THE PROBLEM WITH BELIEVING ANYTHING THAT U.S. POLITICAL ELITES SAY

 Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov has a major problem. Not only is it almost impossible to debate the issues with people like Tony Blinken or any of the other U.S. representatives due to them continuing to avoid the issues, there also remains the final hurdle that needs to be faced, that of trust.

Trump showed just how temporary a U.S. agreement can be when he summarily reneged on the Iran Nuclear Deal. In addition he forced back into operation the restrictions on Cuba that Obama had reduced. Trump also reversed the Obama decision not to send lethal weaponry to Ukraine in case it exacerbated the violence there. This is the kind of quixotic decision-making that makes a nonsense of U.S. claims for itself of being a responsible player on the world stage.

This is without even mentioning the disastrous and murderously bloody and often counter-effective regime change wars often based on obvious lies and propaganda that the U.S. has waged in recent years.

So, can anything U.S. political representatives be trusted to last longer than a few years if at all?

I suspect not.

The reason I say this is not only because of the past record of the USA reneging on its promises. I believe there is a far more serious and even more intransigent reason underlying all others.

For me this underlying reason why deceit, subterfuge and using betrayal as a weapon have become all too common is a relatively simple one.

The rot really began to set in after 9/11. Until then the U.S. did of course use interference across the world for its own narrow self-interest, but after 9/11 we saw a completely new and hugely widened framework for what weapons could be used in an ever more widely campaign of interference globally.

Those weapons were whatever was found effective. As we saw, military attacks and invasions were used initially. But as these proved extremely expensive and not as effective as first envisaged other methodologies came into use. Of course at the time of these wars we began to see the adherence to a degree of moral and ethical behaviour degrade. Black Sites were created where torture took place. And we will all surely recall what occurred at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and know with certainty that this was only the tip of the iceberg regarding many other atrocities committed in the name of safeguarding America.

Since the time of the Vietnam war U.S. elites have made great strides in taming the journalistic profession (which acted as a largely anti-war device during the final years of that war). The press and media would be 'embedded' with U.S. troops and given 'briefings' on what they 'needed to know'. This neutralising process was carried forward with ever-greater effectiveness until the press & media corps eventually became simply another elite arm of American foreign policy. This was a vital requirement that would greatly assist in the deceiving of American and western populations in future.

The wars the USA is waging now whether via proxies like the Saudi Arabian elites or via those of Ukraine are more or less invulnerable to questioning as western press and media are fully compliant and 'on board', linked as they inextricably are with their fellow elites within the western security state apparatus.

So, with the 'facts' and the 'truth' sewn up through their compliant news networks and their own people thoroughly conditioned never to gainsay or question these 'facts' and 'truths' the U.S. foreign policy establishment was ready to undermine and even prohibit in many cases any questioning of those 'facts' and 'truths'. Thus the western powers came to be the most proficient and prevalent purveyors of 'fake news' on geopolitical situations such as those pertaining to both Yemen and most significantly, Ukraine.

'Facts' and 'Truths' that omit important elements of the Ukrainian conflict and begin narratives at the most optimum point for the western agenda mean that no dialogue can take place with the nation that has full awareness of those omitted facts and truths that should legitimately be part of the timeline. What kind of useful debate can Lavrov have with his U.S. counterparts when they remain completely blind to events before a certain date and the effect of those events which run counter to their chosen narratives?

These are the additional reasons why U.S. diplomats (so-called) cannot be trusted an inch. Their minds run on a different timeline and context than truly exists. Their self-conditioning is airtight and no questioning of the belief-bubble they exist in as a tightly-knit group is allowed for a second. Anyone so madcap as to do so would be cancelled immediately and of course those remaining are not madcap at all and so remain tightly bound by the rules of the game.

So we have an insane circus of the blind and utterly myopic, fixed minds dedicated to the goals set after 9/11 of full spectrum dominance and the total elimination of leaders of any nations and systems of governance not fully in compliance with American demands of obedience to its patrician rule.

Lavrov has been given the job of successfully circumventing and surmounting a class of politician that has every weapon, no matter how unethical, immoral or deceiving it may be to undermine, attack, betray and confuse any attempt to find a diplomatic pathway through to some mutually beneficial agreement. The goal is to defeat, not to establish a dialogue. To betray rather than befriend, to divide and dismay rather than debate, to confuse and dodge the issue rather than seek a clear path to any mutual understanding.

In short, those who wish to negotiate with the most untrustworthy, mendacious and misleading political elites this world has ever seen truly have no earthly chance of success. It is a problem with no solution except a robust confrontation and the establishment of a united political and military front against those who choose to be so willfully blind and who remain dedicated to war though pretending to wish peace.

 

 

THE NEW RUSSIAN STANCE & THE DEMISE OF WESTERN MASS MEDIA

 

If Russian demands for written assurances guaranteeing its own national security along with that of others has done nothing else it has certainly begun to change the narrative. For once a few Russian viewpoints are intermittently being heard. Admittedly not frequently enough as yet.

The western media's unwillingness to stand by its own avowed principles of impartiality in telling both sides of any story have been an ongoing scandal for years now. Putin and Russia have been reported in overwhelmingly negative language amounting to a clear case of demonization.

So, if now that Russia has finally found itself relatively immune to new western attacks and has decided to push back against the waterfall of overt and covert attacks upon her we should see a rebalancing of the media equation on Russia to some degree. Previously western mass media has apparently been aware of the push to damage Russia by their political elites and have found it expedient and profitable to pile on the pressure through scandalously evidence-free hit pieces. It is extremely unlikely this will stop altogether of course.

Modern, western so-called journalism, demands drama, scandal, threat and the generation of endless fear, especially so U.S. media (as depicted in a Michael Moore film of several years ago). Russia provides their need in these respects with apparently no feeling on their part for accountability or for any requirement for rebuttal by those being slandered through the publishing of wild and damaging claims. Hopefully with Russia's new stance this denigration of publishing standards will decrease over time.

The 'Russian Invasion' trope has just about run its course and the absence of any such event will surely reflect badly on so-called 'journalistic standards' in the West and should cause some soul-searching in editor's offices... though there must be some doubt on this eventuality considering the depth of prejudice involved. At the very least perhaps the levels of drama, scandal, threat and fear required might just transfer away from Russia as a new respect based on its stronger stance is registered. A vain hope? Perhaps.

That western mainstream media has brought itself to a new nadir of disrepute in recent years must surely be obvious to all but the most partisan by now. The 'Get Russia!' command at all levels of the western political power structure (including its partisan press of course) has come on top of the various other scandals of media deception regarding the lies told concerning the West's serial regime change wars. And of course the attempt to deceive western audiences with the 'Russiagate' fabrications. The non-existent 'Russian Invasion' will garner even more rueful sceptics to the already burgeoning band of those who have long-since found western mass media to be totally untrustworthy and look to other net-based sources for their insight into geopolitical events.

Western mainstream media is its own worst enemy as it struggles to remain relevant and generate sufficient clicks and viewers to garner the advertising income that largely supports it now. Up till now they have been able to rely on a cosy relationship between elites in this regard. State sources have provided their "information", then used to aid the goals and agendas of their political allies (if not masters). The elite corporate world, especially that of the so-called defence industries within the military industrial complex have of course a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and none whatsoever in seeing Eurasian powers rise at their expense. This cosy relationship of political, corporate and media elites will no doubt continue while readers and viewers of their increasingly propaganda-based output attracts an ever-dwindling number willing to put any faith in them.

Hopefully then, the stronger line taken by Russia will finally command some respect in western elite circles. We have, in my opinion, only just begun to see the fruits of the new, relatively invulnerable status of Russia, and that we will see a much more proactive Russia from this point on where there is much less concern regarding whatever negative responses this engenders in any of the western elites. In conjunction with the above there is at least a reasonable chance that western mass media will begin to show Russia a little of the respect it deserves. Meanwhile ever greater numbers will be turning away from these media sources which have been lying to them so very frequently for so long now

 

WORLD WAR III: THE END GAME WAR UPDATE (THE GLOVES ARE COMING OFF)

With an unacceptable response from NATO and the USA on Russia’s security demands, it appears that Putin is now removing the limitations he may have previously set on Russia’s actions. With this refusal on behalf of these entities to recognize Russia’s ‘red lines’ in respect of its national security the gloves appear to have been taken off. In an article published on the 26th of January, we find that Putin has agreed to assist three Latin American states under threat by the USA, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. This represents military assistance to allies against a common enemy. Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to develop partnerships in a range of areas, including stepping up military collaboration, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has announced. Speaking on Wednesday in an appearance in front of the Duma – Russia’s parliament – Lavrov reported that Putin had talked recently with the leaders of the three Central American countries and that they had agreed to work together to strengthen their strategic cooperation. “President Putin held recent telephone conversations with his colleagues from these three governments, with whom we are very close and friendly, and they agreed to look at further ways to deepen our strategic partnership in all areas, with no exceptions,” Lavrov stated. He noted that Russia already has close relations with these countries in many spheres, “including military and military-technical.” Russia unveils military plans in Cuba & Latin America It is clear that Putin now recognizes that the USA/NATO plan no compromises and are engaged in a war against Russia with the intent to accomplish regime change within it and to then dismantle the Russian system of governance and replace it. This is sure to be followed by mass termination of employment for all those who remain loyal to the present leadership and its government. Additional moves to strengthen the resistance to other nations under threat from the USA such as Iran and Syria can be expected along with an even closer relationship with China incorporating transference of technical information regarding Russia’s latest weapons systems and quite possibly a formal military alliance. The refusal of NATO and the political elites of the USA to show any willingness to compromise on Russia’s national security concerns regarding the inexorable creep of NATO to Russia’s borders and their determination to bring Ukraine and possibly Georgia into the NATO alliance appear to be the last straw for Russia’s leadership. Russia’s next moves will without doubt shock the western powers and their compliant news media outlets and generate much controversy but western political elites have only themselves to blame for this eventuality. Agreement will be ever harder to find unless the western powers back down from their present position of adamant refusal to accept that Russia must have its sovereign right to security acknowledged. The ‘red lines’ enumerated by Russia recently are non-negotiable and if not recognized then Russia will be forced to take other measures, such as those announced regarding Latin America offset the dangers it faces from the West and gives it leverage to balance the dangers in the situation facing it. We are moving into an even more dangerous phase now as the gloves finally come off on the Russian side of this equation. Left with no other choice but increased confrontation and the use of its alliances against the western powers Russia will now bring the fight to the West. Some will say this is not before time, however, it required necessary patience on the part of Russia to explore every possible avenue to achieve a resolution to these matters. Now that a final conclusion to them has been reached with no satisfactory outcome, that patience appears finally to have been exhausted. A new array of options, previously held in abeyance, are now likely to be activated wherever they are felt appropriate and with no reference whatsoever to the reactions which may be stimulated among western political elites or their compliant news channels.

WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE CALCULATIONS ON ALL SIDES REGARDING UKRAINE?

 

Clearly a huge amount is at stake for all sides. This is growing ever more evident as the rhetoric, discussions, supposed revelations and heated language show.

Most of it, it must be said, is emanating from the West and not from Russia. Russia has been stating its wishes and enumerating its red lines with what appears to be a sober dedication to remaining strictly logical on each issue covered.

Then why do we see such an uproar in the West? What has Russia done that is so controversial requiring the elite version of a hissy fit combined with epileptic arm waving and jilted lover's hand wringing? What is all this drama about exactly?

The Russian side of things is fairly easy to understand. NATO, the force that was the West's spearhead against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact which has been steadily encroaching upon Russia's borders is a real headache. NATO says Russia has nothing to fear from it... but how can Russia believe this? What target is NATO aiming at in that case, if it is not Russia? As Putin has said, why should Russia have such an arrogant and heavily-armed entity on its doorstep constantly threatening its communal home?

NATO is very attractive to the elites of ex-Warsaw Pact nations as membership brings with it a certain heightened status, reflected kudos, access to finances, introduction to an elite coterie of goodies, international travel and a seat at the great high table.

Whether NATO ought to have been disbanded at the end of the Cold War is a moot point however. It appears that it was simply too big, too useful and had myriad career ladders within it that it was unthinkable to simply let it collapse in skeletal form across Europe.

And of course it represented North America's primary presence across Europe. An empire of influence that it became unthinkable to eliminate even in the face of 'The New World Order' that Dubya's dad hailed after the Soviet Union collapsed. The Warsaw Pact nations were just too tempting a prize to resist. And so it has been ever since with NATO encroaching closer and closer to a Russia totally transformed by Putin since Soviet times.

So, there's a lot at stake for the western powers and their pet rottweiler in the shape of NATO. These western powers are at imminent risk of having their power eclipsed and their influence weakened. China and Russia working in close cooperation has sent these powers into a frenzy of activity designed to damage the path forward for both. So much status, so many national interests, so much patrician power to manipulate, punish and eliminate opposing forces would be lost if China and Russia were left alone to prosper.

The western powers conceive themselves and their systems as the very peak of civilization, the supreme guardians of the destiny of humankind, the exceptional few who are the rightful judges and arbiters of right and wrong, able and willing to punish all wrongdoers and shake the world to its senses when need be.

Russia is seen as the incalcitrant orphan who was adopted by kind folk and who is now acting as ungrateful whelp dismissing all their good advice and voicing a determined stance to choose which way to turn and which path to take quite separate from their well-meant advice. Now these doting foster parents have descended down through the emotional spectrum to a point of wanting to give this orphan a good beating.

What then might this purported delinquent be up to? What would Russia gain by being the bad boy in this scenario over Ukraine? Certainly not much by way of valuable assets. Ukraine's shop window is all but bare save for a few items hardly anyone would want. What's in it for this supposed Russian rascal and ne'er-do-well? Not much it seems. There's that poisoned chalice in the corner called Ukraine. Not very tempting now, is it?

Ukraine has been threatening our kid's pals for years now and like many a bully shows no sign of giving up its malign endeavors. All blandishments to settle things in an equitable manner for all sides has been ignored. Instead of kissing and making up Ukraine has called on others in its gang to help it punish Russia's pals to an ever greater extent. They of course resist any temptation to ask Ukraine to stop its targeted violence out of group peer pressure and the possibility of getting cancelled by Big Brother America, leader of the gang.

As for Russia it has been pretty patient all this while hoping for some sign that there might be even the slightest possibility of a peaceful and harmonious resolution to this sorry saga. But one thing or another may well have totally disabused it of the idea that anything like a transformation of the Ukrainian character is possible. May it have become time then for the bully to receive a powerful punch to its misbegotten nose from Russia? Just possibly.

Naturally the other members of Ukraine's gang are not going to stand by and let this happen.

It's a complex mix of competing ambitions then, many elements, with most cooks involved decidedly spoiling the broth. Leaving yet another analogy to one side we can see the western powers carefully sheltering their prodigy and guarding its sullied reputation from view while shaking a fist at Russia and demanding it keep its distance.

Meanwhile the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics stand ready for blows that may rain down on them at any moment. For eight long years they have been kept fenced in and bombarded. Yet another good reason for Russia to act in their defense... but not only this, but also in their potential liberation from a murderous harassment that has gone on far too long now.

The West is loath to give up its trophy as it intends on gaining many more and to lose this one after its Afghanistan one is too much for their exceptional hearts to bear. For them its finders keepers and losers weepers and they are determined that Ukraine will stay there's. After all China is set on taking the trophies in Africa that both the United Kingdom and United States have long considered theirs for the taking. Doubling down and not in any way doubting themselves or their ambitions for full control everywhere are the orders of the day for "superior" folk.

China and Russia stand almost stock still while the western giant roars and stamps its great feet over Ukraine (to conjure up yet another analogy). He has largely been successful in teaching his Lilliputian population a half truth bordering on complete fabrication concerning the origins of the fight (to the death?) he is now in. His minions now largely jump up and down with him. Much heat is observed but little light is generated. Meanwhile an even greater source of both heat and light looms.

Is anyone calculating in level-headed terms in this almost primary school playground scuffle? Always inscrutable, Putin is certainly the prime candidate for this honor. Biden? Biden seems lost in a hazy dream, sleepwalking toward a disaster of one kind or another. While European allies mumble among themselves about what this global tussle of superpowers means for them. It's certainly not going to be a "gas", that's for sure...

THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS LYING AT THE HEART OF THE UKRAINE CRISIS

 

There has been a lot of talk from predominantly British sources in the last few days about a US-predicted puppet government being set up by Russia in Kiev. 

 I thought now was an appropriate time to look at a few fundamental truths concerning the change of both president and government in Ukraine during the winter of 2013-14.

First let us take a look at the presidential election which brought the president into power prior to the change in government initiated that winter.

Was he democratically elected?

Number of election observers:

European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations (ENEMO) - 450 observers, The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) - approximately 60 long-term and 600 short-term observers, European Member States - 700+ observers, the European Center of Geopolitical Analysis - 20 observers.

A total of 3,149 international observers monitored the January 17 2010 presidential election in Ukraine. (Source: Wikipedia)

Result of the election: Victor Yanukovich becomes president of Ukraine.

What was the Verdict of the election observers listed above?

'After the second round of the election international observers and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest.' (Source: Wikipedia)

'The election has been widely recognized and endorsed as being fair and an accurate reflection of voters' intentions by all international agencies observing the election including the OSCE and PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe).' (Source: Wikipedia)

Let us now turn to the Ukrainian parliamentary elections of 2012.

Was the election monitored by observers?

On election day (28 October) there were 3,500 accredited foreign observers. (Source: Wikipedia)

Ten thousand foreign observers (in all) were expected to observe the elections. (Wikipedia)

Which party won the election?

The Party of Regions won with 185 seats. In second place was the Batkivshchyna Party with only 101.

What was the verdict of the election observers?

'The observers from the European Academy for Election Observation (most of whom were European parliament members), stated it was "a good election, not perfect but clearly acceptable", and that it was "in compliance with democratic norms"'. (Source Wikipedia)

Victor Yanukovich and The Party of Regions then were both democratically elected to power, having gained the greatest support of the voters of Ukraine, most of those residing in the eastern half of the nation.

Both were caused to fall dramatically from power in several months that saw acts of arson, Molotov cocktails thrown, bricks hurled, toxic sprays used, heavy chains swung, clubs of all kinds embedded with nails used, along with handguns and hunting rifles.

Was this a democratic process? The answer to this is surely obvious.

Was it justifiable to bring both president and government down for some unconscionable criminal act that they had committed?

Hardly. The point of contention was that the president hesitated to accept an offer from EU representatives that was put in terms that excluded any other offer such as the very generous offer from Russia available to Ukraine at the time.

Is this a valid reason to use violent insurrection to remove both president and government from power?

Is this a valid reason for the United States to promote certain individuals to replace those democratically elected to their positions within the Ukrainian state and to applaud the methods used and their ultimate outcome?

If what was created in Ukraine by the USA was not a puppet government then the term loses all meaning... except as an expedient term to use regarding the acts of others than yourselves.

How does this sit with their reaction to the attack on the Capitol Building in Washington on January 6, 2021 which though resulting in much less of an outcome than that in Kiev, Ukraine in 2014, has been called by many, a violent insurrection?

Is this not a case of obvious hypocrisy and double standards? A stance totally swayed by the perceived national interest of the United States. Where are the high moral principles supposedly sincerely espoused by U.S. political elites concerning democracy and the rule of law?

What then was the net effect of the insurrection against both Victor Yanukovich and The Party of Regions in regard to those who had voted them into power, those in the eastern half of Ukraine?

Clearly their democratic rights were removed from them and in addition it was threatened that they should lose their language also, become second class citizens in their own country and if they didn't like that then they would be taught to like it and to give up their previous loyalties and allegiances and much else besides.

What you YOU do in such circumstances? Simply take it and bow to the new power usurped through violent, undemocratic means by those who called you the pejorative term 'Moskals' and regarded you as Russians, fit to be excluded, attacked, imprisoned, abused and eliminated if necessary.

Would you allow your culture, language and heritage to be swept aside, denigrated and denied you along with any democratic rights you had up to the point of those months on Kiev's Maidan Square? Would not perhaps think of what this would mean not only for you but for your children and all children to come in your region of eastern Ukraine? Would you not be tempted to resist, to do all you had to do to demand autonomy for your region and make a stand for your way of life, your loyalties, heritage and language?

I leave it up to you to make of the above what you will, to examine if what the western powers did was right according to their own oft asserted principles and in particular those concerning the sanctity of the democratic process.

These are the fundamental and primary questions that lie at the heart of the Ukraine crisis and are the genesis of all the tragedy, death, destruction and division that followed on from these events. I ask you to consider who is TRULY to blame for all that has subsequently occurred. On the evidence above was it all Russia to blame... or do you see another entity (or perhaps two) having a track record for so-called colour revolutions and regime change?

 

THE WILDLY INSANE MELODRAMA OF AMERICA'S MANIC ELITES

 

Days after the USA broadcast that it was evacuating its staff from its Kiev embassy the UK does likewise.

It seems that these mirror image twins of exceptionalism are locked into a farcical alliance now approaching tragi-comedy levels.

Incompetent foreign policy teams make constant errors, digging themselves ever deeper into a morass they appear to love the texture of so much that they cannot get enough of it.

That old adage offering advice on such situations whereby if you are in a hole to stop digging appears lost on their fear-ravaged minds.

It may well be the case that the Psyops Teams (Psychological Operations Teams) too have suffered some kind of psychological collapse and are now engineering the equivalent of a Broadway flop production to rival all past turkeys and then some.

And all the while, at the top of this incredibly shaky edifice stands a man, wobbling more by the day, who can hardly open his mouth without a gaffe coming out. He seems unable to stick to the party line devised for him. Much like his predecessor the manic interior becomes suddenly exterior and frantic staffers have to run around correcting the "impression" he made and saying what "he really meant".

It's a comedy of errors all round with a series of clowns coming and going here and there worldwide, popping up to babble nonsense or issue wild accusations about invasions that there is no sign of, before returning to Babble Central in Washington.

Take Winkie Blinken for example. A wild and woolly warhawk, previously engaged in getting lucrative contracts for social media giants with the CIA and Pentagon. What a nice, peace-loving man to choose to be Secretary of State. He is almost perfectly replaceable in the peacenik stakes with the risibly rabid head of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, soon to be replaced by some equally rabid goon.

It's quite a shitstorm of idiocy out there folks. These are the people who claim to be the stalwart and ultra-responsible guardians of peace on Earth and goodwill to men, women... and every other new gender the western world creates on an almost daily basis. And don't say otherwise lest you be cancelled.

Perhaps this brave new world of cancelling others is at the heart of this entire black comedy. Russia, China, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Yemen and who knows how many others require to be cancelled before world peace can break out. That the entire globe may be reduced to chaos, death, destruction and a nuclear winter is a mere detail in the holy plan to bring on the rapture of Armageddon. Amen to that?

With Pence and Pompeo having hardly left the Pure White White House of Unholy War we now find ourselves burdened by a similar crew in only slightly modified form with their own unique style of wacky warmaking. The meltdown of America seems to be progressing (or is that regressing?) to a state of apoplectic delirium within a circus of the surreal. Biden leading the blind with all his little mice gnawing gleefully on all live electric cables they can find.

And the end result?

A world war at the heart of Europe with its earth-shaking pulses of destruction stretching to every corner of an already punch-drunk world. The clowns of the neocon beltway seem intent on reaching either the endless relief of the end of the world or the coming of their savior intent on delivering the "good" among them to top positions in His protracted regime to weed out all "sinners". Amen to that too?

Where are the statesmen and diplomats of old who took their task of obviating war and seeking pathways to peace? Silenced or sentenced to obscurity after 9/11, no longer required by the newly sought breed of warriors whose task was the elimination of all resistance to U.S. rule. What need would there be for peace when every warlike sinew was to be harnessed in the task of bringing down every possible threat to the USA out there?

So we arrive at the goon show we see presently. A Head Goon in Washington masquerading as your favorite uncle tended to by a bevvy of minders and represented abroad by a horror flick band of thick-skulled denizens of the neocon deep. What hope is there for humanity or even for America with such a band of pantomime dummies leading the way?

While in the wings, who do we see. The Devil we used to know who paraded his own brand of lunacy for all to draw back in fear over or laugh till they were sick about, a true psycho with a cast of sociopaths around him. Will we see the return of Barmy Bolton and Pitbull Pompeo? Or will Tragi-Comedy Trump find some new ghouls to feed upon the stinking geopolitical entrails left behind by Biden & Co?

All will be revealed in the next episode of...

THE WILDLY INSANE MELODRAMA OF AMERICA'S MANIC ELITES

 

IS A BRAND NEW GEOPOLITICAL PARADIGM AVOIDABLE?

 

The USA and UK in particular clearly think so.

At the very least they believe it can be postponed. Their goal currently is again clearly, to weaken the possibility of this eventuality and if at all possible destroy the foundations of the central elements which currently make it appear inevitable.

That these efforts by the USA and UK and in ever declining form by Europe, to weaken and if possible stop this new paradigm, could cause another world war in its most devastating form (with a form of world warfare already being waged by them) clearly doesn't faze them to any significant extent.

The stakes for them are obviously considered too high to let any considerations of widespread death and destruction mitigate the extent or range of their plans. In my view the political elites in tandem with their media elites consider this to be an existential issue requiring an all-out effort to maintain western global dominance without which they have convinced themselves the world will go all to hell.

They have come to believe through centuries of happy self-awarding conditioning that they stand at the pinnacle of right conduct, good governance and ethical behaviour, the natural inheritors down from one generation to the next of the guardianship of the planet. In accordance with these beliefs those who do not stand with them must certainly then be standing against them and standing therefore against all that is righteous and good.

I am unaware of any empire that believed they were not right in all they said and did. How many bureaucracies and established elites indulged in self-doubt down the millenia. I would hazard to guess that the answer is an easy one, namely none.

And how many of the serried ranks of controllers of such empires gave up their notions of superiority, grandeur and benefits of high, self-granted status and control of others without a fight. You may say the British Empire is one such... but I did say 'without a fight'. The British Empire ended in most places faced with a determined force fighting for this outcome.

The empire of the West has lasted a very long time and has been reinforced significantly during that time, the chief of these being the outcome and aftermath of the Second World War. Hitler and Nazi Germany were defeated. Leaving aside that the Russian victories over German forces and entry first to Berlin was the main factor in ending it, in the West the impression given was that of a victory by the West.

The empire of the West has however been looking increasingly tarnished of late. This especially so since 9/11 when the USA, UK and others began their campaign of regime change wars with their attendant lies, deceptions, manipulations and outright propaganda assisted by a complicit western press and media. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan added another nail to its coffin. It seems inevitable that eventual withdrawal from Iraq and Syria will add further nails to it.

Currently we see another series of nails being readied in the shape of a European withdrawal from U.S. and UK battle plans regarding both Ukraine and Russia. The humiliation I predicted a number of commentaries ago appears imminent. Upon this further set of nails being applied to the coffin of the western empire I would suggest that few more will be necessary to complete the job.

What then?

Over the last several decades we have seen the inexorable rise of the Chinese economy. That of Russia has followed a similar if not nearly as impressive increase in its economic success. Now that both nations fully recognise the mutually beneficial results of ever-closer cooperation there can surely be no further restrictions on their continued success and ever-growing influence. Their growing influence will I predict 'bring on' the foundations for the new 'empire free' geopolitical paradigm I expect, predict and am hoping for.

At the point where an unlamented western empire rests dormant in its well-sealed coffin I would predict we will see a world breathing a deep and long sigh of relief. This while the work of restoring the world to a place where agreement and not disputation become the order of the day, where trade not trouble is at the forefront of press and media around the globe and where a general tolerance of diverse forms of governance is found.

In short the beginnings of a world where the prospects for war diminish, where that which unites us is emphasised rather than that which divides us and an acknowledgement is recognised that most of humanity wishes only to reside in peace, nurturing their families, seeking betterment of their lives, not at the expense of other nations and where no one particular political dogma is demanded for all nations.

So, in answer to the question within the title of this commentary I would say no, in due course, in the absence of the USA and UK refraining from using their ultimate weapon of domination, a brand new geopolitical paradigm for our world is not avoidable and is indeed absolutely unavoidable.