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.

“Who wouldn’t decide to be their most expansive and radiant self?” Ah, but would you pursue that self through a sheet of tempered glass? In this literal tour de force, Katherine Cusumano shadows wrestlers navigating the independent promoters of the Pacific Northwest, granting sensational access to the lives and ambitions behind elaborate personas you’ve never heard of and will almost certainly search YouTube for. Cusumano is note-perfect on the details, taking obvious delight in the gimmicks of each wrestler’s beloved character and relishing the complexity of the choreography, rehearsed in elaborate code. (“Clothesline, crossbody in the corner, clothesline, Superman, Superman, I’m fired up, whoop, sliced bread, Ricky catches, oh shit, real fast.”) Spectacle abounds, but Cusumano rises above it, way up on the turnbuckle, with a heartening consideration of how we understand our own stories, and what we devote to realizing them.

I found myself drawn to this world, to its freakish feats of acrobatics, to its relentless and obsessive blurring of the boundary between reality and story, and, more than anything, to the supreme, sometimes monastic devotion of its competitors. I had been trying for ages to understand competition, ambition, the scaffolding that holds up good-bad, win-lose, and wrestling confounded these binaries. I started talking to Drexl, an old-timer with one foot out the door of his career, who eventually referred me to Amira, an emerging wrestler with an already impressive résumé, and I thought that was so like wrestling, to proffer such perfect narrative symmetry. They agreed—more readily than I’d expected, given how fiercely professional wrestlers have historically protected the secrets of their work—to let me follow them around. Which is how I ended up behind the curtain.

The West is run by the dumbest leaders ever.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

It is a mark of our times that Western leaders are not only the weakest that they have ever been, but they are also the dumbest – with Donald Trump leading the pack. His latest initiative has enraged the business press, who have wheeled out all the experts to shoot it down in flames. Trump wants to limit diesel exports from the U.S., which he believes will drive down diesel pump prices in the U.S., but it is such a stupid idea that many political commentators are pointing out his own level of desperation by playing what one called “an economics game of roulette where if the ball lands on a red number we lose everything”. Experts predict that such an initiative would only reduce diesel prices by about 5 percent for American truckers, but, according to the economists at Goldman Sachs, will drive up gasoline prices at the pumps. Quite apart from the diesel ban also wrecking the global oil economy – which will have its own blowback with American consumers – Trump is showing that not only does he not have smart economists around him advising him on these late-night whims which come to him, but he himself understands practically nothing about how the U.S. economy works.

After giving the most vulgar and disgraceful speech at the UN, talking about himself like a Roman Emperor “annihilating” Iran – a civilisation which is about 4,000 years old – it is easy to see, though, how leaders like Trump exist, when there is practically no safety mechanism in place for a U.S. president to behave so appallingly and to be so reckless with the economy. Nothing from Congress, or even either the Speaker of the House or even leaders of either party, to condemn such narcissistic speeches or foolish policy decisions by a man who represents the greatest wrecking ball to Western civilisation as we know it. And even though we saw a glimmer of hope from U.S. media groups who boycotted his Oval Office sessions, few if any journalists are prepared to report on Trump accurately, preferring to give a gloss or simply bypass his buffoonery altogether. In such an environment where the press gives you a free card, is it any wonder that Trump in his second term in office is basically a New Jersey mobster who has lost his mind entirely – drunk on power and corrupted by it, like Rome’s last emperor who was looking for his chicken while the entire empire was collapsing around him?

The sad thing, though, is that he is not alone.

In the EU, we’ve never had such unremarkable, dithering, under-performing, corrupt political wasters as the current coterie of losers running the UK, France and Germany. The UK is particularly bad, as Andy Burnham and Ed Miliband capture the internet’s imagination for a few brief moments as they enter the UN auditorium – and the main takeaway from their perplexed expressions as they look into someone’s camera is that they appear to be both lost and out of their depths, like children on their first day at the big school. While all three throw all their weight behind war talk about the Russians coming – a scam designed to distract people’s attention away from failed public sectors, immigration and economies in tailspins – Burnham stood out this week, though, for a new policy initiative. He’s going to create an Orwellian new police department to control content on the internet, perhaps inspired by the EU’s own German fascist leader – er, European Commission president, I mean – Ursula von der Leyen, who hates free speech so much that she wants it outlawed altogether.

Trump may well end up looking smarter than the leaders of the UK, France and Germany, as these three bankrupt economies now have only one modus operandi, which is to create a phoney war with Russia – which they believe will deflect any blame aimed at them for when these economies hit rock bottom and all these clowns can offer is to turn to international banks and borrow even more. They know their time in office is limited, and so a war is the perfect solution – not only to divert attention away from their own failure but to also give a massive boost to their friends in the industrial military complex, who will be very grateful for the huge new contracts given to them. We should not be surprised that both the children of Trump and even Tony Blair have huge stakes in weapons companies and could really do with a war which shovels billions their way. Yet the diesel initiative from Trump could actually be the last nail in his coffin, as if he goes ahead with it and it proves to actually jack up gasoline prices, he is likely to lose both houses. Already droves of Republican senators and representatives are distancing themselves from Trump’s Iran war and higher pump prices; it’s hard to imagine how many more stupid lies Trump can tell, blaming others for his own self-made calamities.

Foi a análise equivocada do Ocidente que o prendeu em uma espiral de ações que correm o risco de levar a Europa a uma guerra com a Rússia.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Nos últimos dias, a classe política europeia elevou ao máximo o tom de discursos claramente coordenados – e compartilhados: “A guerra com a Rússia está chegando; a Rússia pretende atacar a OTAN; precisamos nos preparar; estocar água engarrafada, comida enlatada e estar prontos para enviar seus filhos para o serviço militar obrigatório” – “Muitos morrerão; mas é seu dever defender o país”.

Que absurdo! Para reforçar o argumento, líderes europeus, incluindo o Alto Representante da UE, Kallas, e o chanceler alemão, Merz, vestiram-se recentemente de camuflagem de campo para sinalizar “prontidão de defesa” durante a Cúpula Europeia do Ártico, em 14 de setembro. (Esses políticos europeus podem ser vistos em uniformes militares aqui).

Eles parecem absurdos. No entanto, isso não pode desviar a atenção da pergunta: o que exatamente é essa histeria que toma conta dos tecnocratas europeus?

À primeira vista, a mensagem unânime de que a Rússia está prestes a atacar a Europa e que a guerra está chegando não faz sentido algum. A Europa não tem nem os homens, nem as munições, nem os recursos financeiros, nem a capacidade industrial para travar uma guerra contra o que hoje pode ser considerado uma das principais “grandes potências” militares, bem como o Estado que possui o maior arsenal de armas nucleares.

O ZeroHedge observa que,

“Entre os principais divulgadores dessa narrativa infundada [de um suposto ataque russo] estão os líderes dos países bálticos. Por exemplo, nesta semana, o presidente da Letônia, Edgars Rinkevics, chegou a afirmar que os ‘ataques’ russos à UE e à OTAN já começaram. Os países bálticos estão até mesmo divulgando planos de preparação para emergências para suas populações, alegando um cenário no estilo de ‘Red Dawn’”[/Amanhecer violento (1984), película dirigida por John Milius, cujo roteiro aborda a história de um grupo de estudantes estadunidenses que luta contra a invasão do exército soviético em solo americano. – nota da tradutora]

“Não estamos falando de uma guerra convencional. Estamos falando de todos os tipos de provocações, todos os tipos de atos de sabotagem, todos os tipos de testes, e definitivamente isso é algo que já está acontecendo neste exato momento”, afirma o líder letão.

“O primeiro-ministro polonês, Donald Tusk, declarou esta semana que a Rússia poderia lançar ataques esporádicos, fingindo que são ‘acidentais’, a fim de ‘paralisar ou, pelo menos, enfraquecer a motivação dos países da OTAN’, conforme citado pela Associated Press. “Existe um risco real de que drones ou outros tipos de projéteis entrem no território de um ou vários países do flanco oriental e cheguem até a causar destruição”, acrescentou Tusk, alertando: “Moscou pode chegar ao ponto de lançar algum tipo de ataque aéreo no território da OTAN nos próximos meses para mostrar que o compromisso de defesa comum do Artigo 5º da aliança militar não passa de algumas palavras em um pedaço de papel.”

No entanto, apesar de todas as evidências acumuladas, os líderes europeus continuam se animando para estarem psicologicamente preparados para acionar o Artigo 5º contra uma grande potência nuclear.

Na esteira desse alarde, o ministro das Relações Exteriores, Sergey Lavrov, advertiu explicitamente:

“Gostaria de enfatizar que não temos interesse em nos envolver nisso [atacar a Europa], mas se a Europa, que fala diariamente em se preparar para a guerra contra a Rússia, atacar a Rússia, será uma guerra completamente diferente – e será muito curta”.

O que se esconde por trás desse aparente absurdo? Por um lado, fica claro que a elite governante de Bruxelas vê seus erros estratégicos (apoio irrestrito à Ucrânia, o sacrifício do modelo econômico europeu em nome da pressão sobre a Rússia, seu apoio à guerra contra o Irã e sua indiferença ao sofrimento no Oriente Médio) voltando como bumerangue.

Seu alarmismo em relação à Rússia cheira a desespero, em vez de reflexão cuidadosa e diligência quanto aos riscos muito reais de incitar a guerra dessa maneira. O Establishment, sem dúvida, percebe que a crise energética decorrente da guerra dos EUA e de Israel contra o Irã não está mais “por vir”, mas já chegou.

Eles podem ver o custo de vida disparando, os empregos desaparecendo e o colapso iminente dos mercados – principalmente no mercado de títulos (cujo nível de juros define o valor de todos os outros ativos de risco). Percebendo isso, esses políticos em perigo podem ter concluído que incitar o medo é a única maneira de desviar a atenção de seus próprios fracassos e, talvez, lhes permitir a esperança de que possam sobreviver ao ciclo eleitoral.

A sobrevivência é uma motivação fundamental, mas é provável também que a psiquê das elites seja sustentada por duas proposições que são falsas, embora pareçam plausíveis para a classe política.

A primeira falácia é que a Rússia lançou uma guerra preventiva em fevereiro de 2022 para tomar Kiev e cerca de 60% da Ucrânia.

Eventos anteriores na Síria explicam a realidade: a Rússia entrou oficialmente no conflito civil sírio em setembro de 2015, atendendo a um pedido do presidente Assad. A intervenção russa revelou-se de alcance limitado – um destacamento aéreo muito restrito (28 a 34 aeronaves) e o mínimo de forças especiais de combate (a contribuição da Rússia consistiu principalmente em conselheiros militares, controladores aéreos avançados e polícia militar).

A presença da Rússia na Síria foi intencionalmente simbólica – uma demonstração de intenção séria, em vez de um desejo de se envolver em uma guerra terrestre. Na verdade, o objetivo de Moscou era evitar o combate terrestre direto. No entanto, os ataques aéreos russos – com o apoio das tropas terrestres iranianas – ajudaram o Exército sírio a expulsar as forças jihadistas de Aleppo. Isso levou a uma trégua mediada pela Rússia e pela Turquia no final de 2016 e ao processo de paz de Astana, iniciado logo em seguida.

A abordagem de Putin em relação a Aleppo definiu claramente o modelo para suas táticas iniciais no que diz respeito à Ucrânia. A Rússia mobilizou cerca de 15.000 a 30.000 homens nos arredores de Kiev, durante o ataque inicial no início de 2022. A narrativa europeia de que essa força tinha como objetivo tomar Kiev no início de 2022 é risível – 40.000 soldados talvez consigam lotar uma praça da cidade, mas será que conseguem tomar uma cidade com mais de três milhões de habitantes? Ridículo.

No entanto, comentaristas europeus e americanos – incluindo o comentarista norte-americano Robert Pape – afirmam que, como a tentativa de tomar Kiev fracassou, somada à conclusão implícita de que Putin esperava que sua demonstração simbólica de “intenção séria” fizesse a OTAN recuar, isso sugere – segundo Pape – que Putin está preso em uma armadilha de escalada. Pape argumenta que Putin buscava uma vitória rápida em 2022, mas, tendo fracassado, está “preso” por agora ter que subir uma escada de escalada com perspectivas de sucesso cada vez piores – por isso, Putin fracassa. “É apenas uma questão de tempo”.

Longe de ser um fracasso, a demonstração de força de Moscou na Síria, por menor que tenha sido, funcionou – Astana foi o modelo inspirado na Síria. No final de março de 2022, o Processo de Istambul havia produzido o Comunicado de Istambul, um marco para um acordo com a Ucrânia. Essa última iniciativa fracassou por um único motivo – Boris Johnson a sabotou – e a Rússia foi forçada a se reorganizar, o que fez com sucesso, embora ao preço de uma longa guerra de desgaste e da perda desnecessária de centenas de milhares de vidas ucranianas.

Não, foi Boris Johnson quem levou a Europa a uma armadilha de escalada.

Os europeus, ao que parece, basearam sua “história de sucesso” na guerra contra a Rússia, em primeiro lugar, na noção do suposto fracasso de Kiev e, em segundo lugar, na confiança exagerada nas sanções financeiras. O ex-ministro das Finanças francês, Le Maire, em um momento de euforia, declarou “guerra econômica e financeira total contra a Rússia”. Ele insistiu que as sanções sufocariam e levariam ao colapso a economia russa – na prática, a Rússia, após 2007, mudou para um modelo econômico nacional (autossuficiente) e continua prosperando.

Então, quem armadilhou quem? A premissa central imaginária do Ocidente de que a Rússia foi empurrada para a escalada a partir do momento em que o plano inexistente de tomar Kiev fracassou virou a situação de cabeça para baixo.

Foi a análise equivocada do Ocidente que o prendeu em uma espiral de ações que correm o risco de, inadvertidamente, levar a Europa a uma guerra com a Rússia – uma guerra que nenhum europeu deseja.

Tradução:  ComunidadSaker Latinoamericana

Beryl Gilothwest’s grandmother, Sandy “Moose” West, passed away at age 108 in 2021. For The Bitter Southerner, Gilothwest profiles a diminutive woman whose love for Ossabaw, an island off the coast of Georgia, was larger than life. In a world striving for “progress,” West was a staunch advocate for thoughtful preservation; she was a fierce conservationist and environmentalist who embraced the unknown and took pleasure in learning from it.

“Sandy believed that embracing what we cannot understand is the pathway to enlightenment. In her mind, spending time in the uncharted wilds of Ossabaw is the best way to learn that lesson. Separated from the mainland by a 30-minute boat ride, the island is deeply remote. Cell service is scant, and there is no wi-fi. You have to fend for yourself out there in a way that is uncommon in contemporary culture, where we always seem to have an escape hatch. Sandy knew that welcoming people into that kind of environment, where they have to relinquish control to the island, would force them to reckon with the unknown.”