La dichiarazione di Trump offre una prospettiva mediatica molto interessante e potrebbe segnare la fine del “Progetto Ucraina”, un argomento che merita di essere approfondito.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Nessuno si sarebbe aspettato che Donald Trump, dopo una telefonata di auguri di compleanno al suo omologo russo, dichiarasse che il gasolio russo si sarebbe rivelato la soluzione all’attuale carenza di carburante negli Stati Uniti. Se la presidenza Trump ha prodotto qualcosa, sono stati molti titoli interessanti che sembrano spuntare dal nulla e che, purtroppo, molto spesso, svaniscono nuovamente nella nebbia da cui sono emersi. A volte le parole di Trump possono riempirci di speranza, come in questo «accordo sul gasolio», mentre altre, come il suo recente discorso alle Nazioni Unite, in cui ha minacciato di uccidere potenzialmente tutti gli iraniani, ci riempiono di terrore. Questa dichiarazione del nostro enigmatico leader presenta una narrazione mediatica molto interessante e una potenziale conclusione del «Progetto Ucraina» che vale la pena approfondire.

Trump ha accusato Zelensky della carenza energetica globale, in particolare per quanto riguarda il gasolio. All’epoca, tutti pensavano che si trattasse solo di una banale manovra diversiva in stile Twitter per sviare l’attenzione dalla fallita guerra contro l’Iran, che certamente ha causato notevoli interruzioni nel trasporto di carburante. In altre parole, la Casa Bianca stava proiettando questa crisi – che aveva permesso che si verificasse, o che aveva attivamente provocato – addossandola al capro espiatorio Zelensky. Tuttavia, questa forma di diversione o proiezione non è più solo una questione di parole in una narrativa pre-elettorale, ma si è trasformata in azione concreta. Le sanzioni sul gasolio russo sono state revocate e la prima spedizione è già in viaggio mentre scrivo queste righe. È accaduto qualcosa di tangibile.

Zelensky è stato infatti avvertito circa sei volte di smettere di attaccare le infrastrutture petrolifere russe. Far saltare in aria dei bambini nel Donbass e oltre va «bene», ma attaccare ciò che l’Occidente vuole dalla Russia più di ogni altra cosa è «assolutamente inaccettabile». Zelensky, al quale – come indicato sopra – era stato intimato una mezza dozzina di volte di sospendere gli attacchi alle infrastrutture petrolifere e del gas, dopo aver appreso della decisione di Trump di acquistare gasolio russo, ha agito come segue:

1) Ha rapidamente attaccato nuovamente le infrastrutture petrolifere russe, apparentemente per fare un dispetto al Presidente degli Stati Uniti

2) Ha immediatamente interrotto i colloqui di pace a Miami con i collaboratori di Trump, il duo Kushner-Witkoff, il che rappresenta l’ennesimo schiaffo in faccia a Donald Trump.

La cosa più incredibile di tutte è che il «narcisista» Trump abbia già pubblicamente ringraziato il presidente Putin due volte per questo accordo. Durante un comizio, gli americani in piedi dietro a Trump hanno applaudito con grande entusiasmo all’annuncio della pace con la Russia e dell’approvvigionamento extra di carburante per l’America. La russofobia è un passatempo della borghesia globalista e di «Epstein Island», non dei camionisti e degli agricoltori americani.

È una narrazione eccellente, speriamo che duri

Trump ha ora attribuito il 100% della colpa dei problemi energetici e di approvvigionamento globali direttamente a Zelensky, accusandolo personalmente di aver alimentato la guerra negli ultimi due anni. Pertanto, la narrazione sta prendendo forma più o meno così: Se la guerra in Ucraina è la causa della carenza di carburante e Zelensky è la causa del protrarsi della guerra, ciò significa che gli Stati Uniti possono stringere un accordo con la Russia anche se «sono stati loro a iniziare», con la conseguenza logica che Zelensky debba logicamente andarsene, poiché è lui la fonte del problema. Ma approfondendo ulteriormente la narrazione, possiamo cogliere l’aspetto più interessante di tutti o, come si suol dire online, «la parte taciuta»: Trump ha sostanzialmente dichiarato che la produzione energetica russa riveste un interesse strategico vitale per gli Stati Uniti.

Sono proprio queste parole a togliermi la «pillola nera» dalla bocca e a iniettarmi direttamente «hopium» nel sangue. L’idea che il Presidente americano dichiari che NON essere in guerra con la Russia riveste un interesse strategico vitale per gli Stati Uniti è qualcosa che ho sognato per tutta la mia vita da adulto. Questa è esattamente la logica di cui abbiamo bisogno per porre fine, una volta per tutte, alla mentalità della Guerra Fredda e del «Progetto per un Nuovo Secolo Americano» in politica e consentire finalmente agli Stati Uniti di ricostruirsi e investire in se stessi. Questo potrebbe benissimo rappresentare il risveglio multipolare dell’America, utilizzando una trappola logica simile a quelle che sono state impiegate in passato per ottenere l’esatto contrario e mantenere gli Stati Uniti intrappolati in eterne guerre all’estero, condotte per il puro lusso della «sicurezza nazionale».

Questa nuova trappola logica potrebbe presentarsi più o meno così: «Quindi volete la guerra con la Russia? Ciò significa che volete danneggiare l’America, sporco traditore! Prenderete il carburante al contadino Joe e i nostri figli moriranno di fame, mostro che non siete altro! Lasciare che la Russia produca carburante in pace è un interesse di sicurezza nazionale per l’America; siete forse contrari alla sicurezza nazionale del nostro Paese? Volete indebolire la virile America per conto di quegli europei omosessuali?».

Ma mentre ci iniettiamo quella dose di «hopium» nelle vene, dobbiamo ricordare che Donald Trump ha detto molte cose, ha cambiato idea numerose volte, o è stato costretto a farlo, e forse non è proprio il decisore unilaterale che si dipinge in televisione.

Ci vogliono due per ballare il tango, ma basta un uomo arancione per mantenere la parola data.

Le trascrizioni di questa ormai famosa conversazione telefonica di compleanno appaiono molto diverse tra la versione americana e quella russa, il che è del tutto normale. Il team di Trump tende a riportare gli argomenti discussi come fatti accertati, mentre i russi utilizzano un linguaggio più evasivo. Ma le sanzioni sul gasolio sono state sospese per ora e le navi si stanno muovendo, quindi la cosa sembra essere reale… almeno fino a quando non si terranno le elezioni di medio termine.

Da allora la parte americana ha minacciato di escludere Zelensky dalla condivisione di informazioni di intelligence, il che potrebbe rappresentare un colpo mortale immediato per i loro sforzi militari, poiché molti esperti ritengono che solo le informazioni degli Stati Uniti abbiano permesso loro di sopravvivere così a lungo. Senza tali dati di puntamento, verrebbero immediatamente riportati alla guerra del XX secolo e non sarebbero più in grado di sferrare attacchi in profondità nel territorio russo. RT ha scritto quanto segue su questo tema:

Un funzionario ucraino ha riferito ad Axios che Witkoff e Kushner hanno minacciato di interrompere la condivisione delle informazioni di intelligence statunitensi con Kiev qualora questa continuasse a ignorare le richieste di Trump di sospendere gli attacchi alle raffinerie di petrolio russe, ma il funzionario statunitense ha negato che fosse stata formulata una simile minaccia.

Ma è qui che dobbiamo trattenere il respiro, poiché nonostante questa nuova narrativa possa sembrare allettante e rappresenti l’uscita perfetta per gli Stati Uniti dalla loro partecipazione al «Progetto Ucraina», non dovremmo dimenticare le parole del presidente Putin di qualche tempo fa, quando parlò del vero potere di qualsiasi presidente degli Stati Uniti:

«Quindi una persona viene eletta — arriva con delle idee… Poi vanno a trovarlo persone con le valigette, ben vestite, in abiti scuri — un po’ come i miei.»

Quindi la vera domanda potrebbe essere: la lobby sionista, l’élite di Epstein, le agenzie di intelligence a tre lettere, i miliardari influenti e tutti gli altri agenti segreti di Capitol Hill permetteranno davvero al presidente Trump di porre fine a questa guerra? Al Presidente degli Stati Uniti sarà consentito farlo?

Dovremmo ricordare che, dopo che Zelensky si è comportato in modo vergognoso alla Casa Bianca all’inizio del secondo mandato di Trump, tutti pensavano che questo conflitto sarebbe finito. Trump, il famoso narcisista, appariva visibilmente arrabbiato e offeso davanti alle telecamere durante il loro scontro verbale. Ma la guerra è proseguita. C’è stato il vertice di Anchorage, che ha suscitato un enorme clamore e tutti pensavano allora che gli Stati Uniti avrebbero ritirato il sostegno a Kiev. Ma così non è stato. I nemici di Trump, compreso il clan Biden, sono coinvolti in un enorme scandalo di corruzione in Ucraina, ormai tutto allo scoperto. Questa sarebbe stata un’ottima via d’uscita dal conflitto, ma Trump non l’ha colta o non ha potuto farlo. E, in generale, la retorica di Trump nei confronti di Zelensky e di altri politici europei è stata palesemente dura e irrispettosa. L’uomo accusato di essere un «spaccone» in qualche modo parla sempre in modo piuttosto cortese sia alle spalle che in faccia a Putin e Xi.

Pertanto, sebbene io desideri la pace e una cooperazione improntata al rispetto reciproco tra gli Stati Uniti e la Russia, forse questo accordo durerà solo fino alle elezioni di medio termine, quando all’improvviso Zelensky tornerà a essere «un bastardo, ma è il nostro bastardo», e il conflitto proseguirà senza sosta.

Forse questa è la nostra «sorpresa di ottobre» da parte della fazione repubblicana? E a dicembre potremo tutti essere «di nuovo sorpresi» quando la guerra riprenderà con tutta la sua forza e altre migliaia di slavi moriranno sul campo di battaglia?

Ora, Donald Trump, a denti stretti, sta lanciando l’idea secondo cui ritiene «sia giunto il momento che l’Ucraina abbia un nuovo presidente». Ma una volta conteggiati i voti in America, potrebbe semplicemente tornare a odiare passivamente e a tollerare Zelensky fino alla fine del suo mandato o fino a quando un giorno un certo Oreshnik non colpirà nel segno. Non possiamo inoltre dimenticare che l’Occidente sta da tempo esercitando pressioni affinché i russi concedano un cessate il fuoco di ampia portata. Presumibilmente ciò verrebbe utilizzato per riorganizzarsi, riposarsi, riarmarsi e poi tornare semplicemente a combattere fino all’ultimo ucraino. Ora Trump vuole che si tengano elezioni a Kiev, il che probabilmente richiederà un cessate il fuoco per poter essere attuato. Ma spingerà per un cessate il fuoco di tre giorni, o cercherà di indurre con l’inganno i russi ad accettare una tregua di un mese o più?

Un «buon» segnale su questa questione dal punto di vista russo è che ora ci sono già richieste di dimissioni di Zelensky su Twitter/X provenienti da tutte le parti, persino da quelle filo-ucraine:

«“Zelensky deve dimettersi” – media ucraini. Ci hanno messo poco. Zelensky ha ignorato per ben SEI volte gli avvertimenti di Trump di non attaccare le raffinerie di petrolio russe. Questa mattina, Zelensky ha bombardato un’altra raffineria di petrolio russa. Gli ucraini chiedono le dimissioni di Zelensky.

L’ex deputato ucraino e comproprietario di Metinvest, Vadym Novynskyi, ha esortato Zelensky a dimettersi e a cedere tutti i poteri alla Verkhovna Rada ucraina a seguito degli accordi tra Trump e Putin.»

Dobbiamo ricordare che l’Ucraina del 2026 è già uno Stato di polizia in cui qualsiasi dissenso comporta il rischio di essere caricati su un autobus e portati al fronte a morire, oppure di scomparire in una prigione con l’accusa di essere una «spia» russa. Pertanto, quando personalità di rilievo si coalizzano apertamente contro Zelensky, si tratta di una dichiarazione ben più incisiva rispetto agli attori di Hollywood che, al sicuro nelle loro lussuose camere da letto, realizzano video su TikTok contro Trump.

Il resto del mondo non resterà a guardare senza fare nulla.Presto dagli account bot di Kiev emergerà sicuramente qualche stupida contro-narrazione del tipo «Putin ha tradito i BRICS». Ovviamente qualcuno dirà che il Cremlino ha gettato i propri fratelli iraniani in pasto alla macchina della lobby sionista! Ma in realtà, sembra che gli iraniani si limiteranno semplicemente a spedire il proprio petrolio attraverso la Russia e a venderlo come «russo», e tutti ne saranno soddisfatti. Il Mar Caspio sarà ancora più trafficato nel prossimo futuro. Se le sanzioni hanno ottenuto qualcosa, è stato proprio quello di aumentare il commercio tra Russia e Iran.

A Mosca nessuno ha intenzione di tradire Teheran; si vuole che l’America entri a far parte del mondo multipolare, salvando al contempo la faccia e riducendo il livello globale di minaccia di guerra nucleare, che attualmente è decisamente troppo elevato. L’Iran e la Cina sono stati sicuramente consultati su questa questione prima che qualsiasi accordo sul diesel fosse finalizzato.

Il vero pericolo che Trump invochi la destituzione di Zelensky proviene dall’Europa, dove alcune fazioni, politici e i loro finanziatori potrebbero intraprendere azioni radicali in risposta. E la reazione di Trump a tale risposta potrebbe ora rivelarsi ancora più radicale. Sarebbe possibile che la NATO desse il via libera ai Paesi baltici per aprire semplicemente un altro fronte e «vedere cosa succede»? La Francia metterà finalmente in atto la propria minaccia e schiererà apertamente truppe in massa per salvare il «Napoleone in verde» dalla morte politica o, potenzialmente, fisica? Finora l’UE si è limitata a minacciare ulteriori sanzioni. Se gli oltre 20 pacchetti di sanzioni precedenti hanno fallito, mi chiedo cosa rimanga effettivamente da sanzionare. Ursula promette il pacchetto di sanzioni più ampio e di maggiore portata per lunedì 12 ottobre, ma dubito che cambierà qualcosa. L’unica cosa che potrebbe cambiare la situazione sarebbe un’azione militare da parte dell’UE davvero aggressiva, drastica e sconsiderata.

E il resto delle sanzioni?I media russi hanno reso un disservizio al pubblico scrivendo ripetutamente che «Trump revoca le sanzioni», quando le uniche sanzioni revocate riguardano le esportazioni di gasolio per sei mesi. Tutte le altre sanzioni sono ancora in vigore. Non è ancora possibile volare direttamente da Mosca a New York e i trasferimenti di denaro tramite SWIFT sono ancora in gran parte bloccati. Dobbiamo ricordare che, almeno in teoria, le sanzioni sono una forma di punizione per i crimini commessi contro, in questo caso, il diritto internazionale e gli Stati Uniti. Come possono quindi normalizzarsi veramente le relazioni tra gli Stati Uniti e la Federazione Russa quando l’una parte accusa ancora l’altra di crimini che ritiene non siano stati nemmeno commessi?

Una volta concluso il «Progetto Ucraina», le cose potrebbero cambiare rapidamente, ma non potrà esserci vera amicizia finché Washington non avrà fiducia in Aeroflot al punto da consentirle di atterrare sul territorio statunitense. Non possiamo trovarci contemporaneamente in una guerra di sanzioni e in una situazione di normalizzazione. Ma questa nuova narrativa di Trump, se riuscirà a portarla avanti fino alla sua logica conclusione, rappresenta la via d’uscita perfetta per l’America e il modo in cui potremo finalmente porre fine a questa guerra e tornare a un certo senso di normalità, con l’apocalisse relegata in un futuro lontano, ben oltre la durata delle nostre vite.

La vittoria del Parti Québécois e il referendum del 19 ottobre in Alberta riportano al centro il problema della coesione canadese. La separazione resta minoritaria, soprattutto nell’Ovest, ma il riemergere simultaneo delle spinte centrifughe rappresenta una sfida politica per Mark Carney.

Segue nostro Telegram.

A pochi mesi dal consolidamento parlamentare del governo liberale di Mark Carney, il Canada si trova ad affrontare una questione che sembrava essersi progressivamente allontanata dal centro della scena politica: quella della propria coesione interna. La vittoria del Parti Québécois (PQ) nelle elezioni provinciali del Québec del 5 ottobre e il referendum previsto per il 19 ottobre in Alberta, nel quale gli elettori saranno chiamati a pronunciarsi sull’eventuale avvio del procedimento verso un successivo referendum vincolante sulla separazione dal Canada, hanno riportato contemporaneamente alla ribalta due forme molto diverse di contestazione dell’assetto federale.

Sarebbe eccessivo sostenere che il Canada si trovi alla vigilia della disgregazione. In Alberta, soprattutto, tutti i dati disponibili indicano che l’opzione favorevole alla permanenza nella federazione dovrebbe prevalere con un margine molto ampio. Tuttavia, il fatto stesso che una delle province economicamente più importanti del Paese abbia ritenuto politicamente possibile sottoporre agli elettori una domanda di questo genere dimostra il malcontento di una parte della popolazione: una questione che fino a pochi anni fa apparteneva soprattutto alle frange più radicali del cosiddetto western alienation è entrata nella sfera della politica istituzionale.

Il caso del Québec, invece, ha radici molto più profonde. Le elezioni provinciali del 5 ottobre hanno riportato al governo, dopo oltre un decennio, il Parti Québécois guidato da Paul St-Pierre Plamondon. Il PQ ha conquistato 59 dei 127 seggi dell’Assemblée nationale, fermandosi cinque seggi sotto la maggioranza assoluta. Ottenendo circa il 28% dei voti, ha chiuso la consultazione elettorale davanti al Parti Libéral du Québec, attestatosi poco sopra il 24%, al Parti Conservateur du Québec, con circa il 21%, e a Québec Solidaire, che ha raccolto oltre il 12% conquistando nove seggi. La Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), al governo dal 2018, è invece crollata al 13,3% senza ottenere alcun seggio.

Un tale esito impone certamente una lettura prudente, in quanto il successo del PQ non equivale a un mandato maggioritario per l’indipendenza. Il partito, infatti, ha beneficiato della frammentazione del voto e ha ottenuto la percentuale più bassa mai registrata da una formazione vincitrice nella storia elettorale del Québec, mentre i sondaggi continuano inoltre a collocare il sostegno alla separazione dal Canada intorno al 30%, ben lontano da una maggioranza sociale. Lo stesso St-Pierre Plamondon ha indicato che non intende convocare un nuovo referendum finché Donald Trump resterà alla Casa Bianca, sostenendo che la pressione tariffaria e l’instabilità derivante dai rapporti con gli Stati Uniti rendono necessario evitare, per il momento, un’ulteriore crisi costituzionale.

Ciò non riduce tuttavia la portata della vittoria del PQ. Per la prima volta dopo molti anni, il governo della seconda provincia più popolosa del Canada sarà guidato da una formazione che considera esplicitamente l’indipendenza del Québec il proprio obiettivo storico. Inoltre, sommando i 59 deputati del PQ ai nove di Québec Solidaire, anch’esso favorevole alla sovranità del Québec sebbene attraverso un percorso politico e sociale profondamente diverso, nell’Assemblée nationale esiste una maggioranza numerica di deputati eletti sotto le insegne di partiti indipendentisti. Questo non significa che PQ e Québec Solidaire formeranno automaticamente un blocco comune, né che un referendum sia imminente, ma conferma che la questione nazionale québécoise è tutt’altro che scomparsa.

La sua natura, inoltre, resta profondamente diversa dal separatismo emergente in Alberta. Il nazionalismo del Québec dispone di una propria continuità storica, linguistica e culturale, di una tradizione intellettuale e politica consolidata e di istituzioni che hanno progressivamente acquisito un grado considerevole di autonomia rispetto a Ottawa. I referendum del 1980 e del 1995, quest’ultimo perduto dagli indipendentisti per uno scarto inferiore all’1%, hanno mostrato quanto la questione possa arrivare a mettere in discussione l’esistenza stessa della federazione canadese.

La situazione dell’Alberta nasce invece prevalentemente da fattori economici, fiscali ed energetici. La provincia, cuore dell’industria petrolifera canadese, ha sviluppato da tempo un forte risentimento nei confronti del governo federale, accusato da settori rilevanti dell’opinione pubblica occidentale di utilizzare la ricchezza prodotta dalle province delle praterie per finanziare politiche redistributive decise nell’Est, imponendo contemporaneamente vincoli ambientali e normativi penalizzanti per il settore degli idrocarburi.

Sebbene tutti i sondaggi siano concordi sul fatto che il referendum non dovrebbe avere esito positivo, la trasformazione di una rivendicazione precedentemente marginale in una questione sottoposta ufficialmente all’intero corpo elettorale provinciale rappresenta un passaggio qualitativo da non sottovalutare. Significa che una parte della classe politica dell’Alberta considera ormai il ricorso alla minaccia separatista uno strumento legittimo di pressione nei confronti del governo federale. La premier Danielle Smith ha annunciato che voterà per la permanenza nel Canada e non sostiene personalmente la separazione, ma è stato il suo governo ad aggiungere la domanda al referendum provinciale (che consiste di un totale di dieci quesiti). La stessa Smith ha presentato la consultazione come uno strumento attraverso il quale permettere agli albertani di esprimere il proprio malcontento nei confronti di Ottawa.

Una vittoria del 70% o persino superiore dell’opzione federalista non cancellerebbe il fatto che circa un quinto dell’elettorato di una provincia fondamentale per l’economia canadese sia disposto a considerare almeno l’avvio di un processo di separazione. Nel gennaio 2026 Ipsos aveva addirittura registrato un sostegno iniziale alla prospettiva separatista del 28% in Alberta, praticamente identico al 31% rilevato in Québec, salvo poi constatare che il consenso si dimezzava quando agli intervistati venivano prospettati i costi concreti dell’indipendenza. In altre parole, per una parte consistente degli elettori il separatismo albertano funziona soprattutto come voto di protesta e strumento negoziale nei confronti del centro federale.

Per Mark Carney, la contemporaneità dei due fenomeni costituisce una sfida particolarmente delicata. Il primo ministro ha costruito la propria strategia economica e internazionale attorno al concetto di “autonomia strategica” canadese. Di fronte all’uso crescente delle tariffe, delle catene di approvvigionamento e delle dipendenze economiche come strumenti di pressione, soprattutto da parte dell’amministrazione Trump, Carney ha sostenuto che il Canada debba ridurre la propria vulnerabilità nei confronti degli Stati Uniti, diversificando mercati, partner e infrastrutture.

Nel suo discorso al Lowy Institute di Sydney dello scorso marzo, il premier aveva affermato esplicitamente che l’integrazione economica non deve più trasformarsi in subordinazione e che le medie potenze devono costruire capacità sovrane nei settori strategici, dall’energia ai minerali critici, dall’intelligenza artificiale ai sistemi di pagamento. La stessa impostazione è stata successivamente ripresa nei rapporti con l’Unione Europea e nell’apertura di nuovi canali economici verso l’Asia.

Particolarmente significativa, in questo senso, è stata la normalizzazione dei rapporti con la Cina. Nello scorso mese di gennaio Carney è stato il primo capo di governo canadese a recarsi ufficialmente a Pechino dal 2017, incontrando Xi Jinping e Li Qiang e inaugurando un nuovo partenariato strategico sino-canadese incentrato su energia, commercio, agroalimentare, sicurezza e multilateralismo. Ottawa ha indicato apertamente la Cina come uno dei mercati necessari per ridurre l’eccessiva dipendenza economica dagli Stati Uniti.

Questa strategia incontra però un paradosso fondamentale. Per ridurre la dipendenza dagli Stati Uniti e rivolgersi maggiormente ai mercati asiatici, il Canada ha bisogno proprio delle risorse energetiche dell’Alberta. Il nuovo oleodotto Pacific Link, che dovrebbe trasportare un milione di barili al giorno verso la costa della Columbia Britannica, è uno dei pilastri materiali di questo progetto. Il 1° ottobre Carney ha annunciato l’accelerazione dell’iter autorizzativo, definendo il progetto di interesse nazionale e collegandolo esplicitamente all’obiettivo di raddoppiare le esportazioni canadesi verso mercati diversi dagli Stati Uniti. Oltre il 90% delle esportazioni petrolifere canadesi è stato storicamente diretto verso il mercato statunitense: aprire una nuova grande direttrice verso il Pacifico significa tentare di trasformare l’Alberta da provincia dipendente dall’accesso al mercato statunitense in piattaforma energetica della proiezione canadese verso l’Asia.

Non è dunque casuale che Carney abbia scelto di presentare il progetto proprio a Fort McMurray, nel cuore delle sabbie bituminose albertane, accanto a Danielle Smith e a poche settimane dal referendum. La politica energetica diventa così contemporaneamente politica estera e politica di coesione nazionale. Offrire all’Alberta infrastrutture, accesso diretto ai mercati mondiali e un ruolo centrale nella strategia di diversificazione canadese significa rispondere alle spinte centrifughe non attraverso una semplice riaffermazione dell’autorità federale, ma cercando di modificare le condizioni economiche che le alimentano.

Una logica analoga, sebbene applicata a un contesto completamente diverso, emerge nel rapporto con il Québec. Dopo la vittoria di St-Pierre Plamondon, Carney ha evitato un confronto frontale con il nuovo governo provinciale, insistendo invece sulla necessità di un “federalismo cooperativo” fondato su infrastrutture, abitazioni, crescita economica e difesa degli interessi canadesi di fronte alle pressioni statunitensi. Il premier sa che trasformare immediatamente la questione in uno scontro tra Ottawa e Québec City potrebbe offrire agli indipendentisti esattamente il terreno politico di cui hanno bisogno per allargare un consenso alla sovranità che oggi resta minoritario.

L’atteggiamento dell’amministrazione Trump produce quindi un duplice effetto sulla politica del vicino settentrionale. Da un lato, le pressioni economiche statunitensi hanno accelerato la ricerca canadese di una maggiore autonomia e hanno reso più urgente la costruzione di un mercato interno maggiormente integrato. Dall’altro, proprio la percezione di una minaccia esterna contribuisce per il momento a frenare i separatismi: St-Pierre Plamondon ritiene troppo rischioso organizzare un referendum sull’indipendenza mentre il Canada è impegnato in uno scontro commerciale con Washington; parallelamente, in Alberta la ricerca di nuovi mercati per il petrolio può ridurre alcune delle ragioni economiche del malcontento verso Ottawa.

Il Canada non appare dunque prossimo alla dissoluzione. Ma il ritorno simultaneo della questione nazionale del Québec e del separatismo albertano indica che il modello federale sta attraversando una fase di crescente tensione. In una fase nella quale Mark Carney cerca di costruire un Canada più autonomo dagli Stati Uniti, più presente sui mercati asiatici e dotato di maggiori capacità economiche e strategiche proprie, emerge con forza una contraddizione: per conquistare maggiore autonomia all’esterno, Ottawa deve prima garantire la propria coesione all’interno. Il petrolio dell’Alberta, il peso demografico ed economico del Québec, le infrastrutture interprovinciali e il consenso delle popolazioni che compongono la federazione non sono questioni separate dalla politica internazionale canadese, ma ne costituiscono la condizione materiale.

Per Carney, la costruzione dell’“autonomia strategica” canadese passa ormai anche dalla capacità di dimostrare che il Canada possiede ancora un progetto federale sufficientemente credibile da tenere insieme le sue componenti.

Two giant pandas recently landed in Atlanta, a week after Donald Trump and Xi Jinping met in Washington. The summit produced no immediate breakthrough on trade deals, Taiwan or AI, but it did produce something cuddly for the American public: a pair of giant pandas, Ping Ping and Fu Shuang, which are on a ten-year […]

The post How Beijing combines conservation and trade in panda diplomacy appeared first on Asia Times.

par Russia TRUTH

Une succession rapide de manœuvres diplomatiques a permis à Donald Trump d’être publiquement réhabilité, à Vladimir Poutine de garder le contrôle stratégique total et à Volodymyr Zelensky de sombrer dans une rage sans bornes :

• L’accord bilatéral sur le diesel : La Maison Blanche et le Kremlin ont conclu un accord en vertu duquel le Trésor américain accorde une dérogation renouvelable aux sanctions sur les exportations russes de diesel jusqu’au 7 avril 2027. En contrepartie, Moscou a accepté de lever son interdiction temporaire d’exportation nationale de distillats moyens, apportant ainsi un soulagement immédiat, tant psychologique que concret, à un marché mondial du diesel mis à mal par les interdictions de transport maritime imposées au Moyen-Orient.

• L’effondrement du mythe de la «trêve énergétique» : Les rumeurs relayées par les médias occidentaux alléguant que Moscou aurait accepté une cessation provisoire des frappes aériennes et des tirs de missiles sur le réseau électrique ukrainien en échange d’un allègement plus large des sanctions ont été totalement discréditées. La position russe reste inébranlable : pas de cessez-le-feu provisoire ni sur terre, ni en mer, ni dans les airs.

• Moscou suspend officiellement les négociations : Lors d’un point presse officiel rendant compte du sommet téléphonique entre Poutine et Trump, le conseiller du Kremlin en matière de politique étrangère, Youri Ouchakov, a lancé une bombe diplomatique : la Russie a officiellement révoqué sa décision de septembre dernier de reprendre les négociations trilatérales avec Washington et Kiev. Invoquant les tentatives d’attaques par drones menées par l’Ukraine contre des bureaux de vote russes lors des élections à la Douma d’État, Poutine a informé Trump que le processus de négociation est suspendu indéfiniment tandis que les forces russes progressent sur l’ensemble du front.

• Rupture entre Washington et Kiev : Axios a confirmé que Donald Trump a personnellement adressé six exigences distinctes à Zelensky, lui ordonnant de mettre immédiatement fin aux raids de drones ukrainiens visant les raffineries russes. Zelensky a défié ces six exigences. Piégé par la dépendance de son pays aux financements occidentaux, Zelensky s’en est ouvertement pris à Trump, qualifiant le dialogue entre Washington et Moscou de «trahison en coulisses» et accusant la Maison Blanche d’utiliser les réunions à Miami comme écran de fumée pour traiter directement avec le Kremlin.

1. La transaction sur le diesel : un levier stratégique négocié contre un répit électoral

L’accord conclu entre Washington et Moscou est présenté par la Maison Blanche comme une avancée majeure. En réalité, cet accord marque le recul logique d’une puissance hégémonique surendettée, confrontée aux réalités économiques à l’approche des élections de mi-mandat de novembre :

• Le mécanisme de la dérogation : tout comme le Trésor américain a discrètement délivré des licences renouvelables pour permettre aux raffineries indiennes d’acheter du pétrole brut russe acheminé par voie maritime à la suite des premières escalades dans le golfe Persique en février, Washington a de nouveau accordé une dérogation d’urgence pour le diesel russe. Confronté à la réalité des pénuries de diesel agricole et routier, Trump a cédé sur ce que son dispositif de sanctions s’efforçait d’empêcher depuis des années.

• Le levier calculé de Novak : le vice-premier ministre russe Alexandre Novak a signalé il y a plusieurs semaines que les stocks nationaux de diesel en Russie affichent un excédent, la récolte agricole de cette année étant suffisante et comparable à celle de l’année dernière. L’interdiction russe des exportations, loin d’être un acte de désespoir déclenché par les frappes de drones ukrainiens, constituait un instrument de levier géopolitique. Moscou a retenu les distillats hors du marché jusqu’à ce que Washington soit contraint de négocier un assouplissement des sanctions.

• L’arithmétique du réel : comme l’ont démontré les analystes énergétiques, les volumes de diesel exportables par la Russie couvrent environ neuf jours de consommation intérieure américaine. Le véritable moteur de la crise énergétique mondiale reste le blocus du golfe Persique et de la mer Rouge. Pourtant, en acceptant de libérer ce volume, Moscou a obtenu une concession politique majeure de la part de Trump tout en démontrant aux pays du Sud que les régimes de sanctions occidentaux sont mis de côté dès que les prix intérieurs menacent une élection américaine.

2. Le point presse d’Ouchakov : la Russie claque la porte des négociations

La révélation géopolitique cruciale du jour provient du compte-rendu officiel de Youri Ouchakov sur le sommet téléphonique Poutine-Trump.

Pour la première fois depuis le lancement de l’opération militaire spéciale en 2022, la Fédération de Russie a officiellement et publiquement retiré son offre de pourparlers diplomatiques :

Poutine expose à Trump la doctrine russe durcie :

Les tentatives du régime de Kiev de perturber notre processus démocratique par des attaques terroristes contre des bureaux de vote ont réduit à néant toute possibilité de négociations. Nos forces armées détiennent l’initiative et avancent avec assurance. C’est à nous de déterminer si et quand des pourparlers auront un sens.

Il s’agit là d’un tournant décisif.

Tout au long du conflit, Moscou a maintenu une position cohérente : nous restons ouverts à un règlement politique et diplomatique selon nos conditions.

En lançant des attaques massives de drones contre les capitales provinciales russes et les bureaux de vote pendant les élections à la Douma, Bankova a fait le jeu de l’état-major russe.

Poutine a profité de cet incident pour mettre définitivement fin à cette voie de négociation, informant Trump que la Russie n’envisagera pas de discussions trilatérales tant que ses forces auront l’initiative opérationnelle totale.

Selon Ouchakov, Trump n’a pas réagi ; il a promis d’envoyer des «signaux» fermes à la délégation ukrainienne qui attendait à Miami.

3. Le coup de folie de Bankova : six défis, l’arnaque des 27 milliards d’euros et la rupture de Séoul

À Kiev, la prise de conscience que Donald Trump négocie des accords énergétiques directement avec Vladimir Poutine a provoqué une réaction démesurée de la part de Volodymyr Zelensky :

• Les six exigences : un reportage d’Axios a confirmé que la Maison Blanche a émis six directives distinctes à l’intention de Bankova, ordonnant la fin immédiate des attaques contre les infrastructures de raffinage russes. La motivation de Trump est purement intéressée : chaque frappe contre un craqueur de catalyseur russe fournit aux traders de Wall Street un prétexte pour faire grimper les cours à terme du diesel. Zelensky a rejeté toutes ces directives. Mettre fin aux frappes reviendrait à admettre que toute la campagne estivale de drones n’a abouti à aucun résultat stratégique.

• Le racket des 27 milliards d’euros : les dirigeants ukrainiens ne peuvent se permettre d’arrêter l’offensive de drones, car celle-ci constitue leur principal argumentaire utilisé pour extorquer des fonds à Bruxelles. Des responsables du ministère ukrainien de la Défense ont récemment déclaré que sans 27 milliards d’euros de subventions européennes immédiates, le montage de drones sur le territoire national serait interrompu. En déployant des munitions volantes pour incendier des réservoirs de stockage périphériques dans des villes de province russes, Bankova fabrique des images destinées à persuader des dirigeants européens comme Friedrich Merz et Ursula von der Leyen de continuer à faire affluer l’argent des contribuables dans les caisses du régime.

• La crise diplomatique avec Séoul : l’irritabilité diplomatique de Zelensky s’est étendue au-delà de Washington. Après la capture de deux soldats nord-coréens dans la région frontalière de Koursk, un accord a été conclu avec Séoul pour transférer secrètement les prisonniers en vue de les interroger. Ignorant la demande explicite de confidentialité formulée par la Corée du Sud pour éviter tout conflit avec Pyongyang, Zelensky a annoncé publiquement l’opération à des fins de relations publiques. Lorsque Séoul a protesté, Bankova a refusé de présenter des excuses, déclenchant une rupture diplomatique sans précédent qui a abouti au retrait par la Corée du Sud de son ambassadeur à Kiev — s’aliénant inutilement un partenaire qui avait fourni plus de 500 000 obus d’artillerie de 155 mm pour la campagne de 2023.

4. Le théâtre de la décapitation : sous-stations, centres de la SBU et le «Collegium» de Surovikin

Tandis que les diplomates échangent leurs reproches, la campagne aérienne stratégique russe contre Kiev est entrée dans une phase opérationnelle meurtrière :

1. La destruction du réseau électrique : des observateurs indépendants du secteur électrique confirment que les frappes russes sur la sous-station de Kievska de 750 kV et les nœuds de transformation du nord ont contourné les boucliers de protection en béton en ciblant les transformateurs de réduction de tension, les disjoncteurs et les parcs de refroidissement. Toute la rive droite (moitié ouest) de Kiev reste plongée dans une coupure d’électricité totale. Le réseau de métro étant à l’arrêt et les pompes de relevage d’eau à haute pression hors service, l’assainissement municipal a cessé de fonctionner, provoquant des refoulements d’eaux usées généralisés dans tout le centre administratif.

2. Les ogives coupe-câbles : les Forces aériennes russes (VKS) ont introduit des sous-munitions spécialisées, déployées par des appareils Geran-4 à propulsion à réaction, conçues spécifiquement pour sectionner les lignes aériennes à haute tension. En coupant les lignes reliant la production nucléaire de base de l’ouest à Kiev, les forces russes s’assurent que, même si les transformateurs des sous-stations sont réparés, le courant ne puisse physiquement atteindre la capitale.

3. Le collège de Surovikin : des sources militaires faisant autorité confirment que, bien que le chef d’état-major général Valery Gerasimov conserve officiellement le commandement suprême, le général Sergei Surovikin dirige activement la campagne d’interdiction et de destruction des infrastructures sur l’ensemble du théâtre d’opérations, à la tête d’un collège restreint de généraux supérieurs, dont Andrey Mordvichev et le vice-ministre de la Défense Yunus-Bek Yevkurov. Les caractéristiques de ce groupe de commandement — blocus systématique des ponts, ciblage méthodique des nœuds administratifs du SBU et publication de coupes architecturales du bunker souterrain de Zelensky situé sous la rue Bankova — indiquent une opération destinée à rendre la capitale fonctionnellement inhabitable pour le régime.

5. Usure sur le front : Dobropillya nettoyée, mines saisies, poches encerclées

Sur le terrain, les formations interarmes russes progressent à un rythme accéléré à travers les dernières lignes de fortifications ukrainiennes :

• La prise d’assaut de la mine de Dobropilska : le ministère russe de la Défense a confirmé que des groupes d’assaut de la 51e armée interarmes et des formations spécialisées d’infanterie de marine ont nettoyé les secteurs ouest de Dobropillya, pénétrant dans les galeries fortifiées de la mine de charbon de Dobropilska. Plus de 82 structures fortifiées ont été nettoyées en l’espace de 24 heures. La prise des imposants terrils de la mine offre aux observateurs d’artillerie russes un contrôle de tir direct et panoramique sur les lignes arrière de Druzhkivka.

• La liquidation des poches de résistance du nord : dans le nord-est de l’oblast de Kharkiv, les dernières poches de résistance du groupement frontalier ukrainien, fort de 1 700 hommes, ont été éliminées. Les forces russes ont libéré les hameaux centraux de la région, déplaçant ainsi le centre de gravité opérationnel du Groupe de forces Nord vers l’encerclement direct du nœud logistique de Velykyi Burluk. Au nord de Soumy, les positions avancées ukrainiennes le long des lisières de forêt se sont effondrées, rapprochant les détachements russes avancés à portée d’artillerie des limites municipales de Soumy.

• Le couloir mortel du Dniepr méridional : à Zaporijia, la fermeture du pont de Vantovyi (Khortytsia) a transformé les voies d’approvisionnement de la rive est en champ de bataille meurtrier. Les opérateurs de drones FPV russes, bénéficiant d’une ligne de visée ininterrompue au-dessus des fonds asséchés du réservoir de Kakhovka, ont établi un contrôle total des tirs sur tout le trafic routier tentant de renforcer le front sud.

Le crépuscule de la guerre par procuration

Les événements du 10 octobre 2026 marquent la fin d’une époque dans l’art de gouverner moderne :

• Donald Trump a obtenu sa dérogation temporaire sur le diesel pour protéger ses arrières sur le plan politique intérieur, reconnaissant ainsi que l’arme unipolaire des sanctions est inopérante.

• Vladimir Poutine a fait savoir que la Fédération de Russie ne se prêtera plus au jeu des négociations trilatérales théâtrales alors que ses soldats traversent les lignes défensives ukrainiennes.

• Et à Kiev, Volodymyr Zelensky est confiné dans une capitale plongée dans l’obscurité et envahie par les eaux usées — hurlant des insultes à ses protecteurs américains, rompant ses liens avec ses fournisseurs asiatiques et regardant ses brigades d’élite périr dans les tourbières du Donbass.

La transaction est conclue. Les illusions sont brisées.

Le maître impérial a conclu son accord parallèle sur le carburant, son mandataire a été abandonné à son sort, et la machine militaire souveraine de la Fédération de Russie achève méthodiquement la guerre dans la steppe eurasienne.

Publiéà l’origine par RussiaTruth 

Traduction:  ReseauInternational

As the European Parliament prepares to welcome representatives from six Gulf monarchies, uncomfortable questions are emerging about the moral foundations of Europe’s foreign policy. Can Brussels credibly champion democracy and human rights while deepening relations with governments accused of suppressing dissent, restricting fundamental freedoms and exploiting migrant workers?

The European Union has long presented itself as a global defender of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Yet its growing enthusiasm for closer relations with the Gulf monarchies raises an increasingly uncomfortable question: how much are those principles worth when substantial economic and strategic interests are at stake?

On October 16th, the European Parliament will host senior parliamentary representatives from the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman.

The conference, chaired by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, will address parliamentary cooperation, maritime security and the geopolitical consequences of Russia’s war against Ukraine.

On paper, the initiative represents an entirely reasonable diplomatic exercise. Europe needs reliable energy supplies, secure international shipping routes and constructive relations with influential Middle Eastern governments.

But there is another side to this developing partnership, one that Brussels cannot simply dismiss as an inconvenient complication.

Several Gulf governments maintain political systems in which meaningful democratic opposition is severely restricted, freedom of expression is curtailed and individuals can face imprisonment for challenging those in power.

The question is not whether Europe should maintain diplomatic relations with such countries. It plainly must.

The question is whether those relations should be celebrated as strategic partnerships without demanding meaningful improvements in the treatment of their own citizens.

The uncomfortable reality behind Gulf prosperity

Saudi Arabia’s international image has undergone a remarkable transformation in recent years.

Under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom has promoted ambitious economic reforms, tourism projects and international sporting events designed to present a modernising society. Yet this carefully cultivated image sits uneasily alongside its human rights record.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly documented concerns over executions, restrictions on political dissent, arbitrary detention and the treatment of women’s rights activists.

The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul in 2018 remains an enduring symbol of the dangers faced by critics of the Saudi leadership. A 2021 US intelligence assessment concluded that the Crown Prince had approved an operation to capture or kill Khashoggi, an assessment rejected by Saudi Arabia.

Qatar, meanwhile, has attracted sustained criticism over the treatment of migrant workers, particularly during preparations for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Although labour reforms were introduced, human rights organisations continue to question their implementation and the effectiveness of protections against exploitation.

The UAE, despite its reputation for modernity and commercial sophistication, has similarly faced criticism over restrictions on political expression, detention of dissidents and the absence of meaningful electoral democracy at national level.

Bahrain has been criticised for imprisoning opposition figures and restricting political freedoms, while concerns about migrant labour protections and freedom of expression extend across other Gulf states, albeit with important differences in their individual records.

These are not minor administrative shortcomings. They concern fundamental rights that the European Union claims to regard as universal and non-negotiable.

When strategic interests outweigh principles

There is an unmistakable contradiction in Europe’s approach. The European Parliament routinely condemns authoritarian practices in Russia, Belarus and other countries where political freedoms are suppressed. It demands accountability, democratic reform and respect for international law.

Yet when dealing with wealthy Gulf monarchies, the language often becomes considerably more accommodating. Economic opportunity, investment, energy security and regional stability suddenly dominate the conversation.

Such selective emphasis risks creating the impression that Europe’s commitment to human rights is determined less by universal principle than by the commercial and geopolitical importance of the country concerned.

That is a dangerous perception for an institution whose international credibility depends heavily upon its moral authority.

If the imprisonment of political opponents is unacceptable in Moscow or Minsk, why should comparable abuses become less objectionable when committed by governments possessing substantial sovereign wealth funds or strategically important energy reserves?

Europe cannot reasonably demand consistency from others while appearing unwilling to apply it to itself.

The strategic argument remains compelling

None of this diminishes the genuine importance of cooperation with the Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea are essential maritime corridors connecting Europe with global energy suppliers and Asian markets. Threats to commercial shipping, regional instability and the activities of Iran-aligned armed groups present legitimate security concerns.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has also demonstrated the dangers of excessive dependence upon unreliable external partners. Diversifying energy relationships is therefore a sensible strategic objective.

Moreover, Gulf governments possess considerable diplomatic influence, including relationships with states and political actors that European governments may struggle to engage directly.

But strategic necessity does not automatically confer moral legitimacy.

Indeed, Europe’s previous dependence upon Russian energy offers a particularly sobering lesson. For years, European governments convinced themselves that extensive commercial engagement with Moscow would encourage moderation and political stability.

Instead, economic interdependence failed to prevent Russian aggression, leaving Europe exposed when that relationship collapsed. It would be reckless to assume that expanding commercial relations with authoritarian governments necessarily produces political liberalisation.

What does parliamentary cooperation actually mean?

The proposed conference also raises questions about the meaning of parliamentary dialogue.

The European Parliament is a directly elected institution, accountable to hundreds of millions of citizens through competitive democratic elections.

The political institutions of the Gulf states operate under markedly different arrangements, with varying degrees of appointed representation, limited electoral participation and executive authority concentrated within ruling families.

Describing these relationships simply as parliamentary cooperation risks obscuring fundamental differences in democratic legitimacy.

Dialogue can undoubtedly serve a useful purpose. But it should not be allowed to imply an equivalence between representative democratic institutions and political structures in which citizens have far fewer opportunities to challenge those governing them.

Nor should participation in prestigious European institutional events become an exercise in international reputation management for governments facing serious human rights allegations.

A test of Europe’s credibility

The European Parliament has an opportunity to demonstrate that closer cooperation need not mean abandoning its principles.

It could insist that human rights form a substantive part of future engagement, including scrutiny of political imprisonment, freedom of expression, judicial independence and migrant worker protections.

It could also establish mechanisms for monitoring progress rather than relying upon diplomatic assurances.

Such measures would not necessarily undermine economic cooperation. They would establish that the relationship carries responsibilities as well as benefits.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether Europe should talk to the Gulf monarchies, but whether it possesses the political courage to challenge them.

A European Union that condemns authoritarianism in one part of the world while accommodating it elsewhere risks reducing its professed values to little more than diplomatic convenience.

Europe may need the Gulf’s energy, investment and strategic influence, but it should not have to surrender its conscience to obtain them.

And if Brussels cannot reconcile its commercial ambitions with its democratic principles, it must confront a deeply uncomfortable possibility: that Europe’s foreign policy is increasingly being guided not by the values it proclaims, but by the wealth and influence of those sitting across the negotiating table.

No fue la venta de ese diésel lo que le interesaba a Putin, pero no sabemos bien todavía qué.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

“Pero les diré que es raro tener conversaciones tan largas en las que ninguno de ellos quisiera terminar la conversación, ninguno de ellos quería colgar el teléfono si se puede decir así”

Yuri Ushakov. Asesor de la Presidencia rusa, 19 de mayo de 2025

“Fue una conversación muy intensa y amistosa. Nadie quería ser el primero en colgar”, reveló Ushakov, quien destacó el ambiente cordial del diálogo entre ambos mandatarios.

Yuri Ushakov. Asesor de la Presidencia rusa, 9 de octubre de 2026

El día 9 de octubre un desesperado Donald Trump -que no había extendido como gesto cordial y diplomático una felicitación por el cumpleaños de su homólogo ruso el 7 de octubre- llamó al Kremlin y entabló un acuerdo para nada modesto: habilitó la venta de petróleo y diésel rusos, mismo que había vetado apenas en septiembre con aranceles del 100% a quien comerciara con Moscú.

De esta forma:

…acordaron que Rusia suministrará inmediatamente más de 300.000 toneladas de combustible diésel a los mercados estadounidense y mundial. Según detalló, Moscú entregará otras 500.000 toneladas durante el mes de noviembre y un millón de toneladas adicionales inmediatamente después, así como otros tres millones de toneladas en un corto período de tiempo, dependiendo del estado de las refinerías rusas.

La noticia cayó mal en Kiev y en Europa e incluso congeló la conversación que mantenían una comitiva ucraniana con Kushner y Witkoff en Miami, terminándola un día antes de lo previsto.

La Europa desconcertada empezó a tener comunicaciones con Zelensky para mostrar de nuevo el apoyo a esta demencial apuesta por la guerra en donde Ucrania pone los muertos y los europeos endeudan a los ucranianos que quedan vivos.

Sin embargo, los vaivenes del presidente estadounidense no son nuevos y mucho menos en lo que tiene que ver con suministro energético. Una breve cronología lo confirma: 1) tras el inicio de la guerra contra Irán el 28 de febrero de este año, Trump se vio obligado el 5 de marzo a dar una licencia temporal para que India comprara petróleo a Rusia; 2) el 12 de marzo se emitió otra licencia temporal por parte del Departamento del Tesoro estadounidense por treinta días para venta de crudo ruso, que estaba sancionado; 3) el 18 de septiembre, Donald Trump firma la Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, que le daba el poder de imponer aranceles de hasta 100% a los 5 mayores compradores de petróleo y gas rusos (principalmente China e India); 4) finalmente este 9 de septiembre suspendió Trump esa ley exhibida con toda la parafernalia propia del siniestro gobierno Trump, por parte del senador Richard Blumenthal,  quien dijo: “Vladimir Putin, te tenemos fichado, tu economía se tambalea” … amenazó a China e India y hoy, Trump da las gracias al presidente Putin por salvarle el trasero en vísperas de elecciones.

Y así, como un Déjà vu, Yuri Ushakov volvió a decir las mismas palabras del año anterior: ninguno de los dos quería colgar. Y bueno esta vez colgaron a Zelensky y a la Unión Europea, la pregunta es: ¿cuándo volverá a dar otro bandazo Trump? ¿Cuándo volverá a ser amigo de von der Leyen, mentor de Zelensky y enemigo de Putin?

La Unión Europea, ridículo completo

Es sabido por ellos y por varios analistas esta cruda verdad: Trump no quiere a los europeos, a penas los soporta, siempre ha querido sacar las tropas de esa zona, siempre quiso salir de la OTAN, les puso en ridículo desde las primeras reuniones, les dijo que estaban muriendo las buenas costumbres con una Europa llena de migración desordenada y grupos LGBTI+Q por todo lado, hombres en competencias de mujeres y etc. etc. El propio J.D. Vance les dijo que había una caída moral de Europa y a eso se debía su crisis.

No siendo esto poco, Úrsula von der Leyen se comprometió en nombre de la UE a comprar 750.000 millones de dólares en energía a EE.UU. (gas natural licuado, petróleo y productos nucleares) hasta 2028. Además, se comprometió a realizar inversiones adicionales por 600.000 millones de dólares en Estados Unidos. Y a cambio, Estados Unidos fijó un arancel general del 15% sobre la mayoría de productos europeos, en lugar del 30%.

Y ahora, luego de tanto ir y venir, Estados Unidos le sigue comprando petróleo a Rusia, además de uranio y otros materiales que luego revende a Europa más caro. Ya los precios de gas están reventando al ciudadano común y mientras Trump viola las sanciones occidentales que pretenden asfixiar a Rusia, Europa tiene que pagar por tratos leoninos con EE.UU., invertir en la guerra en Ucrania y exprimir al poco Estado de Bienestar que les queda y del cual ya se ven revueltas nuevamente por vivienda, educación o empleo en Francia, España, Alemania, Portugal y Bélgica.

Este nuevo pacto comercial, que va hasta abril de 2027 ridiculiza a Europa, la pone en el lugar que le corresponde: el de una civilización – collage en decadencia. Europa anhela el regreso de los halcones demócratas para retornar a una presión unánime sobre Rusia y en franca escalada bélica como la llevaba ‘sleepy’ Biden. Esto no pasará. El nuevo rumbo estadounidense es Asia Oriental.

Rusia y sus socios, actores globales

Si bien esta venta es un golpe no sólo económico sino reputacional a favor del presidente Putin y Rusia, también deja abiertos otros aspectos no menos relevantes.

Por un lado, China mira con celo cualquier acercamiento entre Rusia y USA en este baile de tres potencias globales. Los chinos son los principales socios comerciales de los rusos y muy seguramente de mantenerse la restricción al diésel ruso, chinos e indios lo comprarían. Entonces, ¿qué ganó y condicionó Vladímir Putin en la llamada con Trump? Los rusos tienen acuerdos comerciales y han aprendido a maniobrar en medio de más de treinta mil sanciones así que este trato fue un guiño a Trump ante su SOS.

Es claro que no le cae mal esto a Rusia que ahora puede poner un precio no por debajo de los costos -de haberlo tenido que vender con restricciones por sanciones- pero quien marcó el teléfono fue Trump no Putin.

Por otro lado, Irán no creo que esté cómodo con esto. Con claridad Trump quiere no sólo estar bien con los precios y abastecimiento de combustible en su país, sino estar lo suficientemente seguro de que se mantiene un flujo nada modesto de diésel en el mercado mundial para atacar a Irán sin problemas o no tantos. Por cierto, hay que ser una potencia para decir sin duda alguna: ‘cuente señor Trump con tres millones de toneladas de diésel’. Sin lastimar su consumo interno, lo hace Rusia.

Además, la ruta por el Ártico plantea una alternativa a los cierres de Ormuz y Bab el-Mandeb que derivan de las resistencias al imperio y al sionismo por parte de Irán y Yemen. Lo que implica que como de costumbre EE.UU. celebra comerciar por Alaska con Rusia.

De tal suerte que, si Irán lleva a su manera una presión mediante la diplomacia y el cierre estratégico del flujo de petróleo, fertilizantes y mercancías con lo cual busca desgastar a los estadounidenses y una salida de la guerra en sus términos, el guiño del Kremlin a Trump no le favorece. Fortalece a su enemigo, quien gana tiempo y sin desesperar puede atacarlo de mejor manera. No implica una derrota de Irán, implica un cambio en los cálculos de presión, si en abril se extiende el plazo y si Trump decide atacar antes.

Finalmente, hay un socio que los propios rusos lo señalan como valioso. Cuba. La Isla, país que apoyó a millones de personas en el mundo de diversas formas y cuando sucedió en 1986 la catástrofe de Chernóbil en la URSS hace cuarenta años, en pleno Periodo Especial, Cuba recibió a 26 mil niños de Rusia, Bielorrusia, Moldavia y Ucrania para darles tratamiento y los adoptó como hijos propios. Esa Cuba amiga incondicional y solidaria no recibe petróleo desde hace un año largo y en septiembre la Guardia Costera de EE.UU. devolvió el buque Grace con combustible.

Sobre Cuba se teje un genocidio. No le llega combustibles ni mercancías. ¿Se habrá acordado el presidente Putin de la Isla, patria del más grande antiimperialista del siglo XX en todo occidente cuando negoció con Trump salvando el trasero a su enemigo, este republicano vetusto? Si Trump permitió liberar de sanciones el combustible para todo el mundo, ¿Ese ‘todo el mundo’ incluirá a Cuba?

Potencias: sin amigos y sin engaños

Es claro que cuando el asesor presidencial, Ushakov, señala que la conversación fue amable y llego a un punto de: ‘cuelga tú, ¡no!, ¡cuelga tú!’ entre los dos mandatarios, sólo desea crear una sobrecarga de cortisol en la UE y los ucronazis y seguro logró tal efecto. Esto no significa que crean que están tratando con la esperanza de una amistad. Por el contrario, sólo un pragmatismo puro y duro tiene las tripas para llegar a estos acuerdos.

Qué pasaría si el presidente Putin le dice a Trump: no te daré un gramo de diésel. No lo sabremos, pero seguro ofende a este tarado mental y lo pone del lado de Europa y Ucrania.

Es el mismo hombre que respaldó a Marco Rubio, su secretario de Estado, cuando hace unos meses celebraba los bombardeos sobre colegios de infantes en Rusia señalando que era válida la máxima presión. Es el mismo hombre que autoriza la entrega de datos de la CIA y el Pentágono a los ucronazis para atacar las mismas refinerías que condena que Zelensky ataque.

Esto también es claro, como nota al pie. El propio neonazi Volodómir Zelensky, presidente ilegítimo de Ucrania hace dos años y asesino de su pueblo, tiene razón al criticar la acción de Trump y hasta de tildarlo de débil. “La paz nunca llega gracias a la debilidad”, señaló. Trump salió a decir que era ya necesario cambiar de presidente por alguien que deseara negociar, que Zelensky perdió más de un millón de ciudadanos y 30% del territorio.

Y lo que diga la UE al respecto tiene su parte de verdad, así como de ingenuidad, como señaló el presidente eslovaco Robert Fico. Pero nadie está seguro con lo que se pacte con Trump ni con ningún gringo. Nunca han mantenido la palabra. Quizá la excepción es Kennedy en la crisis de los misiles.

Siempre los más pequeños saldrán lastimados en los acuerdos entre potencias, pero no aprenden no leen la historia. Le pasó a Cuba en 1962 en la crisis de los misiles. Le pasó a Libia, cuando decidió no tener armas nucleares y europeos y estadounidenses acordaron robarla. Europa todavía era algo fuerte. Hay más ejemplos.

Lo clave es que en este intempestivo acuerdo hay más de enemistad que de amistad. EE.UU. no desea salvar ni ayudar a Rusia. No le interesa la paz, se limpió el trasero con el acuerdo del Anchorage, sólo vela por su bienestar, el de su élite. Por su parte Putin sabe que le desean muerto, que, durante una llamada en 2025, mientras hablaba con Trump caían drones en una de sus residencias.

La diferencia sustancial radica en que Putin juega a largo aliento, tiene calculadas las contingencias. No fue la venta de ese diésel lo que le interesaba, pero no sabemos bien todavía qué. Mientras, Trump lleva una política de mentiras apalancada en el poder de los medios y el peso de la información salida de la boca del presidente de una potencia, con la cual improvisa, salva, ataja, corrige, omite y salta a otra cosa.

Lo cierto es que por ahora -y sin saber cómo despertará mañana, pensando o deseando el frustrado candidato auto propuesto a Nobel de paz- felizmente al terminar la llamada, los presidentes, además de colgar sus teléfonos, colgaron a Zelensky y a la Unión Europea.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Is Trump planning on using Putin to get him out of the mess of both his low polling and the Iran war? Seems far-fetched perhaps at first, but he is completely snared in Iran, with whatever option he looks at appearing to be a doomsday scenario. Could Putin help him out both with diesel prices back home but also to broker a deal with Iran which makes it appear to Americans that he, and America, are somehow the winners?

For the Russian president to sell close to 2 million tonnes of diesel oil to Western countries, including the U.S. of course, seems like a sticking plaster to a huge wound in the American and Western economies. Unless, that is, there is a second deal behind it which journalists and pundits are not aware of, or are simply choosing not to report. For the diesel initiative from Putin, the amount which is being offered isn’t huge, but there are a couple of precedents which it sets which are more important.

Firstly, it opens the doors for further lifting of sanctions (which could be bundled into Iran’s, given Moscow’s relations with Tehran), but perhaps even more importantly, it makes President Zelensky of Ukraine an even bigger target for Trump. Much will rest on the coming days and the decision that Zelensky will take to continue bombing Russia’s oil facilities. Will he take that suicide pill? Wars are often messy, and there are always grey areas where the two countries at war with one another find situations which are illogical and impractical. Perhaps the bombing of oil facilities within Russia in the Ukraine war has reached its tipping point, and regardless of how close EU leaders are with Zelensky – who at best we can call a caretaker leader – this will test this relationship to breaking point.

Do great numbers of citizens in France and Germany need to die this winter simply because of an energy crisis and/or an economic malaise in their own countries which have poured billions into keeping the war in Ukraine alive? Is Putin so confident that this winter will be the last one for his troops, as the defensive line between Ukraine’s forces and those of Russia’s looks like it is about to break at any moment? Are Ukrainians themselves ready to face a freezing winter in Kiev, unable to power or heat their own apartments? So many wars started over energy reserves, but not Ukraine. Yet it might end over them.

Trump’s threatening comments on social media about Zelensky should be taken seriously. If Trump’s own cabal of unqualified advisers can seriously convince him that a ground invasion of Iran is feasible, if not winnable, one could argue simply that regime change in Ukraine should be a children’s picnic and gives him a huge payday – politically, economically and geopolitically. Removing Zelensky would stop the war immediately, and Trump could claim victory for that, while he asks his friend Putin to quietly intervene in Iran and fix the Straits of Hormuz.

For Trump to actually respond to Zelensky’s outburst to reporters that the move to buy Russian diesel was “weak” by threatening Zelensky with being removed shows that his patience has reached a point where he is starting to think of the Ukrainian president as the source of the problems. To remove Zelensky through backing a rival will be hard and will pitch him against EU leaders, but one could argue relations couldn’t really get any worse, and that once Macron and Merz understand that peace is the only option and Zelensky is actually the only real obstacle to that, they will do what all EU leaders do and follow America’s lead.

We often hear analysts on YouTube talk about the game of “chicken”, but there has never been a more fleeting moment than now, as both Trump and Zelensky will be watching each other to see who blinks first. Zelensky, until now, has been playing a dangerous game of pretending to be servile to U.S. hegemony, while really just taking the cash and weapons and laughing at Trump among a coterie of weak European leaders in their palatial residences. The war has been complex since it began, as the U.S. and EU rarely saw eye to eye, but if Trump goes ahead with his threat of denying the Ukrainians shared intel, then this will be a very bad omen for the future of Zelensky, as he will put even more pressure on the British, French and Germans to come up with more weapons and money in an unwinnable war which they’ve bet the farm on and their entire political careers depend on.

The war, after this diesel decision, might have just become much simpler and more binary, and a collective narrative might emerge from the insanity of EU gibberish from countries who can’t even protect their own people on their own soil against an invasion of bogus asylum seekers. It will not only be the ultimate test for U.S.-Ukraine relations, but also one for U.S.-EU ones, and perhaps represent the end of NATO as we know it.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

No one expected that Donald Trump, after a congratulatory birthday phone call to his Russian counterpart, would declare that Russian diesel fuel would prove to be the solution to America’s current fuel shortages. If the Trump presidency has yielded anything it is a lot of interesting headlines that seem to come out of nowhere, that can sadly, quite often, fade right back into the mist from whence they came. Sometimes Trump’s words can fill us with hope like this ‘Diesel Deal’, and others like his recent UN speech, where he threatened to potentially kill all Iranians, fill us with dread. This declaration by our enigmatic leader presents a very interesting media narrative and a potential end to ‘Project Ukraine’ that is worth taking a deeper dive into.

Trump has blamed Zelensky for the global energy shortages, especially those concerning diesel fuel. At the time, everyone thought this was just a cheap Twitter-style deflection from the failed war against Iran, which certainly caused a lot of fuel transport disruption. That is to say, the White House was projecting this crisis, that it allowed to happen, or actively caused, to be thrown onto the scapegoat Zelensky. However, this form of deflection or projection is no longer just words in a pre-election narrative, but has become action. Sanctions on Russian diesel have been lifted and the first shipment is already on its way as I write these words. Something tangible has occurred.

Zelensky was actually warned some six times to stop attacking Russian oil infrastructure. Blow up children in the Donbass and beyond ‘sure’, but attacking what the West wants from Russia more than anything is ‘totally unacceptable’. Zelensky, who as stated above was warned half-a-dozen times to back of strikes on oil/gas, upon hearing of Trump’s decision to purchase Russian diesel fuel did the following:

1) He quickly attacked Russian oil infrastructure again seemingly to spite the U.S. President

2) He immediately cut off peace talks in Miami with the Trump’s aides, the Kushner-Witkoff duo, which is yet another spitting in the face of Donald Trump.

The wildest thing of all is that the ‘narcissist’ Trump has already publically thanked President Putin twice for this deal. Appearing at a rally, Americans standing behind Trump wildly cheered in favor of the announcement of peace with Russia plus extra fuel for America. Russophobia is a hobby of the globalist bourgeoisie and Epstein Island, not American truckers and farmers.

It’s a great narrative, let’s hope it lasts

Trump has now put 100% of the blame for global energy/fuel problems directly onto Zelensky, and called him out personally for keeping the war going over the last two years. Thus, the narrative is forming into something like: If the war in Ukraine is the cause of the fuel shortages, and Zelensky is the cause of the war continuing, that means the U.S. can make a deal with Russia even if ‘they started it’, with the corollary that Zelensky logically needs to go as he is the source of the problem. But going even deeper into the narrative we can see the most interesting thing of all or as they like to say online ‘the quiet part’: Trump has essentially declared that Russian energy output is of vital strategic interest to the United States.

It is these kind of words that take the black pill out of my mouth and directly inject ‘hopium’ into my bloodstream. The idea of the American President declaring that NOT being at war with Russia is of vital strategic interest to the USA is something I have been dreaming of my entire adult life. This is exactly the logic that we need to finally and ultimately end the Cold War + Project for a New American Century mentality in politics and finally allow the USA to rebuild and invest into itself. This very well could be America’s mulitpolar awakening by using a logic trap similar to the other ones that have been used to do the exact opposite and keep the USA locked in eternal foreign wars of luxury for ‘national security’. This new logic trap could look something like this: “So you want war with Russia? That must mean you want to harm America, you dirty traitor! You’ll take the fuel from farmer Joe and our kids will starve, you monster! Russia being left alone to produce fuel is a national security interest of America, are you against our country’s national security? Do you want to weaken manly America for those gay Europeans?”.

But as we slam that hopium injection into our veins we have to remember that Donald Trump has said a lot of things, changed his mind many times, or was forced to change it, and perhaps isn’t quite the unilateral decider that he makes himself out to be on TV.

It takes two to tango, but one orange man to keep his word.

The transcripts from this now famous birthday phone chat look very different on the American and Russian sides, which is par for the course. Trump’s team tends to write discussed things as proven facts whereas the Russians are more noncommittal in their language. But the diesel sanctions are gone for now and the boats are moving, so this looks to be real… at least until the mid-term votes are cast.

The American side has since threatened to cut Zelensky off from intelligence sharing, which could be an instant deathblow to their military efforts as many experts believe that only U.S. intel has allowed them to survive this long. Without such targeting data they will be sent back to 20^th century warfare instantly, and they would no longer be able to strike deep into Russia. RT wrote the following on this issue:

A Ukrainian official told Axios that Witkoff and Kushner threatened to cut off US intelligence sharing with Kiev if it continued to ignore Trump’s requests to halt strikes on Russian oil refineries, but the US official denied that any such threat had been made.

But here is where we have to hold our breath, for despite how nice this new narrative sounds, and how it is the perfect exit for the USA from its participation in Project Ukraine we should not forget the words of President Putin from some time ago when he talked about the true power of any U.S. President:

“So a person is elected — he comes with ideas… Then people with briefcases come visit him, well-dressed, in dark suits — kind of like mine.”

So the real question might be, will the Zionist Lobby, Epstein Elite, Three-Letter Organizations, Influential Billionaires, and all the other spooks on Capitol Hill actually let President Trump actually end this war? Will the POTUS be allowed to do this?

We should recall that after Zelensky acted disgracefully in the White House at the start of Trump’s second term everyone thought this conflict would be over. Trump the famous narcissist seemed visibly angry and offended on camera during their verbal spat. But the war went on. There was the Anchorage Summit, which had tons of hype and everyone thought then that the U.S. would pull support from Kiev. But it did not. Trump’s enemies including the Biden Clan are linked to massive corruption in Ukraine which has all been exposed. This would have been a great off ramp from the conflict, but Trump did not or could not take it. And in general, Trump’s rhetoric towards Zelensky and other European politicians has been overtly harsh and disrespectful. The man accused of being a ‘blowhard’ somehow always speaks quite politely behind the backs and to the faces of Putin and Xi.

Thus, although I want peace and mutually-respectful cooperation between the USA and Russia perhaps this deal will only last till the midterm elections, when all of a sudden Zelensky will go back to being “a bastard, but he’s our bastard”, and the conflict will go marching on. Perhaps this is our October Surprise from the Republican side of the aisle? And in December we can all be ‘surprised again’ when the war resumes full-force and thousands more Slavs die on the battlefield?

Now, Donald Trump with gritted teeth is slinging forth the idea that he thinks “it’s time for Ukraine to get a new President”. But after the votes are counted in America he may just go back to passively hating and tolerating Zelensky till the end of his term or till an Oreshnik finds the mark one day. We also cannot forget that the West has been lobbying for a major ceasefire from the Russians for a long time. Presumably this would be used to regroup, rest, rearm and then just go right back to fighting till the last Ukrainian. Now Trump wants elections in Kiev, which will probably demand a ceasefire to enact. But will he be pushing for a three-day ceasefire, or try to trick the Russians into agreeing to a month-long freeze or more?

One ‘good’ sign on this issue from a Russian standpoint is that there are now already calls for Zelensky to resign over this issue on Twitter/X coming from all sides even pro-Ukrainian ones:

“’Zelensky must resign’ – Ukrainian media. That was quick. Zelensky ignored Trump’s warnings not to attack Russian oil refineries SIX times. This morning, Zelensky has bombed another Russian oil refinery. Ukrainians are calling for Zelensky‘s resignation.

Former Ukrainian MP and Metinvest co-owner Vadym Novynskyi has called on Zelensky to resign and hand over all power to Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada following the Trump-Putin agreements.”

We have to remember that Ukraine in 2026 is already a police state where any dissent means you could get thrown into a bus and taken to the front to die or vanish into a prison as a Russian ‘spy’. Thus, when important people gang up against Zelensky openly it is much more of a potent statement than Hollywood actors safely making Tik-Toks against Trump from their luxurious bedrooms.

The rest of the world won’t sit around and do nothing.

Some moronic ‘Putin sold out the BRICS’ counter-narrative is sure to arise from Kiev’s bot accounts soon. Obviously someone is going to say that the Kremlin threw their Iranian brothers to the Zio-lobby machine! But in actuality, it looks like the Iranians are going to just ship their oil through Russia and sell it as ‘Russian’ and everyone will be happy. The Caspian Sea will be even more busy in the near future. If sanctioned accomplished anything they really increased trade between Russia and Iran.

No one in Moscow is planning on selling out Tehran; they want America to join the Multipolar World while still saving face and reduce the global threat level of nuclear war which is vastly too high at present. Iran and China were surely consulted on this issue before any Diesel Deal was finalized.

The real danger of Trump calling for the removal of Zelensky comes from Europe, where certain factions, politicians and their financiers may take radical action in response. And Trump’s reaction to this response could be even more radical now. Would it be possible that NATO might greenlight the Baltics to just open up another front to ‘see what happens’? Will France finally go through on its threat and just deploy troops openly en masse to save the Napoleon in Green from political or potentially physical death? So far the EU has only threatened even more sanctions. If the previous 20+ packages of sanctions failed, I wonder what is left to actually sanction. Ursula is promising the biggest and most expansive sanctions packet for Monday, October 12^th, but I doubt it will change anything. The only thing that would change the situation is if the EU did something really aggressive, drastic and stupid militarily.

What about the rest of the sanctions?

The Russian media has done a disservice to the public by writing that “Trump will lift sanctions” over-and-over again when the only sanctions being lifted are on diesel exports for half a year. All of the rest of the sanctions are still there. You still cannot fly directly from Moscow to New York, and money transfers via SWIFT are still mostly blocked. We have to remember that at least in theory sanctions are a form of punishment for crimes committed against, in this case, international law and the United States. So how can relations between the USA and Russian Federation truly be normalized when one still accuses the other of crimes it believes it did not even commit?

After Project Ukraine ends things could change rapidly, but there can be no true friendship until Washington trusts Aeroflot enough to let them land on U.S. territory. We cannot be both under a sanctions war and normalized at the same time. But this new Trump narrative, if he can stick with it to its logical conclusion, is the perfect off-ramp for America and the way we can finally end this war and go back to some sense of normalcy with the apocalypse pushed far off into the future beyond all of our lifespans.

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.

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.

Moscow has again told foreign diplomats to leave Kyiv before further Russian strikes. The embassies have stayed. The episode exposes a broader Russian objective: turning military pressure on Ukraine’s capital into political and diplomatic retreat by its Western partners.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry renewed its warning to foreign diplomats and other foreign nationals on 3 October, urging them to leave Kyiv and saying Russian forces would continue large-scale strikes against targets in the Ukrainian capital and elsewhere. The warning said those who remained were exposing themselves to “mortal danger”, while Moscow sought to place responsibility for any consequences on the individuals and governments choosing to remain.

The military threat behind that warning is not theoretical. Russian missile and drone attacks on Kyiv have intensified, striking transport infrastructure, energy facilities and residential districts. EU Today has documented a succession of such attacks, including a September missile and drone barrage that killed three people and damaged residential and public buildings and a later jet-powered drone strike on the National Academy of Sciences in central Kyiv. Air alerts and attacks on the capital are now a routine part of the security environment in which foreign missions operate.

The significance of Moscow’s latest statement, however, goes beyond the question of physical safety. By telling foreign governments that their diplomats should leave and suggesting that those who stay must accept the consequences, Russia is attempting to change the political calculation surrounding Kyiv. If Western states began moving their embassies to Lviv or across the border into Poland, Moscow would have achieved something that continued military pressure has so far failed to deliver: a visible reduction in the international diplomatic presence in the Ukrainian capital.

That has not happened. Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry says it has received no request or notification from a foreign diplomatic mission indicating that it intends to relocate. Reports that some Western governments have considered contingency arrangements appear to concern emergency planning rather than decisions to withdraw, which is hardly surprising for embassies operating in a capital subjected to repeated missile and drone attacks. The distinction is important because preparing evacuation options is standard risk management; implementing them would be a political signal.

The European Union has gone further than simply denying evacuation plans. EU Ambassador Katarína Mathernová said that the EU Delegation, the EU Advisory Mission and all 25 EU member states maintaining embassies in Kyiv would remain in the capital. Her response was deliberately public, making clear that the Russian warning would not alter the diplomatic footprint of the EU or its member states in Ukraine.

Moscow has tried this before. In May, Russia issued a similar warning to diplomats and foreign nationals, prompting Brussels to summon the Russian chargé d’affaires. EU Today reported at the time that European officials viewed the warning as a threat against the foreign diplomatic community in Kyiv. Mathernová subsequently said that the EU would remain in Kyiv despite Russia’s renewed warnings, describing the pressure as an attempt to generate fear and isolate Ukraine.

The October warning has produced much the same result. One day later, Chancellor Friedrich Merz travelled to Kyiv, accompanied by Economy Minister Katherina Reiche and a German business delegation. His arrival was particularly difficult to reconcile with suggestions that European governments were preparing to abandon the capital. EU Today reported that the visit brought more than €1.3 billion in new German defence and energy commitments, while the German government presented the trip as a demonstration of continuing support for Ukraine.

Washington has taken a similar position. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United States would make its own assessment of whether it was safe for American diplomats to remain in Kyiv and noted that Russia had been issuing such warnings for months. The US embassy has continued operating, while the State Department has maintained its highest-level travel warning for American citizens because of the continuing war. That distinction — between advising private citizens not to travel and maintaining an official diplomatic presence — reflects the different responsibilities involved.

There is also a legal dimension to Moscow’s attempt to shift responsibility. Russian statements create the impression that once diplomats have been warned, the consequences of any subsequent attack fall on those who chose to stay. International law does not support such an interpretation. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations establishes the inviolability of diplomatic premises and personnel, although the immediate obligation to protect foreign missions rests principally with Ukraine as the receiving state.

Russia’s conduct of military operations is governed primarily by international humanitarian law. Diplomats remain civilians, while diplomatic buildings remain civilian objects unless they are being used in circumstances that would make them military objectives. Warnings can form part of an attacker’s obligation to take precautions, but they do not transfer legal responsibility to civilians who remain in place. The International Committee of the Red Cross makes clear that civilians who stay after an advance warning continue to enjoy protection, and an attacking force must still comply with the rules of distinction, proportionality and precautions.

That legal point is relevant because the wording used by Moscow appears designed to establish a different political narrative. Russia can warn foreign governments that further strikes are coming, but such warnings cannot provide advance immunity for the way those attacks are conducted. Nor do they relieve Russia of responsibility if attacks unlawfully damage civilian or diplomatic property.

The continued presence of embassies in Kyiv also has practical significance for Ukraine. Foreign missions give governments direct access to Ukrainian institutions and their own assessment of political, military and economic conditions on the ground. Their diplomats meet ministers, military officials, civil society representatives and businesses, reducing governments’ dependence on second-hand reporting and allowing them to judge developments for themselves.

Relocating those missions would therefore have consequences beyond symbolism. Diplomatic relations could continue from Lviv, Warsaw or elsewhere, but Moscow would inevitably portray any large-scale withdrawal from Kyiv as evidence that foreign governments no longer regarded the Ukrainian capital as sustainable as a diplomatic centre. That helps explain why European governments have answered the latest warning so publicly and why maintaining a visible presence has itself become part of the political response.

Russia has increasingly sought to combine physical attacks with wider political effects. Its missile and drone campaign places pressure on Ukraine’s electricity system, transport network, air defences and civilian population. The warnings to foreign missions extend the same logic to Ukraine’s international relationships: increase the perceived cost of remaining in Kyiv and encourage foreign governments to reduce their presence.

So far, that strategy has not produced the intended result. The EU says all of its embassies are staying, Germany’s Chancellor travelled to Kyiv immediately after the warning and Washington has made clear that it will take its own decisions about the security of its mission. Russia can make the Ukrainian capital more dangerous, but it has not persuaded Ukraine’s principal partners to treat Kyiv as a city they must leave.

The failure of international diplomatic efforts to resolve the Ethiopian war is storing up an even bigger disaster for the Horn of Africa.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

War has flared up again in Ethiopia, Africa’s second most populous country, in a region near the strategically important Red Sea, which is already boiling with tension.

Hundreds of casualties have been reported in recent days from fighting centered mainly in Ethiopia’s northern Tigray province, but which is also spreading to other parts of the East African country bordering Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, and Kenya.

Ethiopia’s central government in the capital, Addis Ababa, accuses regional neighbors Egypt, Sudan, and Eritrea of supporting rebel factions based in Tigray.

The Horn of Africa is already beset with wars in Yemen and Sudan and historic disputes between neighbouring countries over borders and natural resources. The region is an ongoing humanitarian disaster, with millions of people without food and facing displacement. The renewed conflict in Ethiopia could draw in several countries and turn the whole region into a catastrophic war zone.

Ethiopian journalist Mickael Minassie explains the background to the current upsurge in conflict and the danger of a wider international war embroiling several nations.

Minassie says that the Ethiopian civil war that blew up in 2020 between the federal government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front did not really come to an end with the signing of the Pretoria Peace Accord in 2022.

He says the Abiy government continued to wage a low-intensity war against the Tigray region, imposing an economic and food aid blockade on the war-torn territory, thereby intensifying severe humanitarian conditions.

This is why the conflict has resumed, he says. Peace was never implemented. And the “Abiy Ahmed regime” used the peace deal as a cover for continuing to wage war by other means. The recent response of the Tigray region, allied with other Ethiopian rebel groups, is an act of desperation to break from the oppressive conditions imposed by the central government.

He criticises the international community for not upholding the 2022 peace accord and ensuring compliance.

Minassie points to ominous international dimensions of the conflict.  The Ethiopian central government has served as a proxy for the United Arab Emirates by supporting the RSF insurgents in Sudan. The UAE is believed to be financing the Abiy government with military aid and weapons, including drones.

The United States has also recently signed a new regional security deal with the Abiy government. No doubt, to gain greater access to the Red Sea region for strategic advantage against Yemen’s Ansar Allah government, which has imposed a blockade on Israeli and Saudi shipping.

Minassie says that the international community has been silent about the violations committed by the Abiy government, which has emboldened it to continue aggression against the Tigray people.

Russia and China have also given diplomatic support to the Ethiopian central government, according to Minassie. Notably, Ethiopia has gained membership of the BRICS forum, with virtually no criticism from Brasília, Moscow, New Delhi, Beijing, or Pretoria over its lack of implementing the 2022 peace accord.

He says that the international community has turned a blind eye to the conflict in Ethiopia. The death toll among the Tigray population during the 2020-22 phase of the war is estimated by the United Nations at 600,000, which is about 10 per cent of the total. This death toll compares with some 20,000 civilian deaths in the Ukraine war – about 300 times greater. Western media has been saturated with reports on the Ukraine war, especially to portray Russia as the villain. Yet Western media reporting on Ethiopia has been negligible by comparison.

The failure of international diplomatic efforts to resolve the Ethiopian war – a war of genocidal dimension – is storing up an even bigger disaster for the Horn of Africa. The impact on global trade and mass migration portends that Europe, in particular, will suffer immense repercussions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War is highly probable, but it is not inevitable.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xi’s recent visit to Washington was merely a tactical step rather than a genuine reconciliation. Beneath the façade of conspicuously displayed friendliness lies a persistent antagonism across various domains—an antagonism that both sides have learned to “manage,” including in ways that serve their respective domestic political objectives. Both fully aware that the perception of China […]

The European Union is embarking on diplomatic hand-to-hand combat with China in an effort to rework its trade with Beijing and show it is not a geopolitical weakling. Using unusually direct terms, the EU has given China a mid-October deadline to provide ways it will reduce its massive trade advantage over Europe. If not, the […]

The post A rickety Europe tries to stand up to China appeared first on Asia Times.

France and Spain have openly welcomed the prospect of Britain rejoining the European Union after British Prime Minister Andy Burnham put full membership back among the options for the country’s long-term relationship with Europe.

French President Emmanuel Macron and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez addressed the question during Macron’s state visit to Spain on Wednesday, 30 September. Asked whether Britain could return under Burnham, Macron responded in English: “Welcome back.” He added that a British decision to move in that direction would be good news for both Britain and Europe.

Sánchez was similarly positive, saying Spain would “open our arms” if Britain sought to return.

Their comments followed Burnham’s intervention at the Labour Party conference and subsequent interviews in which he argued that Britain should reconsider the full range of options for its future relationship with the EU.

Those could include remaining under the present post-Brexit arrangements, returning to the customs union or single market, or ultimately “going all the way” and applying for EU membership again.

The remarks extend a debate which had already been developing since Burnham entered Downing Street. In August, EU Today reported that he had told European Council President António Costa that Britain should be “bolder” in rebuilding relations with Brussels.

More recently, the argument has moved from diplomatic language to practical economic questions. Burnham has been pressing Brussels to ensure British companies are not disadvantaged by the EU’s emerging industrial preference rules, with access to the proposed “Made in Europe” framework becoming one of the principal issues ahead of the next EU-UK summit.

Macron nevertheless made clear in Madrid that closer relations could not become a system under which Britain selected individual advantages of EU membership while remaining outside the corresponding obligations.

“You cannot pick and choose among the Union’s freedoms,” he said during the joint press conference with Sánchez.

That question dominated much of the Brexit negotiation after the 2016 referendum. Access to the single market is built around the free movement of goods, services, capital and people, while participation also entails accepting common rules and enforcement mechanisms.

A British application to rejoin would be a separate and considerably larger process. Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, Britain would have to apply for membership and secure unanimous agreement from the existing member states before negotiations could be completed.

A returning Britain could not assume that the special arrangements it held before Brexit would automatically be restored. The UK previously had an opt-out from the euro, remained outside the Schengen passport-free area and benefited from a budget rebate.

Any future terms would have to be negotiated.

Public opinion has also changed since the referendum. A YouGov poll in June found 55 per cent of Britons supported rejoining the EU and 34 per cent opposed it, although support falls when respondents are asked about specific membership conditions.

That shift is not limited to Britain. Polling examined by EU Today earlier this year found substantial support across EU member states for a British return.

For the moment, however, Burnham is not proposing an immediate membership application or referendum.

The next test will be the UK-EU summit expected in November. The meeting was originally planned for July but was postponed following Keir Starmer’s resignation, with EU Today reporting at the time that the political transition in London had complicated preparations.

Burnham wants the summit to advance negotiations on industry, trade and migration and has said he intends to use the period around the meeting to set out the longer-term options available to Britain.

The immediate negotiations are therefore likely to focus on economic integration rather than membership.

Greater access to European markets would almost certainly involve greater regulatory alignment. The political argument in Britain will concern how far the country is prepared to accept common European rules in return for reducing barriers created by Brexit.

Macron and Sánchez have now made clear that, if the discussion eventually moves beyond closer economic cooperation towards membership itself, two of the EU’s largest states would welcome it.

Par Ian PROUD

Il y a un double standard particulier que les journalistes appliquent aux dirigeants élus britanniques. Tout en soulignant le mécontentement du public à l’égard des politiques intérieures appliquées par les gouvernements successifs, ils continuent de dépeindre nos politiciens comme des titans sur la scène mondiale, en parlant du rôle central de la Grande-Bretagne dans la “Coalition des volontaires”, ou en insistant sur le fait que Boris Johnson, même s’il a été un mauvais premier ministre, est en quelque sorte un deuxième Churchill, même après avoir évité de peu un missile russe cette semaine en Ukraine.

Les fonctionnaires, quant à eux, les considèrent tous avec mépris. Au ministère des Affaires étrangères, les politiciens sont considérés comme des meubles, des meubles jetables. Dans une scène mémorable de Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey et le secrétaire du Cabinet discutent des remaniements, convenant avec complaisance que « le pouvoir est dans la permanence. L’impermanence est l’impuissance. Et la rotation est la castration ».

Depuis le début de la crise ukrainienne, la Grande-Bretagne a épuisé sept premiers ministres, neuf secrétaires à la Défense et onze secrétaires aux Affaires étrangères. Nos dirigeants élus sont si souvent changés qu’ils n’ont plus le courage de proposer de nouvelles idées. Le résultat ? La Grande-Bretagne a une politique étrangère monomaniaque et une seule obsession : soutenir l’Ukraine dans sa guerre contre la Russie, ce qu’elle fait au détriment de pratiquement tout le reste.

Dans son premier discours en tant que premier ministre, Andy Burnham a décrit à quel point il était “parfaitement conscient” d’être le septième Premier ministre britannique en une décennie. Pour corriger ce bilan, a-t-il déclaré, « il faut que ma génération de politiciens élève notre niveau de jeu ». Mais ici, il fait face à un défi considérable. Les bureaucrates auront déjà supposé qu’il sera remplacé dans les trois prochaines années, et leurs ministres respectifs probablement plus tôt.

Pendant ce temps, même lorsqu’ils sont au pouvoir, nos dirigeants élus semblent avoir peu d’influence sur l’orientation de la politique, annulés par les fonctionnaires qui passent le plus clair de leur temps à échanger des commérages à leur sujet. Il y a toujours une tension créative entre l’inertie des fonctionnaires permanents et l’énergie des élus. Mais le jeu de chaises musicales de la dernière décennie a déplacé l’équilibre des pouvoirs de manière décisive entre les mains des fonctionnaires.

Dans sa première déclaration en tant que ministre des Affaires étrangères, Ed Miliband a parlé de la nécessité de mettre fin à la guerre en Iran, d’apporter la paix en Israël et en Palestine et de se tenir au coude à coude avec l’Ukraine. C’est exactement ce que ses prédécesseurs auraient été invités à dire par leurs administrations : continuez à vous battre jusqu’au dernier Ukrainien dans un pays qui a vu sa population diminuer de moitié depuis l’effondrement de l’Union soviétique.

Les ministres arrivaient chargés de leurs propres idées. J’ai travaillé au Ministère des Affaires étrangères pendant 24 ans, et William Hague est le dernier ministre des Affaires étrangères, dont je me souvienne, qui a été capable de plier la machine bureaucratique à sa volonté pendant son mandat de quatre ans. Il l’a fait en ayant une vision claire de ce qu’il voulait accomplir, mais aussi en conservant une courtoisie étudiée (bien que distante) lorsqu’il travaillait avec le personnel permanent. De plus, il s’est fait aider des ministres juniors bien appréciés comme Alastair Burt. J’ai organisé pour lui la Conférence de Londres sur la Libye avec un préavis de cinq jours en 2011, et son projet phare Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative en 2012.

Hague avait également ouvert 50 nouvelles missions diplomatiques à travers le monde et augmenté le budget du Ministère des Affaires étrangères en s’emparant de 140 millions de livres sterling de financement du développement à l’étranger, en recrutant l’aide d’Andrew Mitchell, ministre du Ministère du Développement international, un ministère aujourd’hui dissous. Hague a rouvert une école de langues étrangères fermée sous le New Labour et a lancé une Académie diplomatique. Au total, il avait donc repris un certain contrôle sur la politique étrangère du gouvernement britannique, après sa capture par Tony Blair et Alastair Campbell à la suite du 11 septembre.

Au cours de ces années, le ministère des Affaires étrangères avait un sens renouvelé de son objectif ; Hague était suffisamment en sécurité dans son travail pour inciter la bureaucratie à agir, malgré les efforts de Sir Simon Fraser, alors secrétaire permanent, pour diluer ses efforts et faire les choses à marche lente. Le règlement budgétaire établi sur plusieurs années par le Foreign Office n’anticipe pas l’arrivée de nouvelles idées ; Fraser considérait que la Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative était un gaspillage d’efforts. Après avoir bifurqué vers un nouveau centre de langues, il a mis en place l’Académie diplomatique avec un budget étriqué. J’ai dû mendier et emprunter de l’argent à d’autres ministères pour payer les 70 millions de livres sterling nécessaires pour le sommet du G8 de 2013.

Malheureusement, même Hague a finalement été castré, les responsables du Foreign Office s’étant assuré que la Grande-Bretagne soit exclue du processus de paix pour l’Ukraine dirigé par la France en juin 2014. La Grande-Bretagne avait joué un rôle de premier plan dans l’imposition de sanctions à la Russie après l’annexion de la Crimée, mais alors que David Cameron espérait que les sanctions contre la Russie seraient une mesure temporaire, les hauts fonctionnaires les considéraient comme le principal effort. Maintenant, Cameron est devenu obsédé par la tâche manifestement inutile d’empêcher Jean-Claude Juncker de devenir président de la Commission européenne, aspirant la majeure partie de l’énergie diplomatique britannique dans cette entreprise vouée à l’échec.

Le président français Hollande avait réussi à réunir les présidents Poutine et Porochenko autour d’une table, avec la chancelière Merkel, afin de mettre au point un processus de résolution du conflit dans le Donbass, mais le Ministère des Affaires étrangères rejetait l’importance de cette initiative. Ses experts sur la Russie ayant déclaré : « Eh bien, puisque les américains ne participent pas à l’initiative de paix de Hollande, pourquoi devrions-nous le faire ? »

Depuis lors, la Grande-Bretagne ne veut plus entendre parler d’efforts de paix en Ukraine. Phillip Hammond refuse simplement de s’engager directement avec les Russes dans la diplomatie et l’habitude de ne pas parler aux Russes s’est ancrée dans la politique étrangère, alors que la crise ukrainienne continue de s’aggraver, avec des hauts fonctionnaires toujours froidement au contrôle. Au cours de son mandat à King Charles Street, Boris Johnson a été rapidement rejeté comme “pas à la hauteur”, tandis que ses successeurs au poste de ministre des Affaires étrangères ont été évalués en fonction de la mesure dans laquelle ils suivaient les scripts politiques rédigés par leurs bureaucraties.

En ce qui concerne le dernier Premier ministre britannique, un haut responsable travailliste m’a récemment dit qu’Andy Burnham n’était “absolument pas un belliciste”. Pourtant, il a depuis remis à Kiev des propositions pour vendre des composants britanniques pour des missiles à longue portée, même si Zelensky est en grande difficulté au niveau national à la suite d’une série de scandales de corruption dans son entourage, parallèlement à une répression interne croissante. Burnham soutient également les nouvelles frappes profondes de Kiev sur le territoire russe, alors même que l’Ukraine risque de voir son infrastructure énergétique anéantie au cours d’un autre hiver froid, avec une défense aérienne insuffisante pour empêcher l’inévitable. Pendant tout ce temps, Burnham a proposé de soutenir l’Ukraine “aussi longtemps qu’il le faudra”, à un coût de 4,5 milliards de livres sterling par an pour les contribuables britanniques.

À son crédit, Miliband a maintenant modifié la politique étrangère du Royaume-Uni pour adopter une position plus dure envers Israël, à commencer par sa récente sanction sur le commerce avec les colons de Cisjordanie. [Bien que cela semble en grande partie un geste symbolique, dépassé par la fermeture par Israël du bureau diplomatique britannique avec la Palestine.] Mais je ne vois aucun indice d’un changement de cap sur la guerre en Ukraine qui, selon des estimations prudentes, a tué ou blessé plus de deux millions de personnes des deux côtés depuis 2022.

Il est donc clair pour moi que Burnham et son gouvernement ont reçu le script habituel de la part de ses fonctionnaires ; et ont décidé que c’était trop compliqué de le changer. Pour comprendre pourquoi vous devez comprendre comment fonctionne le Foreign Office. Cela commence par le vaste blob spécialiste de la Russie de Whitehall. Une grande unité siège au Foreign Office dans King Charles Street mais, remarquablement, elle semble incapable de proposer de nouvelles idées autres que celle de continuer à soutenir l’Ukraine. Puis elle croise les doigts en espérant une percée miraculeuse contre Poutine.

Il y a plusieurs raisons à cela. La principale est que, depuis 2015, la direction de l’Unité russe est partagée entre le Ministère des Affaires étrangères et la communauté du renseignement. Cela suite à la création d’un Fonds commun de sécurité de 1,5 milliard de livres sterling pour accroître la coordination entre les départements. Bien sûr, nos espions effectuent un travail d’une importance vitale pour ce pays ; mais ils ne devraient être qu’un outil au service de la politique étrangère, pas leur auteur. Les mettre en charge de la politique russe de la Grande-Bretagne a inévitablement satisfait leurs instincts égoïstes. Car pas d’ennemi veut dire pas de budget. Ce n’est pas un hasard si le week-end de réflexion post-Salisbury, en 2018, s’est déroulée avec une grande hospitalité au centre de formation du MI6 à Fort Monckton.

Deuxièmement, une augmentation considérable de la quantité de personnel n’équivaut pas à la qualité. Lorsque j’ai visité le GCHQ en 2017, certains des nouveaux membres du personnel que j’ai rencontrés ne semblaient manifestement pas avoir de connaissances de base ou d’expérience sur la Russie, mais représentaient simplement des sièges à pourvoir. La même chose est vraie au Ministère des Affaires étrangères. De nouvelles personnes sont expédiées, écoutent avec une grande admiration les vieilles sueurs du Groupe de recherche sur l’Est, puis suivent rapidement la ligne du parti. Il n’y a pas de fonction de remise en question critique.

De plus, la presse britannique, qui regorge d’anciens militaires et de types du renseignement servant d’analystes, étouffe toute suggestion de contacts avec la Russie pour mettre fin à la guerre, ce qui est dénigré comme étant un “apaisement”. Les personnes qui expriment un point de vue alternatif sont qualifiées de larbins du Kremlin.

Pourtant, la diplomatie n’est pas une question d’amitié, mais plutôt de parler à ceux avec qui vous êtes le plus en désaccord ; idéalement avant que des coups de feu ne soient tirés, mais encore plus lorsque les missiles volent.

Bien sûr, la diplomatie n’est qu’un bras de la politique étrangère, aux côtés de la guerre et de l’espionnage. Pourtant, alors que le Royaume-Uni a injecté des milliards dans l’espionnage, il a désinvesti dans les diplomates. Le rêve de Hague de développer une expertise spécifique à un pays s’est depuis longtemps évanoui, et il y a maintenant une pénurie d’officiers connaissant la Russie. Le ministère des Affaires étrangères continue d’avoir un bilan déplorable en matière de maîtrise des langues étrangères, y compris le russe. Parler des langues étrangères est de plus en plus considéré comme une option supplémentaire, en particulier à un moment où les universités britanniques ferment les programmes d’études en langues étrangères. Comme pour les connaissances spécifiques envers un pays, il en va de même pour les compétences diplomatiques. Lorsque j’ai quitté King Charles Street en 2023, il n’y avait toujours pas de programme systématique de formation aux compétences diplomatiques.

Comme je l’ai rapidement appris lors de mon propre séjour à Moscou, vous ne pouvez tout simplement pas opérer efficacement à partir de l’ambassade britannique là-bas à moins de parler russe et d’avoir des compétences de base pour parler à des gens qui sont violemment en désaccord avec vous. Lorsque les Russes acceptent des réunions, leurs fonctionnaires ne parleront que dans leur langue maternelle, même s’ils parlent couramment l’anglais. Je me souviens d’un gars qui me mitraillait en russe, puis s’est présenté aux réceptions de la résidence en parlant aussi bien l’anglais que moi. Après avoir expulsé tant de membres de notre personnel d’ambassade, l’État russe sait très bien que tous les nouveaux arrivants qui arrivent de Londres sont, le plus souvent, mal équipés pour faire leur travail.

Les diplomates doivent également sortir de leur ambassade, rencontrer des gens ordinaires et avoir des conversations difficiles dans les ministères. J’ai souvent eu de vigoureux débats avec des contacts russes autour d’un verre de vodka, mais nous les terminions en bon terme. De nombreux Britanniques n’aiment pas les désaccords ; Les Russes n’aiment pas la dissimulation ; et ils soupçonnent que nous sommes en train de préparer quelque chose dans leur dos.

Il y a un point plus important ici. Les Russes se moquent de savoir si nous ne leur parlons ou pas. Pourtant, par indignation pharisaïque et un sentiment largement exagéré de notre place dans le monde, nous restons évasivement distants, même si nous nous réduisons à une non-entité diplomatique. Je ne me souviens pas d’une époque où la Grande-Bretagne apparaissait aussi insignifiante.

La politique de parler de la Russie et non à la Russie est désormais gravée dans le marbre depuis juillet 2014, une aversion pour le dialogue qui a désormais infecté tous les grands États d’Europe, de sorte que personne ne voit l’intérêt de mettre fin à une guerre en Ukraine, qui nous coûte des milliards et nous rend moins en sécurité. Mais au milieu de tout cela, les faits fondamentaux restent les mêmes. Lourdement endettée et désindustrialisée, l’armée britannique est à son plus bas niveau depuis 200 ans. Burnham ne peut même pas s’engager à augmenter les dépenses de défense parce que le budget est maigre. Plus que cela, l’Ukraine ne peut pas gagner une guerre contre la Russie. L’État est en faillite et fonctionne sur la base de prêts au jour le jour venant de ses sponsors européens. Pas étonnant que Zelensky vienne de demander 27 milliards de dollars supplémentaires à l’Europe : son ministère de la Défense a déjà dépensé de l’argent prévu pour le second semestre de cette année.

Pendant ce temps, malgré la saisie de 300 milliards de dollars de ses réserves de change en février 2022, la Russie a surfé sur les prix élevés du pétrole et dispose désormais de 420 milliards de dollars supplémentaires, la plupart en or. Sa dette est de 20% du PIB. Certes, la Russie a souffert de pénuries d’essence à la suite des frappes ukrainiennes en profondeur, mais elle continue d’exporter de grandes quantités de pétrole brut non raffiné dans le monde entier à un moment où l’approvisionnement est limité. L’Ukraine et l’Europe sont toutes deux dépendantes de l’énergie, les laissant à la merci des prix élevés, les obligeant à fermer des usines, des Midlands à la Ruhr.

Dans le même temps, la Russie construit une formidable base industrielle, qui surpasse systématiquement les États-Unis, la Grande-Bretagne et l’Europe réunis dans la production de munitions. La Grande-Bretagne, bien sûr, a passé des décennies à sous-traiter sa production de défense à de gros entrepreneurs qui nous toisent et livrent systématiquement des kits qui arrivent en retard et ne fonctionnent souvent pas. La corruption en Ukraine n’aide guère non plus. Les alliés occidentaux ont versé 350 milliards de dollars à l’Ukraine dans l’espoir de battre la Russie, dont une partie a été volée par les copains de Zelensky.

J’ai visité Kiev à plusieurs reprises alors que j’étais en poste à l’ambassade britannique à Moscou et la corruption était le problème auquel les gens ordinaires voulaient le plus s’attaquer. Le « soutien » occidental n’a pas aidé l’Ukraine à découvrir la paix et l’indépendance que son pool de citoyens, en diminution rapide, mérite. Les deux tiers veulent maintenant que la guerre se termine, un renversement par rapport aux demandes de défaite totale de la Russie il y a quatre ans.

Puisque nous ne voulons pas la paix — mais que nous sommes trop faibles pour combattre directement la Russie — les sanctions économiques sont devenues notre principal levier pour influencer la pensée de Poutine. Mais là encore, la politique britannique n’a tout simplement pas fonctionné. Avant que quiconque ne m’accuse d’être un singe lâche et mangeur de fromage, je tiens à souligner que j’ai personnellement autorisé environ la moitié des sanctions britanniques contre la Russie après le déclenchement de la guerre en 2022. À l’époque, leur objectif déclaré était d’encourager “la Russie à cesser ses actions déstabilisant l’Ukraine ou sapant ou menaçant l’intégrité territoriale, la souveraineté ou l’indépendance de l’Ukraine”. Cela a manifestement été un échec.

Certes, les sanctions ont modifié la structure de l’économie russe depuis 2014. Mais le pic de pression s’est produit entre 2014 et 2016, lorsque la Russie a été frappée par le double coup des sanctions et des bas prix de l’énergie. Depuis lors, la Russie a complètement réorienté sa politique monétaire et industrielle pour adopter un rouble faible comme article de foi, gérant l’inflation tout en accumulant ses réserves et en donnant la priorité à ses monopoles publics de l’énergie et de la défense.

L’économie forteresse de la Russie – un mélange d’austérité monétaire et de keynésianisme militaire – signifie qu’elle peut continuer à se battre avec peu de risque de manquer d’argent. Sa grande population signifie également que l’Ukraine manquera d’hommes avant elle, même si les deux pays ont déjà subi des centaines de milliers de morts et de blessés. S’engager avec Poutine pour négocier la paix en Ukraine n’est donc pas une faiblesse mais une nécessité. La diplomatie n’est pas une question d’amitié, elle sert à résoudre les conflits.

Le Ministère des Affaires étrangères n’a produit aucune nouvelle idée pour résoudre le conflit ukrainien depuis 2014. Si Andy Burnham veut vraiment réussir le « test de Makerfield » – s’assurer que chaque politique gouvernementale aide les travailleurs – il pourrait proposer ses propres idées sur la politique étrangère plutôt que de lire le script standard qui lui est donné par les mandarins du Foreign Office. Il est temps pour Burnham de montrer du courage en politique étrangère ou, mieux encore, de demander à Ed Miliband d’en avoir.

Publié à l’origine par  The Peace monger 

Traduction:  Le SakerFr ancophone

Xi estableció, de hecho, el marco sobre cómo China y Estados Unidos deberían competir en términos de «beneficio mutuo».

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

GUANGZHOU – El presidente chino, Xi Jinping, planteó la petición directamente en el Despacho Oval. El presidente «decisivo» —quien está sopesando si llevar a cabo un genocidio nuclear contra Irán, tal como reveló en el podio de la ONU— no dijo que sí.

Xi le dijo directamente a Trump que China está a favor de que Estados Unidos regrese de inmediato al Memorando de Entendimiento (MoU) de Islamabad —sí, el famoso «gato muerto». Las negociaciones deberían reanudarse «tan pronto

como sea posible», lo que conduciría a un acuerdo integral que incluya el tema nuclear.

Sin embargo, no hubo avances significativos. La Casa Blanca no emitió ningún comunicado por su cuenta. Trump eludió todas las preguntas sobre el contenido de su reunión de tres horas con Xi. Es fascinante cómo el explosivo tema de Irán se mantuvo al margen de la cumbre en lugar de ser parte de ella.

Al mismo tiempo, lo que podríamos llamar el «canal de Nueva York» sobrevivió y podría estar convergiendo en un acuerdo comercial por etapas.

Los negociadores están explorando una salida por etapas: Irán reabre el Estrecho de Ormuz; Estados Unidos levanta simultáneamente el bloqueo naval de Trump; y luego deberían liberarse los activos congelados. Teherán trasladaría entonces su exigencia de tarifas de tránsito a un anexo paralelo. No es precisamente una idea brillante, considerando los gánsteres con los que están lidiando.

Al menos ahora todo está claro. Ninguna de las partes cederá primero su ventaja.

El problema adicional es que Teherán podría haber abierto un segundo frente contra su propio negociador. Los legisladores de Teherán presentaron una moción de destitución contra el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores Araghchi, acusándolo de hablar con funcionarios estadounidenses sin autorización.

A los críticos que arremetieron contra Araghchi por no contar con la aprobación del Consejo Supremo de Seguridad Nacional (SNSC), un alto funcionario iraní respondió que la delegación tenía «plena autoridad».

Esto refleja el serio debate interno entre los reformistas y el sector más radical del Cuerpo de la Guardia Revolucionaria Islámica (IRGC). La cuestión ya no es solo qué ofrecerá Irán, sino quién en Teherán debe autorizar la oferta.

No hay duda de que, en última instancia, debería ser Mohsen Rezaee, secretario del SNSC y representante personal del líder Mojtaba Jamenei. Cualquier concesión diplomática deberá contar con su aprobación.

El presidente iraní Pezeshkian volvió a confirmar al primer ministro de Pakistán, Sharif, en una reunión bilateral en Nueva York, que el memorando de entendimiento «del gato muerto» sigue siendo «totalmente aceptable».

Mientras tanto, la escalada se intensificó incluso mientras avanzaba la diplomacia.

Un asesor de alto rango del líder Mojtaba confirmó que la guerra podría llegar al Océano Índico si Estados Unidos ataca nuevamente: «Nuestras fuerzas armadas… han preparado sus propios planes para los peores escenarios». Varias fuentes militares iraníes reiteran: «Tenemos el dedo en el gatillo».

Todo ello mientras Ansarallah lanzaba seis misiles balísticos hacia Yanbu y Taif —es decir, directamente contra la ruta alternativa saudí al Estrecho de Ormuz—. El Brent se mantiene por encima de los 100 dólares el barril.

¿Qué pasará después, durante el fin de semana? Una mezcla de contactos mediados y una continua presión económica. Aunque, con suerte, no habrá nuevos ataques aéreos de EE. UU.

La Casa Blanca está haciendo creer, como era de esperarse, que Trump «tiene todas las cartas» y se conforma con dejar que la presión surta efecto.

Trump, sin embargo, ha planteado una especie de “acuerdo” para después de las elecciones intermedias del 3 de noviembre. Esto significa que la vía de salida está trazada. Pero nadie tiene ni la autoridad ni el incentivo para dar el primer paso hacia ella.

¿Quieren las clases dominantes de EE. UU. una “relación constructiva”?

Si el concepto operativo ahora fuera la navegación por Ormuz para aliviar el bloqueo, por etapas, eso sería un enorme paso adelante. Sin embargo, la Casa Blanca insiste en ser un lastre, argumentando que Trump no tiene necesidad de negociar y que no se dejará «manipular». Hablamos de una disonancia cognitiva intergaláctica.

En cuanto al bloqueo aéreo, se filtró precisamente donde más importa. Los datos de seguimiento de vuelos confirmaron que Mahan Air aterrizó en Guangzhou, y que los vuelos a Nayaf, en Irak, operaron con normalidad. No hubo ninguna acción de Estados Unidos contra los aeropuertos chinos ni contra los operadores de tierra.

Los riesgos abundan a medida que avanzamos. Si Ansarallah inmoviliza totalmente Yanbu, eso significará el colapso de la única gran ruta alternativa al estrecho de Ormuz, lo que elevará aún más el precio del Brent y avivará la notoria impaciencia del sociópata antes de las elecciones de mitad de mandato.

Podría haber un veto interno iraní: algo así como una desautorización del Consejo de Seguridad Nacional (SNSC) que congele el único canal —diplomático— que está generando avances.

Podría haber un ataque desesperado de la administración de Trump contra Pickaxe Mountain, o una acción preventiva iraní contra movimientos que interprete como preparativos, lo que colapsaría catastróficamente el canal diplomático de inmediato.

Ahora volvamos a Trump y Xi. La lista de invitados a la cena de Estado fue impresionante: era como tener a la mayor parte de la economía de EE. UU. en una sola sala. Elon, Jensen Huang, Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, Bezos, Sundar Pichai, Jamie Dimon, Larry Fink, además de tres jueces de la Corte Suprema, el presidente de la Reserva Federal y la mitad del gabinete. En la mesa principal, junto a ambos presidentes, estaban Elon, Nvidia y Apple.

China publicó su comunicado de prensa oficial sobre la reunión de tres horas entre Xi y Trump en la Casa Blanca. Al momento de escribir este artículo, no había noticias de Estados Unidos

Xi estableció de facto el marco de cómo China y Estados Unidos deberían competir sobre una base de «ganar-ganar». En materia de comercio: cooperar. En inteligencia artificial: competir, pero cooperar. En cuanto a Taiwán: respetar las líneas rojas.

En conjunto, eso es lo que Xi —y los líderes de Pekín— entienden por una «relación constructiva de estabilidad estratégica».

El espíritu debe ser de igualdad y respeto mutuo. Solo así el beneficio mutuo se convierte en algo concreto.

¿Se comprometerán las clases dominantes de EE. UU. —Trump no es más que un estafador, un simple mensajero—? Nadie tiene muchas esperanzas.

Traducción:   Observatoriode trabajador@s en lucha

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

James Jatras, a veteran U.S. foreign policy analyst, discusses how the recent security deal between Trump and Denmark over Greenland is really about easing tensions within NATO.

And keeping the Western military bloc hard-focused on Russia.

The signing of a new security agreement with Danish PM Mette Frederiksen on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly on September 22 looked odd. Frederiksen was photographed smiling with Trump, yet only a few months ago, the Danish leader and other European governments were in uproar over Trump’s threats to annex Greenland.

The Arctic island has an abundance of untapped mineral and rare-earth metals. Trump has framed the annexation as a benign move by the U.S. for protection against Russia and China. He previously ridiculed Denmark’s defenses as amounting to “two dogsleds.”

Recall that earlier this year Trump was threatening to withdraw from NATO if the U.S. was not given full control over Greenland. The Europeans then sprang to Copenhagen’s support and pledged to send troops to Greenland to defend Danish sovereignty.

But with the new security deal, all the recriminations seem to have disappeared. Danish PM Federiksen is smiling like a “Cheshire Cat,” and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hailed the renewed strengthening of the NATO bloc.

Jatras contends that Trump does not acquire any significant access to Greenland’s vast natural resources after this new deal. Denmark still retains sovereignty over the Arctic island, albeit describing it as a self-ruling territory under Greenlander administration.

What Trump gets is more U.S. militarization of the Arctic territory, which is actually what the European NATO members want.

Washington is planning to increase American military bases in Greenland and install an anti-missile defense shield called Golden Dome. This militarization will exacerbate already fraught tensions with Moscow because it potentially makes Russia more vulnerable to a nuclear attack from a new front in the Arctic.

The European NATO leaders don’t like Trump, notes Jatras, but they are worried that his maverick behavior is undermining the unity of the transatlantic alliance, which is, in turn, weakening the anti-Russia agenda.

By giving Trump the appearance of increased security control over Greenland, Denmark and the other European NATO hawks gain a more unified alliance whose top priority is to ramp up the anti-Russia agenda, as seen primarily with the proxy war in Ukraine.

In this interview, we discuss other issues: the dearth of diplomacy in Washington since the end of the Cold War, the duplicity in the Trump administration claiming it wants peace with Moscow yet doing nothing to pursue that, indeed doing the opposite, like ending arms control treaties and militarizing the Arctic.

Jatras is pessimistic about the prospects of the political class in the U.S. and Europe finding a breakthrough out of increasingly dangerous relations with Russia. He sees the only way forward as the total internal collapse in the West, leading to a new political leadership. The current dynamic and lack of diplomacy in the West are leading to war.

Trump’s plan for militarizing the Arctic at the cajoling of Europeans is another ominous sign among many.