By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | October 11, 2026

Following the attack on the King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the usual suspects emerged from the social media muck to condemn Ansarallah. “These reprehensible attacks demonstrate a blatant disregard for innocent civilian life. They must stop now,” demanded Trump’s secretary of state, Marco Rubio.

Bibi Netanyahu, “on behalf of the people of Israel,” condemned the attack and declared the Zionist state “looks forward to a strong Middle East—one that stands united against threats, protects its people, and builds a future of security, cooperation, and prosperity for all the peoples of our region,” never mind the 200,000-680,000 people of the region he butchered over the last three years.

Kaja Kallas, the former president of Estonia and current High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, denounced the airport attack. “The Houthi attack on Riyadh’s international airport is an appalling act of terror. There can be no justification for indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure,” she said.

Kallas, like most European leaders, insists Israel has a “right to defend itself” against Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and yet “self-defense” is not a legitimate response for the people of Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, all victims of Israeli and US aggression.

António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, is “deeply shocked” by the Yemeni retaliation, and criticized the attack on the Saudi airport as a violation of international law.

If Guterres is concerned about international law and the bombing of civilian infrastructure, why hasn’t the UN invoked Chapter VII of the UN Charter in regard to Gaza? “The UN’s member states collectively have a bad track record when it comes to preventing genocide,” writes Sean Matthews. “In the case of genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, the UN only declared officially that genocides took place after the fact.”

G7 foreign ministers also weighed in on the attack, declaring the response to Saudi attacks poses an “unacceptable threat to regional stability and security, to global energy security,” as well as to security in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait.

In June, during a globalist conclave in Évian, the G7 issued a dilatory statement calling for an acceleration of “humanitarian and reconstruction efforts and the swift implementation of relevant political and security measures” in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, while knowing full well Zionist Israel will ignore international law and continue to murder and starve Palestinians while ethnically cleansing the Shi’a in southern Lebanon.

The official censure by the United States, the EU, UN, and G7, as well as the skewed reportage of the corporate media, overlooks the reason why Ansarallah is bombing Saudi airports and oil infrastructure.

Forgotten, or ignored, are the crimes of the Saudi coalition during and after the Yemen War of 2015. The coalition included the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Sudan.

The Sunni coalition attacked after President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi fled house arrest into exile in Saudi Arabia. Hadi, who died earlier this year, stood accused of secretly working with al-Islah, described as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Yemeni branch. The former president was also accused of being a Saudi puppet. Saudi Arabia views Ansarallah—followers of the Shi’a branch of Zaydism—as a threat to its national security.

A detailed United Nations report estimated approximately 377,000 deaths by the end of 2021 from the Saudi-led campaign. This total includes direct losses from combat and indirect deaths linked to malnutrition, disease, and the decline of health care and essential services.

The United States was involved in the Yemen humanitarian crisis. US personnel provided logistical support, information, training, and advisers after the Saudi-led intervention. US tankers refueled coalition aircraft, increasing their range over Yemen. Saudi forces relied heavily on US-supplied aircraft, munitions, spare parts, maintenance, and technical support.

Jeff Bachman, a professor and genocide scholar at the School of Information Services, said during an interview with the American University in Washington that the Saudi-led coalition has been able to engage violence against Yemenis thanks to the complicit material and political support of the United States.

UN Security Council Resolution 2216 established a UN arms embargo. The restrictions implemented delayed or curtailed commercial imports and humanitarian shipments of food, fuel, medicines, and medical supplies. Because Yemen is dependent on imports, disruptions to port and airport operations rapidly worsened hunger, health-system strain, water and sanitation breakdowns, and prices, according to Human Rights Watch.

“The Saudi-led coalition’s military strategy in Yemen has been increasingly built around preventing desperately needed aid and essential goods from reaching civilians, risking millions of lives,” said James Ross, legal and policy director at Human Rights Watch. “The Security Council should urgently sanction Saudi and other coalition leaders responsible for blocking food, fuel, and medicine, causing hunger, sickness, and death.”

During a full closure in November 2017, UN agencies noted that aircraft and ships delivering aid could not secure clearance, while commercial cargo encountered major hurdles. Human Rights Watch stated that the coalition had maintained a naval and air blockade since March 2015, with restrictions producing a disproportionate impact on civilians in direct violation of international law.

Yemen remains one of the world’s most serious humanitarian emergencies. As of 2026, more than 22 million people need assistance or protection and 18.3 million people are acutely food insecure. Malnutrition levels remain critically high, with over 2.2 million children under five acutely malnourished, including 516,157 suffering from malnutrition, according to the United Nations. “Even before the latest escalation, an estimated 12.2 million children in Yemen needed humanitarian assistance,” UNICEF reported in September.

Article 51 of the UN Charter is a determining provision that addresses the right of self-defense for member states. It represents an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force outlined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which mandates that all member states refrain from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, as the Saudis did in 2015 in Yemen.

On October 10, following the Ansarallah attacks, Trump announced the US may rejoin the latest Saudi onslaught on Yemen. “We’re going to look at it,” he told reporters. “We just found out about the recent attack. We will make a decision. We move very quickly.”

Prior to Trump’s announcement, Democrat Ro Khanna, who was detained during a visit to Israel in July, introduced a joint Yemen War Powers Resolution along with Republican Representative Thomas Massie on October 9. The resolution directs “the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Houthis in Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.”

Congress is unable to decide whether to rejoin the Saudi effort to destroy Ansarallah and maintain the illegal war on the people of Yemen. In addition to debate on the constitutional legality of the Trump administration’s military assistance to the Saudis without a congressional consultation, members of Congress are concerned about the continued slaughter of civilians and the ongoing humanitarian crisis, considered one of the worst in the world, with around 24 million people, or nearly 80% of the population, needing assistance and protection.

par Jules  SEYES

Si l’Allemagne désirait interrompre les aéroports français, elle pourrait équiper ses Typhoon de missiles et créer une bulle de supériorité aérienne au-dessus du sol français. L’affirmation sonne-t-elle ridicule ? C’est exact, elle est pourtant l’exact miroir de l’alerte qu’El Mundo prête à la CIA selon laquelle les Russes pourraient équiper un navire de drones pour désactiver des aéroports occidentaux¹. Comprendre pourquoi l’une sonne comme folle alors que l’autre paraît terrifiante suppose de saisir les méthodes d’analyse sur lesquelles elles reposent, avant d’analyser justement les présupposés des intentions.

Celles-ci étant un peu complexes, commençons par la doctrine, qui aura le mérite de clarifier le brouillard mental actuel. Un peu comme le brouillard de guerre auquel les militaires sont confrontés. Deux méthodes offrent un moyen de le briser : la méthode des moyens et celle des intentions.

La première repose sur un inventaire des ressources connues de l’adversaire pour évaluer l’ensemble des points qu’il peut toucher. C’est aujourd’hui l’exercice de la CIA : les Russes disposent de drones, ceux-ci peuvent être basés sur un navire, donc les Russes peuvent équiper un navire. L’exercice en début d’article relève de la même logique : prendre le nombre de chasseurs de la Bundeswehr, le nombre de Taurus en stock, puisque contrairement à nos SCALP ces armes n’ont pas été envoyées en Ukraine, et établir que cette combinaison a la capacité de mener une attaque surprise au-dessus de la France.

Le problème de cette méthode est de livrer un arc de menace souvent inutilisable, car il existe trop d’axes de vulnérabilité pouvant être exploités. L’automne 1944 en offre l’illustration². Les Allemands retirent alors plusieurs divisions du front. La reconnaissance aérienne alliée photographie, à partir de la mi-novembre, un trafic ferroviaire intense autour de Cologne, de Coblence et dans l’Eifel : gares de triage saturées, locomotives sous pression, une vingtaine de wagons plats chargés de chars Tigre sur la ligne d’Euskirchen. Début décembre, cent soixante-dix wagons plats chargés de blindés et de véhicules roulent entre Cologne et Limbourg. La nuit, les chasseurs de nuit repèrent des convois aux phares masqués. Des dépôts de ravitaillement apparaissent à Rheinbach et à Schleiden, des piles de bois propres à jeter des ponts près d’Echternach, des trains sanitaires à l’ouest du Rhin. Les écoutes radio identifient une armée blindée nouvelle, la 6e Panzerarmee. À la mi-décembre, face aux Ardennes, le VIIIe corps américain signale une activité d’artillerie inhabituelle, aucun mouvement visible et presque plus de prisonniers. Cette force, dont la valeur combative était connue, pouvait être engagée de bien des manières.

Une seconde méthode doit alors entrer en jeu : celle des intentions. En fonction des moyens connus, on établit ce que l’ennemi voudra toucher. Plus précise, celle-ci possède l’inconvénient de reposer sur des déterminants bien moins solides, puisque liés à la compréhension de la psychologie de l’adversaire.

Ces indices remontent à tous les états-majors alliés, et chacun les interprète selon le tempérament de son chef. Au quartier général d’Eisenhower, commandant suprême des forces alliées, homme de coalition et de logistique, domine une conviction : les Allemands sont trop fatigués pour attaquer. Les divisions retirées sont donc évaluées comme des rotations de repos et une reconstitution de réserve. Le 15 décembre encore, son bureau des opérations n’a rien à signaler dans les Ardennes. Patton, chef de la Troisième Armée, passe pour le plus offensif des généraux américains : il ne conçoit la guerre qu’en mouvement et à l’attaque. Son état-major projette cette volonté offensive sur l’ennemi allemand. Elle reflète en réalité la psychologie des analystes, elle-même dérivée de la psychologie des chefs. Son chef du renseignement, le colonel Oscar Koch, lit les mêmes indices comme la préparation d’un coup et présente à Patton, le 9 décembre, sa conclusion : une contre-offensive allemande est possible dans les Ardennes. Patton fait aussitôt préparer les plans qui permettront à la Troisième Armée de pivoter vers le nord. Le lendemain du rapport rassurant d’Eisenhower, l’offensive allemande éclate. Autrement dit, la méthode des intentions en dit souvent plus sur la manière de penser des analystes que sur leur compréhension fine de l’adversaire. Bien conscients de ces défauts, les militaires appliquent les méthodes classiques d’analyse stratégique pour filtrer l’ensemble. La première d’entre elles est le rapport coût-avantage : qu’est-ce que l’adversaire a à gagner ? Pour quel coût ?

Ici, vous constatez par exemple la différence de pensée entre Eisenhower et Patton. Pour le premier, le coût est en carburant ; le second pense en termes d’avantage moral de l’offensive. D’où la divergence d’analyse. Si nous prenons notre exemple d’avions allemands équipés de Taurus, le coût est une guerre franco-allemande, voire OTAN-Allemagne si l’article 5 venait à jouer. Aucune attaque, même couronnée de succès, ne pourrait provoquer des dégâts suffisants pour compenser les coûts d’un conflit avec une puissance nucléaire. En pratique, l’Allemagne aurait beaucoup à perdre et peu à gagner, puisque son influence dans l’appareil d’État et l’UE lui permet d’obtenir satisfaction dans des domaines cruciaux, telle la fermeture de Fessenheim.

Alors, la Russie ?

La CIA vient de nous gratifier d’un de ces mémos qui relèvent à la fois de la plus pure vérité et du plus pur mépris du public destiné à recevoir la fuite. Voici la menace : «Le point faible de l’Europe» : la menace d’une attaque russe contre la France et l’Espagne est réelle, selon la CIA.

Le scénario de l’attaque impliquerait des drones Gerbera³, de petits appareils à la charge explosive réduite dont l’intérêt est perturbateur et non de faire des victimes : fermer un aéroport, par exemple. Ils seraient lancés depuis des navires marchands déguisés en trafic commercial ordinaire et postés en Méditerranée.

Je vous avouerai qu’en ouvrant ce mémo, je m’étais attendu à un scénario sérieux, pas à cela. À la découverte du propos, son outrance m’a fait passer à la limite de l’insulte. Voilà une proposition d’attaque étatique dont le but serait de «perturber» ? Se rend-on compte du terme ? Une attaque pour perturber ? Schlieffen se retourne dans sa tombe, Napoléon s’étrangle avec sa bataille décisive, Manstein est fort heureusement mort. Car, hélas, un État ne gaspille pas la surprise en lançant un tapotage gentil. S’il faut recourir à la violence, alors il faut d’emblée prendre un avantage définitif pour maintenir au plus court la durée de la campagne. Sun Tzu le notait déjà : aucun pays n’a jamais tiré profit d’une guerre prolongée.

Le projet proposé contredit tous ces principes et, dès lors, il ne pose qu’une seule question : le code militaire russe a-t-il supprimé la peine de mort pour les traîtres ? Eh oui, désolé de décevoir ces intervenants de plateaux qui se prétendent experts malgré leurs abus propagandistes, mais ce que la CIA nous propose est de lancer une attaque inefficace pour ruiner la réputation que les Russes ont acquise auprès du reste du monde. Nous parlons bien sûr des pays sérieux, hors de l’Occident malade où les journalistes reprennent ce scénario comme un sujet sérieux.

En clair, une balance coût-bénéfice où il n’y aurait que des coûts pour la Russie et aucun bénéfice. Eh oui, car fermer un aéroport fait peut-être perdre quelques millions à des entreprises, mais cela n’a AUCUN impact stratégique. Pire, il est inutile de mobiliser un drone Gerbera, un navire ou tout autre moyen militaire : un coup de fil d’un gamin pour annoncer une bombe suffit. Ou bien une voiture piégée.

Bref, l’aventure proposée n’apporte aucun bénéfice stratégique et se fait avec des moyens disproportionnés qui coûteraient énormément à la Russie. Seul un traître à la Russie peut avoir cette idée. Je sais, en Occident, nous sommes habitués avec les relais US, mais plus en Russie : les réseaux qui ont soutenu V. Poutine après son arrivée au pouvoir s’en sont assurés. Ou en tout cas, ils ont fait monter le prix de la passe. Un officier russe réclamerait une méga-malle de billets pour seulement proposer cela à ses chefs, vu qu’il sait que ce serait (si ses chefs sont gentils) la fin de sa carrière. Quant à le mettre en œuvre sans validation politique, il aurait intérêt à avoir le bon billet d’avion pour s’éclipser au plus vite.

Car là est le point qui permet aux individus tarés que l’Occident nomme journalistes de procéder à cette propagande goebbelsienne (enfin, je m’excuse auprès du docteur Goebbels pour cet amalgame insultant) : les moyens existent. Exact, la Russie possède les drones, les navires. Elle aligne même un porte-avions et surtout un arsenal de missiles de toute première qualité. Depuis les années cinquante, l’URSS dispose de bombardiers stratégiques et de missiles capables de frapper le territoire français. La menace n’a donc rien de nouveau, puisque la Russie peut transformer la France en parking si elle le désire.

L’alerte de la CIA ajoute-t-elle de nouvelles capacités ? La réponse est non, une fois, deux fois, mille fois NON !

Héritière, État successeur de l’URSS, la Russie dispose depuis sa naissance des moyens de nous mettre à terre si elle accepte les millions de morts qu’exigera l’absorption de la salve nucléaire française. Une poignée de drones n’y ajoute rien, n’y retranche rien. D’autant plus que la Russie dispose de missiles hypersoniques Orechnik en mesure d’infliger de douloureux dégâts à notre territoire. Par exemple, mais je ne voudrais pas exciter LCI, par une frappe d’Orechnik contre des centrales nucléaires ou, en non nucléaire, contre nos barrages. Nous n’aurions aucun moyen de riposte non nucléaire.

Dès lors, oui, les Russes peuvent monter des drones sur un navire, ils peuvent monter des Grad aussi, ou toute autre arme à plus ou moins grande portée. Dans un tel scénario, l’élément coûteux est le navire sacrifié, pas les munitions embarquées. L’alerte donnée, qui n’est que l’une des alertes autour desquelles on nous a fait résonner tambours et trompettes, n’apporte rien de structurellement nouveau. Un bricolage de drones pour frapper notre territoire n’a rien de complexe. Après tout, le gouvernement de Kiev a bien réussi à introduire des drones sur le territoire russe pour frapper des bombardiers stratégiques.

Seulement, à ce jeu, tout le monde peut jouer ou presque. Il faut le restreindre : l’équipe Le Maire, Breton ne peut pas jouer, mais c’est lié à l’incompétence des joueurs. La France, par exemple, possède encore quelques officiers de valeur capables d’organiser l’affaire. (Non, pas le colonel monté hors de propos en lui accrochant des étoiles comme des guirlandes de Noël, et qui fait aujourd’hui comme s’il dirigeait l’armée française.)

Le problème est que ces gens refuseraient de monter une telle opération. Frapper la Russie, comme frapper la France pour la Russie, exige que la première balle soit mortelle. On tire au cœur ou on ne tire pas, et dans ce cas, entre puissances nucléaires, la question n’est pas celle des moyens, mais celle de la volonté. Même si nous avons TOUT fait, par une politique irresponsable, pour irriter les Russes, ils n’ont nullement annoncé leur intention de répondre à la hauteur de notre bêtise.

Reste l’intention : les Russes peuvent nous frapper, c’est acquis, ils peuvent le faire depuis des décennies pour un coût fixé. Resterait le gain d’une frappe : faire cesser l’appui français à l’Ukraine. Dans ce domaine, hélas, hormis l’agacement entre les oreilles d’entendre les rodomontades et pseudo-discours d’Emmanuel Macron, qui justifient toute envie de retourner une paire de claques justement méritée, la vérité commande de constater l’épuisement de nos moyens : la macronie a déjà envoyé à peu près tout ce qu’elle pouvait racler dans les fonds de tiroirs ; quant à l’argent, l’Allemagne ou la Grande-Bretagne peuvent le fournir. Les véritables acteurs sont les Anglais, par l’usage des moyens de leurs services secrets très actifs dans la guerre des drones, et les Allemands pour la livraison de munitions. Pour peser sur les opérations en Ukraine, une frappe russe devrait cibler en priorité ces deux pays.

Sauf à vouloir faire de l’éducation prioritaire, mais dans ce cas, l’ambassade de Russie peut se contenter d’engager un professeur de SEGPA pour l’envoyer à l’Élysée. Pour la fessée, il serait même inutile d’engager : Montjoie Saint-Denis a fait des petits.

Prise sous un angle militaire, l’information n’apportait rien, et si les journalistes en avaient fait une lecture correcte, ils l’auraient classée verticalement.

Ce n’était bien évidemment pas le but, mais au contraire d’avoir un thème pour parler de menace russe afin de poursuivre la propagande par martèlement, qui vise à abrutir les téléspectateurs de menaces pour leur faire admettre le concept sans esprit critique. Ça marche avec les résidents de maison de retraite au stade pré-Rivotril.

Tel est le problème de nos gouvernants. Faute d’agression russe, il faut créer le sentiment d’une agression, ce qui est le but de ces annonces : entretenir l’hystérie et donner un prétexte pour prononcer les mots agression, guerre, menaces, puissants générateurs d’un sentiment d’insécurité dans la population soumise à ce discours anxiogène.

Ça n’a qu’un défaut : messieurs les journalistes, vous avez repris en connaissance de cause une publication des services américains pour engager notre pays sur une trajectoire fausse et dangereuse pour sa sécurité.

Soit vous êtes des idiots congénitaux, ce que la CIA n’exclut peut-être pas, et je vais m’offrir de partager le soupçon. Soit vous le faites délibérément. Même en tenant compte de votre bêtise, tous les journalistes français ne peuvent pas être aussi désavantagés par la nature ; il aurait donc dû en rester assez pour faire échouer la manipulation.

Cela fait de vous, en tant que catégorie, des traîtres à votre nation, susceptibles de subir les foudres judiciaires au moment où le pouvoir changera de main et cessera de couvrir vos abus. Il ne s’agit pas de menaces, mais d’une évaluation juridique. VOUS mettez objectivement notre nation en danger !

La méthode marcherait si, justement, conscients de la menace sur leur esprit, beaucoup de citoyens ne s’étaient pas dirigés vers internet.

___

1. L’alerte a été rendue publique par le quotidien espagnol El Mundo le 24 septembre 2026 (article de Xavier Colás), reprise notamment par Euronews : «La CIA alerte sur des drones russes visant l’Espagne, la France ou l’Italie», https://fr.euronews.com/2026/09/24/la-cia-alerte-sur-des-drones-russes-visant-lespagne-la-france-ou-litalie ;
   i24news : «Les États-Unis alertent l’Europe sur une possible attaque de drones russes depuis la Méditerranée», https://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/international/artc-les-etats-unis-alertent-l-europe-sur-une-possible-attaque-de-drones-russes-depuis-la-mediterranee ;
   Meduza, sur le démenti italien : https://meduza.io/en/feature/2026/09/24/no-one-needs-more-fuel-on-the-fire-italy-pushes-back-on-report-that-cia-warned-of-possible-russian-sea-launched-drone-attacks
2. Sur le renseignement allié avant l’offensive des Ardennes : U.S. Army, «Third Army G2 predicts Battle of the Bulge, 9 December 1944», https://www.army.mil/article/116038/third_army_g2_predicts_battle_of_the_bulge_9_december_1944 ;
   Carlo D’Este, «December 16, 1944 : Ardennes Offensive Begins, An “Abysmal Failure of Allied Intelligence”», https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/december-16-1944-ardennes-offensive-begins-abysmal-failure-allied-intelligence/
   DVIDS, «First Army in the Battle of the Bulge», https://www.dvidshub.net/news/printable/385060 ;
   David T. Zabecki, «Patton at Bastogne», The Intelligencer (AFIO), vol. 29, n° 2, 2024, https://afio.com/publications/eprints_2024/ZABECKI_Patton_at_Bastogne_AFIO_INTELLIGENCER_Vol29_No2_SummerFall_2024.pdf ;
   Oscar W. Koch, G-2 : Intelligence for Patton, 1971.
   The Army Air Forces in World War II, vol. III, chap. 19, Third Army G2 Predicts Battle of the Bulge, First Army in the Battle of the Bulge, D’Este, The History Reader.
3. «Gerbera (drone)», Wikipédia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerbera_(drone)

Publiéà l’origine par  Reseau International

Según revela Instituto Alemán de Economía (IW), durante la primera mitad de la década de 2020-2025, la economía germana creció un 0,2% anual y esa tasa se debió mayormente al gasto público, el cual, solamente en el segundo trimestre del 2026, fue superior a la media anual de 2019.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

Lo que significa que se diluye la “Alemania como motor económico europeo” de la que tanto se habló en el último medio siglo.

El empresariado invirtió muy poco en estos años y en el entorno productivo y de realce económico nacional ha caído drásticamente.

El mismo gobierno federal reconoció, a principios de este mes, que la situación de crecimiento es “precaria” y, en los círculos cerrados del empresariado escasean los vaticinios halagueños para el 2027 y 2028.

Creditreform informó que 1 de cada 3 empresas está muy endeudada y que las inversiones retrocedieron a su rango de 2013.

Durante el pasado mes de abril, más de 2 mil empresas quebraron, destacándose entre estas empresas las abocadas al transporte, la logística, la hotelería y la cervecería.

Klaus Wohlrabe, jefe de estudios del Instituto Ifo de Investigación Económica, declaró que todavía no se vislumbra una recuperación real para el mercado laboral y “Los despidos continúan en la industria manufacturera y el comercio”.

Por su parte, Rolf Bürkl, experto en consumo del NIM, dijo que “La mayoría de los hogares prevé que los altos precios de la energía reduzcan su poder adquisitivo” y, en consecuencia, “se muestran más escépticos sobre sus perspectivas de ingresos para los próximos doce meses”.

El agricultor e influencer, Hannes Kuhnwald («Landwirt aus MV»), pronosticó que se avecina una crisis en la agricultura ya que “Cada vez cierran más explotaciones. Y las pequeñas son las primeras en verse afectadas. Ahora, las grandes empresas se benefician de ello. Y muchas corporaciones también”, afirmando que las explotaciones pequeñas y medianas no pueden competir con las compañías grandes y que, por lo tanto, la clase política debería aplicar medidas sensatas para proteger de la pauperización, la quiebra y la exclusión económica a los pequeños y medianos productores agrícolas.

Dentro de la misma Alemania hay quienes se quejan de la forma en que llegan los fondos provenientes de la UE, pidiendo, como una de las soluciones más rápidas, que dichos fondos lleguen hacia abajo de una forma más equitativa.

Simultáneamente, se produce, en esta segunda mitad del 2026, un descenso pronunciado en las ventas del sector minorista, cuyos niveles son, según consignas las estadísticas más fiables, de mayor caída en los últimos cinco años.

Hay negocios de los más consolidados que, debido a la situación, están llegando al límite.

El Grupo Theo Müller -líder de la industria alimentaria- anunció, en esta semana, que cerrará dos de sus plantas más importantes con la consecuencia de cientos de empleados que serán despedidos.

Asimismo, en entorno de Volkswagen seguirá convulso en lo que resta de este año y en 2027.

Publicado originalmente por  Geopolítica rugiente

The story of infrastructure in capitalist vs. socialist systems

By Hua BIN

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A friend visited Germany recently and told a story how a delayed train caused him to miss the flight home.

I was shocked since you could set your watch by the Deutsche Bahn when I was living in Germany back in 1997.

I was doing an internship at Mercedes Benz in Stuttgart in those days. I could time my walk from the apartment to the bus stop, then connect with a train to the office with less than 5 minutes in total waiting time.

The bus and train schedules were synced so perfectly that you could count on a two-minutes’ walk and exactly 2 minutes wait in between. Both buses and trains were on time to a fault.

I had a particular fondness for DB since I traveled around Germany almost every weekend with its 35 Mark Schones-Wochenende Ticket (happy weekend ticket). Unfortunately that service was discontinued in 2019.

In the winter of 1997, I got lost on a hike with several friends in the Black Forest near Baden-Baden.

We were only able to walk out of the cold night after stumbling upon a rail track that led us to a small rural train stop. I can still remember the warm platform light to this day.

I’ve held German rail in high regard ever since.

So you can imagine how incredulous I was about the delay and bad service my friend complained about.

This prompted me to read about what happened to Deutsche Bahn over the last 30 years. In a nutshell, things certainly have changed for the worse.

Deutsche Bahn today defines an on-time train as one arriving less than 6 minutes behind schedule – a long cry from the clock-setting punctuality of the late 90s.

Even by such a low bar, punctuality hovers around 50 to 60%, well below DB’s own target of 70%.

The official explanation is aging infrastructure, heavy construction, and overloaded tracks.

However, as I dig a bit deeper, the decline of the German rail efficiency seems to stem from a deeply flawed privatization in 1994 which led to decades of extreme infrastructure underinvestment.

The 1994 Bahnreform merged the old East and West state railways with a clear mandate: DB was supposed to operate as a profit-seeking private corporation to prepare for an eventual stock market IPO.

To attract investors, DB prioritized extreme cost-cutting over public service.

They aggressively cut staff, outsourced maintenance, and began divesting into global logistics companies (like DB Schenker) rather than focusing on domestic rail.

Under the guise of maximizing efficiency, DB severely downsized its physical network to save money.

Nearly 8,000 kilometers of secondary rail lines were completely dismantled. Thousands of track crossovers, passing loops, and spare sidetracks were removed.

In 1997, if a train broke down or was delayed, a dispatcher could easily reroute it around the problem using these spare tracks.

Today, the network is stripped of its buffers. If one commuter train stalls near Frankfurt, it acts like a broken-down car on a single-lane highway, causing immediate, cascading delays across the entire country.

The problem is compounded by a mixed-rail system where fast Intercity Express (ICE) trains share the same physical tracks with slow regional commuter trains and heavy freight cargo.

In comparison, Chinese high-speed rail or France’s TGV networks mostly operate on dedicated high-speed tracks.

As the DB physical network was drastically thinned out, annual passenger numbers went up from 1.5 billion passengers in 1994 to 2.4 billion today.

Back in the 90s, it was still very common to live near where you worked in Germany. Over the last 30 years, skyrocketing housing costs in major hubs like Frankfurt, Munich, Berlin, and Hamburg forced a massive portion of the workforce to move further out into surrounding suburban regions and smaller towns.

As a result, Germany experienced a commuter explosion, with millions of people traveling significantly longer distances back and forth every single day.

Now, the Deutsche Bahn system runs at 100% capacity nearly constantly. Any small delays can quickly snowball into network chaos.

To make things even harder, Germany’s strict structural debt limits have restricted state spending.

For years, Germany spends only a fraction of what its neighbors do on rail. For example, Switzerland invests over €400 per citizen annually into rail infrastructure. Germany routinely spends around €100.

DB’s disastrous experience with privatization mirrors what happened with other similar projects such as the Thames Water in the UK.

When Margaret Thatcher’s government privatized the UK water sector in 1989, Thames Water was handed to private investors with a clean slate and zero debt.

However, successive private owners treated the utility—which serves 16 million customers across London and southern England—as a corporate cash cow.

Private investors – Wall Street banks and hedge funds – loaded the utility with a mountain of debt and extracted hundreds of millions in management fees and dividends.

Instead of using revenue to upgrade Victorian-era pipes and treatment centers, money was funneled to shareholders and executive bonuses. By 2026, that debt has ballooned to roughly £20 billion.

While the financial engineering generated short-term returns for private equity, the physical infrastructure rotted.

Thames Water has become a national scandal as it has spilled billions of liters of raw sewage directly into the River Thames and local waterways.

Due to aging infrastructure, 25% of all treated water leaks straight out of the pipes before ever reaching customer homes.

Amid severe dry spells and record temperatures, Thames Water repeatedly implements prolonged hosepipe bans because the system lacks structural resilience to manage the region’s water security.

Most privatization projects of public utilities have witnessed a similar pattern of chronic underinvestment, extreme operational cost cutting, and unsustainable debt leverage while enriching financial investors.

Deutsche Bahn and Thames Water are symbols of public goods degradation for private investor gains in rentier capitalist economies.

In stark contrast, Chinese infrastructure remains firmly in the domain of public ownership.

While Europe and the US follow a policy of reactive, austerity-driven, rent-collecting management of their nations’ infrastructure, China has adopted a strategy of anticipatory, supply-led construction – often years ahead of demand.

Back in the 90s, China still was heavily reliant on decades-old, technically backward rail networks that suffered regular breakdowns.

I still remember sitting in rail cars with no air-conditioning in the height of summer for hours when the train from Beijing to Chongqing broke down due to an engine failure during a trip home from college.

The ride used to take 40 hours by scheduled timetable. Today the same trip takes less than 7 hours on highspeed rail.

When China started building its national highspeed rail network in 2004, there was an avalanche of negative press from the West.

Western “experts” eagerly called out how wasteful the project was and how the rail would never generate a positive return on investment.

Despite the nay-sayers, the country has built over 50,000 kilometers of highspeed rail in the last 20 years, over 70% of the world’s total capacity.

Just today, China announced the completion of 4 new highspeed rail lines in 4 provinces, adding another 1,142 kilometers to the network.

One of the lines is the 318-km Harbin–Yichun Line, which is now China’s northernmost highspeed rail traversing alpine permafrost.

The network now covers 97% of all cities with over 500,000 residents. It operates on dedicated rail lines and achieves 98% departure punctuality and 95% arrival punctuality.

Rather than aiming to achieve profitability and high return for every single line, the Chinese highspeed rail system serves as a public good that generate system-level benefits for the entire economy and the public.

Deutsche Bahn and China Rail represent two systems that operate on completely opposite philosophies, leading to radically different outcomes in rail performance and economic impact.

Building ahead of demand vs. Managing declining assets

China’s infrastructure strategy rests on the philosophy that building massive, high-capacity transport networks creates economic growth and future demand, rather than just responding to it.

By constructing the world’s largest highspeed rail network, largely ahead of full demand saturation, China bypassed the bottleneck phase entirely.

On the other hand, Germany operates on a strict “just-in-time” for-profit corporate framework.

Investments are only approved if existing capacity is mathematically proven to be completely exhausted.

This means that by the time a project is planned, funded, and built, the demand has already vastly outpaced the upgrade, leaving the network perpetually lagging behind.

China recognized early on that mixing slow freight and fast passenger trains limits a network’s ultimate capacity. Beijing built an entirely separate, dedicated network for the high-speed Fuxing and Hexie trains.

On the other side, because Germany tried to save money by avoiding the construction of entirely new corridors, they forced ultra-fast commuter trains to share the exact same physical tracks with heavy cargo trains.

When one slow freight train breaks down, the entire national express system grinds to a halt.

Economic Multiplier vs. Direct Profit

The Chinese state views high-speed rail as a public utility and an economic multiplier.

Even if individual rail lines operate at a financial loss or carry high debt, the investment is justified by the massive economic productivity, regional integration, and urban development it unlocks.

As part of the 1994 privatization, the German government treated Deutsche Bahn like a standard commercial enterprise.

Success was measured by cutting operational costs and generating a direct financial profit, which directly starved the physical tracks of preventative maintenance.

One would probably think the German model at least achieved higher ROI for investors even though China achieves higher total societal benefits.

Yet, reality has an ironic twist – the German model ultimately failed the investors, too.

Deutsche Bahn ended up in a financial worst-of-both-worlds scenario.

In a standard capitalist system, starving an asset of maintenance to boost short-term balance sheets usually generates high dividends for investors or pushes stock prices up.

But because DB’s privatization was half-baked, it achieved neither. The only investor in Deutsche Bahn is still the German Federal Government as its IPO plan was abandoned 2 decades ago.

Because the network was run into the ground to cut short-term corporate costs, the long-term liabilities eventually caught up.

Rather than paying rich dividends, DB has cost taxpayers billions in bailouts. The company recently reported a €2.3 billion net loss.

To manage its staggering debts, DB was forced to sell off its highly profitable global logistics subsidiary, DB Schenker, just to artificially steady its balance sheet.

By treating a core public monopoly like a private business, Germany didn’t create a highly profitable enterprise; they created an operational bottleneck that costs the broader German economy billions in lost corporate productivity every year.

China’s model operates on the opposite financial wavelength.

In a socialist market economy, critical infrastructure is heavily state directed through State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs).

While China Rail carries a massive debt load from building its expansive high-speed network, the losses are directly absorbed by the state.

From Beijing’s perspective, the direct financial return on investment of the railway itself is secondary. The real payoff is the societal and macroeconomic ROI.

By connecting far-flung cities, the state slashes shipping friction, drives real estate value, unlocks regional labor markets, and creates economic mobility.

The state effectively subsidizes the train ticket to capture a massive tax and economic growth harvest across the rest of society.

A prime example is the Greater Bay Area in Guangdong, where 7 metropolises, including Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong, are connected into an integrated web via highspeed rail, metro subways, and a network of highways.

The region enjoys unprecedented supply chain density and is ranked as the No. 1 most innovative cluster of cities in the world by the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), ahead of Silicon Valley.

The same formula is repeated in nearly every natural monopoly domain – telecom, electric and water utilities, national highway network, and banking.

Rather than allowing private capital to derive rentier-income from such assets, as what happens in capitalist societies, Beijing firmly controls these commanding-heights of the economy in the public hands.

The German capitalist model tries to draw a neat box around Deutsche Bahn and demand that the box itself be profitable. China’s state-led model views the railway as just one cog in a larger national engine.

Ultimately, Deutsche Bahn’s 30-year experiment has proved that for critical public monopolies like rail, trying to squeeze out the last penny of corporate micro-profits usually breaks the system entirely.

Original article:  huabinoliver.substack.com

BRUSSELS, 11 October, (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – A new UK EU rejoining report has revealed that Britain could potentially return to the European Union within a single parliamentary term, challenging assumptions that reversing Brexit would require a decade … Read more

Europe’s “strategic autonomy” is a project through which Europe is rebuilding its own imperial and militarist capabilities.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

We remember Nokia as the company behind some of the most popular mobile phones of the past, as well as its famous slogan, “Connecting people.”

Founded in Finland in 1865 and now operating as a multinational company in telecommunications and information technology, Nokia continues to work in the field of communications – that is, to “connect people.” But with its latest project, it appears that the company is now preparing to connect people in uniform.

Nokia has teamed up with ICEYE, another Finnish company specializing in the production of microsatellites that provide high-resolution Earth observation data day and night and in all weather conditions.

The two companies have partnered to develop secure and sovereign satellite communications systems for governments and defense customers, with the first communications satellites planned for launch in 2028.

Defense, border security, emergency response…

Announced on October 1, the project envisages satellite systems operating in low Earth orbit (LEO) for use in areas including defense, border security, emergency services and disaster response.

Under the project, governments will be able to own and control not only the satellites themselves, but also the ground infrastructure and user terminals.

Rafal Modrzewski, co-founder and CEO of ICEYE, said countries should not leave control over their communications infrastructure in the hands of foreign commercial satellite operators, emphasizing that the project is ultimately aimed at reducing external dependence.

As part of the partnership, Nokia will contribute its expertise in secure networking technologies and network management, while ICEYE will provide its experience in satellite platforms, satellite constellation operations and ground infrastructure.

The cooperation between Nokia and ICEYE is not entirely new. Nokia was among the companies that participated in an investment round announced by ICEYE in June 2026, through which the company secured more than €1 billion in financing.

First satellites planned for 2028

The first satellites are scheduled to be launched in 2028. If the project is implemented, ICEYE will expand its activities in government-controlled satellite intelligence into the communications sector, while Nokia will strengthen its presence in Europe’s rapidly growing defense and space communications market.

Europe’s “strategic autonomy”: the militarization of civilian technology

The new partnership between Nokia and ICEYE is a striking example of where the concepts of “strategic autonomy” and “technological sovereignty,” which Europe has increasingly embraced in recent years, are actually heading.

The satellite communications systems being developed by the two Finnish companies may initially appear to be nothing more than a technological investment. Yet the companies themselves explicitly list defense, border security and government operations among the project’s intended areas of use. With the first satellites planned for launch in 2028, the system is also designed to remain under government control, including its satellites, ground stations and terminals.

What is significant here is not simply that two companies are entering the defense sector. The boundary between civilian and military technology is increasingly disappearing in Europe.

Companies operating in telecommunications, artificial intelligence, satellite technology, data analysis and digital infrastructure are being turned into direct components of European states’ rearmament and security policies.

This transformation is being marketed under the rhetoric of “European independence.” Yet what is emerging is not a Europe moving away from militarism. On the contrary, Europe is building its own militarized infrastructure.

Reducing dependence on the U.S. does not eliminate militarism

Europe’s basic argument is that it should not remain dependent on U.S.-based companies for its security and communications infrastructure. That is why European states are seeking to develop their own satellite systems, defense technologies and secure communications networks.

But there is a serious contradiction here.

The infrastructure being developed to reduce dependence on U.S. companies is being used to expand the military capabilities of European states. In other words, the question of “militarism or peace?” is being reduced to a choice between “American militarism or European militarism.”

The EU’s IRIS² program is a larger-scale example of this transformation. Although the system was initially presented as a secure communications and digital infrastructure project, the program was expanded in August 2026 to include 66 additional LEO satellites for defense, security and emergency services, bringing the total planned core constellation to 348 satellites. The European Commission has also explicitly identified defense and security applications as among the main drivers behind the changes.

What we are therefore witnessing is not simply a European space program designed to “improve internet access.” Space infrastructure is being transformed into a component of Europe’s security and defense architecture.

Companies are becoming part of the war economy

More importantly, this transformation is not taking place solely through state institutions.

The European model places private companies at the center of this process. As in the case of Nokia and ICEYE, private technology companies are developing infrastructure designed to meet the defense and security needs of governments. Public-private partnerships are also at the heart of the IRIS² model.

The program’s total cost over 12 years has been set at €10.6 billion, with €6 billion expected to be provided by the EU and more than €4 billion by the private sector.

Thus, the expansion of Europe’s “defense capacity” does not simply mean larger state budgets. Private capital is becoming a direct partner in Europe’s emerging security economy.

This transformation is also changing the fields in which technology companies operate. Technologies once associated primarily with consumer communications, the internet, software or civilian infrastructure are now becoming integrated into border surveillance, military communications, intelligence and crisis-management systems.

This is not the neutralization of Europe’s technology sector. It is its militarization.

The technological infrastructure of “Fortress Europe”

All of these developments cannot be considered separately from the increasingly powerful concept of “Fortress Europe.”

Tighter border controls, the treatment of migration as a security issue, increased military spending and the expansion of Europe’s own defense industry are different components of the same political direction.

Satellite technology is no exception. Indeed, border surveillance is explicitly listed among the intended uses of IRIS² in EU documents.

In this way, seemingly positive concepts such as “digital sovereignty,” “technological independence” and “strategic autonomy” are, in practice, becoming technological instruments for building a stronger European security apparatus.

The fundamental issue here is not that Europe is reducing its dependence on the United States. There is nothing inherently wrong with any country developing its own technological capabilities. The question is what those capabilities are being developed for.

If the result of technological independence is more military satellites, more sophisticated border surveillance systems, stronger military communications networks and larger defense budgets, then what is being created is not simply independence. It is the expansion of the militarist capacity of European states and European capital.

From this perspective, the Nokia-ICEYE agreement represents more than a technological partnership.

As Europe seeks to create an alternative to the United States’ military and technological dominance, it is simultaneously building its own military-technological complex.

And perhaps the most important feature of this process is that the war economy is no longer built solely in arms factories.

Telecommunications companies, satellite companies, artificial intelligence firms and other high-tech corporations are becoming increasingly important actors in this economy.

Europe’s “strategic autonomy” therefore cannot be understood merely as a project to become independent from Washington. It is also a project through which Europe is rebuilding its own imperial and militarist capabilities.

L’approvazione definitiva della nuova legge elettorale, prontamente ribattezzata Melonellum, ha offerto al centrosinistra l’occasione per mettere in scena questo straordinario esercizio di equilibrismo: una mano alzata in difesa della democrazia, l’altra impegnata a sistemare le liste per il 2027.

Segue nostro Telegram.

C’è un momento, nella vita politica italiana, in cui le grandi questioni della democrazia finiscono curiosamente per assomigliare alle piccole questioni della sopravvivenza parlamentare. È il momento in cui i partiti cominciano a parlare di rappresentanza, pluralismo, partecipazione e diritti costituzionali, mentre, sotto il tavolo, qualcuno conta i seggi, qualcun altro le firme e quasi tutti cercano di capire come assicurarsi un posto nella prossima legislatura. L’approvazione definitiva della nuova legge elettorale, prontamente ribattezzata Melonellum, ha offerto al centrosinistra l’occasione per mettere in scena questo straordinario esercizio di equilibrismo: una mano alzata in difesa della democrazia, l’altra impegnata a sistemare le liste per il 2027.

La prima reazione è stata quella di annunciare la prosecuzione della battaglia davanti alla Corte costituzionale. Il campo largo, sconfitto sul terreno parlamentare, intende trasferire il confronto su quello giurisdizionale, affidandosi a un arsenale di contestazioni che comprenderebbe la parità di genere, le sottoscrizioni necessarie per presentare le liste e il premio previsto per il Senato. La staffetta tra parlamentari e società civile, annunciata sul modello della mobilitazione contro la riforma della giustizia, dovrebbe garantire continuità alla protesta. Del resto, quando i numeri in Parlamento non sono sufficienti, resta sempre la possibilità di cercare una maggioranza altrove: nelle piazze, nei tribunali o, più precisamente, nelle pieghe della Costituzione.

Naturalmente, il ricorso alla Consulta è uno strumento pienamente legittimo in uno Stato di diritto. Una legge elettorale deve rispettare i principi costituzionali, e nessuna maggioranza parlamentare può considerarsi immune dal controllo dei giudici. Il problema, semmai, è la facilità con cui il confronto politico italiano scivola dalla discussione sulle regole alla speranza che siano le istituzioni di garanzia a risolvere ciò che i partiti non riescono a risolvere attraverso il consenso parlamentare. La Corte costituzionale non è un secondo Parlamento, né una commissione elettorale incaricata di correggere le strategie dei partiti. È chiamata a giudicare la legittimità delle norme, non a restituire ossigeno a chi non ha trovato i voti necessari per contrastarle.

Eppure, proprio mentre si denuncia la presunta natura antidemocratica della riforma, il centrosinistra si è immediatamente dedicato a una questione assai concreta: come consentire alle forze minori di partecipare alle prossime elezioni senza dover affrontare integralmente gli oneri previsti per la raccolta delle sottoscrizioni. Qui la difesa dei principi incontra la ragion pratica, e la retorica costituzionale comincia a fare i conti con la matematica elettorale.

Il caso più emblematico è quello del Movimento 5 Stelle, che ha promosso il passaggio del senatore Luigi Nave alla componente di Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra nel gruppo misto di Palazzo Madama. L’operazione, secondo la ricostruzione riportata, dovrebbe favorire la nascita di una nuova componente collegata al Nuovo PSI di Enzo Maraio e al Progetto civico Italia di Alessandro Onorato, permettendo alla futura lista centrista di beneficiare di una soglia di raccolta delle firme più favorevole: 1.500 anziché 6.000 per circoscrizione.

La spiegazione ufficiale è edificante: Nave rimarrebbe del Movimento 5 Stelle, pur cambiando collocazione parlamentare, e il suo sarebbe un gesto al servizio della democrazia e della partecipazione. Non una manovra di palazzo, assicurano, ma un’azione contro una legge definita liberticida e antidemocratica. È una distinzione che merita di essere accolta con attenzione, perché la politica italiana ci ha abituati a scoprire che le manovre di palazzo, quando vengono compiute dagli avversari, sono il segno della degenerazione istituzionale, mentre quando servono ai propri alleati diventano improvvisamente raffinati strumenti di ingegneria democratica.

Il punto, tuttavia, non è stabilire in astratto se agevolare le forze minori sia giusto o sbagliato. Un sistema elettorale dovrebbe effettivamente evitare che gli adempimenti burocratici diventino barriere sproporzionate all’accesso alla competizione politica. Il pluralismo non può essere un privilegio riservato a chi dispone di una macchina organizzativa imponente, di risorse economiche abbondanti e di una rete capillare di militanti. Ma se si ritiene che le soglie di sottoscrizione siano eccessive, la soluzione più lineare sarebbe discuterne apertamente e promuovere una modifica generale delle regole. Costruire invece una particolare architettura parlamentare per consentire a una determinata formazione di accedere a condizioni più vantaggiose solleva inevitabilmente una domanda: si sta correggendo un ostacolo alla partecipazione oppure si sta individuando una scorciatoia per un alleato?

La differenza non è secondaria. Nel primo caso si interviene su una regola nell’interesse generale; nel secondo si sfrutta la configurazione del Parlamento per ottenere un vantaggio specifico. Anche quando un’operazione risulta formalmente legittima, resta possibile interrogarsi sulla sua coerenza con la denuncia di una legge che si vorrebbe contestare proprio in nome della trasparenza e dell’uguaglianza politica.

Il Partito Democratico, dal canto suo, si è detto disponibile ad aiutare le formazioni più piccole che intendono contribuire alla costruzione di un’alleanza di centrosinistra. Una dichiarazione comprensibile, se considerata dal punto di vista della costruzione di una coalizione; meno sorprendente se si ricorda che ogni alleanza elettorale è anche un sistema di interessi reciproci. I partiti maggiori hanno bisogno di alleati, quelli minori di condizioni che rendano possibile la loro partecipazione, mentre i gruppi centristi cercano lo spazio necessario per trasformare il proprio peso politico in una presenza parlamentare. Tutti parlano di rafforzare il progetto comune. Nessuno, naturalmente, rinuncia a fare i propri conti.

Il campo largo assomiglia così a un condominio nel quale tutti invocano la ristrutturazione dell’edificio, ma ciascuno pretende di scegliere l’amministratore, decidere la ripartizione delle spese e assicurarsi il posto migliore sul terrazzo. La casa comune è evocata continuamente; la questione di chi debba abitarne il piano attico rimane, invece, irrisolta.

Ed eccoci al secondo atto della commedia: la scelta del candidato alla guida della coalizione. La nuova legge elettorale ha reso ancora più urgente il confronto sulle primarie, ma non ha certo prodotto una soluzione alle rivalità che attraversano l’opposizione. Giuseppe Conte vorrebbe arrivare rapidamente alla consultazione, dopo aver definito un programma unitario. Il Partito Democratico procede con maggiore cautela, anche in vista dell’assemblea del 18 ottobre, appuntamento delicato per Elly Schlein e per gli equilibri interni al partito. Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra, invece, guarda con diffidenza alle primarie e preferirebbe una figura terza capace di sintetizzare le diverse anime della coalizione. Nel frattempo, il nome di Silvia Salis circola nel dibattito, mentre lei stessa invita a non attribuirle dichiarazioni che non ha fatto.

La situazione è quasi didascalica: il centrosinistra vuole presentarsi agli elettori come un’alternativa unitaria, ma non ha ancora stabilito chi debba rappresentarla, con quale programma e attraverso quale meccanismo di selezione. La discussione sulle primarie, che in teoria dovrebbe servire a dare voce agli elettori, rischia così di diventare una trattativa preventiva tra apparati, nella quale il corpo elettorale viene chiamato a ratificare equilibri che i gruppi dirigenti non sono riusciti a definire autonomamente.

Il dilemma Conte-Schlein, in fondo, è soltanto la manifestazione più visibile di una questione più profonda. Che cosa tiene insieme il campo largo, oltre alla comune opposizione al governo? Quale idea di economia, politica estera, lavoro, welfare, istituzioni e collocazione internazionale potrebbe trasformare una somma di sigle in un progetto riconoscibile? Senza risposte convincenti, le primarie rischiano di scegliere il volto di una coalizione che non ha ancora deciso quale volto mostrare al Paese.

Ecco perché il monito di Massimo D’Alema, secondo cui l’opposizione dovrebbe evitare divisioni utili a mantenere l’attuale assetto di potere, coglie un problema reale, pur senza risolverlo. L’unità non può essere soltanto un imperativo pronunciato quando incombe il rischio di perdere. Deve essere il risultato di una sintesi politica, non il nome elegante attribuito a un accordo provvisorio tra gruppi che continuano a contendersi leadership, candidature e condizioni di accesso alle liste.

In questo scenario, la battaglia contro il Melonellum rischia di diventare il contenitore simbolico nel quale far confluire tutte le difficoltà del centrosinistra: la contestazione della legge, la protezione dei piccoli alleati, la ricerca di una leadership condivisa e il tentativo di arrivare al 2027 senza che le contraddizioni interne esplodano prima del voto. La riforma elettorale può certamente presentare profili da sottoporre a un serio scrutinio costituzionale. Ma sarebbe riduttivo immaginare che la soluzione delle difficoltà dell’opposizione possa arrivare esclusivamente da una sentenza o da un aggiustamento tecnico delle regole.

La democrazia, dopotutto, non coincide con la possibilità di presentare una lista, così come la partecipazione non si esaurisce nella riduzione delle firme da raccogliere. Questi elementi sono importanti, ma la qualità di un sistema politico dipende anche dalla capacità dei partiti di offrire alternative comprensibili, programmi coerenti e una classe dirigente disposta ad assumersi responsabilità. Si può facilitare la presentazione di una lista senza rendere più credibile il progetto che quella lista rappresenta. Si può ottenere una pronuncia favorevole della Consulta senza risolvere una crisi di identità. E si può organizzare una primaria impeccabile senza riuscire a spiegare perché gli elettori dovrebbero riconoscersi nella coalizione che ne uscirà.

Il paradosso finale è proprio questo: mentre il centrosinistra denuncia una legge che considera costruita per ostacolare la propria partecipazione, si trova impegnato a costruire, al proprio interno, le condizioni minime per partecipare senza inciampare nelle sue divisioni. Da una parte si contestano le regole del campo di gioco; dall’altra si discute su chi debba indossare la fascia di capitano, quali compagni ammettere in squadra e chi debba pagare l’iscrizione al torneo.

La Consulta farà il suo lavoro, se e quando sarà chiamata a pronunciarsi. I partiti, invece, dovranno fare il proprio: spiegare agli italiani che cosa intendono cambiare, con quali strumenti e a vantaggio di chi. Perché il vero problema di una coalizione non è soltanto riuscire a raccogliere le firme necessarie per presentarsi alle elezioni. È riuscire a raccogliere, prima ancora, ragioni sufficienti per essere votata.

E su questo terreno, purtroppo per chi preferisce le alchimie parlamentari alle sintesi politiche, non esistono scorciatoie burocratiche. Nessuna componente del gruppo misto può sostituire un progetto comune, nessuna deroga alle sottoscrizioni può fabbricare una leadership condivisa e nessuna sentenza può dispensare i partiti dal compito di convincere i cittadini. La democrazia non è un modulo da compilare: è una responsabilità da assumersi. E non basta dichiararsi pronti a difenderla, se poi si trascorre metà del tempo a cercare il modo più conveniente per aggirarne gli ostacoli e l’altra metà a discutere su chi debba guidare la protesta.

By rejecting the transformation of their country into a new front against Russia, Georgians preserved their strategic autonomy.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In recent years, Georgia has become the stage for a struggle whose implications extend far beyond its borders. The political conflict, often presented as a debate over democracy, European integration, and civil rights, should in fact be understood as another chapter in the delicate geopolitical game unfolding across the Caucasus.

It is against this backdrop that Tbilisi’s decision to distance itself from the confrontational policies promoted by its Western partners takes on particular significance.

The fundamental question is not whether Georgia should be “European” or “Russian.” Such a framework is excessively simplistic. The real issue is whether a small state situated between major centers of power should be free to determine its own foreign policy or whether its international position should be dictated by the strategic interests of outside actors.

The Georgian government chose the first option.

The rise of Georgian Dream brought about a significant shift in the country’s foreign policy. Rather than automatically echoing the anti-Russian rhetoric prevailing in  Brussels, Tbilisi adopted a more pragmatic approach. Its priority became avoiding another war while preserving economic relations with its neighbors.

For Georgia, this is no abstract matter. Russia remains an important economic partner. Trade, tourism, energy, and the movement of people create realities that cannot simply be erased by political decisions. Fully adopting the Western sanctions regime against Moscow would have particularly serious consequences for an economy far smaller and more vulnerable than those of Europe’s major powers.

This is where Tbilisi’s policy fundamentally diverges from the strategy advocated by Brussel’s hawks. Brussels wants Georgia to become increasingly integrated into European political structures. The Georgian government, however, has insisted that integration cannot mean automatically submitting to the European Union’s geopolitical priorities.

The adoption of the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence became the main symbol of this dispute. Its critics regard the legislation as a democratic setback. Its supporters see it as a legitimate attempt to limit the political influence of organizations financed from abroad.

The same divide is evident in cultural matters. Georgian legislation concerning LGBT propaganda provoked a strong European reaction and reinforced the perception among its critics that Tbilisi was abandoning the liberal values promoted by the European Union.

Yet one question rarely receives the same attention: who should determine Georgia’s political and cultural rules?

For Georgian Dream, the answer is the Georgian state itself. It was precisely this insistence on autonomy that made the government the target of increasingly intense international pressure.

Recently, Tbilisi Mayor Kakha Kaladze openly accused Brussels of financing an attempted coup in Georgia during last year’s protests. He claims that European actors funded groups involved in the demonstrations and supported efforts to bring about a change of government. According to Kaladze, the objective was to install political forces more closely aligned with the interests of the European Union.

In fact, such allegations should come as little surprise in the current geopolitical environment. Brussels is now discussing the possibility of imposing sanctions on most Georgian Dream leaders and government officials. These developments nevertheless reveal the broader geopolitical dimensions of the crisis. The dispute is not merely a controversy over domestic legislation, but a genuine struggle over the country’s strategic orientation.

Here lies the principal danger facing Georgia. The Caucasus is not a neutral space. The region lies between Russia, Turkey, Iran, and the Euro-Atlantic world. Any attempt to turn Georgia into a platform for confrontation with Moscow would have far greater consequences for Georgians themselves than for the powers supporting such a policy from a distance.

The experience of Ukraine has made this reality even more obvious. A state can receive political, financial, and military support from foreign powers while ultimately paying the highest price when rivalries between those powers escalate into open conflict. For a small country such as Georgia, avoiding this fate is a fundamental strategic consideration.

It was precisely on this point that Tbilisi projected a different course from Kiev. Rather than accepting the transformation of the country into another frontline state, the Georgian government sought to preserve workable relations with Moscow. This does not mean that Georgia has formed an alliance with Russia. The two countries still lack formal diplomatic relations, and Tbilisi maintains its own disagreements with the Kremlin. The national priority, however, is to safeguard strategic autonomy, peace, security, and development.

By avoiding direct confrontation with Moscow, Georgia reduces the risk of opening another military front near Russia’s borders. It also preserves economic ties with neighboring countries and retains greater freedom to engage with different centers of power simultaneously.

What is at stake is the sovereignty of a small state amid competition between major powers. In a region increasingly shaped by geopolitical rivalry, the most important question may not be which side Georgia belongs to, but how the country intends to protect itself amid the confrontation between opposing external forces.

The Georgian people have shown that Georgia’s interests come first. And they were right to make that choice.

Geoengineering, El Niño, and Extreme Weather Events from the Americas to Europe

by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio

VERSIONE IN ITALIANO

“Our Earth is dying. Even NOAA admits that the super El Niño — a product of geoengineering — can alter the global climate and that the planet’s life-support system has reached a catastrophic tipping point. Global climate terrorists within the US military are intensifying their warfare operations.”

So begins a brief investigation by American Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea (Source 1)—work that has been suppressed by mainstream media, even though the articles she publishes on her Substack are consistently based on official papers. It was she who published a confidential US Air Force dossier titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier” (link at the bottom of the article).

This document confirms, beyond any reasonable doubt, the military use of weather—a history traced back to Operation Popeye in Vietnam by our geopolitics and intelligence contributor at Gospa News International, Dr. Darini Rajasingham-Senanayake, an academic at the University of Colombo (Sri Lanka)…

WEATHER WARFARE & GEOENGINEERING HISTORY. From Operation Popeye to recente Devastating storm ‘Ditwah’ in Asia

It is worth recalling that the US Air Force also distinguished itself by publishing a study on laboratory-created recombinant chimeric viruses—the very nature of SARS-CoV-2, which was found to be spiked with HIV…

Mihalcea adds: “Not only does ball-sized hail constitute an act of terrorism against civilians, but the toxic substances being sprayed—toxic metals, graphene, and polymers—are killing humans, plants, and animals. For years, I have maintained that it is pointless to stop biological weapons linked to COVID-19 if we do not put an end to geoengineering.“

Today, we were supposed to focus specifically on the potential correlation between the HAARP station in Alaska and the alarming intensification of El Niño; however, we will cover this in the next episode because, while searching for documentation on the subject, we uncovered other detailed “scientific scoops”!

El Niño is a periodic warming phenomenon occurring between March and February at intervals of two to seven years; it stands in contrast to La Niña, which causes cooling. This year, the phenomenon is being intensified by equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures that are already above average.

HEAVY FLOODING! Nature is Unleashing its Full Power in Italy and in Nepal

More details in the descripyion of the VIDEO

BREAKING – Four dead and thousands without power after Hurricane Isaias lashes US

Hurricane Isaias leaves hundreds of thousands of people without power in Alabama, Georgia and Florida, with all three states declaring emergencies Flooding is a continuing risk, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis says as he warns of a “very hazardous situation”, according to BBC.

Winds peaked at 120mph (193km/h) before Isaias made landfall in Florida late on Friday – images show houses battered by winds and felled trees.

Two people are dead in Alabama, according to the governor, while two more have been killed in separate incidents in Florida. Isaias peaked as a category three hurricane, bringing heavy rain and powerful wind, but has since been downgraded

Video of the recent floods in Chile

Pentagon-funded electromagnetic bombardment: as dangerous as geomagnetic storms

While researching geoengineering, we uncovered scientific studies that—when viewed together—suggest a potential link between the activity of the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) and alterations to the ionosphere, space weather, and the Earth’s climate…

By synthesizing the astrophysical data gathered, we can state that artificial electromagnetic bombardment generated by the Alaska station can produce dangeorous effects similar to geomagnetic storms originating from the Sun or other planets.

If you missed any of the nine previous reports in the HAARP Dossier, you can revisit one of the early ones—“TOO MANY FLOODS AFTER DAZZLING AURORAS MADE BY HAARP. Dangerous Tests Funded by US NSF. As Solar project in EU“—as well as the most recent entry: “HAARP Dossier – 9: Cloudbursts, Tornadoes, and Lightning Across Italy, the EU, the USA, and Nepal (Video) Following PARS Tests in Alaska for the Third Consecutive Year—No Correlation? (at the moment in Italian only but avoidable in English with machine stranslation)“

Recent videos regarding the floods in Spain

In short, the immensely powerful HAARP antennas—located at a military base in Gakona, Alaska, and managed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) on behalf of the US Air Force (which nonetheless continues to fund experiments alongside the US government’s National Science Foundation, or NSF)—conduct multiple experiments each year involving the geomagnetic bombardment of the ionosphere.

“The ionosphere stretches roughly 50 to 400 miles above Earth’s surface, right at the edge of space. Along with the neutral upper atmosphere, the ionosphere forms the boundary between Earth’s lower atmosphere — where we live and breathe — and the vacuum of space.” (NASA)

As this is a program funded and utilized by the US Pentagon, we are unaware of any scientist ever publishing research on the risks associated with these activities.

TOO MANY FLOODS AFTER DAZZLING AURORAS MADE BY HAARP. Dangerous Tests Funded by US NSF. As Solar project in EU

With each of our investigations, however, we uncover new, unsettling secrets hidden within the many communications—ostensibly about safety—regarding geoengineering activities; activities described by them as mere study and research, but which we—along with certain European scientists who urged caution—interpret as manipulation.

Indeed, those scientists’ calls for prudence were significant enough to prompt the Pentagon (the US Department of Defense) to relinquish control of the controversial facility in 2015.

«The HAARP facility can generate artificial heating in the atmosphere to enable the study of the variability of the atmosphere, the energetic electron distribution, and how the HF radio wave propagation would be affected. The HAARP HF heater is currently the only available source of controlled ELF/VLF waves available to scientists for magnetospheric wave injection» reads on the official website as we reported in a previous investigation.

The HAARP station’s Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) is a massive array of 180 radio antennas spread across a 33-acre site; last August, it conducted PARS (Polar Aeronomy and Radio Science) tests for the third consecutive year prior to the onset of the flood season in Europe and across the globe, a topic we covered in our previous article, *HAARP DOSSIER – 9*.

That is not all. It conducted other tests that were not publicized as part of the official research campaigns and can only be tracked on the website by experts; this is because the UAF is required to issue a “transmission notice” to amateur radio operators, given that electromagnetic tests alter radio frequencies—and much else besides…

Today, we reveal two highly technical yet fundamental points regarding the dangerous HAARP activity—though we hope to present them in a more accessible way, even at the risk of minor scientific inaccuracies:

• the antennas can generate a devastating electromagnetic power output of 3.6 gigawatts—equivalent to a small power plant or the electricity consumption of 12,000 homes
• high-frequency transmissions can “exceed f0F2” that is “the critical frequency of the Earth’s ionospheric F2 layer”
• a study conducted by university physicists and NASA researchers analyzed “space weather modeling capabilities” regarding “geomagnetic storms,” ​​focusing specifically on the critical nature of the f0F2 factor
• other studies highlight the dangerous impacts of geomagnetic storms on Earth

HELP GOSPA NEWS WITH A FREE DONATION via PayPal or Bank

The Hidden Experiment Before the Floods

«The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) will be conducting a research campaign August 25-27 UTC, with operating times specified in the table below. Operating frequencies will vary, but all HAARP transmissions will be between 2.8 MHz and 10 MHz».

This is what was stated in a “transmission notice” dated August 24, 2026 (following our Investigation No. 9) a notice that is effectively hidden from anyone unfamiliar with the website (Source 2).

Not only is this experiment unmentioned on the homepage—which still displays the previous PARS test from August 4–13, 2026, that we had reported on Italian 9 DOSSIER.

But the “Research Campaigns” section has not been updated since the PARS campaign of August 2024. How can such secrecy be explained?

This is because, as revealed in a world exclusive by Gospa News, the geomagnetic bombardment experiments of May 2024 coincided with the appearance of dazzling, anomalous aurorae borealis visible across much of the Northern Hemisphere.

However, UAF management blamed an ongoing solar storm and denied that their tests had triggered or intensified the auroras or that, by interfering with the solar storm, they might be linked to subsequent atmospheric disasters. Since then, transparency regarding the HAARP station has become optional…

DAZZLING AURORAS DEBUNKED! Artificially Caused by HAARP & US NSF. Not by a Solar Storm as CNN Told

I reiterate—for the umpteenth time—that the danger inherent in these electromagnetic bombardments of the ionosphere lies in the fact that no scientific study has ever been conducted on potential short-, medium-, or long-term adverse effects.

At present, Gospa News’ investigations represent the only source of scientific analysis regarding the temporal coincidences between HAARP experiments and anomalous—sometimes even catastrophic—atmospheric events occurring in the weeks and months immediately following them.

This was the case with another test in January 2026—also kept “hidden” and detectable only via the “transmission notice”—which preceded floods and landslides in Europe and the USA.

Electromagnetic power equivalent to that of 12,000 homes can be unleashed from Alaska.

Now, however, we have identified a study highlighting the critical nature of the foF2 factor as altered by tests conducted at the Alaska station.

“Operating frequencies will vary, but all HAARP transmissions will be between 2.8 MHz and 10 MHz. Actual transmit days and times are highly variable based on real-time ionospheric and/or geomagnetic conditions. All information is subject to change.” reads the official notice dated August 24, 2026 (screenshot above).

“Note that due to the number of experiments and the need to make real-time schedule adjustments based on ionospheric conditions, no frequencies are specified in the table below. The included transmission notice supplement contains information on the frequencies HAARP is authorized to transmit. HAARP transmissions will only occur on our authorized frequencies”.

HAARP DOSSIER – 9. CYCLONES, LANDSLIDES and POLAR VORTEX after New SECRET U.S. MILITARY TESTS. Electromagnetic Bombing from Alaska Station Before Climate Disasters

The communication appears quite generic, yet the notes below specify that “The emission bandwidth may be up to 46 kHz; the actual value depends on the frequency, modulation and experiment requirements”

So far, so good — given that this electromagnetic emission is well below that of a 5G installation (700 MHz, or 700,000 kHz) — but that is not the alarming indicator…

At the point 3 we read: “The authorized Effective Radiated Power (ERP) varies from 457 MW at the lower frequencies up to 3.6 GW at the higher frequencies; the actual power depends on the experiment requirements but will be ≤ authorized limit”

“3.6 GW—or 3,600 megawatts (MW)—represents an enormous amount of power, potentially very dangerous if not managed correctly through industrial infrastructure and specific safety systems.”

Google Gemini’s AI issues this warning, reminding us that this is equivalent to 36 million watts (or 36,000 kilowatts) “the power generated by a medium-sized power plant (such as a large wind or solar farm), capable of powering approximately 12,000 homes simultaneously.”

The Space Weather Modeling by Ionosphere “Critical foF2 Frequency” Altered by HAARP

Let us look at the explanation provided in the caption of the image from the University of Alaska Fairbanks regarding the August experiment (Source 2):

In short, this means interference with satellites and all forms of satellite communication.

It is essentially a “Star Wars”-style tool, given that without Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network, Ukraine—which lacks its own space-based spy stations—would be left blind…

However, the issue of alterations to this foF2 factor is clearly explained in an older study published by the scientific journal *AGU Advancing Earth and Space Science* in its “Space Weather” section.

The study—authored by J. S. Shim of The Catholic University of America and NASA GSFC (Greenbelt, MD, USA), along with other NASA scientists—is titled “Validation of Ionospheric Specifications During Geomagnetic Storms: TEC and foF2 During the March 2013 Storm Event” (Source 3).

That study, published in 2018, makes no reference whatsoever to the HAARP activity in Alaska—given that operations had only just resumed at the time following the transfer from the US Air Force to the University of Alaska Fairbanks—yet it helps mere mortals like us (laypeople when it comes to physics) to at least grasp the importance, and therefore the potential danger, of the foF2 factor.

Let us look at the research abstract:

«To address challenges of assessing space weather modeling capabilities, the Community Coordinated Modeling Center is leading a newly established International Forum for Space Weather Modeling Capabilities Assessment» and this in itself is a curious news item containing alarming words that smack of geoengineering a thousand light-years away…

But it continues:

«This paper presents preliminary results of validation of modeled foF2 (F2 layer critical frequency) and TEC (total electron content) during the first selected 2013 March storm event (17 March 2013)». In this study, we used eight ionospheric models ranging from empirical to physics-based, coupled ionosphere-thermosphere and data assimilation models. The quantities we considered are TEC and foF2 changes and percentage changes compared to quiet time background, and the maximum and minimum percentage changes. In addition, we considered normalized percentage changes of TEC».

A Gigantic Space-Warfare Jammer Capable of Altering Electrons (TEC), Satellites, and GPS

Therefore, if foF2 levels rise during a geomagnetic storm, then—by a simple, self-evident philosophical syllogism—artificially exceeding that threshold (as HAARP admitted in the notes regarding its latest test on August 24, 2026) should or could trigger a similarly dangerous space weather event!

To better understand the study’s findings, let us consult the Space Weather website of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—the U.S. Department of Commerce agency that studies and attempts to forecast weather events.

«The Total Electron Content (TEC) is the total number of electrons present along a path between a radio transmitter and receiver. Radio waves are affected by the presence of electrons. The more electrons in the path of the radio wave, the more the radio signal will be affected. For ground to satellite communication and satellite navigation, TEC is a good parameter to monitor for possible space weather impacts» states NOAA’s Space Weather service (Source 4).

“The TEC in the ionosphere is modified by changing solar Extreme Ultra-Violet radiation, geomagnetic storms, and the atmospheric waves that propagate up from the lower atmosphere. The TEC will therefore depend on local time, latitude, longitude, season, geomagnetic conditions, solar cycle and activity, and troposphere conditions. The propagation of radio waves is affected by the ionosphere. (..) The change in the path and velocity of radio waves in the ionosphere has a big impact on the accuracy of satellite navigation systems such as GPS/GNSS”. states the US government website.

From these few lines, two definitive concepts emerge:

• TEC can be altered by “upward-propagating atmospheric waves” and thus also by HAARP’s geomagnetic bombardments;
• with near-absolute certainty, the HAARP station, powerful enough to exceed the foF2 critical frequency, thereby influencing TEC and “impacting space weather” is at the very least a geospatial weapon capable of acting as a “gigantic” jammer (the frequency-disrupting device used by terrorists and intelligence agencies to interfere with mobile phone and other digital device communications).

The Dangerous Impacts of Space Weather on Earth

Here is what the AI ​​Gemini writes on the subject:

Space weather—driven primarily by solar activity (flares, solar wind, and coronal mass ejections, or CMEs)—directly affects the geospace environment and terrestrial technologies.

The interaction of solar plasma with Earth’s magnetic field generates spectacular auroras—both the *borealis* and *australis*—which are sometimes visible even at mid-latitudes during peak storm activity.

We return to the subject of auroras, the “core mission” of HAARP, which states that “high-frequency transmissions often rely on the critical plasma frequency for the F2 region (foF2), as measured by the Gakona ionosonde.”

WUHAN-GATES – 82. SYNTHETIC VIRUSES: BIOWEAPONS Hidden by PENTAGON. Exclusive US AIR FORCE Secret Paper confirms Dangerous Tests by JASON Group on SARS-Cov2

For someone like me—having written 96 investigative reports on the lab-engineered SARS-CoV-2—reading these statements about the interaction between immense electromagnetic power (3.6 megawatts) and solar activity is truly terrifying.

Google AI Gemini also warns that geomagnetic storms can cause many damages to out planet:

• Power grids: Geomagnetic storms induce electric currents in the ground that can overload and damage distribution grid transformers.
• Satellites and telecommunications: High-energy charged particles damage onboard electronics, cause temporary or permanent malfunctions, and disrupt GPS signals and radio communications.

The Damage Caused by Geomagnetic Storms

But I am not the only one pointing out the danger of space weather impacts on Earth…

In recent days, we debunked a sensational piece of fake news regarding the explosion of an American spy satellite—a story hastily published by the website *Sorvegliati Spaziali (Space Checks)* after it was misled by Gemini AI. We feel somewhat indebted to them, given the exceptional work they usually do as partners of the National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF) of Rome (Italy); today, we cite them to provide a detailed scientific explanation of the phenomena that the AI ​​had previously reported in a crude and inaccurate manner.

Debunked DURDEN’s MYSTERY on SPY SATELLITE Fake EXPLOSION in Space. Google AI, US Govt TRACSS reported. But on 2 Orbital Radar is still Active – Exclusive VIDEOs

“Space weather refers to the physical state of the space occupied by Earth and the planets of the Solar System—a region permeated by the solar wind, a continuous stream of electrically charged particles (in a state known as plasma) confined by the analogous ‘interstellar wind’ within a massive bubble called the heliosphere,” reads the entry on Space Meteorology (Source 5).

For the sake of brevity, we will skip the lengthy section explaining magnetic field activity linked to the Sun’s rotation and sunspots, which “can release magnetic energy during chromospheric eruptions (so-called flares), resulting in particle acceleration and the emission of electromagnetic radiation.”

“Enormous ‘plasma bubbles’—known as CMEs or Coronal Mass Ejections—can be accelerated toward the planets. When a planet possesses a magnetic field that acts as a genuine shield against incoming space particles, this field becomes compressed, triggering magnetic storms.“

Finally, we turn to the shimmering skies: their varying color shades depend on radio-frequency intensity—as we highlighted in our analysis of a table regarding HAARP investigations, and as is evident from the table published earlier in this article.

“On Earth, polar auroras appear as delicate, multicolored curtains; their luminosity is generated in the ionosphere by atoms and molecules excited by solar particles that manage to penetrate the magnetic shield. (…) A disturbed ionosphere affects the quality of radio communications—for instance, by making GPS-based positioning problematic. Furthermore, intense ionospheric electric currents can induce significant additional currents in power lines, thereby triggering blackouts.”

VIDEO – Space Weather: The Geomagnetic Storms of 2024–2025

Rosanna Rispoli, a researcher at the National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF) of Rome, explains space weather and the solar geomagnetic storms that give rise to the aurora borealis and aurora australis in a video released on YouTube.

In the video, she highlights the intensity of these phenomena between 2024 and 2025; it is worth noting that these are precisely the years during which HAARP conducted the highest number of experiments.

The video also refers to the intense aurora borealis—”visible at an unusual latitude”—of May 2024; this occurred at the peak of a solar storm but also during one of the most controversial tests conducted by the Alaska station, forcing UAF management to deny a correlation that seemed obvious even to laypeople…

HAARP Experiments & Red Auroras: UAF confirmed NSF Dangerous Researches but even Denied Glaring correlations

It is baffling that experts fail to even hypothesize a possible link between these exceptional space events and HAARP experiments; yet, this can only be explained by the fear of challenging a Pentagon project.

NASA Scientist: “Turbulence and the Impact of Geomagnetic Storms on Earth”

However, there is a striking new development regarding the impact of space weather on our planet.

“According to a new statistical study published today in *Nature* (July 15, 2026 – Ed.),we are underestimating the potential consequences of severe geomagnetic storms on Earth. The cause appears to be a combination of measurement errors regarding the solar wind—which drives these storms—physical inferences, and a statistical phenomenon known as ‘regression to the mean,'” summarizes Valentina Guglielmo in an article published by INAF’s online news outlet (Source 6).

«Several processes occur between the point where we measure solar wind intensity—the Lagrange L1 point—and the magnetopause, the point where the solar wind strikes Earth’s outer atmosphere,» explains Nithin Sivadas, a researcher in the Department of Physics at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and the paper’s lead author, speaking to *Media INAF* (Gospa News translation from Italian).

«Some of these processes can have a systematic effect on reducing intensity, while others—such as turbulence—can have a random effect, causing stochastic variations in solar wind intensity. We focus exclusively on the processes that cause random variations. Phenomena driving random fluctuations in solar wind intensity measured between L1 and Earth’s vicinity include, for example, the solar wind’s direction, its variable structure, and turbulence closer to Earth.»

«Since these factors introduce random variations, scientists previously hypothesized that, on average, underestimations would cancel out overestimations, allowing us to relate the measured average solar wind intensity to its effects on Earth without worrying about random fluctuations. However, our paper argues that this is not entirely true.»

In the study’s abstract, astrophysicist Sivadas—who also works at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland—and his colleagues write an even more unsettling sentence regarding “statistical bias”:

“Our results reveal that the data analysis underpinning saturation theories is affected by a non-linear bias, thereby calling the validity of such theories into question. When uncertainties are corrected, it emerges that Earth’s response to solar wind forcing is consistently linear and that the impact of extreme geomagnetic storms can be double what was previously believed (Source 7).”

We refer astrophysics enthusiasts and professionals to the complex scientific paper itself; we cite it here solely to refute the mainstream “mantra” claiming that extreme climate changes are driven exclusively by human behavior (certainly a contributing factor) rather than by solar activity—and, by extension, the military geoengineering that mimics it...

Just as with mRNA Covid vaccines, when science truly gets serious and rigorously tests every hypothesis, “politically convenient” certainties begin to crumble…

This “scientific scoop” emerges at a time when HAARP is altering space weather by toying with solar storms—much like “sorcerer’s apprentices” enhancing lethal viruses in a lab—and bombarding the ionosphere, whose primary function is to reflect long-distance radio waves and protect Earth by shielding it from a portion of solar radiation.

Study by STEREO Researchers (EU project): “Impacts Surrounding the Clouds Need to Be Studied”

Confirming our suspicions and the many unknowns inherent in space weather, here is a final key insight from another study published on the European Commission’s CORDIS website. For the sake of brevity, we cite only the conclusions, which refer to a solar eruption and “Coronal Mass Ejections” (CMEs).

«Light associated with an eruption takes eight minutes to reach Earth’s magnetosphere. However, CMEs can take up to five days to cover the distance to our planet. The solar wind acts on these clouds of superheated plasma like a current opposing a boat’s motion, slowing down the faster ones. STEREO scientists have discovered that the impacts occurring around these clouds must be taken into account to “predict” arrival times with greater accuracy (Source 8)».

«From the constant stream of electrically charged particles known as solar wind to unpredictable CMEs, Earth feels the impact of our stellar companion—an influence that extends far beyond mere light and heat».

This is what scientists from the European Commission-funded STEREO (Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory) mission report (Source 8), implicitly confirming that solar electromagnetic emissions impact Earth’s atmosphere; an effect that, however, can also be artificially replicated by HAARP during Pentagon-funded tests through the alteration of the ionosphere’s “foF2 critical frequency” (as seen in the 2018 Shim et al. study cited above).

The defense strategy of the Alaska station’s proponents has consistently been the same: solar geomagnetic storms are far more powerful—measured in terawatts—and thus vastly exceed the 3.6-gigawatt limit imposed on the UAF.

Yet this remains merely a hypothesis—just like our own—given that until recently (prior to the STEREO and Sivada studies), the prevailing view was that solar flares could not dangerously impact Earth’s atmosphere and clouds…

MONTAGNIER, “A NOBEL TO TAKE DOWN”. Exclusive Preview of Book on Mysterious Death of Biologist who FIRST Unveiled SARS-Co-v2 as ManMade BioWeapon

True science ought to analyze both possibilities; however, were an astrophysicist to discuss the safety of the Pentagon’s projects in Alaska, they would—at the very least—lose their job.

They would also risk premature death, much like the scientists who identified SARS-CoV-2 as a lab-engineered pathogen—foremost among them Luc Montagnier—linking the COVID-19 pandemic to decades-long experiments conducted by DARPA, the US Department of Defense’s military agency.

WUHAN.GATES – 34. COVID IS A SCIENTIST’s KILLER… Who Discovered SARS Viruses Died!

Japanese Scientists: “Connection Between Geomagnetic Storms and Earthquakes”

And finally…the kicker: Amarus in Fundo!

A group of researchers from a Japanese university has proposed a theoretical model exploring a possible link between solar storms and earthquakes. They suggest that, under specific conditions, ionospheric disturbances could help trigger seismic events that are already “on the brink” of occurring.

We are not providing details on this study here, as it will be the main topic of the next Gospa News investigation (subscribe to the newsletter), especially in light of the now-alarming seismic activity along the Pacific Ring of Fire…

The FURY of RING of FIRE STRUCK AGAIN! 7.7 Earthquakes in Panama after 7,2 in Peru (VIDEO). Wild Weather or Geoengineering Nightmares inside HAARP & HARP, US Pentagon partner?

In this specific context, we move from HAARP to HARP—the Alaska Earthquake Center—which is based right inside the UAF station in Gakona that we discussed in our previous investigation.

Could it be that the “crazy conspiracy theorists”—who blamed earthquakes on those dangerous, mysterious antennas on the American Arctic peninsula—actually had a scientifically valid point?

If that turns out to be the case, Gospa News will aim to prove it—relying, as always, on credible international scientific studies, just as we did for all the “Wuhan-Gates” investigations into lab-engineered SARS-CoV-2 and the harms associated with mRNA vaccines.

Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio – Gospa News founder and director

HELP GOSPA NEWS WITH A FREE DONATION via PayPal or Bank

VITAL RELATED POSTS – ITALIAN LINKS CAN BE READ IN ENGLISH WITH MACHINE TRANSLATION

HAARP DOSSIER – 9. NUBIFRAGI, TORNADO E FULMINI SU ITALIA, UE, USA, NEPAL, (video) dopo Test PARS in Alaska per il terzo anno di fila. Nessuna Correlazione?

HAARP DOSSIER – 9. CYCLONES, LANDSLIDES and POLAR VORTEX after New SECRET U.S. MILITARY TESTS. Electromagnetic Bombing from Alaska Station Before Climate Disasters

The FURY of RING of FIRE STRUCK AGAIN! 7.7 Earthquakes in Panama after 7,2 in Peru (VIDEO). Wild Weather or Geoengineering Nightmares inside HAARP & HARP, US Pentagon partner?

HAARP DOSSIER – 8. HOW GEOENGINEERING drives WEATHER. Shocking Video on Earthquakes’ Risks and Many Exclusive Investigations

WEATHER WARFARE & GEOENGINEERING HISTORY. From Operation Popeye to recente Devastating storm ‘Ditwah’ in Asia

HAARP Experiments & Red Auroras: UAF confirmed NSF Dangerous Researches but even Denied Glaring correlations

The US MILITARY OCCUPATION of the Indian Ocean “Zone of Peace” among BioWarfare, Geoengineering and Directed Energy Weapons

Air Force EXCLUSIVE Declassified Paper on Militarized WEATHER WARFARE in Action: Huge Flooding and Storm in the US

BILL to BAN GEOENGINEERING Passed by FLORIDA. General Surgeon: “Planes release Harmful Compounds”. Activist Detained in Italy

WUHAN-GATES – 90. SARS-Cov-2 BIOWEAPON Hidden by FAUCI’s ADVISOR. Morens Plead Guilty for Conspiracy in Concealing Records on US-funded Experiments in Wuhan

WUHAN-GATES – 81. EXCLUSIVE & EXPLOSIVE STUDY! The “Recipe” to Build a Covid in Laboratory published by Fauci’s collaborator prof. Baric on 2017. Where was Trump?

WUHAN-GATES – 79. mRNA KILLER VACCINES Ready Before COVID PANDEMIC. Exclusive DARPA Paper proves Plot among Pentagon, Gates & Moderna

Strategic Culture Foundation | October 9, 2026

The European Union is witnessing a full-blown social revolt. Governing political parties and their economic policies are held in open contempt as public protests and strikes escalate across multiple countries.

Protests, mass marches, and industrial strikes are spreading across the EU in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, and other countries. The grievances are various, from students and teachers over woeful education services, to healthcare professionals and transportation workers denouncing crumby wages and pension cuts.

But at the core is a warmongering, dehumanizing system of capitalist inequality.

Unbearable living costs for basic needs, from food to housing, are driving millions onto the streets in desperation and anger at the lack of adequate political response to their concerns. As one French student said: “Too young to be listened to, old enough to be tear-gassed.”

The entire political system is being brought into disrepute for its dysfunction and indifference towards meeting rudimentary human needs. Then, infuriating all the more, are lies from the elite rulers and their propaganda media about “national defense and threat of war from Russia.”

In Spain this week, an 87-year-old frail woman known as Maricarmen died in hospital after she was evicted from her Madrid home because she could not pay the extortionate rent increase. Her plight has come to galvanize a nationwide protest against Spain’s housing crisis, a crisis that is repeated across every European country. Protesters shouted furiously that the pitiful old woman was “murdered by the state and corporations.”

In France, the brutality of police against student protests has shocked the nation and the world. Nearly 7,000 young people have been arrested, as riot police tear gas and shoot at largely peaceful rallies. Students gathering at the Place de la Bastille in Paris and other cities vow that they will not back down. One student had his hand blown off by a police stun grenade while another teenager lost an eye from a rubber bullet fired at close range.

The Place de la Bastille is where the French Revolution manifested in 1798 against a hated aristocracy amid abject misery. Today, the tensions are boiling towards another momentous rebellion, this time inspiring again similar movements across Europe.

These protests and the inhumane suffering that underlie them are channeling uprisings all over the EU.

There is a palpable sense that populations en masse have had enough of decades of inequality and chronic deprivation inflicted by capitalist policies that enrich a few and are enforced by governments slavishly serving the interests of capital over the needs of the citizen majority.

Western media reports talk about “cash-strapped” governments under pressure from bond markets to reduce record debt levels while workers, students and pensioners demand more public investment and relief from economic hardship.

That is a misleading partial portrayal of the problem. Omitted is the crucial backdrop that European governments are directing vast economic resources towards militarism and the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. That is what is causing the “cash-strapped governments.” In other words, their declared fiscal straits are a policy choice, not some mysterious dilemma.

The social crisis sweeping across Europe is also seen in the United States and other Western-aligned nations. The background is a failed economic system that no longer provides a modicum of acceptable living conditions. The problem has been decades in the making from growing inequality and diminishing political representation. Today it is even questionable if Western states are democracies, controlled as they are by corporate oligarchies.

Nevertheless, the social crisis that is unfolding across Europe has been intensified and amplified by European political rulers operating in a relentless war mode against Russia.

The European Union has pumped hundreds of billions of euros into Ukraine over the past four years to prop up a NeoNazi regime run by a corrupt dictatorship – all for the objective of defeating Russia. The EU leaders – many of them unelected, like Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas and António Costa – are driven by an obsessive Russophobia. But that is only part of the explanation.

Other elected leaders and parties like France’s Macron and Germany’s Merz are also despised for their elitism and delusions of grandeur. Merz declares that he wants to make Germany the strongest military in Europe, in total tin-ear deafness to his nation’s economic and social problems and the sinister historical connotations of resurrecting Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, as his government suffers electoral defeat after defeat, European elites deprecate German voters as being blind because they dare to choose parties that are opposed to war with Russia.

There are many grounds for the Europe-wide contempt of ruling parties. Inequality, poverty, unemployment, soaring living costs, declining wages, deteriorating public services. Uncontrolled immigration amid the pressure on inadequate public resources is another cause for grievance. Europe’s complicity in the Israeli genocidal war on Palestinians, and Europe’s complicity in Trump’s aggression towards Iran, Yemen, Cuba, and so on, are other factors.

However, the bogus narrative that governments are “cash-strapped” is a cause for immense public disgust. There are plenty of economic resources to meet public needs. It’s a question of those resources not being permitted to create just and humane societies under the prevailing capitalist system with its priority of enriching a tiny elite class.

The conditions of “tight budgets” and “austerity for the masses” are created by deliberate policies of militarism and fuelling a proxy war in Ukraine.

European “leaders” and their NATO lobbyists like Mark Rutte demand hundreds of billions of euros to boost military industries while at the same time calling for draconian cuts in public spending and social welfare in order to pay for this reckless militarism. The EU is “lending” an additional €90 billion over the next two years alone just to prop up the corrupt regime in Kiev so that it can keep fighting a futile war with Russia. The perverse priority is driven by the military-industrial complex and its corporate investors. It is also driven by an ideological, propagandized mindset that demonizes Russia as an enemy. President Putin and other Russian voices have repeatedly stated that they do not want war with Europe. They say the conflict in Ukraine has root causes that can be resolved through diplomatic engagement. Why are European politicians implacably opposed to peace?

A major factor is covering for internal political and economic failure of the European system. The EU’s economies, as with those in the U.S. and other Western states, are bankrupt dystopias in terms of delivering on social and democratic needs. The failure has been compounded by the costs of war in Ukraine.

That failure is criminal and fatal for the politicians and governments who have overseen the policies. Thus, the political class, including the propaganda news media, cannot admit their criminal policies.

In the face of their own internal contradictions, the European political elites are seeking a solution by externalizing Russia as an enemy. This is the same modus operandi that European rulers have used for the past century and more, unleashing two world wars as a result.

These criminal politicians and their dysfunctional economic system are again pushing war as their escape plan for survival at the expense of millions of lives and at the risk of starting a third world war, one that this time around could involve catastrophic nuclear nemesis.

It is damning of virtually every European government, including primarily the British, that there are no calls for diplomacy and political settlement with Russia. They are committed to waging war on Russia to absolve themselves from the social devastation they are responsible for.

One positive thing, though, is that increasing numbers of people can see through the chicanery and lies. A German student placard summed it up: “We won’t fight your wars… Education not bombs!”

A day of reckoning is imminent. Criminal political leaders and their warmongering system are exposed like never before and in a way that demands total revolt as a proper solution. The consequences are not to be externalized this time. Chickens are coming home to roost, as Malcom X once said.

Renault’s shares jumped 6.1 percent on Wednesday and Volkswagen’s 4.6 percent after a Bloomberg report that Brussels was preparing to cap imports of Chinese hybrids. Investors were pricing in protection. Two days later, it had not arrived. The joint results … Read more

Du mythe d’Europe à la double identité du Rimland, de la Méditerranée en tant que « mer-cœur » à la tradition occultée de de Gaulle et de Douguine, le continent doit se souvenir qu’il est né d’une traversée.

L’époque que nous vivons

Les Grecs racontaient l’histoire d’une jeune femme nommée Europe, fille d’un roi de Tyr, sur la côte de l’actuel Liban. Un matin, alors qu’elle jouait au bord de la mer, un taureau blanc émergea des flots. Elle monta sur son dos, et le taureau la transporta à travers les eaux jusqu’en Crète. C’est d’elle, disaient les poètes, qu’un continent tout entier a tiré son nom. [1]

Ce mythe est plus riche qu’il n’y paraît. Le nom « Europe » vient d’Asie et a traversé la Méditerranée sur le dos d’un dieu. Notre continent porte le nom d’une étrangère, d’une voyageuse, d’une jeune fille venue de l’autre rive. L’Europe est née d’une rencontre : avant d’être un territoire, elle fut une traversée.

Les Européens ont oublié cette histoire. Depuis quatre-vingts ans, on leur répète que l’Europe est un ensemble d’institutions, un marché commun, un périmètre de sécurité administré depuis l’autre côté de l’océan ; que l’Europe, c’est tout simplement « l’Occident ». Beaucoup ont fini par le croire.

La thèse défendue ici est différente. L’Europe est une civilisation — ou, plus précisément, plusieurs civilisations réunies sous un même toit. Et dans le monde multipolaire qui émerge, cette demeure n’est ni une province ni une périphérie. Elle se trouve au centre de la carte, et le nouvel ordre ne saurait être complet sans elle.

Une ère a pris fin. L’ordre unipolaire apparu après 1991 — celui que Francis Fukuyama s’était empressé de qualifier de « fin de l’histoire » [2] — se délite sous les yeux de tous. L’histoire n’était pas terminée. Elle patientait.

De nouveaux centres de gravité ont émergé en Eurasie, en Asie, en Afrique et en Amérique latine. Des capitales dont d’autres parlaient depuis des siècles s’expriment désormais en leur nom propre. Même à Washington, le ton a changé : la Stratégie de sécurité nationale des États-Unis pour 2025 évoque ouvertement les intérêts, les charges et les transactions, et considère les anciens engagements multilatéraux comme des coûts à renégocier.[3] Le patron présente la facture.

Pour l’Europe, la question n’est donc plus de savoir si le monde multipolaire adviendra. Il est déjà là. La véritable question est de savoir si l’Europe y entrera en tant que sujet ou en tant qu’objet : si elle écrira l’histoire ou si elle sera le lieu où d’autres écriront la leur.

Dans *La Théorie du monde multipolaire*, Alexandre Douguine fait remarquer que la plupart de ceux qui évoquent la multipolarité n’en ont aucune théorie.[4] Ils imaginent un « noyau » du monde — les États-Unis, l’Europe et le bloc occidental — entouré de concurrents en pleine ascension. Dans ce schéma, l’Europe siège à la table de l’ancien centre en déclin.

Il faut rejeter cette position. L’Europe n’a jamais été véritablement maîtresse du monde unipolaire ; elle en fut le premier protectorat. Dans son manuel de géopolitique, Douguine écrit qu’après 1945, l’Europe occidentale était placée sous contrôle américain tout autant que l’Europe orientale l’était sous contrôle soviétique.[5] Les méthodes de gouvernance différaient, mais non le degré de dépendance. De nombreux Européens, de part et d’autre du rideau de fer, ont vécu cette division comme une tragédie, et certains ont tenté d’y mettre fin. Lorsque la France du général de Gaulle a quitté le commandement militaire intégré de l’OTAN en 1966, elle n’a commis aucun acte hostile à l’encontre de quiconque. Elle a accompli un acte de mémoire : l’Europe se souvenait qu’elle possédait une volonté propre.

Si vous posez la question à Bruxelles, la réponse évoquera des compétences, des directives et des procédures. Si vous interrogez un géographe, vous obtiendrez des coordonnées : une péninsule bordée par l’Atlantique, la Méditerranée et les monts Oural. La première réponse relève de la bureaucratie ; la seconde, d’une carte sans légende. Aucune des deux n’explique pourquoi un berger sicilien, un charpentier bavarois et un moine du mont Athos appartiennent, au sens profond, à une même histoire.

Les eurasistes russes — et Piotr Savitski plus que quiconque — aimaient à dire que l’Europe n’est rien d’autre que le « promontoire occidental » de l’Eurasie. [6] De nombreux analystes occidentaux tiennent le même discours, mais avec moins d’affection : un petit cap rattaché à l’Asie.

L’image est recevable. Mais sur les caps, les hommes ont de tout temps érigé des phares. Au cap Sounion, les Athéniens bâtirent le temple de Poséidon, silhouette blanche se détachant sur la mer, pour que les marins sachent où commençait la Grèce. À la pointe de la Galice, les Romains nommèrent un cap *Finis Terrae* : la fin de la terre. Le promontoire est le point où un continent se tourne vers l’extérieur, où la terre dialogue avec la mer et le monde au-delà. La taille modeste de l’Europe sur la carte a toujours été la condition même de sa portée.

Au sein de ce promontoire, il n’existe pas une civilisation unique. On y trouve au moins quatre axes majeurs, dans une tension constante et féconde.

Il y a l’axe méditerranéen : Athènes et Rome, le droit et la philosophie, Byzance et la chrétienté latine, l’humanisme de la Renaissance né de la rencontre entre la théologie chrétienne et la science préservée et développée dans le monde islamique.

Il y a l’axe continental : le monde franc et germanique, le Saint-Empire romain germanique, l’université médiévale, la longue lignée de pensée allant de Kant et Hegel jusqu’à Heidegger, le vieux rêve d’une *Mitteleuropa* s’étendant de l’Atlantique à la steppe.

Il y a l’axe oriental : les peuples slaves, le christianisme orthodoxe, l’héritage de Byzance transmis par Kiev et Moscou — une Europe pleinement européenne, et pourtant distincte de la modernité occidentale. Il y a aussi l’axe du Nord : les mondes scandinave et balte, avec leurs assemblées, leur sens du droit communautaire et leur proximité avec la beauté rude de la nature.

Douguine, dans le sillage de Heidegger, évoque le *Dasein* des peuples — la manière singulière dont chaque peuple existe au monde — et le *Logos* de chaque peuple, ce qui lui insuffle la vie « non seulement sur le plan biologique, mais aussi sur les plans ethnosociologique et métaphysique »[7]. L’Europe ne possède pas un *Logos* unique : elle en compte plusieurs. Elle a toujours été, en elle-même, un monde multipolaire en miniature.

Telle est la première thèse de cet essai. La pluralité qu’appelle aujourd’hui la planète entière, l’Europe la porte déjà en elle. Elle n’a pas besoin d’importer la multipolarité. Elle doit s’en souvenir.

Pour comprendre pourquoi l’Europe occupe une place centrale, il faut remonter à l’opposition la plus ancienne de la géopolitique. Halford Mackinder l’a perçue, Carl Schmitt y a réfléchi et Douguine l’a systématisée : l’opposition entre la civilisation de la Mer et la civilisation de la Terre, entre thalassocratie et tellurocratie.[8]

La civilisation de la Mer est mobile, mercantile et individualiste ; elle appréhende le monde en termes de routes, de ports et de prix. La civilisation de la Terre est enracinée, communautaire et hiérarchique ; elle le mesure en termes de devoirs, de générations et de sacré. Il ne s’agit pas là de simples catégories militaires. Elles façonnent le droit, la religion, la philosophie et même la manière dont une famille s’attable pour le dîner du dimanche.

Mackinder situait l’origine de cette opposition en Méditerranée, dans les guerres opposant Rome à Carthage.[9] Douguine rappelle qu’à ce moment-là, la civilisation occidentale se trouvait à la croisée des chemins : fallait-il fonder une civilisation suivant la voie maritime — celle de Carthage — ou la voie terrestre — celle de Rome ? Chesterton faisait remarquer que Carthage signifiait littéralement « la Nouvelle Cité ». C’était une colonie fondée par des marchands venus de Tyr et de Sidon ; l’écrivain anglais la comparait — non sans arrière-pensée — à New York et à la Nouvelle-Zélande. Carthage a chuté, écrivait-il, parce qu’elle est restée fidèle à sa propre philosophie jusqu’au bout, et que son dieu a fini par dévorer ses enfants.[10]

Selon l’interprétation de Mackinder, les guerres puniques ne prennent jamais véritablement fin : elles resurgissent à chaque époque sous de nouveaux noms.[11]

Quelle est la position de l’Europe dans cette guerre perpétuelle ? Douguine apporte ici un éclairage que je considère comme décisif. L’Europe appartient à ce que les géopolitologues appellent le *Rimland*, la vaste ceinture côtière de l’Eurasie [12] ; or, le *Rimland* possède une double identité : il peut servir la Mer ou servir la Terre. C’est pourquoi, écrit Douguine, l’histoire européenne ne se résume pas au libre jeu d’États souverains s’entrechoquant comme des atomes, mais constitue « un champ unique traversé par des ondes générées par deux centres géopolitiques opposés ; un champ parcouru par les fils d’or du destin géopolitique ». [13]

Venise et Gênes ont parcouru toutes les mers ; les plaines de Pologne et de Bohême ainsi que les forêts d’Allemagne ont enraciné nos peuples dans le sol. L’Europe a le navire et la charrue dans le sang. C’est précisément pour cette raison que quiconque a cherché à dominer le monde a d’abord dû prendre le contrôle de l’Europe.

Dans un essai sur la Méditerranée, j’ai écrit que Rome est, en un certain sens, occupée par les émissaires de Carthage.[14] Carthage s’est déplacée. Elle ne siège plus sur la rive africaine : elle se trouve de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique et gouverne notre mer intérieure depuis l’extérieur. Je ne dis pas cela par haine envers quiconque. Je le dis parce qu’un peuple qui ignore qui gouverne sa mer ne peut gouverner son propre avenir.

Il reste à démontrer pourquoi l’Europe n’est pas simplement un pôle parmi d’autres — dont un monde multipolaire pourrait aisément se passer — mais un acteur indispensable. Il y a à cela quatre raisons.

La première est géographique, et les géopoliticiens de la mer l’ont compris avant tout le monde. La célèbre formule de Mackinder énonce : « Qui domine l’Europe orientale commande le Heartland ; qui contrôle le Heartland contrôle l’Île-Monde ; qui contrôle l’Île-Monde contrôle le monde. » Toute la pyramide de la puissance mondiale repose sur un socle européen. Nicholas Spykman, le stratège qui a jeté les bases intellectuelles de l’OTAN, a insisté — comme le note Douguine — sur l’importance du facteur intellectuel pour lier l’Europe occidentale à l’Amérique du Nord. [15] Ils avaient compris que l’Europe se conquiert d’abord dans les esprits avant de l’être sur le terrain ; c’est pourquoi ils ne l’ont jamais lâchée. Un monde multipolaire dans lequel l’Europe resterait captive préserverait l’ancien ordre unipolaire en son cœur même, au point de pivot entre l’Atlantique et l’Eurasie.

La seconde raison est historique. L’Europe a donné au monde la grammaire de l’ordre international moderne. Le système westphalien, né en 1648 à l’issue de la guerre de Trente Ans, ne concernait à l’origine que les puissances européennes ; les colonies, comme le souligne Douguine, étaient traitées comme de simples appendices. C’est de l’Europe qu’ont émergé l’État souverain, l’équilibre des puissances et même la prétention d’une civilisation à l’universalité. Schmitt l’a appelé le *Jus Publicum Europaeum*, ce droit public européen qui, durant trois siècles, a donné au monde entier son *Nomos*, son ordre fondamental.[16]

Ceux qui ont élaboré ce cadre peuvent le réécrire. La critique de l’universalisme occidental ne peut s’arrêter aux frontières de l’Europe, car c’est en Europe que cet universalisme est né. Si l’Europe n’est pas la première à dépasser l’idée que ses propres valeurs constituent l’étalon de toute l’humanité, cette vieille prétention survivra en son lieu d’origine, et toutes les autres civilisations devront continuer à s’en défendre. Seule une Europe ayant redécouvert sa propre pluralité peut dire au monde, avec autorité : nous avons eu tort de croire qu’il n’existait qu’une seule voie, et nous sommes les premiers à renoncer à cette erreur.

Schmitt lui-même a tiré cette conclusion et a signalé aux peuples d’Europe et d’Eurasie ce qu’il appelait l’impératif des grands espaces : le droit des peuples à organiser leurs propres grands espaces face à l’universalisme et à l’impérialisme, quelle que soit leur origine. [17] Douguine observe que l’Union européenne elle-même est, par essence, un « grand espace » dont le statut demeure incertain. L’Union est une ébauche. La question est de savoir qui tient la plume.

La troisième raison est celle par laquelle nous avons commencé : l’Europe est déjà un monde multipolaire en miniature. Durant des siècles, catholiques et orthodoxes, Latins et Slaves, peuples germaniques et méditerranéens ont appris — souvent dans la douleur — à vivre côte à côte sans se confondre les uns avec les autres. L’Europe connaît de l’intérieur le prix et les bienfaits de la coexistence avec la différence. Aucune autre civilisation n’a dû apprendre cette leçon aussi souvent, à travers tant de guerres et tant de réconciliations. C’est précisément l’expérience dont un monde multipolaire a besoin.

La quatrième raison réside dans sa position entre les pôles. L’Europe borde l’Atlantique et le cœur continental eurasien ; par la Méditerranée, elle jouxte l’Afrique et le Moyen-Orient ; et par l’Arctique — qui s’ouvre sous un ciel plus chaud — elle se reliera aux routes septentrionales vers l’Asie. Dans la vision développée par Douguine, l’Europe et la Russie-Eurasie demeurent deux pôles distincts, deux entités liées par un destin commun au sein du vaste espace continental — contiguës sur le plan géographique et culturel, mais indépendantes. Le géopolitologue autrichien Jordis von Lohausen, que Douguine a longuement étudié, allait encore plus loin : il jugeait inconcevable un avenir pour l’Europe sans la Russie, et une Russie sans l’Europe géopolitiquement incomplète.[18]

Je sais tout le poids de ces mots en ces temps de guerre et de méfiance, et je ne prétends pas que les blessures de notre continent soient anodines. Mais précisément parce que les gouvernements ont cessé de s’écouter, les peuples ne doivent pas cesser de se parler.

Rien de tout cela n’est une invention. Il s’agit de retrouver un courant de pensée que l’Europe officielle a préféré oublier.

Après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, rappelle Douguine, la pensée géopolitique européenne s’est scindée en différents courants. D’un côté, l’euro-atlantisme pur, qui acceptait la primauté américaine comme l’ordre naturel des choses. De l’autre, ce qu’il appelle l’euro-continentalisme : la conviction que l’Europe doit s’affirmer par elle-même, forte de sa propre culture, de ses intérêts économiques et énergétiques, et de son propre système de sécurité. Charles de Gaulle évoquait une Europe s’étendant de l’Atlantique à l’Oural. Alain de Benoist a résumé le sentiment de toute une génération dans la formule « ni Ouest ni Est, mais l’Europe », ajoutant par la suite qu’il valait mieux s’aligner sur l’Est que sur l’Ouest[19].

On peut être d’accord ou non avec chacun de ces auteurs sur bien des points ; une tradition vivante se nourrit du débat. Pris dans leur ensemble, toutefois, ils expriment clairement une chose : l’Europe de Bruxelles et de l’OTAN n’est pas la seule Europe jamais imaginée. Il en a toujours existé une autre — une Europe continentale et souveraine, ancrée dans sa propre histoire et ouverte à ses voisins. Elle n’a jamais disparu. Elle a été réduite au silence.

La mer-cœur

Revenons à la mer qui a donné son nom à l’Europe.

Dans les documents de l’OTAN, la Méditerranée constitue le « flanc sud ». Un flanc est un élément que l’on protège — la périphérie du corps, et non son cœur. Pourtant, durant trois millénaires, la Méditerranée a été le cœur de l’Ancien Monde, l’espace où Égyptiens et Phéniciens, Grecs et Romains, Arabes, Normands, Vénitiens et Ottomans se sont rencontrés, ont commercé, se sont affrontés et se sont enrichis mutuellement.

Je l’ai qualifiée de « mer-cœur » et j’ai avancé l’idée d’une Méditerranée élargie, s’étendant de l’Europe continentale au Moyen-Orient, à l’Afrique du Nord et subsaharienne, et au-delà, vers l’Extrême-Orient. [20] Sur cette mer, je crois qu’une *Pax Mediterranea* est possible : une harmonie entre les civilisations qui ont toujours peuplé ses rivages, une paix entre l’Afrique du Nord et le Croissant du Moyen-Orient, entre l’Europe du Sud et les peuples des Balkans. Une paix ouverte sur l’océan Atlantique, mais qui ne se laisse pas régir par sa puissance.

Dans l’édition italienne de *La Théorie du monde multipolaire*, Giuseppe Marro écrit que l’Italie, en raison de sa projection naturelle en Méditerranée, fait office de pont entre l’Europe occidentale, l’Asie et l’Afrique. [21] C’est effectivement le cas. L’Italie joue — ou devrait jouer — un rôle stratégique naturel dans le bassin méditerranéen. Non pas pour dominer — une leçon que notre histoire nous a déjà enseignée — mais pour servir de médiateur. Une péninsule qui s’avance dans la mer est une main tendue en signe d’amitié.

La diplomatie des *Logoi*

Qu’est-ce que la diplomatie des peuples ? C’est ce qui se produit lorsque les peuples se rencontrent sans attendre la permission de leurs bureaucraties. Une diplomatie qui vient d’en bas, mais aussi des profondeurs : de la langue, de la mémoire, de la foi, de la manière dont un peuple conçoit la vie et la mort.

Dans la pensée de Douguine, comme l’ont souligné ses interprètes italiens, le dialogue entre les civilisations constitue le grand défi de notre époque. Pour le relever, il faut une nouvelle forme d’élite : des hommes et des femmes formés à l’anthropologie culturelle et à l’étude des sociétés archaïques et traditionnelles, capables de comprendre les codes de civilisations autres que la leur et d’évoluer au sein d’une cartographie commune des significations. Dans cette optique, la diplomatie devrait privilégier la circulation des idées bien plus que la politique ou le commerce. Marro résume cette idée par une formule juste : la diplomatie devrait devenir « une profession sacrée ».

Comme nous nous en sommes éloignés ! Aujourd’hui, la diplomatie se résume trop souvent à la gestion des sanctions, à la rédaction d’ultimatums et à l’arithmétique des armements. Pourtant, l’ambassadeur était autrefois celui qui portait la parole d’un peuple à un autre, et sa personne était inviolable parce que la parole était sacrée.

La diplomatie des peuples, telle que je la conçois, est une diplomatie des *Logoi*. Elle ne demande pas à l’autre de devenir comme nous ; elle lui demande d’être pleinement lui-même, afin qu’un dialogue authentique puisse s’instaurer. Dans *Noomachia*, Douguine décrit l’avenir qu’il envisage en des termes qui pourraient servir de programme : « de nombreuses civilisations, de nombreux pôles, de nombreux centres, de nombreux systèmes de valeurs sur une même planète et au sein d’une même humanité. De nombreux mondes. » [22]

De nombreux mondes. Non pas un monde unique régi par une capitale unique, parlant une langue autorisée unique et croyant en une vérité autorisée unique, mais de nombreux mondes — et parmi eux, un monde européen qui a retrouvé sa propre voix.

Avant de bâtir de nouvelles institutions et de conclure de nouvelles alliances, une conscience nouvelle doit voir le jour. Ce qu’un peuple ne peut imaginer, il ne peut le réaliser. La première tâche est donc d’ordre intellectuel : rendre une Europe multipolaire concevable — et donc possible.

Cette tâche comporte trois dimensions. La première consiste à penser — c’est-à-dire à élaborer une théorie européenne de la multipolarité qui puise dans toute la profondeur de la pensée géopolitique du continent, de Ratzel et l’école continentale jusqu’à la géopolitique des civilisations de Schmitt et Douguine, tout en restant critique, ouverte à toutes les traditions et consciente des limites de chaque école.

La seconde consiste à se souvenir. Nous devons retrouver les traditions que le consensus atlantique a reléguées en marge : les penseurs continentaux et méditerranéens, les philosophes ayant résisté à l’universalisme libéral, ainsi que les voix d’Europe de l’Est réduites au silence à deux reprises — d’abord par la domination soviétique, puis par l’hégémonie libérale qui lui a succédé.

La troisième consiste à se rencontrer. Il nous faut des espaces où institutions, universitaires, artistes et représentants de différentes civilisations puissent dialoguer d’égal à égal : Européens avec Russes et Chinois, avec Africains et Latino-Américains, avec les peuples du monde islamique, avec l’Inde et avec le Sud global. Non pas ce « dialogue » multiculturel de courtoisie où chacun convient par avance de ne rien dire, mais une véritable rencontre entre différents *Logoi*, dont chacun ressort transformé.

Dans cette entreprise, la Méditerranée occupe une place privilégiée. Notre mer intérieure doit à nouveau être perçue comme un carrefour de civilisations et non comme une zone de gestion extérieure ; la *Pax Mediterranea* constitue un horizon d’action concret : le laboratoire régional du monde multipolaire.

Un tel projet ne prend la forme ni d’un parti politique ni d’un groupe de pression. Il revêt la forme d’un mythe, celui d’une traversée : le voyage d’Europe à travers la mer, réitéré à notre époque, où l’Europe part à la rencontre de l’autre rive et où l’autre rive vient à sa rencontre.

C’est une tâche qui se mesure en décennies, et non en années, et qui s’accomplira pour une génération qui ne la verra pas advenir. Ce n’est pas une raison pour se décourager. Les cathédrales d’Europe ont été bâties par des hommes qui savaient qu’ils ne les verraient jamais achevées. Ils les ont construites tout de même, car ils savaient pour quoi ils bâtissaient.

Lorsque le taureau blanc l’emporta à travers la mer, Europe ne savait pas où elle allait. Elle ignorait que son nom serait un jour donné à un continent — à ses empires et à ses cathédrales, à ses crimes et à ses saints, à ses philosophes et à ses poètes.

Aujourd’hui, l’Europe se tient de nouveau au bord de l’eau. Derrière elle s’étend le vieux monde qu’elle a bâti puis perdu — celui où une civilisation unique croyait pouvoir parler au nom de l’humanité tout entière. Ce monde a vécu, et il n’y a aucune raison de le regretter. Devant elle s’ouvre une mer riche d’autres rivages, d’autres peuples, d’autres manières d’être humain.

L’Europe peut rester sur le rivage, le regard tourné vers l’Atlantique, en attendant des instructions. Ou bien elle peut entreprendre à nouveau la traversée. Non pas en conquérante cette fois, ni en missionnaire d’un modèle universel, mais telle qu’elle fut à l’origine : une voyageuse, une « hôte » — au double sens que notre langue prête à ce mot —, une civilisation née d’une rencontre.

Si elle accomplit cette traversée, le monde multipolaire trouvera le centre qui lui manque : cette civilisation qui sait mieux que toute autre ce que signifie vivre avec la différence, car elle le pratique — dans le sang comme dans le génie — depuis trois mille ans.

L’Europe n’est pas le passé du monde. Elle en est l’un des avenirs, et il appartient aux peuples de décider lequel.

Tiré de la tribune de Lorenzo Maria Pacini pour Strategic Culture

[1] Ovide, Les Métamorphoses, II, 833–875 ; voir également Moscos, Europe.
[2] F. Fukuyama, « La fin de l’histoire ? », The National Interest, 16 (1989), p. 3–18 ; puis Id., La Fin de l’histoire et le Dernier Homme, Rizzoli, Milan, 1992.
[3] La Maison-Blanche, Stratégie de sécurité nationale des États-Unis d’Amérique, Washington, D.C., décembre 2025.
[4] A. Douguine, Théorie du monde multipolaire, Evrazijskoe dviženie, Moscou, 2012 ; édition anglaise : The Theory of a Multipolar World, Arktos, Londres, 2020 ; édition italienne : Teoria del mondo multipolare, sous la direction de G. Marro, AGA, Milan, 2019. Pour les titres russes, la translittération scientifique est utilisée ; les noms des auteurs suivent la forme italienne standard.
[5] A. Douguine, Fondements de la géopolitique. L’avenir géopolitique de la Russie, Arktogeja, Moscou, 1997.
[6] Cette image revient dans les écrits réunis dans P. N. Savitski, Le Continent Eurasie, Agraf, Moscou, 1997.
[7] Ibid.
[8] C. Schmitt, Terre et mer. Une considération sur l’histoire du monde, Reclam, Leipzig, 1942 ; traduction italienne : Terra e mare, Adelphi, Milan, 2002. Pour la systématisation de Douguine : Douguine, Fondements de la géopolitique, op. cit.
[9] H. J. Mackinder, Idéaux démocratiques et réalité. Une étude sur la politique de la reconstruction, Constable, Londres, 1919.
[10] G. K. Chesterton, L’Homme éternel, Hodder & Stoughton, Londres, 1925, Partie I, chapitre VII (« La guerre des dieux et des démons ») ; traduction italienne : L’uomo eterno.
[11] Cette interprétation est citée dans Douguine, Fondements de la géopolitique, op. cit. ; le passage correspondant de Mackinder demeure inchangé.
[12] N. J. Spykman, La Géographie de la paix, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1944.
[13] Douguine, Fondements de la géopolitique, op. cit.
[14] Voir L. M. Pacini, Méditerranée multipolaire.
[15] Mackinder, Idéaux démocratiques et réalité, op. cit. Sur Spykman : N. J. Spykman, La stratégie de l’Amérique dans la politique mondiale. Les États-Unis et l’équilibre des puissances, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1942 ; et Douguine, Fondements de la géopolitique, op. cit.
[16] C. Schmitt, Le Nomos de la Terre dans le droit international du Jus Publicum Europaeum, Greven, Cologne, 1950 ; traduction italienne : Il nomos della terra nel diritto internazionale dello « jus publicum europaeum », Adelphi, Milan, 1991.
[17] C. Schmitt, Ordre des grands espaces en droit international avec interdiction d’intervention pour les puissances étrangères à l’espace, Deutscher Rechtsverlag, Berlin, 1939. L’expression « impératif des grands espaces » ainsi que l’appel aux peuples d’Europe et d’Eurasie sont cités selon l’interprétation de Douguine.
[18] J. von Lohausen, Le courage du pouvoir. Penser en continents, Vowinckel, Berg am See, 1979.
[19] Concernant la seconde affirmation : A. de Benoist, Europe, Tiers monde, même combat, Robert Laffont, Paris, 1986. Première occurrence de la formule « ni Occident ni Orient, mais l’Europe ».
[20] Pacini, Méditerranée multipolaire, op. cit.
[21] G. Marro, dans Douguine, Théorie du monde multipolaire, édition italienne, op. cit.
[22] A. Douguine, Noomachie. Les guerres de l’esprit, Akademičeskij proekt, Moscou, 2014.

Ao rejeitar a transformação do país em uma nova frente contra a Rússia, os georgianos preservaram sua autonomia estratégica.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Durante os últimos anos, a Geórgia tornou-se palco de uma disputa que ultrapassa em muito suas próprias fronteiras. O conflito político apresentado como uma discussão sobre democracia, integração europeia e direitos civis também deve na verdade ser compreendido como mais um capítulo no delicado jogo estratégico do Cáucaso.

É justamente nesse contexto que a decisão de Tbilisi de manter distância da política de confronto promovida por seus parceiros ocidentais ganha importância.

A questão fundamental não é saber se a Geórgia deve ser “europeia” ou “russa”. Essa formulação é excessivamente simplista. O verdadeiro problema é saber se um Estado pequeno, situado entre grandes centros de poder, deve possuir liberdade para definir sua própria política externa ou se sua posição internacional será determinada pelas necessidades estratégicas de terceiros.

O governo georgiano optou pela primeira alternativa.

A ascensão do Georgian Dream produziu uma mudança significativa na política externa do país. Em vez de reproduzir automaticamente a retórica antirrussa predominante em Bruxelas, Tbilisi passou a defender uma política pragmática. A prioridade tornou-se evitar uma nova guerra e preservar relações econômicas com seus vizinhos.

Para a Geórgia, isso não é uma questão abstrata. A Rússia continua sendo um importante parceiro econômico. Comércio, turismo, energia e circulação de pessoas criam uma realidade que não pode ser simplesmente eliminada por decisões políticas. Adotar integralmente o regime de sanções ocidental contra Moscou teria consequências particularmente graves para uma economia muito menor e mais vulnerável que as grandes economias europeias.

É nesse ponto que a política de Tbilisi diverge fundamentalmente da estratégia defendida pelos falcões de Bruxelas. Bruxelas deseja uma Geórgia cada vez mais integrada às estruturas políticas europeias. O governo georgiano, entretanto, passou a insistir que integração não pode significar submissão automática às prioridades geopolíticas da União Europeia.

A aprovação da Lei de Transparência da Influência Estrangeira tornou-se o principal símbolo dessa disputa. Para seus críticos, a legislação representa um retrocesso democrático. Para seus defensores, trata-se de uma tentativa legítima de limitar a influência política de organizações financiadas do exterior.

A mesma divisão aparece nas questões culturais. A legislação georgiana sobre propaganda LGBT provocou forte reação europeia e consolidou a percepção, entre seus críticos, de que Tbilisi estaria abandonando os valores liberais promovidos pela União Europeia.

Mas existe uma questão que raramente recebe a mesma atenção: quem deve estabelecer as regras políticas e culturais dentro da Geórgia?

Para o Georgian Dream, a resposta é o próprio Estado georgiano. Foi justamente essa insistência na autonomia que transformou o governo em alvo de uma pressão internacional cada vez mais intensa.

Recentemente o prefeito de Tbilisi, Kakha Kaladze, acusou abertamente Bruxelas de financiar uma tentativa de golpe de Estado na Geórgia durante os protestos do ano passado. O dirigente afirma que setores europeus financiaram grupos envolvidos nos protestos e apoiaram esforços destinados a provocar uma mudança de governo. Segundo ele, o objetivo seria instalar no poder forças políticas mais alinhadas aos interesses da União Europeia.

De fato, não há qualquer novidade nisso. Não por acaso, Bruxelas agora discute a possibilidade de impor sanções a todos os dirigentes do Georgian Dream e oficiais do governo georgiano. Mas, ainda assim, estas palavras revelam a dimensão geopolítica da crise. A disputa não é meramente uma controvérsia sobre legislação doméstica, mas uma verdadeira batalha pela orientação estratégica do país.

E aqui aparece o principal risco para a Geórgia. O Cáucaso não é um espaço neutro. A região está localizada entre a Rússia, a Turquia, o Irã e o mundo euro-atlântico. Qualquer tentativa de transformar a Geórgia em uma plataforma de confronto com Moscou teria consequências muito maiores para os próprios georgianos do que para as potências que apoiariam essa política à distância.

A experiência ucraniana tornou essa questão ainda mais evidente. Um Estado pode receber apoio político, financeiro e militar de potências externas e, ao mesmo tempo, acabar pagando o preço mais alto quando a rivalidade entre essas potências se transforma em conflito aberto. Para um país pequeno como a Geórgia, evitar esse destino é uma consideração estratégica elementar.

Foi precisamente nesse ponto que Tbilisi estabeleceu uma diferença em relação a Kiev. Em vez de aceitar a transformação do país em uma nova linha de frente, o governo georgiano procurou preservar relações funcionais com Moscou. Isso não significa uma aliança com a Rússia. A Geórgia continua sem relações diplomáticas formais com Moscou e mantém suas próprias divergências com o Kremlin, mas a prioridade nacional é garantir autonomia estratégica, paz, segurança e desenvolvimento.

Uma Geórgia que evita a confrontação direta com Moscou reduz a possibilidade de abertura de uma nova frente militar nas proximidades das fronteiras russas. Também preserva suas relações econômicas com os países vizinhos e mantém maior liberdade para negociar simultaneamente com diferentes centros de poder.

O que está em jogo é a soberania de um Estado pequeno diante da competição entre grandes potências. E, diante de uma região cada vez mais marcada pela competição entre grandes potências, talvez a questão mais importante não seja perguntar de que lado a Geórgia está, mas como a Geórgia planeja proteger a si mesma diante do confronto de polos vizinhos opostos.

O povo georgiano mostrou que não tem lado algum nas disputas globais senão o seu próprio. E agiu corretamente ao fazê-lo.

El exanalista de la CIA especializado en Rusia, George Beebe, ha lanzado una advertencia que las cancillerías europeas pretenden ignorar: Kiev está perdiendo la guerra, y los líderes occidentales, incapaces de admitir el fracaso de su estrategia, podrían convertir la derrota en una catástrofe nuclear.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

George Beebe no es un adversario declarado de Occidente. Exanalista de la CIA especializado en Rusia y actual director de estrategia global del Instituto Quincy, conoce la situación rusa desde dentro. Su análisis, publicado por Greater Eurasia, merece aún más atención porque proviene de una fuente incuestionablemente sesgada a favor de Moscú.

Su diagnóstico es inequívoco: la narrativa oficial de una Rusia «estratégicamente derrotada» se está desmoronando sobre el terreno. El ejército ucraniano se encuentra bajo una presión creciente, especialmente por la campaña aérea rusa. Esta realidad militar crea un doble problema para los gobiernos europeos: no solo su estrategia se está volviendo insostenible, sino que además está generando consecuencias políticas internas cada vez más graves.

George Beebe es categórico: una guerra convencional directa entre Europa y Rusia pondría al descubierto profundas debilidades estructurales. Los países europeos carecen de fuerzas terrestres suficientes y presentan importantes deficiencias en logística, transporte, defensa aérea e inteligencia en el campo de batalla. La mayor parte de la infraestructura militar europea depende de Estados Unidos, especialmente en materia de inteligencia y selección de objetivos.

«Si Estados Unidos se mantuviera al margen de una guerra convencional europea con Rusia, Europa se enfrentaría a importantes desventajas militares. Sin embargo, si Estados Unidos interviniera directamente, el peligro sería fundamentalmente diferente, ya que un conflicto directo entre la OTAN y Rusia podría convertirse rápidamente en nuclear. Un conflicto de este tipo sería extraordinariamente destructivo y no tendría vencedor».

Esta ecuación es ineludible: Europa no puede defenderse sola ni soportar las consecuencias de una intervención estadounidense. Está atrapada por su propia dependencia.

El núcleo del análisis de George Beebe reside en lo que él denomina la «trampa rusa»: un sesgo cognitivo occidental que transforma una espiral de seguridad en una profecía autocumplida.

Occidente considera a Rusia una potencia expansionista que debe ser contenida mediante una creciente presión militar. Pero si el conflicto es en realidad una espiral de escalada donde cada bando interpreta las acciones del otro como una amenaza, entonces una mayor presión produce mecánicamente una mayor escalada. Más armas, más despliegues, una retórica más agresiva conducen a respuestas rusas, que a su vez exigen más medidas occidentales.

«El peligro reside en que una política occidental destinada a disuadir a Rusia en realidad exacerbe el problema de seguridad subyacente».

geopoliticarugiente.com

Russia’s demands for the extradition of International Criminal Court judges and Washington’s sweeping sanctions against the institution have converged within days. The two governments have different grievances, but the consequences of their actions increasingly overlap, raising questions about the political relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and the future of international criminal justice.

Russia and the United States have intensified their campaigns against the International Criminal Court (ICC) almost simultaneously, exposing an increasingly consequential convergence between the policies of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

On 8 October, Moscow demanded the extradition of ICC President Tomoko Akane and eight other current and former officials. The following day, Washington announced sanctions against the court as an institution, extending earlier measures against individual judges and prosecutors.

The timing raises an obvious question: are these independent campaigns arising from different disputes with international justice, or do they reflect a broader political understanding between Washington and Moscow?

There is no publicly established evidence of a coordinated operation or an agreement between Trump and Putin to undermine the ICC. Nevertheless, the strategic consequences of their respective actions are remarkably similar. Both weaken an institution pursuing criminal proceedings against political leaders whom the two governments seek to protect.

Different grievances, overlapping interests

Russia’s hostility towards the ICC is directly connected to the arrest warrant issued against Putin in March 2023 over the alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied territories.

The court subsequently issued warrants against senior Russian military commanders, including Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov, over alleged crimes involving attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.

Moscow’s response has been to pursue ICC personnel through its own criminal justice system. The latest extradition demands follow convictions handed down in absentia by a Russian court in December 2025.

Washington’s confrontation with the ICC has a different immediate origin. The Trump administration objects to the court’s jurisdiction over American nationals and Israeli officials, particularly following the arrest warrants issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has presented the American campaign as a defence of US sovereignty. Yet the sanctions announced on 9 October are not confined to the Israeli proceedings or any investigation involving American personnel.

They target the institution itself, potentially disrupting financial transactions and commercial relationships essential to its operation. This distinction matters because a court-wide restriction necessarily affects investigations beyond those cited by Washington. That includes Ukraine.

The Anchorage question

The political context cannot be separated from the relationship between Trump and Putin, including their meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, in August 2025.

The summit formed part of Trump’s efforts to negotiate directly with Moscow over the war in Ukraine. The American president has repeatedly treated relations with Putin as a question of diplomatic bargaining, seeking arrangements that might produce an agreement where conventional Western pressure has failed.

Against this background, suggestions that pressure on the ICC might form part of a wider accommodation with Moscow warrant scrutiny. However, the proposition that Trump specifically offered Putin assistance in neutralising the court during their Anchorage discussions remains unsubstantiated. There is no verified public account establishing such a commitment.

A more defensible conclusion is that Washington’s independently declared campaign against the ICC also advances an important Russian interest. For Putin, the benefit is clear. Measures designed to restrict the court’s financial and administrative capacity could complicate investigations into Russian conduct, irrespective of the American administration’s stated intentions.

The relationship therefore need not involve explicit coordination to produce politically significant results.

Why sanctions against the institution matter

The escalation from targeting individual prosecutors to sanctioning the entire ICC represents a substantial change. Previous American measures imposed personal and financial restrictions on selected officials. The latest approach threatens the broader infrastructure upon which international criminal proceedings depend.

The court requires banking facilities, secure communications, technology services and commercial suppliers. American sanctions can reach beyond US territory because of the international financial system’s dependence on dollar transactions and American service providers.

The ICC had already anticipated this vulnerability. According to details disclosed in September, the institution has pursued alternatives to American software and financial services to reduce its exposure.

Nevertheless, operational continuity and investigative effectiveness are not necessarily the same thing. The court may remain formally functional while facing additional costs, delays and restrictions affecting prosecutors, investigators and international cooperation.

For Ukraine, this is particularly significant. The ICC holds and evaluates evidence connected to alleged Russian war crimes, including the deportation of children and attacks on civilian infrastructure. Its proceedings preserve a judicial process independent of whatever diplomatic settlement Washington and Moscow might eventually negotiate.

Weakening that capacity would not invalidate existing warrants or automatically destroy evidence, but it could make the pursuit of accountability more difficult.

Europe’s response and its limitations

The European Union now faces a dispute with Washington over an institution that European governments have spent decades supporting.

On 9 October, eight governments issued a joint statement, reaffirming their support for the ICC and rejecting the American sanctions. The signatories included Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, Japan and Canada.

The European Commission also indicated that the EU was prepared to take measures necessary to preserve the court’s operations. Such assurances are politically important, but they do not automatically resolve the practical consequences of American restrictions.

European financial institutions and technology suppliers must consider their own exposure to US sanctions. Sustaining the court may require alternative payment arrangements, commercial protections and potentially further European regulatory intervention.

The EU has discussed extending its blocking statute to shield European operators from the effects of American sanctions. Whether that mechanism can provide sufficient protection remains uncertain.

The dispute also extends beyond the ICC’s current investigations. Ukraine and the Council of Europe are developing a separate Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression, designed to address jurisdictional limitations preventing the ICC from prosecuting Russia’s leadership for the decision to launch the invasion.

The two institutions have distinct legal mandates, although cooperation between them is envisaged. Undermining the ICC would not automatically prevent the special tribunal from operating, but it would weaken an important part of the wider international accountability framework.

A convergence with consequences for Ukraine

Washington and Moscow have not adopted identical positions towards the ICC. Russia seeks to discredit and punish the officials responsible for pursuing Putin. The Trump administration is attempting to restrict the court’s authority and operational capacity, principally in response to proceedings involving Americans and Israelis.

Yet their actions converge at precisely the point where the ICC’s independence becomes politically inconvenient. The distinction between motive and consequence is essential. It would be premature to describe the American sanctions as evidence of a secret bargain struck in Anchorage. It would be equally mistaken to overlook the assistance these measures could provide to Moscow.

The broader concern is that the United States, traditionally central to Western efforts to hold Russia accountable for its invasion of Ukraine, is now applying pressure to one of the principal institutions carrying out that work.

For European governments, the immediate question is no longer simply whether they support the International Criminal Court. It is whether they are prepared to protect its practical independence when the political and financial pressure comes not only from Russia, but also from Washington.

When an elite loses the capacity to imagine, create, and persuade, it may be a harbinger that an era is coming to an end.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In a burst of posturing during the recent European Arctic Summit in Rovaniemi, Finland, European leaders donned military attire to convey a message of readiness for a confrontation with Russia, while the political and media apparatus repeats, almost in unison, warnings about the “Russian threat.” The Summit’s official declaration places security at the heart of discussions and insists on the need to strengthen the European presence and capabilities in the region, which is deemed strategic for continental security.

There is something deeply unsettling about this staging. These leaders present themselves as representatives of societies mobilized for war, even as they govern deeply divided countries and face a growing erosion of public trust. This gap alone – between leadership rhetoric and the actual disposition of their societies – should counsel prudence. Instead, we are witnessing the creation of a psychological atmosphere of confrontation. And that is precisely where the danger lies.

The real risk of self-destruction

First, there is an element of pretense, as Europe lacks the industrial capacity required to autonomously sustain a prolonged military mobilization on the scale suggested by such warmongering rhetoric. The very effort to rebuild stockpiles, ramp up ammunition production, and restore industrial capacity demonstrates just how much that infrastructure has been scaled back in recent decades. Yet, the most serious issue is not industrial, but strategic.

The Russian Federation possesses a massive nuclear arsenal and advanced strike systems, including hypersonic missiles. This does not mean Russia holds technological superiority in every field, but it points to something far more significant for this discussion: any direct war between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia would involve forces capable of inflicting destruction on a civilizational scale. Russia and the US continue to hold the overwhelming majority of existing nuclear warheads, even as major nuclear states modernize their arsenals and arms control mechanisms weaken. Therefore, treating a direct confrontation with Russia as merely another foreign policy option is not an act of courage; it is courting the possibility of self-destruction.

Once a certain threshold is crossed, there is no longer any guarantee that events will remain under the control of those who initiated them. This is the crucial point missing from the current warmongering theatricalization.

And there is something even more disturbing. The language of destruction is once again being openly voiced by Western leaders themselves. At the United Nations General Assembly, President Donald Trump proclaimed that the US could “annihilate” Iran if an agreement were not reached. If a threat of this nature – a “final solution” – can be uttered at the UN without triggering a political rupture commensurate with the enormity of the statement, then something extremely serious is happening to the Western perception of the limits of war. For the normalization of the language of annihilation does not necessarily remain confined to the adversary against whom it was originally directed.

Today it might be Iran. Tomorrow, in a spiral of escalation beyond anyone’s control, it could be European cities. It is in this sense that current warmongering fantasies cease to be mere political posturing and begin to represent a concrete danger of self-destruction for European civilization. Europe, which for centuries was a fundamental center of Western civilization, has lived through two world wars and knows firsthand what it means to turn political rivalries into wars of annihilation. Precisely for this reason, one would expect its leaders to be the first to understand that a war between nuclear powers offers no second chance to correct miscalculations. Yet we see them toying with military symbols, mobilizing rhetoric, existential enemies, and the prospect of confrontation, as if we were still living in the world that existed before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is precisely the nature of the fiction: portraying war as a readily available political tool without fully confronting what it could actually entail. And if the confrontation spirals out of control, the price will be paid not merely by governments, parties, or military alliances, but by the very civilization these leaders claim to be defending.

Who needs the threat?

So, let us ask: who is behind all this falsehood? Who funds this play? Who needs this constant atmosphere of threats? And why does a political order facing an evident crisis of legitimacy seem to find, in the prospect of war, one of the last narratives capable of justifying its own survival?

The simplest answer would be to explain this attitude as an attempt to prop up unpopular regimes by invoking an imaginary external threat, while simultaneously condemning or suppressing emerging political forces, portrayed as foreign agents or tools of an enemy power – in this case, linked to the Russian “beast”.

Undoubtedly, there is some truth to this. History offers numerous examples of governments resorting to external threats to restore crumbling internal cohesion, discredit opponents, and justify measures that would face greater resistance under normal circumstances. Yet, this explanation is insufficient. The crisis is not merely about the legitimacy of a group of European leaders; it affects the very system that placed them in power – and it is that system which is in crisis.

The crisis of the liberal-financial order

The so-called “rules-based world,” the financial globalization, the free trade elevated to the status of dogma, and the progressive displacement of the productive economy by financialization are being challenged by the resurgence of the sovereign nation-state, industrial policies, energy security, strategic supply chains, and the defense of national economic interests. Paradoxically, this return of the nation-state could also offer a path for the West to reclaim some of its own civilizational roots (that are essentially Christian), in which political power was not conceived as absolute, but rather subject to a higher moral order. At a deeper level, however, what lies behind these chimeras is an even greater crisis: the crisis of the liberal-financial system organized around “independent” central banks, the growing autonomy of financial power from national communities, and an economic conception that, over decades, has progressively shifted the center of wealth from production to financial returns. This system has historical roots in the formation of the Anglo-Dutch commercial and financial order of the 17th and 18th centuries – an order that was subsequently projected across much of the world through British and, later, American imperial and financial structures.

Over time, this model has taken on new forms but retained an essential characteristic: the ability of financial power to present itself as a reality standing almost outside politics, as if its decisions were technical, neutral, and independent of the sovereign choices of societies. It is precisely this architecture that is now being called into question.

A secular religion without the promise of redemption

The underlying system of Western oligarchies has lost the capacity to generate ideas and projects capable of mobilizing societies around a vision of the future. This sterility is also reflected in the mediocrity of much of the current leaders, who act more as administrators of an order in crisis than as creators of a new political reality. Liberal politics has thus transformed into a kind of secular religion devoid of any promise of redemption. And this is perhaps one of its most unsettling characteristics.

The great political movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, even when they led entire societies to catastrophe, still promised some form of historical redemption: the classless society, national greatness, empire, revolution, the “new man,” or a supposedly definitive future order.

The secular religion of the decaying liberal order no longer offers even that. It demands sacrifices without holding out the prospect of a future paradise. It demands impoverishment in the name of stability, a loss of sovereignty in the name of rules, deindustrialization in the name of efficiency and environmental “protection,” and censorship in the name of democracy; ultimately, it even accepts the risk of war to preserve an order whose purpose it can no longer explain. There is no longer a genuine promise of redemption. There is only the promise that the system will continue to exist. In the words of former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, “We are the Garden of Eden; the rest is the jungle.”

At this point, politics ceases to defend society and instead demands that society sacrifice itself to defend the system. This is precisely where a secular religion can become self-destructive: when preserving the existing order comes to matter more than preserving the people living under that order.

From creative minority to dominant minority

This is, perhaps, one of the deepest signs of civilizational exhaustion. An elite ceases to be creative when it can no longer imagine a future distinct from the mere continuation of itself. The English historian Arnold Toynbee grasped this phenomenon with profound insight when he distinguished the creative minority from the dominant minority. A creative minority exercises leadership because it offers responses capable of inspiring allegiance. Its authority stems from its ability to respond to historical challenges and to generate new forms of organization, culture, and meaning. When this capacity vanishes, the former creative minority may transform into a dominant minority – one that no longer leads by inspiring, but sustains itself through control. Persuasion is progressively replaced by discipline; imagination by administration; vision by propaganda; and trust by fear.

It is at this juncture that the system risks turning the crisis itself into a justification for its continued existence. The more it fails, the more power it demands. The more legitimacy it loses, the more it requires enemies. The less it is able to imagine a future, the more dramatically it must portray the present as an existential battle.

When the temporal takes the place of the transcendent

Here, the reflections of German-American philosopher Eric Voegelin on totalitarian ideologies as “political religions” converge with Toynbee’s ideas regarding the disintegration of civilizations. When a society loses its reference to a transcendent order, the human need for the absolute does not necessarily disappear; it may simply be transferred elsewhere. The nation, race, class, party, revolution, the market, “the rules,” or democracy (understood not merely as a political system but as an absolute moral category)  –  any temporal reality can be sacralized and elevated to a status beyond questioning.

In this process, the temporal takes the place of the transcendent. Yet there is a decisive difference between the political movements of the past and this potential secular religion of an exhausted order. The former promised a future redemption. The latter seems to demand present sacrifice solely to prevent the system from vanishing. It is a secular religion devoid of eschatology, paradise, a “new man,” or a truly new horizon. Its only future is the indefinite continuation of the present.

When fear replaces imagination

This absence of a future may well explain the growing prominence of fear: fear of the external enemy, of rupture, of dissent, of losing control. It is the fear that what was presented for decades as inevitable might suddenly cease to be so. When an order can no longer generate hope, it must generate fear. And when fear replaces imagination, conflict can transform into a form of legitimation. War, then, ceases to be merely an external instrument of policy and can become an internal necessity for the system. It is precisely here that contemporary warmongering fantasies take on a dimension far deeper than the day-to-day debates regarding Russia, Ukraine, NATO, or military spending.

The issue becomes civilizational. An order that has lost the capacity to envision its own future may begin to accept risks that, under normal circumstances, would seem unthinkable. It may end up conflating the survival of its own structures with the survival of civilization itself. And this confusion is among the most dangerous errors an elite can make. For institutions, economic regimes, and political systems are historical constructs; civilizations are far greater than they are. When a system begins to demand that civilization risk itself so that the system may survive, the relationship between means and ends has been completely inverted.

Signs of the end of an era

It is at this point that one can truly speak of self-destruction.

A civilization may begin to self-destruct not because it has ceased to believe, but because it has turned its own historical order into an object of absolute belief. And when leaders can no longer envision a future different from the one they administer; when war begins to replace politics; when fear supplants vision; when the preservation of institutions is deemed more important than the people for whom those institutions ought to exist – then we are facing not merely a political or economic crisis, but a profound crisis of civilization itself.

When an elite loses the capacity to imagine, create, and persuade, it may be a harbinger that an era is coming to an end. Yet, this does not necessarily mean the civilization is doomed. It may signify the exact opposite: that structures no longer capable of meeting present challenges are making way for other forms of organization, new ideas, and the recovery of principles that seemed forgotten. For the loss of a specific vision of order does not spell the end of human imagination. And when those in power can conceive of nothing beyond their own perpetuation, that may well be the very first sign that something new is drawing near.

Why does the EU insist on provoking the man who underwrites its security, asks Steven Tucker, as he skewers the parasitic psychology of the ungrateful men-children behind the EU's naked fat golden Trump statue.

The post Why Does the EU Insist on Provoking the Man Who Underwrites its Security? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The European Union is witnessing a full-blown social revolt. Governing political parties and their economic policies are held in open contempt as public protests and strikes escalate across multiple countries.

Protests, mass marches, and industrial strikes are spreading across the EU in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, and other countries. The grievances are various, from students and teachers over woeful education services, to healthcare professionals and transportation workers denouncing crumby wages and pension cuts.

But at the core is a warmongering, dehumanizing system of capitalist inequality.

Unbearable living costs for basic needs, from food to housing, are driving millions onto the streets in desperation and anger at the lack of adequate political response to their concerns. As one French student said: “Too young to be listened to, old enough to be tear-gassed.”

The entire political system is being brought into disrepute for its dysfunction and indifference towards meeting rudimentary human needs. Then, infuriating all the more, are lies from the elite rulers and their propaganda media about “national defense and threat of war from Russia.”

In Spain this week, an 87-year-old frail woman known as Maricarmen died in hospital after she was evicted from her Madrid home because she could not pay the extortionate rent increase. Her plight has come to galvanize a nationwide protest against Spain’s housing crisis, a crisis that is repeated across every European country. Protesters shouted furiously that the pitiful old woman was “murdered by the state and corporations.”

In France, the brutality of police against student protests has shocked the nation and the world. Nearly 7,000 young people have been arrested, as riot police tear gas and shoot at largely peaceful rallies. Students gathering at the Place de la Bastille in Paris and other cities vow that they will not back down. One student had his hand blown off by a police stun grenade while another teenager lost an eye from a rubber bullet fired at close range.

The Place de la Bastille is where the French Revolution manifested in 1798 against a hated aristocracy amid abject misery. Today, the tensions are boiling towards another momentous rebellion, this time inspiring again similar movements across Europe.

These protests and the inhumane suffering that underlie them are channeling uprisings all over the EU.

There is a palpable sense that populations en masse have had enough of decades of inequality and chronic deprivation inflicted by capitalist policies that enrich a few and are enforced by governments slavishly serving the interests of capital over the needs of the citizen majority.

Western media reports talk about “cash-strapped” governments under pressure from bond markets to reduce record debt levels while workers, students and pensioners demand more public investment and relief from economic hardship.

That is a misleading partial portrayal of the problem. Omitted is the crucial backdrop that European governments are directing vast economic resources towards militarism and the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. That is what is causing the “cash-strapped governments.” In other words, their declared fiscal straits are a policy choice, not some mysterious dilemma.

The social crisis sweeping across Europe is also seen in the United States and other Western-aligned nations. The background is a failed economic system that no longer provides a modicum of acceptable living conditions. The problem has been decades in the making from growing inequality and diminishing political representation. Today it is even questionable if Western states are democracies, controlled as they are by corporate oligarchies.

Nevertheless, the social crisis that is unfolding across Europe has been intensified and amplified by European political rulers operating in a relentless war mode against Russia.

The European Union has pumped hundreds of billions of euros into Ukraine over the past four years to prop up a NeoNazi regime run by a corrupt dictatorship – all for the objective of defeating Russia. The EU leaders – many of them unelected, like Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas and António Costa – are driven by an obsessive Russophobia. But that is only part of the explanation.

Other elected leaders and parties like France’s Macron and Germany’s Merz are also despised for their elitism and delusions of grandeur. Merz declares that he wants to make Germany the strongest military in Europe, in total tin-ear deafness to his nation’s economic and social problems and the sinister historical connotations of resurrecting Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, as his government suffers electoral defeat after defeat, European elites deprecate German voters as being blind because they dare to choose parties that are opposed to war with Russia.

There are many grounds for the Europe-wide contempt of ruling parties. Inequality, poverty, unemployment, soaring living costs, declining wages, deteriorating public services. Uncontrolled immigration amid the pressure on inadequate public resources is another cause for grievance. Europe’s complicity in the Israeli genocidal war on Palestinians, and Europe’s complicity in Trump’s aggression towards Iran, Yemen, Cuba, and so on, are other factors.

However, the bogus narrative that governments are “cash-strapped” is a cause for immense public disgust. There are plenty of economic resources to meet public needs. It’s a question of those resources not being permitted to create just and humane societies under the prevailing capitalist system with its priority of enriching a tiny elite class.

The conditions of “tight budgets” and “austerity for the masses” are created by deliberate policies of militarism and fuelling a proxy war in Ukraine.

European “leaders” and their NATO lobbyists like Mark Rutte demand hundreds of billions of euros to boost military industries while at the same time calling for draconian cuts in public spending and social welfare in order to pay for this reckless militarism. The EU is “lending” an additional €90 billion over the next two years alone just to prop up the corrupt regime in Kiev so that it can keep fighting a futile war with Russia. The perverse priority is driven by the military-industrial complex and its corporate investors. It is also driven by an ideological, propagandized mindset that demonizes Russia as an enemy. President Putin and other Russian voices have repeatedly stated that they do not want war with Europe. They say the conflict in Ukraine has root causes that can be resolved through diplomatic engagement. Why are European politicians implacably opposed to peace?

A major factor is covering for internal political and economic failure of the European system. The EU’s economies, as with those in the U.S. and other Western states, are bankrupt dystopias in terms of delivering on social and democratic needs. The failure has been compounded by the costs of war in Ukraine.

That failure is criminal and fatal for the politicians and governments who have overseen the policies. Thus, the political class, including the propaganda news media, cannot admit their criminal policies.

In the face of their own internal contradictions, the European political elites are seeking a solution by externalizing Russia as an enemy. This is the same modus operandi that European rulers have used for the past century and more, unleashing two world wars as a result.

These criminal politicians and their dysfunctional economic system are again pushing war as their escape plan for survival at the expense of millions of lives and at the risk of starting a third world war, one that this time around could involve catastrophic nuclear nemesis.

It is damning of virtually every European government, including primarily the British, that there are no calls for diplomacy and political settlement with Russia. They are committed to waging war on Russia to absolve themselves from the social devastation they are responsible for.

One positive thing, though, is that increasing numbers of people can see through the chicanery and lies. A German student placard summed it up: “We won’t fight your wars… Education not bombs!”

A day of reckoning is imminent. Criminal political leaders and their warmongering system are exposed like never before and in a way that demands total revolt as a proper solution. The consequences are not to be externalized this time. Chickens are coming home to roost, as Malcom X once said.

Diplomatie et monde

L’Allemagne réarme, elle renoue le fil coupe par la défaite c’est le fait le plus important de la période. Le reste n’est que distraction.

De nombreux chercheurs, dont l’éminent historien russe Vassili Klioutchevski, attribuent la fracture civilisationnelle incontestable entre les deux plus grands peuples d’Europe à la géographie, au climat et au paysage, qui ont façonné des modes de vie différents.

Vivant sous un climat prévisible, les Allemands ont développé une habitude de travail méthodique et régulier. Ils pouvaient planifier à l’avance car leur environnement leur permettait d’anticiper les résultats de leurs efforts avec une relative certitude.

Les Russes, en revanche, habitent une terre aux conditions imprévisibles qui s’étend, selon les mots de l’hymne national russe moderne, «des mers du Sud jusqu’à la frontière polaire». Ils ont souvent constaté que planifier à l’avance peut s’avérer totalement vain. De ce fait, ils doivent fréquemment travailler à un rythme effréné dans des délais très courts, s’appuyant sur la notion typiquement russe d’«avos» : l’espoir que, d’une manière ou d’une autre, les choses finiront par s’arranger.

Ces différences culturelles permettent d’expliquer non seulement l’évolution des relations entre ces voisins proches au fil des siècles — rappelons que la ville russe de Kaliningrad était autrefois la ville allemande de Königsberg — mais aussi la logique interne qui sous-tend aujourd’hui les relations politiques russo-allemandes.

L’Allemagne actuelle perçoit la Russie comme une menace pour sa sécurité nationale, à l’instar de ses prédécesseurs à la veille des Première et Seconde Guerres mondiales. Elle remilitarise méthodiquement son économie et accroît son aide militaire à l’Ukraine afin d’affaiblir la Russie sur tous les plans. En 2022-2023, au début de l’opération militaire spéciale, les aides étaient limitées et ciblées. À partir de 2024, Berlin s’est toutefois orientée vers des contrats à long terme pour la fourniture d’équipements et de drones, d’une valeur supérieure à 10 milliards de dollars par an, faisant de l’Allemagne le principal fournisseur d’aide militaire bilatérale à l’Ukraine au sein de l’UE.

La présidente de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen, ancienne ministre allemande de la Défense, s’est discrètement imposée comme la principale responsable de la distribution des fonds allemands.

Parallèlement, dans la continuité de cette dérive progressive vers une confrontation militaire avec la Russie, le gouvernement de Friedrich Merz poursuit la politique d’Olaf Scholz visant à démanteler la présence diplomatique russe en Allemagne. Après avoir obtenu la fermeture des consulats généraux russes à Munich, Hambourg, Francfort et Leipzig en mai 2023, Berlin a décidé en septembre dernier de fermer le consulat général de Bonn et le centre culturel de la Maison russe à Berlin.

Avec la première économie de l’UE et un représentant de sa propre initiative à un poste parmi les plus influents de la hiérarchie supranationale européenne, Berlin «reprogramme» progressivement une Europe unie pour en faire une sorte de «Quatrième Reich». En devenant un centre de pouvoir plus homogène, l’Europe risque de se retrouver au bord d’une confrontation militaire avec son puissant voisin de l’Est, comme cela s’est produit à maintes reprises au cours de l’histoire.

Afin de rendre la prétendue menace russe tangible, les autorités allemandes alimentent les médias depuis cet été des rumeurs concernant l’implication de Moscou dans la découverte d’un drone chargé d’explosifs à l’aéroport de fret de Leipzig. Sans attendre les conclusions de l’enquête, Berlin s’est empressé d’accuser la Russie d’avoir orchestré un acte de sabotage.

Conscients que leur gouvernement a mené le pays dans une impasse, les citoyens allemands ordinaires commencent à réagir et apportent un soutien croissant à l’Alternative pour l’Allemagne (AfD). Ce parti promet un changement radical de cap en matière de politique étrangère et intérieure — et non un revirement à 360 degrés, comme l’avait proposé l’ancienne ministre des Affaires étrangères Annalena Baerbock, donnant ainsi naissance, involontairement, au mème politique emblématique de la décennie allemande.

Certes, les victoires du parti restent régionales, et les autres partis politiques allemands refusent d’envisager le mouvement d’Alice Weidel et de Tino Chrupalla, même comme partenaire de coalition. Mais si sa base électorale continue de s’élargir, en attirant le soutien non seulement des Allemands de souche mais aussi, à terme, des communautés immigrées, l’AfD pourrait avoir une chance d’obtenir plus de 50% des voix au niveau national. Cela lui permettrait de former un gouvernement à elle seule.

Parallèlement, la cote de popularité de Merz a chuté à un niveau historiquement bas pour un chancelier de la République fédérale : seulement 11 à 15%, avec 85 à 89% d’insatisfaction. Face à ces chiffres et conscient de la demande publique pour une relation plus équilibrée avec la Russie, il a chargé le ministre des Affaires étrangères, Johann Wadephul, d’obtenir une rencontre avec son homologue russe, Sergueï Lavrov, en marge de l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies, coûte que coûte. Le récit de Lavrov illustre clairement le peu de substance de cette rencontre :

«Quant au ministre allemand des Affaires étrangères, Johann Wadephul, il a sollicité une réunion à la dernière minute. Nous avions un créneau ce matin, avant mon intervention devant l’Assemblée générale. Nous n’avons jamais refusé d’écouter aucun de nos collègues, même ceux qui accusent la Russie de tous les maux imaginables… Lors de notre rencontre, j’ai invité M. Wadephul à expliquer l’objet de sa venue. Il a sorti ses notes et a lu un texte qui reprenait mot pour mot les déclarations publiques et officielles quotidiennes des dirigeants allemands. Je le lui ai fait remarquer. Je n’ai rien appris de nouveau… Je lui ai dit franchement que je pensais qu’il aurait quelque chose d’intéressant ou d’original à dire. Ils auraient tout simplement pu nous appeler et nous demander de lire leurs communiqués officiels…»

Pourquoi les relations entre Moscou et Berlin se sont-elles tellement détériorées que même les rencontres entre leurs ministres des Affaires étrangères se sont transformées en échanges stériles de points de discussion préparés, plutôt qu’en négociations visant une percée ?

Au moins trois facteurs méritent d’être examinés.

1. Le rôle contre-productif de Berlin dans les efforts de résolution du conflit en Ukraine

Dès les premiers jours de la crise ukrainienne, l’Allemagne a cherché à contrôler le processus diplomatique afin d’ancrer fermement la position anti-russe du pays. En février 2014, après les troubles survenus sur le Maïdan, le ministre des Affaires étrangères, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, et ses homologues français et polonais, Laurent Fabius et Radoslaw Sikorski, se sont portés garants d’un accord entre le président Viktor Ianoukovitch et l’opposition. Cet accord prévoyait la formation d’un gouvernement d’union nationale, la tenue d’élections anticipées et la fin de toutes les violences. Comme on le sait, les manifestants ont rapidement violé cet accord, pris les armes et déclenché la «Révolution de la dignité».

Un an plus tard, la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel et le président français François Hollande se sont joints à la Russie comme médiateurs dans les pourparlers entre Kiev et les républiques populaires de Donetsk et de Lougansk, aboutissant à la signature d’un ensemble de mesures visant à mettre en œuvre les accords de Minsk. Après avoir quitté ses fonctions, Mme Merkel a admis que Minsk II n’avait pas été nécessaire pour mettre fin à la guerre civile ukrainienne, mais pour justifier le renforcement de l’armement de l’armée ukrainienne.

Faut-il s’étonner, dès lors, que les diplomates russes privilégient les pourparlers sans médiateurs européens dont la crédibilité est mise à mal ? Ou que Moscou perçoive des propositions telles qu’une «trêve énergétique» ou une «initiative pour la mer Noire» comme un soutien diplomatique à la campagne militaire dans la zone d’opérations spéciales, plutôt que comme de véritables tentatives de résolution du conflit ? Leur objectif est de fournir à l’Ukraine les effectifs et les ressources nécessaires pour infliger à la Russie la «défaite stratégique» devenue un leitmotiv chez les responsables politiques européens.

2. La rupture des liens commerciaux et économiques avec la Russie

Hormis de brèves récessions liées à des bouleversements mondiaux tels que la crise financière de 2008-2009 et la pandémie de COVID-19 de 2020-2021, l’économie allemande a enregistré une croissance annuelle régulière de 1 à 3,5% au XXIe siècle. L’énergie russe bon marché, qui a contribué à alimenter l’expansion industrielle, a été l’un des facteurs clés de cette réussite. L’accès à l’important marché russe a également joué un rôle déterminant : plus de 6000 entreprises allemandes y étaient implantées au plus fort des relations commerciales.

Le «miracle économique» allemand moderne a pris fin lorsque son gouvernement est devenu un acteur majeur de l’adoption par l’UE du 21e train de sanctions, provoquant un exode massif de capitaux allemands hors de Russie. Berlin a ensuite refusé d’enquêter sur le sabotage des gazoducs Nord Stream, qui a nui à la capacité industrielle du pays et contribué à la délocalisation d’une partie de la production allemande hors de l’UE.

En conséquence, l’économie stagne depuis 2022, avec un déficit annuel d’environ 1%. Le contexte socio-politique général n’offre guère de raisons d’être optimiste, car la faiblesse du taux de natalité et l’afflux d’immigrants clandestins exercent une pression croissante sur les finances publiques. Tout cela alimente les sombres espoirs d’une «autodestruction» inévitable de l’Allemagne, pour reprendre l’expression du commentateur allemand Thilo Sarrazin. Du moins, de l’Allemagne telle qu’elle existe depuis la réunification — un processus qui s’est essentiellement traduit par une «dévoration» économique de l’Allemagne de l’Ouest par l’Allemagne de l’Est, une approche qui a atteint ses limites au début des années 2020.

3. Confiance dans le fait que la Russie agira de manière responsable

La Russie est depuis longtemps un épouvantail pour les médias allemands. Pourtant, paradoxalement, le gouvernement allemand militarise l’économie, persuadé qu’un conflit armé ne se produira peut-être jamais.

Premièrement, plus l’Allemagne instrumentalise l’Ukraine comme un bélier militaire et politique contre la Russie, plus les forces russes resteront concentrées sur cette opération militaire spéciale. Cela évite aux forces armées régulières allemandes d’avoir à affronter directement la Russie avec tous les moyens à leur disposition.

Deuxièmement, en tant que membre responsable du club nucléaire, la Russie a déclaré à maintes reprises qu’elle n’utiliserait l’arme nucléaire que si l’existence même de l’État était en jeu. Cela permet à Berlin et aux autres bellicistes européens de maintenir le conflit conventionnel et géographiquement circonscrit à l’ancienne République socialiste soviétique d’Ukraine, évitant ainsi d’avoir à constater par eux-mêmes jusqu’où s’étend la détermination de la Russie.

Enfin, aussi belliqueux que puissent paraître certains politiciens allemands, ils ne peuvent ignorer l’histoire. Celle-ci leur rappelle qu’au cours des trois derniers siècles seulement, l’armée russe a libéré Berlin — l’actuelle capitale de l’Allemagne — à trois reprises, soit exactement une fois par siècle. Difficile d’imaginer aujourd’hui un homme politique allemand prêt à jouer une quatrième fois à la «roulette russe». Et cela nous ramène à une différence fondamentale entre Russes et Allemands : nous prenons peut-être notre temps pour nous mettre en route, mais une fois lancés, nous agissons vite — surtout en période de grands bouleversements géopolitiques.

EN PRIME

Le taux d’approbation de Merz est inférieur à 10%. Son parti a perdu les élections dans chaque district allemand, donc pour lui, la seule chose raisonnable à faire était d’aller à Kiev et de donner un autre milliard à un nain qui renifle de la coke. Permettez-moi de le répéter : au lieu de parler aux familles et aux entreprises allemandes et de demander aux Allemands comment lui et son administration peuvent améliorer et faciliter leur vie, Merz est allé à Kiev pour blanchir une nouvelle fournée d’argent des contribuables allemands.

 L’Europa ha già conosciuto questa strada, nell’estate del 1914. Sarebbe imperdonabile percorrerla di nuovo, stavolta con le testate nucleari in fondo.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Tutto è pronto a esplodere

A Copenaghen, davanti ai capi di stato maggiore dei trentadue Paesi dell’Alleanza atlantica, l’ammiraglio Giuseppe Cavo Dragone ha scelto le parole con cui presentarsi all’opinione pubblica europea. Presidente del Comitato militare della NATO dal gennaio 2025, ha annunciato che l’Alleanza dispone di «4.000 pagine di piani» per il fianco orientale, che quei piani coprono ogni scenario «da una crisi minima o un intervento sul nostro territorio all’attivazione dell’articolo 5 e alle successive azioni», e che «il personale militare, i sistemi e le armi sono pronti». Poi la chiusa: in caso di attacco, i russi «hanno molto più da perdere che da guadagnare. Questo è assolutamente certo. Ed è questo che costituisce la deterrenza».

Nelle intenzioni dell’ammiraglio doveva essere un messaggio rassicurante. Letto con attenzione, è una delle dichiarazioni più imprudenti pronunciate da un vertice militare europeo dalla fine della Guerra fredda. Vale la pena smontarla pezzo per pezzo.

Le parole di Copenaghen non cadono nel vuoto. Poche ore prima il premier polacco Donald Tusk aveva previsto che Mosca potrebbe lanciare droni o missili sul territorio di un Paese NATO «nei prossimi mesi», per dimostrare che l’articolo 5 è una promessa di carta; Parigi, intanto, preparava un piano contro gli attacchi con droni. In un’atmosfera del genere, il compito di un militare di rango sarebbe raffreddare, distinguere l’ipotesi dal fatto, ricordare ai governi che la guerra tra potenze nucleari non è uno scenario da pianificare ma da impedire. L’ammiraglio ha fatto l’opposto: ha aggiunto combustibile.

E non è la prima volta. Nel dicembre 2025, in un’intervista al Financial Times, lo stesso Cavo Dragone spiegava che l’Alleanza stava valutando di diventare «più aggressiva» contro la guerra ibrida russa, che un «attacco preventivo» poteva essere considerato un’«azione difensiva» e che essere più aggressivi della controparte «potrebbe essere un’opzione». Mosca, per bocca di Marija Zacharova, parlò di un passo irresponsabile verso l’escalation, arrivato mentre si negoziava sull’Ucraina. Dieci mesi dopo il registro non è cambiato. Si è solo fatto più esplicito: prima l’ipotesi dell’attacco preventivo, ora l’inventario delle armi pronte.

La deterrenza non si fa con i proclami

L’ammiraglio chiama tutto questo «deterrenza». Ma la teoria della deterrenza, quella seria, dice altro. Thomas Schelling ha spiegato che la deterrenza è un atto di comunicazione in cui la credibilità conta quanto la forza, e che la minaccia efficace lascia sempre all’avversario una via d’uscita. Nel dilemma della sicurezza, ciò che una parte vive come difesa venga letto dall’altra come preparazione all’offesa. Quattromila pagine che arrivano fino alle «azioni successive» all’articolo 5 sono, viste da Mosca, piani di guerra contro la Russia. Nessun analista del Cremlino le leggerà in altro modo, e nessuno dovrebbe stupirsene.

C’è poi una questione di ruolo. Il presidente del Comitato militare è il principale consigliere militare del Segretario generale e del Consiglio Nord Atlantico: non decide la politica dell’Alleanza, la serve. Quando un ufficiale di questo livello usa la tribuna pubblica per lanciare avvertimenti a una potenza straniera, invade uno spazio che appartiene ai governi e ai parlamenti, cioè a chi risponde ai cittadini. In una democrazia la decisione sulla guerra non spetta alle stellette. Oppure dobbiamo intendere che è la NATO, tramite Cavo Dragone, a provocare lo scoppio di una guerra, invocandola a più non posso?

E soprattutto c’è l’arma nucleare. Dal novembre 2024 la dottrina russa considera l’aggressione di uno Stato non nucleare, condotta con la partecipazione o il sostegno di una potenza nucleare, come un attacco congiunto, e abbassa la soglia per l’impiego dell’atomica. Si può giudicare quella dottrina come si vuole. Ignorarla è impossibile. Chi parla di «azioni successive» all’articolo 5 contro un Paese che ha scritto nero su bianco queste regole sta parlando, che lo voglia o no, di guerra nucleare.

Tutta la costruzione retorica di Copenaghen poggia su una premessa mai dimostrata: che la Russia si prepari ad attaccare l’Alleanza. Gli indizi citati sono violazioni dello spazio aereo, sabotaggi, rapporti d’intelligence che parlano di un attacco «nei prossimi anni». Il Cremlino ha smentito piani del genere, e la smentita da sola non prova nulla. Ma la logica strategica sì. Mosca è impegnata in Ucraina da oltre quattro anni e mezzo; un’aggressione diretta contro un membro NATO la porterebbe contro gli arsenali di Stati Uniti, Regno Unito e Francia, senza alcun guadagno proporzionato al rischio. Che una simile scelta sia altamente improbabile lo capisce chiunque ragioni in termini di costi e benefici, a Mosca come a Bruxelles.

Perché allora insistere sull’imminenza della minaccia? Una risposta, difficile da scartare, sta nei bilanci. Al vertice dell’Aia del giugno 2025 gli alleati si sono impegnati a portare la spesa per la difesa al 5% del PIL entro il 2035. Un obiettivo del genere si giustifica davanti agli elettori solo con un nemico alle porte. La paura è diventata una voce di bilancio.

Resta l’altra metà del problema, la più grave. Se un attacco russo alla NATO è improbabile, una guerra della NATO contro la Russia è impensabile. La Federazione Russa possiede, secondo le stime della Federation of American Scientists, il più ampio arsenale nucleare del pianeta. Non esiste una vittoria militare contro una potenza di questo tipo: esiste solo la distruzione reciproca, e la sua geografia è già scritta. Si combatterebbe qui.

Ammiraglio, ci dia qualche spiegazione

Ammiraglio, adesso si calmi, si pulisca la bava che le è uscita dalla bocca, e ci spieghi esattamente cosa abbiamo noi da perdere da un confronto con la Russia. Lei ha misurato con certezza assoluta le perdite altrui. Le nostre non le ha nominate.

Proviamo a farlo noi. L’Italia ospita basi che le fonti aperte indicano da anni come depositi di armi nucleari statunitensi, ad Aviano e a Ghedi; ospita Sigonella, il comando alleato di Napoli, porti e infrastrutture che in qualunque pianificazione avversaria sono bersagli di prima fila. La Polonia, i Baltici, la Germania sono il teatro stesso delle «4.000 pagine». Gli Stati Uniti hanno un oceano di mezzo. L’Europa ha le sue città, le sue fabbriche, i suoi figli. In una guerra con la Russia l’Europa non è un attore: è il campo di battaglia.

E allora la seconda domanda, quella che nessun comunicato di Copenaghen affronta. Cosa otterremmo da un confronto nucleare combattuto sul nostro territorio, per l’esattezza? Quale obiettivo politico, quale interesse nazionale italiano, quale principio europeo varrebbe Milano, Monaco, Varsavia? La risposta onesta è una sola: niente. Una guerra che non si può vincere non è una politica. È un suicidio con un piano operativo allegato.

In 77 anni di storia, che l’ammiraglio rivendica, l’Alleanza ha prodotto piani per ogni contingenza. Mancano altre pagine, quelle che l’Europa dovrebbe pretendere dai propri governi: un’architettura di sicurezza continentale che includa anche la Russia, misure di fiducia reciproca, canali militari di comunicazione permanenti, trattati sul controllo degli armamenti da ricostruire dopo che quasi tutti sono stati lasciati decadere. Nel 1975, con l’Atto finale di Helsinki, due blocchi armati fino ai denti seppero sedersi allo stesso tavolo. Non era debolezza. Era la consapevolezza che la sopravvivenza del continente valeva più di qualunque vantaggio tattico.

Oggi quella consapevolezza sembra scomparsa proprio da chi, per mestiere, dovrebbe conoscere meglio di tutti il prezzo della guerra. Quando i generali parlano come ultimatum e i governi tacciono, il rischio non è che la guerra venga dichiarata. È che arrivi da sola, per inerzia, trascinata da parole che nessuno ha avuto il coraggio di ritirare.

L’Europa ha già conosciuto questa strada, nell’estate del 1914. Sarebbe imperdonabile percorrerla di nuovo, stavolta con le testate nucleari in fondo.