It's already been said many times that the U.S., under President Donald Trump, was turning its back on Ukraine.
But the past few days show something worse than abandonment: Trump is now actively helping Russia win the war.
Many media and commentators have been far too careful
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
The European Union is witnessing a full-blown social revolt. Governing political parties and their economic policies are held in open contempt as public protests and strikes escalate across multiple countries.
Protests, mass marches, and industrial strikes are spreading across the EU in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, and other countries. The grievances are various, from students and teachers over woeful education services, to healthcare professionals and transportation workers denouncing crumby wages and pension cuts.
But at the core is a warmongering, dehumanizing system of capitalist inequality.
Unbearable living costs for basic needs, from food to housing, are driving millions onto the streets in desperation and anger at the lack of adequate political response to their concerns. As one French student said: “Too young to be listened to, old enough to be tear-gassed.”
The entire political system is being brought into disrepute for its dysfunction and indifference towards meeting rudimentary human needs. Then, infuriating all the more, are lies from the elite rulers and their propaganda media about “national defense and threat of war from Russia.”
In Spain this week, an 87-year-old frail woman known as Maricarmen died in hospital after she was evicted from her Madrid home because she could not pay the extortionate rent increase. Her plight has come to galvanize a nationwide protest against Spain’s housing crisis, a crisis that is repeated across every European country. Protesters shouted furiously that the pitiful old woman was “murdered by the state and corporations.”
In France, the brutality of police against student protests has shocked the nation and the world. Nearly 7,000 young people have been arrested, as riot police tear gas and shoot at largely peaceful rallies. Students gathering at the Place de la Bastille in Paris and other cities vow that they will not back down. One student had his hand blown off by a police stun grenade while another teenager lost an eye from a rubber bullet fired at close range.
The Place de la Bastille is where the French Revolution manifested in 1798 against a hated aristocracy amid abject misery. Today, the tensions are boiling towards another momentous rebellion, this time inspiring again similar movements across Europe.
These protests and the inhumane suffering that underlie them are channeling uprisings all over the EU.
There is a palpable sense that populations en masse have had enough of decades of inequality and chronic deprivation inflicted by capitalist policies that enrich a few and are enforced by governments slavishly serving the interests of capital over the needs of the citizen majority.
Western media reports talk about “cash-strapped” governments under pressure from bond markets to reduce record debt levels while workers, students and pensioners demand more public investment and relief from economic hardship.
That is a misleading partial portrayal of the problem. Omitted is the crucial backdrop that European governments are directing vast economic resources towards militarism and the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. That is what is causing the “cash-strapped governments.” In other words, their declared fiscal straits are a policy choice, not some mysterious dilemma.
The social crisis sweeping across Europe is also seen in the United States and other Western-aligned nations. The background is a failed economic system that no longer provides a modicum of acceptable living conditions. The problem has been decades in the making from growing inequality and diminishing political representation. Today it is even questionable if Western states are democracies, controlled as they are by corporate oligarchies.
Nevertheless, the social crisis that is unfolding across Europe has been intensified and amplified by European political rulers operating in a relentless war mode against Russia.
The European Union has pumped hundreds of billions of euros into Ukraine over the past four years to prop up a NeoNazi regime run by a corrupt dictatorship – all for the objective of defeating Russia. The EU leaders – many of them unelected, like Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas and António Costa – are driven by an obsessive Russophobia. But that is only part of the explanation.
Other elected leaders and parties like France’s Macron and Germany’s Merz are also despised for their elitism and delusions of grandeur. Merz declares that he wants to make Germany the strongest military in Europe, in total tin-ear deafness to his nation’s economic and social problems and the sinister historical connotations of resurrecting Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, as his government suffers electoral defeat after defeat, European elites deprecate German voters as being blind because they dare to choose parties that are opposed to war with Russia.
There are many grounds for the Europe-wide contempt of ruling parties. Inequality, poverty, unemployment, soaring living costs, declining wages, deteriorating public services. Uncontrolled immigration amid the pressure on inadequate public resources is another cause for grievance. Europe’s complicity in the Israeli genocidal war on Palestinians, and Europe’s complicity in Trump’s aggression towards Iran, Yemen, Cuba, and so on, are other factors.
However, the bogus narrative that governments are “cash-strapped” is a cause for immense public disgust. There are plenty of economic resources to meet public needs. It’s a question of those resources not being permitted to create just and humane societies under the prevailing capitalist system with its priority of enriching a tiny elite class.
The conditions of “tight budgets” and “austerity for the masses” are created by deliberate policies of militarism and fuelling a proxy war in Ukraine.
European “leaders” and their NATO lobbyists like Mark Rutte demand hundreds of billions of euros to boost military industries while at the same time calling for draconian cuts in public spending and social welfare in order to pay for this reckless militarism. The EU is “lending” an additional €90 billion over the next two years alone just to prop up the corrupt regime in Kiev so that it can keep fighting a futile war with Russia. The perverse priority is driven by the military-industrial complex and its corporate investors. It is also driven by an ideological, propagandized mindset that demonizes Russia as an enemy. President Putin and other Russian voices have repeatedly stated that they do not want war with Europe. They say the conflict in Ukraine has root causes that can be resolved through diplomatic engagement. Why are European politicians implacably opposed to peace?
A major factor is covering for internal political and economic failure of the European system. The EU’s economies, as with those in the U.S. and other Western states, are bankrupt dystopias in terms of delivering on social and democratic needs. The failure has been compounded by the costs of war in Ukraine.
That failure is criminal and fatal for the politicians and governments who have overseen the policies. Thus, the political class, including the propaganda news media, cannot admit their criminal policies.
In the face of their own internal contradictions, the European political elites are seeking a solution by externalizing Russia as an enemy. This is the same modus operandi that European rulers have used for the past century and more, unleashing two world wars as a result.
These criminal politicians and their dysfunctional economic system are again pushing war as their escape plan for survival at the expense of millions of lives and at the risk of starting a third world war, one that this time around could involve catastrophic nuclear nemesis.
It is damning of virtually every European government, including primarily the British, that there are no calls for diplomacy and political settlement with Russia. They are committed to waging war on Russia to absolve themselves from the social devastation they are responsible for.
One positive thing, though, is that increasing numbers of people can see through the chicanery and lies. A German student placard summed it up: “We won’t fight your wars… Education not bombs!”
A day of reckoning is imminent. Criminal political leaders and their warmongering system are exposed like never before and in a way that demands total revolt as a proper solution. The consequences are not to be externalized this time. Chickens are coming home to roost, as Malcom X once said.
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.
Quel est le point commun entre Augusto Pinochet, Frédéric Encel et Le Monde diplomatique ? Le premier a enseigné la géopolitique à l'université militaire de Santiago et publié un traité intitulé Geopolítica cinq ans avant son coup d'État au Chili, en 1973. Le deuxième compte au nombre des experts les plus fréquemment invités dans les médias, où il savoure avec un sourire faraud l'énoncé de sa qualité : « docteur en géopolitique ». Le troisième a conçu le manuel que vous avez sous les yeux pour interroger les visions du monde portées par les deux premiers : pour l'un, la compétition entre États pensés comme des organismes voués à la conquête de leur espace vital ; pour l'autre, l'idée que la politique internationale se réduit à l'affrontement entre démocraties libérales et régimes autoritaires, au nom de valeurs que l'Occident aurait vocation à défendre et, au besoin, à diffuser.
Si la vieille géopolitique allemande dont s'inspirait Pinochet a été reléguée aux livres d'histoire, la croisade morale que mènent les éditorialistes connaît, avec le conflit russo-ukrainien et les massacres israéliens à Gaza, un moment de consécration en même temps qu'une mise à l'épreuve. Désorientés par le lâchage de leur tuteur américain, les dirigeants européens et leurs relais médiatiques tiennent simultanément deux discours incompatibles : l'agresseur russe menace les démocraties ouvertes, lesquelles soutiennent l'Ukraine qui se « bat pour nos valeurs » ; mais l'agresseur israélien, qui bombarde ses voisins et multiplie les crimes contre l'humanité, ne fait qu'exercer son « droit de se défendre ».
La supériorité morale de l'Occident, fondement de la politique étrangère
Une telle contradiction, sur des sujets qui engagent la sécurité du continent, serait relevée sans relâche si l'univers des commentateurs internationaux n'était pas aussi étroitement quadrillé. Le statut convoité d'invité permanent suppose de cocher plusieurs cases : atlantiste, pro-européen, adepte d'un idéalisme qui fait de la supériorité morale de l'Occident le fondement de la politique étrangère. Ainsi sélectionnés, analystes et stratèges semblent reprendre le flambeau des néoconservateurs américains, discrédités au mitan des années 2000 par l'aventurisme de George W. Bush.
Leur passion de la démocratie ne supporte pas la contradiction : en France, les voix dissidentes en matière de politique étrangère sont si rarement sollicitées par la presse dominante que chacune des interventions de Dominique de Villepin, Emmanuel Todd, Pascal Boniface ou John Mearsheimer suscite un vif succès d'audience. Le raidissement occidentaliste des commentateurs exprime, faute de mieux, la réaction d'un Vieux Continent déclinant face à une puissance américaine toujours dominante et à l'essor de la Chine. Le contretemps est manifeste : après la crise financière de 2008, historiens, intellectuels publics et journalistes exhortaient leur public à « décentrer le regard » pour penser « un monde multipolaire ». Presque vingt ans plus tard, il reste impossible, à écouter le clergé géopolitique, de se faire une idée de la manière dont les puissances émergentes voient le monde, nous perçoivent, se projettent.
Cette incapacité à regarder ailleurs tient aussi au petit monde qui fabrique le savoir géopolitique. À cheval entre universités, chancelleries et groupes de réflexion, ce milieu fonctionne en vase clos. Il élabore des récits globaux qui s'imposent moins par la force des arguments que par leur répétition. La matière peut paraître rébarbative, réservée à un milieu d'initiés dont les représentants rappellent le jugement d'Étienne Bonnot de Condillac sur ses adversaires philosophiques : « Ils doivent leur réputation à l'importance des sujets dont ils s'occupent plutôt qu'à la manière dont ils les traitent. » (1) L'introduction de la géopolitique dans certaines filières de l'enseignement secondaire n'a pas encore suffi à combler le fossé entre l'importance des enjeux internationaux pour quiconque participe à la vie publique et leur confiscation par un cercle restreint de spécialistes.
La politique étrangère engage en effet la guerre et la paix, la sécurité de populations entières. Pourtant, les choix militaires et les grandes orientations stratégiques restent largement soustraits à la discussion publique. Au cours des deux dernières décennies, la France a engagé des opérations en Afghanistan, en Côte d'Ivoire, en Libye, au Mali et dans le Sahel, en République centrafricaine, en Irak et en Syrie sans que leurs objectifs, leurs résultats ou leurs conséquences fassent l'objet d'un véritable examen démocratique ; ces interventions extérieures sont d'ailleurs restées largement absentes des campagnes présidentielles. Aujourd'hui, l'explosion des budgets de défense et la militarisation de la politique étrangère européenne, qui servent de palliatif à sa marginalisation diplomatique, s'imposent, elles aussi, sans débat. D'autres choix stratégiques, d'autres priorités diplomatiques seraient pourtant nécessaires quand les interdépendances, le dérèglement climatique, les pandémies, les bouleversements technologiques ou les risques liés à la prolifération nucléaire appellent de nouvelles formes de coopération internationale.
Ce Manuel d'autodéfense intellectuelle entend donner à chacun les outils pour se forger une opinion éclairée sur les conflits et la situation internationale. Appuyé sur les acquis de la recherche, il passe au crible les grandes idées reçues qui façonnent les représentations du monde depuis la fin de la guerre froide. Son appareil cartographique explore les rapports entre espace et puissance — dont le contrôle du détroit d'Ormuz illustre l'importance. Car, si le XXIe siècle offre à la géographie sa revanche sur la Terre prétendument plate et sans histoire de la mondialisation, se réapproprier la géopolitique ouvre un possible nécessaire : contester aux dirigeants le monopole des affaires du monde.
(1) Cité par Olivier Zajec, Nicholas John Spykman, l'invention de la géopolitique américaine, Sorbonne Université Presses, Paris, 2016.
As eleições municipais de 26 de outubro estão a aproximar-se e campanhas rápidas e furiosas cruzam a GTA com fervor de propósito a brilhar nos candidatos. E os eleitores, cansados de promessas recicladas, escutam pacientemente o exagero de palavras adulteradas que são discutidas como verdades desproporcionais inventadas para satisfazer uma população que precisa de declarações artificiais de bem-estar.
Ao analisar a próxima eleição na maior metrópole canadiana, há reflexões que definem um processo de pensamento baseado numa inquietação e desconforto perante os políticos e as suas declarações santarronas. Milhares de pessoas terão colocado o seu nome nos boletins de voto para Presidentes de Câmara, Vereadores e Conselheiros Escolares (sim, os Conselheiros Escolares ainda andam por aí), com a esperança de que farão parte dos poucos escolhidos. Mas aqui está uma pergunta que deveria preocupar-nos a todos: As eleições municipais representam realmente os sentimentos e as necessidades da maioria da população ou tornaram-se cada vez mais um exercício de afiliação política, interesses pessoais ou voto organizado? Embora estes não devessem ser partidos políticos, e a sua responsabilidade seja para com os seus eleitores e não para com um líder partidário ou a sua organização, é claro que a governação é feita de acordo com a ideologia política dos candidatos.
Todos sabemos que os candidatos têm apoiantes, as organizações têm interesses e os momentos políticos têm resultados preferidos. Os políticos em geral passaram a compreender que a política é uma das profissões em que menos se confia. Um sistema político é necessário para garantir que existe uma estrutura de governação, mas a preocupação é o tipo de pessoas que estamos a atrair para concorrer a governar a governação. Então, o que é que os eleitores estão realmente a escolher? Na minha mente, tem de ser uma pessoa que compreenda os nossos bairros, as nossas estradas, os nossos sistemas de transporte, os nossos impostos sobre a propriedade, as nossas escolas e a nossa segurança. Na maior parte dos casos, é duvidoso que compreendam.
Devido à etnicidade do Canadá, a representação política é essencial para as diferentes etnias. Olhando para as listas atuais de potenciais candidatos,com exceção dos recandidatos, muito poucos luso-canadianos estão a concorrer a cargos públicos. Isto empobrece a nossa comunidade e esgota a nossa capacidade de fazer parte da governação durante vários anos. Precisamos de mais representação, mesmo sabendo que se está a entrar num trabalho onde a política tem a capacidade de transformar até a questão municipal mais simples numa batalha ideológica.
Última Palavra:
No dia 12 de setembro, a comunidade portuguesa em Brampton celebrou a inauguração das “Portas da Cidade” com toda a pompa e circunstâncias merecidas. O governo dos Açores sentiu a necessidade de mostrar a sua exuberância em relação a este projeto transportando mais de 100 pessoas dos Açores para Brampton, garantindo uma boa afluência ao evento. Diz-se que há desafios económicos em todo o lado, mas obviamente não nos Açores. Pergunto-me também se os organizadores, dignitários, etc. se esqueceram de um nome importante que é Portugal e todo o seu povo de todas as regiões. Separar uma comunidade nunca é algo bom, particularmente quando há oportunismo político envolvido.
Manuel DaCosta/MS
The October 26th municipal elections are approaching and fast and furious campaigns are crisscrossing the GTA with fervour of purpose gleaming from the candidates. And voters tired of the recycled promises listen patiently to the exaggeration of tainted words which are discussed as disproportionate truths made up to satisfy a population that needs artificial feel-good pronunciations. In analyzing the coming election in the largest Canadian metropolis, there are reflections which define a thought process based on the restlessness and uneasiness of politicians and their sanctimonious pronunciations.
Thousands of people who will have placed their name on ballots for Mayors, Councilors and School Trustees (yes, Trustees are still around), with hope that they will be part of the chosen few. But here is a question that should concern all of us: Do municipal elections actually represent the feelings and needs of the majority of the population or have they increasingly become an exercise in political affiliation, personal interests or organized voting? Although there should not be party affiliations because their responsibility is to their constituents rather than to a party leader or their organization, clearly governance is done according to the candidates’ political ideology. We all know that candidates have supporters, organizations have interests and political moments have preferred outcomes. Politicians in general have come to understand that politics is one of the least trusted profession you can get into. A political system is required to ensure that a structure of governance exists, the concern is the type of people we are attracting to run to govern the governance. So what are voters really choosing? In my mind it has to be a person who understands our neighbourhoods, our roads, our transit systems, our property taxes, our schools and our safety. For the most part, it is doubtful that they do.
Because of Canada’s ethnicity, political representation is essential for the different ethnicities. Looking at current lists of potential candidates and other than incumbents, very few Luso-Canadians are running for office. This impoverishes our community and sucks our abilities to be part of governance for several years. We need more representation, even if you know you are getting into a job where politics has the ability to transform even the simplest municipal question into an ideological battle.
Last Word:
On September 12th, the Portuguese community in Brampton celebrated the inauguration of “Portas da Cidade” with all deserved pomp and circumstance. The government of Azores felt the need to show its exuberance about this project by transporting over 100 people from the Azores to Brampton, ensuring a good turnout at the event. People say that there are economic challenges everywhere but obviously not in the Azores. I also wonder if the organizers, dignitaries, etc. forgot an important name which is Portugal and all its people from every region. Separating a community is never a good thing, particularly when there’s political opportunism involved.
Manuel DaCosta/MS
Des sirènes hurlantes, des embouteillages monstres étendus sur des kilomètres, des forces de l'ordre déployées dans les rues pour dissuader émeutes, manifestations et pillages tandis que quatorze millions d'habitants évacuent Téhéran et sa banlieue. Ces scènes dignes d'un film dystopique auraient pu avoir lieu. Ce n'est pas la menace du président américain Donald Trump de faire disparaître la civilisation iranienne en une nuit (lire « Une journée comme une autre ») qui en aurait été la cause, mais un ordre des autorités de la République islamique. En novembre 2025, les pluies d'automne ne sont pas au rendez-vous. L'Iran connaît la pire sécheresse depuis un siècle. Les cinq barrages qui approvisionnent la capitale sont presque à sec et les coupures d'eau sont quotidiennes, surtout la nuit. La tension est identique dans la ville de Machhad (nord-est), que quatre barrages environnants sont bien en peine d'alimenter. Le président Massoud Pezechkian met alors en garde ses compatriotes. Si la situation ne s'améliore pas, il faudra évacuer la mégapole et ses environs (1). Pour le long terme, il évoque même un possible transfert définitif de la capitale surpeuplée vers la région de Makran, près du détroit d'Ormuz. Un projet jugé irréalisable par nombre d'experts mais dont l'évocation frappe tout de même les esprits, tant elle conforte l'idée d'un choc environnemental majeur à venir.
Des villages entiers sont privés d'eau potable, l'exode rural s'aggrave, les équilibres sociaux et territoriaux sont bouleversés
La hausse, toute relative, de la pluviométrie au premier semestre 2026 a conjuré le scénario de l'évacuation forcée, mais le problème de fond demeure. Trente-cinq millions d'Iraniens sont confrontés quotidiennement à la pénurie d'eau. Les réserves totales ont diminué de 211 kilomètres cubes entre 2003 et 2019 — l'équivalent de deux années de consommation nationale —, tandis que le niveau moyen des nappes souterraines a fortement baissé (2). Dans certaines régions, notamment dans l'Est et dans le Sud, l'eau potable n'est accessible aux habitants que via des camions-citernes payants, ce qui provoque de longues files d'attente. Une centaine de zones humides ont disparu, et l'assèchement des rivières contribue à l'aggravation des tempêtes de poussière qui sévissent à partir du printemps.
Contrairement au discours officiel, la sécheresse et le réchauffement climatique, présentés comme une fatalité, ne sont pas les seuls responsables de cette crise. C'est aussi, et avant tout, une affaire de mauvaise gestion et de politiques environnementales erratiques depuis les années 1970. « La pénurie d'eau en Iran, particulièrement à Téhéran, n'est pas un phénomène passager ou le résultat d'une seule année de sécheresse, écrit ainsi le très critique quotidien économique de Téhéran Jahan-e Sanat. C'est le signe d'un déséquilibre profond et structurel du système national d'approvisionnement et de consommation » (17 février 2026).
Autrement dit, l'Iran manque d'une politique centralisée et cohérente de l'eau qui arbitrerait entre les besoins. Les efforts consentis en faveur de l'agriculture — laquelle représente 90 % de la consommation des ressources hydriques — sont pointés du doigt. Afin de procurer des revenus décents aux populations rurales, mais aussi pour garantir la sécurité alimentaire d'un pays exposé aux sanctions internationales, les autorités ont multiplié les mesures pour doper la production agricole. Des dizaines de barrages et de retenues plus modestes ont été construits un peu partout, le plus souvent sans planification ni études préalables, déplaçant des populations et affectant les écosystèmes. Faute d'entretien, nombre de ces structures sont délabrées ou connaissent des taux d'envasement élevés. Le gouvernement est tout aussi incapable de contrôler la consommation d'eau des sites industriels, surtout quand ils sont liés à des dignitaires du régime ou à la galaxie interlope des gardiens de la révolution.
Dans le même temps, les forages illégaux se multiplient et contribuent à la diminution des ressources. Un comble quand on sait que l'Iran s'enorgueillit de techniques plurimillénaires de gestion rationnelle de l'eau souterraine — tels les fameux qanat ou galeries. La corruption et le népotisme endémiques ont ainsi engendré des passe-droits qui génèrent le gaspillage et des inégalités d'accès. Tout le contraire de la traditionnelle « justice de l'eau » garantissant sa répartition équitable.
« Des groupes paraétatiques et paramilitaires contrôlent les ressources naturelles, notamment l'eau, à travers la construction et la gestion de barrages », confirme la chercheuse Dorna Javan (3). Tout cela a un coût. Des villages entiers sont privés d'eau potable, l'exode rural s'aggrave, et ce sont les équilibres sociaux et territoriaux qui sont bouleversés.
Jusqu'à présent, le régime a minimisé, pour ne pas dire nié, l'importance des problèmes écologiques. La recherche sur ces thèmes est entravée, comme l'a montré la répression subie par les personnes qui ont lancé l'alerte, il y a plus de dix ans, concernant le brutal assèchement d'Ourmia, qui fut le plus grand lac du Proche-Orient et qui a quasiment disparu. Mais la réalité risque fort de rattraper un pouvoir de plus en plus contesté. On le sait, l'absence de libertés individuelles et politiques, la corruption, la crise économique, l'effondrement de la monnaie, les sanctions internationales et les attaques américano-israéliennes sont autant de dangers pour la pérennité du régime islamique. Mais, avec la crise de l'eau, c'est l'avenir d'un pays et de son peuple qui se joue.
(1) Agence France-Presse (AFP), 22 novembre 2025.
(2) Peyman Saemian, Mohammad Tourian, Amir AghaKouchak, Kaveh Madani et Nico Sneuuw, « How much water did Iran lose over the last two decades ? », Journal of Hydrology : Regional Studies, vol. 41, Amsterdam, juin 2022.
(3) « Dorna Javan : En Iran, les crises environnementales agissent comme un puissant accélérateur du mécontentement social », entretien accordé à Eva Sammadar, Reporterre, 21 janvier 2026.
Emmanuel Macron leaves the Élysée in eight months. And, in keeping with the political journalism tradition whereby last-minute criticism apparently makes up for a decade of deference, the brickbats are coming thick and fast. The Economist, having once regarded him as the ‘saviour of Europe', now mocks a ‘lame duck' president. Two Parisian courtiers have devoted a book to ‘the story of an exceptional man … who screwed things up in an exceptional way'. Alain Minc, mouthpiece of the liberal (…)
- 2026/09 / editorialDans huit mois, M. Emmanuel Macron quittera l'Élysée. Et, suivant la tradition du journalisme politique, comme si une heure de dissidence rachetait une décennie de révérences, les critiques fusent. L'hebdomadaire The Economist moque un « canard boiteux » après avoir cru au « sauveur de l'Europe ». Deux courtisans parisiens racontent dans un livre « l'histoire d'un homme exceptionnel… qui s'est exceptionnellement planté ». Porte-voix des élites libérales, M. Alain Minc voit en lui le « pire président de la Ve République (1) ».
Ingratis servire nefas — « on ne gagne rien à servir les ingrats ». Car, depuis 2017, M. Macron a, largement, suivi les orientations du rapport Minc (1994) ou de la commission dirigée par M. Jacques Attali (2008), dont il était alors l'adjoint. De même celles de l'Union européenne ou de l'Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord (OTAN) sur les dépenses de défense. Davantage qu'aucun de ses prédécesseurs, ce président a débarrassé la diplomatie du Quai d'Orsay des traces d'indépendance qui la distinguait encore. Paris a désormais la politique russe de Kiev, la politique vénézuélienne de Washington, la politique iranienne d'Abou Dhabi, la politique commerciale de Berlin, et plus de politique africaine du tout depuis que les États du Sahel ont congédié son armée.
M. Macron a aussi achevé de transformer l'État en Comité de salut privé, assurant des dividendes record aux actionnaires (2). La France est devenue un paradis pour les fonds spéculatifs, qui ont désormais la main sur des milliers d'entreprises, dont plusieurs fleurons. La Sécurité sociale, elle, n'a plus vocation à allouer à chacun selon ses besoins, tandis que le service public, asphyxié, vire au cauchemar pour les agents et les usagers.
Le président a joué la partition de l'extrême centre libéral atlantiste en virtuose. Mais à contretemps. Héros de la mondialisation et du dépassement de la politique, il n'a vu venir ni l'éclipse de l'une ni le retour de l'autre. Démonétisée par la résurgence internationale de la souveraineté ou de la planification, sa stratégie de l'offre a échoué. Le chômage repart à la hausse, la croissance stagne. Le déficit commercial reste élevé, au point que la moitié de l'empreinte carbone nationale tient aux émissions importées ; celui des finances publiques justifierait le manque de pompiers comme de Canadair.
C'est donc un pays livré aux flammes que M. Macron nargue sur son Jet-Ski en trombe. L'allégorie d'un mandat qui s'achève dans une double fuite en avant. La cause ukrainienne doit, d'une part, ressouder son camp après la dissolution ratée de l'Assemblée nationale et relancer l'industrie de défense européenne. Au nom de l'autonomie stratégique. Au risque, surtout, d'un grand réarmement allemand (lire notre dossier), voire d'une confrontation avec la Russie. D'autre part, le choix récent d'un défenseur des droits réactionnaire ou le soutien du gouvernement à une présomption de légitime défense pour les forces de l'ordre confirment le verrouillage opéré depuis quelques années.
« Voilà un homme qui a réprimé les libertés (…) avec une violence sans précédent (…). Et qui vient dire ensuite que Marine Le Pen est un danger pour les libertés individuelles et la démocratie, constatait déjà la favorite de la prochaine présidentielle dans Le Figaro il y a cinq ans. C'est une plaisanterie. » Au soir du 7 mai 2017, M. Macron avait, lui, eu ce mot à propos des électeurs de Mme Le Pen : « Je ferai tout pour qu'ils n'aient plus aucune raison de voter pour les extrêmes. » Deux quinquennats plus tard, on mesure le résultat.
(1) The Economist, Londres, 8 janvier 2026 ; Nicolas Domenach et Maurice Szafran, Néron à l'Élysée. Comment il a tout gâché, Albin Michel, Paris, 2026 ; Alain Minc dans L'Express, Paris, 7 octobre 2025.
(2) Lire Pierre Rimbert et Grégory Rzepski, « Le Comité de salut privé », Le Monde diplomatique, septembre 2022.
Hoje assinala-se o Dia Mundial do Teatro. Em teoria, é um dia para celebrar a arte, os
atores, os textos que nos fazem pensar e sentir. O teatro, quando é sério, não é só
entretenimento, é um espelho desconfortável daquilo que somos. Expõe, provoca,
obriga a encarar verdades que muitas vezes preferíamos evitar.
Talvez por isso seja impossível não fazer um paralelismo com aquilo em que se
transformou a nossa vida política.
Há qualquer coisa de profundamente teatral — no pior sentido da palavra — na forma
como hoje se faz política. Não no sentido nobre da representação, mas na encenação
vazia. Nos discursos cuidadosamente ensaiados. Nas indignações seletivas. Nas
conferências de imprensa onde já se sabe, à partida, o que vai ser dito e como vai ser
dito.
Tudo parece coreografado. Nada parece espontâneo.
Os políticos falam, mas raramente dizem. Prometem, mas quase nunca se
comprometem. E, acima de tudo, representam proximidade, representam convicção,
representam firmeza. É uma sucessão de papéis, ajustados ao momento, ao público e
às sondagens.
O problema é que isto já não engana muita gente.
Ao contrário do teatro a sério, onde há talento, trabalho e respeito por quem está a
ver, esta versão política da representação vive de clichés e de frases feitas. É uma peça
repetida vezes sem conta, com pequenas variações, mas sempre com o mesmo fundo:
pouco conteúdo e muita aparência.
E depois há o público — nós. Durante muito tempo, aceitámos este papel de
espectadores. Uns aplaudem, outros assobiam, mas no fundo continuamos sentados, à
espera que a peça melhore.
O mais grave é que, enquanto se representa, o essencial vai ficando por fazer. Os
problemas acumulam-se, as decisões adiam-se, e a realidade — essa, que não se deixa
encenar — acaba sempre por impor-se.
Talvez este Dia Mundial do Teatro sirva, pelo menos, para isto: para nos lembrar que
há uma diferença enorme entre representar bem e fingir mal.
A política não precisa de mais atores. Precisa de menos teatro.
(Aqui tem uma gravação com o texto lido pela autora)
The post Governar ou representar? appeared first on Jornal O DIABO.
Login