies were the two important pillars of Gaddafi’s rule. During his four decades as leader of the oil-rich North African state, he managed to make them part of the Libyan national identity. As a result, Libyans became wary of all kinds of foreign interference in their country’s affairs, suspecting almost everything that comes from the West, in particular, Italy, the US, Britain and France. These four countries have played a sinister role in Libya’s history, much of which is not forgotten. All of them stand accused of violating Libya’s sovereignty.

Prior to the 2011 Western-forced regime change and the ensuing civil war, Libya used to celebrate four annual holidays, each marking a turning point in the country’s proud history and reminding the younger generations of the importance of being an independent sovereign nation. Foreign dignitaries, sometimes even heads of states, attended these symbolic national events to further emphasize their importance.

Proud old Libya

For example, March 28 marks the expulsion of British forces who used to occupy a strategic airbase in Tobruk in Eastern Libya. In 1970, just six months after taking power, Gaddafi ordered all foreign troops to leave the country, or face a public uproar. On June 11 of the same year, American troops evacuated their huge military base just outside Tripoli. Wheelus Air Base, given its size and the services on offer was nicknamed ‘Little America.’ It had the largest military hospital outside the US, a multiplex cinema, a bowling alley and high school. At its peak, it sprawled over some 50 square km on the Mediterranean coast, from which Libyans were banned! Wheelus was home to about 15,000 military personnel and their families. Pilots had access to five shooting ranges in nearby Al-Wytia in the Libyan desert. Today, Wheelus has been turned into Mitiaga Airport.

Up until 2011, Libya also used to celebrate October 7 as the anniversary of the expulsion of some 20,000 Italian settlers in 1970. They were the civilian face of Italy’s occupation of Libya starting in September 1911. At one point, they owned or controlled almost the entire trade of major commodities, repair shops, and small mills. In Eastern Libya, they owned the most fertile land on which Libyans were merely cheap laborers.  Many of them were paid in food and shelter instead of money, while the settlers owned handicraft workshops that employed local craftsmen but paid them a pittance.

The former regime made it its duty to remind Libyans of their proud history of fighting the colonial powers that have invaded their country, particularly the Italian colonization, which killed nearly half a million Libyans between 1911 and 1943, including the leader of the resistance, Omar Mukhtar, who was captured and hanged in 1931.

After years of pressure and negotiations, Libya managed to do what no other country has done: compel Italy to apologize for its colonial brutality and pay reparations. In 2008, Tripoli and Rome signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership settling their colonial period grievances while setting anti-colonial example. Under the treaty, Rome committed to pay Tripoli half a billion dollars over a period of 25 years in the form of development projects including roads, hospital, railway network, educational scholarships for Libyan students and return of stolen artefacts.

The no longer proud new Libya

The new Libya is not keen to remember, let alone celebrate, either “its distant or recent history,” says a Tripoli-based historian who wishes to remain anonymous. He added that “history is an integral part of national personality” that is built over time through “educating the young and informing the old” about their country’s past. His colleague Milad, also fearful of revealing his surname for fear of reprisals, agrees, adding that “one of the big legacies of the Gaddafi era was making Libyans proud of themselves through honoring past national events.”

Since October 2011, not a single national commemoration or celebration has been observed in the country. Even worse, Libya’s politics, including election issues and economic affairs, are being managed by foreign countries or through their local proxies.

The majority of Libyans are unhappy with the presence of foreign forces at Libyan bases in Misrata, Benghazi, Al-Watya, southwest of Tripoli, and other locations. They see it as a form of occupation.

Feeling of hidden occupation

In the eyes of ordinary Libyans their country is indeed under indirect occupation both “militarily and politically,” said Samia Al-Hussain (not her real name), a Benghazi-based lawyer. The planned 2021 elections were indefinitely postponed because the US and UK ambassadors did not want presidential elections with Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, Muammar’s son, as the frontrunner.

The younger Gaddafi still enjoys wide support across the country and, in 2021, was cleared by the courts to run for president after initially being banned. If elections had taken place, as planned in December 2021, he would have been the inevitable winner. To prevent such an eventuality, both the former UK ambassador, Caroline Hurndall, and her American counterpart, Richard Norland, publicly spoke against his nomination.

Faced with public anger, the parliament, as opposed to the Foreign Ministry, was forced to declare Hurndall persona non grata specifically because of her comments on the elections. Yet, in another indication of the hidden occupation, she never left the country until her term ended last October. Norland was not even reprimand by the Libyan Foreign Ministry as would have been the case in other countries. Why? Because he is America’s ambassador.

Despite being in the anti-Gaddafi camp, Al-Hussain pointed at the recently exposed secret meeting between the now-fugitive former Foreign Minister, Najal al-Mangoush, and her Israeli counterpart in Rome last August. She asks: “What Libyan interests would such normalization serve, and why would any Libyan official think of meeting a representative of the Zionist state, if not ordered from outside?” She added that Libya “takes enormous pride” in having supported Palestinians throughout its history. Hundreds of Libyans volunteered to fight in the first Palestine war in 1948. Al-Hussain also feels that Libya’s reaction to the Gaza war is “less than what is expected” from a country where Palestine is a sacred cause. Most Libyans think that their country should do more despite the government donating some $50 million dollars in aid to Gaza.

Musbah Adokali, a law student in Bani Walid, a Gaddafi stronghold, thinks Libyan leaders are receiving orders from outside and acting against the will of the people. He points out what happened to Libyan citizen Abu Agila Mas’ud, who was kidnapped and taken to the US to face charges of participating in the bombing of Pan AM Flight 103 35 years ago. The student said “this was done upon the orders of the US,” otherwise it would not have happened. “If this is not occupation, I do not know what is,” Musbah concluded.

In yet another case of blowback, reflecting the failure of Western military interventionism in West Asia, Yemen’s Ansarallah (Houthi) movement has inserted itself as an active participant in the ongoing war between Israel and Gaza. First launching batches of loitering munitions, ballistic and cruise missiles towards Israel, Ansarallah then moved on to prevent the passage of Israeli-owned or operated ships through the Red Sea, before announcing a complete closure of the shipping route for any vessels destined to dock at the port of Eilat.

After the Houthis seized a number of ships, while attacking others with drone strikes, activity at Eilat has dropped some 85%. International and Israeli shipping companies have opted to take the long route, which in some cases takes an additional 12 days, to reach Israel with their cargo, a costly diversion to say the least. In opposition to this, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin traveled to the region and announced the formation of a multinational naval task force to be deployed in the Red Sea. Despite talk of the coalition including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even the United Arab Emirates, the only Arab nation that joined was Bahrain.

So, without a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution to back them up, usually required to make the militarisation of a territory legal under international law, the US has launched yet another foreign intervention. This one is significant because it failed to convince any major regional players to join, demonstrating the decline in American influence, but has also elevated the status of Yemen’s Ansarallah.

Under former US President Barack Obama, Washington backed the Saudi-led coalition’s intervention in Yemen back in 2015. Since then, some 377,000 people have died, largely as a result of the deadly blockade imposed on the majority of the country’s population, while some 15,000 civilians have died due to direct conflict. The objective of the Saudi-led intervention, which received the backing of the US and UK, was to remove Ansarallah from power in the nation’s capital, Sanaa. Although the group does not enjoy international recognition as Yemen’s governing force, it rules over more than 80% of the population, has the support of two-thirds of the nation’s armed forces, and operates a government out of Sanaa.

The context above is crucial for understanding the capabilities of Yemen’s Ansarallah, which was downplayed as a band of “Iran-backed rebels” in Western corporate media for years. While the governments of the collective West have tried to pretend that the Yemeni group is insignificant, Washington’s recent decision to form a multi-national naval coalition to confront the Houthis is an admission that they are a major regional actor. In fact, Ansarallah is the only Arab movement that controls state assets and a standing army that is participating in the ongoing war with Israel.

The reality that the US is now confronting is something that both Saudi Arabia and the UAE came to realize early last year. Following two separate drone and missile attacks on Abu Dhabi and Dubai in January of 2022, it became apparent that the West’s current level of support could not provide sufficient security for the UAE. Up until a nationwide ceasefire was brokered in April 2022, Ansarallah had also demonstrated its developed missile and drone capabilities, striking valuable economic targets inside Saudi Arabia too.

Despite receiving a lot less attention than it deserved, Ansarallah forces strategically timed their second attack on the UAE to coincide with the arrival of Israeli President Isaac Herzog in the country. This was a clear message to the Emirati and Saudi leaderships that Western support will not provide sufficient security. It’s likely because of this threat from Yemen that Riyadh sought a security pact with the US, in order to make a normalization agreement with Israel possible. Such a security pact would have stipulated that an attack on one is an attack on all, hence dragging the Americans into a direct war against Yemen in the event that the conflict was to flare up again.

Backing the Israelis to the hilt in their war on Gaza, spelling out that there are no red lines as to how far the government of Benjamin Netanyahu can go, the US has allowed a Palestine-Israel war to expand into a broader regional Arab-Israeli conflict. The threat of escalation between the Israeli army and Lebanese Hezbollah is growing by the day, while Ansarallah leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi has stated that his forces “will not stand idly by if the Americans have a tendency to escalate and commit foolishness by targeting our country.”

By every metric, US diplomatic stock has dropped internationally as a result of its handling of Israel’s war on Gaza. It has failed to convince any major regional actors in West Asia to back its escalatory agenda, all of which are standing on the same side as Russia and China in calling for a ceasefire. The world sees the hypocrisy of Washington. For the sake of comparison, the death toll in Gaza today is said to have exceeded 23,000, the majority being women and children. Israel has killed this many people in just over two months, while in the first two years of the ISIS/Daesh insurgency in Iraq, the UN estimated that the terrorist group killed some 18,800 civilians. The total number of civilians killed by ISIS in Syria is set at just over 5,000.

The level of human suffering being inflicted in Gaza is without precedent, breaking records in modern history for the tonnage of explosives dropped on such a small territory, in addition to the highest number of journalists, medical workers, and children killed in a single conflict. In reaction, the US government has repeatedly blocked ceasefire resolutions at the UNSC, gives Israel unlimited support unconditionally, and now threatens to drag a coalition of Western nations into a war on Yemen. The solution here is very simple: Ansarallah has said the blockade on ships to Israel will end when the war on Gaza ends. Washington has the ability to stop the war, but refuses to do so, while its threats against Yemen will not work to achieve any result beyond further escalation.

In a surprising disclosure, the Walt Disney Company acknowledges in its latest filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that its recent embrace of a ‘woke’ agenda has adversely affected its financial performance.

Despite claiming a 7% revenue increase in fiscal 2023, a figure that seems less impressive given the post-coronavirus shutdown context, the company grapples with challenges such as a reduction in content production spending, significant layoffs, and the abandonment of a planned corporate campus in Florida.

The filing underscores the risks associated with misalignment with public and consumer tastes, emphasizing the imperative to create content that resonates with evolving consumer preferences.

Disney's stocks on the New York Stock Exchange have experienced a considerable decline. From their valuation of $197 in 2021, their current value stands at approximately $92, marking a substantial 53% decrease from the 2021 figure. In contrast, the broader stock market has experienced a positive trend of about 10% over this timeframe. The notable reduction in Disney's stock value prompts the question: Could there be a connection between the adoption of woke ideologies and financial decline, reflecting the sentiment encapsulated by the saying "go woke, go broke"?

Despite these challenges, Disney remains steadfast in its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The company's inaugural digital platform, dedicated to amplifying underrepresented voices, signifies a bold step. Beyond the platform, Disney aims to strengthen its enduring dedication to DEI principles, reflecting proactive efforts of Disney employees influencing workplace dynamics, content creation, and community engagement.

Amidst a barrage of criticism for 'woke' box office disappointments, Disney, particularly with "The Marvels," prompts scrutiny of the efficacy of socially conscious messaging in popular media. As consumer boycotts against woke brands gain traction, the repercussions extend beyond Disney, causing a ripple effect leading to the unraveling of other brands.

In an enchanting turn of events, Disney has opted to push back the release of "Snow White" to 2025, a decision seemingly influenced by the considerable backlash against the perceived 'woke' remake. Additionally, there are indications that Disney has abandoned the use of "diversity creatures" in favor of CGI dwarves that closely resemble the characters from the original production. This shift suggests a response to public sentiment and raises questions about Disney's adaptation choices, reflecting the ongoing dialogue surrounding the film's creative direction and societal expectations.

The resolution of the protracted SAG-AFTRA strike marks a pivotal moment for Disney, allowing the resumption of film productions after a prolonged hiatus. However, the aftermath of this strike resolution unveils a significant challenge for Disney, as the company announces a strategic reorganization of its film release calendar. In a recent official statement, Disney disclosed the necessary adjustment of release dates for several high-profile projects. "Deadpool 3", initially slated for May 3, 2024, will now see its theatrical debut on July 26, 2024. "Captain America", another flagship title, faces a shift in release date to February 14, 2025, while Marvel's "Thunderbolts", originally scheduled for December 20, 2024, is rescheduled for July 25, 2025. "The Blade" reboot experiences a similar fate, moving from February 15, 2025, to November 7, 2025. Beyond the Marvel universe, Disney has also recalibrated the release date for the prequel to its 2019 CGI remake of "The Lion King". "Mufasa: The Lion King", initially set for July 5, 2024, is now slated for release on December 20, 2024.

In conclusion, Disney's woke pivot appears to be a risky gamble that is threatening the magic kingdom. The company's admission of financial setbacks, clashes with influential figures like Elon Musk, and the broader industry challenges paint a complex picture for the iconic entertainment giant. As the company navigates these complexities, its fortunes in the wake of the woke pivot remain uncertain, and the magic of the kingdom faces an unprecedented test.

India’s history with Africa goes back several centuries when Indian traders traveled to the eastern coasts of the continent using the monsoon winds. Immediately after gaining independence from the British in 1947, India, as one of the first decolonized countries, decided to spearhead the struggle for a more just global order.

While ‘the Global South’ is in the headlines of the media around the world today, few would recall that in April 1955, representatives from 29 governments of Asian and African nations that emerged from the yoke of their European colonialists gathered in Bandung, Indonesia to lay the groundwork for the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

In 1961, the first NAM summit in Belgrade drew delegates from 25 African, Asian, Latin American, and European countries under the leadership of Tito of Yugoslavia, Nasser of Egypt, Nehru of India, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Sukarno of Indonesia, to discuss the role of the Third World in the Cold War.

Over the decades, India has succeeded in holding on to its strong friendship with most African nations. Today, Africa draws more attention from New Delhi partly because of its camaraderie forged through shared experiences of economic development post decolonization.

However, as the rise of Africa would increase global multipolarity, it is also a strategic consideration for India. As the country seeks a leadership role in the Global South, it is important to have the African bloc as its ally.

Under the framework of the Group of Twenty (G20) presidency, India hosted the final summit on September 9 and 10 in the presence of more than 40 world leaders, including the G20 heads of state or their representatives. One major outcome of the event, arguably the most significant, was that India successfully secured a permanent place in the G20 for the African Union (AU), the continental body of 55 member states.  

The AU’s entry into the G20 will indeed provide India with another platform to engage with Africa on a continental level, but this cannot replace the framework of the India-Africa Forum Summit, which has been India’s key outreach program for Africa since 2008.

Indeed, New Delhi’s active engagement with the region was initiated in the early 2000s. The first India-Africa Forum Summit took place in 2008 in New Delhi and was attended by the governments of 14 African nations selected by the AU and India. India also hosted the second summit in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia.

The third summit was held in 2015 in New Delhi. This was the most extensive diplomatic outreach undertaken by the administration of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which involved representatives from 54 African countries, 41 of which were presidents, including Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Abdel Fatah el-Sisi of Egypt, Jacob Zuma of South Africa, and Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria.

Since then, there has been a significant increase in senior Indian leadership visits to Africa, along with a greater emphasis on training and development assistance. The establishment of new embassies in 18 African countries in the past five years demonstrates the increased attention paid to Africa by New Delhi.

In total, India’s development outreach globally since 2008 has expanded to 64 countries with 300 Lines of Credit (LOCs) for 540 projects. Out of these, 321 projects encompassing 205 LOCs are currently being implemented in Africa. 

In recent years, these initiatives have been qualitatively expanded, particularly concerning the scale and complexity of the projects inside the LOCs.

Prominent initiatives funded by India include the construction of government buildings in Burundi and Ethiopia, sugar plants in Ethiopia and Ghana, cement production in Djibouti and the Republic of Congo, power plants in Sudan, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, and Malawi, water in Mozambique, Tanzania, and Guinea, and health in Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, and Zambia. This steady growth in Indian interests in Africa is reflected in an expanded footprint and deeper engagement – 51 out of 54 nations of the continent host such development projects.

A more coordinated strategy and tighter supervision by the Exim Bank of India have also improved the efficiency of their planning and execution. Grant support provided by the government of India is distributed globally, encompassing nearly all developing regions, even more broadly than the LOCs.

An enhanced track record of project delivery has coincided with increased development aid offers. However, as the government does not make these impact analysis reports public, it is difficult to evaluate its overall utility.

At the same time, training collaboration under ITEC (Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation) involves over 10,000 Africans annually in subjects ranging from IT and public administration to election management, SME, entrepreneurship, rural development, parliamentary affairs, and renewable energy.

Two digital initiatives are also in pilot mode in Africa today – e-Vidya Bharati distance learning and e-Aarogya Bharati distance health. Going beyond mere cooperation, these initiatives reflect India’s growing leadership role in the Global South. To some Indian Ocean island states, India has supplied naval equipment, provided training, and undertaken hydrographic services.

The heart of the Global South revitalized

At the G20 summit this year, India unveiled several novel initiatives, including the Global South Center of Excellence, the Global South Science and Technology Initiative, the Global South Young Diplomats Forum, the Global South Scholarships, and Aarogya Maitri (Wellness Friendship). Even as the specifics of these measures are still being worked out, Africa – the ‘heart of the Global South’ – would undoubtedly benefit from these programs, adding an extra layer of support beyond that given to African countries under the framework of the India-Africa Forum Summit.

Since the latest summit in 2015, a lot has changed geopolitically, economically, and in terms of global priorities. In order to build on the successes of earlier summits and to cater to the needs of the evolving global landscape, it is imperative that India host the fourth summit. 

India and Africa’s relationship has developed naturally through cooperative methods. Currently, the main avenues for Indo-African cooperation are capacity-building programs, credit lines, grant support, development projects, technical consulting, disaster relief, humanitarian aid, and military cooperation.

However, the tale of India in Africa has not received the recognition it merits, partly because India doesn’t play to the gallery. Relationships with eastern African nations bordering the Indian Ocean, with which India has closer ties and a more extended history, are especially significant to the Indo-Pacific discussion.

India now has a noticeable presence in Africa and many other regions where ties were previously weaker. In fact, this kind of greater cross-continental communication together with substantial interaction, primes India for a global mindset.

As the world moves toward increasing multipolarity, India is prepared for the next stage of its own evolution. Given that India is once again at the center of world geopolitics, chairing summits, navigating difficult choices, and negotiating a seat at the high table of global governance, the time is opportune to convene the much-anticipated India-Africa Forum Summit.

Donald Trump is already preparing a new foreign policy doctrine should he manage to get elected president again. It is reported that, this time around, he aims to more brutally push the mantra of “America First” and sideline the influence of neoconservatives in his administration.

This has come with chatter about many radical foreign policy proposals, including one that recently surfaced in Politico, claiming that he would be prepared to officially legitimize North Korea as a nuclear weapons state and allow it to keep its capabilities.

During Trump’s first administration, he pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” against the DPRK, whereby he bluffed the threat of military action and severely tightened sanctions in order to try and force North Korea to negotiate. This eventually resulted in a number of summits between Trump and Kim Jong-un, which ultimately failed to yield any substantial results, primarily because such diplomacy was undermined by hardliners such as John Bolton, who believed Pyongyang’s unilateral capitulation was the only acceptable outcome.

As such, it has remained official US policy to demand the “complete” denuclearization of North Korea. This politically “correct” doctrine has remained consistent, even though such an outcome has become impossible by this stage – just ask Kim Jong-un, who just this Thursday launched a successful test of the Hwasong-18 ICBM, capable of reaching anywhere on the American homeland. The DPRK has repeatedly stressed that its nuclear weapons are the indispensable key to defending its own national sovereignty and it is a strategy that, while being costly in terms of sanctions, has nonetheless paid off in successfully establishing a deterrent.

However, what if the US instead gave up on pushing for denuclearization and instead offered to legitimize North Korea’s nuclear program? Could a future Trump administration be planning to do this once and for all, with perhaps the underlying strategic goal of giving the DPRK incentives to become more antagonistic to China, its biggest backer so far? Of course, the North being such a vehemently anti-US state and proclaiming America as the ultimate enemy, this appears to be an absurdity at first glance, especially seeing as it is totally reliant on China, but not all is what meets the eye.

But this does not mean the plan is without strategic flaws. It’s difficult to imagine that North Korea would be persuaded to abandon its demand that the US withdraw from South Korea, or to quit seeking to one day dominate and reunify the Korean peninsula on its own terms. Likewise, how would South Koreans also feel about such empowerment of what they see as a dangerous and aggressive neighbor? There are so many dilemmas in Trump’s proposal that could dangerously undermine the status quo and effectively empower the DPRK to push for more in its demands on a long-term basis.

The US sticks to its current position over nuclear weapons because it is fully aware that formally ending the Korean conflict would delegitimize its security architecture and presence on the peninsula, and would increase calls for the Americans to leave. There is a strategic and military incentive in keeping the DPRK as an “enemy” and maintaining a policy that only accepts it should it submit on American terms. Sure, Trump probably could use the DPRK as a “Tito” state to place strategic pressure on China, but it cannot be removed from the equation of the Korean peninsula’s future and how it would affect the US’ role there.

There is no possible scenario whereby the DPRK becomes a “US ally” in conjunction with the South in forging an opposition to China. Thus, Trump’s critics would argue that granting the DPRK legitimacy of its nuclear program would be appeasement that would allow North Korea to vastly expand its capabilities and become an even bigger problem in the long-term, and we know from many precedents that North Korea will happily U-turn on any agreement it sees fit when it gets upset or political circumstances change. This proposal thus gives us a peek into the chaos that could emerge in a neo-Trump world.

The long-simmering conflict between Ukraine’s two most important figures – that is, President Vladimir Zelensky, and its military commander-in-chief, General Valery Zaluzhny – is escalating. The usual denials ring hollower than ever, especially the usual attempts to blame “the Russians.”

Zelensky has spoken of his “working relationship” with his top general; and he won’t comment on their conflicts and the incessant rumors about Zaluzhny’s impending dismissal, because that would “help the enemy.” In politico-talk, that is the equivalent of admitting that your marriage is ready for divorce and maintained merely not to feed the neighbors’ gossip.

If Churchill once joked that Soviet high politics resembled bulldogs fighting under a rug, he would have found Kiev’s military-civilian wrangling intriguingly bereft of any cover at all. Only a few weeks ago, Zaluzhny and Zelensky clashed publicly when the general admitted that the war against Russia had become a “stalemate.” In reality, that was an understatement, but it was still too much realism for the president. 

The latest sign of how intense the infighting has become is a wire-tapping scandal. On 17 December, one of Zaluzhny’s offices was found to be bugged. According to the Ukrainian authorities, the device was not working, and its origins could not be identified, both of which are politically convenient assessments. More listening devices were discovered in the offices of Ukraine’s General Staff.

Other commentators connect the bugging attempt to a recent murky affair involving the sudden death of Major Gennady Chastyakov, a top Zaluzhny aide. Officially labeled an accident, Chastyakov’s bizarre end, involving a birthday present of a bottle of Whiskey and live hand grenades, makes more sense as an assassination.

Some suggest that the wiretap was an attempt by team Zelensky to discredit Zaluzhny and the General Staff – for instance by insinuating that the counteroffensive failed due to leaks from the armed forces command. Others, again, see the military, and maybe its intelligence service under the sinister Lieutenant General Kirill Budanov, behind a false-flag operation to smear the president and his men. Who knows? The point is that this type of speculation now comes naturally in Ukraine. 

It is not hard to guess at some of the background of this scandal: Ukraine’s elite is under increasing pressure. There is a looming defeat in the war with Russia. Zelensky, as well as Aleksey Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, have admitted the failure of this summer’s counteroffensive.

Meanwhile, in the West, even the Washington Post, a mouthpiece of US foreign-policy militancy, has recently struck a sober tone. A detailed piece of reportage has revealed that the counteroffensive fiasco really consisted of not one but two strategic failures. First – and quickly – the NATO tactics playbook imposed by the West proved unworkable; then, and over a longer period of slow, grinding decimation, the Ukrainian attempt to replace NATO fantasies with some of their own also got, literally, nowhere. War retains its element of Clausewitzian chance and unpredictability – a deadly game of neither, in the old master’s words, chess nor Roulette, but of cards – but Kiev’s hand is now weaker than ever.

At the same time, Ukraine’s so-called friends are getting ready to cut their losses. It is true that Zelensky has just been thrown the largely symbolical sop of formal EU entry negotiations. And, depending on how various quid pro quos will work out (or not) – between the White House and the Republicans in the US, and between Hungary’s Viktor Orban and the rest of the EU – Kiev may still even receive one more round of large-scale aid.

But even now, some EU leaders are already hedging. Ireland’s Leo Varadkar could hardly wait to stress that Ukraine won’t be a full member any time soon. If ever, one should add. And regarding the money, what really matters is the fact that the flow of aid is now up for fierce contestation. Helping Ukraine is no longer a sacrosanct cause. Against the background of the counteroffensive’s comprehensive failure, the West’s proxy war investment will end one way or the other, and if not soon, then not much later. President Joe Biden’s language has shifted from “as long as it takes” to “as long as we can.” That is remarkably honest, for Biden. It’s aid game over, if not today, then tomorrow.

What a message for the families of the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians dead because the Zelensky regime could not conceivably concede Ukrainian neutrality before February 2022, or for that matter, in March or April of that year. What a price to have paid for a narcissistic comedian’s flat learning curve. Some “Servant of the People” indeed. 

Western aid is absolutely vital for Kiev. Once the bulk of it is withdrawn, Ukraine will have to make peace on Russian terms or suffer an even worse defeat. Indeed, its government may face collapse or rebellion – Ukraine is after all, a country of Maidans – and the state may lose elementary capacities, such as keeping its bureaucracy paid, not to speak of more ambitious programs.

Against this background, the mounting tension between the generals and the politicians is no surprise. Someone must be blamed for the counteroffensive’s failure and unnecessary losses, for the fact that Kiev has trusted “friends” who have – very predictably – used Ukraine as a pawn on their grand geopolitics chessboard, and for, last but not least, the fact that peace was not made when it was within reach in spring 2022.

Not to mention missing opportunities to entirely avoid the war.

Zelensky is no slouch at the blame game. He has pointedly remarked that Zaluzhny “must answer for results at the front,” while he’s expecting “solutions” and “very concrete things on the battlefield” from the military. As if war was a matter of “bad service” by the soldiers. 

But Zelensky’s rivals and would-be successors can give as good as they get. If the days when aid for Ukraine was sacrosanct in the West are over, so is Zelensky’s status as an untouchable war leader at home. The former boxing champion and now mayor of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko, is sensing a knock-out and has publicly accused the president of authoritarianism and failures in the war. He has also stressed that once the fighting is over, everyone, including the president, will have to answer for their mistakes. What a prospect, especially when it’s a lost war. Churchill, with whom Zelensky’s performance has absurdly been compared, lost an election even after winning one. Clearly, there is blood in the water of Ukrainian domestic politics and the sharks are circling.

Zaluzhny, meanwhile, has gone on the offensive, too, not against the Russians, but his own president. The general could not the courage to mention that he didn't quite agree with Zelensky’s purge of military-mobilization officials in August. Now Zaluzhny says these people were “professionals” who knew their jobs. Surely, he can’t be implying that the president who fired them does not!

Behind this crude swipe at his boss, the commander-in-chief is broaching a serious issue. Mobilization, like aid from abroad, is a Ukrainian Achilles' heel under extreme tension. It is slowing down badly, as has been acknowledged by, for instance, Sergey Rakhmanin, an influential journalist who is also a member of parliament and of its Committee on Matters of National Security, Defense, and Intelligence. Meanwhile, the army is asking for another 450,000 to 500,000 fresh recruits.

How they will find the equivalent of roughly €12 billion to finance this fresh mobilization round, if it happens, is unknown.

What is making recruiting fresh cannon fodder harder is the fact that two things are becoming obvious, no matter what Ukraine’s thoroughly controlled media does to cover them up. The war is being lost, and sacrificing ever more men and women is not only in vain but, actually, rather treasonous, because it does not serve Ukraine's future interests.

Peace would – preferably one concluded more than a year ago.

Instead, this is a sacrifice that serves the strategies of American neocons and their European followers. And, on top of that, those strategies are failing.

Kiev’s elites are staking out their positions for the end game.

Not of the war against Russia, but against each other once the fighting ends with bitter popular disappointment.

Their ruthless fractiousness is nothing new, it's just a reversion to normal. But independent Ukraine has never experienced what is likely to come soon – a perfect storm of large-scale defeat, being abandoned by “allies” who have bled the country dry, and widespread dissatisfaction as never before.

A Maidan might not be enough this time.  

There are no safe spaces left anywhere in America, especially if you’re an old bronze statue dedicated to dead white men with epic stories to tell. Unlike other ill-fated statues, however, the latest one to be savagely plucked from the American landscape kept silent vigil for 109 years over the most revered graveyard in the country: Arlington National Cemetery, Washington, DC.

Unveiled by US President Woodrow Wilson on June 4, 1914, the 32-foot (9.8 meters) Reconciliation Memorial (known as the ‘Confederate Memorial’ to its detractors) towered over several hundred Civil War-era Confederacy tombs, that is, until this long-vanquished army suffered a second humiliating defeat, this time at the hands of America’s Woke Army. Aside from the historical context that should have spared the memorial from the scrapyard, the statue itself, created by Moses Jacob Ezekiel, the first American-born Jewish artist to achieve international acclaim, was an exquisite piece of Neoclassical artwork.

In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, there was a desperate need for healing to occur between North and South. This was underscored by Washington’s refusal to allow Southerners to pay their respects and tend the graves of Confederate soldiers buried at Arlington. During the Reconstruction years (1865-1877), the Republicans took the first steps towards reconciliation with the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, which abolished slavery, provided equal rights, and extended voting privileges to men of all races, respectively. These amendments were adopted under the fierce resistance of the Democratic Party that dominated in the South.

In fact, it is one of the great ironies of American history that the same virtue-signaling machinery now hard at work canceling statues, namely the Democrats, was the very same one that fought bitterly against the rights of Black Americans in the post-Civil War years. Indeed, it was the Democrats who set up the so-called Jim Crow laws that enforced segregation between blacks and whites. Democrats created various terrorist organizations, like the Ku Klux Klan, the White League, and Red Shirts, to reestablish white supremacy and Democratic Party control in the South. The same political opportunism and hypocrisy that was at play then is back at work again today.

According to the historian William A. Blair in his book, ‘Cities of the Dead: Contesting the Memory of the Civil War in the South,’ it was during McKinley’s nationwide victory/campaign tour that he saw the discarded Confederate graves in Fredericksburg, Virginia, and the sight was said to have greatly troubled him. In his speech at the Atlanta ‘peace jubilee’ on December 14, 1898, McKinley not only celebrated the end of Sectionalism between North and South but also announced that the federal government would begin tending Confederate graves since these dead represented “a tribute to American valor.”  The speech left an impact on many Southerners, who saw it as a grand gesture of reconciliation and a symbol of national unification. These are exactly the sentiments that the statue at Arlington National Cemetery was meant to convey.

Authorized for construction in March 1906, Moses Jacob Ezekiel was commissioned by the United Daughters of the Confederacy in November 1910 to design the memorial, which, as mentioned above, was unveiled by US President Woodrow Wilson on June 4, 1914, almost half a century after the end of the Civil War. Could Ezekiel have designed his statue in a way that would not have offended modern sensitivities? All things considered – from Black Lives Matter protests to Critical Race Theory in the classroom – the answer is a resounding ‘Yes.’ In one of the bronze scenes depicted around the base of the memorial, a Confederate soldier is shown kissing his baby, which is being held by a black slave woman, before he heads off to war. In the words of the Arlington National Cemetery, which now answers to the administration of President Joe Biden, the scene depicts a “mythologized vision of the Confederacy, including highly sanitized depictions of slavery.”

“Reconciliation didn’t include nine million African Americans in the South who lived in a racial police state enforced by a terror campaign of lynching,” argued retired US Brigadier General Ty Seidule, who served as vice president of the Naming Commission. “Before 1877, more than 2,000 black men held elective office, including a black senator from Mississippi. By 1914, almost no one of color could vote, much less hold office, and the Arlington Monument celebrated the victory of white supremacy.”

Yet despite the impossibility of pleasing everyone, the statue has helped demonstrate to countless people, both Americans and foreigners, that reconciliation between warring groups is not only a possibility but, in this modern age of weapons of mass destruction, an absolute necessity. This is something that the former US Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, a Democrat, understood.

The former US senator took a Vietnamese delegation to the Reconciliation Memorial and, pointing across the Potomac River from Arlington National Cemetery toward the Lincoln Memorial, “I told them the story of how America healed its wounds from our own Civil War. The Potomac River was like the Ben Hai River, which divided North and South Vietnam. On the far side was our North, and here in Virginia was our South. After several bitter decades, we came together, symbolized by the memorial.”

Meanwhile, even President Barack Obama, perhaps the most popular Democrat in modern times, appreciated the significance of the Reconciliation Monument in the context of what it symbolized – unification, not division – when he continued the presidential tradition of sending a wreath to the monument in 2009.

The removal of the memorial sends a terrible message not only to the American people but to the citizens of the world that the United States is a crumbling, immature society willing to erase the benevolent actions of its past in favor of yet more internal strife and partisanship.

Last month Kenyan lawmakers approved a plan to send 1,000 police officers to Haiti ostensibly to counter gang violence and restore law and order, as part of the UN-backed Multinational Security Support Mission in Haiti. The mission, for an initial period of 12 months, was approved through the adoption of the Security Council resolution 2699 (2023). At the US behest, the Kenyan government agreed to head this multinational security force to stabilize the Caribbean nation paralyzed by crime. 

The latest deterioration of the situation in Haiti, the poorest country in the northern hemisphere, came following the assassination of President Jovenel Moise in July 2021. But the country has been beset by turmoil since it gained independence in 1804. It was the first black nation to gain independence, and more poignantly, free itself from slavery. What should be a symbol of black people’s resistance and triumph over imperial subjugation, a historic and gallant black nation, has been reduced to a metaphor for violence, chaos, and political instability. Haiti’s homicide rate is so high that life expectancy “is conditionally renewable every 24 hours”. On top of that, its sorry state has been compounded by frequent natural disasters.

The existential threat to Haiti’s stability, however, is the erosion of its sovereignty by the French – its former colonisers – and the US. France for over a century brazenly looted Haiti’s resources and forced it to pay for loss of slaves and its slave colony. This larceny hollowed out the state, obliterated its capacity and impoverished Haiti. Numerous coups, some engineered by the US, ensured instability. For Haiti to stabilize, imperialism, and neocolonialism must be neutralized. Poorly thought-out UN-backed interventions failed before because there is no military solution to Haiti’s challenges, and this latest one is likely to end the same way.

Kenya’s decision to deploy police officers and other supporting personnel to Haiti has elicited mixed reactions. The government insists that it has an “international” obligation to contribute to stabilizing Haiti, part of Africa’s diaspora. The phrase “international standards” is ubiquitous among the Kenyan elite. It betrays a Eurocentric mindset that conflates Westernization with Modernization.

Kenya is also motivated by monetary gain. Nairobi is poised to receive $100 million pledged by Washington which it insists must be released before the operation begins. Of course, this money cannot remedy institutional deficiencies within the Kenyan police and the likely injuries and loss of lives among the 1,000 odd personnel. To cynics, Kenya has sold out to imperialism.

Previous interventions did not improve security in Haiti. In 2004-2017, for instance, a UN peacekeeping mission led by Brazil was deployed to Haiti following the collapse of the government of former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. That mission failed to make a difference, and what marginal gains it did achieve were overtaken by its atrocious legacy. Some of the peacekeepers were accused of rape, sexual exploitation, extortion, and summary executions. The mission was also condemned for contaminating drinking water with cholera-causing bacteria that cost over 10,000 lives. The UN refused to take responsibility for these atrocities. Haitians are therefore rightly sceptical of and resistant to military or any other form of intervention in their country.

The Kenyan police, though trained to maintain law and order and largely deal with unarmed civilians (other than the police themselves, guns are mostly in the hands of bandits and other hardened criminals), have an appalling human rights record and are often implicated in excessive use of brutal force and have stubbornly resisted civilian oversight. It is ironic, therefore, that they are expected to restore stability in conflict-riddled Haiti.

Haiti is awash with firearms and hundreds of hardened gangs that fight over territories. These gangs have perfected extortion, kidnappings, torture, rape, lynching, hijackings, and extrajudicial and summary executions. Gang violence has spiraled out of hand and is spreading to areas of Port-au-Prince and beyond that hitherto were relatively safe. Consequently, there have been mass displacements as frightened people sought refuge in rural and other far-flung areas. Some Haitians have left the country en masse.

The security situation in Haiti is fast unravelling. The government is hopelessly overwhelmed, unable to assert any authority and dismissed by Haitians as a foreign-imposed puppet. 

How the Kenyan police are supposed to succeed in their mission is also unclear. Haiti is in all respects a rugged terrain that will surely test the force’s capabilities. The Kenyan authorities have said the personnel will undergo training before being sent off. This includes learning elementary French, which they would no doubt need to win the hearts and minds of the locals. Time will tell whether this crash-course preparation will be enough.

The enthusiasm of the Kenyan government towards this operation does not have wide appeal. The Kenyan judiciary has placed on hold the process of deploying the police to Haiti pending the hearing of a case in which petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of this plan. They have argued, before a court of law, that as per the Kenyan constitution, only the military can be deployed in a foreign country and that the Kenyan police are not operationally skilled to handle the security situation in Haiti. The case is slated for hearing in January 2024. This is most likely a momentary setback for the government, as the court will not rule against the deployment primarily because the operation is fronted by President William Ruto and backed by the national assembly, at the behest of the US.

Haiti is a historically protracted challenge in which the US, and France, particularly, are implicated. They have trifled with Haiti’s sovereignty, stunted its economic prospects through plunder, propped up venal autocrats and engineered coups that in some cases led to the assassination of sitting presidents. The US has abetted the shipment of high caliber guns into Haiti which the gangs use to wreak havoc. 

Cumulatively these acts of sabotage have entrapped Haiti in unmitigated turmoil. To restore Haiti’s dignity, arrest state collapse, and preserve its hallowed status as the foremost black nation, desecration of its sovereignty must stop. The West must let its institutions work to empower Haitians, alleviate scandalous poverty and curtail hopelessness. No matter how long the Kenya led multinational security force stays in Haiti, once deployed, it’s unlikely to fare better than previous UN-backed interventions. It is likely to end in failure because it is blind to Haiti’s existential threat and runs a risk of being stigmatized as an occupation force. 

Chinese leader Xi Jinping has just paid an official visit to Vietnam, where he met with the leaders of Hanoi’s ruling Communist Party. Xi hailed the ties between the two countries and vowed to take them to the next level, while numerous business agreements were also signed.

Such a move would seem obvious given the two countries are not only neighbors, but share the same political ideology. However, their relations are more complicated than that.

Three months earlier, Vietnam was visited by US President Joe Biden of all people, who succeeded in elevating America’s relationship with the South East Asian nation to a strategic partnership. Then, just weeks ago, Japan did the same thing. When looked at from this angle, Xi’s overtures to Hanoi do not look as powerful, but rather represent one of a series of voices from larger powers seeking to win hearts and minds in Vietnam, a nation of geopolitical significance which will contribute to the outcome of the power struggle in the Asia-Pacific.

Although Vietnam is a communist state, this does not mean its relationship with Beijing is amicable. While of course it is not openly antagonistic or hostile, grassroots opinion in the country is wary of China, because a great deal of Vietnamese history involves a power struggle to maintain its independence from the Chinese imperial dynasties.

Vietnam, like many Asian nations, derived a great deal of cultural, philosophical, and technological capital from China, yet its national identity has always been premised on being a distinctive nation from China and not being politically dominated by it. Ideology is not relevant here.

Vietnam recognizes that China is its most critical economic partner – on the other hand, it is striving to avoid ‘Chinese hegemony’. This is not just historical, but modern as well. In 1978, China invaded Vietnam in order to break its alliance with the Soviet Union and assert dominance over it.

How, one may ask, can Vietnam possibly court the US given the history between the two? Can Hanoi trust Washington? Vietnam appears to be confident in its relationship with the US, despite the scale of atrocities committed during the Vietnam War, because Hanoi won that conflict on its own terms and reunified the country.

Given this, Washington is now returning to the table because it sees Vietnam as a partner to try and contain China. Sure, Hanoi has ideological and political reasons to be suspicious of it, and the White House can never be an ‘ally’, but what the US offers is a chance to accelerate Vietnam’s own economic development and also increase its military leverage in the abovementioned dispute with China.

Of course, Beijing sees this, and therefore the resulting outcome is a struggle for Hanoi’s loyalty. This means, however, that China increasingly has to offer more to be allowed to ‘be at the table’ and compete with the other powers, and also that Vietnam gets to set the terms of engagement and be ‘the kingmaker’.

From the Chinese perspective, Vietnam is in fact an important aspect of the global trade and supply chain because it provides a mask to conceal the ‘made in China’ label to get around various trade restrictions and tariffs imposed by the US. Many Chinese companies are investing in Vietnam precisely because of this, which is why Chinese trade with ASEAN as a whole has surged to replace trade with the US.

Chinese companies build key parts and components, ship them to their own factories in Vietnam where assembly is completed, and the product then goes to the US. It creates the deception that ‘made in China’ is going away and allows indirect Chinese trade with America to continue. Thus, the integration of the Vietnamese and Chinese economies is accelerating. This is enough to keep the peace between the two countries.

At present, given US military encirclement, China is not in a strategic position to engage in confrontation with Vietnam, which is why Xi has chosen to throw everything at it in the name of diplomacy. Keeping Vietnam as a neutral and non-hostile neighbor is thus a core priority for China, especially given the fundamental foreign policy doctrine of the US to instigate division between Beijing and its neighbors as a means of containment. Vietnam, however, simply wants the best of all worlds, and it is certainly getting it for now.

Military conflicts are not the result of random chance. Deliberate planning is involved.

It is instructive to look at what happened to Ukraine in 2014, around the coup supported by the US government and its Western allies. With the victory of Viktor Yanukovich in the presidential elections of 2010, the Rada (Ukrainian parliament) voted to drop NATO membership aspirations from the national security strategy. Perhaps precisely because of this, Yanukovich was unconstitutionally ousted. 

Writing for the American Conservative, foreign policy expert Dominick Sansone commented:

“The move into Crimea came as a response, to secure Russia’s key naval interests in the warm-water port at Sevastopol. The coinciding uprisings in the Donbas were additionally a response to the situation in Kiev … The official position of the Kremlin has subsequently been that these ethnically Russian citizens should not be forced to live under the rule of an illegitimate rebel group that illegally came to power by overthrowing the duly elected government.”

“With regards to Ukraine,” wrote John Mearsheimer of Chicago University, an accomplished American political scientist and international relations scholar:

“It’s very important to understand that, up until 2014, we did not envision NATO expansion and E.U. expansion as a policy that was aimed at containing Russia. Nobody seriously thought that Russia was a threat before February 22, 2014. What happened is that this major crisis broke out, and we had to assign blame, and of course we were never going to blame ourselves. We were going to blame the Russians so we invented this story that Russia was bent on aggression in Eastern Europe.”

The rationale for the creation of NATO was that it would be a defensive alliance to stop the former Soviet Union from invading Western Europe. However, when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, if its claims were truthful, this organization would have been dismantled, its purported purpose now moot. Instead, since the mid-1990s, successive US administrations have regularly pushed for NATO expansion in Eastern Europe.

Of course, Moscow reasonably saw this as a betrayal of a promise made by the US government and its allies on the collapse of the Berlin Wall, that NATO would never advance “an inch eastward.”

In this context, the present crisis in Ukraine is primarily the result of an attempt by the US government to pull another Eastern European country decisively into its orbit and defense structure, via NATO membership/partnership and an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement.

Ukraine is now a “close partner” of NATO, which reports providing “unprecedented levels” of military support to its government.

To date, NATO member states have provided billions of dollars’ and euros’ worth of military equipment to Ukraine. They are sending weapons, ammunition, and many types of light and heavy military equipment, including anti-tank and anti-air systems, howitzers, and drones.

“Since 2014,” NATO’s official website states:

“NATO has helped to reform Ukraine’s armed forces and defence institutions, including with equipment and financial support. Allies have also provided training for tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops and Ukrainian forces have also developed their capabilities by participation in NATO exercises and operations.”  

Under President Vladimir Zelensky, Kiev has enacted a series of laws aimed at ‘de-russification’. As a consequence, Russian books and even Russian music have been banned, and only books in Ukrainian, or “the indigenous languages of the European Union,” can be published in the country.

Zelensky is an acolyte of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF), the organization behind the ‘Great Reset’. According to Leon Kushner, a writer who was raised by Holocaust survivors from Ukraine:

“Since 2014 oligarchs run it mob style and chose the then actor Zelensky to be their presidential puppet. The WEF’s Klaus Schwab bragged about helping elect him and his equivalent Canadian puppet, Trudeau. Just about every rich and famous player has been to Ukraine. And came back with even more money. From Bill Gates to Joe Biden, from George Soros to the Clintons. They all know that Ukraine is open for business.”

The Biden administration in the US has sent hundreds of billions of dollars in military assistance to Ukraine already.

If the goal is to prevent bloodshed, well, this is not the way to do it.

If, as speculated by some, there exists an oligarchical plan of massive human depopulation, then engineered wars are an ideal way to achieve that. It has happened before. In the First World War, 21.5 million died, of which 13 million were civilians. The civilian deaths were largely caused by starvation, exposure, disease, military encounters, and massacres. In the Second World War, 40-50 million died, the largest of any war.

Currently, we are seeing the advanced stages of just this, as the US and its NATO allies have been maneuvering for many years for a world war with Russia. They yell that it is to protect ‘freedom and democracy’ as they extort the wealth of both the perceived victim and aggressor.

We need to wake up to these apocalyptic tactics of the western oligarchs and resist all their efforts to impose their destructive objectives on us.

Florida Senator Rick Scott was recently ridiculed online after saying that Chinese imports of garlic to the US are a “national security threat.” It may sound funny, but it is in fact common for American politicians to make such claims about any and all things coming from China – no matter how ridiculous.

There have been numerous examples, including a balloon, fridges, coffee machines, cranes, electric cars, subway cars, students, Confucius Institutes, Huawei, and TikTok. The list goes on and on. Rather than being something bizarre, it is in fact the norm for American senators amongst others to do this. In one way or another, everything from China is linked back in a malign way to a Communist Party conspiracy and there is no room for normality.

To understand why this is, one must recognise that American politics operates fundamentally on the medium of fear. The US is a massive federalist democracy with over 300 million people, living across very diverse regions and with polarised worldviews. The constitution entrenches this structure. Once upon a time, the states held more power and autonomy than they have today. However, the civil war and its consequences produced a political trajectory which leaned towards the centralisation of executive power by various means.

This trend continued into the 20th century and the significant influences upon it were World Wars I and II, as well as the Great Depression. When facing such challenges, how do you keep your country together? Not only by legal centralisation, as per the expansion of federal authority brought about in Roosevelt’s New Deal, but also through the evocation of fear to maintain unity and conformity in a nation which has always been, and especially today, bitterly divided. Thus, starting with World War II and the expansion of radio and television technology, the US began to intensify its propaganda apparatus to be able to solidify support for its foreign policies.

Therefore, from the Cold War onwards, the weaponisation of fear became the primary American tool to legitimise its foreign policy objectives and enforce unity even amidst contentious debates at home. The first notable expression of this was the McCarthyist era and the Red Scare. American officials learnt to weaponise, exaggerate and use irrational fear to enforce loyalty to the state by creating wild conspiracy theories of infiltration and subversion. They also used this to close down the political debate and stifle dissent, with the degree of paranoia weaponised to prevent criticism, often by accusing the critic of being compromised by the adversary or inauthentic in some way.

Whatever the specific accusation, the end goal of such fearmongering is to forcibly exclude the target product from the American market and then to convince allies to do the same. This is most notable in the treatment of Huawei’s participation in Western 5G networks. Huawei was accused, without any substantial evidence, of being a security risk and spying on behalf of China. Per the American way, the accusation is repeated again and again, and then the establishment media serve a function of parroting that claim uncritically by conveying it as unbiased “concerns” without touching upon the true motive. It turns public opinion against the target and secures the desired foreign policy outcomes.

Calling garlic, of all things, a “national security threat” has been deservedly laughed at, therefore revealing the limitations of such hysteria-inducing tactics. Scott’s obvious real motive was to push for eliminating Chinese agricultural goods to protect American producers. To some extent, successive presidential administrations have been doing the same, though their usual angle was “forced labour” as they attempted to weaponise human rights against goods like tomatoes or cotton from Xinjiang.

However, the sheer nonsense of Scott’s comments only serve to show how paranoia in US politics is deliberately opportunistic and rarely ever based on facts. The US sees fear as a very powerful weapon and tool of persuasion to push conformity and unity in an otherwise bitterly divided political order with a constitutionally limited central authority. And it works.

A teacher in suburban Paris is being accused of Islamophobia for showing her class, for the purpose of an analytical exercise, the classic painting ‘Diana and Actaeon’ by Giuseppe Cesari – all because the “five muses of antiquity” depicted happened to be naked. It’s a painting, not a porno.

Although the artist, who has been dead for nearly four centuries, probably didn’t have any intention to offend anyone with his portrayal of the nymphs when he created the piece back in the 17th century, his work apparently now serves as a convenient springboard for the kind of gratuitous victimhood that has become so rampant in the current age of cancel culture, where just about the worst thing you can be accused of is offending anyone. 

By the end of the school day, parents of the handful of kids at Jacques-Cartier Middle School in the Parisian suburb of Issou, who, according to the school board, had reportedly turned away from the painting when it was presented in class, were already hanging out in front of the school and demanding explanations for what the French press says they qualified as Islamophobic. By the next school day, the school’s teaching staff had exercised their right not to show up to work out of fear, and the French minister of education had to personally show up on campus in an effort to put a lid on a fiasco that risked boiling over. 

The school is a mere 34 kilometers from the middle school in Conflans-Saint-Honorine, in front of which teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded for showing provocative Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed to a class for educational and debate purposes in October 2020. The incident gave rise to a known radical Islamist sending out viral online messages that were picked up and acted on by a motivated 18-year old Muslim refugee who was subsequently killed on site by police responding to the teacher’s assassination. Earlier this month, six juveniles were criminally convicted for collaborating with the killer in targeting Paty. 

Look, just because a teacher quotes a reference to Hamas as terrorists doesn’t mean that the teacher is Islamophobic or some kind of rabid Zionist. One may not personally agree with that particular characterization – because one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter – but that’s the actual current policy of France and the European Union. The teachers, if they want to do their job as objectively as possible, don’t have much wiggle room behind adhering to establishment doctrine.

What are they supposed to do – open a debate? Everyone loves that idea until the teacher fails to come down on the side that one favors. With so many teachers fearfully withdrawing their services, it’s no wonder there aren’t enough of them. Last September, about 50% of high schools and middle schools were short at least one teacher, according to the teachers’ union. This is definitely a step up from the school bedbug infestations that were making headlines for teacher withdrawals earlier this year. 

Much like free speech, statues, drawings, and paintings are also part of Western culture and civilization. One of the main selling points of accepting more immigrants, as promoted by the Western establishment, is that it’s a means of culturally enriching Western democracies even more. Demanding that classical cultural works be covered up, torn down, or censored because they’re offensive to immigrant cultures flies right in the face of that argument.

Come on, folks. We’re talking about France here. One of the national symbols, Marianne, was perhaps most famously depicted as a topless woman in Eugene Delacroix’s legendary painting ‘Liberty Leading the People’, which depicts the moment of popular victory over the elites during the French Revolution. Anyone who’s offended by the natural female form really made the wrong call when deciding that France was the country for them – from the topless sunbathing that doesn’t even warrant a Gallic shrug, to France being the actual birthplace of the bikini when Louis Réard’s invention made its global debut at Paris’ legendary Molitor pool in 1946.  

There are cases of real Islamophobia, which has a very clear definition of prejudice against Muslims. Selective dislike of some aspects of the cultural repertoire of another country doesn’t fit the bill, just like knee-jerk cries of anti-Semitism shouldn’t be used as a means of bullying critics of Israeli foreign policy into submission and silence. These are two sides of the same rhetorical coin. They serve to effectively quell democratic debate – which may be desirable when used in one’s favor, but certainly isn’t when one’s on the receiving end of the same tactics. 

It should be possible, even amid a passionate clash of ideas, to still have nice things like paintings and art – and school teachers who don’t fear for their lives.

December 8, 2023, is a day that will live in infamy. The United States made history of the worst kind by using its permanent seat on the UN Security Council to veto a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution was advanced by the United Arab Emirates (a US partner) and supported by more than 90 member states. It also had preponderant backing in the global organization’s privileged “upper chamber,” the Security Council, where 13 of its 15 members were in favor (while the UK abstained, abdicating its sovereignty to the US, again).

The American veto directly defied UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Not a natural-born rebel, the UN chief had deployed a rarely used procedure to promote the ceasefire, putting his authority on the line. Referring to Article 99 of Chapter 15 of the UN Charter, he already implied that “international peace and security” were in danger. His spokesperson was explicit that Guterres was making a “dramatic constitutional move.” While maintaining diplomatic balance by also highlighting the Hamas attack on Israel, Guterres’ letter to the Security Council depicted the catastrophic suffering of the Palestinians under the ongoing Israeli attack and concluded that “nowhere” was safe in Gaza.

All to no avail. The US could not be swayed and maintained its de facto unconditional support for Israel, even while the latter is conducting an intensifying genocidal assault on Gaza and its civilian population. This is no longer up for debate, and is no secret either; Israeli leaders have repeatedly made statements that signal the kind of intent that is a crucial element in the crime of genocide, while their actions and those of their forces on the ground speak even louder than their words.

The world has taken note. It took no special bias for the Palestinian leadership – the one derived from the PLO, as well as Hamas – to identify the veto as “disastrous” and “a disgrace and another blank cheque given to the occupying state to massacre, destroy and displace.” China and Russia have denounced American double standards and the “death sentence” Washington has handed down on future Palestinian victims of the Israeli assault.

Craig Mokhiber – an authority on international law and former head of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights office in New York – tweeted that “on the eve of the 75th Anniversary of the Genocide Convention, the US has again vetoed a ceasefire in the UN Security Council… demonstrating its further complicity in the #genocide in #Palestine.”

This list of censure and condemnation could be prolonged almost ad infinitum, especially if we add voices from the Global South. The key point, however, should be clear already: The US stands isolated and disgraced by its very own, easily avoidable – or so it would seem – decision. This was, after all, not a vote asking for justice and restitution for the victims, or – perish that radical thought! – for prosecution of the perpetrators. All this was about was the barest of bare minimums, just a ceasefire, not even a peace deal. Still, that was too much to ask of the US.

Historians do not like to predict, but here’s my historian’s prediction: None of the above will ever fade or take on a softer hue. What the US did on December 8 will never appear “understandable” or so “complex” that decent people won’t condemn it. This, on the contrary, will provide a lasting example of what so many Americans profess to love: moral clarity. And that clarity will find an inexcusable, unmitigated, and, yes, evil act that will remain known to human history as precisely that.

Future historians will ask how this happened. How could the single most powerful nation in the world, which claims to lead not only by force but by “values,” side with the Israeli perpetrators of such an outrageous and open crime, while openly contravening much of the international community? Some will even ask the more cynical question how America, even if its elites are entirely bereft of ethics, could do so much harm to itself.

There are, of course, broader reasons for this great American failure. Many have been discussed before. Israel serves the function of an enforcer and imperial outpost in the Middle East and sometimes beyond. As current US President Joe Biden – by now often trending on X as #GenocideJoe – stated in 1986, when still an ambitious and pandering senator, if there were no Israel, America would have to invent one. Let’s set aside that even the callous realpolitik behind such thinking is flawed: If it ever was an asset, Israel is turning into a liability. Let’s just note that the American elite claims to believe that Israel is so useful that the commitment to it must be, in Vice President Kamala Harris’ words, “ironclad.”

But so it was for Ukraine only, as it were, yesterday. And yet Kiev is about to be dropped, as so many US clients before. What makes Israel different? Clearly, it is the long-standing top recipient of US financial and military support. Is it sunk cost fallacy then? Is America so over-committed to Israel that it simply won’t walk away?

Yet that hypothesis does not explain the striking one-sidedness of the US-Israel relationship. If there has ever been a case of wag-the-dog, this is it: One thing that the American veto on the Gaza ceasefire resolution shows is that it is Israel that is dominating US foreign policy, not the other way around. Otherwise, Washington would have sought to find a compromise between preserving its own credibility and interests by allowing at least this very modest resolution to pass, while still supporting Israel in multiple other ways.

Clearly, one thing that is determining this American dependence on another, much smaller country is the massive success of lobbying and foreign influence operations on behalf of Israel. Indeed, it is Israel that has run the most invasive and effective such attack on US politics in history. And for the avoidance of any misunderstandings: Noting this obvious fact has nothing to do with “anti-Semitism.” Indeed, trying to smear those who dare bring it up with that accusation is part of how that influence operation works. It’s time to entirely disregard such cheap tricks.

The most obvious case is Israel’s occupation of Gaza during the Suez Crisis of 1956. While this aspect of this failed Israeli (and British and French) regime-change war against Egypt is almost forgotten now, Israel also occupied Gaza for several months before being forced to leave (to return, of course, in 1967). Then as well, Israeli forces committed various crimes, including massacres of prisoners and civilians, as Israeli historian Benny Morris (by no means a friend of the Palestinians) has described in detail. But back then, under Republican President Dwight ‘Ike’ Eisenhower, the US had a foreign policy that could confront and contravene Israel.

Moreover, Eisenhower’s harsh and decisive intervention against Israel and its European allies happened to be aligned with the Soviet response at the time. As a minimum, here was a tough, conservative American president (and of course ex-military leader of the highest rank) who was not so phobic about “the Russians” as to exclude any coinciding interests.

If only we could return, at least, to a world where Americans could forget a little about their Russia obsession when thinking about foreign influence on their country and focus that concern where it matters, namely on Israel. If in addition they could think a little more about Russia as a viable partner – at least occasionally – in helping resolve severe international crises, we would all be much better off. We might even be able to stop a genocide here or there.

Recently, the Pentagon admitted it couldn’t account for trillions of dollars of US taxpayer money, having failed a massive yearly audit for the sixth year running.

The process consisted of the 29 sub-audits of the DoD’s various services, and only seven passed this year – no improvement over the last. These audits only began taking place in 2017, meaning that the Pentagon has never successfully passed one.

This year’s failure made some headlines, was commented upon briefly by the mainstream media, and then just as quickly forgotten by an American society accustomed to pouring money down the black hole of defense spending.

The defense budget of the United States is grotesquely large, its $877 billion dwarfing the $849 billion spent by the next ten nations with the largest defense expenditures. And yet, the Pentagon cannot fully account for the $3.8 trillion in assets and $4 trillion in liabilities it has accrued at US taxpayer expense, ostensibly in defense of the United States and its allies. As the Biden administration seeks $886 billion for next year’s defense budget (and Congress seems prepared to add an additional $80 billion to that amount), the apparent indifference of the American collective – government, media, and public – to how nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars will be spent speaks volumes about the overall bankrupt nature of the American establishment. 

Audits, however, are an accountant’s trick, a series of numbers on a ledger which, for the average person, do not equate to reality. Americans have grown accustomed to seeing big numbers when it comes to defense spending, and as a result, we likewise expect big things from our military. But the fact is, the US defense establishment increasingly physically resembles the numbers on the ledgers the accountants have been trying to balance – it just doesn’t add up. 

These numbers are mind-numbingly large – so large that they become meaningless to the average person. The US defense enterprise is so massive that it is literally a mission impossible to speak of balancing the books. The American people might be willing to shrug off an accounting error or two. But the defense budget equates to American military power and the perceptions of national worth that translate into notions of American exceptionalism.

The fact of the matter is that our cavalier approach to defense spending has resulted in fraud of a massive scale. The American people were sold a bill of goods – a military capable of projecting power world-wide to sustain the so-called “rules based international order” upon which the notion of American exceptionalism has been premised. As it turns out, the US military is as hollow as the numbers on the Pentagon ledgers. The American people have bought an apparatus that is incapable of fighting and winning a major war against any of the potential opponents arrayed against it. We failed to defeat Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban. And we are not able to defeat either China or Russia, let alone regional powers like North Korea and Iran. And yet we will simply continue to invest, in seemingly unquestioning fashion, into this enterprise, expecting somehow that a system that cannot pass an audit will somehow magically produce a different result despite the fact that we, the American people, are doing nothing to demand such a result.

In short, the defense budget is the equivalent of “pay-to-play,” in which the American people pay the US government to produce the results necessary to sustain their overinflated sense of self-worth. We Americans have become so accustomed to being the biggest, baddest bully in the global arena that we assume that simply by pouring money into a system that had produced the desired results for more than seventy years that we could keep the good times rolling. But when you allocate money to a system that has been allowed to become conditioned to operate without accountability, don’t be surprised when the shiny mansion on the hill you thought you were buying turns out to be little more than a house of cards.

Addressing the first day of the Conference of Parties (COP) in Dubai on 1 December, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that his country could host the conference (COP33) in 2028.

The surprise announcement echoed one he made eight years ago, when India teamed up with France to introduce the International Solar Alliance (ISA) on the first day of the COP meeting in Paris.  Expectations then were that India would be intransigent at the negotiations, forcing a stalemate at a time when the world was desperately seeking a blueprint to fend off the growing threat of climate change. 

In fact, India’s proactive stance paved the way for a historic climate deal wherein member countries committed to cut emissions by 2030 and submit to a review at this year’s meeting in Dubai. It was a defining moment for Indian climate diplomacy, which until then had been perceived as a compulsive naysayer which continued to insist that developed nations had to bear the responsibility for the legacy of carbon emissions.

Accordingly, India backed a deal which compelled individual member nations to adhere to differing sets of commitments. The updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), approved in 2022, aims to reduce emissions intensity by 45% by 2030.

It is not that India has abandoned its stance. In fact, PM Modi alluded to it in his pitch when he said at the COP meeting in Dubai that “India has set an example for the world to have a perfect balance between ecology and economy. Despite India having 17 percent of the world's population, our share in global carbon emissions is less than four percent.” India reinvented its approach to climate policy and went from being part of the problem to part of the solution.

At the same time, by creating the ISA, India emerged as the co-owner of an international institution in the climate-adjacent space. While the recalibration of its climate 'persona' provided India with flexibility, the creation of institutions like the ISA has allowed it the freedom to negotiate on different platforms and on specific subjects. The ISA has focused on garnering investment and technology for solar installations in the global South.

As a result, India has gone from being a reluctant player to emerging as a key global forse in battling climate change. The pitch to host COP33 is therefore a continuation of this strategy and indicates the maturing of India in global climate politics.

COP Tactics

First off, by offering to host the COP summit in 2028, India is reiterating that it is not going to walk back the commitments made at Paris and the promise to go net zero by 2070.

India is also reinforcing its newly acquired diplomatic agility by establishing co-leadership positions in multilateral and minilateral frameworks. The idea is to leverage these platforms along with bilateral engagements to secure finance and technology to enable domestic decarbonisation.

It is estimated that developing countries, excluding China, will need about $2 trillion every year to enable climate mitigation. While this estimate is staggering, even the financing made available so far has come in the form of loans. To make matters work, several countries are facing a debt crisis in the aftermath of the turmoil first brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic.

At the same time, most of the technology, including for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is located in developed countries.

Furthermore, 2030 is a key year in the battle against climate change. It will see whether the commitments made in Paris have been honoured. Hence, by offering to host COP, India is in a strategic position to shape the contours of the next global climate deal.

While renewable energy capacity has been witnessing a rapid increase in the country over the past decade, India will still need to rely on fossil fuel to feed its growing demand for energy. The country will therefore be very keen on steering away from a new climate agreement which denies it this option.

However, in order for New Delhi’s plan to be operationalised, it will have to be accorded the right to host COP33. It is not a done deal. For example, Australia had offered to host COP31 in 2026, but will now have to compete with Türkiye, which threw its hat in the ring last week. 

If India does end up hosting COP in 2028, it will be the second time – the country hosted COP8 in 2002. 

Regardless, it is clear that increasingly India, driven by the sheer size of its population and potential economic growth, is being counted as an important player in shaping the battle against climate change.

With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the running as an independent candidate in the 2024 presidential election, it’s a good time to revisit a part of the US election process that seems specifically designed to protect the status quo.

In 1987, a strange thing happened on the treacherous road to US democracy. Instead of the League of Women Voters (LWV) sponsoring the US presidential debates, something the ladies had done without a hitch since 1976, the campaign teams of George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis agreed behind closed doors to a “memorandum of understanding” that would authorize them to decide on a number of crucial issues, including how candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals could serve as panelists, and even the height of the lecterns.

Thus was born the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a nonprofit corporation established under the joint control of the Democratic and Republican parties, which lays down the law as to who may participate in the televised debates. Yes, you read that right. The two major political parties in the country, which have enjoyed a duopoly over the White House since the Civil War (specifically with the election of the Republican President Ulysses S. Grant in 1869), awarded themselves the authority to keep all possible contenders to the throne at a safe distance. That’s a bit like Miss Pennsylvania and Miss New York teaming up to determine who may qualify in the annual Miss America beauty pageant. Not surprisingly, many voices in the country expressed outrage over the change.

“The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations [Democrats and Republicans] would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter,” LWV President Nancy M. Neuman said in a news release dated October 3, 1988.

Perhaps the most mischievous demand laid down by the CPD is that would-be third party or independent candidates must attract at least 15% support across five national polls to be included on the debate stage. Considering that the polls are typically organized by the media and other organizations that have no small political ax to grind, this opens the floodgates for all sorts of dangerous shenanigans, both real and imagined.

Take for example the 1992 presidential election. Despite allegations of media bias, Texas businessman Ross Perot and his running mate, James Stockdale, managed to garner enough support in the polls to participate in the debates against the Clinton-Gore (Democrat) and Bush-Quayle (Republican) tickets. But barely. Since then, no third-party or independent candidate has been allowed to share the stage with the Republican and Democratic candidates. But certainly not for lack of trying. In fact, several presidential hopefuls, with a large base of support, have been imprisoned trying to rock the boat.

On October 8, 2004, two presidential candidates, Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb, were arrested while protesting against CPD for excluding third-party candidates from the nationally televised debates sponsored by Arizona State University. The Libertarians filed a lawsuit, contending that the university had broken the law by donating $2 million in public funds to the debate, while prohibiting other legitimate candidates from participating in the “open” event. While the lawsuit had some merit, the courts tossed out the claims, saying the debates would provide “educational value.”

Clearly, the establishment enjoys multiple ways of damaging a candidate’s prospects of reaching the magical threshold – from conducting outright media smear campaigns, to simply reducing the airtime given to the candidate’s political platform. And if the last decade has taught Americans anything, it is that a candidate need not be a Donald Trump to suffer unfair treatment at the hands of the media.

In the run-up to 2012 presidential election, Ron Paul, who campaigned on the highly controversial ‘ending the Federal Reserve’ platform, was routinely shunned by the media talking heads despite placing second at one point among Republican nominees. Things got so bad that the comedian/political pundit John Stewart put together a compilation on this glaring media bias that demonstrates the raw power of the fourth estate in driving the election process.

The last time the CPD faced a serious legal challenge was in 2020 when the Libertarian and Green parties, led by nonprofit group Level the Playing Field, made an unsuccessful bid to sue the Federal Election Commission. The groups argued that the CPD is “not remotely non-partisan,” but instead works to keep third parties on the margins.

Presidential debates became a regular feature of American elections in the 1960 televised showdown between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. The debate was watched by 70 million Americans and, according to the National Constitution Center, it “made politics an electronic spectator sport.” It also gave voters an opportunity to see presidential candidates in a live environment, as potential leaders on the national and global stage.

Unfortunately, independent aspirants to the White House – like JFK’s nephew, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has entered the 2024 presidential election as an independent and possible ‘spoiler’ – will find it increasingly difficult to make it to the ‘live stage’ of the contests with so much at stake.

Whether this is the year that the CPD will finally be exposed for its iron grip on the US democratic process, or it will remain bipartisan politics as usual, remains to be seen.

The ongoing ruling-class meltdown over the recent Dublin riots tells us a lot about the breadth and depth of the gulf fixed between Western governments and their citizens. It’s as if those in charge are outraged by the temerity of their subjects to cry out over the pain and death inflicted upon them by their supposed leaders.

Angry Irish citizens took to the streets, chanting “Enough is enough,” after suffering the latest consequence of mass migration: The November 23 stabbing attack in which three children and two adults were injured in central Dublin. Having failed to be heard by the policymakers who are destroying their quality of life, they burned buses, torched police cars, and clashed violently with officers.

The suspect hasn’t been identified or officially arrested. Unlike the Irish people, he’s being protected by their government, and he’s reportedly too incapacitated to be questioned by police because of injuries suffered during the stabbing spree. He has been described as a 49-year-old Algerian who was given Irish citizenship.

A media controversy erupted days after the attack when independent journalist John McGuirk reported – incorrectly – that the suspect was an Algerian migrant who had been living in Ireland, at taxpayer expense, since 2003. McGuirk referred to a man who faced a deportation order after an arrest years ago, but he was allowed to stay in the country and was later given an Irish passport. Earlier this year, he was arrested for illegal knife possession and damaging a car. He was let go by the court because of a mental health issue, according to media reports.

Police subsequently revealed that McGuirk had identified the wrong Algerian migrant. Although he wasn’t named in the article, the details of his background made it possible for online sleuths to identify him. Police are now protecting the man who was misidentified, according to media reports, while continuing to withhold information about the actual suspect.

McGuirk took down his erroneous article from the internet and issued a statement saying that the source who gave him false identification was a senior police official. He also cross-checked the information with a senior official in the Irish justice system before posting his story. His media outlet, Gript Media, is now investigating whether the false tip was a deliberate act of sabotage.

It would be easy to see why powerful figures in the Irish government would be pleased to have such a story misreported by an adversarial journalist. The discussion has turned to the spread of “misinformation” and the inciting of angry citizens rather than excessive immigration and poor public safety.

The situation is reminiscent of when WikiLeaks reported on emails showing that America’s Democratic National Committee had rigged the party’s 2016 presidential primaries in favor of its chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton. Rather than focusing on the scandal, legacy media outlets made the story about Clinton’s unproven claims that Russian hackers stole the emails and gave them to WikiLeaks.

Ironically, the distraction and misdirection in the Dublin story doesn’t really matter. The fact is that the dangerous migrant identified by McGuirk has been allowed to stay in Ireland by a government that doesn’t prioritize the safety of its own people. He didn’t perpetrate this particular assault, but he’s a criminal migrant, and if and when he commits another crime, it will be an unforced error inflicted on the Irish people by their government. The fact also remains that the real suspect is an Algerian migrant, meaning he came from a country more than 1,000 miles away that isn’t at war. If he was a legitimate refugee, Ireland wasn’t the nearest available safe haven – not by a long shot.

However, if Ireland’s leaders can help it, attention will be shifted away from the country’s migration crisis. Never mind the policies that endanger Irish citizens and diminish their quality of life. There won’t be a serious discussion, either, of why illegitimate asylum seekers and other migrants are allowed to stay in the country, even after they’ve committed crimes.

Rather than decrying the stabbing of children or confronting the policy questions raised by the rampage, Irish government officials and their media stenographers are focusing their ire on the citizens who violently demanded change, dismissing them as “emboldened racists.”

National police chief Drew Harris blamed the riots on a “complete lunatic hooligan factor driven by far-right ideology.” Justice Minister Helen McEntee pledged tougher police tactics to quell any such revolts by the “thugs and criminals” who were using the stabbing attack to “sow division.” Kenyan-born UK politician Lilian Seenoi-Barr blamed the unrest on a small far-right minority and called the rioters an “organized terrorist group of people who want to harm immigrants.”

To the extent the mob was whipped up, it was whipped up by reality – the reality created by the policies of the country’s tone-deaf leaders. The influx of migrants – many of them illegitimate asylum seekers from outside war zones – has swelled Ireland’s population to 5.15 million, up 31% in the past two decades. One in five residents of Ireland isn’t Irish-born. Many young people have given up on looking for homes because of the housing crisis and crushing inflation. Rates of murder and other crimes have risen sharply.

As for the notion that people are violently angry about their collapsing quality of life, recent polling shows that 75% of Irish people believe their country is taking in too many asylum seekers. An even larger majority, 76%, agreed that it was justifiable for people to be angry when migrants were moved into their communities. Presumably, most of those citizens aren’t inclined to torch trams or burn buses, but if even one in 100 of the people who oppose what’s being done to their country are angry enough to rise up, you have a mob nearly 400,000 strong.

Not all of the rioters were motivated by real grievances. Some, for instance, took the unrest as an opportunity to loot. In any case, a strong majority of the Irish people aren’t getting what they want from policymakers. Their message isn’t being heard when they burn things, just as it was ignored when they held peaceful protests. So, what comes next?

Irish leaders have responded by demonizing their critics and criminalizing dissent. For example, Irish MMA legend Conor McGregor is reportedly among the many people being investigated for alleged “incitement to hatred.” McGregor posted on social media that the stabbing suspect was a “grave danger among us in Ireland that should never be here in the first place.” Deputy Prime Minister Micheal Martin denounced the fighter’s accurate comment as “absolutely disgraceful,” to which McGregor responded by calling the politician “worthless and spineless.”

Contrast the reaction in Dublin with how the Western ruling class treated the Black Lives Matter riots in 2020. There were scenes of police kneeling with the protestors rather than calling them extremist hooligans. Rather than calling for everyone to hush up about the racial overtones of the triggering event – the death of a black criminal, George Floyd, after a white police officer kneeled on his neck – the story was made all about racism.

Even as cities burned and dozens of people were killed, many politicians agreed with the mob’s demands to “defund the police” and “reimagine policing.” The future US vice president, Kamala Harris, promoted a fundraising campaign to bail out rioters who had been arrested during the mayhem. Nike, Google, Apple, and other big names in Corporate America pledged massive donations to “racial justice” causes.

And while inflaming the Dublin rioters by linking the crime to migration has been deemed irresponsible, inflaming the BLM mob with falsehood may even have a government strategy. A new documentary on Floyd’s death has claimed that the original autopsy found no indication that he had died from injury to his neck; however, he was infected with Covid-19 and had fatal levels of fentanyl in his blood. A day after the medical examiner met with FBI agents, the documentary said, the autopsy was altered to suggest that Floyd had been killed by police.

The cop who was found guilty of killing Floyd, Derek Chauvin, is still serving a long sentence in prison, where he was stabbed 22 times by another inmate last month. His attacker was a former FBI informant.

Western rulers seem to base their reaction to civil unrest and violent crimes on the ideology of the perpetrators. If it aligns with the political agenda, the message is amplified and treated sympathetically. If it exposes the folly of destructive policies, it must be crushed. The BLM riots provided an opportunity for race-baiters to further divide the people and promote “reforms” that favor criminals over law-abiding citizens and non-white people over whites. The Dublin riots screamed that the people had reached their breaking point with mass migration and leaders who refused to serve the interests of their citizens.

A similar approach is taken to other high-profile crimes. When a white gunman wounded four people at a Missouri Walmart last month, the FBI came out just two days later to report that the shooter may have been motivated by racist ideology. Never mind that two of his victims were white, and two were black. 

And yet, more than eight months on from an incident in which a transgender shooter killed three children and three adults at a Christian elementary school in Tennessee, police are still refusing to release the “manifesto” written by the murderer. In fact, seven officers have been suspended on suspicion that they may have leaked part of the document online. In leaked pages of the manifesto, shooter Audrey Hale spoke of killing “all you little crackers” with “white privileges.” Similarly, it took seven months for police to reveal that the man who killed five people and wounded eight at a Kentucky bank wanted to inspire tougher gun control laws by killing “upper-class white people.”

The suppression of truth, the lying, and the situational outrage cannot be sustained forever. Leaders who cram down policies that destroy their countries and harm their citizens, whom they supposedly represent, cannot endlessly evade a real reckoning of their betrayals. The critics can no longer be completely silenced, no matter how aggressive the censorship efforts.

How sustainable is being at war with your own people? How long can a government defy the interests of its citizens and vilify those who complain? Short of replacing the native-born population quickly enough to avert accountability, the leaders will have to answer to their subjects at some point.

The same voices that call for tamping down the rhetoric and even suppressing the facts to avoid inflaming the mob in Dublin are only inciting more escalation by dismissing the rioters as extremist, racist thugs. People whose lives are being destroyed – at their own expense, as taxpayers, and by the traitorous leaders who have a moral duty to serve their interests – will eventually find a way to be heard.

The year 2023 certainly cannot end soon enough for the Biden regime. On the very same day House Republicans moved to formalize an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden, special counsel David Weiss filed a nine-count indictment against Hunter Biden alleging failure to file and pay taxes; evasion of tax investigation; and filing fraudulent tax returns.

The timing is no coincidence, as father and son were practically joined at bank accounts throughout Joe Biden’s two-term vice presidency, which is when the alleged criminal activities occurred.

The charges laid out in the 56-page indictment against Hunter Biden shed a painful light on his infamously fast and furious lifestyle, which included drug use and prostitutes.

“The defendant engaged in a four-year scheme to not pay at least $1.4 million in self-assessed federal taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019,” the indictment read, adding that Biden “spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle rather than paying his tax bills.”

In 2018 alone, the indictment continued, Biden “spent more than $1.8 million, including approximately $772,000 in cash withdrawals, approximately $383,000 in payments to women, approximately $151,000 in clothing and accessories,” as well as a host of other expenditures, including “drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature.”

If found guilty of the charges (don’t hold your breath), which include three felonies and six misdemeanor offenses, Hunter Biden, 53, would be eligible for up to 17 years behind bars. Previously, Washington’s prodigal son was prepared to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax charges as part of a plea bargain, which the Republicans chastised as a “sweetheart deal” and was ultimately rejected by the judge.

Ever since Joe Biden hit the campaign trail, he promised to the American people that he had never been involved in influence-peddling schemes with family members while serving as vice president in the Obama administration. Now that story appears to be imploding at lightning speed.

This week, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer released subpoenaed bank records showing an enterprise owned by Hunter Biden had made “direct monthly payments to Joe Biden.” The allegations were substantiated by the courageous work of two IRS whistleblowers.

“This wasn’t a payment from Hunter Biden’s personal account but an account for his corporation that received payments from China and other shady corners of the world,” Comer said just days before Hunter was charged. The indictment says Hunter “earned handsomely” while serving on the boards of Burisma, a Ukrainian industrial conglomerate, and a Chinese equity fund, and this is where it gets problematic for “the big guy.”

In 2017, Hunter sent a WhatsApp message censuring Henry Zhao, the CEO of Beijing-based firm Harvest Fund Management, for not fulfilling a “commitment.” He also mentioned, apparently for dramatic effect, that his father, then vice president of the United States, was sitting beside him.

“I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,” Hunter wrote. “Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight.” 

“Payments from Hunter’s business entity to Joe Biden are now part of a pattern revealing Joe Biden knew about, participated in, and benefited from his family’s influence peddling schemes,” Comer said.  

For the record, Joe Biden has consistently denied any knowledge or participation in his son’s business dealings.

It goes without saying that Hunter Biden’s indictment and Joe Biden’s possible impeachment has been cheered on by former President Donald Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination to challenge Biden in November, and the only president in US history to be impeached twice.

A final curious note about the indictment against Hunter Biden. It came as some surprise not just because Hunter happens to be the son of the most powerful octogenarian in the world, but because it happened to be a grand jury in California that handed down the indictment. Not only are we talking about the liberal capital of the free world, but it just so happens to be run by a Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who has serious presidential ambitions. 

“I think a lot of people felt … that David Weiss was going to let these charges skate and Hunter Biden would never be held accountable for making millions of dollars overseas,” Republican lawmaker Sean Duffy told Fox News, adding that if the legal landscape worsens for the Bidens in this Los Angeles case, the Democrats will be forced to seek an “off ramp [and] look to the hair-gel governor” there in 2024.

Those who are inclined to believe that ‘there are no coincidences in politics’ will probably also not be surprised if Joe Biden is replaced as the Democratic presidential candidate in the very near future. Just a hunch.

The South American nation of Venezuela has purportedly voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to affirm its territorial claim to part of the neighboring nation of Guyana.

Caracas, which was recently subject to an unsuccessful American regime change attempt to topple its leader Nicholas Maduro, argues the oil reach territory known as the Essequibo region was its own historically, but had it stolen away by the British Empire. Such grievances may be found all over the world.

While an invasion of the region remains unlikely at this point, given the role of regional power Brazil and obvious opposition from the nearby US, it is a telling sign about the world today that Venezuela feels it can viably affirm its claims like that. Only a few years ago, the US imposed crippling sanctions on the country and appointed Juan Guaido as an “interim president.” Where is Guaido now? He’s a political exile who rode on a failed dream and eventually joined the scrapheap of puppets used, abused and discarded as Washington’s political preferences shift – the likely looming fate of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky.

But more to the point, it is an affirmation that the US-led world order is fragmenting and that American power is declining. This is paving the way for other countries to reshape the international order to address what are deemed to be historic grievances or injustices. The weakening of the unipolar political order’s ability to assert its authority presents a window for overt challenges to the status quo for nations that were previously unable to do so.

In 1990, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein attempted to do the same, but massively miscalculated the shift towards American unipolar hegemony at the end of the Cold War, believing Washington did not have the will to fight. Seeking to rectify the perceived partition of Iraq by the British Empire and the creation of the Sheikdom of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein invaded and attempted to annex the Gulf State. The US and its allies hit back with a powerful response, and George H.W. Bush famously proclaimed the objective of creating a “new world order.” His message was essentially that American hegemony was here, and that the US would now reshape the world on its own terms.

The two wars of 2022-2023 have been instrumental in changing this. First of all, the US and its allies have not been able to muster the political will to defeat Russia in Ukraine or, as they had assumed, even crush the economy of the Russian Federation. Second, America’s support of Israel and its attempts to squeeze Iran have provoked a war in Gaza, with Hamas successfully sensing an opportunity to lure Israel into a destructive conflict which will crater its credibility and global standing for generations. As the US has become distracted by the emerging crises and seemingly unable to resolve them, Venezuela thus sees an opportunity to strengthen its hand by reaffirming its territorial claims over Guyana as a nationalism-driven bargaining chip.

Venezuela is not a major military power and its geographic location means that an attempt to forcibly occupy the Essequibo would be defeated, as the US is on its doorstep and would do everything it takes to crush hostile states in the western hemisphere. However, Washington’s failed regime change, combined with its need to negotiate sanctions relief due to the impact on global oil markets, mean its own hand against Caracas has shrunk, and the US is not in a position to crush Venezuela as of present. Even without the military dynamic, an extended territorial claim gives a country diplomatic leverage that it can use to extract concessions and assert its authority, just like China in the South China Sea, over Taiwan, or Russia incorporating a number of Ukrainian oblasts into its own territory. All these are part of a long list of historic problems which the given states have been unable to address before, held back by American hegemony, but we now live in a different world and because of that, the political map as we know it is changing.

The governments of the US and India are under tremendous diplomatic pressure after Washington accused New Delhi of orchestrating a plot to murder US-based Khalistan movement leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun.  

Designated by the Indian government as a terrorist, Pannun is a lawyer in New York, who in 2007 founded Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), an organization that is banned in India, as it advocates for a separate homeland for Sikhs – Khalistan – that would be carved out of the state of Punjab and some neighbouring areas.

The plot was foiled by the US FBI. Last week, the US Department of Justice charged Indian national and drug smuggler Nikhil Gupta of plotting to kill Pannun, who is not directly named in the indictment, at the behest of an Indian official. 

The US is taking the case very seriously and has in recent months pressed the Indian government to investigate the matter on its end. 

India has set up a high level committee to look into the case. Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has stated more than once that if India was provided with specific information, it would act on it, adding that it is not the Indian government’s policy to undertake actions such as this.

Pannun’s saga is unfolding against the backdrop of a similar case – which is, unsurprisingly, mentioned in the FBI investigation. 

Trudeau believed that the allegations were credible and chose to make his sensational accusation on the floor of the Canadian parliament in September, which led to an unprecedented diplomatic spat between the two countries. 

New Delhi called the allegations absurd. It also accused Canada of failing to take action against citizens who support the Khalistan movement, which advocates for separatism in India’s Punjab, a very sensitive state bordering Pakistan that has seen a spate of terrorist violence since the 1980s. This is in spite of the fact that these activists have openly advocated for terrorist violence against India and physically threatened Indian diplomats in Canada, as well as senior Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

India felt that Canada, including its diplomats in India, were interfering in its internal affairs and forced 41 Canadian diplomats to leave the country.

Notably, the US and Canada have worked closely on the Nijjar case. The evidence to support Trudeau’s allegations, even though it was never shared publicly, was collected with the help of Ottawa’s partners in the Five Eyes intelligence group, which also includes the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. All of these countries have expressed their “concern” and sought India’s cooperation on the Nijjar case.  

The White House and the US State Department have asked India publicly to cooperate with the Canadian authorities in their investigation and hold those allegedly responsible in India accountable. Commenting in September on whether Canada’s case could potentially affect US-India relations, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated bluntly that no country had any special exemption in such matters.

There is a difference, however, in New Delhi’s reaction to accusations made by Canada and the US. While Ottawa has to date provided no specific information to India on Nijjar’s case that could be pursued on its end, the US has apparently provided specific information on the Pannun case so that India can investigate on its end. This has been stated by India’s Foreign Minister, this time in the Indian parliament. According to an Indian spokesperson, the information that the US has shared involves organized violence, drug smuggling, and terrorism, all of which pose a threat to the security of both countries.

Both the White House spokesperson and Blinken have welcomed the Indian response to US allegations with regards to Pannun’s case. There is a clear desire on both sides to contain the fallout of this case, which explains the White House statement that while they take the Pannun case very seriously, it will not have an impact on the India-US strategic partnership which the US will continue to work to improve and strengthen.

This is borne out by the fact that the India-US 2+2 Dialogue (between the Foreign and Defence Ministers of the two countries) was held on schedule. The Deputy National Security Adviser of the US has just visited India to discuss bilateral ties, particularly the cooperation in critical technologies, even as the Pannun case was raised. New Delhi is also placing the imminent visit of the FBI Director Wray next week in the context of shared security concerns of the two countries. The fact that Pannun has threatened to attack Indian parliament on the eve of the FBI Director’s visit knowing India will raise his case with US suggests that he feels protected and has a sense of immunity.

New York-based Pannun, who belongs to the banned Sikhs for Justice organization, has been organizing “referendums” for an independent Khalistan in India, openly supporting separatism, and threatening the Indian prime minister and the external affairs minister. 

He publicly threatened to blow up an Air India flight on November 19. Sikh terrorists downed an Air India plane in 1985, killing 329 innocent people. Pannun issued a warning of an attack on Indira Gandhi International Airport New Delhi, as well as the finals of the Cricket World Cup in India. This week, Pannun appeared to issue a new threat – claiming that the Indian government had tried to kill him, he said the response on December 13 would shake “the very foundation” of the Indian parliament. December 13 marks the anniversary of a 2021 terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament building, which killed nine people.

Despite the fact that American Sikh extremists have twice attempted to fire bomb the Indian Consulate in San Francisco, no known action has been taken by the US authorities to curb Pannun’s activities. 

This is even more true of Canada, where Khalistani supporters wield political power. Trudeau’s minority government is critically dependent on the New Democratic Party (NDP) party, which is headed by Jagmeet Singh, a known Khalistani sympathizer.

The US, Canada, and the UK claim that they cannot take legal action against Pannun as freedom of speech and the right to peacefully protest cannot be restricted under their laws. This is not an argument that India accepts.

The question therefore arises as to why these countries refuse to take any action against these elements on their own soil that target a friendly country, with which they have a strategic partnership. The first principle of such a partnership should be respecting the sovereignty of the other and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. The suspicion therefore is that these anti-Indian elements and the cause they espouse is being kept as a pressure point on India by the Deep State. 

It is interesting that the Pannun story was first leaked by more than one unidentified source to the Financial Times. Chrystia Freeland, the deputy prime minister of Canada, held editorial positions at the Financial Times in the UK, was the FT correspondent in Moscow, and the managing editor of FT US. She also held an editorial position at the Globe and Mail in Canada, to which the alleged Indian connection with the Nijjar case was leaked before Trudeau made his statement in parliament. 

The US Drug Enforcement Agency which is involved in the Pannun story has its own methods of working involving active entrapment. The US Department of Justice is allegedly rather politicized. Many elements in the US media, academic circles, think tanks, human rights organizations, and the ‘progressive’ sections of Democratic Party have been targeting India on democracy, human rights, and minority issues. The narrative is that the Biden administration is ‘soft’ on India and its adherence to US values is suspect. 

The Pannun murder plot, an attempt to assassinate a US citizen on American soil allegedly by official Indian elements, would only reinforce that narrative.

While the US has been publicly asking New Delhi to cooperate with Ottawa in its investigation of the Nijjar case, it has never asked Canada to cooperate with India to address the latter’s concerns about extremist and terrorist elements that operate on Canadian soil.

At the end of the day, Pannun is not important enough as a target in the overall scheme of things to take such a risk, as the chances of exposure would be real. India has been suffering from deadly terrorist attacks for decades, including the horrific attack in Mumbai in November 2008 that killed 166 people and injured over 300. But India has not taken out a known terrorist involved in it next door. This is not India’s policy as a law abiding democratic country.

It is regrettable that American, British, and Canadian agencies are working to give an international profile and respectability to terrorists like Pannun. Is the intention by some in these countries to revive a terrorist threat in a part of India where there is virtually no local support, but elements of the Sikh diaspora in the West are active in stirring up trouble.

Where India Meets Russia – We are now on WhatsApp! ‎Follow and share RT India in English and in Hindi 

The president of the United States has caused a stir. Speaking to Congress, Joe Biden brought up the possibility of “American troops fighting Russian troops.”

Biden, of course, has repeatedly had problems staying on script or keeping his thoughts straight, resulting in embarrassing gaffes, such as calling his Vice President Kamala Harris a “great president” or mixing up Ukraine and Iran.

However, in this case, his delivery was reasonably coherent. His statement was deliberate, and he even repeated it to make sure his audience fully appreciated its gravity.

No wonder it raised eyebrows. A war between America and Russia, would feature the two largest – by far – of the world’s nine nuclear powers. And others, such as Great Britain or China, for instance, could be drawn in as well because such a conflict would easily turn into a world war. Even the conventional arsenals of Washington and Moscow would guarantee devastation, at least in Europe and probably elsewhere, too.

Yet it is important to understand the context of Biden’s remarks and to be precise about what he said – and what he did not say.

Regarding the context, the American president is on the defensive, not so much against Russia as against the Republicans. They are steadfastly refusing to pass a spending bill that is mostly a vehicle to transfer yet another whopping $61 billion of aid to Ukraine. That would come on top of a current – as of October – total of $116 billion already approved by the American Congress in response to the war in Ukraine.

The opposition to releasing more funding has more than one reason. Republicans are explicit about the fact that they are using the administration’s request as leverage. They want concessions to their ideas about hardening America’s borders against immigration. Since the White House will not play ball, Republicans will no longer cooperate on money for Ukraine. In that sense, this is just everyday politics: tough horse-trading cloaked in overblown rhetoric.

No wonder Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has canceled his already scheduled remote appearance before Congress. He is no longer treated as special, and his pleas would have made no difference, leaving him with nothing but additional public humiliation.

At the same time, the demotion of the proxy war from a sort of holy war for Western “values” (whatever those may be) to a tradeable item could not have happened without the failure of Ukraine and its sponsors on the battlefield. The Republicans’ intransigence and Biden’s escalating rhetoric are the result of a real, realistic, and by now openly admitted sense that this is likely to be a lost cause.

This brings us back to the question of what exactly the American president has actually said. In essence, he has delivered two key points. One was his unfounded, if popular, guess – presented with the usual aplomb as certainty – that if Russia wins the war in Ukraine, it will inevitably go on to attack other countries. And since Biden also assumes that Moscow’s future targets would include NATO member states – clearly in Eastern Europe, in particular – he concluded that such a Russian attack would trigger America’s treaty obligation to fight Russia directly.

Of course, experts at least know that even NATO’s famed Article Five is not the hair trigger many believe it to be. In reality, according to the letter of the NATO treaty, member states do not automatically have to go to war when another member state is attacked. But it is a political fact that NATO’s real-world credibility rests on the idea that its members will defend each other militarily and without hesitation. 

Hence, Biden’s warning that if Ukraine loses, America and Russia could end up at war both is and is not about Ukraine. It is, because Ukraine’s looming defeat is its trigger. It is not, because Biden has not threatened such a fight in or over Ukraine. Instead, he has not only made clear who Washington claims to be ready to defend by going to war with Moscow but also who it will not defend in that manner, namely Ukraine. For Kiev, this must be bitter. But it was predictable. The Zelensky regime allowed the West, led by the US, to use its country as a pawn – good enough to bleed profusely but not good enough for membership of the club. What Biden has said is simply a summary of that sad, cruel, and humiliating fact. In other times, Zelensky would have had only one honorable thing left to do. He’ll probably go for a golden exile instead.

On the surface, the American president seems to still try to avert Ukraine’s defeat. But that is deceptive, for two reasons. Biden’s talk may sound like an attempt to pressure the obstinate Republicans into finally coughing up the money to save the day. But, in reality, it is more likely that the president or those around him know that the day cannot be saved anymore. Hence, in reality, this warning is an early move in the blame game. Once Ukraine is defeated, the question “who lost Ukraine” will poison American politics, perhaps, depending on the precise timing of that defeat, even during a presidential election.

Biden is merely preparing the ground for blaming the Republicans for what will be the result of his administration’s arrogant high-risk policy. Will that work? Probably not outside Democratic true-believer circles. 

What a message, once unpacked. Even on its own terms, it reeks of despair and bluffing. And if it’s not a bluff, then what a promise: Don’t worry. If you are attacked, there will be World War Three.

The reality is that the Western gamble in Ukraine has done irreversible damage – to the West (apart from Ukraine, of course). NATO has dealt a crushing and probably lasting blow to its own credibility. The West’s – and really Europe’s and the world’s – real hope does not lie in American words about resolve. Ask in Kiev: they were fed the same “with-you-to-the-end” shlock. And Article Five cannot be relied on to make the difference, because the US will only ever consult its own – usually misguided – self-interest, and its NATO “allies” (vassals, really) would be naive to rely on it. Berlin even might; Paris, for instance, not so much. No, the world’s real hope lies in how silly Biden’s premise is. Moscow would be foolish to attack one European NATO member state after the other. And unlike the West, Russia recently has given very few signs of being foolish. It is, in other words, Russia’s rationality that a proxy-defeated NATO-Europe will have to rely on. How ironic.

Each year, editors of the prestigious American news magazine, Time, choose a person, group, idea, or object which, for better or worse, made the most impact on the world. This year’s newly crowned winner is American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift. The choice is totally valid, for reasons that speak volumes about the current state of the Western world. 

In a year marked by billions in Western taxpayer cash being shoveled out the door to Ukraine, Swift was the one person who made headlines for her singlehanded contributions to the US economy. At $93 million spent per show by fans, the Washington Post estimated that her Eras tour alone could add $5.7 billion to the US economy. That’s a lot of cash-to-tax potential for a country addicted to spending. It’s a wonder that last year’s winner, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, hasn’t yet asked for Swift to just hand the cash over to him directly – or at the very least demand that he be allowed to open for her on tour with his pantless, hands-free piano playing routine.  

US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell was shortlisted along with Swift, specifically for his attempts at a “soft landing” of the US economy amid inflation and spending, but that particular plane is still careening down the runway. So as far as efforts to pull the economy out of a tailspin, he’s apparently only really fit to be Swift’s co-pilot. Or Barbie’s. As in the doll. Because the Barbie movie managed to also rake in $1.4 billion worldwide for the US economy to help compensate for Washington’s screwups. Maybe the Pentagon can paint some of its bombs pink in honor of Barbie’s economic contributions before sending them off to Kiev. Or just have a giant inflatable Barbie ride them, in the style of Dr. Strangelove’s Slim Pickens. 

What’s most striking about this year’s shortlist and its ultimate winner is what it says about the weakening role of the traditional Western establishment.  

Prosecutors who laid 90 felony charges against former US President Donald Trump made the list of finalists. Arguably, they’re one of the very few things standing in the way of GOP frontrunner Trump’s reelection next November – other than Trump himself. But the fact that it takes a whole team of people to throw the book at a single anti-establishment loose cannon – and he’s still managing to trounce the Republican competition in the polls between court appearances – speaks volumes about the establishment’s weakness. The fact that Trump is currently neck-and-neck with incumbent President Joe Biden despite having a recent mugshot says even more. 

CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, made the list, amid the drama of him being fired and then rehired when employees rebelled en masse. I guess that’s supposed to make him some kind of anti-establishment hero. At the very least he’s not overtly pro-establishment. But he oversees technology which, incorporated into the ChatGPT app, has allowed C-level students to automatically generate D-level papers that they mistake for A+ grades. Not exactly a tool for the kind of critical thinking that the establishment fears. 

The one single Western establishment leader on the shortlist, King Charles III, made the cut just for existing, basically – and for the fact that his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, stopped doing so last year. “At a moment of change for the monarchy, he signified the power of tradition,” Time noted, referring to his “decades-long wait for the throne,” which sounds like a euphemism for an average Taylor Swift fan waiting in line for the washrooms at a concert.

Finally rounding out the list, there’s Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping – the only two heads of government on the list, and both spearheading a new multipolar world order. Apparently, Time had to go all the way over to the other side of the world to find leaders who could even raise eyebrows. 

We’re talking about people who invent awards to give to each other. As far as they’re concerned, a PR victory in a prestigious Western establishment publication for Putin is basically a war crime against Kiev. 

Putin and Xi weren’t the ultimate winners this time – although Putin did win in 2007 – but the fact that Putin made this list when last year it would have been unthinkably taboo suggests that the PR tide is turning. And the fact that the Western establishment is so glaringly unremarkable and feckless – as its near-absence from this year’s list proves – goes a long way to suggest why.

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced his independent bid for the US presidency, it sent shockwaves through the Beltway and beyond. Will the scion of the Kennedy clan merely play spoiler, or does the political upstart carry the clout to win the White House?

If there is one thing the Democrats and Republicans despise more than anything, it’s when a meddling independent or third-party candidate joins the political fray, threatening to disrupt the two-party duopoly that has ruled with an iron fist over Washington, DC since 1853 (Millard Fillmore was elected president under the Whig Party banner in 1850; after that, the Oval Office has been owned by either a Democrat or Republican). That’s what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has done after bidding farewell to the Democratic Party and declaring his run as an independent.

Kennedy, 69, now finds himself walking a treacherous tightrope over the snake pit known as the US political system to enamor himself with members of both parties on several hot-button issues. To this end, the son of the late Robert F. Kennedy – the US senator who was assassinated on June 5, 1968 while also making a presidential run – has borrowed heavily from the political playbooks of both Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The outcome is a mishmash of beliefs from both ideological camps, a risky move that has some merit.

Consider, for example, Kennedy’s position on Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. While the Biden administration has taken a wrecking ball to the US economy, dumping hundreds of millions into Kiev’s war coffers and stoking inflation, Kennedy has pointed to the US and NATO’s failure to heed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s past warnings on Western military expansion as the main cause.

“In 2019, actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelensky ran as the peace candidate, winning the Ukrainian presidency with 70% of the vote,” Kennedy observed on X (formerly Twitter). “As Benjamin Abelow wrote in his brilliant book, ‘How the West Brought War to Ukraine’, Zelensky almost certainly could have avoided the 2022 war with Russia simply by uttering five words – ‘I will not join NATO.’”

Meanwhile, Trump, who has promised to resolve the Ukraine crisis in 24 hours if elected president, has taken a similar position with regards to who should accept the blame for Europe’s deadliest military conflagration since World War II.

Kennedy and Trump share similar positions on other issues as well, like the need for a viable border with Mexico and stronger relations with Israel. On the latter, Biden has paid a price for his pro-Israel stance as a whopping 50% of Democratic voters believe that West Jerusalem and Hamas are equally to blame for the current hostilities and almost as many disapprove of Biden’s response to the war.

Much of this intra-party divide is a direct by-product of the ‘cultural Marxism’ that has invaded US academia, which disproportionately sees the Palestinian people as the victim. This view is passionately supported by the radical wing of the Democratic Party known as ‘The Squad’, comprised of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, and others.

At the same time, Kennedy has endeared himself to many Republican voters over one of the most divisive issues in recent memory, the question of vaccines – specifically, mandatory vaccination for the Covid-19 virus. As Trump endlessly talked up his ‘warp speed’ serum, and got booed by his base in the process, Kennedy was taking a radically different approach, attacking not just the questionable safety of the product but its primary promoters, Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates.

At the peak of the epidemic, Kennedy put out a book entitled, ‘The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.’ The fact that this work went on to sell more than a million copies spoke volumes about the level of public skepticism and angst at the time, as millions of Americans were struggling for answers that could have meant the difference between life and death – death from either the epidemic or a negative reaction to the vaccine.

While Kennedy has managed to attract some positive reviews for his labors, the bulk of the establishment media has hung him out to dry as a “purveyor of conspiracy theories.” It must be said that some of Kennedy’s allegations – for example, that Covid-19 may have been genetically manipulated to spare populations of Jewish and Chinese people – do seem to cross the threshold of plausibility.

“Covid-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. Covid-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” Kennedy said in remarks during a private event. “Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

While such outlandish views may endear Kennedy to the far-right, lunatic-fringe of Trump supporters, the same cannot be said for some of Kennedy’s other questionable pet projects, primarily climate change. Next only to arguments in favor of gun control, here is an issue that is greeted with absolute revulsion from conservative voters. Yet not only has he promoted the view that greenhouse gases from man-made activities are causing the planet to heat up, he has also gone on record as saying climate change deniers should be prosecuted.

Finally, on the one issue that arguably most separates the Democrats and the Republicans, that of gun control, Kennedy has pleaded in favor of an armed republic.

“I do not believe that there is, within that Second Amendment, that there’s anything we can meaningfully do to reduce the trade in the ownership of guns,” Kennedy said during a townhall in June, “and I’m not going to take people’s guns away.”

So, what should voters make of all this? The first takeaway is that Robert F Kennedy Jr, much like his famous family members RFK and JFK who preceded him, is a fiercely courageous individual who will not sacrifice his personal convictions just to gain easy political points. That much is clear given his views on Covid-19 vaccines and the Ukraine crisis.

Second, Kennedy is obviously aware that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump will be entering the presidential race with a lot of baggage, and that’s apparent from recent surveys. In an October Reuters/Ipsos poll, Biden and Trump each had the support of 35% of respondents, with 11% saying they would vote for some other candidate, 9% saying they would not vote, and 9% saying they did not know who they would vote for.

Many Democrats are disenchanted with Biden largely because of a sputtering economy, while Trump supporters are growing weary of the scandals following their favorite Orange Man. While a no-name independent candidate would having little chance of pulling off a presidential win against such contenders, Kennedy will enter the fray bearing his famous family’s namesake, and that alone could mean a chance – albeit a slight one – of another Kennedy entering the White House in 2024.

After a seven-day lull in the war between Israel and the Palestinian armed groups in Gaza, the resumption of hostilities has been given another green light from Washington. Having failed to lead its Israeli allies towards military victory, the US is permitting a dangerous escalation and rejects a peaceful solution that will prevent further civilian suffering.

Just minutes after the departure of US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, from Palestine/Israel, the war in Gaza resumed, with a large aerial onslaught on Palestinian civilian infrastructure resulting in the deaths of nearly 200 civilians. The White House spokesperson John Kirby announced continued support for Israel’s “right and responsibility to go after Hamas,” but to what end is unclear. As the likes of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak admits that Hamas is far from falling apart, it begs the question: what really is the point of this war? 

Following six weeks of war that resulted in likely over 20,000 Palestinian deaths, the Israeli military has failed to produce any evidence that it has made a significant dent on the military capabilities of Hamas and the other Palestinian armed groups in the besieged coastal enclave. While Israel forced its way into the major hospitals in northern Gaza, claiming that Hamas was using the sites as bases and command-and-control centers, the evidence produced by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) does not support these allegations. The US government backed the idea that a command node had existed at the Shifa Hospital, and when the Israeli forces entered the hospital compound they presented weapons they claimed to have found there, as well as an empty tunnel. Any such images released to the public are curated and edited by the Israeli army, but if independently verified, they could serve as evidence of militant presence – still, not proof of a control center or node. Little of note was discovered in other hospitals, and American claims of having solid intel that confirms Israeli claims is dubious, considering previous public statements such as US President Joe Biden’s words about having seen “confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children” which the White House later had to walk back.

The Saudi-Israeli normalization deal, which the Biden administration's Middle East policy revolved around, is dead in the water at this time as Riyadh moves closer to Tehran. According to Israeli polling data, Benjamin Netanyahu is only trusted by 4% of Israelis, while the most trusted national figure was recorded to be Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari. Hagari, despite being trusted by Israelis, was turned into the “there is a list guy” and an online meme, after presenting a video in which he claimed a regular Arabic calendar named “terrorists”. That video, in which he referred to the list, was supposed to show evidence of Hamas keeping hostages at the Rantisi Children’s Hospital. 

At least 10 countries have either withdrawn ambassadors from, or suspended ties with, Israel. All this as the largest pro-Palestinian protests to have ever taken place in the West continue to occur in capital cities like London and Washington DC. This, combined with a considerable drop in Joe Biden’s approval rating, all spell disaster for the US-supported war in Gaza.

The White House claims that it is putting certain restrictions on the Israeli army as it plans to invade the south of Gaza, but in the same breath offers unconditional support for Israel’s actions. At no point has the US government taken any responsibility for what has happened since October 7, there has been no apology for their lies, no change in strategy and no acknowledgement in the role that Washington has played in creating the situation on the ground in Gaza that facilitated the Hamas attack.

The real question now is: Where do we go from here? Israel aimlessly fights in Gaza and continues to kill thousands of Palestinian civilians, there is no sign of a Hamas defeat on the horizon and the humanitarian situation, which is described as “the worst ever” by UN Relief Chief Martin Griffiths, is further deteriorating. While these elements are all to be taken seriously, there is also the specter of a regional war erupting in the event that the Israeli attack escalates against Gaza. Lebanese Hezbollah is currently engaged in frequent battles along the Lebanese border and has been expanding the scope of its attacks on Israeli military targets.

The US government is in the driver's seat of the war. It has the power to end the conflict at any time but continues to prolong this disaster. During the seven-day pause in hostilities, nothing shifted in Israel’s favor to make its victory possible. There can be no military solution to the war in Gaza, the US must recognise that this conflict will never end until the Palestinian people are granted justice and freedom. For 75 years the governments of the collective West have ignored the suffering of the Palestinian people, they have never been objective peace-brokers. Violence begets violence and hate begets hate, it is not possible to simply murder the Palestinians into submission. Even if Hamas were to be defeated, there will be more groups that emerge to take revenge for their fallen and fight for statehood in the future. If the international community comes together, this cycle can be broken, but it is going to take courage.

In the heart of Zurich, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban delivered a speech that resonated not only through the grand halls but across the European political landscape.  

Orban’s address at the jubilee event of the Swiss Magazine Die Weltwoche at the end of November was a profound exploration of geopolitics, an ode to Hungary's economic resilience, and a pragmatic take on global alliances, particularly with Russia. This narrative, often overshadowed by mainstream discourse, deserves meticulous dissection for its potential to reshape the contours of European politics.

Orban’s assertion that Europe has relinquished its self-determination struck a resonant chord in the corridors, where the future of the European Union is being debated. His critique of the European Commission’s evolution into a political body lacking the necessary governance acumen echoes the sentiments of those yearning for decisive leadership.

The prime minister’s call for the return of robust, capable politicians harkens back to an era when leaders like Helmut Kohl and Jacques Chirac commanded European politics. Their absence, as Orban rightly notes, has left a void in leadership and decision-making that bureaucrats cannot fill.

He asserted that Europe finds itself in a state of diminished autonomy, grappling with a declining share in the world’s GDP. He also underscored a striking projection: By 2030, Germany is anticipated to stand as the lone European representative in the global top ten rankings, positioned at the bottom.

In a critical assessment, he highlighted the European Union’s shortcomings, emphasizing its inability to navigate the complexities of the enlargement process and effectively manage regional conflicts.

Central Europe: Bastion of Pluralism and Sovereignty

In positioning Central Europe, led by Hungary, as a region liberated from liberal hegemony, coalition battles, and the pitfalls of migration, Orban introduced what he terms “the Hungarian model” – an economic and social blueprint prioritizing workfare over welfare. 

Hungary’s emphasis on family policy, migration restrictions, and its appeal to investments from both the East and the West presents the nation as one charting its own course, undeterred by the directives of Brussels.

Orban’s steadfast defense against illegal migration and Hungary’s financial burdens, exacerbated by a lack of adequate EU support, reflects a commitment to preserving national autonomy against external pressures.

Pragmatism in Geopolitics

One of the most intriguing facets of Orban’s narrative is his pragmatic approach to geopolitics. His recognition that Europe must brace for potential upheaval in the event of a political shift in the United States underscores a nuanced understanding of the ever-evolving global chessboard.

Addressing the conflict in Ukraine, Orban’s call for a “Plan B” challenges prevailing Western strategies, urging a more realistic evaluation of the situation. He has prompted Europe to reconsider its response, cognizant of the intricate geopolitical tapestry at play. The conflict should have been localized, but instead, it has become global, which is bad for everyone, he admitted.

Orban’s evaluation of the Ukraine conflict was marked by pragmatic realism. “Now it is obvious that Ukraine will not win on the battlefield. Russia will not lose.” This straightforward assessment underscored Orban’s nuanced understanding of the geopolitical dynamics in Ukraine. It served as a sober acknowledgment of the complexities involved, urging a reevaluation of strategies and, notably, fostering dialogue with Moscow.

Orban’s diplomatic engagement with Russia, often criticized, reveals a leader who comprehends the intricacies of Moscow’s motivations. Rather than outright condemnation, he calls for understanding modern Russia, recognizing the importance of security in maintaining stability – a viewpoint unconventional in Western political circles.

This nuanced approach could serve as a bridge for dialogue and a more profound understanding of Russia’s role in the global arena.

Orban highlighted what he perceives as a significant opportunity for Hungary in the context of China. He stressed the necessity for cooperation with Beijing and underscored his disagreement with the idea of detaching China from the European economy. 

Orban’s unwavering support for former US President Donald Trump took center stage. 

Although he is one of Europe’s longest-serving leaders, Orban often finds his narrative marginalized in mainstream media. However, it reveals a leader adept at navigating the strong countercurrents of European politics, emphasizing national sovereignty, economic triumph, and pragmatic geopolitics with a resounding “My Country First” ethos. His diplomatic approach, particularly in advocating for an open dialogue with Russia, challenges prevailing narratives, prompting a reevaluation of the forces shaping European politics.

As we meticulously unravel the threads of Orban’s narrative, we uncover a story that challenges the status quo and beckons Europe towards a more nuanced, diverse, and adaptive future. The Hungarian model, as presented by Orban, emerges not just as a unique experiment but a potential paradigm shift in the way European leadership is perceived and practiced.

Toward the end of World War II (in Europe), Germans often shared a dark joke, reflecting their well-deserved dread at the prospect of defeat: “Enjoy the war, the peace will be terrible.” Of course, despite the worst efforts of the Ukrainian far right to damage both the politics and the image of their country, no objective observer would equate Ukraine with Nazi Germany. 

Nevertheless, that old German piece of gallows humor points to a question that is now pertinent for Ukraine. Even the militantly anti-Russian Economist is spotting “war fatigue” in both the US and the EU. The Western funding on which Kiev depends is in danger of drying up; and current promises of more cash are not reliable.

When and how will the war end?

Bloomberg reports a “sense of gloom” in Ukraine and the Wall Street Journal admits that “Moscow holds the advantage on the military, political and economic fronts.” The prominent American military commentator Michael Kofman, often treading a fine line between professional analysis and pro-Western bias, is close to facing reality. Still insisting that “it’s inaccurate to suggest that Russia is winning the war,” he acknowledges that “if the right choices are not made next year on Ukraine’s approach and Western resourcing, then Ukraine’s prospects for success look dim.” He also suggests that Kiev should shift to the defensive. Frankly, it has already, and it had no choice.

Yet a defensive strategy cannot achieve Ukraine’s official war aims, because they include retaking territory from Russia. For Ukraine, Kofman’s “right choices” imply giving up on that. Former war monger and Zelensky adviser – and now foe – Aleksey Arestovich, for one, has correctly spotted that fact. Such an outcome is called “losing.” Redefining it as a form of “success” – a shifting of goalposts popular in the West now – comes across as a clumsy attempt to rationalize and sell a defeat. 

Regarding “right choices” for the West, despite desperate clarion calls by the Cold War re-enactor and Ukraine proxy war booster Tim Snyder and the US grand strategy maitre penseur Walter Russell Mead, the West may continue some funding of Ukraine, but it is unlikely to once again up the ante. Why would it, when all its previous strategies – economic, military, diplomatic, and by information war – have failed at great cost? What is happening instead is an American attempt to shift more of the burden of the proxy war onto the EU.

But what if the West and Ukraine suddenly come up with a whole new suite of brilliant, game-changing strategies? After the “miracle weapons” have crashed, perhaps we’ll see “miracle ideas”? We won’t. Because if Western elites could have them, they would have utilized them already. 

Concerning Ukraine, Maryana Bezuglaya, a member of parliament, has just caused a stir by accusing the military of failing to produce any genuine plan for 2024. Clearly, this attack is part of a power struggle – and blame game – between President Vladimir Zelensky and commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny. But Bezuglaya is not lying, just exploiting facts.

Regarding the West, after initial Russian blunders, it has not only been out-fought but also been out-thought by Moscow. Keeping alive the persistently unsophisticated Western tradition of stereotyping Russia at great cost, NATO think-tankers like Constanze Stelzenmüller at the Brookings Institution may go on underestimating Moscow as “not that strategic and not that intelligent” but merely very “determined.” On that assumption, Westerners – including think tankers – stymied by what they insist on imagining as not-so-smart Moscow, must conclude they are even less bright.

But if nothing succeeds like success, the opposite is also true – nothing fails like failure: Ukraine’s and the West’s setbacks are a self-reinforcing trend already. Hence, the pertinent question now is: when the current war ends, most likely with a Ukrainian (and Western) defeat, what will come after it? It’s a question that is both timely and difficult to answer. 

For one thing, there are still all too many, in Ukraine and the West, who believe – or pretend to believe? – that the war should and can continue, perhaps for years. German chancellor Olaf Scholz, for instance, has just claimed that the EU must go on supporting Ukraine because it is essential for the bloc that Russia must not win. Such intransigent positions – or rhetoric – betray an unrealistic assessment of Ukrainian, Western, and Russian capacities. They also imply sacrificing more Ukrainian lives in the EU’s interests.

Scholz, for one, is speaking from an almost touchingly perfect position of weakness. His personal approval ratings have just hit a record low; the coalition government he is trying to lead is not doing much better. No wonder: the International Monetary Fund is now expecting Germany to end up as the world’s worst-performing major economy this year, while the government’s unconstitutional financial trickery has triggered a severe budget crisis that will cause painful cuts in public spending.

Scholz may, of course, be lying. There also are unconfirmed reports – or leaks? – that Berlin plans to join Washington in forcing Ukraine to come to terms.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba may still boldly deny feeling any pressure from his country’s Western sponsors. 

In reality, multiple signals point in another direction: Western leaders are at least considering the option of cutting their losses by making Ukraine give up territory.

Conversely, Western stay-the-course talk on the war in Ukraine has an ever-hollower ring to it. It is ironic that only a few months ago – but before the predictable failure of Ukraine’s summer offensive turned into an undeniable fact – Foreign Policy surmised that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine policy was falling prey to the sunk cost fallacy. By now it is clear that it is the West that is experiencing a feckless gambler’s reluctance to give up before incurring even greater losses. Cynicism, the will to squeeze the last bit of blood from Ukraine, and an obstinate refusal to acknowledge past errors are certain to also play a role.

Yet it should be noted that even some observers who are not suffering from such Western biases are pessimistic about a quick end to the war. That's because they believe that ultimately Washington will keep fueling its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, whoever is or seems to be in charge in the White House. For Ukraine and Ukrainians, such a strategy would still mean defeat, but after even more losses and suffering. 

On the other hand, given the dire state of Ukraine’s manpower and other resources, a sudden change in the situation on the ground cannot be ruled out. The war could enter a new phase marked by (initially) local breakdowns of Ukrainian forces and such significant Russian breakthroughs that Kiev would have to accept defeat in one form or another, whether under the Zelensky regime or a successor.

All of the above entails a paradox. We cannot yet tell if the end of the war is close, but it is not too early to think about the post-war period. The unknowns of the current situation also complicate the question of what exact shape that post-war era will take.

The fate of Ukraine’s military and NATO ambitions 

Let’s assume the following: first, while a formal state of war may continue, the more important question is what it will take to end the actual fighting. Kiev would lose territory and, in general, would have to make additional concessions to Russia. The one that is easiest to predict is Ukraine reverting to neutrality and, in particular, giving up on its NATO ambitions (and, of course, its current de facto integration in the alliance). The second outcome that Russia is bound to pursue is capping Kiev’s military potential. The third result that Moscow will not let go off is to either completely neutralize (probably impossible) or strongly diminish the influence of Ukraine’s far right.

Thus, post-war Ukraine will be smaller, neutral, militarily weak, and its official politics and institutions (especially those with arms, such as the police and army) will have to let go of far-right personnel and influence, at least on the surface. No more ‘Black Suns’ on display, except maybe at private parties. If these conditions are not met, fighting may still temporarily cease, but not for long. 

Regarding NATO (that is, the US), the fundamental question here is whether Russia will even seek a grand settlement again, a principal reset, but this time from a position of increased strength or, instead, leverage its advantage to achieve the more limited aim of pursuing its security interest by shaping “only” the settlement in and about Ukraine. 

Russia may or may not want – or be able to – also make NATO explicitly give up on Ukraine and, more broadly, its misconceived strategy of expansion. Moreover, Moscow may or may not try to insist once more on a fundamental revision of Europe’s security architecture and its relationship with the US and NATO, as in its prewar proposals of late 2021.

What is certain is that once Moscow has created facts on the ground in Ukraine and Kiev has to revert to neutrality (in word and deed), NATO’s posturing will lose much of its relevance. There are unofficial signals that the bloc may be considering admitting only a part of Ukraine (neither Kiev nor its Western backers will recognize Crimea or other Moscow-controlled territories as Russian and will probably refer to them as 'occupied'). If such a Plan B is serious, despite the fact that it would break NATO tradition and be foolish, Ukraine is rejecting it. And again, any signs of its implementation would be likely to restart the fighting quickly. It is true that some smart observers have speculated that Moscow may be willing to live with a reduced Ukraine being part of NATO. But on this, they are likely to be wrong.

Whatever approach Russia chooses, the key point is that it now has the initiative. That, dear NATO, is what happens when you lose a war: The agenda won’t be the West’s to set. 

The future of Kiev’s EU membership bid

What about the EU? After all, one key cause of the current war and preceding crisis was a regime change in Kiev in 2014, which was triggered by a conflict over Ukraine entering into a special association with the bloc. At this point, the EU shows no intention to change this course. Indeed, it seems to be about to open a formal process leading to full membership. There is resistance from some member states, however. Open pushback is coming from Hungary, whose Prime Minister Viktor Orban is threatening to block this policy as well as more money for Kiev. Where Orban is sticking out his neck, he may not be alone in having misgivings about integrating a large, poor, very corrupt, devastated, and revolution-prone new member state with a security issue from hell.

Post-war Ukraine will probably not be a full member of the European Union. Either for a long time or maybe forever.

Will Zelensky’s regime survive?

What about Ukraine at home? It is hard to imagine the political survival of the current President Vladimir Zelensky in a post-defeat Ukraine. Even now, internal Ukrainian government polling quoted by The Economist shows a drastic decline in his approval ratings. What is worse, while Zelensky is down to 32%, commander-in-chief Zaluzhny still scores 70%, and the especially sinister head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, Kirill Budanov, who proudly runs assassination programs, has a solid 45%.

And, of course, The Economist publishing such figures is yet another sign that Zelensky is also losing Western support. The initially intense personality cult Zelensky enjoyed in the West as an almost miraculous leader may have fooled him into a false sense of security and irreplaceability. In reality, it now makes him the perfect scapegoat. As we know from classical tragedy, with great elevation, comes the potential for a deep fall.

What would come after the Zelensky regime? This is where it’s time to stash away the crystal ball because things become simply too opaque. One thing that true friends of Ukraine should hope for is that whatever is next will actually still be some form of coherent and minimally effective government. Those with ill-conceived fantasies of a “South Korean miracle” in what will be left of Ukraine, may want to refocus on more elementary, Hobbesian issues: In a country full of disappointed citizens and veterans and awash in arms, with a far right second to none in the world, things could turn very ugly indeed.

Freedom of speech in America and most European nations has fully receded into a mythological concept. The American constitutional right is no longer valid.

Take it from someone whose entire YouTube channel has been demonetized and suppressed. My name on Facebook and Instagram is a synonym (at least from Meta’s point of view) of the words “election interference.” Any positive press about me is suppressed, and accounts that support me get punished. X, formerly Twitter, deboosts and shadow-bans me. I am not alone but one of the thousands, maybe millions, of voices the powers that be want to be silenced. We don’t follow the narrative that supports the military-industrial complex of the West.

This system has its own guard dogs, mindlessly following the narrative and attempting to shut down anyone speaking out against it. One recent example was an Irish “anti-disinformation expert” I got in a fight with on X – the kind of “expert” that retweets news about Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian cities and captions them with the word “results.” Nothing new there – they called me a “Putin stooge” (that term is so 2016) because I have asylum in Russia, accused me of “telling lies about Biden” with no counter-argument, as usual. The “expert” finally devolved into finding fault in my command of the written Irish language. That’s the sort of “intelligent discourse” you can expect when you’re not with the crowd.

Those of us who try to reveal the truth about American politicians’ corruption in Ukraine or talk about the death and destruction being inflicted upon the Palestinians by Israel are being systematically silenced by force or simply by suppression. Israel has killed over 70 Palestinian journalists since October 7, according to Gaza authorities. Yet, the Western establishment press keeps twisting words into pretzels to perpetrate the narrative of Israel “defending itself” despite the number of civilian deaths nearing 15,000 in less than two months, including about 6,000 children and 4,000 women.

What is abundantly clear is that leaders backed by this establishment do not care about democracy, freedom of speech or press, or even the lives of their constituents – they only care for the rewards they can reap from the suffering of millions. They will use any brutal means to obtain silence and coerce their populations into obedience. The West and its puppets are attacking, imprisoning, and even killing journalists, whistleblowers, and anyone with an independent voice. Julian Assange is an example of a publisher of truths that embarrassed an empire, was imprisoned, and is now suffering what is effectively a slow public execution for his work.

As the endless wars continue to bring massive profits to defense contractors and Western politicians, their tactics to protect their profit margins at the cost of human lives will continue. The question remains: Will humanity be lost in preserving the narrative?

Earlier this week, the famed former secretary of state and national security adviser Henry Kissinger passed away. This news was announced in a statement from his consultancy firm, without naming a cause of death. Kissinger had lived a long life (to the ripe old age of 100), and he likely died as he lived: Without a care for the retribution that most outside of the A-list of Western elite wish he had faced.

Kissinger was a fixture in American politics for decades. While he was in the administration of former President Richard Nixon, a Republican who supposedly hated liberals, particularly those in the anti-war movement in full-stride at the time over Vietnam, he was a noted friend of the elite of high society. Kissinger, a Republican, was often found with some of Hollywood’s kingpins, as well as with politicians from the Democratic Party.

This was one of his most endearing features, at least to the elite: His insistence on bipartisanship. But his partisanship, wherein people who may disagree otherwise come together, develop a compromise, and devise a plan for their fellow citizens, is not the one most Americans think of. Far from it, Kissinger imagined one where conservative and liberal elites could agree on the one most crucial issue for the maintenance of the American empire: Never-ending war.

It is thus no surprise that bloodthirsty warmongers such as John McCain and Hillary Clinton not only admired the man but would come together to celebrate a common cause with him – as they did on his 90th birthday gala in 2013. The famous American linguist and dissident Noam Chomsky once lamented that if the standards of the Nuremberg Trials were implemented today, then every American president would be hanged for their crimes. If that were indeed the case, Kissinger would need to be hanged ten times over for his role as an adviser to each president since Nixon.

But, to be sure, these were not random acts of violence that Kissinger helped construct for their own sake. Rather, he was one of the key architects of American grand strategy at a pivotal point in the empire’s construction. After World War II, the US had become the regime that underpinned global capitalism and Washington was tasked with perpetuating and protecting international capital – put another way, business without regard for any particular corporation. In the middle of the 20th century, this was upset both by the global anti-colonial struggle and, to a lesser extent, the rise of the Soviet Union as a peer competitor.

He helped develop a system of policies that saw business develop undeterred, held down the global masses in their struggle against Euro-Atlantic dominion, and fought against competing ideologies to capitalism. It is for this reason Henry Kissinger is both loved by the international elite and despised by essentially everyone else, save for perhaps one interesting example.

But it’s not just historical, either. Clearly, it could be argued that Kissinger’s broader strategy may have been to exploit the Sino-Soviet split as a means to triangulate against the Soviet Union. And to what extent this was even the case is debatable, or if it had any effect if it was, Kissinger still always remained a positive public diplomat for the ever-important bilateral ties between the US and China. For that, he is remembered fondly in Beijing – and it is undeniable that, on this issue, he showed much more thoughtfulness even into his advanced age.

When one is in the spotlight so much, finding themselves at so many historical junctures, it is almost impossible to not be a polarizing figure. With Kissinger, it’s pretty clear cut – where your opinion of him lies can almost be used as an indicator of your class (unless you are Chinese). Despite this, one positive thing that we may see about him, compared to today’s politicians and diplomats, is that he was a far more intelligent and remarkable man than today’s ilk and it’s not even close. Love him or hate him, Henry Kissinger was a profound intellect and a brilliant strategist.

After seven weeks of relentless Israeli bombing throughout Gaza, according to the modest estimates of the UN as of November 23 (right before a humanitarian ceasefire came into effect), more than 14,800 people have been killed in the enclave, including about 6,000 children and 4,000 women.

While these Israeli attacks on Gaza are by far the worst yet, with Israel dropping a reported 40,000 tons of explosives in less than two months, it is worth recalling that Israel has repeatedly waged assaults against the Palestinians of Gaza over the past 15 years.

Living in Gaza for years between late 2008 to March 2013, I was witness to two major Israeli assaults (and countless smaller ones over the years). Here, I will highlight what I saw and documented, to show that the horrific Israeli war crimes we are seeing coming out of Gaza are not new, even if they are exponentially worse this time around.

On December 27, 2008, Israel unloaded 100 bombs on Gaza within the first minutes of its Operation Cast Lead. The Shifa Hospital (Gaza's main), was receiving the dead and the injured non-stop. The ICU beds were filled, and doctors told me that as soon as one patient died another took their place.

Together with a handful of international activists in Gaza I made the decision to ride in ambulances with Palestinian medics as they searched for the wounded and took them to hospitals. We did so aware that Israel barred journalists from Gaza, and knowing that, in the past, medics and ambulances had been targets for the Israeli army.

I would see this first-hand soon after first joining the medics, when an Israeli sniper targeted the ambulance I rode in, injuring one medic in the leg when one of at least 14 bullets hit the rear of the car as we sped away.

ISRAELIS ALWAYS TARGETED MEDICS

In 2009, an Israeli sniper fired at least 14 shots at @EvaKBartlett and medics she was with. pic.twitter.com/izneS3DfXY

— Sulaiman Ahmed (@ShaykhSulaiman) November 27, 2023

This was during the January 7, 2009 “humanitarian cease-fire” hours. The Geneva Conventions explicitly state that “medical personnel searching, collecting, transporting or treating the wounded should be protected and respected in all circumstances.”

 Some days prior, Israeli shelling had killed Arafa abd al-Dayem, a medic I knew and had accompanied. He was rescuing injured Palestinians, standing at the rear of the ambulance when it was hit with a shell containing flechettes. Flechette munitions are designed to spray thousands of small metal darts in a wide arc, increasing the chance of injuries and death. The dart's sharp head is designed to break away, increasing the amount of internal damage done. Another 21-year-old medic, a volunteer, was injured, his legs lacerated.

The day after Arafa was killed, the Israeli army fired three times within two minutes on the neighborhood where family and neighbors had gathered to pay their respects. The shelling, again with flechettes, killed six more civilians, including a young pregnant mother, and injured 25 more.

The ambulances and their medical equipment were some of the most bare-bone I've seen, supplies depleted by the long Israeli siege and blockade of Gaza. The medics drove quickly over bumpy roads to get to the people in need, wasted little time collecting them, and bolted away, trying to avoid being targeted by the Israeli army.

After invading the Tel al-Hawa district in the third week of its war on Gaza, the Israeli army repeatedly bombed the Quds hospital, while Israeli snipers targeted Palestinians fleeing residential areas. I was with an ambulance that went to evacuate civilians from the hospital and take them to the Shifa hospital (which had no space), going back repeatedly to save Palestinian civilians, each time at risk of being shot by Israeli soldiers.

By the end of the 2009 war, the Israeli army had killed 23 medics, and injured 57 more, destroying at least nine ambulances and damaging 16 more. None of the journalists or medics that I knew had protective body armor – including me. Given the massive bombs which Israel was dropping on us, it would've made little difference.

One evening, after giving an interview to RT about what I’d seen while riding in ambulances in the extremely dangerous areas of Gaza’s north, just after finishing the interview, Israel shelled the building at least seven times. We scrambled down ten flights of stairs, thankfully intact. Incidentally, in 2021, Israeli airstrikes destroyed the same building as well as another, collectively housing 20 media outlets.

During and after the 2008-2009 war, I took countless testimonies of Palestinian parents who said their children were deliberately murdered by Israeli soldiers: shot point blank, drone struck during ceasefire hours, shot by a sniper. In Shifa hospital, I met the mutilated survivors whose home had been shelled with white phosphorus munitions, killing six family members, including an infant burned alive. I followed up on their story afterwards, learning more chilling details and seeing their bombed-out home with my own eyes. Graffiti, apparently left on the walls by Israeli soldiers, included hate messages and threats, like “it will hurt more next time.” (Warning: disturbing images)

I could, unfortunately, write pages more on what I saw and heard in those three weeks of Israeli bombing, and also during the November 2012 Israeli campaign (when I was based at a hospital in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza), but for the sake of some brevity will stop. What did not stop were the Israeli bombings and shooting immediately post ceasefire, both in 2009 and in 2012.

But almost as brutal as the Israeli bombing campaigns has been the over-16-year-long strangling siege on Gaza. I've written about it at length, but which in summary it has caused a vast increase in poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition, anemia, stunted growth, diabetes, treatable illnesses going untreated, water that was 95% undrinkable (already back in 2014).

On November 24 of this year, a four-day ceasefire was implemented, to allow for exchange of Hamas hostages for Palestinians imprisoned by Israel, as well as for deliveries of desperately needed food, water, fuel and medical aid, of which the 2.4-million population of Gaza had been deprived for weeks. Unsurprisingly, there were reports of the truce being violated, including snipers firing on Palestinian civilians.

In the first day after the ceasefire expired, over 100 Palestinians were killed, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, as Israel started to deliver the promised “mother of all thumpings,” ostensibly to Hamas militants.

What I do what to highlight is that there is no doubt in my mind, or in the minds of numerous other international reporters and observers who have seen the situation on the ground first-hand, that Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza, and the intent, if not the reality, is genocidal.

We have globally watched as Israel commits the definition of genocide: “The intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” Raz Segal, a genocide expert, wrote of this after only one week of Israel's bombardment, since which Israel has committed uncountable heinous crimes.

In late October, former Director of the UN's New York (OHCHR) office, Craig Mokhiber, resigned from his position in protest and disgust, stating, “Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it. As someone who has investigated human rights in Palestine since the 1980s, lived in Gaza as a UN human rights advisor in the 1990s, and carried out several human rights missions to the country before and since, this is deeply personal to me.”

He explicitly stated that Israel's “wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people...coupled with explicit statements of intent by leaders in the Israeli government and military, leaves no room for doubt, this is a textbook case of genocide.”

In the last few years, we have seen a worldwide pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, supply chain disruptions, and the weaponization of non-traditional aspects of the economy, especially the digital economy. 

The weaponization of banking systems and digital platforms, systematic cyberattacks, and surveillance using telecommunications hardware has pushed states’ digital policymakers and national security leaders to establish a de-risking strategy in order to regain sovereignty over the digital realm. 

What we mean by ‘de-risking strategy’ is developing trust-based partnerships where economic interests, historical linkages, shared values, and the competitive strengths of partners help them secure a resilient domestic digital economy. In these partnerships, we define trust in a broader sense, allowing states to pursue their national interests while ensuring economic security. In our paradigm, the states would pursue these partnerships to balance their immediate economic needs, build on historical linkages to deepen their relationships, disassociate gradually with states where a value conflict exists, and compete on their manufacturing and trade capabilities. 

Another way for states to carve out a sovereign digital future would be for them to build on the foundations of historical relationships. We are also looking at developments where states deepen their historical partnerships in new areas to diversify their trade baskets. 

In the 2000s, economic growth, individual freedom, and global connectivity were states’ primary national priorities. Economic growth and connectivity incentivised states to open their economies to multinational corporations. States allowed the big technology platforms to set the norms of engagement in the digital world. Soon, there was a realisation that these platforms operated without accountability to local laws. 

Malicious actors used these platforms to spread disinformation and manipulate public opinion. Unfortunately, these platforms were deployed by states and non-state actors to achieve their geopolitical ambitions. There have been rising instances of cyberattacks on businesses, government websites, and healthcare establishments. 

Rising cases of breaches of data privacy through the use of social media platforms have pushed governments to enforce strict data privacy and localisation laws. If technology platforms are in constant conflict with states’ values, such as the rule of law and democratic accountability, then we are looking at a future where systematic restrictions are placed on these technology platforms being able to operate from the respective states’ jurisdictions. 

States fear overt dependence on foreign technology for economic growth as it gives asymmetrical power to other states to weaponise this when relations are not on a strong footing. 

Besides sheer economic contingency, historical linkages, and shared values, we observe that states are bringing their combined competitive strengths to the table using multilateral institutional frameworks. 

The digital world has no recognised borders, and therefore, it is difficult to establish responsibility for the behavior of a particular bad actor. The New Delhi G20 Declaration paved the way for countries to accept the One Future Alliance to equip the Low and Low Middle Income Countries (LMICs) to develop frameworks and strategies to pave their digital futures without any sovereignty risks. In addition, there was an emphasis on agreeing to principles that would govern the responsible deployment of AI for the common good and empower small businesses and farming communities. 

The Indian model of digital public infrastructure (DPI) provides agency to states to pursue the best of private innovation and public accountability. Unlike the private technology platforms, the Indian DPI utilities build using open source architecture in the critical domains of digital identity, payments, banking, and health to ensure that personal data is stored under an established authority.

Access to this data is granted with consent from users using a techno-legal approach of Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture (DEPA), which ensures citizens’ own data is protected by laws and that at the same time, data is made available via anonymised and encrypted technologies to private businesses in a cost-effective manner to build innovative models. DPI with DEPA has helped India to balance sovereignty risks and business innovation interests. India has offered this deployment strategy as a global public good to LMICs and developed nations at multilateral and bilateral engagements. 

Different states would pursue this differently. However, we do see a consensus in the developing world against the weaponisation of non-traditional security challenges, bringing the security dimension to the equation. 

States would see long-term national security threats as outweighing short-term economic interests and pursue some form of digital isolationism with a clear demand for technology-sharing agreements and local manufacturing capabilities. We hope this phase of the de-risking strategy is transitory, as states would utilize multilateral forums like BRICS+, the G20, and SCO to de-escalate these tensions and build on confidence-building measures to balance sovereignty concerns and avoid an AI-led digital arms race. 

This article was first published by the Valdai Discussion Club and edited by the RT team

News has been spreading throughout the media about a “disease outbreak” in China.

For many, this brings back bad memories. The illness, described as a form of pneumonia, has reportedly gone widespread very quickly, triggering comparisons to how the Covid-19 pandemic emerged. As with the coronavirus, it was not long before there followed accusations of a government cover-up of the extent of the spread.

Cases of the same illness occurring outside of China have been the target of media attention, such as those in Denmark and the US, as has the World Health Organization’s request for more information and Beijing’s response.

In reality, there doesn’t appear to be that much to worry about this time around. The pathogen responsible has already been determined not to be a novel virus and therefore not posing a distinctive new threat to humans the way Covid did. Known as “white lung syndrome,” it is a form of pneumonia that is resistant to some antibiotics and usually causes mild flu-like symptoms. In fact, the aforementioned Denmark suffers nationwide outbreaks every few years.

So, rather than a mysterious political conspiracy wrapped in secrecy and malign intentions, this outbreak has a much simpler explanation: China is facing its first winter after having opened up from its zero-Covid policy and therefore old illnesses are reasserting themselves. But that won’t stop the scaremongering.

Throughout history, it has been a human trait to scapegoat a group of 'others' when a disease emerged to threaten the community. Humans are tribalistic creatures, and each social group usually bonds together through a commonly held sense of values and customs, which are deemed superior to those of outsider groups. Disease, however, as abundant as it always has been, contravenes the group’s collective sense of self-esteem, causes misery and consequentially demands accountability on a political level. Because of this, it becomes habitual of human thinking to deflect the origins of a disease outbreak on an outsider group and to frame it as an invasive force which challenges the values they hold, and therefore could not have come from themselves.

This was the narrative which took hold during the Covid-19 pandemic, as Western media and governments scrambled to deflect attention from unpopular decisions and their dramatic consequences. They sought to blame the Chinese government’s negligence, malice or both, for Covid, and propping up that narrative was an astronomical amount of racism which sought to play on stereotypes about Chinese culinary habits and hygiene, perfectly in line with the West-East mentality of Oriental 'inferiority'. Anti-communism, especially in the US, was conveniently layered on top of these prejudices, concealing them in a somewhat acceptable manner. Thus, the science of how Covid spreads was ignored in favor of a dramatic political blame game, which was aggressively amplified by the Trump administration.

This time around, there won’t be a new pandemic, but it’s easy to draw false comparisons. It’s a basic fact that for the past three years China has lived under a strict zero-Covid regime which often entailed extreme precautions to prevent the spread of the disease. Entire major cities such as Shanghai found themselves in lockdown, and these restrictions only became more tedious as Covid variants became more transmissive. Because of this, there was no space in the disease ecosystem for flu and other less sensational illnesses, as they were jammed between the rock and hard place of Covid and all these protection measures. Therefore, as soon as China abandoned these restrictions, with the coronavirus having swept through the population, the winter season meant the less severe viruses could spread their wings again.

Despite this, we are likely to see more media headlines about the scary new “Chinese disease,” because fear of disease, and especially fear of disease linked to a fear of China, sells well. Even though this development is a nothingburger, expect some close coverage, baseless speculations, even outright propaganda and hearsay about how things are worse than they seem, how the Communist Party is covering up deaths, how statistics are rigged, hospitals are full, etc. – we’ve heard it all before. The Covid pandemic has been a lesson in how diseases can be politically weaponized to suit an agenda, and in this case it’s happening again at a smaller scale.

In the cutthroat world of asset management, my gig as an investment banker at Zurich’s top Swiss joint was a tightrope walk between challenge and monotony. Crafting portfolios for the high rollers at the biggest Swiss bank needed a delicate mix of precision and strategy. The daily grind of summarizing, stacking up, and shaping portfolios for the wealthy wasn't just a skill; it was a meticulous drill where financial stability was the goal and the payoff.

In the established 60-40 asset allocation doctrine – a fundamental principle in wealth management – the goal was straightforward: allocate 60% to stocks and 40% to bonds. This implicit guideline, honed through market wisdom, provided clients with a safeguard against the unpredictable nature of individual stocks. However, the intricacies of my role extended beyond the numerical aspects of asset allocation. Placing emphasis on securing a resilient lending value for portfolios became paramount, evolving beyond a mere metric to become a vital component ingrained in each client’s investment strategy.

Amid financial turmoil, stock selection gained extra importance, and in recent years, the spotlight turned towards ESG funds.

What is ESG investing?

ESG – or Environmental, Social, and Governance investing – provides a framework for investing in funds that take into account environmental, social, and governance factors. It is often used interchangeably with terms like “socially responsible investing (SRI)” and “sustainable investing.” ESG investments, falling under the umbrella of socially responsible investing, analyze a company’s societal impact based on three primary factors:

Social (S): This dimension delves into a company’s commitment to fair labor conditions, equal employment opportunities, and support for community organizations.

Governance (G): This facet relates to the standards governing corporate governance, encompassing ethical business conduct, gender diversity within the board, equitable employee compensation, and overall transparency in corporate operations.

The aroma of cash

But then, where the fallible human touch resides, the scent of corruption detects the aroma of cash – a twist that even seasoned investors couldn't have predicted.

Surprisingly, these funds, celebrated for their ethical foundations, have funneled a jaw-dropping $5 trillion into the arms industry. This bombshell was dropped by Bloomberg this week.

As of Q3 2023, over 1,200 ESG funds, pledged to uphold environmental, social, and governance standards, collectively grip shares worth around $5 trillion in the defense sector. This unexpected plunge into defense investments within the ESG framework has triggered heated debates.

Questions swirl about the blurred lines between “defense” and “aggression” and why ESG fund managers aren’t putting up a fight against these investments that seem incompatible with ESG or sustainability ideals. The financial industry, once singing praises for ESG’s ethical focus, now faces a reality check as investments cozy up to an industry inherently at odds with those values.

Despite the ethical eyebrow-raising, funds dipping their toes into the defense sector are laughing all the way to the bank. Notably, the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. fund, playing the European defense game, has skyrocketed by nearly 90% since February 2022 and a cool 13% since October 2023.

US and UK fund honchos wave off regulatory hurdles blocking ESG managers from diving into defense assets. They stress the need for transparent, top-notch reporting from these funds, arguing that investments in specific defense companies can jive with responsible investing, as long as they're not cranking out banned weapons or supplying arms to sketchy countries.

Responsible investing in the war machine, all neatly packaged with the ESG stamp – what a hoot!

Mairead McGuinness, Commissioner for Financial Markets at the European Commission, goes on about how defense is “crucial for sustainability and security” of the EU, adding to “peace and social sustainability.” The intersection of ethical investing and defense industry dalliances puts a big fat question mark on the very core of responsible financial moves. The unplanned rendezvous of ESG funds with the arms industry weaves a tangled narrative, asking deep questions about whether financial smarts can align with ethical investing principles.

Indeed, we’ve reached a point where the politicians who advocate for allowing kids to choose their gender are now dictating terms to hedge funds in the Environmental and Social realm. They even endorse investments in wars and guns, branding them as “crucial for sustainability.”

Say what you want about Napoleon Bonaparte, but there’s no denying that he was an absolute alpha who can still blow a beret right off the head of a Frenchman. The kind that sorely lacks nowadays in Western leadership roles. Which would explain why a new poll, released just as a Ridley Scott-directed biopic about him hits theatres, has found that 74 percent of French view his actions positively. 

Napoleon blazed a trail of death and destruction, with his army slaughtering millions around the world at a time when empire-expanding sword-measuring contests were all the rage — and he happened to be particularly good at it. But he claimed to do it for France, however misguided and extreme. Which stands in stark contrast to today’s parade of self-interested French politicians in front of the courts for abuse of public office.

Napoleon emerged from the ashes of the French Revolution on the side of the people, then went on to conquer much of the world on their behalf. According to the survey, 40% of respondents consider his top achievement to be his creation of the Napoleonic Civil Code to enshrine the values of the revolution. His contributions to academia were also invaluable, as every country that interested him as a potential military conquest led to detailed scientific, sociological and archeological studies that still serve as references today. 

He’s frequently judged by today’s standards, which is patently unfair. Sure, if you took Napoleon and transplanted him into modern day society — stuck him in a typical office cubicle — he probably wouldn’t fit in too well, what with his penchant for global conquest and his belief that women belong at home. He’d wind up in sensitivity training in pretty short order. But the French are willing to overlook his many flaws because his accomplishments are so spectacular; he singlehandedly hoisted France to the front of the global stage. Yeah, maybe he wouldn’t have done so if he had the mores of “social justice” Bob from accounting or your neighbor who never misses date night with the wife. But that whole debate is moot. And stupid. 

What do all these folks have in common? Clarity of vision, and courage in the face of adversity — values with which the French personally want to be associated. Unfortunately, one has to go back quite far in order to find their incarnation. 

While Napoleon put France in a prominent spot on the world stage, it was arguably former French President and World War II General Charles de Gaulle that gave it any hope of persisting there. Beyond leading the French Resistance during the Nazi occupation, De Gaulle subsequently ensured France’s post-war independence by kicking the Americans out of the country, refusing their demand for permanent bases, and then keeping France out of NATO to avoid the ultimate fate of ending up under de facto US military command. Always with French independence in mind, De Gaulle then went to Moscow in 1944 to sign mutual assistance agreements, and envisioned the Soviet Union as an important partner for French independence within a vision of Europe that stretched from the Atlantic to the Urals. 

De Gaulle also spearheaded state-backed nuclear energy projects that were so successful that they’ve saved France amid the current EU energy crunch (and to think that current President Emmanuel Macron was on the verge of killing the whole industry in favor of trendy green energy fantasies — the same ones that flopped when Germany realized that it couldn’t power its economic engine with the wind and sunshine after its Nord Stream pipeline network of Russian gas was mysteriously blown up.)  

Jeanne d’Arc was a teenage peasant girl who led the French to victory against the English, then was unrepentant about who she was and what she did when she was burned at the stake in Rouen — for literally having wild visions of French victory, then making them happen.

French-naturalized Pole Marie Curie was yet another French woman who fell outside the conventional role for females in society, winning the Nobel Prize for physics in 1903 and for chemistry in 1911, for her groundbreaking research, alongside husband Pierre Curie, on radioactivity, including the discovery of radium and polonium. Her achievements put France on the intellectual global map. Over a century later though, in 2019, French officials yanked mandatory mathematics from the last two years of the high school curriculum. It was such an unmitigated disaster for numeric literacy and such a looming disaster for French competitiveness on the global playing field that they had to reinstate the courses in September 2023. 

Therein lies the difference between those still admired by the French — despite having long shuffled off the face of the Earth — and those who have since come and gone from power or prominence with little fanfare. A lack of unwavering leadership — foresight, clarity, and determination. 

Unsurprisingly, the latest Ifop-Feducial poll found that the two current political figures considered to most closely resemble Napoleon are right-wing opposition leader Marine Le Pen and former center-right President Nicolas Sarkozy. It’s hardly a coincidence that both have been criticized recently for speaking out against the French and Western establishment status quo of blindly following anti-Russian US foreign policy on Ukraine — with both favoring immediate peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine and an end to hostilities over prolonged spending on “aid” to keep a conflict going that’s to the net detriment of France and the EU as whole.  

Napoleon came to power with the backing of the people after they had literally beheaded the entire corrupt establishment. Today’s establishment has given itself more than enough rope to ultimately hang itself. One can’t help but notice the parallels. The question is, at what point will the French people have the courage to once again choose the kind of anti-establishment visionary leader on whom they could one day look back and realize they absolutely needed. Until then, they’ll be stuck longing for, and romanticizing, times and figures of greatness.

Last week, Beijing announced that the citizens of six EU countries – Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal – will be allowed to visit China for a 15-day period visa-free, allowing them to bypass the cumbersome process of attaining a Chinese tourist visa.

The announcement comes about a week ahead of the upcoming China-EU summit, which will bring European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel to Beijing.

Recently, von der Leyen has been engaging in increasingly hawkish rhetoric pertaining to Beijing, including making a number of complaints about what she refers to as “China’s unfair trade practices,” pushing for “de-risking,” demanding more market access, and threatening levies over Chinese renewable energy goods. Beijing, on the other hand, has been critical of this attitude and has urged the EU to take a friendlier and more cooperative approach, touting the benefits of engagement.

So how does China respond? By announcing an unprecedented visa-free scheme for select EU countries. Although that may seem like a minor gesture, it’s a big deal. A central complaint and criticism coming from the West towards China in recent years is that it has become increasingly “inconvenient” to travel to, and of course from 2020 to early 2023, it was practically impossible. This is because the Chinese state’s level of bureaucracy and regulations for incoming travelers has intensified, which makes getting a visa even for tourism a nightmarish process.

To receive a Chinese tourist visa, one must make a formal appointment with a designated office. If you do not live in a major city, that means you must have to travel to one. Depending on the country, these offices can be busy, meaning you cannot get an appointment on a whim. When making your appointment, you must already have every element of your trip pre-booked in terms of flights, accommodation, and dates, and then fill it all in on an extensive online form, which will ask about unusual and tedious details such as your family members’ occupations. You must also bring passport scans and photos, as well as the full passport itself, and submit it. If you get the appointment date wrong, it cannot be changed.

If you’re a European businessman from one of these key countries, which coincidentally represent the bulk of the EU economy, your ability to enter China and do business has improved remarkably. It’s a friendly sign, it’s helpful, so do you think those German, Dutch and French executives who are being told to reduce their presence in China are going to be more inclined to listen to von der Leyen and her ilk when they say de-risk? Why would they? Accessing the Chinese market just got that little bit easier, and therefore the de-risk agenda is thwarted. After all, business groups are opposed to such agendas in the first place. The German car industry is never, ever going to give up on the Chinese market.

In addition to this, the move also undercuts the popular Western narrative that China is “closing” to the world, that Xi Jinping is bad for business, and that the mood is “unfriendly.” On the strategic level, Beijing is determined to keep the EU on side as much as possible, a feat which has become increasingly difficult given everything the US is throwing at it to undermine the relationship. China, however, understands the importance of making tactical concessions in the pursuit of long-term gains, and playing the visa-free travel card is a smart move. It’s not likely to sway skeptical EU leaders, but it is likely to ferment the conditions to continue to expand EU-China business ties whether they like it or not.

A few days ago, President Vladimir Zelensky’s most important political ally, David Arakhamia, gave a long interview to TV presenter Natalya Moseichuk. Both are heavyweights of Ukraine’s public sphere, with widespread recognition and significant influence.

Moseichuk’s main platform is the television channel 1+1. Arakhamia heads the parliamentary faction of the ‘Servant of the People’ party, which is Zelensky’s machine and, as such, controls Ukraine in a de facto authoritarian manner.

Bound to attract attention, the interview has done more: Due to Arakhamia’s unguarded (or deliberately revealing?) account of real yet missed opportunities to reach an early peace agreement in the full-scale war between Moscow and Kiev (and its Western sponsors and exploiters), it has caused a sensation.

Regarding the peace negotiations that took place in Belarus at the end of February and the beginning of March 2022, Arakhamia tells Moseichuk that the Russian delegation had one “key aim”: to make Ukraine accept neutrality and give up on NATO membership. In Arakhamia’s own words, “everything else” Russia talked about, such as demands regarding “denazification, Russian-speaking populations, and blah-blah-blah” was merely “cosmetic political seasoning.”

Let that sink in: Here is a prime negotiator for Ukraine and one of the Zelensky regime’s top men stating explicitly that all that peace really required at that very early stage in the large-scale war was Kiev committing to neutrality and giving up on its NATO ambitions. The war could have stopped in the spring of 2022; that is, one-and-a-half very bloody years ago. And for Kiev, this would have come at the price of giving up on a NATO ambition that is based on a false promise encapsulated in the foul compromise of the 2008 Bucharest summit. A pledge which the West has no intention of keeping, as demonstrated again at the 2023 Vilnius summit.

Or, for that matter, inclination. In the same interview, he occasionally uses the racist epithet “orcs” for Russians and displays that trademark arrogance that plays so well with Western visitors and has cost Ukraine so much. Arakhamia has made himself believe that his team had the advantage of 21st-century technology (by which he means Zoom and WhatsApp), while the Russian delegation was stuck in the 19th century (using secure landline phones to communicate with Moscow). Of course, such technology first emerged during the 1940s, but that’s what the man said.

Recognizing that his Russian interlocutors were well prepared, unlike their Ukrainian counterparts, who improvised, he also pats himself on the back for “disrupting their schemes,” i.e. dragging the negotiations down to a level at which the designated “Banderite” (his term) in the Ukrainian delegation gave tubthumping speeches just to make the Russians “go pale.”

“But what about territory?” you may ask. In the same interview, Arakhamia states that, at that point, the Russian negotiators were ready to “go back to where they were,” presumably to the pre-24 February borders. Put differently, not only would the war have ended quickly, but Ukraine would also have kept all those territories that Russian forces have taken since then and those they are now likely to take in the future. Kiev would have had to give up on Crimea and the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, areas whose inhabitants largely do not want to be part of Ukraine. Compared to what has happened since then, that would have been an easy way out.

The West, in this scenario, would have avoided the very damaging proxy war defeat that is now hanging over it. Everyone would have been better off economically as well. Obviously, that applies most of all to Ukraine, which is a devastated shadow of its former – already poor – self, propped up by Western aid (for now) and the European Union, especially Germany.

No wonder that Moseichuk’s next question for Arakhamia was why Ukraine did not take that Russian offer, a question that – as you will agree if you watch the interview – clearly surprised him. Looking a little like a poorly prepared student caught out in an exam, Arakhamia scrambles to patch together an impromptu answer. Here’s what he comes up with: Striking the deal would have been unconstitutional because aiming for NATO membership has been written into the Ukrainian constitution; one can’t trust Russians anyhow, so Kiev could never have been certain that there would not be another Russian attack.

Clearly, what has been added so recently could also have been revoked. Zelensky, with his Servant of the People machine, would have been perfectly able to make such a change if he had wished to. Hence, this was an obstacle that was politically surmountable. It should also not have been there in the first place because constitutions should stick to the fundamentals of political order. Aiming for this or that alliance is not part of these fundamentals by any stretch of the imagination, but a specific policy that should have remained open to ordinary political competition.

Arakhamia’s second pretext for failing to make peace, namely that Moscow could not be trusted “100%,” makes no sense either. For three reasons: First, he himself acknowledges in the same interview that the Russian delegation was very concerned about what Arakhamia dismissively calls “that Minsk,” i.e. Ukraine’s deliberate cheating on the Minsk agreements of and 2014 and 2015. If Russia was willing to extend enough trust for a compromise anyhow, then the least Zelensky’s Kiev could have done was reciprocate by taking a fairly ordinary risk. Because nothing is ever “100%” reliable, except perhaps the fact that when you won’t make peace, you will have more war.

Secondly, why would Russia attack again if its one real reason to fight (as stated by Arakhamia), namely Ukraine’s drive toward NATO, would have been removed? Or is Arakhamia inadvertently betraying his own premise here that even after a deal, Ukraine would have systematically cheated again and continued its strategy of joining NATO (if perhaps surreptitiously), thus provoking another Russian response? That is the only assumption under which his statements are at least consistent. This interpretation seems all the more likely because Arakhamia also proudly admits that his delegation saw its main task in applying delaying tactics, while constantly coordinating with the Ukrainian military to gain maximum tactical advantage from that strategy of bad faith.

Thirdly, Arakhamia seeks to explain one fiasco with another: At the end of a further round of negotiations in Istanbul, he reminds his viewers, then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Kiev that “we won’t sign a thing, we will just keep fighting.” So, not seizing an opportunity to end the war in early March is, in Arakhamia’s mind, somehow justified by not doing so again one month later. In essence, on orders from a Western leader, as if his word was law to the government of Ukraine, which it clearly was.

That, again, is no surprise. What is intriguing is the wide-eyed honesty with which Arakhamia admits Western control over the Zelensky regime. Challenged by Moseichuk about that impression, Arakhamia’s “defense” – hard as it is to believe – takes the form of denying the claim, while admitting that things were “agreed on” in constant consultation with the Western “partners.” These “partners” received information from Kiev in a “dosed” manner, while also always knowing or given access to “everything,” down to all draft documents produced inside the Zelensky regime. And, according to Arakhamia, “we of course knew that we could not leave the war on our own; therefore, we had to consult with them.” Make of that painfully inconsistent jumble what you will. One thing is clear: Kiev has chosen to see itself as literally unable to make peace without Western permission.

Perhaps the most depressing part of an often bizarre conversation with a man who is either not very much in control of what he says or has a very complicated agenda is Arakhamia’s odd sense of Ukraine’s current situation. He repeatedly declares that the US does not owe Kiev anything, which sits badly with his preceding admission – convoluted and yet clear – that Washington has a de facto veto on Ukraine ever making peace. Ukrainians, he announces, must rely on themselves – and keep fighting. Moseichuk asks him “with what?” and his response is an incoherent rant about “secret factories” and how “we have a lot of stuff.” Clearly, Zelensky is not the only top politician who takes flight in fantasies while Ukraine burns. Onward and downward it is.

On Saturday, Tejas, India’s domestically built light combat aircraft (LCA), received the biggest endorsement in its short history when Prime Minister Narendra Modi undertook a sortie in it.

It surely would not have been easy for the 73-year-old VIP passenger to withstand the 2G force as the LCA took wing.

Soon after landing, Modi took to social media and tweeted, “A flight to remember! Tejas is India’s pride, a manifestation of the strength and skills of 140 crore Indians.”

Modi’s daring effort may well be a shot in the arm for Tejas, which just wound up an impressive showing at the biennial Dubai Airshow. Together with BrahMos, touted as the first supersonic cruise missile in service and showcased at the Dubai Airshow, they make for India’s new calling card in the lucrative but complex business of defense exports.

The theme of this year’s airshow in Dubai was the ‘Future of the Aerospace Industry’ and involved more than 95 countries.

India believes that having successfully produced defense products indigenously that can hold their own internationally, it has what it takes to enter into defense exports. And, hence Dubai, like other international defense shows, was an obvious destination.

According to Indian officials, the two marquee exhibitions – especially the sorties that Tejas carried out during the show – drew buyer interest, though no deal was inked.

The Tejas way

It is a an established fact that the existing fleet of aircraft with the Indian Air Force (IAF) are rapidly ageing and need immediate replacement. Import dependency to bridge this deficit is strategically risky, especially when regional wars are spreading across the world.

The production plan for Tejas drew inspiration from the very successful playbook pioneered by the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). It entails growing an ecosystem of vendors to produce components – this has recently evolved and now allows private players to produce final products like satellites.

This playbook has ensured a national footprint for the production of Tejas. The central fuselage of the plane is produced by VEM Technologies, Hyderabad, the fin and rudder by Tata Advanced Systems (TASL) in Bangalore, rear fuselage by Alpha Tocol, Bangalore, wing by Larsen&Toubro, Coimbatore, and front fuselage by Dynamatic Technologies Limited (DTL), Bangalore.

Indeed, the vendors are concentrated in the south and west of India. There is an outlier though in Uttar Pradesh – the traditional laggard in India’s development story – which in recent years has pitched and grabbed defense-related investments.

A HAL spokesperson at the Dubai Airshow explained the logic of the decentralized production strategy.

“The development of a complex supersonic aircraft like the LCA Tejas is a testament to the collaborative efforts and capabilities of India's defense manufacturing ecosystem. It involves the cooperation of various agencies, organizations, and institutions across the country. More than 400 Indian business partners are involved in the development of the LCA Tejas.”

The BrahMos hypersonic missile story is different. It is a joint venture, BrahMos Aerospace, inked with Russia in 1998. Russia’s rocket design bureau, NPO Mashinostroyenia, supplied the supersonic propulsion, while the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the R&D wing of the government of India, developed the guidance and navigation systems and the command and control elements.

The first successful launch of BrahMos took place in 2001 and soon it was doing the rounds of international exhibitions. The missile is now part of the arsenal of the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force. Unlike the Tejas, it has an export order in the bag – the $375 million deal it clinched with the Philippines last year. The deliveries are scheduled for early next year.

At the Dubai Airshow, the company was also pitching for its mobile autonomous launcher and the BrahMos NG (next generation), a lighter and more versatile missile that will be ready for rollout in mid-2025.

“We will start the trials in the end of 2024,” said Praveen Pathak, director (market promotion and export) of BrahMos, on the sidelines of the airshow.

Once again, the production process involves private-sector companies.

Home advantage

The big upside of indigenization is that it ensures strategic advantage or at the least de-risks by reducing dependence on a foreign supplier. At the same time, it also provides an opportunity to create defense clusters across the country and provide economic opportunities for defense start-ups.

According to the federal government, around 100 Indian firms are engaged in defense exports to 85 countries. An official release claims that India’s defense exports grew 23-fold from 6.8 billion rupees in 2013-14 to nearly 160 billion ($1.92 billion) in 2022-23.

For context, defense exports by the United States aggregated a staggering $51.90 billion.

This capability to indigenously manufacture weaponry has also reduced the country’s dependency on defense-related imports. Their share dropped from 46% of overall expenditure in 2018-19 to 36.7% in December 2022.

Where India Meets Russia – We are now on WhatsApp! ‎Follow and share RT India in English and in Hindi 

It’s sometimes interesting to play “what if,” especially with pivotal moments that didn’t seem so meaningful at the time. For instance, what if Adolf Hitler had become a successful artist? More recently – and more to the point – what if Joe Biden had been expelled from law school when he got caught plagiarizing a writing assignment?

The decision by Syracuse University in 1965 to let Biden, then 22, repeat the course, rather than be kicked out of school, didn’t appear to be consequential at the time. As one of the worst students (ranking No. 76 out of 85) at a mediocre law school, Biden probably seemed like someone of little consequence, a guy who might be chasing ambulances or doing estate planning for elderly clients back in his home state of Delaware – if he managed to graduate and pass the bar exam.

After all, Joseph Robinette Biden never seemed like the sort of shining star who might be pegged for future greatness or influence. The stuttering son of a used-car salesman, Biden has never displayed the attributes of a dynamic and virtuous leader. No one could honestly claim that he rose to power because of inspiring ideas, great political skills, or impeccable character.

Getting caught cheating in law school was just a harbinger of many scandals and embarrassments to come for the future president of the United States, the “leader of the free world.” But just as he got away unscathed at Syracuse – preventing what would have been the destruction of his career even before it began – Biden escaped accountability time after time over the course of his half-century in politics.

When he got caught plagiarizing the speeches of other politicians during his first campaign for president, in 1987, he became a media laughingstock and had to quit the race. However, he was a longshot candidate anyway, and he somehow managed to continue getting elected as a US senator from Delaware in the decades that followed. He also ran unsuccessfully for president in 2008 before serving two terms as vice president under President Barack Obama, and finally winning the top job in 2020.

Somehow, no amount of lying, plagiarizing, racist gaffes, or corruption allegations was able to thwart Biden’s rise to power. When he was accused of sexually assaulting a Senate intern on Capitol Hill, the #MeToo movement suddenly went mute. Likewise, in an age when sexual harassment is a career-killer for many Americans, Biden has been politically unscathed by his handsy tendencies.

Even as he campaigned for president from his basement in 2020, anyone with an internet connection could watch clips of him groping or sniffing women and little girls at public events when he was vice president. Last year, two Florida residents were convicted of trying to sell the diary of Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden, who had left her journal behind at a rental property. The diary reportedly contained a passage about taking showers with her father at a young age, saying they were “probably not appropriate” and contributed to her promiscuity as she got older.

Legacy media outlets came to Joe Biden’s rescue by ignoring the content of the diary and focusing on the supposed villains who allegedly tried to exploit it. This resembles the time when another Biden child, son Hunter Biden, left his laptop at a Delaware repair shop – revealing possible evidence of selling his father’s political influence. Back then, the media similarly ran interference, touting false claims by former US intelligence officials that the revelations had the hallmarks of “Russian disinformation.” With the November 2020 election just three weeks away, social media platforms helped, too, by censoring the New York Post’s bombshell report on the laptop.

Ironically, Biden campaigned on vows to “restore the soul of America” and “bring back decency” to the White House. He did so while continuing his habit of telling lies, in some cases to make himself the hero or sympathetic figure of every tale. For example, he falsely claimed that he was arrested in apartheid South Africa while on his way to visit Nelson Mandela, and he repeated lies he had been telling since at least the 1980s about working as a civil rights activist when he was a teenager. He has repeatedly falsely claimed that his son Beau Biden died in the Iraq War, and he invented a story about going into a “firestorm” in Afghanistan to pin a medal on a reluctant hero.

Many of Biden’s lies are absurd and inconsequential, as if he’s telling them for sport, like when he claimed that he had worked as a truck driver, or the one about coming from a family of coal miners, or the one about being “raised in a black church.” Others bear more serious consequences, like when he claimed during a 2020 debate that President Donald Trump was spreading Russian disinformation by mentioning the laptop scandal. He cited the letter signed by former intelligence officials to prove that the laptop was a “Russian plant,” and yet he knew it to be legitimate. It later came to light that his campaign allegedly helped orchestrate the phony letter to help kill the bombshell report.

That level of unflinching confidence and condescension while lying is perhaps one of Biden’s biggest selling points for the ruling elite. In their system, a US president has to be able to pontificate about the sanctity of an ally’s sovereignty while carrying on with a nearly decade-long illegal occupation of Syria’s oil fields and meddling in the affairs of other countries all over the world. He has to preach self-determination when it suits the Western neocon agenda, while denying the same privilege when the people in a given location don’t want what Washington prefers.

When the military industrial complex is salivating over a good opportunity for a proxy war in, say, Ukraine, the commander-in-chief must be able to justify funding the bloodshed by touting the need to defend “freedom and democracy” – in a place that has neither freedom nor democracy. That’s also a place where the US helped overthrow the democratically elected government and disenfranchise or kill large swaths of the population. And domestically, an American president must pretend to represent the law-abiding working class while importing millions of illegal aliens to suppress wages and re-engineer the country’s demographics.

Any leader who even threatens to deviate from the program will be politically neutered at least, or killed at most. As Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer warned in 2017, after Trump suggested that US spying agencies were trying to build a false case about Russian hacking, “You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” In other words, subvert the interests of the citizenry, or else.

Biden’s lack of any moral conviction also comes in handy. There seems to be no issue on which he’s unwilling to flip-flop if the political winds shift, or if his masters set a new course. He can shamelessly alter the past like an Orwellian Big Brother talking about how Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

For example, during a 2020 presidential primary debate, Biden forcefully claimed to have been an outspoken opponent of America’s illegal war in Iraq, when in fact he had been a leading proponent and praised then-President George W. Bush’s “bold” leadership on the issue. He’s the same politician who eulogized the late Senator Robert Byrd, a former “Exalted Cyclops” of the KKK, in 2010, then claimed in 2020 that he was running for president because he was so outraged by a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Some of Biden’s defenders try to deflect criticism of his character by pointing to the flaws of his political adversaries, especially Trump. Sadly, this is the standard reaction to damning truths in today’s American politics. It’s not false to say the other team’s leader is guilty of something – having skeletons in the closet appears to be a prerequisite for reaching high office in the US – but this approach means that no one is ever held accountable by their supporters.

Arguing that the other party’s leaders are evil doesn’t make your party’s leaders any less vile. It does make it easier for the kingmakers to impose on the people whatever they want – even an octogenarian who is so cognitively degraded that he can’t speak coherently or make his way off stage without getting lost or falling down.

That’s why even though it might be fun to fantasize about what might have been if Biden was held accountable for cheating at Syracuse or somewhere else along the way, it probably wouldn’t have made much difference. Removing one particularly odious politician from the picture doesn’t mean the voters would have been given a more honorable option. In today’s Washington, virtue isn’t on the menu, and the citizens aren’t willing or able to demand something better.

November is set aside for transgender people to raise awareness about the discrimination and violence that the community faces. But have we forgotten the discrimination and dangers that biological females suffer too?

In August, Canadian powerlifter Anne Andres set a record with a final combined score of 597.5kg (about 1,317lb) for her bench press, deadlift, and squat performances. Andres’ total was more than 400lb higher than her closest competitor. Most people would find that unbelievable if not for one critical detail that so many are happy to ignore – Andres was born into a man’s body.

One person who did not ignore Andres’ sex status was April Hutchinson, an Ontario-based female powerlifter who took to X (formerly Twitter) to rally the weightlifting community to action.

“Any woman, man or federation that supports men lifting or competing with women is part of the problem,” Hutchinson said. “They should be ashamed. They are literally helping to erase women’s sports.”

“Bodies play sports, not identities.” ‼️

Professional powerlifter April Hutchinson weighs in on biological male who broke women’s powerlifting record in Canada…

WATCH: #SaveWomensSports pic.twitter.com/VWknsUVi9q

— Independent Women's Forum (@IWF) August 16, 2023

Hutchinson took her wake-up tour to the Piers Morgan Uncensored show, where she slammed the Canadian Powerlifting Union’s (CPU) lack of action, calling it “disheartening and disgusting.”

It’s probably easy to guess how that criticism went down with the Liberal crowd. On November 7, Hutchinson was suspended from competing for two years by the CPU, due to multiple violations of the Code of Conduct and the Social Media Policy.

Before the decision was announced, however, Andres had also taken to social media in a teary-eyed tirade, comparing her pain and suffering to that of an African American being called “the n-word.”

“Let me just ask one simple and open question to those who are deciding to leave me to my own fate through their inaction,” Andres said. "If this other lifter was, say, going after an African American individual and calling them the n-word, which is essentially equivalent to calling a trans woman a man and referring to them as him.”

@JustinTrudeau 's radical disdain for women (and reality) in effect🤡

New national and unofficial world record for trans identifying male, Anne Andres pic.twitter.com/E46860L14P

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) August 14, 2023

Martina Navratilova, the 18-time Grand Slam (biological) female tennis champion, weighed in on the conversation with much-needed common sense and sobriety.

“To put the argument at its most basic: a man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organization is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires,” Navratilova said.

“It’s insane and it’s cheating. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair,” she added.

Yet, as unfair and ‘unsportsmanlike’ as it may have been for Andres to smash female weightlifting records, at least the biologically female competition was not being pummeled on the field of dreams, like some rugby players.

Another way to prove that men and women were never meant to play against each other in sport is to simply ask the females who have had the pleasure firsthand.

“I had never been hit like that before, even at the competitive women’s level,” said a female player from Stoney Creek Camels. “There was so much more brute force. There are women who are bigger than him, but no girl hits like that. This is a strong human.”  

This transgender female player who the anonymous member of the opposite team was speaking about is known as Ash, “a non-binary person who identifies as female – stands about 5-foot-10 and weighs up to 220 pounds,” as reported by the Toronto Sun.

Incidentally, none of the female players on the opposing team wanted to be named for fear of “not wanting to hurt anybody’s feeling and being labelled a bigot.” But apparently it’s totally fine to risk serious injury and possible death by being forced to participate in a contact sport against a physically stronger male. Will they regret ‘hurting somebody’s feelings’ when they are handicapped for life?    

I add, and emphasize- all 3 players injured, were as a result of being dump tackled.

That’s where one is lifted up and dumped on their head. Yes! Picked up and dumped on their heads to inflict harm!

That transplayer should be banned from rugby!

— Diana Murphy (@diana_murphy613) June 23, 2023

It doesn’t take much imagination to see a train wreck quickly approaching. Those teams in women’s sports that don’t field transgender players (and are on a major losing streak) are going to quickly understand that they are at a serious disadvantage and actively recruit trans players to help even the score. And it’s silly to pretend that there won’t be instances when the whole ‘trans’ part of equation is just pretense to get an unfair advantage – after all, cheating in sports is as old as sports themselves. Nobody likes to lose; worse, nobody likes to wake up in the morning with multiple bruises over their body. This is where things are going to get out of control, to the point where the whole concept of ‘female sports’ will become redundant.

In fact, it is already happening. Last year, University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas, who has taken central stage in the debate about transgender inclusion in women’s sports, was beaten by Iszac Henig, a trans male swimmer at Yale University who continued to swim on the women’s team. The obvious question here is: Where is the safe space for biological women in sports? Tragically, what will likely happen is that hundreds if not thousands of young women will quietly opt out of sport altogether. Not only does that deprive these women of the experience that comes with sport, but it will deprive them of scholarship programs to university, or possibly even a trip to the Olympic Games. And they won’t even be allowed to complain about it.

After repeatedly rejecting a truce with Hamas and labeling the idea “ridiculous”, Israel agreed to a four-day cessation of hostilities in Gaza and a prisoner exchange. Six weeks of death and destruction, which Israeli and Western leaders declared should have led to the destruction of Hamas, have now bolstered the Palestinian movement's image throughout the Arab world and beyond.

The four-day truce that was implemented this Friday provided a sigh of relief for those most affected by the war in the Gaza Strip, but has in many ways spelled disaster for the Israeli government. As women and children, held captive by both Hamas and Israel, are being reunited with their families, the threat of further warfare looms. Although the loved ones of those released are now celebrating, the next steps will be crucial in determining the final outcomes of the 46-day battle that has now been placed on pause. At this time, it appears that the idea that “Hamas must go” is no more than a pipe dream.

On October 27, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to the sound of overwhelming applause, calling for a truce to stop the fighting in the Gaza Strip. Although the non-binding resolution passed with a majority of 120 votes in favour, Israel and the United States outright rejected it. Tabled by Arab nations, the call for a truce was labeled as a “defense of Nazi terrorists” by Gilad Erdan, Israel’s ambassador to the UN. This came after Hamas released four Israeli civilian hostages without conditions, for what the group said were humanitarian reasons.

According to the Calcalist financial newspaper, the Gaza war was estimated early on to cost around $50 billion, roughly 10% of Israel’s GDP. In addition to this, the Israeli military has reportedly suffered losses in intelligence and monitoring equipment along their northern border, due to attacks carried out by the Lebanese group Hezbollah. Yemen’s Ansarallah also seized a ship in the Red Sea, owned by an Israeli businessman, which has severely impacted trade through the southern port city of Eilat. This is not factoring in the inevitable long-term effects on things like Israel’s tourism sector or investment in its high-tech industry.

On top of this, we have seen immense pressure being placed upon US forces throughout Syria and Iraq, with daily attacks occurring against their military facilities, for the sole purpose of pressuring Washington to force an end to Israel’s attacks on Gaza. Across the Arab World, the general public is also boycotting Western products on an unprecedented scale, in particular companies like McDonalds that have shown support for the Israeli army. The blatant double standards of the collective West’s political and economic elites, as well as the establishment media, are also being severely criticized, as the likes of the BBC are feeling the heat for biased reporting on the issue of Palestine-Israel.

Instead of facing the wrath of the whole world and getting crushed, Hamas has not only survived, but is becoming more popular. While US President Joe Biden’s administration provided excuses for Israel’s invasions and bombings of hospitals in the Gaza Strip, claiming that Hamas has maintained a significant presence in places like the recently-raided al-Shifa Hospital, the world has risen in outrage against the atrocities Israel has committed in the Palestinian territory. UN relief chief, Martin Griffiths, has called the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza “the worst ever,” and it's seen as a direct result of the US having drawn “no red lines” for Israel’s behavior in Gaza.

Since the Kerry Peace Plan, which was a failed initiative set forward under the administration of Barack Obama, the US government has not made any real effort towards creating a viable Palestinian state. In fact, until October 7, nobody was talking about a Palestinian state, the focus was instead on the issue of Saudi-Israeli normalization. It was clearly the shared belief of the Israeli and US governments that Hamas could be contained with the periodic issuance of Qatari aid grants, while the Palestinian Authority was to be strengthened only to deal with a number of militias that have formed in the West Bank over the past two years. Today, the whole world is talking about the formation of a Palestinian state. There is also the notion of bringing the Palestinian Authority into power in the Gaza Strip, which would essentially mean the lifting of the 17-year economic blockade that the West has imposed on it. The issue of protecting the status-quo at Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is also on the regional agenda in a serious way, while the government of Benjamin Netanyahu veers towards collapse.

If Israel and its Western backers choose to escalate the conflict further instead of finding a peaceful settlement, the war threatens to extend into a broader regional conflict; a threat to the stability of all nations involved. The pursuit of a ceasefire agreement can usher in a new era in the conflict, one in which Hamas will remain. Peace is in the interests of the entire region, we have seen what the Israeli army has to offer and it has not resulted in the defeat of Palestinian armed groups, it has only scored a blow against civilians in Gaza. This will be a hard pill for the Western governments to swallow, but the only solution to safeguarding civilian life and securing the release of all prisoners, will be through a peaceful resolution, not through more violence.

On November 16, the Wall Street Journal, one of the most prestigious and influential American media outlets, published an essay under the title “It’s Time to End Magical Thinking About Russia’s Defeat.”

The authors, Eugene Rumer and Andrew S. Weiss, are influential representatives of America’s national security and international relations establishment. After a career in government service, Rumer now directs the Russia and Eurasia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Weiss is Carnegie’s vice president for studies. This is an important text, and both its message and the timing of its publication matter.

The message is simple: “Putin” (by which they mean Russia) has “withstood the West’s best efforts” to roll back the military operation against Ukraine; Moscow’s political system has proven resilient and even become stronger; and “America and its allies” must now switch to a strategy of “containment.”

The timing is more complex. Clearly, the current Israeli war on Gaza – referred to as “tumult in the Middle East” – is one of three key factors. The other two are the approaching presidential elections in the US, and, of course, the failure of Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive, by now acknowledged even in gung-ho outlets such as the British Daily Telegraph. 

In addition, America's hold over the non-Western majority of humanity is continuing to decline. China, in particular, is successfully resisting Washington’s pressure. Domestically, President Joe Biden's government faces tough headwinds from both the official Republican opposition and a growing movement in the American street, where widespread and deep dissatisfaction with politics and the economy is now combining with an unprecedented groundswell of protest against US complicity in Israel’s genocidal war on the Palestinians.

Against this background, this Wall Street Journal article clearly serves as an authoritative call for retrenchment. The object of this signal to retreat is the proxy war in Ukraine, that is, the single most aggressive, most risky, and most defeated US foreign policy strategy in the past two years (if we count from the moment Washington recklessly decided to stonewall Moscow’s clear warning as well as its urgent offer to find a grand bargain-style off-ramp in late 2021).

So far, so telling. But not surprising. For two reasons: the turn away from Ukraine is already fairly old non-news. Even mainstream media spotted the onset of a severe, probably terminal, bout of Ukraine fatigue well before the eruption of the fresh war in the Middle East. Secondly, the skeptical insights now given prominence in the Wall Street Journal as reasons to wrap up its proxy war investment in Ukraine are very old hat indeed. As a matter of fact, the most interesting question the essay – inadvertently – raises is what took you so long?

It would be tedious to address every point raised now in the Wall Street Journal. But since they all have in common that they have been predicted or were utterly predictable, a few highlights will do. 

We learn, for instance, that the West’s attempts to isolate Russia have failed. Yet how hard was it to foresee that the Global South has no reason to follow the West except fear, and that fear is abating? And was it impossible to know in advance that China would answer “No, thank you very much,” when the US and the EU did two things at the same time: urge it to abandon Russia, which would have meant giving up Beijing’s single most important partnership, and signal that China would be next to be cut down to size? China, in essence, initially gestured a little in the direction of distancing itself from Russia, but the strategic fundamentals of the situation determined its real behavior and have become explicit by now. This outcome was predicted, not by every expert but by enough of them to matter. 

Every war is a matter of competitive military performance. But in a war of attrition, three fundamental things matter the most: the size, productive and technological capacity, and resilience of the economy; the stability of the political system, including its real-life popularity and the elites’ legitimacy; and, of course, demography. The Wall Street Journal observes that Russia’s economy has “been buffeted but is not in tatters” (really understating its success, but let’s not quibble) and that its political system draws on “solid” popular support and elites that have neither rebelled nor deserted. 

In the West at least, this was harder to predict. Not because of Russia being so difficult to decipher, but due to Western bias and groupthink, or, bluntly put, wishful thinking. Even before the post-February 2022 Ukraine war, Western politics, media, think tanks, and even academia have rewarded unrealistically pessimistic assessments of both Russia’s economy and political stability. Consider, as a pars pro toto, Western reactions to the Wagner rebellion in June. Quite a few of them predicted the imminent collapse of Russia into anarchy and civil war or, at least, a great and lasting domestic and international weakening of Russia. Yet none of this has come to pass.

The importance of this comprehensive, almost total failure of analysis and prediction lies in how typical it was, reflecting a dominant culture of politicized sloppiness vitiating Western thinking about Russia. A sloppiness that is all the more astonishing as precisely Moscow’s opponents cannot afford it without serious self-harm.

For self-harm is the main result. It is true that Russia has to bear some of the cost of Western shortsightedness. Obviously, Moscow as well would be better off if it could work with reasonable, if competitive, partners instead of irrationally hostile opponents who constantly underestimate Russia and overestimate themselves. Yet the West is suffering even more from its pattern of repetitive mistakes.

The costs of the proxy war in Ukraine demonstrate this fact, and not only in terms of arms and money, but of political prestige as well. Regarding the quantifiable costs, the US Congress, for instance, has approved $113 billion worth of aid for Ukraine since February 2022. Currently, a request for even more is turning into a major domestic headache for the Biden administration, and most likely, a defeat. The EU has shelled out almost €85 billion. 

Of course, not all of these funds have really been appropriated, and much of them have really been fueling corruption in Ukraine or served the donors and especially their arms industries, as US politicians have repeatedly pointed out with proud cynicism. Yet the overall picture remains one of severe fiscal overstretch spent on a losing gamble. Add the self-inflicted losses that the EU’s economies in particular have incurred from their misconceived sanctions policy and the picture is grim. Add, moreover, how much the West will have to spend if it really wishes to finance the rebuilding of Ukraine, and the prospect turns catastrophic. Good luck, EU, with those membership plans.

Whether or when exactly it will do so, and what shape such a new “snapping back” of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s metaphorical “rubber band” will take this time, remains to be seen. What is clear is that such payback is a realistic possibility. Secondly, the West is committed as never before, substantially and rhetorically, when trying to use Ukraine to reduce Russia. Hence, failing to do so exposes Western limits as never before. Rumer and Weiss are not naïve. They cannot say it – and maybe they can’t even quite think it – but in their heart of hearts they know that packaging this defeat as a mere change of strategy to “containment” will not fool anyone who does not want to be fooled. 

It is good to finally see some hard facts appear prominently in mainstream Western debates. But it is not enough. For one thing, the West has to ask itself painful questions why it has stayed so obsessively one-sided for so long. Otherwise, the same pattern will be repeated in starting and waging the next war, for instance, against China or Iran. Secondly, a shift to “containment” will not repair the damage but merely stretch it out. What the West really needs is a complete rethinking of not merely its methods but its aims.

Indian military commanders are rarely seen speaking on geopolitics, let alone at public forums. That job is best left to career diplomats or the political leadership. So, when India’s top commander, Chief of Defense Staff General Anil Chauhan, suggested at an event in Bengaluru last month that Russia’s geopolitical influence would decrease but the world would witness an assertive China in the years to come, it came as a shock to many strategists and geopolitical pundits.

“The current geopolitical environment is in a state of flux. The old order is withering away and the shapes and contours of the new world order are yet to stabilize. The geopolitical importance of Russia will go down in times to come. It is in spite of being a nuclear power. The Wagner rebellion indicates the internal weakness and is indicative of what may lie in store for the future as far as Russia is concerned,” Chauhan stated while speaking on the topic of ‘Inevitability of Changes in the Defense Forces’ at an event organized by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, a public sector aviation company. 

Chauhan’s statement came days after Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said during a visit to the US that India’s relations with Russia are “very, very stable.” For almost two years now, Jaishankar has single-handedly taken on Western leaders and media, defending, or rather clarifying, India’s stand of ‘strategic autonomy’ with regard to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. 

New Delhi had borne the brunt for not openly criticizing Moscow for its decision to launch the military operation against Ukraine in February 2022. The West sees India as being too dependent on Russia for weapons and other needs, and hence not being able to oppose President Vladimir Putin’s actions. So much so that in a scathing attack, Ukraine accused India of taking crude oil from Russia stained with ‘blood’. 

Chauhan was not the first to voice his apprehension about New Delhi’s most vital ally. Earlier this year, Indian Army Chief General Manoj Pande suggested that the “Russia-Ukraine war’s impact on supply chains has impacted the availability of some spares and weapons for India,” adding that it highlights the need for New Delhi to be “self-reliant in defense manufacturing.”

There are many concerns related to the Ukraine conflict, including why a superpower like Russia couldn’t defeat a relatively weak and small country like Ukraine in a matter of days or weeks. Why did Russian ground forces return from the outskirts of Ukraine’s capital leaving behind tanks, armored personnel carriers, and other military vehicles during the initial weeks of the special military operation? 

As the narrative about the conflict has been shaped in India with the help of mainly Western English-language media, not many would recall that Russia had moved back its forces as a result of peace negotiations with Kiev in March 2022. The peace deal was, however, thrown in the dustbin by Ukraine – and today some European politicians are openly stating that the US prevented Ukraine from signing the agreement. 

That is, however, not the case with India’s strategic community. The biggest lesson that New Delhi is learning from the Ukraine conflict and now from the Israel-Hamas war, too, is the need for better military preparedness and security arrangements. 

India, whose relations with both of its nuclear-armed neighbors – China and Pakistan – remain frosty and could, Delhi fears, descend into a two-front war on its borders, can hardly question Russia’s geopolitical significance. 

Relations between India and China have been extremely strained since the deadly June 2020 Galwan Valley clash, when the two nations’ armies engaged in a bloody fight in the high-altitude region of Ladakh, adjoining Aksai Chin. New Delhi regards the area as an integral part of India, while China also claims it as its own. A five-point plan to de-escalate at the India-China border after the clash was signed by New Delhi and Beijing in Moscow.

Notably, Russia is the only country which can act as a facilitator between India and China. Moscow persuaded India and China to send military contingents for Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) exercises in 2017 and then in 2021, even though both countries had earlier canceled a bilateral military exercise at the height of another border dispute in Doklam along Bhutan (tri-junction of India, China, and Bhutan) in mid-2017. Recently, Russia again managed to bring the arch-rivals to the same platform during the war drills held by the ASEAN Plus countries in Vladivostok. 

New Delhi’s bilateral engagement with Russia, particularly in the energy and defense sectors, will not wane anytime soon. 

The new deals and arrangements announced last week during the Dubai Airshow 2023, including India reportedly signing a long-pending contract for the supply and licensed manufacturing of Russian Igla-S portable anti-aircraft missile systems (MANPADS), are just the tip of the iceberg.

While India’s dependency on Russia has been reduced in the past couple of years, Moscow still constitutes 50% of the arms imported by New Delhi, as per global think tank the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Even after Modi’s flagship program of ‘Make in India’, New Delhi is still the second largest importer of arms and ammunition in the world, next only to Saudi Arabia. Putin, an ardent friend of Modi, is an admirer of ‘Make in India’, under which New Delhi wants to become self-reliant in the defense sector. 

Even if India is inking arms deals with friendly foreign countries, they are mainly under the ‘Make in India’ project. Be it C-295 military transport aircraft, MQ-9 Reaper drones, or GE-414 and Safran aviation engines, all are going to be manufactured in India in conjunction with global arms companies.  

Essentially, Western countries are helping India develop a domestic defense ecosystem, something Russia has been doing for the past several decades. 

Beginning from MiG-21 fighter jets, Sukhoi aircraft, the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile, the INS Arihant nuclear submarine, T-90 tanks, BMP-2 ‘Sarath’ (infantry combat vehicles), and various other military equipment. India still uses Russian aircraft carrier the INS Vikramaditya (the erstwhile Kiev class Admiral Gorshkov), AK series rifles, various anti-aircraft guns like OSA, Pechora and Strela, Grad rocket system, artillery guns, Konkur ATGMs, and Dragunov sniper rifles. 

Even while India is getting closer to the US, France, and other Western countries, it has procured an ultra-modern S-400 missile system from Russia and the two countries have inked a deal for a joint project to manufacture AK-203 rifles in Amethi (northern India state of Uttar Pradesh).

The delay in supplies of the S-400 is believed to be mainly attributed to payment issues caused by sanctions against Russia, resulting in a large number of transfers pending from the Indian side. Moscow and New Delhi have reportedly agreed to resolve payment issues while also formalizing a plan for the local production of Russian equipment and spare parts during the meeting of the countries’ defense ministers on the sidelines of the SCO summit in New Delhi in April. However, many in the Indian military and strategic community still have concerns over the feasibility of this arrangement, particularly the degree of the technology transfer. 

Being self-reliant in defense is thus the biggest lesson India has learnt from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. New Delhi, which is concerned about both a short and swift war, and/or a prolonged war keeping in view the tumultuous relations with two neighboring countries, China and Pakistan, can no longer solely rely on foreign companies for its defense needs if a conflict erupts. 

It is not surprising that the air chief, speaking about Russia’s S-400 delivery, pointed out: India is using its indigenous development to protect its borders. The Air Force has now got clearance from the Defense Ministry to develop five units of Project Kusha, under which the Indian version of S-400 missile systems would be developed. 

Where India Meets Russia – We are now on WhatsApp! ‎Follow and share RT India in English and in Hindi 

At the beginning of this week, foreign ministers from a group of Muslim-majority countries, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, the Palestinian National Authority, and Indonesia travelled to China in order to seek support for a ceasefire in the ongoing Gaza war.

The unconditional backing of Israel by the United States and its allies has tanked their credibility across the Islamic world, and Beijing has positioned itself as an advocate of peace when others are not willing to take up that role.

It is curious that within the following few days, a report was released by Human Rights Watch, accusing China of expanding its alleged campaign of closing down and repurposing mosques into regions other than Xinjiang – which had so far been the focus of accusations that Beijing is cracking down on the predominantly Muslim Uighur minority. Even those allegations had been somewhat on the backburner in the establishment media lately, but the HRW report was quickly picked up and amplified.

Although relations between the US and China have somewhat calmed down, it is obvious that Washington does not want to see Beijing increase its influence in the Muslim world, as that would inevitably come at the expense of American clout. The attempt to draw attention back to China’s alleged repression of its Muslim population, while underreporting Israel’s devastating attack on the (also Muslim) population of Gaza, is an exercise in deflection and part of the ongoing narrative war between China and the US. Be it about Muslims or not, the Xinjiang issue has long been a key component of that struggle for influence.

The Uighur minority has, since 2018, been a tool of “atrocity propaganda” used to wage public relations offensives against China. It is a means to an end, which often disappears and resurfaces in the media, coinciding with the ebb and flow of anti-Beijing rhetoric coming from the US administration or the State Department. This includes using it to turn public opinion against Beijing in selected countries, including allies, or to manufacture consent for policies aimed at supply chain shifts or “decoupling,” through the accusation of forced labor, especially in the fields of key agricultural goods, polysilicon and solar panels, or to attempt to embarrass China diplomatically at the UN, or to push for boycotting events such as the Winter Olympics.

So when you are faced with a situation whereby Beijing is gaining diplomatic capital over your own failures, what do you do? You desperately aim to deflect by trying to draw attention to another issue in the attempt to smear Beijing: Xinjiang and the Uighurs. Now as it happens, Muslim countries mostly ignore US-led propaganda over the Xinjiang issue, because they see it for what it is and also share a common norm of respect for national sovereignty with Beijing, which is politically beneficial for them. The only Muslim nation who has ever made public comment about it is Türkiye, because Uighurs are a Turkic ethnic group and the issues is viewed through the lens of Ankara’s Pan-Turk ideology. However, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is still likely to ignore the issue, or only involve himself in it based on what he can gain.

On the other hand, the Gulf States, the key US allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, support China’s position, and the Gaza issue is putting them under pressure regarding their relations with the US and the decision to normalize relations with Israel. So suddenly we are seeing a resurgence of Xinjiang material because the US, even if it cannot sway their governments, wants to kindle the anger of Muslim populations about another issue instead and diminish China’s credibility. Although this is less likely in Arab States, it could cause public opinion ruptures in key Asian Islamic countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia, where significant resources were placed by organizations such as the BBC in relaying Xinjiang-related content in their respective languages.

But the question is, will this campaign succeed? It might be worth remembering that Xinjiang is an artificially imposed issue pushed “top-down” by governments and the media, whereas Palestine is a grassroots issue pushing from the bottom up, aspects of which media and politicians endeavor to selectively ignore. China’s heavy-handed management of Uighurs in Xinjiang is not really a genocide, and it will never rank on the same level of severity as the outright bombardment and mass killing of Palestinians, no matter how hard you try.

Not since the founding of Israel in 1948 had Tel Aviv suffered as audacious an assault on its soil as the one carried out by the Palestinian Islamist militant group Hamas on October 7, which was more shocking than the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
The fact that Hamas had planned such a massive assault by land, sea and air and managed to avoid detection points to a massive intelligence failure by Israel.

Hamas appeared to have better knowledge about goings-on inside the country than the famed Israeli intelligence agency Mossad did about what was happening in Gaza. Israel’s Prime Minister, “Mr. Security” Benjamin Netanyahu, has certainly suffered a blow from which he may not be able to recover in the long run.

When Netanyahu came to power for the third time last December with the support of the country's right-wing parties, both serving and retired Israeli Army generals expressed apprehension that such a coalition could lead to civil war in the country. That has not happened so far, but the division and months of protests against Netanyahu’s policies certainly emboldened Hamas to carry out its lightning strikes.

The very fact that Israel had to formally declare war was a morale booster for Hamas, which has been at war with the Jewish state ever since its inception when the first intifada, or Palestinian uprising, started in Gaza in December 1987. The world may be shocked by the unspeakable cruelty of the October attack by Hamas, but the Palestinian group is most likely proud of its accomplishment.

Efraim Halevy, whose career as the ninth Mossad director stretched from 1998 to 2002, urged caution as Israel stepped out to destroy Hamas. He warned that while Israel was entering a heightened state of emergency, the reservists were within their rights to refuse to serve in protest against PM Netanyahu’s planned judicial reforms.

Halevy, who was a confidant of the assassinated Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin and played a key role in the Israel-Jordan peace treaty in October 1994, has always been in favor of negotiating with Hamas. He has consistently maintained that Hamas could neither be demolished nor wished away. Halevy, a nephew of the 20th century philosopher Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997), refused to accept Netanyahu as the leader of the country. Israel's security chiefs also realize that destroying Hamas is beyond their abilities. As Israeli journalist and author Gideon Levy said, violence will never end Israeli problems.

Not much is known about the internal workings of Hamas, which remains extremely secretive. What is known, however, is that its goals are retaliation against Israel and its punishment, as well as the freeing of Palestinians languishing in Israeli jails. However, one of the key objectives of the October Hamas attack was the scuttling of the Abraham Accords, diplomatic normalization roadmaps signed between Israel and the Arab world in 2020 and brokered by the US.

Palestine remains a key sensitive issue in the Arab world. Even before the October 7 attacks and the ongoing retaliation, hostilities had been growing between Israel and the West Bank, particularly at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam, where Palestinians are regularly assaulted and mistreated by the Israeli security forces. Issues like the killing of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh by Israeli forces have kept widespread resentment simmering.

During his whirlwind trip to Israel soon after the start of the war, US President Joe Biden appealed to the Israelis not to be “consumed” by rage in response to the attack by Hamas. Even if this never translated into him making any attempt to restrain Israel’s actions, the US president knows what he is talking about. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Washington launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which turned out to be massive blunders. More than 30,000 US troops took their own lives after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, over three times the number killed in battle.

The social wreckage caused by the wars the US fought after 9/11 led to the rise of President Donald Trump in 2016. An extended conflict in the Middle East may help him return to power in next year’s US presidential elections.

The current Israel-Hamas war has all the makings of such a long-term conflict – or a new, long-term stage of a conflict that has been simmering and flaring up for decades. In the past few weeks, Israel has claimed the killing of three Hamas commanders. In Afghanistan, too, the West kept claiming that it had killed Taliban commanders but fresh faces kept emerging. The US went into Afghanistan in 2001 with the goal of toppling the Taliban, but when they left 20 years later, the Taliban took power, more powerful than ever. Hamas, too, may end up more powerful 20 years from now.

Political issues cannot be swept under the carpet and must be dealt with politically. Governments around the world proclaim that they will never negotiate with evil. And yet they always have and always will, most of all Israel. No conflict, however bloody, ancient or difficult, is unstable.

Key to that deal was the mediation by Qatar, an ally of the US and in a sense, the conscience-keeper of the Arab world. In the past, Doha had worked out the deal with the Taliban and helped US forces move out of Afghanistan before the Taliban arrived. More recently, Qatar was instrumental in a prisoner swap between the US and Iran.

After the four-day pause, the IDF has vowed to continue its attacks on Gaza, but if a longer-term peace deal is to be achieved, Qatar is likely going to play a vital role in it.

The US has always supported Israel, but has no great respect for PM Netanyahu. Biden has been disappointed that Netanyahu went back on the 1993 Oslo Accords and reneged on the two-state formula to resolve the Palestinian issue. Today, the Oslo Accords are long dead and may no longer be relevant.

The great Palestinian thinker, Edward Said (1935-2003) always saw the fate of Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine inextricably linked. We need to listen to Said today.

This week, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky – and his Western backers – celebrated the tenth anniversary of the start of the Maidan protests in Kiev. Of course, they led to a US-backed coup and, ultimately, the current conflict with Russia.

“Ten years ago, we began a new chapter in our struggle. Ten years ago, Ukrainians launched their first counteroffensive. Against lawlessness and an attempt to rob us of our European future. Against unfreedom. Year after year, step by step, we make every effort to ensure that, among the other stars on the EU flag, which represents the unity of European nations, our star shines as well. The Ukrainian star,” Zelensky tweeted.

Except that, in reality, it’s been a full ten years now of “f**k(ing) the EU,” as US State Department fixture Victoria Nuland was caught saying back then in a leaked conversation with then ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.

“F**k the EU,” she demanded. And, well, they sure did exactly that. 

“F**king the EU” for ten years straight has been good for her though, apparently. “Ten years of dignity. Of pride. Of striving for freedom. The cold winter nights of Euromaidan have changed Europe forever. Today, it is clearer than ever. The future of Ukraine is in the European Union. The future that the Maidan fought for has finally begun,” von der Leyen said. 

Meanwhile, speaking of masochists, Germany is currently panicking over money problems, largely as a result of selling out its own industry to the US-led agenda for Ukraine. “The house is in flames,” one member of the ruling coalition told Bloomberg. Well, it could be a fire. Or it could be German Chancellor Olaf Scholz lighting some romantic candles while tweeting, “10 years ago, the Maidan became a symbol of freedom, democracy and sovereignty. The courage of the Ukrainians will not be forgotten. Ukraine is part of Europe – and we stand by its side.” Scholz still hasn’t bothered to tell us who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline network carrying Russian gas into Germany – his country’s economic and industrial lifeline – an attack which happened to come just a few months after Scholz himself stood right beside Joe Biden while the US president openly threatened the pipeline’s existence. With the International Monetary Fund forecasting a recession for the German economy, Scholz has since resorted to congratulating himself for securing deals like the one to replace a whopping 2% of the pricey American liquified natural gas on which Berlin is now dependent, with Nigerian gas – maybe by 2026. 

It’s also quite the revisionist history from Zelensky, saying that Euromaidan was about Ukraine fighting against being robbed of its “European future” and freedom. In reality Ukraine already had freedom to deal with both Russia and the West, was courted by everyone like the hottest girl in town, and the country’s president at the time, Viktor Yanukovich, had, in fact, just refused to sign an agreement with the EU, which would have reduced Ukraine’s diversity of options and its freedom, and would have put all its eggs in the Western basket. All that is the exact opposite of what Zelensky is now spinning. 

Zelensky is also getting poetic about something he calls the Ukrainian star – whatever that is – shining among the stars on the EU flag that represent the bloc’s unity. In any case, some EU leaders have already thrown cold water on the wet dream of Ukraine’s integration into the bloc, which would require unanimity among all member states. 

The thing about romanticizing relationships is that it can turn out to be a bummer when you have to deal with real life. And here in the real world, Ukraine is already getting into fights with other European countries, most recently Poland and Slovakia, whose truckers, by the thousands, have been blockading roads to three border crossings for days, and effectively blocking humanitarian aid. They apparently feel that they’re losing business amid the Ukraine conflict and that their government isn’t doing anything about it. So there isn’t even an engagement date in sight between Kiev and the EU, let alone a wedding day, and already there’s trouble in paradise.  

Too bad all these elites can’t just get a room already and leave the rest of us out of it. 

Since Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, there has been a prevailing intuition that the platform, since renamed to X, would inevitably emerge as a potent challenger to establishment media.

Whether it’s unraveling their carefully woven narrative on Ukraine or exposing the delicate veneer of their agenda, X (formerly Twitter) has consistently been a source of discomfort for those in Washington or the EU managing the news flow – from Israel to the respective migration crises. But who would’ve thought that the retaliation would be this desperate and embarrassingly obvious?

On November 20, 2023, X initiated legal proceedings against Media Matters, a non-profit organization founded in 2004 with a mission to monitor and rectify conservative misinformation in US media. X alleges that Media Matters orchestrated a deceptive scenario by strategically juxtaposing advertisers’ posts with extremist content.

According to X, the crux of the defamation claim arises from Media Matters’ publication of a report asserting that ads for major brands were displayed alongside posts endorsing Nazism. X further contends that Media Matters employed manipulated algorithms and fake accounts to craft a narrative intended to besmirch the platform’s reputation. While applauding the theatricality, X questions the seriousness of such tactics.

Media Matters is pure evil https://t.co/9bdMWyczs6

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 20, 2023

Advertisers left in shambles

The aftermath was catastrophic, it seems. Big players like IBM, Apple, and Comcast ran for the hills, distancing themselves from X faster than you can say “cancel culture.”

Allegations of ads cozying up to pro-Nazi and white nationalist content created quite the stir, dealing a hefty blow to X’s attempts to win back the trust of those precious ad dollars. But hey, who needs advertisers when you’re fighting the good fight, right?

If you know me, you know I'm committed to truth and fairness. Here's the truth. Not a single authentic user on X saw IBM’s, Comcast’s, or Oracle’s ads next to the content in Media Matters’ article. Only 2 users saw Apple’s ad next to the content, at least one of which was Media…

— Linda Yaccarino (@lindayaX) November 20, 2023

Still, X waltzed into federal court in Fort Worth, Texas, guns blazing, claiming that Media Matters knowingly and maliciously portrayed ads next to hateful material as a casual Tuesday for typical X users. According to the allegations, Media Matters deliberately followed the crème de la crème of “extreme fringe content” accounts and others owned by X’s major advertisers, then kept refreshing the feed until the desired outcome was on display. The result was a carefully curated feed designed to make advertisers jump ship, all captured on screenshots. Quite the strategic masterpiece, apparently.

Media Matters swiftly responded, dismissing the lawsuit as frivolous. Its president, Angelo Carusone, claimed that the legal action was a feeble attempt to silence critics. Undeterred, Media Matters boldly asserted its confidence in securing victory in court.

‘Free speech absolutism’ backfiring?

Now, let’s delve into the context – Elon Musk’s tumultuous tenure at the helm of X. Allegations of Musk turning a blind eye to anti-Semitic messages have circulated since his grand takeover over a year ago. Amid global tensions, including the Israel-Hamas war, Musk’s reluctance to censor ‘problematic’ posts on X only added more fuel to the already blazing controversy that is his leadership.

In response to the tumult, X CEO Linda Yaccarino stepped forward, pledging a commitment to combat discrimination on the platform.

Protecting the freedom of speech could not be more urgent and important. Now, more than ever! https://t.co/bhZk6cNrNY

— Linda Yaccarino (@lindayaX) November 18, 2023

In the unfolding saga of X’s legal battle against Media Matters, a complex narrative reveals Musk’s transformative influence on Twitter. He proclaims himself a “free speech absolutist” and this commitment transcends mere financial investment; it is a passionate endeavor to combat what Musk sees as a media swamp threatening free speech on his platform.

Having been a part of X since its inception (as Twitter), I’ve observed its evolution into an alternative internet, fostering diverse opinions within reasonable limits. The power to choose whom to follow or interact with should be a personal decision, free from external influence. Media Matters, with its apparent manipulative tactics, embarks on a questionable path of both exploiting that power and trying to punish Musk for bestowing it upon users.

In a coincidental twist, Media Matters president Carusone proudly claims responsibility for the #DumpTrump movement.

As the legal drama unfolds, the X vs. Media Matters saga becomes a spectacle – a masterclass in desperation where the line between truth and manipulation blurs. Whether this episode will establish a precedent for digital discourse or merely intensify chaos remains uncertain. The next act in this gripping Silicon Valley showdown promises more twists in this evolving narrative.

I spent nearly 5 years as Elon’s chief of staff. In that time, I never observed a trace of antisemitism. Elon cares deeply about all humanity and has dedicated his life to making the future as exciting and prosperous as possible. Those who continue to claim he is antisemitic are…

— Sam Teller (@samteller) November 21, 2023

Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Party is on the verge of splitting, as yet another political crisis has engulfed Britain – and over the past few weeks it has become apparent that major political parties in the West are paying a heavy price for uncritically supporting America’s latest proxy conflict in Palestine.

Prime Minister Sunak sacked Home Secretary Suella Braverman because she sought to ban pro-Palestinian protest marches. Her disagreement with the PM over this issue came hard on the heels of serious disagreements between them over other “culture war” issues, namely immigration policy and multiculturalism.

Sunak’s dismissal of Braverman and his appointment of David Cameron (now Lord David) as Foreign Secretary were desperate and ill-judged acts, of the kind to be expected from a fourth-rate politician like Sunak.

Braverman has not gone quietly. Her resignation letter accuses Sunak of incompetence, treachery and lack of principle, amongst other failings, and some Conservative MPs have already fired off letters to the 1922 Committee expressing their lack of confidence in Sunak.

The prime minister's extraordinary decision to bring back Cameron from his richly deserved political exile simply beggars belief.

Cameron created the entire Brexit debacle, led the unsuccessful Remain campaign, helped turn Libya into a failed state, and was hell bent on invading Syria until the UK parliament stopped him. Since petulantly retiring from politics after the Brexit referendum succeeded, he has occupied his time by getting involved in shady financial deals.

Surely Sunak cannot remain prime minister for much longer, and a split within the Conservative Party now seems inevitable – with Braverman and her right-wing supporters leaving the party at some point to perhaps join forces with Nigel Farage and the Reform Party to form a new Trump-like populist movement.

Nor has Kier Starmer’s Labour Party escaped unscathed from the acute emotive divisiveness engendered by the Israel-Palestine conflict that has torn the Conservative party apart over the past week.

Starmer has had to endure a revolt from 56 of his MPs (including a number of shadow cabinet members) who strongly disagree with his unwavering  support for America’s refusal to accept an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

These Labour MPs openly defied their leader, and voted in the House of Commons in favour of a failed motion brought by the Scottish National Party (SNP) – yet another major UK party recently rent asunder by internal divisions and corruption – calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

In Australia, bitter political divisions have also emerged over the conflict in Palestine, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government deeply divided over the ceasefire issue (even though it formally supported America’s opposition to a truce) and coming under concerted attack from the conservative opposition parties, who uncritically support America’s position on Gaza.

The opposition has branded Labor politicians who have called for a ceasefire as antisemites, and insisted that pro-Palestinian protest marches – there have been many in major Australian cities over the past few weeks – be banned.

PM Albanese, who won an election in May last year, now finds himself in charge of a fractured government that appears increasingly unlikely to win a second term in office.

There seems to be a very strict correlation between craven support for American foreign policy and political incompetence amongst politicians in the West.

Similar bitter political divisions, accompanied by mass pro-Palestinian protest marches, have emerged recently in most Western countries, including America – and Germany, France, Austria and Hungary have now banned pro-Palestinian rallies altogether.

It is a curious circumstance that purportedly liberal democratic governments that uncritically support America’s foreign proxy conflicts find themselves curtailing free speech and the right to protest in their own countries.

Be that as it may, it is clear that the Hamas terrorist attacks on 7 October, and the Netanyahu government’s ongoing response to them, have deeply destabilised Western democracies and exacerbated deep-seated, pre-existing ideological and political divisions within them.

Palestine, unfortunately, has now become a classic “culture war” issue in the West, as a result of almost all Western governments uncritically supporting the blank cheque that the Biden administration has given to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition government in respect of Gaza.

Rational debate on the topic has become virtually impossible in the West, with both sides hurling emotive charges of ”antisemitism” (redefined so as to encompass any support for the Palestinian cause or any criticism of Netanyahu’s actions) and “genocide” at each other, whilst at the same time ignoring the complex historical context that gave rise to the current phase of the conflict.

In fact, when the UN secretary general recently pointed out that the October 7 attacks had an historical background – a demonstrably true statement – the Israeli Ambassador to the UN demanded that he be sacked immediately. So much for rational debate.

It is inevitable that a ceasefire in Gaza will have to take place, and a political settlement will have to be negotiated at some point.  It is most  unlikely, however, that the Netanyahu government will be in power long enough to negotiate such a settlement.

Recent polls in Israel show that support for Netanyahu is collapsing, and media outlets within Israel that previously supported him are now calling for him to step aside – not only because he failed to prevent the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7, but because he has no realistic strategy for negotiating a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert – who, unlike Netanyahu, is committed to a two-state solution to be negotiated between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government – said recently in an interview with ABC in Australia that Netanyahu “has to be fired… he is not fit to govern, and has no strategy to work towards peace”.

Olmert – who is a fierce opponent of Hamas – has accused Netanyahu of empowering the militant group since becoming prime minister by refusing to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority – on the grounds that Netanyahu, just like Hamas, refuses to accept that a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians is possible.

Olmert has also condemned Netanyahu for refusing to distinguish between Hamas terrorists and innocent civilians in Gaza, and causing international support for Israel (he means in the West because such support does not exist elsewhere) to rapidly dissipate since the October 7 terrorist attacks.

Olmert’s criticisms of Netanyahu are substantially correct. Members of Netanyahu’s government have recently stated that Israel intends to occupy Gaza after the present conflict ends, and that the two million Palestinians that reside in Gaza should be driven out of the territory.

At some point, however, America will withdraw its support for the Netanyahu government, as it did with its other local proxy regimes in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq – when it became clear that its misguided forays into those countries were going to end in embarrassing defeats.

The long-term prospects for local proxy regimes in America’s foreign conflicts, if history is a reliable guide, are decidedly grim.

Netanyahu’s continuing bombardment of Gaza has now unified the entire Arab world against Israel – including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Turkey, countries that had recently sought rapprochement with Israel – and at some point America will be compelled to come to terms with this new political realignment in the Middle East.

In a book titled “Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship” published in 1966, as the Vietnam war was escalating out of control, Barrington Moore Jr characterised American domestic and foreign policy as an irrational combination of “repression at home and aggression abroad”.

Nothing much has changed in that regard. But what has changed over the past six decades is that the political, economic and social stability that characterised America and Western liberal democracies in the mid 1960s has completely collapsed.

It has been destroyed by rapacious global elites that have imposed illiberal, irrational woke ideologies on their citizens, thereby creating the so-called “culture wars” and provoking a powerful populist political backlash that they are either unable or unwilling to control.

In the process they have destabilised the countries that they now govern with the assistance of fourth-rate politicians like Rishi Sunak – who meekly do their bidding, and who they replace these days with monotonous regularity.

Major Western political parties and politicians now have a clear choice: they can stop uncritically supporting America’s disastrous proxy foreign wars, or risk being torn apart by the bitter internal conflicts that such ill-judged backing inevitably gives rise to.

President Macron of France is the only Western leader who seems to appreciate this.

Recently Macron bravely called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and strongly condemned Netanyahu’s ongoing killing of innocent civilians and blatant disregard for international and humanitarian law.

Whether or not other political leaders in the West will have the courage and intelligence to heed President Macron’s example is extremely doubtful. But events in the UK last week make perfectly clear the fate that awaits those politicians who refuse to do so.

The far-right Argentine economist and so-called “libertarian” Javier Milei was elected president on Sunday night, promising to tackle inflation and take a sledgehammer to the state in the midst of an economic crisis. But his proposed policies will most likely not be a panacea for Argentina’s woes and, more likely, will only harm the country more.

Before detailing Milei’s particular positions, it needs to be noted upfront that Buenos Aires’ economic crisis is directly attributed to former right-wing President Mauricio Macri (2015-2019), who took out a massive International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan in hopes of boosting his political cred before a tough reelection that he eventually lost. It was this massive and unpayable debt that carried on into the administration of current outgoing President Alberto Fernandez, contributing to hyperinflation. The history of Argentine economics is long and complicated (the economy is in crisis about every six years), but this latest one is directly attributed to the same sort of austerity and Western bootlicking that’s on the table today.

That’s where Javier Milei comes in. He wants to lean into these very same policies and institutions that mangled the Argentine economy, namely the IMF and the West, predominantly the United States, while also giving up his nation’s sovereignty by adopting the US dollar. He wants to cut off ties with major countries like China purely on ideological grounds, never mind how ridiculously this would destroy Argentina’s supply chains and place in international trade. He has also promised to abandon the BRICS format, opting instead to do business with the “civilized” world – North America, Europe, and their partners, including Israel.

It’s clear that this is not only foolhardy, given the long-term trajectory of the eastward drift of economic, political, and diplomatic power, but an outright betrayal against the Argentine people. Abandoning its sovereign currency – just like Ecuador and El Salvador, both countries themselves undergoing regular cycles of turmoil, did – would guarantee that Buenos Aires’ monetary policy is written in Washington, DC. Without fiscal exchange and labor market integration, this effectively would make Argentina a US colony.

Then again, it’s also important to note that he is not a pure anarcho-capitalist/market libertarian as he apparently professes. If you look at his policy proposals, here are some highlights: “Militarization of the institutions during the transition period,” building a for-profit public-private prison system, relaxing regulations on imprisoning people, implementing forced labor for prisoners (such that they cannot be released without being economically productive), reducing the age of imputability of minors (the age at which someone is considered morally competent by law, thus able to be criminally sentenced), and creating a national surveillance network complete with cameras and facial recognition.

Milei’s advocates believe that he has now ridden into his mandate on an anti-crime, pro-market reform wave on the back of rising crime and an out-of-control left that doomed the economy. On the contrary, his policies will not alleviate the material conditions – poverty and destitution – that are driving crime, and his hard-on-crime policies, which are totally out of step with what libertarians claim to believe, is, at best, a band-aid on a gaping wound. At worst, it’s clear that he is following the same route as other pro-capital tough men like Chile’s former dictator, Augusto Pinochet.

That is to say, while many of the original neoliberals lauded Pinochet as their man, and, indeed, Pinochet implemented the first prototypical neoliberal constitution in history in Chile, this was a farce. In fact, the state began to intervene more in the economy from 1975 to 1982, a period described as a “pure Monetarist experiment” that also overlapped with Pinochet’s dictatorship, than the former socialist government of Salvador Allende. This supposed laissez-faire period was, in fact, categorized with heavy state control of the economy and state repression designed to cull opposition to these unpopular policies, which netted little economic growth and culminated in a banking crisis.

While Milei claims to be a libertarian and a free-market capitalist, he has already shown himself to have an authoritarian streak. Moreover, his predecessor on the right, Macri, also had to contend with political realities – e.g. the fact that austerity is extraordinarily unpopular – prompting his reforms to grind to a halt. Milei will necessarily need to employ state repression – particularly against those on the left, whom he openly dehumanizes – to ram these policies through if he intends to do even half of what he has stated publicly. It would be impossible for Argentina to be both a democracy and a degenerate right-wing semi-feudal state at the same time.

The president of the United States, Joe Biden, has recently published an op-ed. Appropriately released through the Washington Post, it is, of course, really the equivalent of a regime policy declaration – a laying down of the party line, if you wish. As such, the text deserves attention, never mind that it is impossible that America’s leader, clearly challenged by worsening senescence, has written it himself. This is, to borrow a phrase from the Russia-watching crowd, America’s “collective Biden” speaking.

Translated from official jargon and scrubbed of empty rhetoric and euphemisms, the long proclamation makes only two substantial points about what the US and its “allies” (really clients and vassals) must do: Continue waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and continue backing Israel in its genocidal war against the Palestinians (no, it is not a “war against Hamas,” that’s a side effect).

In that sense, there is nothing surprising, or hopeful, in collective Biden’s announcement: It took them more words this time, but this Democratic administration of neocons is simply repeating the equally tone-deaf slogan of a former Republican president representing a past gaggle of neocons: Stay the course, as George W. Bush put it succinctly during the Iraq disaster. Deja Vue all over again, in the words of America’s greatest philosopher.

But the details of the text still merit scrutiny. Let’s pick out a few highlights: 

Usually, the cause of such absurdities is strategic dishonesty. That holds here as well. For the Biden administration is transparently pursuing two aims with this Orwellian abuse of terminology: First, make Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians appear, if not justified, then at least so “understandable” or “inevitable” that we stop objecting to them (and, if we are Americans, vote for Democrats, even while they support these perfectly avoidable crimes).

Secondly, prepare the ground for the proposal, following further down in the proclamation, to entirely eliminate Hamas from any post-assault settlement and, instead, “ultimately” make a “revived Palestinian Authority” rule both the West Bank and Gaza, while work on some lasting settlement continues.

This proposal is wrapped in deceptive and revoltingly cynical rhetoric: If Joe Biden has a broken heart over the slaughtered children of Gaza, then Andrew Jackson must have cried while signing the Indian Removal Act. If Biden wants a two-state solution, then why is he allowing and helping one of the “two states” to wipe out the other? If he has “counselled” Israeli leaders to refrain from excessive violence, then why has he not backed up his kind words with using his massive leverage and stopping the flow of arms, money, information, and diplomatic cover to help their genocidal attack? If Biden is worried about antisemitism spreading, why does he allow far-right Zionists to claim that their policies, which lead to deaths of thousands upon thousands of Palestinian children, are somehow “Jewish”?

The real policy proposal, meanwhile, is nothing else but an attempt to return to the post-Oslo Accords system on even worse terms. That means, creating a situation in which urgent, vital Palestinian needs and crystal-clear Palestinian rights will, once again, be de facto suspended in an endless dishonest “process,” which really only serves as a screen and stalling device for Israel, while the latter settles occupied land, practices the internationally recognized crime of apartheid, and conducts the occasional massacre.

But the proclamation addresses more than the Middle East. Turning on Russia, the collective Biden personalizes the issue, in bad old neocon style. Instead of any attempt at a rational – albeit critical, even hostile – approach to Moscow’s actions and interests, we find the usual daft insults: Russian President Vladimir Putin is juxtaposed with Hamas, as if he were a one-man “terrorist organization.” (Never mind that Hamas is not, actually, a terrorist organization, although it also engages in terrorist acts; see above.)

The war in Ukraine is reduced to Putin’s personal “drive for conquest,” as if there has been no history of two decades of American provocations by reckless over-expansion, bad faith, and refusal to negotiate serious issues of international security in earnest and constructively. In that regard, Russia is receiving the same rhetorical treatment as the Palestinians: When it fights, we are forbidden to notice all the very real reasons it was given to do so. 

And finally, both “Putin” – read: Russia – and Hamas stand accused of two things: Wanting to “wipe a neighboring democracy off the map” and taking us to a new, vile international order, where the strong abuse the weak and might makes right.

Newsflash: Actually, neither Israel nor Ukraine are democracies. In Israel’s case, the claim is vitiated by the simple fact that its government exerts de facto control over millions of Palestinians, all of whom face discrimination and the vast majority of whom do not have a vote, or, for that matter any ordinary civil and human rights. Ukraine, meanwhile, has Vladimir Zelensky, Washington’s darling in decline, who started dismantling the country’s brittle democratic structures – for what they were worth – in 2021, well before the war, and clings to power by cooperating with a violent far-right, eliminating the political opposition, streamlining the media, and delaying elections. Again, these are not matters of opinion but facts.

Likewise, Russia is not trying to abolish Ukraine. As its compromise proposals of late 2021 clearly showed, its key aim is a neutral Ukraine that is not used as a proxy by the West. It is true that Russia, by now, claims some Ukrainian territory. Depending on how long the war continues, it may end up claiming and taking even more. You may very well object to that. Yet it is not the same as a will to exterminate a whole state or, for that matter, its population.

Finally, regarding the warning that Hamas, Russia, and who knows who else (China? India? Brazil? Simply everyone who won’t do as told by Washington?) are hellbent on dragging us all into new dark ages of ultra-cynical realpolitik and brute force, guess what: That is precisely where we are now. And have been for the last quarter of a century, under the benevolent aegis of the USA. Don’t believe it? Ask Gaza. 

In sum, all we can really learn from this letter from on-high is that the Biden administration has understood nothing and is determined to learn even less. If, in the words of the declaration, the world is ever supposed to have even a slight chance of seeing “more hope, more freedom, less rage, less grievance, and less war,” then we first need to see much less of Joe Biden and everything and everyone he stands for.

History teaches us that some ancient civilisations killed their children to change the weather. They used to practice child sacrifice to appease their gods in an attempt to court their good graces. Those primitive peoples believed that through human sacrifice, the forces of nature could be coerced in their favour. For example, one of the ways the Aztecs honoured their gods was by killing people in a field with arrows so that their blood might fertilise the land.

The modern environmentalist movement is often compared to a religion. It certainly thinks that humans can change the weather, and it includes a vision of sin and repentance – damnation and salvation. Above and beyond the presence of actual neo-pagans and Gaia worshippers in its ranks, the environmentalist movement itself is displaying characteristics of a nature-worshipping cult – and a remarkably anti-human one at that. Many of its supporters effectively believe that the world has a cancer, and that cancer is called the human race.

The Just Stop Oil movement provides a compelling example of how modern environmentalism has become a primitive and barbaric religion by any other name. In October 2022, iconoclastic activists targeted Vincent Van Gogh’s Sunflowers (1888) in the National Gallery, London, for a “climate emergency” protest. By damaging works of art in museums, blocking roads, stopping play at sports matches and more, these eco-fascists reveal an environmentalism not only endowed with apocalyptic overtones but also with an intent on making life miserable for fellow humans and destroying some of the finest examples of historic human achievement.

Of course, a reasonable concern to avoid pollution and preserve our natural resources in a responsible manner is a commendable ethical position. We should always take care of the environment, be responsible for its protection and, at the same time, help the poor.

However, ‘environmentalist’ efforts to cut carbon emissions make energy less affordable and accessible, which drives up the costs of consumer products, stifles economic growth, costs jobs, and imposes harmful effects on the Earth’s poorest people. By contrast, allocating monetary resources to help build sewage treatment plants, enhance sanitation, and provide clean water for poor people would have a greater immediate impact on their plight than would the battle over the vague concept of ‘global warming.’

According to Australia’s Senator James Paterson,

“The public shaming and bullying of any scientist who differs from climate change orthodoxy is eerily reminiscent of a latter-day Salem Witch-trial or Spanish Inquisition, with public floggings meted out – metaphorically speaking – for their thought crimes. Indeed, ‘dissenters,’ as they have also been labelled, suffer ritual humiliation at the hands of their colleagues and the media, with their every motivation questioned and views pilloried.”

When the temperature rises, we hear, ‘Wow, that’s clear evidence of climate change.’ But when there’s a rapid cooling, we hear, ‘Wow, that’s more proof of climate change.’ According to Jonah Goldberg, the founding editor of National Review Online, “The beauty about global warming is that it touches everything we do – what we eat, what we wear, where we go. Our ‘carbon footprint’ is the measure of man.”

In other words, the idea of “climate change” is essentially irrefutable because, somewhere, in some way, the climate is constantly changing. This irrefutability makes it a perfect basis for a religious belief. And this faith, in turn, makes people into “necessitous” men and women. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who served as US president from March 1933 to April 1945, once contended that human beings in an age of scarcity will find themselves pressed by something he called “necessity.” Life requires the satisfaction of necessities like food, clothes, and shelter. Hence, Roosevelt insisted that “necessitous men are not free men” and that the state should be able to make people “free from fear.” 

James Tonkowich from the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, DC, explains that there is a long history of environmentalist thinking that sees humans primarily as consumers and polluters. “That thinking leads many to insist that abortion rights are integral to any environmental agenda,” he says. Forgoing children and even having an abortion is thereby promoted by the ‘greenie elites’ in the so-called ‘Western democracies’ as environmentally friendly, while childless women are doing their bit to reduce the carbon footprint of civilisation.

“Having children is selfish … Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees, and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

Of course, concerns about overpopulation are not new. In 1968, ecologist Paul Ehrlich echoed 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus when he predicted worldwide famine due to overpopulation and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Ehrlich’s ‘The Population Bomb’ was one of the most influential books of the last century. “Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come,” he said in a prophetic tone more than 50 years ago.

Needless to say, that prophecy never came true. Despite all the worry, access to food and resources increased as the global population rose.

Obviously, this has not stopped some environmental activists from continuing to make similarly bizarre statements about humanity and the future of our planet. Prince Philip, the late Duke of Edinburgh, wrote in 1986: “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus” as a way to do something about human overpopulation.

We should be deeply suspicious of any argument that employs language that refers to humans as an “invasive virus,” a “plague,” or even a “problem” that needs to be resolved. This is an argument that betrays a desire to bring death at a large scale, to eliminate human beings in search of some utopian small number of sustainable survivors.

Nevertheless, some environmentalists even lament that neither war nor famine are capable of reducing the population enough and prefer the arrival of a deadly virus to prey on the innocent. We have come to the point that even a new human life is seen as a threat to the environment, where some candidly contend that new babies represent an undesirable source of greenhouse emissions and consumers of natural resources.

This is why these insidious aspects of the environmentalist cult must be exposed and challenged.

Recently, the 2002 ‘Letter to the American people’ by then-Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden went viral on TikTok after young Americans rediscovered it and, apparently, became disillusioned with their country. This was because Bin Laden had, we may assume, some astute observations about the US – at least as far as some young people see it.

It turns out, of course, that Bin Laden was not only a very well-educated man but also wrote quite a lot. Daniel Dumbrill, a China-based social-media influencer, clued his audience on X (formerly Twitter) into one of Bin Laden's other letters, where he specifically mentioned current US President Joe Biden and why he, the leader of a terrorist outfit wanting to overthrow the US, actually preferred then-Vice President Biden to President Barack Obama.

Bid Laden wrote, “I had asked Shaykh Saeed (may Allah have mercy on him) to task brother Ilyas (Kashmiri) with preparing two groups, one in Pakistan, and the other in the vicinity of Bagram, Afghanistan. These two groups were to be tasked with reconnaissance of Obama’s or Petraeus’s visit to Afghanistan or Pakistan and the subsequent targeting of the airplanes in which they travel.”

This reminds me of the old adage that if Adolf Hitler said the sky was blue, then I’d find myself agreeing with Hitler. Agree with him or not, wish death upon America or not, it is undeniable that what he said in this letter was true. The recent meeting between Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping in the US actually demonstrated this before a global audience.

During a press conference, Biden, first of all, blabbered on about secret ongoing negotiations related to the Israeli hostages held by the Palestinian military group Hamas in Gaza. These talks are apparently being mediated by the Qataris, according to Biden, but he did not give more details as his secretary of state, Antony Blinken, was shaking his head in an apparent plea for him to can it. A journalist also asked Biden if he stood by his previous statement that Xi Jinping is a dictator, to which the US leader replied that, indeed, he does believe that. Blinken visibly cringed on camera after the comment.

Watching Blinken cringe at Biden is like watching the American empire crash and burn in real time.pic.twitter.com/aLxaJ9QV6D

— Danny Haiphong (@SpiritofHo) November 17, 2023

While Antony Blinken is not an exceptional diplomat and has the air of a rich kid who traveled abroad one time in their life to Europe during college and came back “cultured,” his cringe was effectively the collective cringe of all foreign-policy experts and commenters. Insulting a foreign guest, the president of a country that is your leading peer competitor and that will likely far surpass the US in a decade’s time at max, to his face, is downright stupid. There is no other way to describe such behavior.

But this is also indicative of the more substantive outcomes of this meeting. While some of my Chinese colleagues in media are optimistic, and, indeed, China’s state media is awash with droves of cheerful and hopeful columns, such a perspective is very clearly out of touch with reality. The US and China should manage their relationship more carefully and seek cooperation over competition; however, such wishful thinking doesn't constitute reality. The relationship is currently very bad, and to think otherwise is naive.

Paul Heer, a former US national intelligence officer for East Asia, described the outcome of this meeting perfectly in a recent piece for the National Interest. Essentially, and this is obvious by reading each side's readout of the meeting, the US has rejected Xi’s very generous offer to “enhance solidarity and cooperation and join hands to meet global challenges and promote global security and prosperity” (a quote from the Chinese readout) by “emphasizing first and foremost that ‘the United States and China are in competition.’”

In focusing on division over unity, Biden attempted to “speak primarily to his domestic political audience – especially his critics on Capitol Hill – demonstrating his readiness to be tough on China.” On the other hand, Xi’s moves in San Fransisco “appeared to be directed primarily at the global audience, for whom he sought to demonstrate Beijing’s readiness to be reasonable and cooperative in dealing with Washington’s more confrontational approach.”

Indeed, I agree with most of this – but it’s clear that the US has had now almost two full presidential terms with a totally incompetent head of state, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Both of these men have no idea what they’re doing and are extraordinarily dangerous for the US’ national interests in foreign diplomacy. And everyone can see this. But it’s not just about personality politics; rather, this lack of rigor and talent is emblematic of the general, overall decline of the US as a major world power.

The US, in reality, is not a place with stable institutions or, at this juncture, the strong diplomatic or military capabilities that it once possessed. The fact that the US and its allies continue to lose proxy wars against Russia (ex: Syria and Ukraine) is one such clear example, and so is the success of China’s diplomacy in the Middle East.

In a nutshell, the US is essentially a perhaps once-great nation, with a ton of residual influence and wealth, that is being sapped by a ruthlessly self-interested oligarchy. It’s these people who actually make the real decisions, whether in the national interest or not, and they are the ones who effectively decide who is in office. Unsurprisingly, these are the people whom President Xi surrounded himself with in San Francisco – because he knows they matter the most – and who also gave him a standing ovation as he spoke, much to the chagrin of Gina Raimondo, the US secretary of commerce.

But it’s worth remembering why these people supported Trump (at first) and Biden, and it’s paradoxically for their incompetence. A competent government that does anything besides cut taxes and effectively project American influence abroad is what is most detrimental to the interests of the elite. Yet, such a system, where the less-than-remarkable rise to top positions, is fundamentally unsustainable. This has led to self-cannibalizing political leadership, hence the rapid decline of American power over the past decade – and the fact that a bumbling moron like Biden can be anywhere near the Oval Office in the first place.

The once-glorified clean-energy stocks are now facing their darkest days, plunging the industry into a financial abyss that threatens America’s ambitious environmental aspirations. The much-touted green revolution is looking more like a red alert as the sector hemorrhages tens of billions in market value.

Sure, we’re told that hundreds of billions is still pouring into renewable energy projects, despite the fact that the stock market seems to have declared a resounding “no thanks” to these ventures. The iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (Exchange-Traded Fund), the poster child for the industry, has nosedived by over 30% this year and a whopping 50% since the dawn of 2021.

Not to be outdone, specific sectors are getting their fair share of punishment. The Invesco Solar ETF is down over 40% in 2023, while the First Trust Global Wind Energy ETF is witnessing losses of about 20% this year and a grim 40% since January 2021. It seems the wind has been knocked out of their sails.

Blame it on rising interest rates, the industry’s newfound nemesis. These higher rates have not only increased costs but also put a damper on consumer enthusiasm, leading to a nosedive in stock valuations for companies that once promised a green utopia but are now struggling to turn a profit.

In Germany, after the Nord Stream sabotage, because, you know, energy geopolitics and straightforward plans always go hand in hand, a whopping 77% of skeptics are shaking their heads, expressing disbelief that the nation will magically conjure up 80% of electricity from renewables by 2030. I guess turning skepticism into solar power hasn’t quite hit the mainstream yet.

Switzerland, the poster child for phasing out nuclear power, is now flexing its green muscles by entertaining the idea of keeping nuclear plants running longer, because who needs a clear exit strategy when you can just extend the atomic party until 2040?

Biden’s green dreams are melting faster than his favorite ice cream in the sun

In the US, the demise of two New Jersey wind projects is just the tip of the iceberg, with inflation, sky-high interest rates, and a supply chain in shambles throwing a wrench into the gears of Joe’s climate ambitions. Despite a whopping $369 billion in federal aid from his climate law, clean energy projects are dropping like flies. Even the postponement of a Kentucky EV battery plant by Ford and General Motors trimming their EV plans couldn’t escape the economic tempest. It seems the only thing rising faster than hopes for a clean energy revolution is the cost. But hey, who needs affordable, reliable energy when we’ve got grand climate goals, right? Biden’s green plans are becoming a chilling reality check, and it’s not just the polar ice caps feeling the heat.

Fast forward to the present, and we witness the mighty green stocks taking a severe beating. Despite the EU and US governments offering billions in tax credits and subsidies to support the so-called green transition from Russian oil and gas, investors are losing confidence faster than you can say “renewable.”

The S&P Global Clean Energy Index has experienced a gut-wrenching 30% freefall in 2023, with the biggest quarterly outflow of $1.4 billion. The once-booming sector now holds a 23% decline in total assets under management, a far cry from its heyday just a few months ago.

Blame it on the current economic climate, they say – high interest rates, soaring costs, and supply chain woes are the villains of this melodrama. And let’s not forget China, the puppet master of the solar supply chain, flooding the market with cheap alternatives, undermining the EU’s dreams of a local green market.

As utility stocks struggle to convert to green energy, the sector’s operating margins are squeezed.

The final nail in the coffin? NextEra Energy Partners cutting its growth target by half, sending shockwaves through the renewable industry. I dismiss the sell-off as overblown, but the damage is done, and confidence in renewables has hit rock bottom.

In a deliciously ironic plot twist, Greta Thunberg is currently sizzling in the crucible of criticism for daring to support Gaza. It seems our climate crusader is now facing a cancel-culture bonanza, much like the tweet she swiftly deleted – you know, the one prophesying Armageddon and cautioning that climate change might just “wipe out humanity” unless we magically halt fossil fuel usage by the grandiose deadline of 2023. The irony is thicker than Beijing’s smog, folks.

Seems like even the green warriors can’t escape the unforgiving reality of the market.

Israel’s assault on Gaza, as well as the escalation of violence by Israeli settlers in the long-occupied West Bank, is, or should be, a wake-up call.

More than 11,000 Palestinians, including some 4,650 children, have now been killed in a war started in response to the October 7 Hamas attacks which themselves claimed around 1,200 lives.

A halfway even-handed international community would have to step in and protect the victims of the disproportionate Israeli retaliation, which multiple international voices have called a genocide and an ethnic cleansing. Failure to do so reveals profound bias and dysfunction. That much is obvious.

Yet there is another aspect of this catastrophic crisis, which receives less attention than it should. The global failure to hold back Israel’s aggression is due to only one part of the world, the West. And the West follows the lead of the US. Ethically, those who fail to stand up for the victims of a genocide or, even worse, side with the perpetrators are responsible for their own failure. Yet, in terms of power, US behavior is decisive. Just imagine a world in which Washington had reacted differently and restrained Israel. Its allies and clients would, of course, have fallen into line.

Instead, the Biden administration deterred anyone who could have been tempted to interfere with Israel. Washington has also supplied arms and ammunition, intelligence, and special forces assistance, and provided diplomatic cover. This brings us to the other fact that we need to wake up to: the single greatest danger to a modest minimum of fair and reliable global order, and thus stability, is the US. This is not a polemical point but the conclusion of a dispassionate analysis of Washington’s persistent capacities and empirical record since, roughly, the end of the Soviet Union, which marked the beginning of America’s “unipolar moment.”

All this economic oomph translates into enormous military budgets. Whether in nominal terms or adjusted for purchasing power, America outdistances other nations, with 40% of all money spent on the military worldwide in 2022.

Indicators could be multiplied, categories refined. Yet the overall picture would not change. At this point in time, the US is still a power giant, and, on top of that, it remains at the top of the most powerful complex of alliances in the world. The sheer size of American power alone tells us little about how it is used. But what is too often overlooked is that without it, America – whatever its policies – simply could not be so influential.

There is clear, again quantitative, evidence that Washington’s influence is highly disruptive. According to the conservative journal The National Interest, between 1992 and 2017, the US has been involved in 188 “military interventions.” This list is incomplete; it does not include, for instance, the Gulf War of 1990 or the pivotal role Washington played in provoking and then waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Moreover, as you would expect, given the source, these are conservative figures. By 2022, Ben Norton, a well-informed critic of US politics on the left found 251 military interventions after 1991.

The US has not only shown a high propensity to pursue its perceived interests abroad by military force – instead of diplomacy or even “merely” economic warfare, i.e. sanctions. What is at least equally concerning is that this preference for direct violence as a tool of policy is accelerating. The National Interest finds that – again between 1992 and 2017 – America was engaged in four times as many military interventions as between 1948 and 1991 (“only” 46 times). Likewise, the Military Intervention Project at Tufts University’s Center for Strategic Studies has found that the US “has undertaken over 500 international military interventions since 1776, with nearly 60% undertaken between 1950 and 2017” and “over one-third” of these missions occurring after 1999. US bellicosity has grown over time (though not evenly) and, recently, after the end of the Cold War and the former Soviet Union, that growth has sped up.

These wars, moreover, have been extremely destructive. According to exhaustive research conducted by the Costs of War project at Brown University, the so-called “Global War on Terror” after 2001 alone produced between 905,000 and 940,000 “direct war deaths.” The same research project notes that the “destruction of economies, public services, infrastructure, and the environment” by these wars has caused an additional “3.6-3.8 million indirect deaths in post-9/11 war zones.” The fact that most of these deaths were “indirect” shows that, even without engaging in violence directly, Washington has an extraordinary knack of spreading lethal disruption.

Over the long term, since 1950, the US has been “responsible for the most sanctions cases” in the world, by far. The American share of 42% outdistances the runners-up, the EU (and its predecessor organizations) on 12%, and the United Nations on 7%. The official ideology of sanctions foregrounds their putative positive sides. Short of war, they are supposed to coerce states, organizations, and individuals into complying with things such as human rights or the vague rules of the so-called rules-based order.

Wide open to manipulation and bad faith as these justifications are, what is worse is that, in reality, US sanctions serve narrowly defined US interests and are subject to the demagogic appeals that constitute much of US domestic politics. There are probably no more telling cases of this systemic flaw than America’s reneging on the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPoA), the sanctions regime against Russia, and the economic war against China, including the recent – futile – attempt to block and even roll back China’s development of AI technologies.

Sanctions also disproportionately harm poor – and politically powerless – populations. As a comprehensive study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research on the “Human Consequences of Economic Sanctions” has established, “sanctions have negative effects on outcomes ranging from per capita income to poverty, inequality, mortality, and human rights.” Blanket sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry in 2018, for instance, “deepened what was already the worst economic contraction in Latin America in decades,” and caused “significant increases in poverty,” as the New York Times summarized a study by Francisco Rodríguez from the University of Denver. These US policies are not only unethical, they also destabilize whole societies and states, often in especially sensitive regions.

Washington’s recent track record is clear enough. But it does not predict the future: Will the US stay its current course, or will it adopt a less violent and more diplomacy-centered approach, as recommended by some moderate domestic critics? The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, for instance, is explicit about the “practical and moral failures of US efforts to unilaterally shape the destiny of other nations by force,” and seeks to promote “a fundamental rethinking of US foreign policy assumptions.”  

The chances for a truly fundamental course correction seem slim. For one thing, there are few signs of any desire for it among either Democrats or Republicans. Instead, the top politicians of both parties tend to compete over who can offer a more robust insistence on US preeminence. Consider, for instance, the response of two former “insurgents” to Israel’s assault on Gaza. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have staked positions in alignment with current Biden administration policy. Trump, who, unlike Sanders, is running for the president’s office again – and has a realistic chance of winning – has criticized Israel for being unreliable, failing to prevent the Hamas attack of 7 October, and losing the battle for public opinion. But he has not called Israel out for excessive civilian deaths and what multiple world leaders and officials, as well as UN human rights experts, have called war crimes. Sanders has been, if anything, even more conformist, explicitly rejecting a ceasefire, despite the predictable and deserved blowback, exemplified in a scathing response from the eminent scholar and prominent public intellectual Norman Finkelstein.

Secondly, the influence of the military-industrial complex is increasing; the financial interest in a foreign policy privileging the military is strong and well-articulated by lobbyism and think-tanks that shape not only politics narrowly understood but public debate as well.

Finally, up until now, the multiplying signs of a relative decline of American power, as measured against the emergence of other power centers in the shape of single countries or associations of states, have not made the US elite lower its expectations. On the contrary, there is a constant, reiterative process of doubling down, from the rout of Kabul in 2021 to the proxy war in Ukraine of 2022. And once that is about to be lost, a virtually seamless transition to another big gamble in the Middle East. And persistent tension with China not only over trade wars, but Taiwan is always in the background. That is the mindset reflected in New York Times articles asking whether “America can support two wars,” (in Ukraine and the Middle East) and “still handle China.”

If history teaches anything then it is that trend extrapolation is a hard, thankless business, because the limits of our imagination – even if well-equipped with method and data – are always narrower than those of reality. Maybe we are on the cusp of major generational shifts – in values and ethnic self-identification – in American society. Perhaps, all US trends will be upset by the Civil War 2.0 that some conventional observers already call a “mainstream” notion. In any case, prudence requires to assume that the problem of global US disruptiveness will not solve itself or go away soon or, for that matter, easily. The most important challenge of international security, therefore, is to manage a US that is especially dangerous now, by historical standards, and, even in decline, remains extremely powerful. It is sad to say, but in terms of achieving global stability, America is precisely not what it imagines itself to be: an “indispensable” part of the solution. In reality, it is the single worst problem. 

Nothing is more telling of the Western world’s attitude towards developing nations than the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Middle East.

We in the Global South aren’t the only ones aghast at non-precision attacks by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on the Gazans. American academic John Mearsheimer, one of the world’s foremost international relations experts, is of the view that Tel Aviv is committing war crimes and “tearing the place” apart. He said in a recent interview that Israel is “waging a punishment campaign in Gaza [where] they are punishing the civilian population. If the Israelis were going to great lengths to target just Hamas and avoid civilian casualties then you could make a coherent argument that this is not a case of them committing war crimes. But they are not doing that.”

This is not the first instance of the South feeling betrayed by the West, which has come under sharp attack for treating the people of the rest of the world as subhuman, mere expendables. One key takeaway from Israel is the statement by its defense minister that the IDF is up against “human animals” in Gaza. This is the language of the colonizer since the dawn of empires: Sir Winston Churchill thought of Indians as an inferior race. When he was told that millions were dying in India because of the British diverting food supplies to the frontlines during World War II, he reportedly asked, “Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?” There may exist no proof that he uttered those exact words, but his attitude was clear.

From dehumanizing the Gazans who died in IDF strikes by terming them “Hamas’ human shields” – an accusation made sweepingly without evidence, as is the habit of the powerful over the ages – an Israeli representative has now called the UN relief workers in Gaza “Hamas members.”

I recently interviewed Dr. Mads Gilbert, a veteran Norwegian physician in the NORWAC (Norwegian Aid Committee) emergency team for Gaza, who has worked with the Palestinians for nearly 45 years as a specialist in emergency medicine and anaesthesiology. He was in Lebanon in 1982 when the IDF invaded the south of the country. He was in Gaza, too, offering emergency medical services during the Israeli bombardments of 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2014. He had worked in hospitals that the IDF had bombed, including Al-Shifa Hospital. "I challenge [Benjamin] Netanyahu to show proof that Al Shifa Hospital is a Hamas hideout," he told me just before crossing the Rafah border into Gaza during the current bombardment to assist Palestinian doctors working under the direst conditions.

The West seems driven by a divine right to whimsically trample upon the human rights of those it deems unimportant and beneath it, doling out death sentences to more than 11,000 people, including over 4,000 children, infants and newborn babies, under the guise of “self-defense.”

Over the past two decades, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven this typical Western mentality beyond doubt, and these countries need to be called out for their collective hypocrisy. Now in Gaza, the women and children who die of starvation, bomb explosions, and lack of medicine perish because of American complicity – it is American weapons, funded by American taxpayers, that the Israelis use with complete impunity and utter lack of respect for international laws.

According to the Western idea of justice, even occupiers have the right to “defend” themselves militarily against the occupied. Presidents who order invasions under unethical pretexts never make it to the list of global terrorists, nor are they tried at The Hague. Leaders who criminalize whistle-blowing are forgiven because they belong to the league of untouchables. Such tyranny is condoned as business as usual in the West.

The long list of grievances that the South has against its former colonial masters predates 1969, when American academic Carl Oglesby first described the ages-old “intolerable social order” of northern “dominance over the Global South.” Cuba, a tiny island nation in the Caribbean, has been under US embargo for fictitious reasons for an unimaginable 62 years. Ironically, the sanctions have failed to meet their primary goal: ending communism in Cuba. Such sanctions are coercive actions with a political motive. Whenever the victim is a country in the Global South, the collective West stands together or is silent.

The aim was not only to create a reckless consumerist culture in these countries but also to set up sweatshops and manufacturing centers for the high and mighty to hit paydirt thanks to low wages on those distant shores. In some cases, like in the case of Eastern Europe, the West successfully advocated shock therapy, or rapid globalization, but the countries didn’t stand to gain much.

What were the pros and cons of globalization? It is no secret that in a country like India, which embraced globalization in the 1990s in the face of a balance-of-payments crisis, there have been tangible gains for a class or people. We saw increased trade and growth. Alongside this, however, we saw a marked rise in inequality and marginalization of vulnerable groups. The environment became a casualty, leading to a manifold increase in natural disasters, besides displacing and trampling upon the rights of the tribal communities who depend on forests for survival. Most dangerously, there was also a rise in cultural homogeneity in a country as diverse as India. It is a subject that has been explored by the likes of scholars such as Meera Nanda and Mario Gomez-Zimmerman.

The point to note here is that, when countries like China and India are able to export products that can compete with the US, the West decides that we have had too much globalization and that it is now time to stop. The restrictions on Chinese companies are particularly discriminatory and are out of fear that they will compete with American counterparts sooner or later in high technology. Protectionism is back in the US for other reasons as well: loss of jobs in their country and discontent among the labor force, as well as the general population, which is further fueled by certain politicians.

It also puts the spotlight on the failures of neocolonial policies and capitalism itself: at a time of unprecedented economic crises, it is the government that is forced to come to the rescue of big corporations. Competition is lauded only as long as American companies can maintain the upper hand. As we have seen, a presidential order was passed to restrict US investments in Chinese entities in three sectors: semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies, and certain artificial intelligence systems.

The overall reversal of multilateralism has been criticized by none other than Pope Francis himself, noting that such moves exclude the poor, the vulnerable, and those dwelling on the peripheries of life. He warned that such a path would be "detrimental to the whole community." The breakdown of multilateralism, he said in a speech to the United Nations, has resulted in a global "climate of distrust." He also called for a relaxation of global sanctions without naming any particular country. But his message was coherent.

His statement was widely seen as an expression of disapproval at the way the West handles human rights, refugees and humanitarian crises, destruction of the environment, economic inequality and nuclear proliferation. The Pope brought up themes related to lack of global co-responsibility, aggressive nationalism, protectionism and isolation. These are the very issues that affect the Global South, too, and are at the core of the South’s frustration with the West, not to mention the latter’s shaky position on climate-change pacts.   

Just as the West pandered to the ulterior motives of Israel to look the other way while Palestinians suffered for the past half century, it went back on its word and expanded its military prowess by moving towards the East and co-opting new countries into its NATO fold, seeking to besiege those it sees as adversaries. The world is watching how the West has been using Ukraine to further its military interests. The whole idea is seen as a humiliation by the Global South, especially after the futile wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan where Western intervention has also been counter-productive, to say the least. The rampant flouting of international laws and the apathy of the West towards the rest of the world has never been as stark in the post-Cold War period as it is lately.   

In fact, the Covid-19 pandemic and the vaccine wars that followed were a rude awakening to how greedy advanced countries get when it comes to solely serving their interests. Rich countries made sure that their citizens were attended to first before vaccines reached the needy. Even when the per capita administration of Covid-19 vaccines in the West touched high levels, they refused to distribute them among the poorer ones. In contrast, even India, a country that struggled with its own staggering human and economic losses during the pandemic, did its bit by donating vaccines to others in need.

Meanwhile, the Bretton Woods institutions – International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, set up in 1944 to foster global integration and international economic cooperation – are now under sharp attack for being tools to advance American hegemony. They are also accused of promoting a ‘global apartheid’ of sorts that favor the advanced economies, and use political reasons as the key criteria for disbursing loans rather than economic considerations. 

The current Palestine crisis has manifested the avarice of the neocolonial West much more than any other single incident, in that women and children of the South are seen as fair game. The sense of distrust is high and is already being felt on the ground in the rest of the world. As history tells us, no empire lasts forever. Those currently in power would do well to remember their Achilles’ heel: the winds of change.

On Wednesday Chinese leader Xi Jinping travelled to San Francisco for the APEC summit. Here, he held a meeting with US President Joe Biden and attended a luxury dinner with US officials.

During the meeting, the two sides agreed to constructively improve relations, although they failed to make any substantive breakthroughs on the major issues of disagreement between the two countries.

It was also not without its hiccups, as a deliberately provocative Bloomberg question resulted in Biden effectively calling Xi a “dictator” again, drawing swift condemnation from China. The US president nonetheless attempted to frame the summit as a victory, especially over the political football of fentanyl, as well as the resumption of “military communications” with China, but nonetheless continually framed Beijing as a competitor.

What were these talks all about? While China had a vested interest in stabilizing the relationship and cooling things down, there was also a wider competition at play. Xi Jinping’s attendance was in fact a strong political message not just intended for the US itself, but also aimed at diluting America’s influence on the APEC members when it has the home turf.

APEC, an acronym for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, is an economic bloc which comprises 21 countries in Asia, the Pacific and North America. This includes all of Maritime South East Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile and Russia.

Between the US and China, the summit is in effect a competition for influence over shaping the future of the Asia-Pacific region, which has special consequences for it being in San Francisco. While China has often shunned high-level engagement with the US by playing hard to get and using hardball negotiating tactics, in the case of the APEC summit you have to be in the game to win it. If China doesn’t send its leader, then the US subsequently gains more power in shifting the agenda.

However, through attending, Xi Jinping has escalated the political stakes for the other countries involved by stressing the importance of the event in diplomatic terms, and therefore creating more equilibrium between the US and China, showing of course just how much significance China places on not being diplomatically isolated in this highly consequential region. Thus, the decision was made by Xi to go face to face.

In terms of individual relations between the two countries, the event as a whole and its outcomes are arguably a positive development given the negative trajectory that has occurred, especially at the start of this year. This doesn’t mean the bilateral ties do not have a ceiling and that was quite clear in the lack of substance in the overall results. The US presidential election is now only a year away, and that’s why Biden didn’t lavish concessions on Xi during this meeting. He agreed to be more constructive, but also framed it in a way that he was getting concessions from China, such as over fentanyl. Beijing has become a scapegoat for America’s addiction problem and the two leaders apparently agreed on working to curb the production of the drug, whose precursors, Washington claims, come from China.

None of that is going to change, the US continues to have its sights on China as its largest competitor and seeks to affirmably reshape the international order to secure its permanent dominance. That includes military capabilities, alliances, technology and of course economics and trade. The US may be less hostile to China, but it very much seeks to suppress its rise wherever possible. Therefore, as the joint statement showed, this was about “managing competition” between the two, all the while Biden continues to posture about how he’s being tough on Beijing and defending American interests.

For Xi, the goal is much broader. Not only does he buy China strategic time by at least cooling the waters with the US and preventing a complete deterioration of ties, but in this summit he undoubtedly eyed many more Asia-Pacific leaders with the precise goal of diluting US influence.

This is especially significant since most of APEC members (bar the US) are also members of the CPTPP, the trade bloc which China wants to join, and it has already got Australia on board to publicly support it. However, other nations, such as Japan, remain an obstacle. In this case, Xi’s attendance at APEC is about China’s own diplomatic ambitions rather than truly resetting ties with the US. It’s a big moment, but it is not a strategic reset or escape from the world we now live in, and both sides are very much aware of that.

Within hours of being appointed Britain’s new foreign secretary, former Prime Minister David Cameron landed in Kiev.

Cameron had already decked out his LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter) profile photos in the bright yellow and blue colors of the Ukrainian flag which, in his new role, was like having an online dating profile just for Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky – an open invitation to come take a spin on Santa Cameron’s knee with his wish list just in time for Christmas. And Zelensky didn’t waste any time, either.

As the two enjoyed their first date, Cameron repeated cribbed pickup lines from the Western talking point playbook, saying that Britain will give Zelensky “the military support that you need, not just this year and next year but for as long as it takes.”

It sure didn’t take Cameron long to get up to speed on the full Western agenda for Ukraine, as he was arguably one of its early pioneers. “I think the process started under my premiership of sending more troops to frontline states in NATO; to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, let’s turn some of those into permanent bases,” Cameron said in 2022, proudly advocating in favor of permanency for the kind of anti-Russian encroachment by NATO that contributed to the current conflict. In 2015, he had already sent British troops to train Ukrainians harassing Russophones in Donbass – the same year that the UK’s Canadian allies were warned about neo-Nazis within Ukrainian ranks, as the Ottawa Citizen has reported. Cameron was one of the earliest proponents of anti-Russian cancel culture, having led the charge for Moscow to be kicked out of the G8 in 2014.

But then current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was left with an empty chair aboard the Titanic after tossing Home Secretary Suella Braverman overboard for saying that asylum seekers were hoping to up their chances by pretending to be gay. That was shortly before calling pro-Palestinian protests a “hate march.” Sunak shuffled the current foreign secretary into Braverman’s chair, but then needed to find someone else among the nation’s 67 million citizens to fill the job of being Britain’s face to the world.

So he reached into the bin of recent UK political history and decided to recycle David Cameron. It’s worth recalling how Cameron ended up in that bin in the first place. In a rare moment of lucidity, he put himself there.

Clearly confident that the whole idea of Brexiting from the EU would have marginal support, as he told Brits that they’d be catering to Russian President Vladimir Putin and to Islamic State if they dared to go there in a referendum on the subject, he ended up staking his career on it. And losing. Taking himself out with the post-Brexit mop-up.

Who needs the specter of Russia or any other foreign adversary to divide Britain when Cameron himself was able to single-handedly create shockwaves throughout British society that caused dust-ups between family members over Sunday roast, between colleagues at the water cooler, and between mates down the local pub? Regardless of where one stands on the Brexit issue, you have to admit it’s quite a spectacular feat for any leader to spark such unrest that he ultimately regime-changed himself.

Former US President Barack Obama used to brag at the time that Washington was able to achieve its strategic objectives in Libya without putting American boots on the ground. Well yeah, because technically the US had outsourced the bulk of that particular fiasco to Cameron, and to Sarkozy who now faces an expected trial in 2025 over allegations that he took cash from Gaddafi to finance his 2007 election campaign.

So while Sarkozy may or may not have had an interest in tying up loose ends, what was Cameron’s excuse? It’s not like he was even able to settle for a pat on the head from Obama for his efforts, as the former Oval Office occupant reportedly turned around and privately blamed Cameron for the fact that Libya had become a “s**tshow.” As a result of the mess, Britain is now grappling with an influx of African migrants and controversy over having them floating out on a barge off the UK shore. Gaddafi himself warned France 24 TV prior to the invasion that France and Italy would be flooded with migrants. Clearly the UK has been, too. And has Cameron to thank.

This all sounds like the kind of proven track record and levelheaded competence that Britain needs right now in its foreign affairs.

About the only thing missing now is former British Prime Minster Tony Blair’s Iraq War ‘success.’ And what do you know… Blair has also recently said that he’s standing by and ready to help out with the humanitarian situation in Gaza, according to the Financial Times. It all sounds like such a Dream Team for world peace. Too bad that all the other options, like instead hiring the next five guys who descend from a random bus stop in London, have apparently been ruled out.

In recent days, there has been a wave of pro-Palestine protests across the world as violence in Gaza escalates in the wake of an Israeli invasion and bombing campaign that has killed thousands, including many women and children, in response to the deadly terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7. One of the key questions is, will this actually amount to any change in so-called Western democracies that are standing behind Israel’s onslaught?

It depends on the country; however, largely, the answer is no – at least for the countries that have the most pull over Israel’s position. In the United States, lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Party are reportedly ducking calls from concerned constituents who are calling for a ceasefire. President Joe Biden, when asked by reporters if there was any possibility for a halt to the violence, said, “None. No possibility.”

This is worrying because, in principle, in a democracy, politicians are supposed to respond to the will of constituents. They are also supposed to bend to popular will, given that their electoral odds hinge on the opinions of voters. Arab Americans, including in key swing states, are fed up with the Biden administration’s policies in general – but also particularly with its dealings with Israel. Support for Biden among them now stands at a mere 17%, and 40% are inclined to vote for Republican former President Donald Trump in the 2024 election, according to a poll conducted by the Arab American Institute.

Massive protests, calls for voters, and the very real possibility that Biden’s position on Israel could forfeit the upcoming 2024 presidential election to Trump, the likely Republican Party nominee, show that Western democracy – especially in the US – is in shambles. When politicians ignore popular will, it shows that there is a serious crisis with the ordinary function of supposedly democratic institutions.

At the same time, it must be noted that Biden has not shied away from his pro-Israel leanings. To quote then-Senator Joe Biden, a self-described Zionist, from 1986, “There’s no apology to be made [for supporting Israel]. None. It is the best three-billion-dollar investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region.”

The situation in Europe is also more nuanced. Here we are seeing countries, like the Czech Republic and Hungary, remain steadfast in their unwavering support for Israel despite some opposition, and the former has even outlawed pro-Palestine demonstrations.

French President Emmanuel Macron recently urged Israel to stop bombing Gaza – but he is also facing open criticism from his own ambassadors for his support for Israel. France has also outlawed pro-Palestine protests. But some countries, like Ireland and Spain, are openly critical of Israel and are considering cutting diplomatic ties.

If nothing else, this disunity demonstrates the fragility of a common EU foreign policy framework. This is especially the case given the fact that Ursula von der Leyen, the unelected president of the European Commission, has proven to be a US-infiltrated, hypocritical pro-war demagogue.

What’s clear as day in the current situation in the Middle East is that each and every day that the attack on Gaza continues, it becomes more difficult to morally and logically justify the common Western position of supporting Israel no matter what. The rest of the world sees this and is taking note, understanding the days of Western hegemony are numbered. Moreover, the leaders who are holding firm on the pro-Israel line despite immense and unprecedented public pressure are inadvertently eroding the very fabric of the fundamental institutions of Western society.

As a growing number of people in the West become jaded with democracy, or, in the case of the EU, become skeptical of Brussels, the leaders who ignore their constituents only have themselves to blame.

In a stellar display of strategic brilliance, the European Union is preparing to launch another wave of sanctions against Russia, this time targeting Moscow’s diamond exports and taking a desperate swing at Gazprombank. Josep Borrell, the EU’s diplomatic luminary, proudly declared that the G7 and Belgium, a diamond trading powerhouse, have rallied behind this bold move. This ingenious plan to ban Russian diamonds and sever ties with Gazprombank, encapsulated in the EU’s 12th sanctions package, is poised to be the coup de grâce in the ongoing saga of futile attempts to curb Russia’s economic resilience.

Borrell’s revelation that the EU seeks to “reduce the revenues Russia extracts from exports,” with a special focus on “non-industrial diamonds, including those mined,” is nothing short of revolutionary. Talks of restricting the Russian diamond trade surfaced earlier this year, and now, as the effects of previous sanctions are questioned, the European Parliament is throwing Gazprombank into the sanctions mix for good measure. The EP’s resolution, wrapped in an air of uncertainty due to an undisclosed voting process, expresses discontent with the EU’s lackluster strategies and demands stricter enforcement.

While EU bureaucrats continue to draw up their glittering sanctions plan, the irony of Gazprombank, a significant player in international transactions, avoiding the harsh sanctions that its Russian counterparts faced is hard to miss. Poland and the Baltic nations had earlier urged the EU to cut Gazprombank from the international payment system SWIFT back in April. However, the specifics of these potential sanctions and their enforcement remain shrouded in mystery.

So, what are the EU officials expecting from their new sanctions this time?

Well, they believe that these additional restrictions against Gazprombank will be the pinnacle of their sanctions pressure. They anticipate that these measures will complicate the settlement process for the gas supplied, ultimately squeezing Russian gas producers out of key regions. The EU apparatchiks appear firmly convinced that, unlike in previous endeavors, this time will yield a different outcome. In their perception, Gazprombank extends beyond merely serving as a significant payment conduit; it essentially operates as a near-monopoly. According to their thinking, the imposition of sanctions poses a tangible threat to its potential collapse.

It’s a stark reminder of how naive people can be, especially when comfortably situated, thinking that this time things will truly be different – particularly in the face of rising natural gas prices and geopolitical complexities like the Israel-Hamas conflict affecting Europe.

While EU leaders grasp at straws, the Kremlin smoothly navigates through Western sanctions with the aid of its strategic partnership with Beijing. The use of the Chinese currency for a significant portion of Russian imports showcases Moscow’s adeptness at evading Western sanctions and underscores its growing reliance on Beijing. In the great chess game of global geopolitics, the EU’s move to ban Russian diamonds appears more like a pawn sacrifice than a checkmate, and despite observable signs, there may still be those who are surprised to learn that the dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency.

This week, the residents of California’s fourth largest metropolis were surprised to find their streets free of homeless encampments, drug addicts, pimps, and dealers. Did a political revolution happen while they slept, or is something else at play?   

Just as the denizens of San Fransisco were finally getting used to the stench of human urine in the morning, along comes the street cleaners to flip the status quo on its head. Is this a sign that the voters' extravagant tax dollars are finally being put to good use? Well, we can dream. The fact is, this Democratic city, which is playing host to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit (November 14-16), has taken great strides to hide its seedier side from the world’s gaze. This old trick has been tried before.

It has to be said that this story is largely regarded as fictional nowadays. Potemkin apparently did try to make the devastated countryside look more presentable, but how far he went remains disputed. The claims that he was actually trying to deceive the Empress and the ambassadors, rather than simply make things look prettier or advertise the ongoing post-war reconstruction, are attributed to his many detractors at court.

The task facing San Francisco is a bit more challenging than what faced imperial Russia. While many of the city’s marginalized inhabitants were sent packing to remote regions of the empire lest anyone suspect what a wreck the ship of state has become, that leaves Uncle Sam with the problem of all those empty storefront properties. Imagine the embarrassment if Chinese President Xi Jinping, the top guest at the summit, ordered his motorcade to pull over for some American fast food in Union Square, a major commercial hub in the heart of San Francisco’s downtown. Xi would soon discover, if he hadn’t heard the news already, that many famous retail chains had simply vanished.

The prospects for businesses in the once-fabled City by the Bay do not look rosy, and much of the reason boils down to rampant crime, an urban phenomenon that Democratic city leaders seem content to live with. In August, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) advised its hundreds of federal employees in San Francisco to work from home “for the foreseeable future” due to safety concerns.

“In light of the conditions at the Federal Building we recommend employees maximize the use of telework for the foreseeable future,” the memo stated.

All of this translates into a massive exodus from the once-fabled City on the Bay, which lost 65,000 people, or almost 7% of its population, from July 2020 to July 2022.

The same could be said about the thousands of homeless people – many of whom are hooked on a variety of highly addictive drugs, like meth or heroin or other opioids – who have been temporarily exiled from San Fran’s streets. Heaven forbid if some world leader (Joe Biden?) would accidentally stumble into a zombie apocalypse. Which begs the question: Why should average Americans have to tolerate such deplorable conditions daily, while a fake façade is created once every few years when an international event comes to town?   

Amid the desolation of San Francisco, what will US President Joe Biden and Xi talk about during their planned tête-à-tête on the sidelines of the APEC summit? While it can expected that the Democratic US leader will want to chat about the usual talking points, like climate change, eternal war and promoting 'democracy' half the world away, maybe Xi will play the rude guest and put Biden in the hot seat by asking whatever happened to the once beautiful City by the Bay. Yes, we can dream.

On November 7, the US House of Representatives voted to censure one of its members, Rashida Tlaib, a Congresswoman from Michigan, first elected to her seat in 2018. The official reason for this rebuke was the allegation that Tlaib had been “promoting false narratives regarding the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel” and been “calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.”

It is easy to establish that Tlaib did neither. Her censure is an injustice built on a lie. That raises the question of what it was really about.

But first things first: Let’s look into the two accusations advanced against her. Regarding “promoting false narratives” about the Hamas attack, the relevant House Resolution 845 claims that Tlaib “defended” as “justified ‘resistance’” to “the ‘apartheid state’” the “the brutal rapes, murders, be-headings, and kidnapping[s] … by Hamas.”

Yet, in reality, the Congresswoman did no such thing or anything a fair observer could mistake for such a thing. What Tlaib stated was that she “grieve[d] the Palestinian and Israeli lives lost yesterday, today, and every day” and that the path to a better future “must include lifting the blockade” on Gaza and “ending the occupation.” She called for “dismantling the [Israeli] apartheid system that creates the suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that can lead to resistance.” And she argued that as long as the US “provides billions in unconditional funding to support the apartheid government, this heartbreaking cycle of violence will continue.”

None of the above is or implies a “call for the destruction of Israel.” What Tlaib did attack was the state of apartheid, as recognized by the UN human rights rapporteur, that Israel imposes on the Palestinians. As the eminent scholar John Mearsheimer has stressed, that Israeli apartheid is a fact has been confirmed by, among others, the international organizations Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. Hence three conclusions: Tlaib is factually correct. Secondly, she has attacked real crimes of Israel and not its right to exist. Finally, those who insist on misrepresenting her as doing the latter thereby imply that they can imagine Israel’s existence only as a highly abusive apartheid state.

The bad faith here lies in the fact that the slogan “from the river to the sea” is not “widely recognized” to represent a call for the destruction of Israel, as the censure resolution falsely claims. In reality, objective experts recognize that the slogan “means different things to different people,” as Dov Waxman, a professor of Israel studies at the University of California in Los Angeles, has explained in the New York Times. In its full version – “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – the phrase goes back to the early days of the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli ethnic cleansing that began in 1948. As even the relentlessly pro-Israel New York Times acknowledges, for “many Palestinians, the phrase now has a dual meaning, representing their desire for a right of return to the towns and villages from which their families were expelled in 1948, as well as their hope for an independent Palestinian state, incorporating the West Bank, which abuts the Jordan River, and the Gaza Strip, which hugs the coastline of the Mediterranean.”

The reason for ascribing a different, much more aggressive meaning to the slogan is mainly that it has also been used by Hamas. And Hamas, in turn, is accused of wanting the destruction of Israel. This guilt-by-flawed-association argument is convenient for those who seek to vilify legitimate Palestinian resistance, marginalize its supporters, and suppress – instead of having to answer – criticism of Israeli injustice.

Let that sink in: Where Hamas has used the phrase, it has, actually, also signaled precisely the opposite of a plan to destroy Israel, namely a will to accept a two-state solution, if only Israel were to finally do what is demanded by international law and called for by UN resolutions: stop unilaterally settling and occupying territories beyond its actual borders.

And let’s be clear: Tlaib’s use of “from the river to the sea” is not a “dog whistle” (the American term for a rhetorical trick allowing a speaker to at the same time imply and deny a sinister meaning) because she has been explicit that for her this is “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate.” And that is a perfectly plausible and common interpretation of the slogan (see above).

Beyond what is possibly the most effective lobbying operation in modern history (at least on behalf of a state), there is a wider context. As the eminent scholar and public intellectual Norman Finkelstein has meticulously detailed in his book 'Beyond Chutzpah. On the Misuses of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History', deliberately misrepresenting criticism of Israel’s policies as a new form of Anti-semitism is a strategy in a struggle for ideological hegemony that has been waged for decades.

It is possible that, in a bitter irony of history, Israel’s current aggression will weaken the hold of this strategy. There are signs that large parts of even Western publics – not to speak of the non-West – are shocked by this latest escalation of violence against the Palestinians. That may be the deepest underlying reason for the attack on Tlaib, which would then appear as a frantic attempt to maintain a narrative leverage that is slipping. If more Americans understand that “the idea that criticizing the government of Israel is anti-Semitic … has been used to silence diverse voices speaking up for human rights across our nation,” then this abuse of censure may mark a turning point.

The Pew Research Center recently published a comprehensive survey of 24 countries regarding their opinions of the US and China. These surveys have been a regular exercise, and are good for monitoring shifts in public opinion pertaining to geopolitical competition between the two countries.

Of course, the range of countries surveyed is relatively narrow, with almost all being in Europe, or allies of the US, except for Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, and several countries in Latin America.

Naturally, apart from the latter few, such a selection of countries returns largely negative views of China and positive perceptions of the US, not least because of America’s own influence operations on those countries. However, this particular survey went deep beyond mere ‘approve/disapprove’ and explored topics such as who is perceived as the world’s largest economic power, who has the strongest military, and who has the best technological goods.

Here, the results were not as decisive as one might assume, with many questions resulting in an equilibrium or even putting China ahead. While the survey reveals that, naturally, Western nations do not approve of China in ideological or political terms, it does reveal how the perception of China’s global power and influence is growing in a way which provokes anxiety in Washington.

Many Western European nations increasingly see China as a larger economic and technological power than the US itself and near-equal on military terms. However, one challenge for China, remarkably highlighted by the survey, is that it continues to trail behind the US on soft power and cultural influence.

In all countries throughout the world, no matter what their political orientation may be, it is a fact of life that English is the default second language to learn, if it’s not already an official national language. Through Hollywood movies, television, and music, the US has unprecedented cultural power and, without hiding its nature as a brutal capitalist plutocracy with a history of violence, racism, and warmongering, has managed to present itself as a pinnacle of human aspiration and achievement – in other words, ‘the American Dream’.

Because of this, the US has been able to translate cultural power into discourse power, using the media landscape it dominates to export its ideology and promote its political and foreign policy objectives. China, as a country only rising to developed nation status and with the political structure of a communist state which increasingly restricts cultural expression, does not have this capability, and subsequently struggles to promote its narrative overseas, even in countries which have favourable dispositions towards it. This is made clear in the part of the survey which asks which country has the best culture and entertainment, with opinions leaning overwhelmingly in favour of the US.

Yet that has not stopped rising perceptions of China’s power. The country’s advance to become the world’s second largest economy, as well as becoming an increasingly sophisticated exporter of high-tech goods, cannot fail to leave a powerful impression regardless of any PR shortcomings. It is extraordinary that for all the technological achievements of the US, China is now seen as being ahead in this field almost across the board. According to the results, this is a view endorsed by a majority of the public even in the most devout allies of the US, including Australia, Canada, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Similarly, in military terms, with the exceptions of the former, most US allies also see Washington and Beijing as near equal. For example, in the UK, opinions lean in America’s favour by a mere 4%, and in Germany by just 1%. This subsequently demonstrates how public opinion has grown to incorporate China as a superpower. However, considering the favourability ratings mentioned above, the issue Beijing faces is that it is seen as a superpower which is feared rather than embraced.

We see from the survey that for countries in Africa and Latin America, such as Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya, the populations of these countries are perfectly comfortable with China’s rise, they are not antagonistic to either country, yet for the West and those close to the US, this is undoubtedly perceived as a strategic challenge. There is an underlying fear that the rise of China will deplete the advantages the West has held for centuries, which means Beijing’s ultimate strategic objective must be to reassure those countries it is not in fact a threat to them, and thus succeed in the field of soft power.

The European Commission just released a report card for countries seeking to join the European Union. And while Türkiye has been waiting on the sidelines for years, it now finds itself criticized and moving further away from accession for its unwillingness to drink on command the Kool-Aid that Brussels doles out.

Meanwhile, Ukraine is getting kudos for achieving the political equivalent of basic potty training – and even those achievements are debatable. “Ukraine has completed … well over 90% of the necessary steps that we set out last year in our report,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. What kind of dodgy bell curve grading is that?

There’s a term for what the EU is doing here. It’s called stringing someone along – in this case, with a participation trophy for effort. Ukraine and other countries, like Moldova and Georgia, want into the bloc. But the EU can barely afford to run what it has now, particularly with Germany and France – its economic engines – struggling from the EU’s own anti-Russian sanctions blowback on industry. Forget committing outright to taking on any more clown acts. So the European Commission is now issuing these condescending report cards, saying that Ukraine has met four of the seven pre-conditions, not for joining the bloc, but for just opening negotiations. Kiev still needs to de-corrupt, presumably to be more aligned with the rest of the EU’s corruption level, it’s being told – which let’s face it, is a pretty low bar. It also needs to de-oligarchize (because Europe only has one Queen, and that’s Ursula herself). It also needs to learn to play nice with minorities and respect their basic rights – like a preschooler needs to be told to do.

“Ukraine has taken positive steps in a wider and systemic effort to address the influence of oligarchs,” the report concludes. But is that really the result of a deliberate cleanup – or just due to circumstances? The Wilson Center has detailed how “war was making an impact on the Ukrainian oligarchy by physically destroying the oligarch-owned industrial complexes.” Some oligarchs have fled Ukraine for places like the South of France, as Le Monde has reported. Does it count for Brussels as “de-oligarchization” efforts if Ukrainian oligarchs have fled to Europe with their considerable assets? Seems like perhaps Kiev is pulling the escalator up by the handrail on this particular “achievement” attributed to it.

Ukraine “has also demonstrated its capacity to make progress in aligning with the EU acquis, even during wartime,” the commission says, meaning compliance with basic EU rights and obligations. Not sure how Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s recent decision to cancel elections jibes with basic EU and democratic imperatives. No other candidate country could shrug off elections while demanding immediate EU ascension, as Zelensky has. But there seems to be a different standard for Ukraine when it comes to EU expectations.

“Past enlargements have shown the enormous benefits both for the accession countries and the EU. We all win,” said von der Leyen. Know who doesn’t win? The taxpayers of EU nations paying for all this as net donors. Besides, it’s still better for the EU elites to keep these chancer countries on the hook, never sealing the deal, while exploiting whatever resources they have. Getting the milk without buying the cow. So there’s still no engagement date on the horizon. That’s probably a good thing, since I was just comparing Kiev to a toddler a few paragraphs ago.

And speaking of stunted maturity, Ukrainian officials are going all Fatal Attraction on Brussels, talking about how hard they’re trying to please – always the sign of a healthy relationship – and how much Brussels needs Kiev. “Our country should be in the EU. Ukrainians deserve this for their protection of European values and the fact that even during a full-scale war, we keep our word by developing state institutions,” Zelensky said.

Still, Ukraine needs to go work on itself, according to this humbling report card. For how long? Who knows. Accession talks could begin on December 12, if the entire bloc’s leaders agree. Which they may not. At least not without trying to squeeze out some concessions first, as Poland seems to be looking to do by demanding the exhumation of Poles killed by Ukrainian Nazis in the 1940s.

So with all the stumbling blocks that still remain for Kiev as a bossy child en route to the altar with Brussels, despite the rhetoric suggesting otherwise, there’s also the risk that Poland and others may ultimately want some kind of a kiss or concessions from Brussels in order to not be the guy who stands up at the wedding and objects to the union. And with Washington cooling on support and interest in Ukraine amid Israel’s conflict in the Middle East, the EU may be Ukraine’s only hope to keep funding the war against Russia – and likely only to a frozen state on Europe’s own border, at best. The whole sordid relationship between Brussels and Kiev is a folie à deux that risks ending in tears.

“They don’t make them like they used to anymore” is an ancient lament that has resonated through the ages in various forms. It applies both to humans and their material outputs. The Greek philosopher Socrates had this to say of the youths of his day, circa 470 BC: “Children; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. They no longer rise when elders enter the room, they contradict their parents and tyrannise their teachers. Children are now tyrants.”

Juvenile absolutists can indeed become thorns in the societal flesh. Think of the routine theatrics of a young Scandinavian “environmentalist” who is on a mission to save humanity? Hobnobbing with leaders who wage “eco-friendly” wars seems to be part of that salvation process. 

The prophet Isaiah, who preceded Socrates by three centuries, summed up this absurdity very well (Isaiah 3:12): “My people – children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths”. 

So, are we living in an era where humanity is being led along a tragic “course in their paths”? How are our median economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological conditions faring? An argument can be made that the malaise is systemic and global. Technology, in particular, is universally gauged by the quality of products but these now generate a daily tsunami of scathing reviews and complaints. Household products and popular gadgets are becoming more fragile and less durable by the day in spite of their “energy efficiency” and “eco-friendly” stamps.

London’s paper was published at the height of the Great Depression, when the vast majority of consumers had lost their spending power. As a result, the shelf-lives of consumer items were being extended via ingenious means. London, however, viewed that as a cardinal obstacle to progress.

In his rather meandering tract, London complained that “people everywhere are today disobeying the law of obsolescence… They are using their old cars, their old tires, their old radios and their old clothing much longer than statisticians had expected on the basis of earlier experience.”  Quality surplus products, including buffer food stocks in granaries, were making “new production unattractive and unprofitable.” He omitted to mention that the population surge of the 1930s would have resolved this imbalance if not for the mass impoverishment caused by runaway Wall Street greed. Just when did the production of durable products become a socioeconomic problem? 

We see this sinister logic being repeated nearly a century later under different pretexts. The European Union and Britain, for example, have pledged to ban new diesel and petrol cars from 2035. This climate-linked policy has also resulted in a senseless campaign against livestock and vegetation.

Bernard London’s solutions also appear to foreshadow the Great Reset: “I would have the Government assign a lease of life to shoes and homes and machines, to all products of manufacture, mining and agriculture, when they are first created, and they would be sold and used within the term of their existence definitely known by the consumer. After the allotted time had expired, these things would be legally “dead” and would be controlled by the duly appointed governmental agency and destroyed if there is widespread unemployment. New products would constantly be pouring forth from the factories and marketplaces, to take the place of the obsolete, and the wheels of industry would be kept going and employment regularized and assured for the masses.”

It gets worse. London urged that “taxes should be levied on the people who are retarding progress.” Ergo, the world needs to punish individuals who conserve resources for the sake of corporations which generate disposable junk on an industrial scale, straining our natural environments in the process.  And just how do you tax people over clothes and shoes that come with an officially-mandated expiry date? Will electronic micro-sensors be embedded into products of the future? Likewise, will humans be cattle-tagged with similar sensors to ensure consumerist compliance and the profitability of corporations? 

Welcome to the “New Normal” of the World Economic Forum (WEF); one which effectively plots and determines the “course of your paths” as foretold by Isaiah. 

Furthermore, the WEF’s mantra of “you will own nothing and be happy” by 2030 is only six years away. Yet nothing concrete has appeared from Davos’ utopian gumbo of Artificial Intelligence, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Big Data, Reskilling and Upskilling and an assorted melange of similar buzzwords. Where are the building blocks of this transformative global shift? Except for reductionist catchphrases and patently anti-human pronouncements, one would be hard-pressed to even detect the first scaffolds of the post-2030 global construct.

But, like London who avoided fingering Wall Street for the manifold failures of his generation –which inevitably led to WWII and hundreds of millions dead– our unelected global technocracy is blaming our current planetary failings on everyone but themselves. And they can get away with their travesties, as humans are becoming as fragile and as obsolete as the products they consume.

On December 10, Hong Kong will have its first District Council elections since the implementation of this year’s electoral reform law. It will be a litmus test for the city’s future and the success of China’s ‘One Country, Two Systems’ policy, which has so far seen the peaceful transition of Hong Kong and Macau from British and Portuguese colonial rule, respectively, to being part of China. 

Briefly, the changes that happened this year to the electoral system were quite significant. While all of the council seats used to be decided by direct election, now this has been reduced to 20%. Another 40% are decided by indirect elections, and 40% are decided by the Beijing-approved chief executive, who is currently John Lee Ka-chiu.

Candidates must be loyal to China insofar as they cannot have openly called for sedition nor colluded with foreign powers. It should be noted that, until recently, being in office in Hong Kong did not even require taking an oath – which, when implemented, saw mass resignations in protest. 

This change was implemented in direct response to the forces that are openly separatist, trying to pull Hong Kong away from Beijing and make it independent, as well as those who are purposely trying to muck up the city’s democracy and ruin the local government’s ability to help average people. Given all that’s taken place in the city in recent years, this is quite a reasonable approach, and it’s been a long time coming.

To those protesters, their sympathizers and supporters, the new electoral scheme may seem totally antithetical to democracy. However, the most important thing is that the government produces results for the people. Contrary to how Western democracy and republicanism work, the social contract in Chinese civilization has always been such that if the government materially benefits the lives of the people, then the state has legitimacy in the eyes of the people. 

In essence, the Chinese state is what guarantees the rights and well-being of the people. This is different to the West, where the state is what people need to be protected from in the first place. This is why Hong Kong is placing such an emphasis on the ordinary function of government ahead of kowtowing to some loud voices, who mostly do not recognize the rule of law. But it should also be noted that the basic thrust of the law is similar to what’s already in place in many Western countries, such as the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment and the fact that all US public servants need to take an oath of office.

One such example of these loud voices is the Hong Kong Parliamentary Electoral Organizing Committee, which is a group based in Toronto seeking to establish a Hong Kong parliament (in exile) and create a new constitution, i.e. a new independent state. The group is led in part by Elmer Yuen, one of eight fugitives wanted by China for alleged separatist activity. His public statements and his group’s objectives of “self-determination” and “sovereignty” would indeed make his activities illegal under Chinese law. Yuen did not respond to a request for comment on this topic.

At the same time, this organization also makes it clear that it is not just influenced by Western countries, the US and the UK in particular, but that it wants to emulate them. It is obvious that this has to do with the fact that Hong Kong was a British colony for so long, and many Hongkongers developed a sort of unique identity. One notable poll from last year found that 76% of young people in the city identify as Hongkongers, while only 2% identify as Chinese, though many in the pro-Beijing camp have tried to discredit this poll and the agency behind it. 

Hong Kong is a vibrant, eclectic, and truly unique place. Its unique history and culture have made it one of the greatest places in the world. But there are still some problems and excesses, of which rampant inequality and ballooning housing costs are some of the most notable. Addressing these issues will take serious results-driven governance – not petty partisanship.

There’s also the fact that foreign powers are certainly tied up in Hong Kong’s internal situation and must be exorcized. As an anecdote, my first time in Hong Kong, I met at least one person – though several others I suspected – who admitted to having ties to US intelligence, which I found to be shocking and something that almost certainly never happened just across the border on the Chinese mainland.

Hong Kong’s new electoral scheme will address both of these areas and help improve the lives of locals. That’s a win-win in any reasonable person’s book.

The US, true to its modus operandi of instigating “color revolutions” and interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries, could be in the initial stages of preparing a Ukraine-style coup in Mongolia, Russian officials believe.

“The situation in Mongolia is very difficult in terms of the fact that all this hypocritical US policy, which it is pursuing where it needs to realize its interests in any way, is now being transferred to Mongolia,” said Alexey Tsydenov, the head of Russia's Republic of Buryatia, which is located along the eastern side of Lake Baikal and borders Mongolia, in an interview with RIA Novosti on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok in September.

According to him, Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who played a key part in the US-backed Euromaidan coup in Ukraine in 2014, is now trying to indoctrinate the Mongolian people and "shake up the youth."

“I believe that in Mongolia the leadership understands everything, and the people and youth are literate and understand when they are simply [being] used and manipulated. I hope they will have enough strength to resist this in order to remain an independent state, and not become a puppet in the hands of the United States,” said the head of the republic.

"It is no secret that the same US organizations that have been investing in Ukraine since 2014 are operating in Mongolia. Therefore, their goals are clear… Russia and China are Mongolia’s partners, but the US isn’t giving up trying to turn it against us,” said Sholban Kara-ool, vice-speaker of the State Duma, the lower chamber of the Russian parliament. Kara-ool's constituency is the Republic of Tuva, which also borders Mongolia.

US involvement in Mongolia's domestic affairs is evident in several ways. For instance, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) announced on April 18, 2023 the launch of its five-year (2023-2028) Mongolia Strategic Framework. “The strategy focuses on supporting Mongolia’s efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, enhance national sovereignty, and diversify its economy,” the US embassy summarizes.

In the case of Mongolia, USAID is clearly promoting anti-Chinese and anti-Russian sentiments. For example, on the official website of this organization it is said that "the influence of Mongolia’s authoritarian neighbors, coupled with relatively new democratic institutions, threaten the country’s democratic future."

On August 2, 2023 US Vice President Kamala Harris and Mongolian Prime Minister Luvsannamsrai Oyun-Erdene met in Washington, DC, to strengthen the strategic partnership between the US and Mongolia. As part of the visit, the United States announced new funds from USAID to further expand US development activities in Mongolia, valued at up to $25 million over the next five years.

“Maidan midwife” Victoria Nuland’s association with Mongolia dates back to 1988, when she helped open the US embassy there. She resurfaced in the country with a visit in April this year, raising questions about the US' intentions regarding the country. Her visits and seemingly symbolic photo sessions in the central square of Mongolia’s capital Ulaanbaatar, 35 years apart, suggest that the country holds a key place in her strategic interests. It can be inferred that she may attempt to replicate the Ukraine scenario in Mongolia.

Great being back in Mongolia to see all the progress the country has made while remaining true to its heritage and rich culture since we first opened @USEMBMongolia in 1988. pic.twitter.com/do0pxxdtxx

— Under Secretary Victoria Nuland (@UnderSecStateP) April 19, 2023

Furthermore, according to the Russian newspaper Izvestia, citing informed sources, the US Department of Defense has prepared an extensive biological research program in Mongolia. The Pentagon is seeking permission from the Mongolian authorities to open several special laboratories in the republic. Experts believe that Washington could be preparing to transfer to Mongolia research which is similar to that which was taking place in laboratories in Ukraine. There, Russia has accused the US of developing biological weapons, which Washington initially dismissed as propaganda – before later admitting that 46 Pentagon-supported laboratories had been operating in Ukraine, but maintaining that their research was “focused on improving public health and agricultural safety.” Moscow’s calls for an investigation into what exactly those laboratories were doing were vetoed at the UN by the US and its NATO allies Britain and France. Now experts believe that the plan could be for the labs in Mongolia to study the effects of dangerous viruses on the body of people of Asian descent.

Meanwhile, the next parliamentary elections in Mongolia are scheduled for the summer of 2024, and could not only change the legislative trends, but also the “level of democracy” in the country, as well as the state’s relationship with its immediate and “third neighbors.”

Given their proximity and vested interests in Mongolia, Russia and China are likely to play a significant role in ensuring it does not follow in Ukraine's footsteps. Their assistance could be crucial in maintaining Mongolia's stability and preventing it from becoming another failed state.

As Ukraine slips quietly from the top of the Western media’s news agenda, fascinating insights into the granular nature of the CIA’s involvement in Kiev’s assassination program are being revealed. By the very same outlets that had previously suggested Ukraine was on a solo run with its slew of extrajudicial killings and terror attacks.

Western media has routinely ignored the brutal exploits of Kiev’s successor to the KGB, the SBU. When they are reported upon, instead of calling out the illegal killing of journalists and activists, the press seeks to frame them as masterful operations of a band of freedom fighters administering tough justice to the “enemies of Ukraine.” A key element of that narrative was that while the US, British, and French intelligence services worked closely with the SBU, they didn’t have any direct control of its actions, particularly when those actions involved assassinating unarmed civilians. However, a recently published article in the Washington Post has now revealed that the CIA had, and continues to have, a central role in the group's most disturbing activities.

One of the first claims it makes is that the relationship between the Ukrainian SBU and the CIA has been developing for decades with the latter working to “develop” Ukraine’s abilities to carry out sabotage and “operations” since at least 2014. The CIA has also been providing detailed intelligence, equipment and training to the SBU during that period and continues to spend “tens of millions” of dollars developing its capabilities. The sources quoted also confirm that the CIA even designed and built a new headquarters for the SBU in Kiev and currently share “levels of information and intelligence unthinkable” prior to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine.

According to the Washington Post, the CIA also now maintains a significant presence in Kiev, not only in terms of men and materiel but also information flow, all of which suggests that despite maintaining an overt distance, the CIA is in fact intimately involved in all aspects of SBU operations including the planning and execution of operations outside the state.

One such operation, and probably the most infamous carried out by the SBU since February 2022, was the assassination of Daria Dugina, daughter of prominent Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin. The Washington Post article goes into great detail to outline the complexity of the “operation” performed by the SBU that resulted in the death of the unarmed 23-year-old non-combatant in a car bombing outside Moscow in August 2022. It tells of the use of a pet carrier to transport explosives into Russia, and of the surveillance of the deceased woman’s home by the assassin, who then fled across the border soon after the horrendous killing, which was cynically referred to by the SBU as a “liquidation.” 

The granular details outlined in the article suggest sources either within the CIA or SBU have now confirmed that their relationship, once presented as purely advisory and business-like, is in fact a deep and long-standing partnership. The article goes on to confirm the SBU’s involvement in several other targeted murders on Russian territory, including the assassination of Vladlen Tatarsky with a bomb in a crowded St. Petersburg cafe and the murder of ex-submarine commander Stanislav Rzhitsky, who was shot in the back while jogging unarmed in a park in Krasnodar.

The revealing article also refers to “uneasiness” in Kiev and Washington regarding the SBU’s penchant for this kind of assassination, noting concern that they could tarnish Ukraine’s image abroad especially among donor countries who recently admitted that without their help Ukraine would collapse within weeks.

What is most interesting about this piece is probably not its confirmation that the CIA is intimately involved in the operations of the SBU, what’s most fascinating is why a newspaper widely recognized as itself having an intimate relationship with the CIA has suddenly decided to basically confirm what many analysts already knew when it comes to Langley and the SBU.

So as Kiev’s woes compound and the world’s gaze shifts towards Gaza, it seems the truth about the West’s intimate relationship with the SBU is now being pulled out of the closet, not by a whistleblower or dissenting investigative journalist, but by a stalwart of the US intelligence community, the Washington Post. The question we should all be asking is why? How does this benefit or promote a Western 'victory' in Ukraine? The answer may well be that it’s not a victory that these revelations are supposed to facilitate. It’s more likely that it’s part of a strategy of edging Kiev towards accepting the undeniable reality that the entire US project in Ukraine is set to fail, and for Zelensky to seek accommodation before there’s nothing left to negotiate with.

The task now is to end it as painlessly as possible for NATO and Kiev’s exhausted backers, and to move on to the next crusade, leaving a devastated and dysfunctional Ukraine to be consigned to the growing graveyard of bloody US foreign policy misadventures.

A freshman US senator from Ohio has just given one of the most powerful speeches ever uttered on Capitol Hill, exposing the dishonesty of Washington’s Ukraine policy and the disastrous consequences of its decades-long military interventionism around the world.

It’s no wonder, therefore, that Senator J.D. Vance’s message was summarily dismissed or ignored by other lawmakers, including his fellow Republicans, and by the legacy media. As Vance acknowledged at the end of his speech, there’s no political appetite in Washington to have an honest reckoning with America’s foreign policy failures. “Let’s have a real debate,” he said. “We haven’t had one in 30 years.”

Speaking on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Vance argued in support of legislation that would provide $10.6 billion in military aid to Israel, rather than combining assistance for West Jerusalem with $61.4 billion in additional Ukraine funding under an emergency spending bill that President Joe Biden unveiled last month. Democrats and neoconservative Republicans have insisted that Washington must bundle its support for Ukraine to fight Russia and Israel to fight Hamas in Biden’s $106 billion package deal, rather than allowing separate votes on the issues.

Basic questions about Biden’s Ukraine policy, including Washington’s true strategic objective in the former Soviet republic, haven’t been addressed, Vance argued. He noted that Americans are commonly told that the aim is to force Russia out of all Ukrainian territory, including regions that have been annexed by Moscow following overwhelming votes for independence from Kiev.

“And yet, when you talk to the president’s own administration in private, they admit that is a strategic impossibility,” Vance said. “No rational human being in the president’s administration believes that it is possible to throw the Russians out of every inch of Ukrainian territory. So, why is that the public justification offered by many advocates of indefinite, unlimited Ukrainian aid? Because this debate is fundamentally dishonest.”

We are not telling the American people the truth because we know that if we did tell them the truth, they would not support an indefinite flow of money to Ukraine.”

The senator added that Americans still haven’t been given answers on how long they’ll be expected to fund Ukraine and how their government is ensuring that none of their money is stolen. “Are we monitoring the fact that we have spent nearly $200 billion – if the supplemental passes -- $200 billion to one of the most corrupt countries in the world?” he asked. “Do we have proper assurances that all that money is being spent on the things that we tell ourselves it’s being spent on. The answer, of course, is no because we have not had a real debate in this chamber. The American people, I think, should be ashamed of us.”

USAID, by the way, is a US agency that has been used by Washington to help engineer regime changes under cover of providing humanitarian relief. It’s headed by Samantha Power. That’s the same Samantha Power who was US ambassador to the United Nations in 2014, when she defended Kiev’s brutal crackdown on separatists who opposed the Washington-backed overthrow of Ukraine’s elected government.

In other words, Washington’s interventionist policies of the past have helped to bring about today’s crisis. It’s just one of many conflicts around the world that the US government has knowingly helped trigger. For example, the US attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO crossed an obvious red line, knowing that Moscow could never allow Kiev’s accession to the Western military bloc without a fight.

Some proponents of the proxy war, such as Republican Senator Mitt Romney and Representative Dan Crenshaw, have openly celebrated the fact that the Ukraine conflict provides the US a way to weaken Russia’s military without putting American troops in harm’s way.

Notwithstanding the fact that the conflict has actually made Russia stronger, not weaker, this vampiric thinking is disgusting. The same people who are preaching about standing with Ukraine and defending freedom and democracy – in a country that has neither freedom nor democracy – are getting hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians killed to serve their geopolitical interests.

He added, “Maybe what we should have is some bipartisan wisdom that the foreign policy consensus of this country for the last three decades has been a disaster. It has been a disaster for this country. It has been a disaster for our dead marines, army soldiers, navy sailors and air force airmen. It has been a disaster for this country’s finances, and it has been a disaster for the entire world.”

The Economist has published a piece pretending to answer why Israel is killing so many Palestinian children, or, as the British journal puts it, why “children are a very high proportion of the victims of war in Gaza.” The authors note that “in Ukraine, a conflict between two much bigger powers, children account for fewer than 550 of roughly 9,800 civilian fatalities over a much longer period.” Hence, they venture, “Gaza’s enormous child death toll reflects, among other things, its especially youthful demography.”

Brazenly, the article removes the actual killers from the picture (the children fall victim to “the war,” not to the Israelis), gives just enough room to US President Joe Biden’s mendacious doubting of Palestinian victim figures (in reality certain to be under-counts) to make the reader wonder, and never mentions the true answer: so many children are getting killed because Israel commits one war crime after another against civilians, in pursuit of a strategy of collective punishment that amounts to genocide and ethnic cleansing (though these definitions, as is often the case with Israel’s actions, are being debated at various official levels). And also, because it can, due to the West’s complicity. In sum, an ordinary example of much Western mainstream coverage.

Yet there is more to this spin presented as cool, English-style level-headed analysis, complete with statistics and a chart. Inadvertently, the article opens a wide window on something ugly but important: The point where narratives about who has how many babies, or demography, meet the dehumanization that facilitates atrocities against fellow human beings.

As Khaled Elgindy, the director of the Middle East Institute's Program on Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, has explained in Newsweek, dehumanizing rhetoric conveys the idea that “the lives, suffering and humanity of Palestinians are less worthy than the lives, suffering and humanity of Israelis.” And as the genocide and Holocaust expert Raz Segal has found, the Israeli assault is a “textbook case” by the criteria of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, while making others appear less than human is a typical element of genocide.

The Economist is, of course, careful to (barely) maintain appearances by wrapping its nasty points in plenty of Sociologese about average income, fertility rates, and secondary education. But its message still comes through loud and clear: Gaza’s children are dying in droves not because Israelis are murdering them, but because there are so many of them. Dehumanization step one: Stop thinking of children as children, with names and faces; instead think of them as numbers. And on top of that, excessive numbers.

Step two of dehumanization: The fact that there are so many young Palestinians, in turn, is, we learn from The Economist, not a normal outcome of human life. By comparing Palestinians with even poorer populations in the world, the authors conclude that their high birthrates are an anomaly to be explained, they argue, by militant politics, namely the pro-natalism of Palestinian leaders, from the PLO’s late Yasser Arafat to Hamas. In short, Palestinians are depicted as people who weaponize, as we now say, their own reproduction and, thus, children.

The implication is clear if vicious. Recall that in the eyes of the US, Israel’s main Western ally, the attack on Gaza, including the starving and killing of civilians, is Israel exercising its right to self-defense. (Let’s leave aside that, under international law, Israel is a military occupying power and thus “self-defense” is not an applicable justification for use of force against the occupied territories.) Combine that with what The Economist says about Palestinian children being part of a strategy of long-term demographic warfare “by the cradle.” From here, you only have two dots to connect to arrive at the conclusion that if children are a “weapon,” it’s acceptable to exercise “self-defense” against them. Even if no one at the magazine, from authors to editors, managed to think through to the moral abyss their own argument opens up, that failure alone would be shamefully revealing.

Jews, of course, also know this kind of urgency, above all due to Germany’s historically recent attempt to exterminate them. But the genocide of their own people has not translated into empathy from modern-day Zionist leaders. For them, the slogan “never again” means “never again to us.”

Palestinian leaders, moreover, are not the only ones with thoughts about demography. Indeed, demographic policies have been at the core of the Zionist project from the get-go in the late nineteenth century, in two shapes: as a constant pro-active concern with increasing the number of Jewish settlers and then Jewish Israeli citizens; and as an equally persistent fear of growth of the Palestinian population. Since the first ethnic cleansing of the vast majority of Palestinians (at least 700,000), begun before and continued through the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, reducing their number and keeping it low has been one of the principal reasons why Israel has always denied the Palestinian right of return, affirmed in the UN General Assembly resolution 194.

That, in turn, has been a prime factor that has made a lasting peace settlement impossible. In other words, Israel regards Palestinians and their children as a fundamental threat to national security, and that is one of the worst obstacles in the way of a settlement that would bring justice to the Palestinians and free the world from a never-ending, extremely dangerous crisis that should long have been put to rest.

Acute observers are pointing out that the West’s support of Israel’s actions is costing it whatever prestige it still has in the rest – that is, most – of the world. That is true and richly deserved. For what is even worse than the language of dehumanization is that it is not at all a fringe phenomenon: in the West, one can take part in this genocide-promoting practice and find resonance and recognition, rather than opprobrium and censure, as long as the victims are Palestinians. The West, while hallucinating itself as a “garden” of “values” has a long record of staggering violence combined with stunning hypocrisy. But at this moment in this ongoing history, the horrific abuse of the Palestinians – in word and deed – is its single most egregious depravity. And humanity won’t forget or forgive.

Israel’s Intelligence Ministry has come up with a creative solution for dealing with those displaced by the Gaza conflict, of which there are an estimated 1.4 million and counting: Go west — all the way to Canada.

As Gaza residents were being directed by Israel to clear out and move towards the southern border with Egypt – while the IDF pelted the northern part of the enclave, where most Hamas forces are reportedly concentrated, with missiles – one of the big questions some of us asked was where over 2 million Palestinians  would possibly go.

Thanks to a leaked Israeli government document, dated October 13 and published by Israeli news site Sicha Mekomit, there’s now some insight into what at least some Israeli government officials have been floating. This paper, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office says presents “initial thoughts” that won’t be considered until the war is over, envisions the refugees heading to Egypt first. But, because Egypt has previously refused to absorb Gaza residents, it may ultimately just end up being used as a staging ground for their mass relocation to other countries. The proposal is for Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates to at least provide financial support for this mass displacement, if not offer to take in some refugees themselves, either in the short or long term.

But the real kicker is that one particular Western country – way over on the other side of the world from the conflict – is singled out for its “lenient” immigration policy, making it a place where Israeli officials figure the displaced Palestinians could feasibly be resettled. And that country is Canada. Because despite its strict points-based immigration system that selects for potential newcomers based on their skills and education, Canada still clearly has a reputation for being a refugee welcome mat – even though today’s reality is a far cry from this perception.

Nor does the image of Canada as a freeloader’s paradise jibe with real life upon arrival in the country. By 2019, Canada had welcomed nearly 60,000 Syrian refugees amid the US-backed regime change war against President Bashar Assad. Images abound of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau handing out winter jackets to arriving families at Toronto’s Pearson airport. “You’re safe at home now,” Trudeau told them. That was back in 2015. Just four years later, some provinces had ditched all aid for immigration and refugee programs and just 24% of male and 8% of female refugees from Syria had found employment, according to government data.

As a Canadian who still spends considerable time in the country, it’s not uncommon to hear from school teachers about how many Syrian children are struggling to integrate into schools and are displaying considerable behavioral troubles.

For every feel-good success story, there’s also one about Syrians returning back to their home country now that the situation there has stabilized with Assad still in power and the US having moved on from intervening in Russian-allied Syria to doing the same over Ukraine.

If Syrians aren’t faring too great in Canada, and are struggling with the end of the initial generous government assistance, then what hope is there for those from Gaza who have spent their lives under blockade? “Some 50 per cent of students (aged 5-17 years) do not achieve their full educational potential, meaning that the psychological impact of hostilities has led to a deterioration in learning outcomes, and difficulties in reading and writing,” according to the United Nations.

So it goes without saying that Israel never bothered asking Palestinians if they want to be displaced to the other side of the planet from their home, but clearly no one in Israel has asked Canadians how they feel, either, about the possibility of serving as a dumping ground for their ethnic cleansing efforts in Gaza. Because, if they had, they’d have realized that Canada was already full. So, who gave them that idea? Did they come up with it on their own? Or is someone in Trudeau’s government actually suggesting that it’s a realistic scenario? There’s been no debate about any such possibility, and until there’s a full discussion about it in Canadian parliament and some official dares to stick his neck out and commit political suicide over the idea, Canadian officials need to tell the Israeli Intelligence Ministry to shove it.

Like its fellow Western allies, Canada’s official position is to support a two-state solution for a Palestinian homeland. Just a few days ago, Trudeau reiterated that “the world and the region needs a peaceful, safe, prosperous, viable Palestinian state alongside a peaceful, prosperous, democratic, safe ... Israel.” This means that Gaza residents ultimately get to stay in Gaza, and don’t get offloaded onto other countries in mass displacement just because some folks in Israel may be in favor of using revenge against Hamas as a convenient pretext to wipe Gaza off the map as an independent entity.

At least 10,000 Palestinians have been killed so far amid Israel’s pursuit of security in the wake of the Hamas attacks of October 7th. Neither they – nor Canadians on whom this proposal is offering to unload survivors – should be reduced to being pawns as the proposed plan suggests. Better head back to the drawing board and try coming up with an idea for your own “security” that’s less radical than emptying out an entire state into another.

General Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, has given an important interview to The Economist, a major platform for Western bellicism. The magazine is also hosting his guest essay on 'Modern Positional Warfare and How to Win in It'.

This is not the first piece time the British outlet has bigged up Zaluzhny. (The general’s well-publicized admiration for Stepan Bandera, the World War II leader of Ukrainian fascists who committed horrendous mass atrocities, has, of course, never troubled a journal that claims to stand for 'liberalism'.) Indeed, Zaluzhny has consistently received the movie-star treatment: softball questions and shameless PR write-ups masquerading as journalism. And yet, propagandistic as it is, The Economist’s fluff piece still merits attention, if read against the grain.

The first point to note is that it is part of a Western mainstream media trend. After the predictable failure of Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive has finally been acknowledged, a note – if not the substance – of realism is now discernible. Zaluzhny gets to “admit” (The Economist’s word) that the war is “at a stalemate.” While this is still too optimistic when Ukraine and its Western backers are, in reality, losing, it is a departure from the past.

In December 2022, The Economist, even while cautioning that much hard work still lay ahead, claimed there had been a “triumphant” Ukrainian advance in the fall of 2022, again merely reproducing the mainstream narrative of the moment. Serious independent analysts, such as Brian Berletic, were already explaining why this was a gross mischaracterization: Ukrainian forces had re-taken territory in northeastern Ukraine, but at a damaging cost in personnel and materiel. Russia had retreated, but not suffered a strategic setback. It may have looked impressive on a map, and it rattled some Russian commentators, but, in reality, it was a PR stunt Ukraine could not afford. It was precisely not the “counterstrike that turned the tide of the war,” as Time put it back then, in another piece fawning over Zaluzhny. Now, a year later, there are not even such empty territorial gains to show for the lost lives of the counteroffensive.

Even earlier, in March 2022, a “bonanza” of Western weapons was hyped. With this “flood of arms” going beyond tanks and armored fighting vehicles, The Economist fantasized about a whole-sale transformation of Ukraine’s military. That, too, flew in the face of professional expertise: armies, even units inside armies, cannot be transformed at that speed. It is a snake-oil-level silly or dishonest belief. Thanks to it, though, many Ukrainians are dead, wounded, or, if lucky, POWs. Others have long openly admitted that they had to revert to tactics not taught by NATO to stand a chance at survival. Ukraine’s Western 'supporters' (would 'users' not be the better, more honest word?), meanwhile, accused their proxies of being “casualty-averse.”

If it had not wasted so many lives, Zaluzhny’s frank naivete would be touching. It only took him seeing his troops being bogged down in those minefields everyone knew about in advance, while Western miracle weapons turned out to be as susceptible to enemy fire as was easily predictable, to have a remarkable epiphany: This sort of thing is not unprecedented! That’s when he told “his staff to dig out a book he once saw as a student.” Published in 1941 by Soviet general Pavel Smirnov thinking through the experiences of World War I, 'Breaching Fortified Defense Lines' turned out relevant, unlike those NATO 'textbooks' Zaluzhny was following.

But there is no happy ending here. Zaluzhny has only replaced one set of illusions for another one: Now he believes that Ukraine’s – and very much his own – failure in the counteroffensive is due to a stalemate akin to what made World War I last so long. With contemporary defenders too powerful, thanks to satellites, drones, and other technologies, attackers end up wasting their men and weapons in fruitless or exorbitantly costly attempts to storm almost un-stormable positions. He draws two conclusions: First, Russia has essentially the same problem; and second, the only way to break the stalemate is to introduce more new technology to re-empower the attackers over the defenders. In effect, the man who was surprised that Western arms that already exist are no miracle weapons, now puts his faith in yet more miracle weapons – those still to be developed.

Both of Zaluzhny’s conclusions are bad cases of wishful thinking. Indeed, they are so obviously wrong that one cannot help but recall that this is the man openly admitting he believed NATO 'textbooks' and 'math' until he saw his soldiers dying in droves.

Here’s why he’s got it wrong again. While it is true that Russia also suffers substantial losses when it launches relatively large, concentrated offensive operations, that does not change the fact that this is a war of attrition, as both Zaluzhny and The Economist have admitted. And it is ongoing: Attrition is constantly working for the (much) stronger country, here Russia, against the (much) weaker country, here Ukraine. Even Zaluzhny admits that any technological breakthrough magically re-empowering Ukraine’s attackers is, at best, far off and, therefore, the war is bound to be long. Yet since there is a limit to the attrition an army can absorb before having to give up or fall apart, Ukraine does not, actually, have the time to wait for Zaluzhny’s new dream of the miracle weapons of the future to come true (if it ever will).

Secondly, it is astonishing that Zaluzhny still cannot really face the simple fact that Russia as well is constantly learning, adapting, and producing. There is no credible scenario in which, for some reason, Moscow will sit still technologically, while Ukraine overtakes it. Indeed, Zaluzhny’s own observation that Russia also has a problem with making large-scale attacks break through and yield strategic results, should immediately have told him that surely Russia, too, is working on solving this problem. And unlike Ukraine, Russia has the economy to provide it with what it needs to implement its plans. It also has allies because, whether Ukraine’s commander-in-chief has noticed or not, the West’s attempt to isolate Moscow and bring it down through economic warfare have fared no better than Ukraine’s counteroffensive.

Thirdly, Zaluzhny misses two other ways that the Russian military has at its disposal to make progress, one much used now and the other a possibility that he should cause dread. At this point, Russian forces keep most of the line of contact busy with comparatively small-scale operations. Those do not yield any sudden breakthroughs, but they steadily erode Ukrainian positions and improve those of the Russians. In the future, some of the ground thus gained may also serve as launch pads for a big-arrow-style large-scale attack, big enough to overload Ukraine’s weakened, exhausted defenses in more than one place. Does Zaluzhny really believe that his unforgivably late insights into the nature of World War I and the ill-conceived analogies he builds on them will help much in that case?

As Western think tankers in awe of Hollywood movie situation room scenes love to say: What are we looking at here? The simple explanation for this display of being out of touch is despair and a certain simplicity of mind. Perhaps both Zaluzhny and his fans at The Economist are so desperate that they have put together the best feel-good story they could, under the circumstances. And the result is self-damagingly shoddy.

The British Army Training Unit in Kenya (BATUK) in Nanyuki, some 195 kilometers north of Nairobi, has elicited controversy over the years. Britain has permanently stationed about 200 soldiers in Kenya at any given time since Kenya gained independence in 1963. The Kenyan government regards its military cooperation with Britain as strategic to its national security, and the British troops and their Kenyan counterparts hold joint training from the camp. Crucially, BATUK is central to Kenya’s contribution to the ‘global fight’ against terrorism as a reliable Western ally in the East African and the Horn subregion. Kenya, to critics, is a proxy in this counterterrorism campaign and acts at the behest of Western powers.

Historically, Kenya has prized its relationship with Britain. Kenya is the first commonwealth country that the British monarch, King Charles III, visited after coronation. It is testament to Kenya’s longstanding relations with Britain. It is also a dubious distinction that shows that the colonial hangover still runs deep in the country. Diplomatically, the two countries have hardly had frosty relations except on occasions when British envoys abandoned diplomatic niceties and pointedly criticized the Kenyan government for runaway corruption, and other state excesses. Mau Mau, a liberation movement that led an uprising against the British colonialists, was only unbanned recently in 2003. Kenya’s postcolonial political elite, offshoots of collaborators – home guards – naturally inherited British antipathy against the Mau Mau and maintained colonial era legislation that outlawed them. 

The British government has never acknowledged colonial era atrocities in concentration camps in Kenya that included rape, castrations, torture, and murder. The British monarch, during a state visit to Kenya last week, used the words “greatest sorrow and deepest regret” to describe “the heinous and unjustified acts of violence against Kenyans” during the fight for independence. These are vague words that did not include an apology or a pledge for reparations.

The Kenyan government often describes its relations with Britain as warm and cordial despite an atrocious colonial legacy and the postcolonial atrocities by the British troops training from Nanyuki. The monarch described these relations as a “modern partnership of equals.” Critics do not see how a colonial power and its former colony can have such a relationship. They fault the military treaty between Kenya and Britain as a symbol of enduring neocolonialism, imperialism, and erosion of Kenya’s sovereignty. In 2021, the treaty was up for renewal and some voices called for it to be scrapped, but expectedly, it was extended for five more years. This, however, did not dampen calls for reparations and an end to the treaty. Kenya’s political elite is anglophile in orientation. This is why for decades the problematic relations with Britain have not received due attention.

To some residents of Nanyuki, BATUK is a boost to the local economy. Besides employment opportunities to some Kenyans from the area and other parts of the country, this military base has injected $40 million into the local economy since 2016. Whenever the British soldiers come, they spend generously, particularly on entertainment. It is a windfall to some businesspeople and workers. Once they leave, however, the town turns forlorn until the next batch of soldiers arrive. This financial gain is what, to critics, made successive Kenyan governments unable to rein in rogue British soldiers or end this treaty altogether. It is not all glamour with BATUK, however.

This camp is a metaphor of gross human rights violations. Uncleared munitions at the training camp have caused untold suffering to children and adults over the years, but the victims have not had justice. Residents lost lives at the hands of the British soldiers, but no one has been held to account. The military treaty does not explicitly accord the British troops immunity against criminal prosecution, but has a caveat that effectively does. Law-breaking British soldiers can only be tried in Kenya with the agreement of the UK government. It explains why the Kenyan authorities have not held errant British soldiers criminally accountable and the UK government liable for the atrocities associated with its troops. Insidiously, the treaty ringfences British military interests and personnel in Kenya against accountability.

British troops have also been accused of raping Kenyan women with impunity over the decades. The plight of these victims is never taken seriously, owing to the lack of political will to stand up to the British. The balance of power between Britain and Kenya is lopsided, weighted heavily towards Britain. Ordinary Kenyans’ lives are trivialized by the government’s unwillingness to fight for them.

One of the most egregious cases of impunity by the British troops in Nanyuki is the murder of a young Kenyan woman, Agnes Wanjiru, whose body was dumped in a hotel septic tank close to the camp in 2012. She had been seen alive in the company of a British soldier. The suspect showed other soldiers the body and the murder was reported to senior British officers, but no action was taken. The suspect was allowed to leave Kenya and while in Britain, allegedly casually confessed to colleagues that he murdered the woman. This story was broken by the British media and half-heartedly amplified by the Kenyan press. Authorities in Nairobi showed a nominal interest in the case to save face. The government and media’s first priority appeared to be damage control, not concern for justice for Wanjiru – or for others who have been maimed and died over the years courtesy of British troops. 

Once the story fell off the front pages of newspapers and prime time headlines, the government went back to default settings. They could not afford to associate BATUK with atrocities and jeopardize their relationship with Britain. The murder of Wanjiru was as much an indictment on the Kenyan government as it was on a military treaty that enables the commission of gross human rights violations in Nanyuki and its surroundings without accountability. It highlights racial undertones in the relations between the two countries. Whiteness shields these British troops from justice and the authorities of Kenya and Britain seem to converge on this recalcitrant legacy of impunity.

Despite lone voices from social media and civil society who question the relevance of BATUK 60 years after independence, the military pact is likely to exist far into the future and its supposed benefits overplayed. The British monarch was obsequiously accorded red-carpet treatment throughout his four-day state visit to Kenya. Consciousness about the disturbing relationship between Kenya and Britain is yet to take hold in the imagination of a critical mass of Kenyans. Until that happens, troops associated with BATUK will continue to hurt Kenyans without any recourse to justice.

The Australian Government has recently introduced in Parliament a new law proposal to ban officially unapproved online content. Digital companies are expected to adopt a code of conduct which will see them censor speech based on broad, vague and far-reaching directives.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 foreshadows the imposition of a legal obligation on digital platforms to police alleged ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’. If that does not work, the law proposal provides for the full empowerment of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to directly intervene for the purpose of preventing ‘harm’.

Section 2 of the proposed legislation defines ‘harm’ as follows:

• (a) hatred against a group in Australian society on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or physical or mental disability;

• (b) disruption of public order or society in Australia;

• (c) harm to the integrity of Australian democratic processes or of Commonwealth, State, Territory or local government institutions;

• (d) harm to the health of Australians;

• (e) harm to the Australian environment;

• (f) economic or financial harm to Australians, the Australian economy or a sector of the Australian economy.

The concept of ‘harm’ peddled by the bill is illusory, and its content would be subjectively determined by a powerful government agency. The definition of what is and what isn’t harm is malleable and can expand and contract depending on ACMA’s prevailing views. Ultimately, any type of speech with which the government is uncomfortable could be deemed ‘harmful’. For example, describing “disrupting social order” as serious harm could be interpreted to stop the organization of legitimate political protests. This could certainly be used to suppress legitimate political speech that should be part of a functioning democracy.

Above all, ACMA would gain sweeping powers to require any person to appear at a time and place of its choosing to answer questions about misinformation or disinformation. These powers include infringement notices, remedial directions, injunctions and civil penalties, including fines of up to AU$550,000 (US$358,000) for individuals and AU$2.75 million for corporations. Criminal penalties, including imprisonment, may also apply in cases of alleged “extreme harm.”

It is noteworthy that the Australian Government is exempted from the proposed legislation. Hence, the content issued by the government is never to be considered ‘misinformation’ but criticisms of the government by ordinary citizens can. It is certainly ironic that views incompatible with the government’s preferred narrative could be deemed to ‘harm’ the integrity of Australia’s democracy since it would disallow speech and expressive conduct that is integral to the maintenance of democratic processes.

In its 12-page submission to the Law Council, the Victorian Bar Association explains that this proposed legislation effectively creates an “unlevel playing field between governments and other speakers” that disadvantages government critics in comparison to government supporters. “The bill’s interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the relevant services,” says the Victorian Bar.

Above all, ACMA’s enforcement of the proposed legislation will inevitably stymie discussion of controversial topics, especially if they involve criticism of government policy and actions. This scenario is likely to unfold when the impugned speech is incompatible with the government’s official narrative. Thus, the proposed legislation targets those who, merely exercising their right to free speech, critically assess the desirability of government decisions and actions.

Other concerns with the proposed ‘misinformation’ legislation include the possibility of suspending the activities of internet companies in Australia if they fail to comply with the obligations created, as well as increased criminal penalties for libel and defamation which are incompatible with international human rights standards.

As can be seen, the proposed legislation constitutes a serious attack on the democratic right of Australians to free speech. Digital platforms will be legally obliged to police commentators’ discussion of controversial topics. Under this ‘misinformation’ legislation, any honest and robust debate about government policies will be effectively outlawed.

To conclude, our freedom of political communication is under attack in Australia. If the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill is enacted, then the free expression of ideas will be basically outlawed by the Australian Government. In short, the enactment of this law proposal will spell the end of authentic democracy in Australia. Australians are basically witnessing the transformation of their system of representative government into nothing more than a less open, or more disguised, form of elective dictatorship.

On Saturday the news broke that former Chinese Premier Li Keqiang had passed away in Shanghai of a sudden heart attack. He was 69 years of age.

Li had served in the role of premier – the second-highest ranking Chinese political rank – for over a decade, before stepping down in March of this year. He was an economist by trade and had managed the world’s second largest economy accordingly. The Western media made no hesitation whatsoever in politicising his passing, framing his life and legacy in light of an apparent conflict with China’s leader Xi Jinping.

Why so? Because, as a free-enterprise-orientated member of China’s Communist Party, Li was an advocate of reform and opening up, and this was juxtaposed with Xi Jinping as a highly centralised leader who has actively cracked down on areas of private enterprise in the pursuit of political control. Thus came media headlines focused on how Li had been “sidelined by Xi Jinping”  and how the mourning was “a way to air frustration” with Xi’s rule.

Although Li was China’s premier for a decade, a staunchly loyal member of the Communist Party and one of its highest figures of authority, the media narrative is now depicting his life as if he were a dissident, which could not be less true. There’s no denying that there are factional struggles within the Communist Party of China, but to highlight that isn’t the agenda here. Rather, the goal of such reporting is to use the life and legacy of Li Keqiang as a deliberate political weapon against Xi Jinping to encourage dissent against him.

The Western establishment media has a tactic of embodying the political messages, points and attacks against a particular country by glorifying figureheads, either alive or dead, who then become conduits for shaping publicity in a certain way. In China especially, this is used by glorifying effectively any figure, event or organisation that is deemed to be in opposition to the Communist Party, especially Xi Jinping. To do this, those who die are often “immortalised” and used as a stick to hit Xi with, transforming their memories and legacies into permanent political narratives.

In doing so, many online commentators regarding China hoped in vain that the death of Li Keqiang would, like the death of pro-reform general secretary Hu Yaobang did in 1989, trigger protests against the regime and the political status quo, despite the context being very different. This only serves to illustrate the attempt to hijack the legacy and life of Li Keqiang to frame him as an embodiment of the notion of opposing Xi Jinping. The things he actually did during his ten years in office are largely ignored in favour of a highly partisan message which frames him as being the victim of a “purge” as an apparent voice of conscience against Xi’s rule; the reader is therefore invited to think something was suspicious about his death and is ultimately drawn to the conclusion that we should be pessimistic about the direction China is heading in.

This shows how memory and death, even one as ordinary as a heart attack at 69, are inherently politicised to create not just a temporary, but a lasting legacy in favour of crafting the overall narrative and public perception of a regime and its reality, an irremovable and immortal memory which must be emphasized again and again. Another example of this was when Dr Li Wenliang died of Covid-19 in early 2020. Depicted as a heroic whistleblower who sought to sound the alarm against the virus, Li’s legacy was used to demonise and brand China culpable for the pandemic. These stories deliberately remove or downplay any nuance or contradictory information, such as Li being a member of the party himself, in order to frame this as a binary “good vs evil” narrative.

We should be reminded that the Western media selects upon death who should be praised, and who should be condemned, who should be remembered, and who should be forgotten. Politics and history are, after all, all about how we should understand people’s legacies, and with it we judge who “wins” and who “loses.” What political messages and legacies are embodied through the life and death of Adolf Hitler? And why is Stalin reviled, but Gorbachev praised? When it comes to China, the West already have a pre-set ideological conclusion and disposition about who they believe is right and who is wrong, and who in their eyes “must” lose, therefore it is no surprise that every single development in Beijing is tailored to pushing, or hoping for, that respective outcome, which is why a loyal Chinese premier will now be remembered as an unlikely dissident.

The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, delivered a much-anticipated speech outlining his organization’s approach to the ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel in Gaza. At the same time Nasrallah was speaking, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivered some remarks of his own and took questions from the press about the Gaza conflict and the resulting humanitarian crisis that has gripped the Palestinians there.

In the leadup to Nasrallah’s speech, Hezbollah had released several videos suggesting that something momentous was going to come out of his presentation. Many observers, angered by the ongoing slaughter of innocent Palestinian civilians – many of them children – through the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza by the Israeli Air Force, believed that this was the moment when Nasrallah would unleash the might of the Hezbollah resistance, exacting revenge on an Israeli nation that had operated outside the framework of international law for far too long.

Other observers believed that Nasrallah would fail to rise to the occasion and would offer the Palestinian people, whose cause he claimed to champion, nothing more than empty platitudes when they needed a second front.

Blinken’s remarks, on the other hand, were not prepared in advance, but rather a byproduct of an American diplomatic intervention designed to preempt any potential Hezbollah action. The fact that Blinken and Nasrallah delivered their remarks simultaneously was no accident – Blinken was clearly seeking to distract from the Hezbollah leader’s ‘moment’.

But the simultaneous messaging signaled something else as well – that the message being imparted by each of the parties was not contingent upon the content of the other, but rather set in stone prior to Nasrallah’s presentation (indeed, the fact that Nasrallah did not deliver a live address, but rather had pre-recorded his speech, underscores the reality that what was happening was carefully constructed theater.)

On the surface, the tone and content of these competing presentations appear to point to mutually incompatible goals. Nasrallah said Hezbollah’s objectives were to “stop the aggression” against Gaza and assure that Hamas “achieves victory” against Israel, and that to help this, his troops had tied up a part of Israeli forces in skirmishes at the Lebanese border. Blinken, for his part, warned both Hezbollah and Iran against “taking advantage of the situation” and opening a second front.

In short, both the US and Hezbollah were, and are, implementing a model of conflict management known as the ‘escalation ladder’. And while this reality might prove frustrating for those on either side of this conflict who seek a decisive, one-sided victory, it is the only responsible path that can be taken to avoid turning a local conflict into a regional war that could have global ramifications.

The escalation ladder process focuses on how the parties involved escalate and de-escalate against competitors, measuring these actions against the different levels of escalation, which equate to the ‘steps’ on the ‘ladder’ used to visualize the model. By assessing the possible upward or downward trajectory of escalation at each level, based upon the actions of each party and their outcomes, the model helps participants to predict plausible outcomes and, as such, plot future scenarios. The most popular expression of the escalation ladder is what is known as ‘linear escalation’, where a sequential line of actions is plotted from lowest to highest, and the relationship between two competing powers assessed accordingly.

By way of example, one can speak of a ‘horizontal escalation’ model, where a US/Israeli track is paired off against a Hamas/Hezbollah track. However, the US/Israeli track is also paired off against itself, since the US and Israel are at odds over ceasefire options, the provision of humanitarian air, and specific military tactics. The same applies to Hamas/Hezbollah, where the Palestinian-specific goals of Hamas may clash with the regional aspirations of Hezbollah. Moreover, the specific actions of the US and Israel, when competing, can impact the Hamas and Hezbollah escalation calculations differently, causing these two tracks to lose their equilibrium by having one party escalate when the other may be seeking either maintenance and/or de-escalation.

The horizontal escalation model becomes even more complex when other tracks, such as the United Nations, the international community, Iran, Yemen, and the Iraqi and Syrian Shia militias become involved. When seen in this light, the horizontal escalation model becomes horribly complicated, requiring all parties to be cognizant about the competing interests of everyone involved, and develop a sound understanding of the intricacies associated with every facet of the cause-effect relationships involved.

When deciphering the presentations given by both Blinken and Nasrallah, the casual observer might be compelled to be highly critical of the less-than decisive content provided. But a careful parsing of the language used by both men shows that each, in his own way, is cognizant of the complexity of the issues at play, and the absolute need to manage the pressures generated by the emotions of all parties involved so that a crisis that could easily expand into a regional war remains localized.

However, one cannot escape the reality that, at the end of the day, there cannot be a solution that is satisfactory to all parties. Israel seeks the destruction of Hamas as a military and political entity. Hamas seeks a Palestinian homeland built in its image. These two visions of victory are mutually incompatible. Both parties will seek to manipulate the escalation ladder in a way that best promotes their respective desired outcome. The key to the other parties is how to prevent this inherent incompatibility from spinning out of control, and to manage defeat as well as victory.

Neither is Hassan Nasrallah.

It is in this light that one must examine the totality of Nasrallah’s speech, and the complexity of his argument. There is not a single facet of the Israeli-Hamas conflict he left unexamined. Moreover, he not only discussed each of these matters in isolation, but also in respect to how they relate overall. Nasrallah’s speech was the embodiment of how to manage a complex horizontal escalation model and achieve a desired outcome.

Let there be no doubt – Hamas is on the trajectory toward victory, though not the kind of victory a casual observer might imagine as its end goal. When the definitive history of the Hamas-Israeli conflict is finally written, rest assured that the speech given by Hassan Nasrallah will be recorded as one of the critical moments in shaping the conflict so that it avoided exploding into a wider war, and instead allowing the various parties to focus on the more limited, although admittedly complex, issues relating to the core matters as defined by Hamas – a prisoner exchange, freedom of religion at the Al Aqsa Mosque, and Palestinian statehood. These limited objectives, and not the destruction of Israel, are the likely outcomes of this conflict. And for that we can all thank Hassan Nasrallah, a man who knows how to effectively manage the complexities of the horizontal escalation model.

This week, the administration of US President Joe Biden announced that it would, according to Reuters, “develop a national strategy to battle Islamophobia.” Meanwhile, Biden is facing intense skepticism from Muslim Americans for his unwavering support for the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) assault on Gaza, which comes in response to terrorist attacks by the Palestinian militant group Hamas on October 7.

Reports suggest that this effort to combat Islamophobia has been in the works for months. In May, the White House also released a strategy to push back against anti-Semitism that also mentioned countering hatred against Muslims. The renewed hostilities in the Middle East have provided an impetus for this; meanwhile, the FBI has long noted that white-supremacist terrorism and hate-based terror are the number one terror-related concern in the United States. Hate crimes against Asian Americans, against the backdrop of renewed tensions between the US and China, have also been soaring in recent years.

As with the hatred against Asians in the US, it is evident that Washington’s foreign policy is intimately connected to the deteriorating domestic security situation. In January of this year, I noted in my column for RT in response to one of many hate crimes against Asians in the US, “Without a change in how we approach the subject of competition with China, Asian communities in the United States will never be safe. They will be a canary in the coal mine for what the military is seething to do in live combat against the Chinese.”

Washington has been supporting Israel in all of this and has now given it carte blanche – be it weapons, diplomatic cover, and political support – to proceed with its destruction of Gaza. The situation as it stands is such that Palestinians have been robbed of their sovereignty and any realistic path toward statehood. The US is enthusiastically supporting this.

What makes this latest escalation in Gaza unique is that it is so well-publicized. We are constantly inundated with images and videos of death and destruction, its victims predominantly being women, children, and the elderly. In spite of these terrible things, which everyone in the world is seeing on virtually every available platform, the US and the White House are pronouncing clearly that they do not care.

Devaluing the lives of Palestinians, who are Arabs and predominantly Muslim, so flagrantly, as well as dismissing those who do speak out as supporters of terrorist outfits like Hamas, sends a message that such atrocities are fine – and, doubtless, many bad actors within the US will take note. They will use the tacit approval of the crimes being committed in Gaza by the White House to play out their own sick fantasies at home. This is what makes the supposed strategy to combat Islamophobia so fundamentally absurd.

If basic morality were not enough to convince Biden’s team that this course of action was foolhardy, perhaps the language of electoral politics may suffice. On this, we can see that the White House’s support for Israel is also a clear political liability.

The poll’s key findings reveal that about a quarter of Arab Americans are unsure of who they intend to support in 2024, while 40% said they would vote for likely Republican nominee and former President Donald Trump, 13.7% said they would vote for independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and another 3.8% would vote for Cornel West, also an independent. Only 20% of respondents indicated they would rate Biden’s job performance as ‘good’, and another 66% reported negative feelings about his presidency. 

One may like to think that the old phrase ‘what goes around comes around’ may indeed hold up. While Palestinian civilians suffering in Gaza may never have justice, it seems clear that for those supporting the unfolding tragedy there will be consequences – whether these be deepening racial tensions in America or loosening Biden’s frail grip on power.

For the White House, if it would like to avoid these obvious consequences and actually ameliorate the victimization of American Muslims, then they necessarily need to hold Israel accountable for its crimes in Gaza. Any strategy that does not include this is utterly meaningless – and millions of Americans know it.

The November issue of Time magazine features a cover with a small portrait of Vladimir Zelensky and the word "Nobody" above it. The word in larger type is part of the longer headline "Nobody Believes in Our Victory Like I Do" but, whatever the designers had in mind, it was unmistakable: Zelensky equals a nobody.

The similarly illustrated article was no less scandalous. It made everything clear: we Russians must keep Zelensky as the apple of our eye, because no one brings more chaos to the conduct of hostilities on the Ukrainian side and more discord to Kiev's relations with the West than he does.

The article describes how Zelensky, who sees himself as the savior of humanity, loses touch with reality the further he goes: it was he who demanded that Bakhmut be held at all costs, burning reserves there which were intended for the summer counteroffensive. It is he who is still calling for an offensive in the south, once again destroying his people and valuable Western equipment in pointless attacks, and thus intensifying his conflict with the army’s leadership. It is he who is demanding an offensive on Gorlovka and, as long as he is president, no one in Ukraine dares to make a peep about negotiations with Russia, the necessity of which is becoming more and more obvious. And all this against a backdrop of gargantuan levels of theft.

The Time article is a black mark. American elites have realized that as long as Zelensky is in power in Ukraine, Western support will either be burned for one man's ambitions or simply plundered - both to Russia's advantage.

Obviously, Washington needs to replace the disgraced Napoleon-wannabe with someone more manageable – the question is how. Preferably in a good way, by organizing presidential elections in due course next spring, and some movement in this direction has already begun: the political scene has been revived, yesterday's heroes like Pyotr Poroshenko and Yulia Timoshenko have re-emerged, even Zelensky's former adviser Alexey Arestovich, who a year ago spoke enthusiastically of Ukraine's imminent victory, has cleverly changed his shoes and started to reveal the truth about the disastrous leadership of his old boss.

But Zelensky is against it, as he has repeatedly said with varying degrees of hysteria: who needs elections, he suggests, when I am saving humanity? If you want elections, hold them yourself at your own expense, and so on. Society is also against it (according to various polls, 60%-80% of Ukrainians believe that the next vote should be held after the end of hostilities).

Public opinion could have been ignored (this corresponds to the standards of Western democracy), but if Zelensky goes to the polls, he will win them: he is still the most popular politician among Ukrainians (76% approval, with only the army having a higher rating). Zelensky is more popular than all other possible candidates combined. This is down to two years of rolling military propaganda and the information bubble that has trapped Ukrainian society, which has been brainwashed into believing that the country is winning.

All this means that the US will not be able to quickly create a political project to replace Zelensky: paradoxically, since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, its control over internal Ukrainian processes has diminished and is now reduced to control over Zelensky, who, it seems, cannot be controlled. In fact, he is uncontrollable.

There are two options left: either to persuade Zelensky to leave amicably by pointing to Washington's chosen successor, or simply to kill him: a dead hero is better than a living psycho.

Of course, all this is to our advantage: the longer Zelensky remains in power, the longer Ukraine will continue to fight, bringing its collapse closer.

Therefore, we should take care of Zelensky, and protect him as best we can.

This article was first published by Profile.ru, translated and edited by the RT team

A recent, long article in Time Magazine presents itself as a deep dive into the world of and the state of mind of Ukraine’s President Vladimir Zelensky. In reality, it is a backhanded, withering attack.

Readers learn that Zelensky feels he is being, and –worse– is being let down internationally, that close aides not only doubt him but tell foreign journalists about it, that his actor’s panache has given way to a brooding anger, and that his refusal to face facts blocks any attempts to even think about a negotiated way out of the catastrophic war. Vital US support is quickly diminishing. The reception during Zelensky’s recent visit to Washington was frosty, while especially the problem of Ukraine’s eternal and crippling corruption is being broached with renewed insistence. Meanwhile, military officers back home are receiving presidential orders so detached from reality that they cannot even try to execute them.

In short, we see a lonely leader who will not accept that he is losing and is ready to sacrifice ever more of his country and people to his obstinacy. Psychologically, Zelensky’s denial of reality is understandable (though not forgivable). He bears much of the responsibility for Ukraine’s course of extreme, one-sided dependency on the West. It is true that others have contributed to this fiasco of a proxy war, in Ukraine and in the US, NATO, and the EU. But in Kiev, Zelensky is the man most to blame, because he did have the agency to prevent or end this national debacle.

Even now, Zelensky could pick up the phone any day and call if not Russian President Vladimir Putin, then, for instance Brazil’s Lula da Silva to ask for genuine mediation to begin substantial talks. Indeed, it would be his duty to finally overcome his inflated ego and serve his country, instead of the West. 

With so many good reasons for a bad conscience, Zelensky may never change. The personal failure he would have to acknowledge is too terrible. Instead, he keeps repeating the narcissistic mantra that the fate of the whole world depends on Ukraine (read: him), and that the war could go global if Ukraine does not win. Even once the war is officially lost, he may well spend his remaining days in exile blaming others and spinning stab-in-the-back legends. Indeed, the Time article shows that he has already started, singling out himself – and only himself – as the truest believer in Ukrainian victory and blaming the West for letting him down. In a sadly revealing metaphor, he describes his audiences outside Ukraine as losing interest in what they, he feels, perceive as a show that has run for too many seasons.

We cannot know what exactly is behind Time’s demolition of a figure it used to help exalt in a personality cult. Yet two things are obvious: The tone as well as the message have changed radically, and Time is not alone. Zelensky’s days as the darling of the West, toast of Hollywood, the embodiment of a fantasized hero hybrid concocted, Jurassic-Park-style, from the genes of Che Guevara and Winston Churchill, are over.

The reason for this shift is clear as well: The proxy war is failing and, in addition, Washington is now giving priority to helping Israel carry out its genocidal attack on the Palestinians and perhaps starting a larger war in the Middle East. Zelensky even confesses to what is, in effect, a form of “Israel envy.” For a man who believed he could learn from America's favorite client state how to build a militarized, highly nationalist, and de facto authoritarian society, this as well must be bitter, if deserved.

What has largely escaped Western attention, however, are Ukrainian reactions to the Time article. It has resonated in the media and among the political elite. The secretary of the powerful National Security and Defense Council, Aleksey Danilov, has unpersuasively dismissed the piece as factually misleading, while calling on the security services to identify the leakers contributing to it. That kind of damage control is no surprise.

Social media in Ukraine feature some voices blaming Russia. Political commentator Kostiantin Matvienko, for instance, speculates that the Time article is evidence of the West’s opponents’ (whom he calls, American neocon-style, the “axis of evil”) intention to take Zelensky down a peg because they, Matvienko wants to believe, fear his moral authority. How they got Time to do their bidding, Matvienko does not reveal. Bizarre as this reaction is, it illustrates the persistence, at least with some Ukrainian intellectuals, of an inflated image of Zelensky’s – and, with it, Ukraine’s international influence. National self-importance is by no means a uniquely Ukrainian issue. But, in the case of Ukraine, such illusions make ending the war harder.

At the same time, Ukrainian observers note the change in tone signaled by Time. For one journalist, Zelensky’s old image was that of a Tarot magician, a card associated with both powerful trickery and the ability to channel cosmic forces, while he now appears as a hermit figure, solitary and withdrawn. His “messianism” has given way to “fear of society.” Fanciful as it is, the imagery is striking: For some Ukrainians, at least, Time’s iconoclasm makes sense.  

Examples could be multiplied. Inevitably they will also remain anecdotal. But here is the key point: If Time’s attack on Zelensky had occurred a year ago, Ukraine would at least have appeared united in rejecting it with indignation. That, however, is not the case now. Doubts and frustration are growing not only abroad but at home, too.

If Zelensky feels beleaguered and angry, does that reflect mostly the increasing depression and perhaps paranoia of a politician who fears the consequences of his failures? Or is he exhibiting a well-founded sense of real danger, from within as well as from his “allies” abroad?

The one thing that is certain is that the former poster boy of the great struggle for “Western values” has lost his aura. For Zelensky, in whose rise and rule the management of image has played an outsized role even by contemporary standards, that in and of itself is bad news.  

Last week, standing beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a visit to Jerusalem, French President Emmanuel Macron suggested recycling the global coalition of 86 nations against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) to focus on Hamas.

“Hamas is a terrorist group, whose objective is the destruction of the state of Israel. This is also the case of ISIS, of Al-Qaeda, of all those associated with them, either by actions or by intentions,” Macron said, betraying a short and selective memory. The stated goal of IS wasn’t to eradicate Israel – it was to establish a caliphate in Syria and Iraq, then broaden it into Arab countries. IS was first and foremost a threat to the stability of Syria – the same country whose government the US and its Western allies actively hindered in its fight against terrorism by making a failed attempt at overthrowing President Bashar Assad through Pentagon and CIA-backed training and equipping of “Syrian rebel” jihadists. As for Al-Qaeda, Israel was even reportedly at one point helping treat wounded militants from the group who were fighting their common enemy, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, in Syria – in turn effectively hindering the fight against IS, as Syria and Hezbollah worked to destroy it.

The Global Coalition against Daesh (another name for IS), founded in 2014, explicitly excluded Russia, whose invitation by Damascus to help it eradicate the terrorist threat can be largely credited for Syria’s stabilization, and the fact that it’s rare to even hear any talk of IS anymore. Russia’s involvement in neutralizing the terrorist group, coupled with former US President Donald Trump’s refusal to continue funding Washington’s incursion into Syria, beyond hunkering down in the oil-rich Kurdish part, was the ultimate key to IS’ defeat. So with apparently little left for it to do now, Macron recommends that the coalition that mostly sat and watched – while Russia, Iran, and Syria did the heavy lifting – take on Hamas. Who does he think is going to do the work this time? Russia, which is still excluded from the coalition? Syria, which has recently taken incoming missile fire from Israel? Iran’s Hezbollah allies, who lost 1,000 men fighting IS in Syria – and whom Netanyahu has placed in the same basket as Hamas as an enemy of Israel? Good luck with that.

Then there are all those members of the international community who are quietly thinking what United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres dared to say aloud last week – that Hamas’ brutal attack on October 7, which left close to a thousand civilians and hundreds of military and security personnel dead, “did not happen in a vacuum.” He was, of course, hinting at Israel’s longstanding, UN-recognized oppression of civilians in Gaza. His statement begs yet another question: Is Hamas really a global threat? Or is it just Israel’s problem?

Anti-Israel unrest has reverberated outside of the immediate conflict zone, including in Western Europe and the US, but these protests have nothing to do with Hamas. Instead, citizens elsewhere in the world are merely reacting to perceived injustices, particularly in light of what they consider to be an overwhelmingly pro-Israel bias on the part of the Western establishment, which initially and drastically minimized concerns over the protection of Palestinian civilians. So any global action against Hamas seems futile.

The anti-IS coalition targeted the terror group’s propaganda, with its website stating that IS’ “use of social media tied to acts of terrorism is well-documented. In response, Coalition partners are working together to expose the falsehoods that lie at the heart” of its ideology. They’re free to do that, but why bother when there’s already open debate among those who have the opportunity to see reports from the ground and assess the situation for themselves? Governments can’t be trusted not to promote their own propaganda under the guise of combating it – all to secure an advantage for their preferred narrative.

The anti-IS coalition was made to tackle IS. If that’s no longer an issue, then just toss it in the trash. How many interventionist entities does the West need to spearhead, anyway? There are already more than enough vehicles and coordination mechanisms for intelligence sharing, propagandizing, and security operations. Besides, there’s no proof that better intelligence could have helped Israel when Egyptian and American officials have claimed that Netanyahu had warning of the impending Hamas attack. About the only thing that more useless Western-led bureaucracy would help is the West’s own hunger for more of it.

The US political left is no longer content with canceling thoughts and words but has taken its Orwellian sword to the annals of history as well. What will become of a nation that seeks to eliminate all vestiges of its past?

This was one battle that Robert E. Lee never stood a chance of winning. While the wily Confederate general may have outfoxed the US government on numerous occasions during the Civil War, like at the Battle of Chancellorsville and the First Battle of Bull Run, nothing could have prepared him for the formidable adversary known as the American progressive. Under the auspices of the ‘Swords into Plowshares’ initiative, the Charlottesville, Virginia monument to the Southern leader, one of the last in the country, now sits inside a foundry, chopped into numerous pieces, waiting to be forged into some new public works project that doesn’t offend modern sensitivities. And good luck with that.

@elonmusk is right.

The left claims that destroying a century-old Robert E. Lee statue by a great American artist represents "healing." The truth is the exact opposite. Letting the South publicly honor its experience during the Civil War was a major part of the nation's post-war… pic.twitter.com/995Fj6Ib7q

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 27, 2023

Footage from the foundry depicts a statue with eyes that appear to be crying, molten bronze rivulets streaming down the military leader’s face. But who is Lee shedding those hot tears for – himself or the American people? While the left proclaims that destroying the century-old Lee statue will lead to a national “healing,” the truth is that they have torn open old wounds by cutting off the people from their history. It may be the most overused cliché of all, but it’s always worth repeating: those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. And considering that the Civil War was the deadliest ever fought on the North American continent, it would do well to keep apace of that history. Instead, the immature United States of America, whose brief history is just a flash in the pan compared to many other nations, would rather tempt fate.

And speaking of tempting fate, the way the monument’s destruction was staged seems to be a very deliberate effort to mock and taunt the political right. In the Washington Post’s video of the dismemberment of the Lee statue, we are first shown two foundry workers who are unwrapping the decapitated bronze head, which, for whatever reason, appears to have been placed inside of an Indian shawl. Next, one of the workers proceeds to use a blowtorch to cut away Lee’s face from the rest of his head, creating what could best be described as a ‘death mask.’  Why on Earth was that necessary? Finally, as if this were not dramatic enough, we are shown the cutaway of the face standing upright on the furnace, which causes the face to glow bright orange, thus causing the spooky tearing effect – and just in time for Halloween.

“Well, they can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again,” cackled Andrea Douglas, executive director of Charlottesville’s African American Heritage Center, one of the invited guests to the Lee roast. “There will be no tape for that.”

Now try to imagine the uproar that would have occurred had the statue been of, say Malcolm X or Martin Luther King, and the attendees were white folks cracking equally inane jokes.

Seeing how easily the city council stamp provoked passions on the political right, one can’t help but question the decision not just to destroy the statue, but to show it off in a way that amounts to borderline desecration. With another presidential election season already upon us, the timing for bringing Lee out of the closet looks very suspect. Could this be an attempt to incite MAGA supporters to organize another tiki torch parade in the town square, thus rekindling old fears about “white supremacism”? Then again, it’s just as likely a simple case of the left, perpetually ready to be “triggered” by a perceived offense, failing (or deliberately refusing) to consider the “triggers” of their political opponents.

This leads us to the $50,000 question: what will the 6,000 pounds (about 2,721.55 kg) of bronze that used to be Robert E. Lee and his horse be turned into? All things considered, it’s much easier to say what it will not be, and that’s some white dude, either living or dead, unless ‘they’ were born a biological female and pledge allegiance to the rainbow-colored flag and the 57 different genders. Still, we can make some wild guesses. How about a 300-foot bronze flagpole from where the good people of Charlottesville can hoist the multi-colored flag for the annual LGBTQ+ Pride Month? Or maybe a massive bronze throne from where Drag Queen Story Hours can take place, featuring cross-dressing wonders like Trixie Mattel, Alaska Thunderf*ck, and Sasha Velour, who will enlighten youngsters on the latest sexually charged reading material.

Earlier this month, a district court in Kiev announced its findings in a case that had dragged on since 2015, handing down sentences to five former officers of the long-dissolved 'Berkut' police unit. The ex-police grouping become internationally known during the 2013/14 protests which culminated with the violent 'Maidan.' 

Charged with involvement in the shooting of anti-government protesters by snipers in the center of the Ukrainian capital on February 20, 2014, four of the accused – three of them in absentia – were found guilty and sentenced to terms between five years and life. One was acquitted.

Politically, this was, or should have been, Ukraine’s single most important trial since independence in 1991. The judges closed – at least for now as appeals have already been announced – the country's attempt to come to terms judicially with the darkest moment of what has been called a “revolution,” as well as a “coup”: the fall of the government of former President Viktor Yanukovich under pressure from initially peaceful – then violent – street protests and Western meddling. The events producing regime change and geopolitical re-orientation unfolded over three months, but the killing of almost 50 protesters that February was a crucial tipping point.

The case quickly became known as the “snipers’ massacre” or the “Maidan massacre.” The shootings were squarely blamed on Yanukovich and his administration and seemed to rule out domestic compromise and confirm Western and Ukrainian pro-insurgent narratives, casting the crisis as a national and democratic freedom struggle against a corrupt and oppressive regime beholden to Moscow. Neither the disproportionate role of an aggressive and manipulative Ukrainian far right nor the ruthless geopolitics of the West had a place in this framing. Within days after the killings, a last attempt to stop the spiral of escalation by an internationally mediated agreement failed, Yanukovych fled to Russia, and Moscow's troops were on the move in Crimea. 

Ukraine and the world could be in a much better place if the last days of February 2014 had played out differently, allowing for the compromise already negotiated between Ukraine’s government and the insurgents to take hold. The Maidan Massacre was not the only but the single most important shove toward an ever-widening conflict, especially as the dominant Western narrative about the killings has remained the same, blaming only the old regime and rejecting any challenge to the narrative as a pro-Russian “information war.” Here was the perfect story, in short, to emotionally legitimize not only support but uncritical backing for Kiev, the rejection and sabotage of any concessions to Ukraine’s domestic rebels in the East, and vilifying any effective cooperation with Moscow. 

But what if we were not told the truth about the killings? That is the key claim advanced by Canadian-Ukrainian political scientist Ivan Katchanovski. Katchanovski (who also recently exposed the scandal around the honoring of a Waffen-SS veteran by the Canadian parliament) has long argued that “the Maidan massacre was a false-flag mass killing of … protestors and … police in order to seize power in Ukraine. It was conducted with the involvement of oligarchic and far-right elements of the Maidan opposition using concealed groups of Maidan snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings.”

The rich detail of Katchanovski’s findings cannot be reproduced here, but three points should be noted: Snipers belonging to the insurgents’ side started shooting at the police on the morning of February 20; key positions, such as in the Hotel Ukraina and a conservatory, from which these policemen were attacked and later Maidan protesters as well, were and remained under the control of insurgent units (not the police); and after 9.00 am, protesters, too, were shot by insurgent snipers (again: not by the police).

Katchanovski has come to these conclusions through years-long, rigorous, and exhaustive forensic research, as summarized in his peer-reviewed article “The ‘Snipers’ Massacre’ on the Maidan in Ukraine” in Cogent Social Sciences, an academic journal published by Taylor and Francis. He has not been the only one reaching such or similar results, but his work is the most thorough and important independent investigation. Clearly, that is why, due to its political implications, he has had to withstand being smeared as a “conspiracy theorist” and pro-Kremlin information warrior; his work has been censored; and he has suffered severe retaliation by attempts at professional and social marginalization and the pseudo-legal confiscation of his family’s property in Ukraine. 

Ukrainian courts are not politically independent. Judges, whatever their own views or professional ethics, work under the threat of ostracism and violence from Ukraine’s far right (at least). And yet, as Katchanovski has pointed out, buried in the million-word findings of the recent verdict, the court has recognized several facts that confirm his interpretation of the Maidan Massacre, including the following: four police officers were killed and 39 wounded by insurgent snipers; snipers shot from buildings under insurgent control; and it cannot be ruled out that eight victims were killed and 20 injured by “unknown” perpetrators who were not from the police. 

Wow! Unreported 1,000,000-word Maidan massacre trial verdict corroborates my academic studies by stating as its “categorical conclusion” that there were snipers shooting from Maidan-controlled Hotel Ukraina & that it cannot be ruled out that 8 protesters were killed & 20 wounded…

— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) October 27, 2023

While Katchanovski is to be admired for his research and steadfastness, what is especially important here is that the long backlash against his research is a symptom of something larger that is badly amiss in both Ukraine and the West. Even now, the Ukrainian information war outlet Euromaidan Press, for instance, still combines a personal attack on Katchanovski with disinforming its readers, claiming that the verdict somehow contradicts his findings (which are, by the way, badly misrepresented). 

The opposite is the case.    

This is just the latest example of a deep culture of disinformation and self-disinformation that has taken root in the West. While Western elites may well lie deliberately much of the time, substantial parts of the Western media, it seems, have come to not only believe these lies – or those of favorites, clients, and allies – but to defend them with a vigor that betrays psychological investment.

The emotionally-charged reality denial around Hillary Clinton’s richly-deserved defeat in the US election of 2016 (“Russiagate”), the bizarre doublethink regarding Western forces (and/or Ukraine) blowing up Nord Stream (thereby committing an act of war among “allies” and of eco-terrorism), Israel’s “right to defend itself” interpreted as the permission to commit crimes against humanity with Western support – all are instances of a form of collective self-indulgence. Too many people in the West still claiming to be the world’s “value” guardian practice lying and lying to themselves as if it were their special birthright. 

Yet these lies and fiercely guarded illusions corrupt individuals and politics, polarize societies, disrupt international relations and, last but not least, cost lives – thousands, tens of thousands, and, in the case of Ukraine by now, hundreds of thousands. Conflict is a normal part of human life, and, to some extent, inevitable.

Driving yourself insane with dishonesty is not. And it certainly does not help keep the peace.

On September 10, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Jordan, Israel and the European Union signed an agreement to develop an economic corridor connecting India with Europe through the Middle East. The deal co-authored by the United States and India was clinched on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in New Delhi.

Not short on ambition, the economic corridor, once up and running, promises to be a force multiplier in a region which - excluding Europe – accounts for the fastest-growing economies in the world, which also have the most fractious geographies.

The corridor’s promise to help resolve historic wrinkles in relations between key countries of the Middle East suffered a rude jolt on October 7 when Hamas, the militant organisation governing Gaza, launched a deadly attack on Israel.

While this casts a shadow over the region as a whole and this project in particular, India is holding up its end of the bargain by announcing the rollout of investments related to the so-called India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEC). 

The Plan

The IMEEC is a futuristic plan that is overflowing with ambition, particularly in its effort to overcome conventional fault lines in the region. It proposes to connect India to the UAE by sea. From Jebel Ali, where goods sent from India arrive, they will be transported by rail to Haifa, Israel. Thereafter, the goods will be transported by sea to Europe. Strategically the corridor opens up an alternative to the route using the Suez Canal and, by some assessments, could make trade between India and Europe 40% faster.

This idea did not emerge in a vacuum. It was preceded by efforts to create an architecture that will make it more amenable to implementation. The Abraham Accords, a series of US-brokered agreements seeking to normalize several Arab nations’ relationships with Israel, are a key element of making the IMEEC viable.

The Abraham Accords made possible the establishment of the I2U2 grouping of India, Israel, UAE and the United States. The group aims to create a synergy between member countries to jointly address global challenges, especially with respect to fostering investments in water, energy, transportation, space, health, and food security. 

Separately, over the last decade India has stepped up efforts to restore its historic relationship with the Middle East, which is home to millions of Indian expatriates. To make up for the diplomatic neglect, Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the UAE in 2015 – the first trip by an Indian PM in 34 years – and has since become a regular visitor to the region. 

Shared Prosperity

The IMEEC builds on the new diplomatic buzzword, friendshoring – a trade practice wherein supply chain networks are strung across countries considered to be political and economic allies. 

This idea gained currency in the aftermath of the falling-out between China – at one time the factory of the world – and the United States.

Every country figuring in the corridor is an investor, and hence a stakeholder in its success. As the official statement claims, the deal broadly seeks to link commercial hubs across continents, facilitate the development and export of clean energy, expand reliable access to electricity and the Internet, drive existing trade and manufacturing, strengthen food security and supply chains, unlock new investments from partners including in the private sector, and spur the creation of high-quality jobs.

The economic corridor is envisioned as a forerunner to similar agreements in the future. One such project is the “Trans-African Corridor” that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced during her New Delhi visit in September. It is planned that it will connect the port of Lobito in Angola with the Katanga province in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the copper belt in Zambia. The stated goal is “shared prosperity,” the idea of creating resilient supply chains by making everyone a stakeholder.

US President Joe Biden added to the confusion when he claimed the Hamas attack was aimed at sabotaging the IMEEC. However, a day later White House National Security Council (NSC) spokesperson John Kirby sought to walk back the comments, claiming that the president had been “misunderstood”.

“I think you misunderstood him. What he said was that he believed that the normalization process and the agreement that we were trying to reach between Israel and Saudi Arabia for normalization, which we believe is an important steppingstone to getting to a two-state solution, was what may have motivated Hamas to conduct those attacks,” he said.

While India is confident that the project can succeed despite the odds, it will take some effort to avoid letting the regional situation roll back to square one.

More than 30 years ago, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc, the unipolar era limited co-operation with African countries, as Russia sought to increase links to the West. However, recent events, particularly the war in Ukraine, have recast Russia as arch adversary of Western countries, a repeat of the historical position the USSR held during the Cold War.

Two days after Tanzania attained independence on December 9, 1961, Tanzania and the USSR established diplomatic relations, marking the beginning of co-operation not only with Tanzania but with the nascent struggle throughout the African continent against colonialism and white minority rule. 

Under the Tanzanian government and the leadership of its founding president Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, Tanzania’s foreign policy had three pillars: the total liberation of the African continent, African unity, and non-alignment. The first two were also included in the charter of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) at its inception in Addis Ababa in 1963. In the same year, the OAU set up the Liberation Committee in Tanzania to coordinate assistance in aid of the liberation struggle. 

In the early 1960s only 30 African countries had achieved independence. By the time the Liberation Committee was disbanded in 1994, 56 countries in Africa had become independent.

Tanzania not only became part of the frontline in the struggle but also hosted bases and training camps for guerilla movements from southern Africa, and incurred retaliatory attacks perpetrated by the Portuguese colonial forces in Mozambique.

Arguably, it was no coincidence the former USSR supported the liberation struggle. Having morphed from partners fighting against Nazi Germany in the Second World War, the Soviet Union and its allies became the ideological, economic, and political nemesis of the United States and its allies. The Cold War pushed the Soviet Union into supporting the African liberation struggle.

While some commentators argue that Soviet support for the liberation movements was motivated solely by its objective of countering the pervading Western/NATO influence in Africa, it does negate this fact: when Africans fought for independence, the West sided with the oppressors, while the Soviet Union provided crucial munitions and financial aid in support of the liberation struggle.

And the truth is Africa hasn’t forgotten.

Responding to criticism for defending Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, Nelson Mandela famously said: 

“One of the mistakes which some political analysts make is to think that their enemies should be our enemies. That we will never do. We have our own struggle which we are conducting. We are grateful to the world for supporting our struggle. But nevertheless, we are an independent organization, with its own policy. Our attitude towards any country is determined by the attitude of that country to our struggle… our attitude is based solely on the fact that they fully support the anti-Apartheid struggle. They do not support it only in rhetoric; they are placing resources at our disposal for us to wage the struggle.”

The prolonged history of Africa’s liberation struggle is a consequence of the continuous political, diplomatic, economic, and military support that was given to the remnants of colonialism and Apartheid by Western countries, motivated both by the protection of their economic interests and by the imperatives of the Cold War.

Writing in the New York Times in 1977, Michael C Jensen estimated that 350 US companies, including General Electric, Coca-Cola, IBM and Mobil had a combined investment in Apartheid South Africa of $1.7 billion (worth $8.6 trillion today), representing 17% of all foreign investment.

Despite the success of the African liberation struggle, political independence did not produce the desired economic, industrial, and social progress that most Africans expected. After Nyerere stepped down as president of Tanzania in 1985, he was appointed to lead the South Commission of the Non-Aligned movement to address the economic problems of the Global South. Specifically, it was the framework of the world economy shutting out two-thirds of the world’s population from the mainstream global economy and the concurrent result, the exacerbation of poverty and underdevelopment.

There is a whiff of a new ‘wind of change,’ similar to the one that ushered independence for many African countries beginning in the 1960s. The future is predictable, but only if African governments acknowledge that reliance on the same global economic structures and practices for the past 60 decades will bind Africans to continued economic servitude and subservience to the developed world. BRICS offers a viable alternative.

The Global South to which Africa belongs can either move with the wind or stand aside and watch. The emerging multipolar world provides the voiceless majority, at the very least, an open, sympathetic window that addresses the global impediments to development.

Just as the African liberation struggle unshackled Africans from the chains of colonialism and minority rule, so should a more equitable order, one that will permit Africans to reap the benefits of the rich resources of their continent.

The emerging paradigm sets the foundation for co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis, avoiding the exploitative foundation of colonial and postcolonial relations between Africa and the developed world.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro made an official visit to Beijing and met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Wednesday. The two countries officially upgraded their relationship to a ‘strategic partnership’, elevating their economic and diplomatic cooperation.

China has established over 100 ‘strategic partnerships’ in the world since the end of the Cold War. This umbrella term is usually an expression of commitment to a long-term, stable, and mutually beneficial partnership, and signifies that the two countries have a number of common goals and interests, and a desire to work on them together – usually trade- and investment-related.

A strategic partnership with China is not an alliance. Some of them can be with countries that have been aligned with the US and have even shown brazen hostility towards China in recent years, such as Australia. Beijing ultimately sees the establishment of these partnerships as critical to ensuring its own place in the world, thwarting long-term US attempts to isolate it, and creating pathways to its own development.

The establishment of a strategic partnership with Colombia is an interesting development. South America, or Latin America as a whole, is a relatively new frontier for China’s diplomatic engagement in the 21st century. Until recently, China focused extensively on expanding its ties with the West, and the US had effectively made most of the Western hemisphere into its diplomatic backyard, imposing anti-communist regimes and deliberately interfering in the form of coups and wars, which ultimately made it difficult for other external players to break through.

Colombia is one such country that has been dominated by the US, even to the point of becoming one of its closest partners in the Americas. As one of the region’s key oil-producing countries, the US has made a lot of effort to keep Colombia under its sphere of influence to control and exploit its resources, creating a regime whereby a small US-leaning elite class are enriched by this arrangement, while most of the country remains in poverty. Thus, Colombia has relied extensively on US support in order to maintain the status quo against revolutionary insurgencies, while at the same time fighting the ever-growing influence of drug cartels.

Even before the change of government, Colombia increasingly found China to be an essential economic partner. For Latin American countries, their diplomatic arrangements with the US are usually a one-way affair in Washington’s favor. Beijing, on the other hand, has offered tangible infrastructure development, such as building Bogota an entire subway system. As an oil and petroleum importer, China is constantly looking for new sources of energy and has devoted significant diplomatic capital to building ties with countries that offer this, including the Gulf States of the Middle East, Iran, Russia, Ecuador, and now, of course, Colombia.

As the West pursues ‘decoupling’ or, as some in the EU would put it, ‘de-risking’ from China, Beijing is also looking for new export markets to continue its economic growth. Latin America, home to over 600 million people, offers a lot of opportunity, and China, in turn, is open for Latin American products other than oil – such as coffee, which China’s enormous population has been consuming more and more.

Strategic partnerships such as the one with Colombia are vital to keeping Beijing’s trade ticking by opening new markets and insulating China from US efforts to completely isolate it through sanctions and trade wars. China’s strategy is no longer to rely on the West for development, but to forge new development partnerships with Global South countries, in turn giving them the opportunity to propel their growth through access to China.

This changes the global order as it undermines the traditional economic dominance which had enabled the US to become a gatekeeper to Latin American development. Having been left poor and disillusioned by Washington’s heavy-handed approach, countries in the region are now turning to China as an alternative, re-writing the map after almost two centuries of the Monroe Doctrine.