Periodo di massimo rischio: dal 30 settembre al 3 novembre. L’Asia occidentale sta per andare a fuoco.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Il sociopatico presidente degli Stati Uniti ha completamente ignorato la soluzione cinese per porre fine alla crisi con l’Iran, presentata di persona alla Casa Bianca dal presidente Xi Jinping lo scorso giovedì.

In sostanza, Xi ha detto a Trump che la via d’uscita è proprio davanti a lui: tornare al gatto morto ucciso a ripetizione, il memorandum d’intesa (MoU), firmato e poi fatto saltare in aria da Trump. La Cina, ha affermato Xi, è pronta a sostenere pienamente questo ritorno alla diplomazia.

Come prevedibile, il sociopatico ha respinto non solo l’offerta di Xi, ma anche la proposta iraniana di sette giorni, passo dopo passo, per un ritorno ai negoziati, presentata dal ministro degli Esteri Araghchi a New York.

In realtà, questa combinazione dovrebbe essere vista come la proposta Cina-Iran: un insieme di termini definitivi, perfezionati da Araghchi e Wang Yi in due incontri successivi, al BRICS di Nuova Delhi e poi a Pechino.

Trump non solo ha respinto l’offerta di pace, ma si è anche vantato – tra le risate generali del mondo – del “controllo totale” degli Stati Uniti sullo “Stretto di Trump”.

Il gesto di Trump ha profondamente irritato sia Wang Yi che il presidente Xi. Nella cultura asiatica, questo si traduce nella peggiore forma di umiliazione: il rifiuto di una raccomandazione formulata ufficialmente dai più alti livelli di governo.

Aspettatevi quindi una reazione cinese feroce come un filo di seta imbevuto di veleno. Pechino sosterrà Teheran con ancora maggiore veemenza, in più di un modo.

Dal canto suo, il Corpo delle Guardie Rivoluzionarie Islamiche (IRGC) ha risposto rafforzando ulteriormente i controlli sullo Stretto di Hormuz. Nel giro di 48 ore, l’Iran ha incendiato non meno di 19 petroliere che tentavano di attraversare lo stretto senza seguire le procedure della Marina delle Guardie Rivoluzionarie/PGSA, comprese le relative tariffe.

Ciò ha generato una battuta virale in tutto il Medio Oriente: qualcuno dica a Trump chi è il vero capo nello Stretto.

Teheran ha giocato le sue carte diplomatiche a New York con estrema finezza. Non solo ha costretto il neo-Crasso/neo-Caligola/Dito d’Oro a respingere pubblicamente un’offerta di pace, ma lo ha anche indotto a preannunciare un nuovo attacco terroristico simile a quello contro l’Iran dopo le elezioni di metà mandato; ora è impresso nella mente di tutto il pianeta che a questo sociopatico non importa nulla della valanga di crisi economiche, energetiche e alimentari globali che si sta abbattendo su di loro. In realtà, è lui il responsabile.

A tutto ciò si aggiunge la performance impeccabile del Presidente Pezeshkian, non solo sul podio delle Nazioni Unite, ma anche nell’incontro con i vertici dei think tank statunitensi e i direttori dei principali quotidiani in un hotel di New York. Pezeshkian ha vinto la guerra mediatica proprio nel covo del nemico: un’impresa memorabile.

Trump chiude la porta che Teheran ha aperto, ma il tempo continua a scorrere.

Il blocco di Hormuz sta cedendo a ritmo incalzante. Gran parte del petrolio transita attraverso petroliere saudite e irachene, con tonnellate di petro-yuan che cambiano di mano. Il contrabbando è dilagante persino nel corridoio omanita, teoricamente controllato dagli Stati Uniti, con petrolio iraniano che finisce sia su petroliere clandestine degli sceicchi petroliferi che su petroliere ufficiali.

In fatto di contrabbando e strategie di sopravvivenza, dopo 47 anni di sanzioni, nessuno batte i persiani. È proprio questo che mantiene fedeli i clienti del settore energetico, come Cina, Sud-est asiatico e persino Corea del Sud.

Questo mercoledì scade il termine di 45 giorni fissato da Teheran il 16 agosto per la fine del blocco navale di Trump. Altrimenti… Il 30 settembre è anche la data limite fissata dagli iracheni per il ritiro definitivo degli Stati Uniti dall’Iraq.

E tutto ciò coincide con la recente scadenza di 4-5 giorni fissata da Mohsen Rezaee, segretario del Consiglio Supremo per la Sicurezza Nazionale (SNSC) e numero due di fatto in Iran, entro la quale gli Stati Uniti dovrebbero porre fine al blocco. Tale scadenza cade lunedì, ovvero oggi.

In sintesi: mentre Washington chiudeva la porta aperta da Teheran, il tempo a disposizione di Teheran continuava a scorrere. Il nostro canale Transition Protocol ha confermato che i vertici politici e del Corpo delle Guardie Rivoluzionarie Islamiche hanno già deciso il da farsi.

Manterranno la posizione fino a mercoledì. E se non si troverà una via d’uscita alle condizioni che il presidente Xi ha presentato a Trump nello Studio Ovale, Teheran è pronta a intraprendere 5 passi cruciali:

1. Estendere il campo di battaglia oltre Hormuz fino all’Oceano Indiano. 2. Riservarsi il diritto di colpire qualsiasi nave da guerra americana che imponga il blocco. 3. Collaborare con Ansarallah per estendere il blocco fino a Bab al-Mandab. 4. Agire preventivamente contro qualsiasi rafforzamento militare ritenuto minaccioso. 5. Limitare l’aviazione di qualsiasi nazione che aderisca al blocco aereo.

Senza remore. Letteralmente.

Quindi, al momento abbiamo un inquietante avvertimento sull’Oceano Indiano; una minaccia confermata a tutti i centri di dispiegamento statunitensi in caso di attacco da parte di Washington; e una dichiarazione di dottrina di guerra preventiva.

Ciò che ancora non abbiamo è un ordine di colpire direttamente le navi statunitensi.

Sul fronte aeronautico, l’Iran punterà sulla reciprocità, non sui missili.

La posizione della leadership iraniana in merito alle sanzioni secondarie statunitensi contro praticamente qualsiasi aeroporto del mondo che accolga voli iraniani è piuttosto chiara:

“Se i nostri aerei non riescono a decollare, neanche i vostri riusciranno a farlo.”

Questa affermazione è stata fatta dal consigliere della Guida Suprema Mohammad Mokhber. Sabato, Mohsen Rezaee ha dichiarato che l’Iran non risponderà militarmente al divieto; sta negoziando con gli Stati interessati; e dispone di “molteplici opzioni non militari” per alcuni aeroporti.

A parte le grandi potenze Cina e Russia, diversi stati – tra cui Turchia, Malesia, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Tagikistan e Kazakistan – stanno completamente ignorando l’assedio aereo imperiale alla Persia.

Poi c’è il caso straordinario dell’Iraq.

La Resistenza irachena ha inizialmente annunciato l’intenzione di colpire gli aeroporti del Consiglio di Cooperazione del Golfo. Successivamente, diversi religiosi di alto rango a Najaf e Karbala hanno protestato in modo coordinato, minando la legittimità del governo fantoccio di Baghdad.

Enormi proteste hanno travolto anche Bassora, la capitale irachena ricca di petrolio, con tribù beduine sciite armate fino ai denti (le ricordo con affetto, dai primi anni 2000). Uno dei loro sceicchi ha dato a Baghdad 48 ore di tempo per ritirare la sua complicità con l’assedio statunitense all’Iran. Quindi, alla fine, potrebbe esserci un’esenzione per i voli tra l’Iran e Najaf, fondamentalmente per il trasporto di pellegrini.

L’orologio dell’Iran e l’orologio degli Stati Uniti: la finestra del rischio supremo

Ora passiamo al fronte del Mar Rosso.

Quella misera “coalizione dei volenterosi” – i capi di stato maggiore di Arabia Saudita, Turchia e Pakistan, riuniti a Riyadh venerdì scorso come membri della Mecca Defense Alliance – è passata dal bla bla bla a un possibile tentativo di accordi operativi, pur non annunciando attacchi congiunti contro lo Yemen.

Ansarallah non è certo terrorizzata. Hanno lanciato droni verso Riyadh e missili verso Khamis Mushait, definendo le loro operazioni una “prova generale” per un’escalation su vasta scala.

Aspettate solo la tempesta yemenita in arrivo.

Lo Yemen è in preda alla rabbia dopo che i sauditi hanno bombardato un mercato affollato a Taiz, uccidendo e ferendo almeno 50 persone, tra cui donne e bambini, secondo un bilancio preliminare. Questo deve aver avuto un contributo diretto da parte dell’intelligence e dei servizi di intelligence, sorveglianza e ricognizione (ISR) del CENTCOM e del culto della morte.

Secondo fonti yemenite a Sana’a, Ansarallah potrebbe essere sul punto di imporre un embargo aereo all’Arabia Saudita. Riyadh sta già precipitando in una situazione critica, con Google e i satelliti occidentali costretti a censurare le prove della distruzione di infrastrutture e siti petroliferi a Riyadh, Jizan, Abha e Najran.

Pertanto, rimane alta la probabilità di azioni significative da parte dell’Iran e/o di Ansarallah contro le risorse navali statunitensi, le rotte marittime più ampie o la tangenziale saudita verso Yanbu, fino alla fine di questa settimana.

Tuttavia, l’esito più probabile rimane una situazione di stallo estremamente militarizzata in cui Teheran, il 30 settembre, si limiterà a lanciare segnali anziché colpire.

Fatto accertato: il periodo compreso tra l’orologio iraniano e quello di Washington – dal 30 settembre al 3 novembre – è ormai la Finestra di Massimo Rischio.

Veri poli della civiltà araba contro stupidi pastori di cammelli

E questo ci porta a una rivelazione chiave da parte di una fonte interna alla riunione di alto livello tra Cina, Pakistan e Iran. La fonte ha confermato che, dopo la visita di Xi negli Stati Uniti, Wang Yi e il ministro degli Esteri pakistano Ishaq Dar hanno avuto una conversazione diretta e top secret.

Pechino ha rinunciato a Washington e ora sta giocando di nuovo le sue carte attraverso Islamabad, incaricando apertamente i più alti livelli di governo di contenere la crisi. Ai pakistani è stato affidato il compito di intervenire a nome di Pechino e Teheran sia con Trump che con Mohammed bin Salman prima che la situazione raggiunga un punto critico questa settimana.

Ciò che si deduce è che certamente il Pakistan – nessuno sa nulla della Turchia – non sosterrà l’Arabia Saudita nella sua presunta, massiccia offensiva pianificata contro lo Yemen.

Ciò è stato confermato da un’altra fonte autorevole a Islamabad; il governo pakistano ha certamente fatto i suoi calcoli: aiutare a salvare l’irrecuperabile Casa dei Saud seppellirà il ruolo del Pakistan come mediatore tra Iran e Stati Uniti, rendendolo morto come il gatto morto del Memorandum d’intesa di Islamabad.

Non basta mai ricordare che per secoli Baghdad, Damasco, Il Cairo e Sana’a hanno rappresentato i veri poli civilizzazionali degli arabi sufi cosmopoliti. Niente a che vedere con gli stupidi pastori di cammelli che compongono la ripugnante Casa dei Saud.

E questo si collega ai due imperativi categorici principali del gruppo Epstein.

Vogliono la distruzione della Persia – il genocidio nucleare annunciato sul podio dell’ONU dal sociopatico Presidente degli Stati Uniti. A questo dovrebbe aggiungersi la distruzione dell’Asse della Resistenza Araba – in Libano, Iraq e Yemen. E poi anche la distruzione degli stupidi sceicchi petroliferi del CCG, perché rimarrebbero troppo ricchi, influenti e potenzialmente imprevedibili anche dopo la fine dell’Asse della Resistenza.

Ecco che il leader del culto della morte in Medio Oriente vola “segretamente” su un aereo privato ad Abu Dhabi domenica per incontrare MbZ. Ha trascorso l’intera giornata negli Emirati. Non c’è stata alcuna fuga di notizie sull’incontro. Questo è accaduto subito dopo che il leader del culto della morte ha nuovamente demonizzato l’Iran all’ONU.

È ormai chiaro che Yemen e Persia formano un tutt’uno – i due fronti privilegiati del teatro di guerra in Medio Oriente. Prestate attenzione alle conseguenze di questo incontro “segreto” tra il culto della morte e i sionisti arabi. Il Medio Oriente sta per essere travolto dalle fiamme.

La Embajada de los Estados Unidos en Argentina envió una advertencia a la Cooperativa CALF, principal distribuidora de energía eléctrica de la Patagonia: amenazó con la revocación o denegación de las visas de ingreso a EE. UU. a un total de 18 directivos de la entidad (16 integrantes del consejo de administración y dos síndicos).

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

El mensaje de la diplomacia norteamericana busca interrumpir las negociaciones entre la cooperativa neuquina y la tecnológica china Huawei para construir un data center regional con equipamiento de esa firma.

Según trascendió, la intromisión de Washington responde a cuestiones de seguridad nacional y geoestrategia, debido a que la administración de Donald Trump considera a Huawei una amenaza ligada al Partido Comunista y al Ejército del gigante asiático, susceptible de ser utilizada para espionaje. A esto se le agrega la proximidad a Vaca Muerta. Temen que la posibilidad del crecimiento de la infraestructura tecnológica china impacte sobre el yacimiento, donde operan inversores estadounidenses como Chevron y Continental Resources…

Publicado originalmente por  Pagina12

Zelensky et son régime à Kiev sont les « plus grands obstacles à la paix », selon son ancienne porte-parole.

Cela aurait dû faire la une des journaux la semaine dernière, mais cela n’a pas été le cas. L’ancienne porte-parole du pseudo-président de l’Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, s’est vu interdire de s’adresser au Parlement européen.

Pourquoi ? Parce qu’Iuliia Mendel devait livrer des révélations accablantes sur la corruption endémique dans le régime de Zelensky et sur la façon dont la guerre soutenue par l’OTAN dans son pays est une combine pour s’enrichir.

Quelle ironie que un tel témoignage ne soit pas autorisé dans ce qui est censé être le siège de la démocratie et des valeurs européennes. Si la liberté d’expression remet en cause le récit officiel, alors elle est interdite. Le seul récit autorisé est que l’Ukraine est un modèle de démocratie cherchant à adhérer à l’Union européenne et à l’OTAN, mais qu’elle est contrariée par « l’agression russe ». Combien fragile est cette représentation, pour que quiconque ayant un point de vue différent et des faits soit purement et simplement réduit au silence et diffamé comme propagandiste russe ?

Remarquablement, presque aucun média occidental n’a rapporté ce fiasco.

Iuliia Mendel a été conseillère personnelle de Zelensky pour les médias de 2019 à 2021, date à laquelle elle a démissionné, désillusionnée par sa corruption. Elle a observé de près les tractations, le comportement maniaque de Zelensky et de ses acolytes, et son mépris pour la démocratie. Elle décrit son témoignage comme un « devoir moral » de dire à ses concitoyens ukrainiens et au reste du monde la vraie nature de son ancien patron. Qu’il est un escroc aux tendances psychopathiques qui se moque éperdument de la vie du peuple ukrainien. Sa seule préoccupation est de rester au pouvoir le plus longtemps possible et de s’enrichir avec les milliards d’argent des contribuables occidentaux qui sont acheminés vers son régime.

Zelensky et son régime à Kiev sont les « plus grands obstacles à la paix », dit Mendel, qui a donné cette interview à Weltwoche, après avoir été empêchée d’entrer au Parlement européen. La corruption en Ukraine, dit-elle, dépend de la poursuite de la guerre, et c’est pourquoi le régime de Kiev oppose son veto à tout effort diplomatique visant à mettre fin au conflit qui dure depuis près de cinq ans. Quiconque s’oppose à la guerre et appelle à la diplomatie est sanctionné, emprisonné ou envoyé au front pour mourir. Zelensky supervise une junte militaire (que l’Occident appelle « démocratie ») dans laquelle ses sbires traquent les gens dans les rues pour la conscription. Pour échapper au hachoir à viande, ils doivent payer un pot-de-vin pouvant atteindre 20 000 dollars.

Mendel a d’abord fait sensation lorsqu’elle a été interviewée en mai de cette année par le diffuseur américain Tucker Carlson. Dans cette interview, elle a décrit Zelensky comme un dictateur toxicomane émotionnellement instable, bien que dissimulé par ses talents d’acteur d’ancien artiste de divertissement. Les partisans politiques et médiatiques occidentaux, bien sûr, jouent le jeu en fermant les yeux sur cette mascarade et le célèbrent comme un « héros churchillien de guerre ».

Tout cela est une combine méprisable jouée aux dépens des contribuables occidentaux et du peuple ukrainien qui souffre depuis longtemps.

Pour avoir révélé les secrets de son ancien patron, Mendel a été immédiatement inscrite sur la liste noire Mirotvorets, soutenue par l’État ukrainien, comme « propagandiste russe ». Mirotvorets a acquis une triste réputation de liste de morts, car plusieurs personnes qu’elle a blacklistées ont fini mortes. Elle dit qu’elle est interdite de diffusion publique vers ses concitoyens ukrainiens par des entreprises médiatiques occidentales comme Meta/Facebook.
Plus tôt cette semaine, quelques jours avant qu’elle ne s’adresse au Parlement européen, le régime de Zelensky a annoncé des sanctions contre Mendel. Elle ne peut pas accéder aux avoirs ukrainiens et ne peut pas rentrer dans le pays de peur que sa vie soit en danger. Elle craint que sa famille en Ukraine ne soit persécutée, envoyée au front en représailles pour sa prétendue « trahison ».

La décision de lui interdire de parler devant l’assemblée de Strasbourg aurait été prise par la présidente du Parlement européen, Roberta Metsola. Metsola, comme d’autres dirigeants de haut rang de l’UE, tels que la présidente de la Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, et le président du Conseil, António Costa, est une supportrice inconditionnelle de l’Ukraine, acheminant des milliards d’aide au régime.

Mendel apparaît comme une personne d’intégrité, de décence morale et de véritable indépendance. Elle rejette catégoriquement l’accusation d’être « pro-russe ». En effet, dans ses interviews avec Carlson et Weltwoche, Mendel critique vivement la Russie pour ce qu’elle appelle une invasion cruelle de son pays. Il semble parfaitement clair que sa préoccupation constante est d’empêcher la guerre de détruire sa patrie.
Cependant, la guerre ne peut pas être arrêtée parce que le régime de Zelensky et ses partisans européens de l’OTAN sont investis dans sa prolongation. La corruption du régime est mariée à l’idéologie de la russophobie qui est endémique dans l’élite européenne.
Cette perspective a été corroborée par deux autres sources impeccables cette semaine. Comme Mendel, ces deux autres figures sont également ignorées par les médias occidentaux.
Le professeur Ivan Katchanovski de l’Université d’Ottawa a été interviewé par Lena Petrova, dans laquelle il a passé en revue la corruption flagrante et la politique néonazie du régime de Kiev.
Les recherches révolutionnaires de Katchanovski ont révélé comment le massacre des snipers de Maidan, au cours duquel plus de 100 manifestants et policiers ont été tués à Kiev en février 2014, était une opération sous fausse bannière menée par des éléments néonazis et leurs sponsors de l’OTAN, qui a précipité le coup d’État. Le coup d’État a conduit à la prise de contrôle de l’État ukrainien et des forces de sécurité par des forces fascistes, ce qui a à son tour conduit à la guerre avec la Russie en 2022.

Zelensky, qui est nominalement juif, s’appuie sur les forces néonazies pour sa survie politique et la poursuite de la corruption qui sévit au sein du régime. Le professeur Katchanovski, qui est originaire d’Ukraine, souligne que de nombreux ministres, conseillers et hauts responsables judiciaires proches du cercle de Zelensky ont dû démissionner ou fuir le pays à la suite d’innombrables scandales de corruption. Il est difficile de croire que Zelensky ne soit pas lui aussi jusqu’au cou dans le racket. Corruption, guerre et néonazisme sont tous inextricablement liés en raison de l’implication de l’OTAN dans le pays depuis son indépendance en 1991 vis-à-vis de l’Union soviétique après l’effondrement de cette dernière.

Une autre vue corroborante est celle de l’éminent universitaire américain le professeur John Mearsheimer. Il a donné cette semaine un compte rendu très large d’une récente visite en Russie au cours de laquelle il a rencontré de hauts responsables gouvernementaux, des décideurs politiques et des diplomates. Mearsheimer a déclaré, peut-être à la surprise de certains, que lors de ses nombreuses conversations, il n’a décelé aucune animosité profonde envers l’Ukraine ou le peuple ukrainien parmi ses interlocuteurs russes, ni d’ailleurs parmi les Russes ordinaires. « Beaucoup de Russes que j’ai rencontrés ont de la famille en Ukraine… partagent un héritage culturel », a-t-il remarqué.

Mearsheimer attribue la disparition tragique de l’Ukraine et de ses liens historiques avec la Russie à la politique de l’OTAN visant à faire entrer le pays nouvellement indépendant dans l’alliance militaire dirigée par les États-Unis en 2008 avec la Déclaration de Bucarest. Cette politique a garanti que les deux pays seraient désormais sur une trajectoire de collision menant au conflit, qui a finalement éclaté en 2022. L’objectif occidental plus large était d’utiliser l’Ukraine comme proxy pour mener la guerre et déstabiliser la Russie. En bref, pour la « défaite stratégique de la Russie ».

En poursuivant cet objectif impérialiste, l’Ukraine a été infectée par le néonazisme, la corruption et une dictature de facto dirigée par un clown toxicomane qui réprime impitoyablement toute opposition. Des millions de personnes ont été déplacées, tuées et mutilées ; la société et l’économie sont en ruines abyssales.

Mais cette vérité ne doit pas être permise par les idéologues occidentaux et leurs médias contrôlés, qui persistent dans leurs fantasmes russophobes malgré la destruction et la souffrance déchaînées et le danger très réel d’une guerre totale explosant en Europe. Les élites occidentales se livreront à toutes sortes de maux dans leur poursuite de la tentative de vaincre la Russie. L’Ukraine a été totalement détruite par les objectifs impérialistes occidentaux. Et pourtant, la Russie est blâmée comme le méchant dans cette entreprise horrible et criminelle.

Na Rússia, todos os partidos têm tempo igual de TV e rádio. No Brasil, só quatro candidatos aparecem; nove ficam de fora. Democracia de fachada.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A máquina de propaganda dos Estados Unidos e dos regimes europeus, incluindo suas sucursais nas semicolônias, prega que a Rússia é uma autocracia, um regime antidemocrático. Como tal, suas eleições não são livres, mas sim controladas por Vladimir Putin e seus aliados.

Um bom exemplo dessa lavagem cerebral foi vista nas eleições recentes para a Duma Estatal, o parlamento russo. O Rússia Unida, partido de Putin, obteve uma votação recorde: elegeu 349 dos 450 deputados. Todo o aparato de propaganda da CIA que são os grandes jornais e agências de notícias ocidentais acusou Putin de manipular as eleições, que teriam sido fraudadas.

Mas basta fazer uma comparação com as eleições no Brasil para perceber que as eleições brasileiras são uma fraude e as eleições na Rússia são muito mais livres que no Brasil.

Na Rússia, todos os partidos registrados têm tempo de propaganda gratuita em rádio e televisão. A propaganda é veiculada nas emissoras públicas e estatais, com o tempo distribuído de forma igualitária entre todos os partidos. Sim, é garantido por lei que todos os partidos devem ter o mesmo tempo para apresentar suas propostas à audiência.

Essa é uma das principais vantagens da Rússia sobre o Brasil em relação às campanhas. É um sistema muito mais democrático. No Brasil, uma parte dos partidos, mesmo que estejam registrados no Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE), sequer tem direito de aparecer na TV e no rádio. Somente os partidos com um número mínimo de parlamentares no Congresso Nacional podem apresentar suas propostas ao grande público. Caso contrário, precisam se coligar com outros partidos. Os que não se aliam com os partidos que já têm vagas no parlamento ficam de fora da campanha de rádio e TV.

Ou seja, os partidos pequenos precisam submeter suas ideias e seus programas políticos, na prática abandonar sua independência, vendendo-se aos grandes partidos, para terem acesso ao tempo de TV e rádio. É um sistema eleitoral que visa acabar com os partidos pequenos, reduzir o número de partidos e concentrar o poder nos grandes partidos. Isso nem de longe é um sistema democrático e livre. Ele apaga parte das ideias políticas que existem na sociedade para que o eleitor só tenha acesso à outra parte, orientando assim o voto do eleitor. É uma das inúmeras facetas da fraude eleitoral.

Mas mesmo entre os partidos com tempo de rádio e TV esse tempo não é igualitário. Os partidos grandes e suas coligações (com as maiores bancadas na Câmara dos Deputados) têm direito a um tempo muito maior do que os menores. Nestas eleições presidenciais, a coligação de Lula recebeu 5 minutos e 31 segundos para fazer propaganda política dentro do bloco de propaganda eleitoral gratuita obrigatória diária. A coligação de Flávio Bolsonaro recebeu 4 minutos e 20 segundos, a de Ronaldo Caiado recebeu 2 minutos e 02 segundos e a de Augusto Cury recebeu 35 segundos. Além dos blocos, há as inserções de 30 segundos a 1 minuto distribuídas ao longo da programação diária. No 1º turno, Lula tem direito a 433 inserções, Bolsonaro a 339, Caiado a 159 e Cury a 47.

Apenas quatro candidatos tiveram tempo para apresentar suas propostas em TV e rádio. Os outros nove concorrentes ficaram de fora. De treze candidaturas, os eleitores não puderam conhecer nove delas, apenas quatro, através da propaganda nos meios de comunicação convencionais. Os quatro privilegiados, portanto, foram extremamente beneficiados pela legislação eleitoral antidemocrática. Mas mesmo entre esses quatro existe uma hierarquia, que privilegia uns e prejudica outros.

Há ainda os debates eleitorais. Na Rússia, pelo menos metade do tempo gratuito de rádio e TV deve ser dedicada a eventos conjuntos entre candidatos e partidos, como debates, mesas-redondas ou entrevistas coletivas. E todos têm direito de participar. Assim, além de apresentarem suas ideias na propaganda eleitoral, os partidos podem confrontar suas ideias, para que o eleitor possa compará-las.

Além de não terem direito de tempo de TV e rádio para fazer propaganda, no Brasil a maioria dos partidos e candidatos também não tem o direito de participar dos debates. Ao contrário da Rússia, a legislação eleitoral não obriga as emissoras a convidarem a todos. Apenas candidatos de partidos, coligações ou federações que tenham ao menos cinco parlamentares no Congresso Nacional devem ser obrigatoriamente convidados a participar dos debates organizados nos meios de comunicação. Isso significa que, nestas eleições presidenciais, menos da metade dos candidatos participaram dos debates. Os meios de comunicação podem convidar os outros candidatos, mas não são obrigados. E, assim, não os convidam. Afinal de contas, assim como o TSE, os grandes canais de TV e emissoras de rádio são controlados pelas classes dominantes e não interessa a eles que candidaturas que, de alguma maneira, questionam a dominação de classe, possam expor suas ideias. Ou mesmo que partidos que não incomodam as classes dominantes exponham suas ideias, pois quanto menos debate de ideias existir, mais embrutecido o povo fica, e mais fácil é manter o status quo.

By Craig MURRAY

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Rather than abandoning the plainly nuts Fairford narrative, Burnham and his government are doubling down on the claim it is an Iranian terror plot.

It remains quite possible the men were indeed fuel thieves, simply stealing fuel from farms. They appear to have been equipped for fuel theft and all they were carrying was petrol. It is worth a footnote that there is a very real history of US military personnel, and indeed British personnel, selling military fuel from bases. Stolen red diesel meant for HMS Bulwark fuelled fairground rides throughout England, which I think is rather lovely. But if the Fairford Five were fuel thieves, farms are more probable as the target.

We should pause here to acknowledge that USAF Fairford is falsely designated RAF Fairford, itself a propaganda lie, just like “RAF Lakenheath” or “RAF Mildenhall”. The UK is full of US military bases, on which US law applies. (My birth certificate gives my father’s occupation as “Clerk USAF”. He was employed at Mildenhall at the time).

It is a classic example of state propaganda that the petrol discovered in the Fairford vans was described by counter terror police as a potential accelerant for a bomb.

Well yes, petrol is that. It has however, rather more obvious uses too. The same technique was used at the height of the War on Terror propaganda in the Great Easter Bomb Plot, that never was. Police rounded up and arrested many young Muslims across the Manchester region, which was front-page news. They were all later released without charge.

But at the time of arrest the police announced they had found a potential bomb-making ingredient in a kitchen.

Well, they had. It was a bag of sugar. Sugar is indeed a potential bomb-making ingredient. Yet most of us have a bag in the kitchen. At least it did not take the police ten days to find the bag of sugar in the kitchen, unlike when they searched Charlie Rowley’s flat for a vial of novichok, and it took them ten days to “find” a bottle of perfume sitting on the kitchen counter.

For Fairford, on balance I think a false flag gone wrong is a little more likely than just fuel thieves. We know the men had no bombs and no guns, which makes the terrorist narrative rather hard for the government to sustain. But if they were patsies set up in a false flag, there would be plenty of things already on the base that go bang which could have been used to create the “terrorist incident” around them.

Two key points make me think this was a false flag. Firstly the lady farmer who called 999 was adamant there were more men that the five arrested and bailed. The others would have been the spycops – agents provocateurs – who would have been quietly spirited away from the scene. That also fits with the released information that it was one of the men who phoned in a warning about the “attack”.

It looks to me like a false flag spectacular had been planned, with US involvement as claimed by Trump and possibly Israeli knowledge as claimed by Netanyahu. This operation by the security services was viewed as over the pay grade of local police (who might be inconveniently honest) who were not in the picture. It all went horribly wrong for the government when an alert local farmer called the local police, and when a participant also called it in. That could have been one of the recruited “terrorists” who got cold feet, or one of the agents panicked they had lost contact with their line of command.

The use of recruited patsies to carry out false flags is now better understood. I have been writing about it since before the Newburgh bomb plot which was a particularly egregious example. In the United States there has been more awareness of and reaction to agent provocateur incited plots than in the UK.

For anyone sceptical, here is a summary of Newburgh:

In May 2009 the FBI arrested four poor men from Newburgh, New York, and announced it had foiled a plot to bomb two synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down military planes at Stewart Air National Guard base. The plot, the targets, the inert bombs and the disabled Stinger missile were all supplied by the Bureau. The recruiter was Shahed Hussain, a Pakistani fraudster who had become an informant to avoid deportation after a driving-licence scam. Paid nearly $100,000, he spent more than a year fishing at a Newburgh mosque, posing as a wealthy Jaish-e-Mohammed agent, before latching onto James Cromitie, a Walmart stocker and petty drug dealer.

Hussain offered heavenly reward and as much as $250,000. Cromitie brought in three others: Onta Williams, David Williams and Laguerre Payen. Hussain drove them across a state line to inspect the fake weapons, which federalised the charges and carried a 25-year minimum. They were convicted in 2010.

The sentencing judge, Colleen McMahon, said she believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that there would have been no crime except that the government instigated it, planned it and brought it to fruition. In 2023 she ordered the release of three of them, calling it an FBI-orchestrated conspiracy and writing that the real lead conspirator was the United States. She freed Cromitie in 2024 on the same basis, describing him as a small-time grifter with no history of violence and Hussain as a villain who had lured him with promises of both heavenly and earthly rewards.

The Golders Green ambulances arson was a classic of this false flag genre. Four young Muslims were recruited, in this case online rather than in person, by someone they never saw who was almost certainly a Mossad agent. They were offered money to attack the ambulances, which they did. The attack is then blamed on Iran through a claim on a Telegram channel on behalf of an “Iranian organisation”, Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia, which is a Mossad fabrication.

HAYI first became known to the world through simultaneous press releases on 16 March by five Israeli government outlets in Israel, US and UK (including BICOM) and an article by the Israeli front “Foundation for Defending Democracy”. The FDD’s Nick Stewart travels with Kushner and Witkoff as part of the US negotiating team on the Middle East.

There are numerous reasons for doubting the real existence of HAYI. None of its material is in Farsi. All of its “attacks” have been minor arson attacks on pointless targets that hurt nobody. The grammar, calligraphy and imagery of its materials are all wrong.

The UK state itself has now debunked some of the Mossad HAYI narrative. On 29 April, when Essa Suleiman stabbed three men, the entire media blocked out the first Muslim victim and claimed an antisemitic terrorist attack on the two in Golders Green. The HAYI Mossad run “Iranian” Telegram channel immediately put out a statement claiming responsibility for the attack. But yesterday police and prosecution were forced to drop the claim it was a terrorist attack at all. The stabbing of the Muslim is charged as attempted murder, though still ignored by the media. So “HAYI” claimed responsibility for a non-existent terrorist incident.

A false flag can be, but is not necessarily, the state planting a bomb and then blaming someone else. It can be more complex – the state recruiting people to plant bombs. Those people may believe they are genuinely part of an ideological campaign, or may just be doing it for money.

The opaque Starmer rent-boy arson plot, in which Ukrainian male models burnt property associated with Keir Starmer, remains unclear, largely because any discussion of what lay behind the attacks was banned by the judge in the trial. But the media, with government encouragement, continually relays the story that the arsonists were recruited online by a man known as “El Money”. An interesting twist here is that the media constantly refer to him as Russian-speaking. But the evidence in court is that he spoke both Russian and Ukrainian.

Almost all adult Ukrainians can speak Russian. The number of Russians who speak Ukrainian is very small. Yet El Money is now routinely portrayed as Russian.

Which brings us to the whole question of Russian “hybrid attacks”, where we are asked to believe the narrative of the security services of states whose leaders are openly promoting war with Russia, about desultory and mysterious attacks. The rather sorry Leipzig drone is a good example. We have a more recent claim of Russian arson from Estonia, a state which has instituted massive discrimination against the 29% of its population who speak Russian.

Not only has Estonia closed Russian schools, libraries, theatres, churches, cinemas and university courses, it even refuses passports to people born and bred in Estonia, whose parents were born and bred in Estonia, if they cannot speak Estonian. That is totally contrary to numerous UN, Council of Europe and OSCE instruments on protection of minority linguistic rights.

It is one thing to insist on language qualification for citizenship for new immigrants. Many countries do. It is quite another thing to deny citizenship to a native linguistic minority. Estonia was part of Russia from 1721 to 1919 and of the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1991. It has Russian speakers.

So I decline to believe the Estonian government on Russian “hybrid attacks”.

Which brings us to the amazing “FlyDubai” hijacking and the heroic plumber who knew how to rescue a plane from a death dive because he watched Air Crash Investigation.

There are real problems with this narrative. One is that the plane is said to have dived approximately 15,000 feet in about 30 seconds. This is said to be confirmed by independent flight trackers.

The force was so enormous that the rudder ripped off the plane.

Picture a dive of 500 feet – that is more than a 40 storey building – per second. Picture that. 500 feet in a second. Imagine yourself falling that fast. The forces would be enormous inside the cabin. Anybody not strapped in would be lifted right out of their seats and probably hit the ceiling. Many would be injured. Any unfastened object, including major ones like food trollies, would be hurled about with great force. Baggage lockers would come unlocked as the weight of the bags inside was hurled up. Remember this dive ripped the rudder off. It would be impossible for anyone not strapped into their chair to keep their footing or seat.

We have a great many videos from on board the plane but nothing like this is shown. No video shows this kind of extreme situation, and the cabin at the end of the flight is remarkably undisturbed.

There is also a problem with that flight-tracking data. As pointed out by this commercial pilot on CNN, a plan can’t easily slow down in mid-air. He is disbelieving of how quickly the flight trackers show the plane returning to normal speed. He is also deeply sceptical of the ability to control the plane after the rudder came off due to loss of hydraulic fluid, and of the chances of the airframe staying together. Now compare that to the lack of cabin tumult.

I have seen it argued that if you entered the dive very gently and carefully without sudden change of pitch, and exited it similarly smoothly, then you would avoid extreme G-forces and the cabin might be relatively undisturbed. Even if so, it is hard to imagine the kind of smooth transition into the dive in the circumstances we are told were occurring in the cockpit, with the co-pilot deliberately putting the plane in a death dive while fighting with the pilot.

The smooth transition out of the dive in the official story was achieved by a plumber who knew what to do from watching Air Crash Investigation. I don’t think I need to comment on that.

We will never find out the truth about FlyDubai. The plane diverted to Saudi Arabia. The copilot who is being painted as an Islamic extremist will be isolated there and tortured by the Saudis. Netanyahu has already said Israel will join the interrogation. Do not believe any confession or evidence from the co-pilot.

The plane was a Boeing, so the USA will join the initial investigation alongside UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel. A more potent coalition of Zionist evil does not exist. We will certainly have faked flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder evidence coming from that shower.

I do feel something has snapped in people’s willingness to believe official narratives. The Skripal narrative was even more crazy than any of these, but most people still trusted government. Thankfully that faith has been seriously shaken.

Original article:  www.craigmurray.org.uk

By Kurt NIMMO

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

President Donald Trump has gone and really done it this time. “We had them under view for a long time, and we got them,” he said about the five British men arrested at RAF Fairford, initially said to be terrorists targeting US aircraft at the British base.

It turns out the would-be terrorists did not have explosives. Instead, they had stolen red diesel for farm equipment. The British cops are mum. They’re not saying much about the arrest or the incident. The Gloucestershire Police advised the public not to speculate, but how could there possibly be no speculation in the age of social media?

Naturally, speculation went ballistic on X and other platforms. It was immediately declared that the alleged perpetrators were Iranian terrorists, maybe sleeper cells, and an image was posted of men stripped to the waist in handcuffs as evidence. It was soon discovered the image was an AI fake.

The Secretary of State went before the cameras and told the American people a “foreign actor” is responsible for the foiled attack. Initially, the knee-jerk reaction was to blame Russia. It had to be Russia, but that was not very useful, so it became evil Iranian terrorists caught in the act of sabotaging our aircraft used to bomb grade schools and hospitals.

The Brits released the five men, most likely because there is no evidence they are terrorists, but rather thieves attempting to make a buck on stolen diesel in a market where diesel is rapidly becoming scarce and expesnive, thanks to Trump’s war. There is currently an epidemic of fuel thefts from farms, but that’s not exploitable for the narrative that insists wicked mullahs in Iran can’t wait to nuke America, Israel, and maybe even the UK.

Not that facts matter to the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Andy Burnham, the former frontbencher. He said there are strong indications that Iran played a part in what happened over the weekend at RAF Fairford.

Prior to Burnham, Zia Yusuf, the spokesperson for home affairs, trekked to the site of the diesel terrorism incident and said the UK must declare a national security emergency. He said there are “strong indications” Iran was involved.

Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage also demanded the declaration of a national emergency in response to “potential terrorists” stealing diesel. Farage said the diesel heist was a dry run for an attack on US forces. It is said he later deleted his social media posts, possibly because he looks like a fool.

Tobias Ellwood, a Conservative MP, demanded to know why the suspects were released on bail, while a BBC “military expert” said it was probably the Russians that nicked all that diesel.

Some folks believe the Fairford incident was a botched false flag. I disagree. The misinterpreted episode provided an excuse for the state and its corporate media to amplify the claim that there are deadly Iranian terrorists out there sleeping in cells, waiting to kill Americans.

Trump, Rubio, neocons of all stripes, and MAGA bystanders are desperate to pin something on Iran as a pretext to escalate the war. Instead of backing off and admitting they hysterically jumped the gun, they will double down and further complicate what was an avoidable situation that is now eating away at the global economy.

Trump is incapable of conceding. He will continue this disastrous war as long as possible, up until the time he is removed from the Oval Office or put on cholinesterase inhibitors to manage his hallucinations.

Original article:  ronpaulinstitute.org

Brazil’s alignment with Europe amid current geopolitical tensions poses a serious threat to Brazil’s traditional policy of neutrality.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

On September 30, all major Brazilian newspapers published a report stating that the Brazilian Intelligence Agency (Abin) had allegedly warned European authorities about supposed simultaneous interference by the United States and Russia in Brazilian elections. The case raises questions that go far beyond the 2026 electoral dispute. The central issue is the accusation against Moscow, as well as the political and institutional circumstances in which it was presented.

Within Brazil’s intelligence system, Abin is institutionally linked to the Presidency of the Republic, while the Federal Police, another intelligence-related institution in the country, has stronger links to the Judiciary. Its function is to produce strategic information to assist the Brazilian government. Therefore, when representatives of Brazilian intelligence inform foreign authorities that Russia is interfering in the electoral process, it is inevitable to ask to what extent this assessment reflects the political position of the government that controls the agency.

The issue becomes even more significant because, according to the information released, the European delegation received an accusation concerning Russian interference without substantial details about its nature being made public. No agents, operations, funding mechanisms, propaganda structures, or specific campaigns attributed to Moscow have been identified, at least in the material made public so far. There is therefore an accusation, but its foundations remain largely unknown.

This creates a particularly convenient situation for certain political actors. Europe – which is hostile toward both Russia and Trump – receives information suggesting that Washington and Moscow are attempting to influence the Brazilian elections. This would allow Brussels – and especially France and Germany, currently Lula’s key “friends” – to potentially “support” Brazil in “counter-intelligence” efforts aimed at combating alleged US and Russian influence. In other words, the accusation of interference, even in the absence of evidence, could serve as a pretext to justify actual interference (by Europe).

There is also a broader political issue. A significant portion of the Brazilian left has consolidated in recent years an unfounded interpretation according to which Vladimir Putin belongs to a kind of “far-right international movement,” alongside Donald Trump and other Western conservative leaders. This interpretation places Russia, Trump, and the Brazilian right within the same international political camp, despite profound differences between their respective positions and interests.

Within this framework, associating Russia with a potential Flávio Bolsonaro candidacy becomes politically convenient. Flávio is identified with Trump, the Republican Party, and the American right. The existence of an alleged Russian connection would allow the Brazilian electoral dispute to be incorporated into a broader international narrative in which different conservative forces are presented as parts of the same network of influence.

However, it is absolutely obvious that Russia has no interest whatsoever in interfering in the Brazilian elections to favor either side. Furthermore, the majority of pro-Russia activists in Brazil identify with the left or remain neutral regarding both sides of national politics. The accusation appears to be made simply to please the European Union, given that Europeans prefer Lula to Flávio (as the latter is subordinate to Trump). The lack of details substantiating the accusations only reinforces this point.

The truly relevant question is different: why did an intelligence agency subordinate to the Presidency of the Republic present European authorities with an accusation against Russia without its foundations subsequently being clarified? And why is this happening precisely during preparations for the Brazilian elections and at a time of extraordinary deterioration in relations between Russia and Europe?

The answer to these questions matters because Brazil is operating in an increasingly polarized international environment. Russia occupies a central position within the BRICS and maintains strategic relations with Brazil, while Europe is going through a period of growing confrontation with Moscow. In this context, any official Brazilian information associating Russia with an electoral interference operation carries serious diplomatic consequences.

Moreover, tensions between Russia and Europe are increasing, and there is a real risk of conflict due to Europe’s continued provocations. Clearly, in such a context, it is not in Brazil’s interest to become part of either side of the crisis. But nothing could be more damaging to Brazil’s policy of neutrality than reporting a formal accusation against Russia to the European Union.

In theory, it is possible that the report was delivered to European authorities without prior communication to the Brazilian president – although this seems highly unlikely. If Lula wants to preserve Brazil’s neutrality, the appropriate course of action would be to publicly disavow Abin and apologize for the incident. The question, however, is whether he would actually be willing to do so, considering that the European Union is currently the Lula government’s main international “ally”.

Classical nuclear deterrence is dead. New START expired, tripolarity returns, verification gone. Iran proves nonproliferation is a trap.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A contingency mistaken for law

We have often discussed nuclear deterrence and how the doctrine has changed, especially in the context of hybrid wars and the new weapons now available. Precisely on this point, at the 23rd annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, my friend Nelson Wong put forward a thesis that deserves attention precisely because it is presented without fanfare.

The classic theory of nuclear deterrence, developed during the Cold War around the concept of mutually assured destruction, was based on historical conditions that have largely ceased to exist today. The framework isn’t entirely wrong: mutual vulnerability remains, and the threat of unacceptable retaliation is perhaps still the only thing preventing a direct war between major powers. But too many features of the landscape have changed for that map to serve as a guide. My argument is that the individual factors eroding deterrence share a common root: the transition from unipolarity to a tripolar system, managed by elites trained in an era when competition among equals had been declared over.

Classical deterrence arose from specific circumstances: two main actors, fairly predictable escalation ladders, and functioning channels of communication. That shared grammar was not a given, but the product of costly learning. Thomas Schelling described the diplomacy of violence as a tacit bargaining process in which a threat is valued for what it communicates; the code of bipolarism was written through crises in which the two sides teetered on the brink and drew institutional consequences from them, from the 1963 hotline to the 1972 ABM Treaty. Atlantic simulations confirm this. Carte Blanche (1955) and Proud Prophet (1983) showed that stopping a Warsaw Pact offensive with tactical weapons would have killed about 1.7 million Germans and that keeping the war at the “tactical” level was an illusion, because the leap to the strategic level seemed almost automatic. Deterrence worked in part because those who planned it knew that once the threshold was crossed, it would no longer work. It was a culture of limits rather than a theory of calculation.

The guardrail has shattered

In February 2026, New START expired, and for the first time in over half a century, Russia and the United States are not bound by any binding bilateral nuclear treaty; verification, notifications, and data exchanges have ceased. That same year, the NPT Review Conference ended without results. Verification was not merely a technical mechanism: it was the arena where two military bureaucracies learned to understand one another. With that channel closed, each side has reverted to assessing the other based on worst-case scenarios – the very raw material of the security dilemma.

Added to this is the end of bipolarity. In the realist interpretation that John Mearsheimer has revived with Glenn Diesen, the current disorder stems from the transition toward multipolarity and the persistence of problems inherited from the unipolar era. The liberal order was the global projection of the Western order of the Cold War, possible only as long as the sole remaining great power was a liberal state. Today there are three powers, each with a different conception of order. A tripolar system is not simply a bipolar system with an extra player: with two actors, it is sufficient for one dyad to be stable; with three, all must be stable, and each measures its own arsenal against the potential combined strength of the other two. This is why the growth of China’s arsenal weighs on U.S. planning, regardless of Beijing’s intentions.

Thus, the security dilemma returns to the forefront: China’s intercontinental missiles are defensive for Beijing and offensive for Washington; Taiwan’s weapons are defensive for the United States and offensive for China. There is also a more troubling element. The stated goal of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia is not containment, but rollback. During the Cold War, deterrence preserved the status quo; today, the West invokes it while it is itself the revisionist pole, pushing the line forward through NATO expansion and increasingly advanced weapons. This amounts to asking the adversary not to react while one climbs the ladder of escalation. Deterrence that masks a shift in the strategic balance ceases to convey stability and begins to convey an intention.

The Iranian test case

No theater puts these theories to the test quite like Iran. On June 13, 2025, Israel struck the Islamic Republic with Operation Rising Lion; Tehran responded with “True Promise 3.” The paradox was already evident: Iran had signed the NPT, and the Supreme Leader had issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, while Israel possesses an undeclared arsenal estimated at between 75 and 200 warheads and keeps Dimona off-limits to inspections. I wrote at the time that the attack would not destroy Iran’s program but would push Tehran to view the weapon as a deterrent. The nonproliferation regime promises security to those who renounce nuclear weapons; the Iranian case teaches us that those without them are targeted, while those who possess them are not.

In the summer of 2026, there was open discussion of using tactical nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country, in an air and naval conflict whose stated aim was to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Against whom? Striking the strait would contaminate the waters of the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia; striking the interior would not guarantee surrender. In either case, the nuclear taboo would be broken, setting a precedent for Moscow, Beijing, and Tel Aviv; it is not surprising that, according to available information, Trump’s advisors oppose this. Nina Tannenwald has shown that the non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945 rests on an established norm, not merely on the calculation of retaliation. Today, that norm holds more because of the prudence of certain advisors than because of its own strength, and a deterrent that depends on the character of individuals is no longer an institution.

The Gulf also shows that the logic of “unacceptable punishment” is shifting toward non-nuclear infrastructure. After the refineries in Tehran, Haifa and the Bapco refineries in Bahrain were struck; and the attack on the desalination plants in Qeshm has effectively legitimized retaliation against Israel’s desalination network – on which over 60 percent of the country’s water supply depends – and against that of the Gulf, where some states derive 80–90 percent of their drinking water. It is an energy-humanitarian “Samson option”: the threshold of unacceptable punishment, which during the Cold War coincided with the nuclear threshold, is now reached by drones launched against a desalination plant. Herman Kahn’s escalation ladder assumed visible and costly steps to climb, but in the Gulf, the steps have been crushed one on top of the other.

The material basis and the fearless machine

Deterrence is also a function of the ability to sustain a war over time. While Washington was burning through interceptors over Iran, Beijing was presenting its 15th Five-Year Plan, featuring “extraordinary measures” for self-sufficiency in critical supply chains. China controls about 90 percent of the world’s rare-earth refining, on which every F-35, every Patriot battery, and every THAAD interceptor depends; starting in 2025, it will subject these materials to export controls, while the Pentagon must eliminate its dependence by January 2027. If the replenishment of conventional deterrence depends on the rival, the threshold beyond which one is tempted to compensate with nuclear weapons is lowered: a deterrent that cannot be replenished tends to become nuclear out of necessity. Whoever controls weapons materials controls the pace of others’ wars.

Then there is artificial intelligence. In 1983, Stanislav Petrov deemed a report of a U.S. launch to be a false alarm; when integrated into command systems, AI can reduce that pause from minutes to seconds, and a system that feels no fear cannot be dissuaded. The immediate danger is not the machine that decides to launch, but the decision-support system that accelerates escalation or excludes de-escalation from the options. I’d like to add a point about the education of decision-makers: if Mearsheimer is correct, the current ruling class came of age after 1991, when the study of the balance of power had all but disappeared from European universities. In 1983, the machine made a mistake, and the human knew it. Today, the risk is that the machine will make a mistake and the human will lack the tools to detect it.

Legitimacy eroded from the center

The NPT established a two-tier system with clear colonial legacies, and the 2017 Prohibition Treaty challenges its legitimacy. But the erosion of the legal framework does not originate at the periphery. It starts at the center. Washington has claimed control over an international strait as national territory and the right to seize Iranian oil tankers; the European Commission has proposed a “reparations loan” of up to 165 billion euros guaranteed by Russian funds frozen at Euroclear. However one judges it, the inviolability of sovereign assets is being called into question by the very states that established it. If sovereign property, freedom of navigation, and nonproliferation are suspended when it suits those who wrote the rules, others draw the most rational conclusion: the only reliable guarantee is one’s own strength.

This does not mean that deterrence is dead. Following the August 26 Storm Shadow attack on Donetsk, Maria Zakharova warned that Moscow could strike British installations “in Ukraine and beyond its borders”: the most explicit threat to date directed at a NATO member, one to be taken seriously without overreacting, as it remains merely verbal. Ratcliffe’s mission to Moscow on August 25 shows that the channels of communication are not closed. The warning system still works; what is missing is the predictability of the response. Deterrence is being practiced, but blindly.

For the 2026–2028 period, based on evidence of moderate quality, the most likely scenario (approximately 55 percent) is unregulated deterrence: no successor to New START, recurring crises managed through unilateral signals and ambiguous thresholds. A minimal restoration (about 30 percent) would establish crisis communication channels, launch notifications, and commitments to human control over nuclear decisions, following the statements made by the United States and China in Lima in November 2024; the indicators would be the resumption of Russian-American consultations and a negotiated formula for the Strait of Hormuz. Breaking the taboo (about 15 percent) – limited use against a non-nuclear state – would be preceded by deployments of low-yield warheads, rhetoric normalizing tactical use, or the depletion of interceptor stockpiles. Everything hinges on one assumption: that no power considers the stakes in peripheral theaters to be existential. A crisis over Taiwan superimposed on the Gulf crisis would bring this assumption crashing down.

Rebuilding crisis communication channels, limiting the integration of AI and nuclear weapons, and giving a voice to the Global South: these are necessary measures, but they are insufficient. Bipolar deterrence was stable because it protected an order that the superpowers – while ideologically opposing it – recognized in practice. Multipolar deterrence requires something analogous: namely, the mutual recognition of security spaces among poles that do not share the same conception of order.

This is not a moral concession but a technical necessity: without a recognized framework, deterrence does not know what to protect. A new map is drawn starting from the territory, and today’s territory consists of three poles: mining supply chains, desalination plants, algorithms, and rules applied intermittently. Understanding this is the minimum requirement – and I emphasize minimum! – for clear-headed thinking to prevail over reassuring formulas.

Western media is a dirty tool of intelligence agencies. War with Iran is coming. Who blinks first?

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The false flag attacks are coming in fast and furious in an attempt to keep both Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu in office beyond their normal expiry date. What they really reveal, though, is the extent of how Western media is now a dirty tool of intelligence agencies.

With both leaders of the U.S. and Israel facing an unprecedented challenge to their office, is it not reasonable to assume that both will use their power to indulge in skulduggery and dirty tricks to survive? For Trump, he knows he is facing impeachment if he loses both houses, and I have speculated in earlier articles that he will be looking at unprecedented ways of either calling off the midterm elections or refusing to acknowledge their results – using a pretext of war with Iran. For something, in legal terms, like that to be pulled off, the circumstances would have to be on a scale of Pearl Harbour or 9/11. America would have not only to be at war, but under attack on its own soil for Trump to attempt such a stunt, which many argue isn’t possible in the constitution. But Trump is always breaking rules and pushing the boundaries of what he can do in office, and so it would not be uncharacteristic for him and his legal team to be burning the midnight oil plotting something which is so huge and so significant.

The same story plays out for Benjamin Netanyahu, who is facing seven counts of corruption if his case ever gets heard in Israel. A surefire way of making sure it doesn’t is to keep Israel in a permanent state of war with Iran and to raise the stakes to the point where it appears that this tiny country is under attack.

And so, at the risk of being called a conspiracy theorist, many will assume a false flag attack – or even a series of them – might be coming our way soon, both in Israel and in the West – for the justification of war. Trump’s claims that the U.S. will resume bombing after the midterm elections may well have been a masterly move, when all along he is planning an attack sooner against Iran. To go ahead earlier with a large-scale attack is of course very risky, as, if gas prices go even higher or we see U.S. casualties, this could be a final suicide pill that Trump takes even before Americans go to the polls. But this is a U.S. president who believes he is significantly more intelligent than he really is, and who has fired all the advisers around him who can give him sound advice which would probably not chime with his childish, moronic ideas about what America’s military capability is in the Middle East. Yet it would seem that the plan is to not allow Iran the possibility of a pre-emptive strike.

How else could any cynical analyst interpret two key “attacks” on both Israel and the West recently brought to us dutifully by Western mainstream media? The so-called terror attack on the Dubai flight heading towards Israel is very suspicious, not least of all because Iran issued a warning just a few hours before it happened that a false flag attack was going to take place on a plane, framing Iran. A scuffle in the cockpit which involved a stabbing certainly happened, but the plane spiralling out of control for it to be rescued at the last moment by Israeli pilots who just so happened to be aboard and were able to apprehend the pilot sounds like a really bad Hollywood movie script with B-class actors. The timing is questionable, as is how fast Netanyahu and media were ready to present it to the world as a terror attack.

Just a few days earlier we saw a similar fanciful story in the UK at an RAF airbase where men were arrested under terrorism laws, with Andy Burnham reacting quickly to blame Iran. But where is the evidence? Was Burnham asked to go ahead with a false flag attack by Trump when they met earlier in the month at the UN assembly in New York? The men, although arrested and charged under terrorism laws, were remarkably allowed to walk free on bail. And nothing in their vans, which were parked in woods, has been found which would suggest they were planning any attacks. Were these men set up? Were they paid to do a certain job late at night knowing they were certain to be intercepted? If Iran were behind such fun and games, surely there would not be this level of amateur dramatics.

A more sober take on both the Israeli hostage flight and the UK airbase being a target of terrorism is that they were both staged by the desperate leaders of both the U.S. and Israel in a bid to prepare the Western public for an imminent war which, clearly, the UK will play a considerable role in – despite the window dressing of its foreign minister’s statements about bringing Israel into line on its Gaza genocide (which was also probably a PR ruse).

In many ways this was inevitable, made even more so by the temptation of using Western press as willing partners in crime in a massive, gross misrepresentation of facts to serve a bigger agenda of the elites who own legacy media. A war with Iran is coming on a scale which is certainly going to be greater than the previous “incursions”. The only real question is who blinks first and kicks it off. But the old rules always apply for those who want to seek the truth. In Western media, never believe those who are presented as the culprits, as these usual suspects are nearly always not those who have the finger on the trigger. And in any case, ask yourself: why would Iran need to plan such attacks? What would it gain? The only winners are those who have presented themselves as victims to justify what they are about to do. The lies in the past which we have been presented by both the U.S./UK and of course Israel (which is really the grand master of packing fake news, in particular video) are too great, too exhaustive to ignore. And as long as Western media is happy to play its role, what we are witnessing is what their real role is required to be – given that nearly all of them are loss-making ventures.

36 Jahre nach der Eingliederung der DDR in die BRD stellen sich viele Deutsche die Frage, ob es Deutschland tatsächlich gelungen ist, eine echte Einheit zu erreichen. Die jüngsten Landtagswahlen in Sachsen-Anhalt, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und Berlin zeigen deutlich, dass Deutschland in politischer Hinsicht nach wie vor gespalten ist.

Aus sozialer Sicht schien die Nation einst geeinter zu sein als heute. 40% der befragten Ostdeutschen sehen heute mehr Unterschiede als Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen den beiden Teilen des Landes. Vor zehn Jahren lag dieser Wert bei nur 23%, wie aus einer im vergangenen Jahr durchgeführten Langzeitstudie der Technischen Universität Dresden hervorgeht.

Was die Politik betrifft, so sind die Folgen des Wahlschocks der letzten Wochen nach wie vor spürbar. Für die Bewohner des Westens ist es schwer zu erklären, dass in den ehemaligen neuen Bundesländern die Parteien der politischen Extreme zusammen die absolute Mehrheit der Stimmen auf sich vereinen. Dort machten die Wahlergebnisse der Parteien AfD, Die Linke und BSW in letzter Zeit zusammen ein Viertel der Stimmen aus.

In der Gesellschaft entstehen Risse. Im politischen System zeichnen sich nicht nur entlang der Achse «Ost–West», sondern auch an verschiedenen anderen Stellen Bruchlinien ab. Die drohende politische Destabilisierung durch den Zerfall der bisherigen Stützen des Staates hebt die Kontraste entlang der ehemaligen Grenze noch deutlicher hervor.

Die Unterschiede zwischen Ost und West werden sich in den kommenden Jahrzehnten wahrscheinlich noch erheblich verschärfen. Der Grund dafür liegt weniger in unterschiedlichen Lebenswegen, der Überheblichkeit der «Wessis», dem «Unverständnis» der Ostdeutschen für demokratische Prinzipien oder der vielbeschworenen «Ostalgie».

Obwohl Ost- und Westdeutsche ihre Lebensbedingungen heute in vielerlei Hinsicht gleich bewerten, sind Ostdeutsche in Führungspositionen der höchsten Bundesbehörden nach wie vor unterrepräsentiert. Seit 2022 ist ihr Anteil zwar von 13,9% auf 16,3% gestiegen.

Besonders deutlich wird der Unterschied im Bereich der Erbschaft und Schenkung: Laut dem Statistischen Bundesamt entfielen im Jahr 2025 95% des Gesamtwerts der bei den Steuerbehörden gemeldeten Vermögensübertragungen auf Westdeutschland.

Einer der Gründe für die bis heute spürbaren Unterschiede sind die Folgen der wirtschaftlichen und demografischen Umbrüche nach der Wiedervereinigung. Nur 17% der ehemaligen DDR-Bürger behielten nach dem Umbruch ihren Beruf, die übrigen mussten ihre Pläne ändern.

In den 1990er Jahren verloren viele Unternehmen in der ehemaligen DDR ihre Absatzmärkte oder wurden geschlossen, während vor allem junge und gut ausgebildete Menschen in den Westen abwanderten. Infolgedessen ist in einigen Regionen bis heute ein Mangel an Einwohnern und Unternehmenszentralen zu beobachten.

Der demografische Abwärtstrend in Ostdeutschland

Ein wesentlicher Grund für die strukturelle Schwäche liegt jedoch in der Demografie. Ostdeutschland hat sich nie ganz von den Folgen des Zweiten Weltkriegs erholt. Dies war auch in der DDR spürbar. Mit der deutschen Wiedervereinigung und der Abwanderung von Millionen Ostdeutschen in den Westen auf der Suche nach Arbeit hat sich diese Situation noch weiter verschärft. So ist die Einwohnerzahl Ostdeutschlands von 1990 bis 2026 um 6 Millionen Menschen zurückgegangen.

Ballungsräume sind jedoch eine Grundvoraussetzung für wirtschaftliche Dynamik. Größe und Bevölkerungsdichte erhöhen die Attraktivität einer Region. Bei günstiger Entwicklung setzt ein sich selbst verstärkender positiver Kreislauf ein: Dort, wo viele qualifizierte Fachkräfte leben, investieren Unternehmen. Das regt den Zuzug neuer mobiler Fachkräfte an, was wiederum weitere Investitionen anzieht – und so weiter.

In Ostdeutschland werden voraussichtlich nur Berlin mit seinen Vororten sowie Leipzig und Dresden einen Bevölkerungszuwachs verzeichnen. In anderen Regionen wird die Bevölkerung weiter schrumpfen. So hat Sachsen-Anhalt beispielsweise seit 1990 bereits rund 25% seiner Bevölkerung verloren und könnte bis zur Mitte des Jahrhunderts weitere 20% einbüßen. Ein solcher Bevölkerungsrückgang zieht fast zwangsläufig einen wirtschaftlichen Niedergang nach sich.

Demografische Prognosen zufolge wird die Bevölkerung im Osten bis zum Jahr 2045 im Szenario ohne Zuwanderung um mehr als ein Fünftel schrumpfen – deutlich stärker als im Westen.

Politik ist der konzentrierte Ausdruck der Wirtschaft

Laut einer Studie des Instituts der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) erreicht die ostdeutsche Wirtschaft 36 Jahre nach der Wiedervereinigung nur etwas mehr als 79% des westdeutschen Niveaus. Bei einer Reihe von Indikatoren ist sogar ein Rückschritt zu beobachten. Die Forscher sehen das größte Risiko dabei in der demografischen Situation im Osten.

Der einheitliche IW-Index spiegelt den Prozess des Aufholens des Rückstands seit 1990 wider. Neben dem Wirtschaftsindikator pro Kopf werden die Entwicklung der Arbeitsproduktivität, der Kapitalstock in der Wirtschaft, der Anteil hochqualifizierter Fachkräfte im Bereich Forschung und Entwicklung, die Erwerbsquote sowie der Anteil der Arbeitslosen und Selbstständigen berücksichtigt.

Laut dem IW hinkt Ostdeutschland bei einer ganzen Reihe von Indikatoren hinterher oder verzeichnet keine Fortschritte. So sinkt beispielsweise die Erwerbsquote. Bezogen auf die Gesamtbevölkerung erreichte der Osten im Jahr 2010 noch knapp 89% des Westniveaus, im Jahr 2025 hingegen nur noch etwas mehr als 85%.

Auch die Investitionen sind ins Stocken geraten. Gemessen am Wert aller Maschinen, Fabriken, Straßen und Gebäude pro Kopf – also am Kapitalstock – holt der Osten seinen Rückstand seit 15 Jahren praktisch nicht mehr auf. Im Jahr 2010 lag dieser Wert bei knapp 77% des Westniveaus, im Jahr 2025 bei etwas mehr als 79%.

Was die Zahl der Beschäftigten im Bereich Forschung und Entwicklung betrifft, erreicht der Osten nur etwas mehr als 46% des Westniveaus.

Natürlich können die neuen Bundesländer auch einige bemerkenswerte Erfolge vorweisen: die Ansiedlung des Tesla-Werks in Grünheide (Brandenburg), den in Europa führenden Cluster für die Halbleiterfertigung in Dresden und den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien.

Doch diese seltenen Ausnahmen bestätigen leider die traurige Regel: Ostdeutschland bleibt in Bezug auf seinen wirtschaftlichen Entwicklungsstand hinter dem Westen zurück. Und dieser ungünstige Trend wird offenbar noch lange anhalten.

L’obiettivo è, oggi come un anno fa, quello di creare una pressione mediatica e politica per la confisca dei 210 miliardi di assett russi da dare all’Ucraina. L’obiettivo è dunque, ancora una volta, preparare gli italiani alla guerra contro la Russia. 

Segue nostro Telegram.

Esattamente un anno fa, il primo settembre 2025, media e agenzie europee riportavano una notizia choc: attentato contro Ursula von der Leyen, hacker russi manomettono il gps del suo aereo a Plovdik, nel sud della Bulgaria. Piloti costretti ad atterrare avvalendosi di “mappe cartacee” e “metodi tradizionali”.

L’informazione, comunicata in conferenza dalla stessa portavoce della von der Leyen, venne smentita poco dopo da Flight Radar, il più importante sito di tracking aereo.

Valse a poco. La narrazione era stata avviata e nessuna smentita ufficiale riuscì a bloccarla. Ebbe inizio una stagione di avvistamenti mai confermati, verificati e dimostrati di “droni russi” nei pressi di aeroporti e basi militari di tutte le città europee.

Il bombardamento di tali notizie, con il richiamo continuo al “jamming contro l’aereo di Ursula von der Leyen” (questa la formula utilizzata dai media), contribuì a creare tra l’opinione pubblica europea un clima di paura e ostilità nei confronti della Russia, favorire un sentimento di empatia verso il punto di vista ucraino (le richieste del presidente Zelensky) e, in definitiva, rendere legittimo e accettabile il rischio derivante dalla confisca degli assett russi detenuti in UE (circa 210 miliardi di euro) per finanziare l’Ucraina.

La ferma opposizione del Belgio scongiurò tale decisione e il 19 dicembre il Consiglio europeo optò per un prestito da 90 miliardi da raccogliere emettendo debito europeo. Dopo ciò gli avvistamenti terminarono.

A un anno di distanza, si torna a parlare dei beni russi congelati. E si torna a parlare di “attentati russi”.

Con una lettera, 122 eurodeputati di diversi schieramenti hanno chiesto ai leader UE di riaprire i negoziati sull’uso dei beni russi congelati per sostenere l’Ucraina. Nonostante il sostegno economico e finanziario dei partner europei, Kiev ha un buco di 23 miliardi di euro nei finanziamenti per la difesa. I Paesi UE sono riluttanti a stanziare nuovi fondi dai propri bilanci nazionali.

Secondo quanto riporta Euronews, i firmatari sollecitano la Commissione europea a presentare una nuova proposta che superi le obiezioni sollevate dal Belgio e altri stati.

“La Russia deve sopportare le conseguenze finanziarie della sua guerra di aggressione”, si legge nel testo visionato dai giornalisti di Euronews.

La proposta è quella di trasferire i beni in un “nuovo strumento dell’UE che assumerebbe le obbligazioni giuridiche nei confronti della banca centrale russa. In questo modo si garantirebbe sostegno finanziario all’Ucraina mantenendo al tempo stesso la pressione economica su Mosca”.

La lettera è firmata da alcuni rappresentanti del Partito Popolare Europeo, di Renew Europe, dei Socialisti e Democratici, dei Verdi/ALE, dei Conservatori e Riformisti europei e del gruppo The Left, su iniziativa dei liberali Karin Karlsbro, Nathalie Loiseau e Petras Auštrevi?ius.

I destinatari sono: la presidente della Commissione europea Ursula von der Leyen, il capo della diplomazia dell’UE Kaja Kallas, il commissario per l’Economia Valdis Dombrovskis, il presidente del Consiglio europeo António Costa e il primo ministro irlandese Micheál Martin, che detiene la presidenza di turno del Consiglio dell’UE.

La lettera è stata inviata mercoledì. Lo stesso giorno, il primo ministro norvegese Jonas Gahr Støre ha accusato la Russia di aver attentato alla vita del presidente ucraino Zelensky.

“Il suo aereo è stato quasi colpito da un drone mentre stava per decollare dalla Moldavia. Questa è la realtà che si trova ad affrontare”, ha detto Støre, senza specificare la fonte dell’informazione né quanto vicino fosse arrivato il drone.

Questa versione è stata prontamente smentita dalla Moldavia, che non parla di attacco, ma di ritardo.

“Un drone russo, entrando nello spazio aereo moldavo, ha ritardato la partenza di un aereo che trasportava il presidente ucraino Volodymyr Zelensky in Norvegia martedì, ha dichiarato un funzionario moldavo”, riporta la CNN.

L’aereo di Zelensky non era in volo, ma sulla pista dell’aeroporto di Chisinau. L’intrusione del drone ha causato un ritardo di oltre un’ora. Solo dopo il suo schianto, avvenuto a circa 160Km da Chisinau, le autorità aeroportuali hanno autorizzato il decollo.

La versione delle autorità moldave non è compatibile con l’allarme lanciato dal primo ministro norvegese. L’intrusione non ha messo a rischio neanche per un momento la vita di Zelensky, ne ha soltanto ritardato la partenza di poco più di un’ora. Gli stessi ucraini ridimensionano gli allarmismi sull’episodio.

Inoltre, l’ambasciatore moldavo negli USA Vladislav Kulminski, interrogato dalla CNN sulla possibilità che il drone avesse come obiettivo il presidente ucraino, ha risposto che è in corso un’indagine ed è “troppo presto per dirlo”.

Per il momento pare che la natura del sorvolo fosse di intelligence, non un attacco.

Ciò non ha impedito alla stampa di speculare sulla notizia, per provocare un impatto choc sull’opinione pubblica. Ad esempio Repubblica ha aperto la prima pagina con il titolo a caratteri cubitali:

“ATTENTATO A ZELENSKY”.”L’aereo del presidente ucraino partito dalla Moldova e diretto a Oslo obiettivo di un drone russo. “Se vince Mosca vi terrorizzerà tutti”.

La Stampa titola: “Drone sfiora il volo di Zelensky”. L’incipit è drammatico: “Volodymyr Zelensky ha rischiato di morire”.

Poco importa che l’aereo non fosse affatto in volo e che una fonte del governo di Kiev abbia definito “esagerato” il rischio di vita.

L’obiettivo è non è riportare i fatti, analizzarli, fare previsioni. È mettere in moto una narrazione, mirare alla pancia dell’opinione pubblica per diffondere panico e ostilità, alimentare l’idea che la Russia sia un pericolo per il resto dell’Europa e che i cavalli dei cosacchi – probabilmente – si abbevereranno alla fontana di Trevi se non rinunciamo a ciò che resta della sanità e della scuola pubblica, per mandare i nostri  Samp-T e Storm Shadow a Kiev.

L’obiettivo è, oggi come un anno fa, quello di creare una pressione mediatica e politica per la confisca dei 210 miliardi di assett russi da dare all’Ucraina. L’obiettivo è dunque, ancora una volta, preparare gli italiani alla guerra contro la Russia.

Articolo originale  lantidiplomatico.it

Alla luce del recente rituro delle forze statunitensi dal Paese (esito anche della sciagurata aggressione all’Iran) si rende necessario ripercorrere storia e geopolitica dell’Iraq per meglio comprendere quelle che saranno le future direttrici di quello che per demografia, posizione e ricchezza (in termini di risorse naturali) si presenta come un sicuro protagonista nel futuro della regione.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Per comprendere la storia dell’Iraq sul piano della teoria geopolitica si rende necessario valutarne sia la posizione assoluta (ovvero, la collocazione geografico-spaziale) sia la posizione relativa (la collocazione geopolitica). La seconda, a differenza della prima, può variare in relazione a precise circostanze; è determinata dal rapporto con i vicini; e può donare o far perdere importanza ad un luogo nel corso del tempo (ad esempio, l’Italia che durante la Guerra Fredda, era “favorita” dalla sua condizione di Paese confinante con il “blocco socialista”, mentre oggi non gode più di tale “status”). La posizione assoluta dell’Iraq è quella di Paese inevitabilmente legato alla presenza di due corsi d’acqua (il Tigri e l’Eufrate) che assumono valore non solo in termini di idrografia ma anche come “immaginario geografico” (termine con il quale la “geopolitica accademica” cerca di descrivere la cosiddetta geografia sacra). La posizione relativa, a sua volta, è quella di confine tra due mondi, due spazi e civiltà all’apparenza differenti: il mondo nomadico del deserto arabico (con la sua religiosità “cruda”) e quello parzialmente sedentarizzato dell’Altopiano iranico con la sua cultura millenaria ed una innata tendenza all’afflato mistico. Allo stesso tempo, la sua storia è segnata dal rapporto conflittuale con il vicino siriano che risale sin dai tempi dei primi califfi dell’Islam.

I fiumi Tigri ed Eufrate hanno storicamente rappresentato una forte base di unità sociale per il popolo iracheno. La sua ricchezza idrica e la sua particolare posizione (al centro del quadrante geopolitico del Vicino Oriente) hanno attirato nel corso dei secoli una ragguardevole serie di invasioni e/o migrazioni che ne hanno costantemente sovvertito l’equilibrio.

All’inizio del VII secolo d. C., prima che l’Islam modificasse in modo definitivo il panorama culturale e religioso della regione mesopotamica, i territori che oggi corrispondono all’Iraq erano abitati in larga parte da comunità cristiane nestoriane (parlanti diversi dialetti aramaici), ebraiche e da diversi insediamenti greci e indiani. Lo zoroastrismo, invece, era limitato ai soldati ed agli amministratori persiani, i dahaqin (classe aristocratica composta in primo luogo di proprietari terrieri). I territori a ovest dell’Eufrate, a loro volta, erano abitati da tribù nomadi arabe. Per secoli il regno degli arabi Lakhmidi – che aveva la sua capitale nella città di Hira, sui margini del deserto arabico – aveva prosperato come regno autonomo, sebbene vassallo della Persia sasanide.

L’arrivo dell’Islam, sancito dalla sconfitta sasanide nella battaglia di Qadisiyya (636 d. C.), modificò solo in parte la geografia religiosa della regione. I nuovi conquistatori, chiusi all’interno di villaggi fortificati (gli amsar), in un primo momento non solo non cercarono di imporre la nuova religione (l’islamizzazione totale della regione richiederà diversi decenni), ma assunsero rapidamente molti aspetti culturali dei vinti sasanidi.

La rapida ed enorme espansione dell’Impero arabo-islamico comportò inevitabilmente diverse problematiche di gestione degli affari pubblici e militari, arrivate al culmine con la ribellione delle guarnigioni stanziate in Egitto e l’assassinio del terzo califfo Uthman nel 656. In questo contributo non vi è spazio per analizzare nel dettaglio ciascuna di esse. Tuttavia, è importante sottolineare il fatto che, nel momento della fitna (termine arabo che letteralmente significa “sedizione” ma che viene utilizzato per descrivere uno stato di vera e propria guerra civile), le basi dei belligeranti  erano rispettivamente situate in Iraq (Kufa e Bassora per i seguaci di Ali, cugino e genero del Profeta, nonché quarto califfo dell’Islam) ed in Siria (precisamente a Damasco, dove risiedeva Mu’awiya, governatore regionale e cugino di Uthman, con più di un’aspirazione al soglio califfale).

L’assassinio di Ali nel 661 e la definitiva affermazione della famiglia omayyade (della quale Mu’awiya era allora il principale esponente) diede inizio ad una nuova fase nella storia dell’Islam e sancì la momentanea vittoria della componente siriana su quella irachena. Di fatto, solo quarant’anni

dopo l’Egira (la migrazione del Profeta Muhammad dalla Mecca a Medina), il centro di potere dell’Impero arabo-islamico si era trasferito dalla città oasi al centro della Penisola Arabica all’Iraq prima ed all’assai ricca Damasco poi.

Sul piano prettamente geopolitico, dunque, la ribellione di Hussein (figlio di Ali) contro Yazid (il dispotico figlio di Mu’awiya), ed il martirio del primo insieme ai suoi uomini a Kerbala nel 680, può essere interpretata non solo come l’istante di manifestazione del più puro spirito dei partigiani di Ali (l’idea del sacrificio di sé in nome della giustizia), ma anche come un nuovo episodio dello scontro plurisecolare tra Siria e Iraq. Sempre i “siriani” omayyadi, per mano del califfo Abdul-Malik (685-705) inviarono in Iraq il “duro” governatore al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al preciso scopo di soffocare la nascente minaccia sciita. Questi ha un posto del tutto particolare all’interno della storia dell’Iraq, tanto che ancora oggi i giovani iracheni imparano a memoria parti di un suo celebre discorso rilasciato nella moschea di Kufa nel 694: “Il comandante dei fedeli [il califfo omayyade] ha vuotato la sua faretra e morso le sue frecce e ha trovato in me la più dura e più amara di tutte. Perciò mi ha mandato a voi. A lungo siete stati pronti alla sedizione; siete giaciuti nei covili dell’errore e avete fatto della trasgressione la vostra regola. Per Dio, io vi scorteccerò come si fa con gli alberi, vi legherò come una fascina di stecchi, vi batterò come cammelli randagi […] Per Dio, quello che prometto, mantengo; quello che propongo, realizzo; quello che misuro, taglio”.

Le dure riforme di al-Hajjaj ed il processo di arabizzazione forzata da lui portato avanti, paradossalmente, favorirono lo sviluppo di Kufa e Bassora come centri di studio della teologia e della giurisprudenza islamica aperti (per il tramite siriano) all’influenza dello gnosticismo cristiano e più in generale del mondo ellenico da una parte e persiano, dall’altra.

Come riporta lo studioso Thabit A. J. Abdullah, “con l’aumento delle conversioni all’Islam, la contraddizione insita fra l’appello universalistico islamico ed il dominio di una casta militare araba divenne insostenibile”. I primi califfati musulmani (e quelli omayyadi in particolare), di fatto, posero particolare enfasi sull’identità etnica araba del potere. In altri termini, si trattava di uno “Stato” retto da un’aristocrazia militare composta da guerrieri tribali arabi, legati tra loro dalla comune fedeltà al dettato coranico. Va da sé che il termine “Stato” in questo caso viene utilizzato nel senso che ad esso venne attribuito dal geopolitico tedesco Friedrich Ratzel: ovvero di “qualsiasi organizzazione politica” (clanica o tribale comprese), visto che, alla pari dello “Stato moderno”, anche queste nascono per difendere la comunità dai pericoli esterni e per assicurarne il sostentamento attraverso l’accentramento del potere. Solo gli epigoni/successori di Ratzel hanno limitato la geografia politica alla geografia dello Stato nel senso moderno del termine.

Ora, la suddetta prospettiva universalistica dell’Islam metteva in conto la possibilità della conversione. Questa, inizialmente, veniva attivamente scoraggiata anche per ragioni economiche, essendo i sudditi non musulmani costretti a pagare una tassa assai più onerosa rispetto ai musulmani. Nonostante ciò, i primi convertiti erano tenuti ad associarsi ad una particolare tribù come “clienti” (mawali), entrando di fatto nel sistema di protezione tribale proprio della Penisola arabica. Il problema sorse nel momento in cui le conversioni (soprattutto in Iraq e Persia, regioni estremamente popolose per il periodo) divennero un fenomeno di massa e l’espansione, sia verso Oriente che Occidente, conobbe una brusca interruzione, lasciando migliaia di soldati privi di occupazione per un lungo periodo.

Il malcontento nei confronti degli Omayyadi crebbe a dismisura fino ad arrivare all’aperta rivolta iniziata sotto la guida di alcuni membri della tribù dei Banu ‘l-Abbas che vantavano una diretta discendenza dalla famiglia del Profeta Muhammad per il tramite di un suo zio. Questi si appellarono sia al sentimento di giustizia dei partigiani di Ali (gli sciiti), sia alle rivendicazioni estremiste dei kharijiti (coloro che, a suo tempo, si opposero alla pace di compromesso tra Ali e Mu’awiyya) che a quelle di natura più propriamente economiche e di mera rappresentanza politica dei mawali.

La ribellione prese il via dalla regione del Khorasan, ma la battaglia decisiva ebbe luogo nell’Iraq settentrionale, nel 750, sulle sponde del Grande Zab, dove l’esercito lealista omayyade venne sbaragliato.

Non è errato affermare che l’ascesa della dinastia abbaside abbia rappresentato sia un evento rivoluzionario nella storia dell’Islam (con i mawali che vennero finalmente riconosciuti uguali agli arabi musulmani e, di conseguenza, divennero capaci di influenzare in modo determinante l’evoluzione di questa religione); sia una nuova vittoria dell’Iraq sulla Siria.

L’epoca abbaside viene tendenzialmente considerata come l’età dell’oro per l’Iraq, più ancora dell’Antica Babilonia. Nel 900, l’Iraq aveva già raggiunto una popolazione di oltre 20 milioni di abitanti (cifra indubbiamente ragguardevole per il periodo). La figura del califfo, allo stesso tempo, assunse una statura quasi divina, imperniato (com’era) dalla sontuosa tradizione imperiale persiana.

Una delle più grandi imprese degli Abbasidi fu sicuramente la costruzione di una nuova capitale imperiale: Baghdad (nome di probabile origine persiana che significa “dono di Dio”). Il sito della nuova città venne scelto personalmente dal califfo Ja’far al-Mansour, che vide nel confluire dei due fiumi (il Tigri e l’Eufrate) il luogo migliore per garantire alla capitale la necessaria centralità sia in termini di agevole accesso alle vie di comunicazione/commercio fluviali, sia in termini di fertile retroterra agricolo.

Sempre gli Abbasidi favorirono il mecenatismo, lo sviluppo delle arti e del sapere, ed almeno inizialmente il loro rapporto con la classe dei religiosi non fu conflittuale. In questo periodo, infatti, si formarono le quattro scuole giuridiche ortodosse dell’Islam sunnita e lo stesso potere imperiale assunse quella particolare caratteristica di commistione tra diritto e religione che ha portato molti a trovare delle similitudini evidenti tra la Roma dei cesari ed il califfato islamico.

I fondatori di tre di queste scuole, Abu Hanifa (699-767), Muhammad al-Shafi’i (767-820), Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780-855), vissero e insegnarono a Baghdad, nel frattempo trasformatasi in vero e proprio “centro del mondo”: “la più grande città, che non ha uguali né a Oriente né a Occidente”, secondo un’affermazione riportata nel celebre Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, opera storica del periodo che, ancora una volta, non tralascia aspetti propriamente collegati  alla geografia sacra.

Ibn Hanbal in particolare, fondatore della radicale scuola hanbalita, si scontrò apertamente con il potere centrale, quando i califfi abbasidi cercarono di imporre la corrente filosofico-teologica mutazilita (di ispirazione neoplatonica) come “religione di Stato” e, addirittura, crearono un sorta di vero e proprio tribunale dell’inquisizione (la minha) che avrebbe dovuto vigilare sulla corretta applicazione della dottrina. Le vicende che riguardano il processo di Ahmad ibn Hanbal vengono così raccontate dallo storico Tamim Ansary: “Hanbal fu trascinato alla corte imperiale e costretto a dibattere con un filosofo mutazilita di spicco sul tema del Corano creato o increato, un argomento che racchiudeva in sé tutta la questione del ruolo della ragione nella ricerca della morale. Il filosofo affrontò Hanbal con lo strumento della logica, ma quest’ultimo rispose con le parole delle Scritture. Il filosofo lo bloccò con i nodi dell’argomentazione, ma Ibn Hanbal si liberò invocando Allah […]. Quando Ibn Hanbal si rifiutò di rinnegare le proprie idee fu picchiato e gettato in prigione. Ma anche lì continuò a rimanere fedele ai propri principi: non avrebbe mai permesso alla ragione di scavalcare la Rivelazione. Allora le autorità aumentarono le pressioni nei suoi confronti, lo picchiarono nuovamente, lo incatenarono e lo tennero in prigione per anni. Ma Ibn Hanbal si rifiutò di rinunciare al suo punto di vista e gli abusi subiti non fecero altro che incrementare a dismisura il suo prestigio […]. Quando il vecchio e dolorante Ibn Hanbal uscì di galera, grandi folle lo accolsero e lo applaudirono. Nel vedere questo la corte imperiale divenne sempre più diffidente nei confronti della filosofia islamica e delle idee greche che l’avevano ispirata. Il califfo al-Mutawakkil ridimensionò il ruolo dei mutaziliti e ricoprì di onori Ibn Hanbal, un segno del prestigio calante dei mutaziliti e con esso dei filosofi”.

La sua vittoria nello scontro teologico sancì in qualche modo il primato degli ulema sulle questioni teologiche rispetto al potere politico ed alle disquisizioni filosofiche degli intellettuali (un esito che si rifletterà anche sulla successiva, quanto celebre, diatriba tra il filosofo Ibn Rushd o Averroè ed il religioso e mistico Muhammad al-Ghazali).

A cavallo tra il X e l’XI secolo, tuttavia, il potere centrale iniziò ad indebolirsi a causa dell’affermazione in diverse province dell’Impero di dinastie locali sempre più autonome ed indipendenti sul piano politico. Tanto che, intorno all’anno Mille, l’effettivo potere del califfo abbaside non superava i confini dell’attuale Iraq. Allo stesso tempo, si arrivò ad una decisiva separazione tra il potere politico-militare e quello religioso che portò la figura del califfo a divenire una carica meramente nominale.

In questo contesto, nel 945, il capo del clan persiano dei Buyidi si assicurò il titolo di amir al’-umara (emiro degli emiri) e fondò una potente dinastia militare che governò di fatto su Iran e Iraq per oltre un secolo, garantendo, tra le altre cose, una libertà religiosa che portò ad una notevole affermazione dello sciismo nella regione dopo secoli travagliati e carichi di persecuzioni per i partigiani di Ali. I Buyidi, in particolare, diedero forte impulso alle celebrazioni di festività tipicamente sciite come l’Ashura (dove si celebra il martirio dell’Imam Hussein) ed alla costruzione di santuari e mausolei come quelli di Ali a Najaf e quello di Hussein a Kerbala. Gli studiosi sciiti, inoltre, vennero generosamente incoraggiati e le scuole in cui si studiava l’operato dei dodici Imam (diretti discendenti di Muhammad e, di conseguenza, legittimi detentori del potere politico e religioso all’interno della umma islamica, secondo lo sciismo) si moltiplicarono rapidamente.

Paradossalmente questa prima affermazione (reale) dello sciismo non portò ad una accesa conflittualità con la componente sunnita della popolazione. Anzi, sunniti e sciiti iracheni fecero fronte comune contro il sempre più aggressivo controcaliffato fatimide (sciita ismailita) d’Egitto che si era assicurato il controllo sulla Siria, aprendo così un nuovo capitolo dell’eterna rivalità tra le due regioni de Levante. La presenza in Siria dei Fatimidi, di fatto, rappresentò per lungo tempo un antemurale all’influenza mediterranea sull’Iraq. Sotto i Buyidi prima, ed i Selgiuchidi poi (di etnia turca), l’Iraq si orientò in modo deciso verso la Persia e l’Oriente. Ed in questo periodo, fino almeno al XII secolo, l’Islam giuridico e formale (legato alle scuole ortodosse) perse la sua centralità in favore della diffusione delle correnti mistiche sufi, molte delle quali nate proprio in Iraq. Ad esempio, a Baghdad nacque la confraternita della qadiriyya (il cui nome deriva da Abdul-Qadir al-Gaylani, morto nel 1146) che avrà un ruolo di primo piano anche nell’islamizzazione del Caucaso. A Bassora, invece, mossero i primi passi i membri dell’ordine rifa’iyya (seguaci di Ahmad al-Rifa’i, divenuti celebri per pratiche pittoresche quali camminare sui carboni ardenti o ingoiare spade).

Una parziale riaffermazione dell’Islam “legale” si ebbe con gli sforzi della dinastia zangide e del celebre condottiero arabo-curdo Salah al-Din ibn Ayyub (che, a sua volta, diede vita alla dinastia ayyubide) che, dapprima riportò Gerusalemme sotto sovranità islamica e, successivamente, sconfisse il controcaliffato fatimide e riportò l’Egitto sotto l’autorità simbolica del califfo abbaside di Baghdad. Tuttavia, lo stesso Salah al-Din (Saladino) finì per rappresentare una minaccia al califfato, visto che in più di un’occasione strinse d’assedio Mosul nella speranza di aprirsi la strada verso Baghdad e riunificare il cuore dell’Islam sunnita sotto un’unica e completa autorità: la sua.

Al termine di una serie di lotte interne all’Impero creato da Gengis Khan, nel 1251 Mongke, nipote di Temujin, assunse il pieno comando delle forze mongole ed inviò suo fratello Hulagu a conquistare l’Asia occidentale. Questi, alla testa di un esercito di oltre 70.000 uomini, entrò in Iraq nel 1257 e l’anno dopo pose sotto assedio la capitale del califfato abbaside. Lo scontro che portò alla caduta della dinastia califfale ed al saccheggio di Baghdad è stato descritto in questi termini dallo storico Ibn al-Athir: “Il racconto comprende la storia di una terribile sciagura, che non ha precedenti nella storia e che ha colpito il mondo intero, anche se soprattutto quello musulmano […] Essi si scatenarono nella città come falchi affamati che attaccano uno stormo di colombe o come lupi rabbiosi che assaltano un gregge di pecore, correndo a briglia sciolta e con volti protervi, uccidendo e seminando terrore […] Il massacro fu così immane che il sangue degli uccisi scorreva in un fiume più grande del Nilo […] Essi spazzarono via i tesori degli harem di Baghdad […] e la luminosità del giorno si mutò in tenebra”.

Il prezzo pagato dalla popolazione civile di Baghdad, a prescindere da alcune evidenti esagerazioni, fu altissimo. Quella che soffrì di più fu la componente sunnita della popolazione. La comunità cristiana venne in parte risparmiata grazie all’intercessione della moglie (cristiana) di Hulagu, mentre quella ebraica ne uscì praticamente indenne. Gli sciiti, a loro volta, senza alcun fondamento, vennero accusati di aver favorito l’ingresso dei mongoli. In particolare, uno dei ministri dell’ultimo califfo abbaside, lo sciita Ibn al-‘Alqami, venne additato come responsabile della disfatta e come traditore in quanto aiutante della causa gengiskhanide.

In realtà, è cosa nota che Hulagu avesse consiglieri sia sunniti che sciiti ben prima dell’arrivo a Baghdad. Uno di essi, il celebre filosofo, fisico e teologo sciita Nasir al-Din Tusi, nell’opera autobiografica Sayr wa-Suluk, aveva già avuto modo di descrivere la distruzione della biblioteca di Alamut (dove risiedeva, sebbene piuttosto critico con gli abitanti ismailiti della città-fortezza), sempre da parte dei mongoli. Una volta presa Alamut, Hulagu, particolarmente interessato alle scienze naturali, risparmiò lo stesso Tusi che, dopo la caduta di Baghdad, assunse il ruolo di direttore degli affari religiosi per il Khan, favorendo (in modo decisivo secondo alcuni) la diffusione dello sciismo duodecimano tra la Persia e l’Iraq.

Nonostante ciò, i mongoli non risparmiarono affatto dalla profanazione e distruzione i santuari sciiti e molte eminenti figure sunnite irachene non tardarono a conferire la loro consacrazione alla nuove autorità di Hulagu in virtù del fatto che fosse preferibile un sovrano giusto, sebbene non musulmano, ad uno musulmano ingiusto (magari sciita).

Ad ogni modo, la caduta di Baghdad e del califfato abbaside ha segnato un punto di svolta nella storia dell’Islam e della regione. Da quel momento in poi, i principali pensatori sunniti, dall’hanbalita Ibn Taymiyya (nato poco dopo l’invasione mongola) al ben noto sociologo ante litteram Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), concentrarono i loro sforzi sulla descrizione di ciò che sarebbe dovuto essere il “califfato ideale”. Ibn Taymiyya in particolare (da taluni considerato in modo anche fuorviante come il precursore dell’estremismo islamista del XX e XXI secolo) indicò nel ritorno alla purezza dell’Islam delle origini e nella denuncia decisa delle deviazioni (causa dello sfaldamento dell’unità islamica) la via per la restaurazione di un autentico califfato. Altre importanti conseguenze della conquista mongola prima e delle successive devastazioni delle confederazioni nomadi-tribali turche (i cosiddetti “montoni bianchi” ed i “montoni neri”) e degli eserciti timuridi furono l’accentuarsi della divisione tra l’Iraq e l’area mediterranea (Egitto e Siria soprattutto), l’affermazione definitiva dello sciismo, delle tendenze mistiche dell’Islam e di alcuni movimenti ad esse collegati.

Di particolare interesse, in questo senso, fu la diffusione intorno al XV secolo della confraternita della Naqshbandiyya (originaria dell’Asia centrale e diffusasi soprattutto tra la popolazione curda ed in parte tra quella arabo-sunnita dell’Iraq), e l’apparizione del movimento di ribellione musha’sha’.

Il fondatore di questo movimento, Muhammad ibn Falah, discendente diretto del Profeta profondamente influenzato dalla dottrina messianica sciita, rivendicò il possesso di una conoscenza mistico-esoterica; si arrogò il titolo di Mahdi (il Salvatore atteso che diffonderà la giustizia nel mondo) e quello appunto di al-Musha’sha’ (il Radioso). Il suo successore, invece, si spinse fino ad affermare di essere la reincarnazione spirituale di Ali.

A prescindere da questi aspetti, il movimento conobbe una certa fortuna sia grazie all’alleanza con alcune importanti confederazioni tribali della regione, sia perché le istanze religiose si mischiavano ad altre di carattere prettamente sociale (denuncia delle sofferenze dei poveri, dei rapporti feudali e della ricchezza dei proprietari terrieri); un qualcosa che da qui in poi contraddistinguerà sempre le periodiche rivolte di movimenti di ispirazione sciita in tutto l’arco del mondo islamico.

All’inizio del XVI la forza propulsiva del movimento musha’sha’, che portò lo stesso a spingersi dall’Iraq meridionale fino alla periferia di Baghdad, conobbe una brusca frenata. E lo “Stato” da esso creato venne gradualmente inserito all’interno di una nuova entità territoriale di ispirazione sciita: l’Impero safavide.

War is highly probable, but it is not inevitable.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

We are living in an extremely dangerous moment in history. We are also living in an extremely irrational time, at least when it comes to evaluating the mentality, conduct, and words of Western politicians and media in the face of disaster.

On the one hand, Western leaders, pundits, and military commanders clamor with predictions of war with Russia as being imminent. Yet on the other hand, there is an astounding dereliction to avert it. Diplomacy and understanding are boorishly shunned. Indeed, there is an absolutely irrational choice of escalation towards war, especially among European politicians.

Underlying this, of course, is an ideological supremacist belief, a contempt for Russia and other officially designated enemies (China, Iran, and so on), whereby the Western political class sees itself as superior, not as equals. That mentality makes for war and precludes diplomatic engagement and dialogue.

In any objective reading of the situation, there is little doubt that the danger of all-out world war is upon us. Incredibly, for the third time in just over a century, the planet is facing the specter of a massive international conflict. But on this occasion, the outcome would be nuclear conflagration with the extinction of life as we know it. This repeated destruction is a damning indictment of the Western system, its capitalist and imperialist engines for violence, domination and, inevitably, conflict. Surely, such a system should be abolished.

The Doomsday Clock, overseen by the independent Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, is at its closest point to midnight in all of 80 years of existence. The clock was inaugurated following the U.S. atomic horror attacks on Japan in 1945. It was meant to serve as a warning of the increasing risk of nuclear war. It is truly a frightening spectacle that today’s danger of global disaster surpasses the many perils that were encountered during the Cold War decades. Today’s tensions surpass even those of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when the United States and the Soviet Union edged towards a nuclear war.

Many Western scholars, legal experts, analysts, and seasoned diplomats have increasingly added their voices warning of the ultimate disaster. We pay respect to the sane voices of people like Alfred de Zayas, Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Johnson, and Scott Ritter, voices in the West that, unlike their political class, are passionately warning of the path to perdition the world is on and needs to urgently get off.

The warning words are flashing like a red light, yet Western leaders keep making decisions and issuing belligerent statements that are driving the world to the precipice.

This week, European politicians have again openly advocated attacking the Russian Federation by blockading Kaliningrad, the Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and NATO chief Mark Rutte (former Dutch premier) have echoed calls from other European politicians to effectively attack Kaliningrad, that is, to attack the Russian Federation. Russia’s nuclear doctrine explicitly states that such an assault compels it to use nuclear weapons in response.

So, why do NATO leaders keep pushing provocation? Such moves are merely an extension of the NATO proxy war in Ukraine. Their war is a failure. But the Western pro-war politicians cannot admit they are wrong. They are willing to incite a wider war rather than admit defeat and face the political repercussions from their own citizens.

Russia this week issued a grave warning, saying that any attack on Kaliningrad would result in Russian retaliation with nuclear weapons.

Instead of coming to their senses and sobering up, European politicians haughtily dismiss Russia’s warnings as a “bluff” or accuse Moscow of nuclear saber-rattling.

In a plenary address to the Valdai forum in Moscow on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin underlined the infernal precariousness.

“If it comes to a direct attack on the Russian Federation – in this case, Kaliningrad, although it could potentially involve other territories as well – the question of Russia using all the weapons at its disposal would inevitably and immediately arise. That is inevitable,” said Putin.

In an ominous assessment of the reckless direction, he noted:

“We must realise that the moment when nothing can be changed any longer may come very quickly and unexpectedly for everyone. The logic of escalating, increasingly harsh retaliatory measures leads to a fatal point of no return.”

The Russian leader is saying that the West’s relentless escalation in words and deeds is leading to an abyss. Incredibly, the Western politicians refuse to restrain themselves. “At the heart of this escalation lie arrogance and overconfidence… The spiral is tightening, and the devastating consequences are growing.”

This appalling dynamic is redolent of the prelude to the First and Second World Wars, when Western political establishments were insouciant about the impending doom.

But a Third World War is truly a point of no return.

“All the more so today, when the arsenals of the world’s leading powers contain weapons capable of destroying all life or, at the very least, reducing the Earth to a catastrophic state,” Putin said.

What is deplorable is the total propagandizing of public discussion in the West. Anyone who dares to speak about the objective historical causes that have given rise to the current tensions is censored or pilloried as a Russian stooge.

There are eminent voices of sanity in the West, as noted above. But they are systematically excluded from public discourse by the mainstream media and academia. The public has to rely on alternative media sources for information. That has, thankfully, energized critical views among citizens in ever greater numbers, who are questioning the whole warmongering policy of inordinate military spending and weapons for Ukraine to fight a futile war against Russia. Notably, this week German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and NATO’s Mark Rutte were heckled and booed when they appeared in public in Muenster, Germany.

Increasing numbers of people understand that we have been pushed to an existential crisis by Western governments (regimes) who took undemocratic, secret decisions to wage war against Russia years ago.

As former British diplomat Ian Proud pointed out in an excellent podcast this week while attending the Sochi forum, the rulers in London made a conscious decision to go to war with Russia as far back as 2014, when the West sponsored the fascist coup in Kiev.

Other Western figures, like former U.S. state planner Victoria Nuland and former NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, have also admitted in their own words that NATO deliberately weaponized Ukraine after 2014 for the purpose of confronting Russia. This was before the hostilities erupted in Ukraine in February 2o22.

Thus, the world has been pushed to a nuclear “extinction event” all because of Western policy to pursue confrontation with Russia, using Ukraine as a proxy.

War is highly probable, but it is not inevitable. Western politicians and media, through their arrogance and Russophobia, are certainly doing their worst to make it inevitable. But these criminal elements may not prevail.

There are international structures and laws; there is still diplomacy, albeit abused and trashed; perhaps more importantly, there is mass public opinion against the odious warmongers; and there is a burgeoning social and political uprising against the evidently bankrupt Western political system.

The political elite in the West who are pimping for war may seem dominant, owing to apparently dominant media narratives. But their power is vastly overrated against the huge public opposition to their criminal agenda.

History may rhyme, as with lead-ups to previous infamous wars. This time, however, a crucial difference is that there may be sufficient public awareness so as not to fall for the warmonger ruse of bailing out the rotten system.

We are on the eve of destruction, but there is every sound hope that rather than war, the destruction tomorrow could be that of the Western imperialist system, thereby giving way to a truly better, more just and peaceful world.

Alinhamento do Brasil à Europa em meio às atuais tensões geopolítica cria uma ameaça grave à política tradicional de neutralidade do Brasil.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

No dia 30 de setembro foi publicado em todos os jornais brasileiro uma matéria afirmando que a Agência Brasileira de Inteligência (Abin) teria alertado autoridades europeias sobre uma suposta interferência simultânea dos Estados Unidos e da Rússia nas eleições brasileiras. O caso levanta questões que vão muito além da disputa eleitoral de 2026. O problema central está na acusação contra Moscou, bem como nas circunstâncias políticas e institucionais em que essa acusação foi apresentada.

No sistema brasileiro de inteligência, a Abin é vinculada institucionalmente à Presidência da República – enquanto a Polícia Federal, outro órgão de inteligência do país, tem mais vínculos com o Poder Judiciário. Sua função é produzir informações estratégicas para assessorar o governo brasileiro. Por isso, quando representantes da inteligência brasileira comunicam a autoridades estrangeiras que existe interferência russa no processo eleitoral, é inevitável perguntar em que medida essa avaliação corresponde à posição política do governo que controla a estrutura da agência.

A questão ganha ainda mais importância porque, segundo as informações divulgadas, a delegação europeia recebeu uma acusação sobre interferência russa sem que fossem apresentados publicamente elementos substanciais sobre sua natureza. Não foram identificados, ao menos no material tornado público, agentes, operações, mecanismos de financiamento, estruturas de propaganda ou campanhas específicas atribuídas a Moscou. Existe, portanto, uma acusação, mas seus fundamentos permanecem praticamente desconhecidos.

Isso produz uma situação particularmente conveniente para determinados atores políticos. A Europa, que é hostil à Rússia e a Trump, recebe uma informação segundo a qual tanto Washington quanto Moscou estariam tentando influenciar as eleições brasileiras. Isso permitiria a Bruxelas – e ainda mais especialmente à França e à Alemanha, que são os principais “amigos” de Lula atualmente – eventualmente “apoiar” o Brasil em ações de “contrainteligência” para combater a suposta influência estadunidense e russa. Em outras palavras, a acusação de interferência, mesmo sem provas, pode vir a servir como argumento para justificar uma interferência real (da Europa).

Há ainda uma questão política mais ampla. Uma parcela significativa da esquerda brasileira consolidou nos últimos anos uma interpretação segundo a qual Vladimir Putin pertence a uma espécie de “internacional de extrema direita”, ao lado de Donald Trump e de outros movimentos conservadores ocidentais. Essa leitura transforma Rússia, Trump e a direita brasileira em elementos de um mesmo campo político internacional, apesar das diferenças profundas entre suas respectivas posições e interesses.

Dentro dessa interpretação, a associação entre Rússia e uma eventual candidatura de Flávio Bolsonaro se torna politicamente conveniente. Flávio é identificado com Trump, com o Partido Republicano e com a direita americana. A existência de uma suposta conexão russa permitiria inserir a disputa eleitoral brasileira em uma narrativa internacional mais ampla, na qual diferentes forças conservadoras seriam apresentadas como partes de uma mesma rede de influência.

Contudo, é absolutamente óbvio que a Rússia não tem qualquer interesse em interferir nas eleições brasileiras a favor de qualquer dos lados. Ademais, a maior parte dos ativistas pró-Rússia no Brasil é identificada com a esquerda ou neutra em relação a ambos os lados da política nacional. A acusação parece ser feita com o simples intuito de agradar a União Europeia, já que os europeus preferem Lula a Flávio (por este ser subordinado a Trump). E o fato de não haver detalhes que substanciem as acusações apenas reforça este ponto.

O ponto realmente relevante é outro: por que uma agência de inteligência subordinada à Presidência da República apresentou às autoridades europeias uma acusação contra a Rússia sem que seus fundamentos fossem posteriormente esclarecidos? E por que isso ocorre justamente durante a preparação das eleições brasileiras e em um momento de deterioração extraordinária das relações entre Rússia e Europa?

A resposta a essas perguntas importa porque o Brasil está inserido em um ambiente internacional cada vez mais polarizado. A Rússia ocupa posição central nos BRICS e mantém relações estratégicas com o Brasil, enquanto a Europa atravessa uma fase de crescente confronto com Moscou. Nesse contexto, qualquer informação oficial brasileira que associe a Rússia a uma operação de interferência eleitoral possui consequências diplomáticas graves.

Ademais, as tensões entre Rússia e Europa crescem cada vez mais e há risco real de conflito devido às constantes provocações europeias. É óbvio que em tal contexto não interessa ao Brasil se tornar parte de qualquer lado da crise. Mas não há nada pior para a política de neutralidade brasileira do que reportar à União Europa uma acusação formal contra a Rússia.

Em tese, é possível que o relatório tenha sido entregue à Europa sem comunicação prévia ao presidente brasileiro – embora isso seja muito improvável. Se Lula quiser preservar a neutralidade brasileira, o correto a ser feito é desmentir a Abin publicamente e pedir desculpas pelo incidente. Contudo, resta saber se ele estará realmente disposto a fazer isso, considerando que a União Europeia é o principal “aliado” internacional do governo Lula atual.

Peace cannot be built through uninterrupted rearmament or by forcing one side into capitulation.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

This is the first part of Mats Alexandersson’s series on war, peace, and security. The next three parts will be published during September and October on the Clarté blog.

For a long time, the United States has united economic, financial, military, and political power to secure a U.S.-centered capitalist world order. This has often been legitimized with what has been called liberal hegemony: a rhetoric in which democracy, individual rights, market economy, and international rules are presented as universal norms. But in practice, these principles have repeatedly been subordinated to the demand to preserve American supremacy and prevent rival great powers from dominating strategic regions.

What has come to be called the rules-based world order has therefore also functioned as a self-image and a language of power. The United States has ascribed to itself a special historical task: to guarantee stability, open markets, and security in the world economy. This belief in an American superiority with a special historical task has become a kind of meta-ideology. Behind this universalism, however, a more tangible class and power interest has operated, in which the American state’s geopolitical role has ultimately served the expansion and security of capital.

Two figures clearly demonstrate this line. Henry Kissinger made American realpolitik visible in its most brutal form. In Chile, the United States helped undermine Salvador Allende’s democratically elected government and subsequently supported Pinochet’s dictatorship. The same logic recurred in Cambodia, East Timor, and support for Pakistan’s military regime: democracy and human life had to give way to geopolitical control.

When Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard in 1997 more sophisticatedly formulated that no rival must be allowed to dominate Eurasia, this practice became an explicit doctrine.1 The line from Kissinger to Brzezinski is therefore clear: from secret intervention to open strategy for global supremacy. It is in this development that today’s bloc formation, war economy, and growing risk of great-power war must be understood.

The painting “Die Namenlosen” (1916) by the Austrian painter Albin Egger-Lienz.
Why Eurasia is gaining additional significance

Today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio constitutes a central node in the U.S. foreign and security policy apparatus, where the White House, the Pentagon, intelligence services, NATO, and financial policy bodies cooperate. At the same time, the strategic environment is increasingly shaped by the technology and defense industry: AI, cloud, satellite, semiconductor, and weapons companies influence the technology of war, information flows, and investments. American hegemony therefore appears not only as state exercise of power, but as an intertwined military, digital, and financial system.

On Brzezinski’s map, Europe was never peripheral. In The Grand Chessboard, Eurasia is described as the decisive geopolitical playing field, and Europe as the United States’ most important bridgehead on the continent. An integrated Europe, bound to the United States through the transatlantic link and NATO, would strengthen American influence in western Eurasia. Europe therefore appears less as an independent power pole than as a strategic platform in a U.S.-led order.

This logic becomes clearest in Brzezinski’s view of Russia and Ukraine. He argued that Russia’s most important geostrategic option lay in a Western orientation, but on terms that did not make the country an equal power pole. Ukraine was given a key role as a “geopolitical pivot”: without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire, while control over Ukraine would once again give the country decisive strategic weight. Here the limitation of the great-power perspective is also visible: Ukraine has been reduced to a piece in a larger power game, despite its own political agency and right to self-determination.

Brzezinski advocated a geopolitical pluralism in Eurasia, that is, an order in which no single power may dominate the entire continent. In practice, this meant that the United States should support regional counterweights, alliances, and independent states in order to limit both a revanchist Russia and a rising China. That model can be interpreted as a strategy for balance of power, but also as a manual for playing regional actors against one another in order to preserve American supremacy.

The same approach characterized Brzezinski’s analysis of Central Asia and the Caucasus, which he described as the “Eurasian Balkans”: an area where energy, transport routes, weak states, and ethnic conflicts make the region an object of great-power rivalry. The region thus becomes primarily of strategic value to external powers, not through the local societies’ own goals. Superpower thinking turns smaller countries into objects of geopolitics rather than equal political subjects.

There is rearmament for war

The historical retrospective is needed to understand today’s situation. The war in Ukraine, Europe’s rearmament, and the growing fear of a Russian conflict with NATO cannot be explained solely as the consequence of an isolated conflict. They must also be seen against the background of the U.S.-led security order that emerged after the Cold War — an order whose goal has been to preserve American dominance in Eurasia. Today, this policy has had contradictory consequences: Russia, China, and Iran have moved closer to one another, Europe’s room for maneuver has been limited, and the risk of great-power conflict has increased.

Brzezinski’s book formulated this strategy unusually openly. The United States was to prevent a rival power or coalition from gathering sufficient strength to dominate Eurasia. This meant limiting a resurrected Russia, preventing China from becoming an equal competitor, and keeping Europe politically and militarily tied to the United States. In this perspective, NATO is not only a defense alliance, but also a tool for American power projection in Europe and its neighborhood.

The Eurasian counterweight

Cooperation between China, Russia, and Iran is more than a temporary reaction to sanctions and individual wars. China contributes industry, capital, and market; Russia contributes energy, raw materials, military capability, and geographical depth; Iran contributes regional weight and a strategic location. Their interests are not identical, and the cooperation contains clear contradictions. But the relationship between China and Russia has acquired a material foundation that makes it more durable than many Western assessments previously assumed.

Here lies an ironic consequence. A policy intended to prevent a Eurasian counterweight may have helped create it. At the same time, the United States faces its own economic tensions: large budget deficits, growing national debt, and high interest rates increase vulnerability. The dollar’s status as a reserve currency continues to provide room for maneuver, but does not eliminate the risk of a crisis of confidence. The cost of such a crisis would likely be passed on to ordinary wage earners through inflation, cutbacks, and deteriorating public services.

Europe’s dilemma

Economist Jeffrey Sachs has argued that Europe has historically had significant economic complementarity with Russia: European industry and technology could be linked to Russian energy, raw materials, and market. According to Sachs, sanctions, conflict policy, and dependence on the United States have broken this possibility and weakened Europe’s strategic independence.2

That assessment is disputed, not least because Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has drastically changed the conditions for economic cooperation. But it raises a necessary question: Can Europe formulate its own security policy, or is the continent reduced to an arena for other powers’ conflict? Sachs advocates direct diplomacy with Moscow, a clearer separation between EU foreign policy and NATO, and a European defense that is more independent and less dependent on the United States.

The risk of war

The acute danger is escalation. There is no simple or risk-free path to a military defeat for Russia, but policy continues to sharpen the confrontation. If the goal slides from Ukraine’s defense to a lasting weakening or subjugation of Russia, the risk increases that the proxy war turns into a direct conflict between nuclear powers.

Peace cannot be built through uninterrupted rearmament or by forcing one side into capitulation. A sustainable peace requires diplomacy, recognized security interests, and an international order in which no great power is given the right to dominate others. Public opinion in Europe and the United States can become decisive: when the costs of the arms race, social cutbacks, and the risk of war become clear, pressure can grow for a different course.

From the Shanghai Spirit to the Bishkek Declaration, the security-first organization prioritizes pragmatism over ideology.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Security first

The recent summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), held in Bishkek, marked the 25th anniversary of the founding of what, in the landscape of international institutions, represents a particularly interesting case study. Born from the ashes of Soviet-Chinese confidence-building measures and transformed into a full-fledged organization in 2001, the SCO has spent a quarter-century consolidating an institutional framework that now functions effectively: annual meetings of the Council of Heads of State, regular interministerial meetings, and day-to-day cooperation that is developing along increasingly complex lines.

However, this anniversary offers an opportunity for reflection that goes beyond mere celebration. The question that emerges most forcefully is: what role do values play within the SCO? And how does this value-based dimension relate to the seemingly more pragmatic dimension of security and functional cooperation? An analysis of the founding documents and subsequent declarations reveals a complex trajectory that deserves in-depth examination.

From its very inception, the SCO has made security cooperation one of its top priorities. This choice is no accident: the organization’s prehistory is rooted in Soviet-Chinese confidence-building measures, both regarding border issues and broader aspects of mutual security. The “Shanghai Five,” an informal group that preceded the SCO’s official establishment, found its primary unifying force precisely in the management of security issues and the building of trust among its members.

This original specialization has had lasting consequences. Even as the SCO has expanded its scope over the years to encompass increasingly diverse sectors, security has remained the linchpin around which the entire organizational architecture has developed. In a sense, as the analysis astutely notes, the SCO can still be defined as a specialized international organization focused on a single primary priority, despite its evolution toward more comprehensive forms of cooperation.

The comparison with the BRICS – a genuinely all-encompassing cooperative framework operating across a wide range of fields – is particularly illuminating. While the BRICS have developed an increasingly sophisticated values-based platform over time, with declarations that devote considerable space to issues of common and shared values, the SCO has maintained a more markedly operational approach that is less rhetorical on the values front.

The SCO Charter: Principles without values

A particularly significant finding emerges from an analysis of the SCO’s founding document. The Charter, signed on June 7, 2002, and which entered into force on September 19, 2003, makes no mention whatsoever of the term “values.” Instead, we find a dedicated article – Article 2 – significantly titled “Principles.” It is on these principles that the SCO bases its activities.

These principles include: mutual respect for sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of state borders; non-aggression; non-interference in internal affairs; non-use of force in international relations; equality of all member states; peaceful resolution of disputes among member states; and the SCO’s non-targeting of other states. A particularly revealing principle is that of the phased implementation of joint actions in areas of common interest.

This last principle – that of “phased implementation” – goes a long way toward explaining how the SCO operates and the expectations, sometimes excessive, that surround its activities. The disappointment that sometimes accompanies assessments of the organization – the notion that “nothing happens beyond the summits,” which circulates in certain circles – finds its explanation precisely in this principle. This is not a flaw, but a deliberate and foundational choice: to proceed step by step, consolidate the results achieved, and avoid missteps.

The absence of the term “values” from the SCO Charter is perfectly understandable and in no way diminishes the level of mutual trust among member states. It is worth noting that, even in the case of the BRICS, the term “values” was not an immediate feature of the final declarations, becoming firmly established only starting in the mid-2010s. Before then, the term used to characterize the internal cohesion of the BRICS was, among others, precisely “principles,” just as it is for the SCO.

The Historical context and evolution of the vocabulary of values

In 2002, the term “values” was not yet as politically fashionable as it is today, and was used rather rarely in the documents of the major non-Western countries. At that time, in these countries – including Russia – the word “values” was more often invoked in political discourse in a negative sense, as “values imposed by the West,” and thus as something that required resistance.

The realization that this is a game that can be played by two sides, and that to effectively strengthen solidarity among non-Western countries it was necessary to formulate their own platform of shared values, came much later. And the work to ensure that non-Western values are perceived as understandable, attractive, and at the same time not trivial – not simply in the style of “we are for all good things and against all bad things” – continues to this day, with mixed results.

This delay in developing an explicit value framework does not, however, mean that the SCO lacks an axiological dimension. On the contrary, it exists, but it is expressed through categories different from those of the Western value lexicon: “principles” and, above all, “spirit.”

A chronologically significant finding emerges from a comparative analysis of SCO and BRICS documents: with regard to one particular term – and its substantive relevance – the SCO was significantly ahead of the BRICS. This term is “spirit.”

In the declarations of the annual BRICS summits, the term “BRICS spirit” and its constituent elements first appeared during the Chinese presidency in 2017. The “spirit” then disappeared from BRICS documents for several years. The term returned in 2022, once again during the Chinese presidency. But subsequently, in all the BRICS summit declarations from 2023–25 – whose initial drafts were prepared by other countries – the term “BRICS spirit” was consistently present.

In the case of the SCO, however, the term “spirit” appeared in the very first declaration following the Shanghai summit on June 15, 2001, when the “Shanghai Five” – which had previously existed as an informal grouping – was transformed into a full-fledged international organization. In this declaration, the “Shanghai Spirit” was mentioned as a separate point, characterized by mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, mutual consultation, respect for cultural diversity, and the aspiration for shared development.

It is clear that the term “spirit” has its roots, first and foremost, in contemporary Chinese political tradition, since it first appeared in documents from years when the summits were held in China. This is, in a sense, a distinctly Chinese feature. That said, the term “spirit,” though not immediately, eventually became firmly established in BRICS declarations; and in the case of the SCO, a year later, in 2002, when the summit was held not in China but in St. Petersburg, the term “spirit” was included in the preamble to the SCO Charter.

In the Charter, however, the epithet “Shanghai” disappeared in relation to the spirit; there, reference is made simply to the “spirit of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, mutual consultation, respect for cultural diversity, and the aspiration for shared development.”

The civilizational approach and its evolution

Of particular relevance to today’s political ideology is the civilizational approach reflected in the 2001 Shanghai Declaration. It specifically noted “mutual respect and mutual trust among states belonging to different civilizations and bearing different cultural traditions.” A year later, however, the mention of civilizations disappeared from the preamble to the SCO Charter.

This shift – the appearance and disappearance of civilizational terminology – is significant. On the one hand, it reflects China’s sensitivity to issues of cultural identity and diversity; on the other, it demonstrates the caution of other members in adopting language that might be perceived as too overtly ideological or potentially divisive.

If we examine the preamble to the current Bishkek Declaration of the SCO Council of Heads of State dated September 1, 2026, we find that it emphasizes the “firm commitment to the objectives and principles enshrined in the SCO Charter, as well as to the further strengthening of good-neighborliness, friendship, and effective multilateral cooperation.” Furthermore, this declaration once again uses the very term “Shanghai Spirit,” which is embodied in the principles set forth in the preamble to the SCO Charter.

It is clear that, since the constituent elements of this SCO spirit are enshrined in the legal text of the Charter, their wording remains unshakable even twenty-five years later. Herein lies the difference between the spirit of the SCO and the spirit of the BRICS, where, year after year, various elements of this spirit are added or removed by the countries holding the presidency, depending on their national particularities. And the definition of the spirit of the BRICS turns out to be, every year, at least slightly different.

In the case of the SCO, however, it is significant that the epithet “Shanghai” has returned – an epithet that, unlike the spirit itself, is not legally enshrined. This return signals a political will to reclaim the organization’s original legacy, at a time when competition among powers over the definition of global values is becoming increasingly intense.

How significant is this anniversary?

If we re-examine the SCO summit declarations step by step, we find significant variations in how the values dimension is addressed. The particular emphasis placed in the Bishkek Declaration on the SCO’s commitment to the Shanghai Spirit and the SCO’s principles is not typical of other summit declarations in recent years.

For example, in the declarations following “non-anniversary” summits, the preamble is practically absent, and the description of the international situation and security challenges begins right from the start. In the declarations issued in Astana in 2024, in Delhi in 2023, and in Moscow in 2020, neither the “Shanghai Spirit” nor simply the “spirit” is mentioned (although the Moscow declaration does contain the term “SCO space”). In the declarations issued in Tianjin in 2025 (naturally), in Samarkand in 2022, and in Bishkek in 2019, there is a mention of the “Shanghai Spirit,” but it is placed not at the beginning of the text but deep within the first section.

It is clear that the specific character of the current declaration stems from its anniversary nature; the declaration issued in Dushanbe for the previous anniversary – the 20th, in 2021 – was structured in exactly the same way, with a lengthy preamble mentioning the Shanghai Spirit and the commitment to the principles. This is highly significant: anniversaries provide an opportunity for a more explicit affirmation of the organization’s value-based identity, whereas at regular summits a more pragmatic approach focused on current issues prevails.

India’s contribution and the “4 M” perspective

In this context, India’s perspective on the SCO is of particular interest. India’s initiatives within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization have focused on economic issues, reflecting its desire to build economic cooperation with Central Asian states in order to improve its regional standing and strengthen multilateralism.

According to Anil Trigunayat, the SCO can undoubtedly contribute to regional collaboration by adhering to the “4 M” principle: members must embrace Mutual Respect, Mutual Interest, Mutual Sensitivity, and Mutual Benefit so that the group can emerge stronger and more relevant.

This formulation is significant because it shows how, from India’s perspective, the SCO’s value dimension lies not so much in an explicit ideological platform as in a set of operational principles that guide day-to-day cooperation. India, with its tradition of nonalignment and its sensitivity to national sovereignty, naturally feels at home in an organization that prioritizes principles over values and avoids imposing a common ideological vision.

Toward a prosperous future

An analysis of the SCO’s value dimension twenty-five years after its founding reveals a complex and nuanced picture. On the one hand, the organization has never developed an explicit value platform comparable to that of the BRICS or other cooperative structures. On the other hand, it possesses a solid foundation of principles, enshrined in the Charter, and a “spirit” that, while not defined in terms of values, serves as a powerful unifying force for identity.

This configuration is no accident but reflects the organization’s history and nature. Founded as a tool for building trust in security matters, the SCO has prioritized the practicality of operational principles over the abstract nature of value-based declarations. Its functional specialization, its institutionalized character, and the principle of gradual implementation have helped keep the organization grounded in a pragmatic approach, avoiding the ideological drifts that sometimes characterize other international forums.

However, the return of the “Shanghai Spirit” in the Bishkek Declaration, issued on the occasion of the 25th anniversary, signals a growing awareness of the importance of identity and values. In an era of increasingly intense global competition, in which the definition of the values and principles that should guide the international order is itself a matter of contention, the SCO finds itself having to balance its traditional caution with the need to assert its identity more clearly.

A terminological analysis of the texts – and of the value frameworks they reflect – is but one piece of the much broader picture of practical cooperation among SCO member states achieved over the past twenty-five years. But it is a significant piece, because it reveals how an organization founded for security purposes has gradually become a laboratory for developing a common language, shared principles, and a collective spirit. And in a world where the battle to define global values is bound to intensify, this laboratory could prove to be more important than it appears at first glance.

The challenge for the SCO over the next twenty-five years will be to preserve its distinctive character – the practicality of its principles, the gradual nature of its actions, and the centrality of security – without neglecting to develop a worldview that, while not ideological, is capable of attracting and uniting. This is no easy task, but one that the organization has demonstrated, over these first twenty-five years, it can successfully tackle.

Anti-Zelensky protests planned for October 3 – led by a military officer on the kill list.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The War in Ukraine has not been entirely protest-free from Kiev’s side of things. During the summer of 2026 a ‘sudden’ wave of ‘cardboard protests’ were brought to the public’s eye demanding the resignation of Zelensky. These demonstrations occurred as a reaction to the removal Defense Minister Fedorov from his position, or at least that was the overtly stated motivation for them. Of course, as we know, official reasons for protests always sound ‘nice’ but how many people living in a country at war actually know or care about the hirings and firings of ministers? Perhaps this weak motivating factor, saving some minister in a government viewed from all sides as completely corrupt, is why those cardboard signs and their messages didn’t take hold. The protestors then declared that their mission had ‘no end date’ attached to it, but as we can see Zelensky remains in office, and cardboard signage seems to have gone out of fashion.

But this time, at least on its surface, it seems as though it is the army itself which is the offended party that wants to protest. Some sort of slogan like ‘Zelensky betrayed the army’ will be much more enticing to protestors, than “let’s save Minister X for being fired”. Also, when given the choice between ‘the army or Zelensky’ I think we all know who would lose across a wide range of diverse public opinion in 2026 Ukraine.

Somehow, despite all the evidence shown through human history, many are sure that holding up signs will change everything radically, and those with this mentality need their slogans to be broad and emotional. According to Gazeta.Ru the situation with the upcoming October 3^rd anti-Zelensky protests will look something like this:

“Ukrainian military officer Alexander Todorov on the MayiakUA YouTube channel announced a series of rallies demanding the resignation of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and his team.”

According to him, the public actions are scheduled for October 3^rd, 2026. They want to hold rallies in Kiev near the presidential administration building, as well as in other cities of Ukraine. Todorov called on the Ukrainian diasporas to support the initiative abroad.

The military man criticized the current leadership. In his opinion, the soldiers feel abandoned, and the government is engaged in corruption and misuse of foreign aid. Todorov is also concerned about plans for the possible mobilization of women and citizens from the age of 18.

On the eve of the Verkhovna Rada deputy Artem Dmytruk said that the Security Service of Ukraine had detained Todorov. The politician did not provide details. There have been no official comments on the incident yet.”

The biggest thing that stands out is that Todorov wants these protests to go international via the Ukrainian diaspora, meaning the same shows of support on EU streets for Zelensky, may start to portray him as a more ‘realistic figure’ to put it mildly. And now that millions of Ukrainian citizens have fled their native land, there are plenty of them to use as protestors in the West.

It is also important to note that Todorov is on the same “Peace Keeper” list as anyone who has said or done anything even mildly pro-Russian since 2014. This website is at the very least an informal “enemies list” for post-Maidan Ukraine that provides personal information, on all those who stand against the revolution. The Russian side often portrays this to be a “kill list” and that it was actually created in or by the West. According to Izvestia the site works as such:

Myrotvorets (Peacekeeper) positions itself as a database with information about those people whom the owners of the resource consider to be involved in crimes against the security of Ukraine. The website is officially registered in Canada, and in Ukraine it has the status of an independent non-governmental media outlet.

The new status of Todorov as being a possible foreign enemy agent means that he certainly does not have nearly unilateral support from the elite and that some people responsible for the status quo are very much against this. Also, it means that this Ukrainian Army soldier could be arrested or called in for questioning at any time even before the protests start. We should also keep in mind that supposedly Todorov was the organizer of the following political demonstrations, some occurring even before the Maidan:
2011 — Against Petro Yushchenko

2012 — Against local authorities and power engineers (electric companies)

2014 — Against radicals and Kolomoisky

2017— Against Poroshenko

2024 — Against the military leadership and the TCC (press gangs)

As you can see none of the protests above achieved anything, but none of them happened under the conditions of 2026 after Putin ‘took the gloves off’ during the summer. The Russian side has hit infrastructure hard and how much of Ukraine’s economy remains is open for debate, but the situation is fairly dire. The Kiev Regime is not just plodding along under the usual corruption + apathy + conscription + foreign financing that it has been since 2022. Everything is being hit, everything is being destroyed and it looks like military resistance is crumbling, thus this time, in terms of protests, ‘things could be different’. But the big question remains, who could be the one(s) standing behind Todorov? Who would benefit from yet another revolution in Ukraine?

Who is behind these upcoming protests?

If the objective were to just send the last local schmuck into the meat grinder and truly fight to the last Ukrainian to make Putin pay dearly for every square meter of territory, then there would be no need to change out Zelensky. Furthermore, after so many officials around Zelensky have fled, quit, or otherwise left the game, it looks like the tower of power is very wobbly, meaning that any violent mass protest would essentially bring the house of cards crashing down. Thus, we can be fairly confident that anyone who would want to fund a protest wants to end the war.

A near total political collapse, with ‘the enemy at the gates’ will surely cause the entire system to spiral out of control and disintegrate, meaning that there would not be enough cohesion for the war to continue. Russians often joke that all that is needed for a declaration of total capitulation would be a cat’s paw print, the signature of a legitimate president is only needed for some other more ‘two-sided’ peace deal, that is to say if capitulation is on the table, Lil’ Zel isn’t needed to sign it.

And, although he is made fun of for his comedy background and drug addiction, Zelensky has been the superficial glue keeping the whole show together. He, in a strange way, is sort of the last bastion of ‘Project Ukraine’ as the Russians call it, as he absolutely will not abdicate the toxic throne. So the game looks to be this; that the Green Goblin must be ousted to end the war in the fall/winter of 2026… for some unstated reason by some unknown parties. But who could they be?

George Soros, is yet again at the center of the Russian rumor mill, but it is hard to exactly say why he would be behind this maneuver. Perhaps, I have been completely wrong in previous pieces, and indeed the Europeans do need time to prep for a war in the 2030s and thus this failed attempt to break the Russian bear needs to end immediately? Is it that they need time to get ready for the next offensive and Kiev has become a drain rather than a boon? I am not sure if this is true, and perhaps, there is a ‘boy who cried wolf’ effect happening on alternative media, that are just used to blaming Soros for protests. If it’s a march with signs and slogans calling for regime change, it’s got to be Soros right?

Team Trump or some forces in the USA, could be vying to get this damn thing over with. Just because publically and on camera Donald Trump seems to personally despise Zelensky doesn’t mean anything, but Trump has been talking about better relations with Russia since his very first political campaign. Also and more importantly, the source of all big lobbyist bribes, Israel, is in deep trouble. Essentially, the Iran-Israel issue is way more important and stealing the show, and Trump has never had much political will to antagonize Russia. When D.C. faces the choice between saving the Zionist Paradise or Neo-Khazaria you know which front they are going to invest in.

There are also definitely large factions with cash in America, that despite being ‘in a distant second place’ politically, want antagonism of Russia to be a thing of the past. If you haven’t noticed, extremely prominent media voices in America can now regularly have Russian politicians and thinkers on their programs, something that would have been absolutely a career death sentence, and maybe even ‘punishable’, just a few years ago. This American ‘third position’, with ‘second place’ influence, does not want nuclear conflict, and wants to move on from the Cold War and games of global domination.

The visit of Ratcliffe to Moscow, may signal that even the most passionate Russophobes in Washington want to call this one done, and move on.

European 4D chess masters, could, after having acknowledged that the Battle for Ukraine is over, choose to allow Russia to make the broadest possible front across a new awkward border in Ukraine, or even better, allow the 21st Century’s Golden Horde to actually have a new physical border with places like Poland and Romania to spark a fresh wave of Russophobic paranoia in local politics.  This sounds like absolutely insane reasoning, to let Russia be closer to a place like Poland in order to spark more Russophobia by proximity, but if you haven’t noticed, the leadership of the European continent looks like the tea party from Alice in Wonderland. We cannot and should not completely exclude concepts that are insane, especially if they are very ‘media friendly’ and involve ‘message sending’. Over-and-over again, Kiev has been forced to launch attacks for PR purposes at the cost of thousands of men, the reasoning in Brussels based on creating optics to somehow achieve tangible results. Like it or not this is how they do things. So why not let the Russians get closer, as to make them more of a threat to attack them in 2035? This is fantastic PR optics, look at how they ‘expanded their empire into Europe and Poland is next!’.

Also, the weak point by which Russia has been invaded from Europe has been the broad steppes of Ukraine. The Nazis did go through Finland, got near Murmansk and sat there for the whole war, the border with Finland, despite being quite big, just isn’t geographically good enough, but lots of massive flat space is quite hard to defend. Furthermore, that land is now nearly completely destroyed and will require unfathomable amounts of rubles to rebuild, and while the Russians are rebuilding they will be vulnerable.

What if the protests succeed?

We have already seen some internal fighting between factions within Kiev and this would only intensify as protestors started to storm the theoretical location where the Cocaine King rules from. Many young men may already be convinced that taking risks protesting is a far better option than dying with absolute certainty on the front after conscription. Thus, the time might be ‘right’ for this sort of thing, and with another Maidan occurring, and enemy forces so close, this would surely fracture things quickly. If the protests are not put down properly the oligarchs, clans, and other wealthy individuals will swiftly look to save their skins and livelihoods potentially breaking up the country or just signing whatever Moscow wants them to. Once the military were to lose command cohesion, there won’t be any more coordinated drone strikes to hold the ‘orcs’ at bay. Ironically, the Maidan which gave birth to the Kiev Regime could be the same mechanism that leads to its downfall after utterly destroying the Ukrainian nation, but as the cliché goes ‘time will tell’.

We did get prime time spectacle – actually a double fake: the remixed 9/11 on FlyDubai.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

September 30 – the deadline for a possible Iranian kinetic move against the Trump naval blockade – came and went. Iran stuck to its guns – without essentially releasing them on the “blockading” (sooooo far away) U.S. Navy. But the show must go on. As Plan B, we did get prime time spectacle – actually a double fake: the remixed 9/11 on FlyDubai.

This pathetic stunt was never a “terror attack”; it was a mediocre-packaged Mossad psy op with lots of improbable extras, complete with a plumber who took control of the plane because he saw it on TV.

The manipulators were the death cult in West Asia, the UAE itself and Washington. The official narrative is for people with an IQ below 50: a “jihadist” co-pilot – conveniently from Oman, demonization requires it – tries to crash a plane full of Zionists. The proverbial heroic passengers – plumber included – overpower him with their bare hands.

The death cult is pulling all stops to absolve Emiratis of any responsibility. The focus is on the Omani “terrorist”.

Talk about the perfect trifecta: Muslims are and will always be terrorists; the death cult is always a victim; and Saudi Arabia needs to hand over the “terrorist” to the death cult.

Piece of cake then for a co-pilot to smuggle a knife at ultra-surveilled Dubai airport onboard one of the most surveilled routes on the planet. And what about the death cult Air Force being unable to stop the landing of the plane in Tabuk.

Because the plan was always to land in Tabuk. That’s the largest Saudi airbase in the northwest, and the closest to Israel; the death cult has been trying for years to get access to it. Now they may end up getting The Full Monty: access to Saudi airspace; privileged intel; and more, courtesy of joint pressure by Abu Dhabi and Washington.

At Transition Protocol we established that when the leader of the death cult “secretly” flew to Abu Dhabi to meet UAE head honcho MbZ in a bilateral, he also may have met people from several Arab nations, including Qatar, Oman, Libya and Morocco.

The Saudis vehemently denied they were part of the package. So did Jordan. Oman appears only via one Israeli source. There’s no official confirmation by Qatar, Oman, Morocco or Libya.

Tehran anyway reacted with extreme irritation, warning of “very dangerous consequences”. The Iranian determination is clear – not to let those chihuahuas derail the fundamental process of reducing to the max U.S./Israeli influence in West Asia.

Islamabad for its part continues to pursue the Sisyphean task of inching towards minimalistic progress mediating both Saudi Arabia–Ansarallah and U.S.-Iran.

Qatar did hand Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi the U.S. answer in Doha this past Tuesday. The clash seems to be over sequencing, rather than components. The text, as it stands, is a sort of enhanced version of the notorious dead cat MoU – also known as the Islamabad framework. Nobody is betting the dead cart will resurrect – again.

Russia, Iran, Yemen: let’s pummel those bastards with no mercy

Now let’s get to the real nitty-gritty: Yemen. And what degree of annihilation Sana’a’s badasses are prepared to inflict on Riyadh. Obliteration of oil installations is too easy – just the soft opening. Yemen is raging. And they will stop at nothing.

We can already see a startling confluence between the House of Saud, the U.S. Navy outside of Persia, and NATO in country 404: they are all being pummeled with no mercy. Russia and Iran haven’t even started yet. And talk about Yemen.

Sergey Karaganov earlier this week once again called it in public: Russia’s Stavka has finally reached the fateful decision to put the Kiev neo-nazis out of their misery. And at an off the record, two-hour long session at the Valdai outside of Moscow, Grandmaster Sergey Lavrov, totally relaxed, reaffirmed again that Russia is ready for Europe’s war. And yes, it will be swift. No holds barred.

Ansarallah and the Yemeni Armed Forces are waiting for 3 vectors to gel: an inescapable Zero Hour ringin’ all across West Asia; the potent simmering and ebulition of intra-royal and inter-tribal clashes inside Saudi Arabia; and all pieces of the puzzle falling in place for the Coming Yemeni Storm to be unleashed over Saudi.

As it stands, Riyadh does not acknowledge any attacks from Yemen, while Sana’a announces every day, like clockwork, the number of Saudi airstrikes on Yemen – targeting markets, farms, homes, bridges, water facilities, telecom networks: the proverbial Epstein Syndicate playbook.

Iran for its part has already upped the ante, striking ADNOC’s Bu Hasa southwest of Abu Dhabi: that’s one of the UAE’s largest onshore oil and gas fields, feeding the strategic Habshan-Fujairah pipeline, the UAE’s only export route bypassing the Strait of Hormuz.

Saudi Arabia’s own bypass, the East-West pipeline, has been struck 3 weeks ago and re-bombed by Yemen earlier this week, at Abqaiq.

Hitting ADNOC and Abqaiq nearly simultaneously may account for taking as many as 13 million barrels of oil a day off market. It’s never enough to remind everyone that Iran and Yemen come as a package. That’s the package that counts – and no puny false flag crypto 9/11 will change that.

By Jonathan COOK

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

When the establishment media deals with issues in which the West’s war industries are most heavily invested, it happily jettisons even the semblance of critical distance from the state

It’s easy to forget that the western media – the so-called “free press” – likes to distinguish itself from media in authoritarian regimes on the basis that, unlike them, it asks critical questions of the powerful, reports facts objectively, and formulates its analyses dispassionately.

They do propaganda, we do news – or so the western media argues.

The feverish coverage since five men were arrested in the early hours of Sunday morning close to RAF Fairford in the UK is blowing a very big hole in that claim.

Here are the known facts so far.

Three white vans, bearing the logo of a genuine fuel transit company, were spotted by a local farmer on the road outside her property as she returned from a party. Police arrived promptly and arrested the men, who were all British nationals in their twenties.

On Tuesday, it emerged that one of the arrested men actually called the police earlier – seemingly the reason officers were on the scene so quickly.

Although the men were initially arrested on explosives charges, no “viable” explosives were found. Although they were arrested on terrorism charges, which allow for 14 days of detention, they were released on bail under normal criminal laws in less than two days.

It has also emerged that the men had several empty “barrels” in their vans, plus one that contained what police described disturbingly as an “accelerant”.

Actually, that was simply a reference to petrol. The stuff that goes into vehicles to make them accelerate.

British prime minister Andy Burnham held a rare national emergency Cobra meeting over the incident.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration got involved because RAF Fairford, despite its name, is in reality a US air base from which American planes are waging an illegal war of aggression against Iran, with the UK’s blessing.

US Secretary of state Marco Rubio has said the incident “clearly involves the hands of a foreign actor”. When asked whether Iran was that actor, Trump replied: “It might be.” He added: “I know the answer… I can be very specific, but I’d rather not say.”

According to a report in the New York Times, “American and British intelligence services worked with Israel and Western countries to discover the threats against US bases, including ones in Germany.” [my emphasis]

Despite these sparse facts, the British media have uniformly rushed to a single conclusion: that this was almost certainly part of an Iranian terror plot to target the US airbase and its planes. The only room for debate allowed is whether the five men were witting or unwitting actors in that plot.

As the Guardian reported in its Wednesday edition, referring to this as a “complex investigation”: “An Iranian link to the bizarre events in the Gloucestershire countryside over the weekend is seen as increasingly likely.”

As context, let us note the following: that British and US officials have every interest in trying to hype this incident as an Iranian “terror plot”, whatever the actual evidence suggests.

Why? Because the US is waging an illegal war on Iran, and the UK is allowing it to do so from British soil. Under the rules of war, Iran has every right to attack RAF Fairford.

If the British state and billionaire-owned media were actually serving as a truly “free press”, they would be offering the context that RAF Fairford is a legitimate military target and that any attack on it by Iran would not constitute terrorism.

Of course, none have done so.

Instead, they have loyally regurgitated the British and US security services spin of a “terror plot” – based on no tangible evidence at all – that paints Britain and the US as the victims of a sinister and unwarranted act of Iranian aggression.

But context aside, an objective, sceptical media – a “free press” – would be reserving judgment on what had happened. It would be asking difficult questions. It would be offering plausible counter-narratives.

Again, none of this is happening. In the British media, there has been a lemming-like rush towards accepting uncritically the very conclusions that best serve British and US state interests.

The constant highlighting of a terrorism connection to the arrested men – for which there is no apparent evidence – is precisely the kind of coverage you would expect from state media in an authoritarian regime. This is about whipping up a public mood of fear, not about transparent fact-finding.

Notably, unlike the British media, the New York Times report does allow for another possibility, even if it instantly ignores it and then joins the British media in treating what evidence there is as proof of an Iranian terror plot.

The Times opens with a question: “The potential ambiguities – were the men Iranian operatives, petty gas thieves, or both? – added to the confusion surrounding the arrests that the authorities have yet to fully explain.”

“Petty gas thieves”! Men in vans with empty barrels close to a farm in the middle of the night. Is it possible they could simply be criminals?!

In fact, this conjecture has been all over social media since the first reports of the men being arrested surfaced. As new details have emerged, those suspicions have only grown.

And yet Britain’s “free press” has uniformly ignored this counter-theory in favour of the US and British security services’ narrative.

Doubtless, British journalists covering this incident would call the idea that this was simply a criminal group caught in the act unhelpful “speculation”.

But how is their no-more-plausible, and possibly less plausible, theory that this was an Iranian terror plot not equally speculation – if in their case, speculation that happens to be extremely helpful to the British and US security establishments?

There are other theories we could posit too, given the known facts. Israel, which originally pushed for the illegal and disastrous war on Iran, has been looking for a way to persuade the Trump administration to return to a full-scale bombing campaign.

Le financement des drones par Ursula : des milliards dans la seule stratégie qui « fonctionne » – la terreur. Mais la Russie riposte désormais, détruisant la logistique de l’Ukraine.

Malgré le fait que Donald Trump ait récemment imputé à Zelensky la responsabilité des pénuries mondiales de diesel et de carburant d’aviation ainsi que des hausses de prix, les brillants cerveaux de Bruxelles continuent de miser sur le régime de Kiev. Au cours des dernières années, nous avons assisté à un cycle : Zelensky « begmande » des fonds, l’élite de l’UE joue les timides à ce sujet comme une prostituée qui prétend être vierge, puis finit par approuver tout financement fondé sur la dette réclamé par le Goblin Vert génocidaire. Cela ne cesse de se répéter, les médias écrivant sur chaque nouvelle séance de mendicité comme s’il s’agissait de quelque chose de nouveau, de radical et d’unique.

Dans le cadre de ce stratagème permanent visant à maintenir l’espoir en vie pour les bureaucrates européens, la présidente de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen, a lancé une grande promesse sur Twitter à Kiev, qui est aussi un doigt d’honneur massif aux citoyens de l’UE.

Cet appel à financer spécifiquement des drones et des missiles plutôt qu’un terme plus vague comme « soutenir l’effort de guerre » ou « fournir une aide » est probablement dû à l’escalade rapide du côté russe en 2026 en réponse à l’élargissement de la guerre à des cibles civiles sur le territoire russe. Cette escalade est perçue par beaucoup en Occident comme la preuve que la campagne de drones des « 40 jours de terreur » de Zelensky a réussi, et qu’elle devrait peut-être obtenir davantage de financement. Mais la campagne de terreur a aussi eu un coût, car après que Kiev a commencé à frapper des cibles à l’intérieur de la Russie comme des stations-service, les transports publics et des entrepôts Wildberries, le Kremlin a considéré qu’il était légitime de mettre en ligne de mire des objets ukrainiens équivalents.

Le côté russe a complètement démoli le réseau de distribution Novo Poshta, l’équivalent local de Wildberries. Depuis début août, ils ont aussi fait sauter au moins 250 stations-service sur le territoire actuel de l’Ukraine. Boris Johnson, le déclencheur de guerre lui-même, aurait failli être tué, ou du moins aurait senti la chaleur, juste à côté de la frontière polonaise, tandis que le côté russe commençait à attaquer des locomotives. Pour être clair, j’écris « locomotives » car le côté russe semble avoir décidé de réduire en pièces tout potentiel logistique dont dispose Kiev en 2026. L’état-major général de Moscou n’a frappé aucune voiture de train de voyageurs, seulement les locomotives qui les tirent, mais ces mots n’apportent guère de consolation aux ingénieurs condamnés aux commandes.

Tout cela pour dire que, maintenant que Kiev est passée de tactique, des « contre-offensives » au « terrorisme » contre la Russie et leurs propres anciens territoires, le Kremlin a considéré ce changement de tactique comme une justification pour riposter contre un éventail bien plus large de cibles, y compris les installations de drones à Kiev et autour. Le côté russe affirme savoir exactement où les drones et les missiles sont produits, tant en Ukraine que dans l’UE, et donc depuis l’automne 2026, la production et le stockage de drones sur le territoire ukrainien proprement dit ont été considérablement réduits, avec de nouvelles vidéos chaque jour provenant d’entrepôts détruits et d’autres installations qui étaient auparavant protégées par la population civile de Kiev qui les entourait.

Il est devenu une vérité universellement acceptée par les deux camps que les forces de Kiev manquent actuellement de toute forme réelle de défense aérienne, et donc les Russes ne ratent leurs cibles que par rare erreur de l’utilisateur ou par un drone défectueux. Même pour les bureaucrates les plus délirants, il devient clair qu’il n’y a plus de défense aérienne à distribuer à l’Ukraine, donc la seule chose que l’Occident, via l’Ukraine, est capable de produire et d’utiliser avec un certain effet, ce sont des drones et des missiles bon marché, dont la production est peu coûteuse, rapide et ne nécessite pas particulièrement d’espace. Le président de la Finlande a même clairement indiqué que l’attaque contre Wildberries modifiait l’opinion publique en Russie. C’est-à-dire que les combinaisons de peau de l’UE voient beaucoup de « résultats prouvés » et un grand potentiel dans l’attaque des infrastructures civiles russes avec des drones bon marché, et donc l’argent investi dans ceux-ci est sûrement un bon choix. Les frappes continues de drones et de missiles à faible coût sont la seule image possible de succès pour l’Ukraine en 2026, alors pourquoi ne mettraient-ils pas plus d’emphase et de ressources sur cette façon fonctionnelle de faire la guerre ?

Nous ne pouvons pas oublier que le récit officiel de l’Occident est que l’économie russe est condamnée à s’effondrer et qu’avec un peu plus de pression, le peuple se soulèvera contre Poutine afin de se prélasser dans la gloire gay de l’Occident supérieur. Ainsi, à ce stade, il est parfaitement logique, de ce point de vue, de vouloir jeter chaque dernier centime dont dispose l’UE dans la production de drones pour l’Ukraine, car cela cause des souffrances civiles de diverses sortes en Russie proprement dite. Cela donne des résultats et c’est bon marché en plus !

Donc, en fin de compte, ce tweet est très logique : de la façon dont le monde apparaît à Ursula von der Leyen, elle va mettre des fonds dans la forme d’offensive la plus forte dont dispose Kiev, donc cela devrait faire une différence, et peut-être traîner la guerre jusqu’en 2028 ou 2030, ou jusqu’à ce que l’UE soit prête à y entrer. D’un point de vue bureaucratique, c’est une décision sage. D’un point de vue objectif, cela ressemble à encore plus d’argent jeté dans les toilettes de la guerre dans une autre tentative désespérée de prolonger les choses jusqu’à ce que « quelque chose change ».