Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The BRICS Summit Should Mark the End of Neocon Delusions

By Jeffrey D. Sachs | Common Dreams | November 2, 2024

The recent BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia should mark the end of the Neocon delusions encapsulated in the subtitle of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Global Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Since the 1990s, the goal of American foreign policy has been “primacy,” aka global hegemony. The U.S. methods of choice have been wars, regime change operations, and unilateral coercive measures (economic sanctions). Kazan brought together 35 countries with more than half the world population that reject the U.S. bullying and that are not cowed by U.S. claims of hegemony.

In the Kazan Declaration, the countries underscored “the emergence of new centres of power, policy decision-making and economic growth, which can pave the way for a more equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order.” They emphasized “the need to adapt the current architecture of international relations to better reflect the contemporary realities,” while declaring their “commitment to multilateralism and upholding the international law, including the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) as its indispensable cornerstone.” They took particular aim at the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies, holding that “Such measures undermine the UN Charter, the multilateral trading system, the sustainable development and environmental agreements.”

Time has run out on the neocon delusions, and the U.S. wars of choice.

The neocon quest for global hegemony has deep historical roots in America’s belief in its exceptionalism. In 1630, John Winthrop invoked the Gospels in describing the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a “City on the Hill,” declaring grandiosely that “The eyes of all people are upon us.” In the 19th century, America was guided by Manifest Destiny, to conquer North America by displacing or exterminating the native peoples. In the course of World War II, Americans embraced the idea of the “American Century,” that after the war the U.S. would lead the world.

The U.S. delusions of grandeur were supercharged with the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. With America’s Cold War nemesis gone, the ascendant American neoconservatives conceived of a new world order in which the U.S. was the sole superpower and the policeman of the world. Their foreign policy instruments of choice were wars and regime-change operations to overthrow governments they disliked.

Following 9/11, the neocons planned to overthrow seven governments in the Islamic world, starting with Iraq, and then moving on to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. According to Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO, the neocons expected the U.S. to prevail in these wars in 5 years. Yet now, more than 20 years on, the neocon-instigated wars continue while the U.S. has achieved absolutely none of its hegemonic objectives.

The neocons reasoned back in the 1990s that no country or group of countries would ever dare to stand up to U.S. power. Brzezinski, for example, argued in The Grand Chessboard that Russia would have no choice but to submit to the U.S.-led expansion of NATO and the geopolitical dictates of the U.S. and Europe, since there was no realistic prospect of Russia successfully forming an anti-hegemonic coalition with China, Iran and others. As Brzezinski put it:

“Russia’s only real geostrategic option—the option that could give Russia a realistic international role and also maximize the opportunity of transforming and socially modernizing itself—is Europe. And not just any Europe, but the transatlantic Europe of the enlarging EU and NATO.” (emphasis added, Kindle edition, p. 118)

Brzezinski was decisively wrong, and his misjudgment helped to lead to the disaster of the war in Ukraine. Russia did not simply succumb to the U.S. plan to expand NATO to Ukraine, as Brzezinski assumed it would. Russia said a firm no, and was prepared to wage war to stop the U.S. plans. As a result of the neocon miscalculations vis-à-vis Ukraine, Russia is now prevailing on the battlefield, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are dead.

Nor—and this is the plain message from Kazan—did U.S. sanctions and diplomatic pressures isolate Russian in the least. In response to pervasive U.S. bullying, an anti-hegemonic counterweight has emerged. Simply put, the majority of the world does not want or accept U.S. hegemony, and is prepared to face it down rather than submit to its dictates. Nor does the U.S. anymore possess the economic, financial, or military power to enforce its will, if it ever did.

The countries that assembled in Kazan represent a clear majority of the world’s population. The nine BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as the original five, plus Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates), in addition to the delegations of 27 aspiring members, constitute 57 percent of the world’s population and 47 percent of the world’s output (measured at purchasing-power adjusted prices). The U.S., by contrast, constitutes 4.1 percent of the world population and 15 percent of world output. Add in the U.S. allies, and the population share of the U.S.-led alliance is around 15 percent of the global population.

The BRICS will gain in relative economic weight, technological prowess, and military strength in the years ahead. The combined GDP of the BRICS countries is growing at around 5 percent per annum, while the combined GDP of the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific is growing at around 2 percent per annum.

Even with their growing clout, however, the BRICS can’t replace the U.S. as a new global hegemon. They simply lack the military, financial, and technological power to defeat the U.S. or even to threaten its vital interests. The BRICS are in practice calling for a new and realistic multipolarity, not an alternative hegemony in which they are in charge.

American strategists should heed the ultimately positive message coming from Kazan. Not only has the neocon quest for global hegemony failed, it has been a costly disaster for the US and the world, leading to bloody and pointless wars, economic shocks, mass displacements of populations, and rising threats of nuclear confrontation. A more inclusive and equitable multipolar world order offers a promising path out of the current morass, one that can benefit the U.S. and its allies as well as the nations that met in Kazan.

The rise of the BRICS is therefore not merely a rebuke to the U.S., but also a potential opening for a far more peaceful and secure world order. The multipolar world order envisioned by the BRICS can be a boon for all countries, including the United States. Time has run out on the neocon delusions, and the U.S. wars of choice. The moment has arrived for a renewed diplomacy to end the conflicts raging around the world.

November 3, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

The US Is Funding 70% of Israel’s Wars

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | October 29, 2024

A new report by the Israeli outlet Calcalist reviewed Israeli military spending on wars since October 7, finding that Washington is funding 70% of Tel Aviv’s military costs. In a little over a year, the US has provided Israel with more than $20 billion in military aid.

“The scope of American aid since the beginning of the war is about 85 billion shekels… According to official estimates by the Bank of Israel, the total cost of the war is…approximately NIS 118 billion.” It continues, “Therefore, according to a simple calculation, The Americans financed about 70% of the war effort.”

According to the Cost of War Project, the US has given Israel $22.57 billion in military aid since the Hamas attack. Calcalist concludes without US support, Tel Aviv’s war would simply be unaffordable.

“There is no doubt that without the American aid the government deficit for the years 2024-2025 (which is one of the highest in the country’s history), would have increased by about 4.3 % GDP, which would have made it unfinanceable,” it says. “Therefore, it is doubtful whether this war would have been conducted as it is – neither in intensity nor in scope – without the American assistance.”

The US has sent Israel tens of thousands of bombs, artillery rounds, and tank shells. Those weapons have been used to commit countless war crimes against the Palestinian people of Gaza.

The official death toll in the besieged enclave now exceeds 43,000. However, a group of American healthcare workers who have spent time volunteering in Gaza estimate the actual death count to be over 118,000.

Dr Tammy Abughanim, a pediatric intensive-care surgeon, said, “We cannot do our jobs, because Israel has made our jobs impossible, and Israel has made our jobs impossible with the direct support of the United States.” She added, “We all know the obvious step is to stop supplying Israel with the arms that it is using, the weaponry that it is using to target and kill civilians.”

October 29, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Denmark Not Interested in Finding Truth About Nord Stream Explosion – Russian Ambassador

Sputnik – 29.10.2024

MOSCOW – Denmark prevented the initiation of an independent international investigation into the explosion of Nord Stream pipelines, the country is not interested in establishing the truth, Russian Ambassador to Denmark Vladimir Barbin said commenting on the possibility of the Danish side resuming the investigation.

“This would contradict the logic of the Danish side’s behavior. Denmark curtailed its own investigation, rejected any interaction with the Russian side, prevented the initiation of an independent international investigation under the auspices of the UN, concealed the fact of the presence of American warships in the area of ​​the explosions on the eve of this terrorist attack on the gas pipelines,” he said.

The head of the diplomatic mission noted that Copenhagen had no interest in establishing the truth.

“The Danish authorities are obviously concerned that the investigation may reveal inconvenient facts and evidence that will compromise both Euro-Atlantic solidarity and further arms supplies to the Kiev regime,” the ambassador added.

Denmark and Sweden stopped investigating the Nord Stream explosions in February 2024.

The explosions on two Russian export gas pipelines to Europe, Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2, occurred on September 26, 2022. Germany, Denmark and Sweden did not rule out deliberate sabotage. Nord Stream AG, the operator of Nord Stream, said that the destruction of the gas pipelines was unprecedented and that it was impossible to estimate the repair time. The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office has initiated a case on an act of international terrorism. Russia has repeatedly requested data on the explosions on Nord Stream, but has never received it, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

October 29, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Economics, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Case Against Net Zero – Unachievable Disastrous Pointless

By Robin Guenier | Climate Scepticism | October 14, 2024

In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the UK Government to ensure that by 2050 ‘the net UK carbon account’ was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990; ‘carbon account’ refers to CO2 and ‘other targeted greenhouse gas emissions’. Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.i

Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, potentially disastrous and in any case pointless. And that’s true whether or not humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to increased global temperatures.

1. It’s unachievable.

A modern, advanced economy depends on fossil fuels; something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.ii Examples fall into two categories: (i) vehicles and machines such as those used in agriculture, mining, mineral processing, building, heavy transportation, commercial shipping, commercial aviation, the military and emergency services and (ii) products such as nitrogen fertilisers, cement and concrete, primary steel, plastics, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insulation, tyres and asphalt. All the above require either the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives: easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives have yet to be developed.iii

Although wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K. – because of its latitude, solar power contributes only a small percentage of the UK’s electricity – it has significant problems: (i) the substantial and increasing costs of building, operating and maintaining the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable, comprehensive non-fossil fuel grid by 2030 as planned by the Government; (iii) the vast scale of what’s involved (a multitude of enormous wind turbines, immense amounts of space iv and large quantities of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials); and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see 2 below).v This means that the UK may be unable to generate sufficient electricity by 2030 for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs (electric vehicles) and heat pumps and for the energy requirements of industry and of the huge new data centres being developed to support the rapid growth of AI (artificial intelligence).

In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough skilled technical managers, electrical, heating and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other skilled tradespeople required to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem worsened by the Government’s plans for massively increased house building.vi

2. It would be socially and economically disastrous.

The Government aims for 100% renewable electricity by 2030 but has yet to publish a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun; a problem that’s complicated by the imminent retirement of elderly nuclear and fossil fuel power plants. The Government has indicated that back-up may be provided by new gas-fired power plants vii but it has yet to publish any detail. That of course would not be a ‘clean’ solution and it seems the Government’s answer is to fit them with carbon capture and underground storage (CCS) systems: a ‘solution’ that’s very expensive, controversial and commercially unproven at scale.viii This issue is desperately important: without full back-up, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – potentially ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems for millions of people, including serious health consequences threatening everyone and in particular the poor and vulnerable.ix

Net Zero’s major problem however is its overall cost and the impact of that on the economy. Because there’s no coherent plan for the project’s delivery, little attention has been given to overall cost; but with several trillion pounds seeming likely to be a correct estimate it would almost certainly be unaffordable.x The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale could destroy Britain’s credit standing and put an impossible burden on millions of households and businesses. It could quite possibly mean that the UK would face economic collapse.

But Net Zero is already causing one serious economic problem: because of renewable subsidies, carbon taxes, grid balancing costs and capacity market costs, the UK has the highest industrial and domestic electricity prices in the developed world.xi The additional costs referred to elsewhere in this essay – for example the costs of establishing a comprehensive non-fossil grid and of providing gas-fired power plants fitted with CCS as back-up – can only make this worse. Unless urgent remedial action is taken, the government is most unlikely to be able to achieve its principal mission of increased economic growth.

Net Zero would have two other dire consequences:

(i) As China essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example, lithium, cobalt, aluminium, processed graphite, nickel, copper and so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the UK would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting its energy and overall national security at most serious risk.xii It would also mean that, while impoverishing Britain, Net Zero would be enriching China.xiii

(ii) The vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering throughout the world, affecting in particular fragile, unspoilt ecosystems and many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people; the continued pursuit of Net Zero would make all this far worse.xiv

3. In any case it’s pointless.

For two reasons:

(i) It’s absurd to regard the closure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting plants in the UK and their ‘export’ mainly to SE Asian countries (especially China), commonly with poor environmental regulation and often powered by coal-fired electricity – thereby increasing global emissions – as a positive step towards Net Zero. Yet efforts to ‘decarbonise’ the UK mean that’s what’s happening: it’s why we no longer produce many key chemicals and, by closing our few remaining blast furnaces, will soon be unable to produce commercially viable primary steel (see endnote iii).xv

(ii) Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 70% of GHG emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt (by international agreement) from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security.xvi As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. As the UK is the source of just 0.72% of global emissions any further emission reduction it may achieve would essentially have no impact on the global position.xvii

In other words, Net Zero means the UK is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, potentially disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that could result in Britain’s economic destruction.

Robin Guenier October 2024

Guenier is a retired, writer, speaker and business consultant. He has a degree in law from Oxford, is qualified as a barrister and for twenty years was chief executive of various high-tech companies, including the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency reporting to the UK Cabinet Office. A Freeman of the City of London, he was Executive Director of Taskforce 2000, founder chair of the medical online research company MedixGlobal and a regular contributor to TV and radio.

End notes:

i http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1/crossheading/the-target-for-2050

ii See Vaclav Smil’s important book, How the World Really Works: https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/

iii Regarding steel for example see the penultimate paragraph of this article: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/the-blast-furnace-800-years-of-technology.

iv See Andrews & Jelley, “Energy Science”, 3rd ed., Oxford, page 16: http://tiny.cc/4jhezz

v For a view of wind power’s many problems, see this: https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/ This is also relevant: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/debunking-cheap-renewables-myth

vi A detailed Government report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65855506fc07f3000d8d46bd/Employer_skills_survey_2022_research_report.pdf See also pages 10 and 11 of the Royal Academy of Engineering report (Note 6 below).

vii See this report by the Royal Academy of Engineering: https://nepc.raeng.org.uk/media/uoqclnri/electricity-decarbonisation-report.pdf (Go to section 2.4.3 on page 22.) This interesting report contains a lot of valuable information.

viii This International Institute for Sustainable Development report on CCS is informative: https://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/unpacking-carbon-capture-storage-technology And see the second and third paragraphs here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/12/fossil-fuel-companies-environment-greenwashing (the rest of the article is also interesting).

ix This article shows how more renewables could result in blackouts: http://tiny.cc/lnhezz

x The National Grid (now the National Energy System Operator (NESO)) has said net zero will cost £3 trillion: https://www.current-news.co.uk/reaching-net-zero-to-cost-3bn-says-national-grid-eso/. And in this presentation Michael Kelly, Emeritus Professor of Technology at Cambridge, shows how the cost would amount to several trillion pounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkImqOxMqvU

xi The facts, an explanation of why Net Zero is responsible and a proposed solution are cogently set out here: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/uk-electricity-prices-highest-in-world.

xii https://www.dw.com/en/the-eus-risky-dependency-on-critical-chinese-metals/a-61462687

xiii Discussed here: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/24/net-zero-is-impoverishing-the-west-and-enriching-china/

xiv See this for example: http://tiny.cc/3lhezz. Arguably however the most compelling and harrowing evidence is found in Siddharth Kara’s book Cobalt Red – about the horrors of cobalt mining in the Congo: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250284297/cobaltred

xv A current example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70zxjldqnxo

xvi This essay shows how developing countries have taken control of climate negotiations: https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/the-west-vs-the-rest-2.1.1.pdf (Nothing that’s happened since 2020 changes the conclusion: for example see the ‘Dubai Stocktake’ agreed at COP28 in 2023 of which item 38 unambiguously confirms developing countries’ exemption from any emission reduction obligation.)

xvii This comprehensive analysis, based on an EU Commission database, provides – re global greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 emissions – detailed information by country from 1990 to 2023: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2024?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table

October 26, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Environmentalism, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

How Europe’s New Political Class Began Rejecting Reality

By Glenn Diesen | October 26, 2024

Russia considers NATO’s incursion into Ukraine to be an existential threat, and NATO has openly stated its intention to make Ukraine a member state after the war. Without a political settlement that restores Ukraine’s neutrality, Russia will therefore likely annex the strategic territories it cannot accept ending up under NATO control and then turn what remains of Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. As the war is being lost, the rational policy for the Europeans would therefore be to offer an agreement based on ending NATO’s eastward expansion to save Ukrainian lives, territory and the nation itself. Yet, no European leader has been able to even suggest such a solution publicly. Why?

Present the average European politician, journalist or academic with the following thought experiment: If you were an advisor to the Kremlin, what would be your advice to Russia if there are no negotiations to resolve the Ukraine War? Most would feel morally compelled to give ridiculous answers such as advising the Kremlin to capitulate and withdraw, even if Russia is on the cusp of victory. Any impulse to adhere to reason and address Russia’s security concerns would likely be deterred by the threat of being shamed for “legitimising” Russia’s invasion.

What explains the decline of strategic thinking, pragmatism and rationality in European politics?

Europe’s Reality as a Social Construction

The political class that emerged in Europe after the Cold War have become excessively ideological and committed to narratives to socially construct new realities. The Europeans embrace of postmodernism entails questioning the existence of objective reality as our understanding of reality is shaped by language, culture and unique historical perspectives. The postmodernists therefore often seek to change narratives and language as a source of political power. If reality is a social construction, then the grand narratives can be more important than facts. Indeed, ideological narratives must be defended from inconvenient facts.

The European project had the benign intentions of creating a common liberal democratic European identity that would transcend the divisive national rivalry and power politics of the past. The relevance of objective reality is contested, and narratives about reality are believed to reflect power structures that can be dismantled and reorganised.

The prevalence of constructivism and focus on “speech acts” in the EU has led to the belief that even using realist analysis and discussing competing national interests entail legitimising realpolitik and thus socially constructing a more dangerous reality. Speech acts refer to the use of language as a source of power by constructing political realities and influencing outcomes. By reducing the focus on security competition in the international system, it is assumed that power politics can be mitigated.

Is it possible to socially construct a new reality? Do we transcend security competition by not addressing it or do we neglect the responsible management of security competition. Can we transcend national rivalries by focusing on common values or does the neglect of national interests result in decline?

Socially Constructing a New Europe

The concept of the “rhetorical trap” explains how the EU reached a consensus to offer membership to Central and Eastern European states when it was not in the self-interest of all EU member states to do so. The rhetorical trap was set by first having member states accept the ideological premise that the legitimacy of the EU project was based on the integration of liberal democratic states. By appealing to the values and norms as the foundation of the EU, a rhetorical trap was set as the sense of moral obligation shamed EU member states from vetoing the enlargement process. The use of language and framing could thus influence European states to not act in their own interests as they were shamed into compliance.

Schimmelfennig, who introduced the concept of the rhetorical trap, argues that “politics is a struggle over legitimacy, and this struggle is fought out with rhetorical arguments”.[1] The rhetorical trap simplifies a complex issue into a binary choice of either supporting the enlargement process or betraying liberal democratic ideals. The moral framing shuts down important discussions about the potential downsides of accepting new members and how to address these challenges in the best way. Dissent could be crushed as framing the issue as a moral imperative meant that those who even questioned the moral framing could be accused of undermining the sacred values that uphold the legitimacy of the entire European project.

The concept of “Euro-speak” entails using emotional rhetoric to legitimise an EU-centric understanding of Europe that de-legitimises alternative concepts of Europe. Centralising decision-making and transferring power from elected parliaments to Brussels is typically referred to as “European integration”, “more Europe”, or “ever-closer Union”. Neighbouring non-member states that adhere to the EU’s external governance are making the “European choice”, confirming their “European perspective”, and embracing “shared values”. Dissent can be delegitimised as “populism”, “nationalism”, “Euro-phobia” and “anti-Europeanism”, which undermines the “common voice”, “solidarity” and the “European dream”.

The language has also changed in terms of how the West asserts power in the world. Torture is “enhanced interrogation techniques”, gunboat diplomacy is “freedom of navigation”, dominance is “negotiations from a position of strength”, subversion is “democracy promotion”, coup is “democratic revolution”, invasion is “humanitarian intervention”, secession is “self-determination”, propaganda is “public diplomacy”, censorship is “content moderation”, and the more recent example of China’s competitive advantage that is labelled “over-capacity”. George Orwell’s concept of Newspeak entailed constraining language to the point it became impossible to express dissent.

NATO and the EU: Redividing Europe or “European Integration”

Western leaders initially recognised that abandoning an inclusive pan-European security architecture by expanding NATO and the EU would likely provoke another Cold War. The predictable consequence of constructing a new Europe without Russia would be to redivide the continent and then fight over where the new dividing lines should be drawn.

President Bill Clinton cautioned in January 1994 that NATO expansion risked to “draw a new line between East and West that could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation”.[2] Clinton’s Secretary of Defence, William Perry, even considered resigning in opposition to expanding NATO. Perry noted that most people in the administration knew the betrayal would create conflicts with Russia, yet they believed it did not matter as Russia was weak.[3] George Kennan, Jack Matlock and a multitude of American political leaders also framed it as a betrayal against Russia and warned against redividing Europe. These concerns were also shared by many European leaders.

What happened to the discourse and warnings about instigating another Cold War? The narrative of the EU and NATO as a “force for good” that advance liberal democratic values had to be defended against the “outdated” narrative of power politics. Russian criticism of reviving the zero-sum security architecture of bloc politics was presented as evidence of Russia’s “zero-sum mentality”. Russia’s inability to recognise that NATO and the EU were positive-sum actors that transcend power politics allegedly revealed Russia’s inability to overcome the dangerous mindset of realpolitik, which was caused by Russia’s enduring authoritarianism and great power ambitions. The EU was merely constructing a “ring of friends”, while Russia allegedly demanded “spheres of influence”.

Russia was presented with the dilemma of either embracing the role of an apprentice aiming to join the civilised world by accepting NATO’s dominant role as a force for good, or Russia could resist NATO’s expansionism and “out-of-area missions” but then be treated as a dangerous force to be contained. Either way, Russia would not have a seat at the table in Europe. Liberal democratic tropes justified why the largest state in Europe should eventually be the only state without representation.

The expansion of NATO and the EU as exclusive blocs also imposes an “us-or-them” dilemma on the deeply divided societies in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Yet, rather than recognising the predictable destabilisation of divided societies in a divided Europe, it is presented as positive-sum “European integration” despite the implicit decoupling from Russia. Societies prioritising closer relations with Russia rather than NATO and the EU are delegitimised for rejecting democracy while their leaders are dismissed as authoritarian “Putinists” who deprive their people of their European dream.

The moral framing of the world convinced European leaders to support a coup to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit. It was common knowledge that only a small minority of Ukrainians desired NATO membership and that it would likely trigger a war, yet liberal democratic rhetoric still convinced European leaders to ignore reality and support disastrous policies. Common sense could be shamed.

Western political leaders, journalists and academics seeking to mitigate the security competition by addressing Russia’s legitimate security concerns are similarly accused of carrying water for Putin, repeating Kremlin talking points, “legitimising” Russian policies, and undermining liberal democracy. With the binary moral framing of good versus evil, intellectual pluralism and dissent are castigated as immoral.

Besides being plagued by war, Europe is also undergoing economic decline. The Europeans are buying Russian energy through India as an intermediary as they are morally obliged to follow failed sanctions. The virtue-signalling contributes to European industries becoming less competitive. The de-industrialisation of Europe is also caused by the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, yet the event that is destroying decades of industrial development is memory-holed as the only two suspects are the US and Ukraine. Furthermore, the US offers subsidies to the subsequent uncompetitive European industries if they relocate across the Atlantic. In the absence of acceptable narratives, the Europeans simply keep silent and do not defend their national interests. The narrative of liberal democracies united by values rather than divided by competing interests must be defended from inconvenient facts.

Diplomacy, Neutrality & the Virtue of War

Diplomacy does not conform with the constructivist effort to socially construct a new reality. The point of departure in international security is the security competition in which efforts to increase the security of a state can decrease the security of another. Diplomacy entails enhancing mutual understanding and pursuing compromise to mitigate the security competition.

The social constructivists often consider diplomacy to be problematic as it “legitimises” the security competition that recognises NATO can undermine legitimate Russian security interests. Furthermore, it risks legitimising the opponent and creating a moral equivalency between Western states and Russia. The European elites believe that [they can] legitimise outdated and dangerous concepts of power politics by engaging in mutual understanding. The absurd conviction that negotiation is “appeasement” has become normalised in Europe.

Diplomacy therefore has been reimagined as a relationship between a subject and an object, between a teacher and a student. In this relationship, NATO and the EU consider their role as “socialising” other states. As a civilising teacher, the Enlightened West uses diplomacy as a pedagogic instrument in which states are “punished” or “rewarded” by their preparedness to accept unilateral concessions. While diplomacy historically has been imperative during times of crisis, the European elites believe they must instead punish “bad behaviour” by suspending diplomacy once a crisis breaks out. Meeting with opponents during crises runs the risk of legitimising them.

Neutrality was until recently considered a moral stance that mitigates security competition and enables a state to serve as a mediator rather than becoming entangled and escalating conflicts. In a struggle between good and evil, neutrality is also deemed to be immoral. The belt of neutral states that existed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries has now been dismantled and even war becomes a virtuous defence of moral principles.

How to Restore Rationality & Correct the Post-Cold War Mistakes?

The failure to establish a mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement that would remove the dividing lines in Europe and enhance indivisible security has resulted in a predictable catastrophe. Yet, course correction requires nothing less than reconsidering the policies of the past 30 years and the concept of Europe at a moment when animosity is rampant on both sides. The European project was envisioned as the embodiment of Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis and an entire political class has based their legitimacy on conforming to the idea that developing a Europe without Russia was a recipe for peace and stability.

Does Europe have the rationality, political imagination and courage to critically assess its own mistakes and contribution to the current crisis, or will all criticism continue to be denounced as a threat to liberal democracy?

[1] Schimmelfennig, Frank, 2003. The EU, NATO and the integration of Europe: Rules and rhetoric, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, page 208.

[2] B. Clinton, ‘Remarks to Multinational Audience of Future Leaders of Europe’, US Diplomatic Mission to Germany, 9 January 1994.

[3] J. Borger, ‘Russian hostility ‘partly caused by west’, claims former US defence head’, The Guardian, 9 March 2016.

October 26, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Russia to seize income from frozen Western assets – finance minister

RT | October 24, 2024

Russia will respond in kind to the West’s use of the income generated by its frozen central-bank reserves, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov has said.

The US and its allies have blocked an estimated $300 billion in assets belonging to the Russian central bank since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. The bulk of the funds, around €197 billion ($213 billion), are being held at the Brussels-based clearinghouse Euroclear. On Wednesday, Washington announced a decision to use the proceeds from the frozen assets to repay a multibillion-dollar loan to Kiev.

“If Western countries have begun utilizing the income from the frozen Russian reserves, we will do exactly the same,” Siluanov told reporters on Thursday. “We have frozen money from ‘unfriendly’ companies and organizations. We keep this money in our accounts in the same way and will use the income from these assets similarly,” he elaborated.

The income from these funds will be allocated to “the needs of the economy, the needs of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation,” the minister added, noting that the corresponding decisions have already been made.

The US said on Wednesday that it will provide Kiev with a $20 billion loan as part of a broader $50 billion G7 package. The use of windfall profits from the blocked Russian assets will provide Ukraine assistance “without burdening taxpayers,” US President Joe Biden stated.

A day earlier, the European Parliament backed allocating a loan of up to €35 billion ($38 billion) for Kiev using the immobilized Russian assets as collateral for the repayments. According to Euroclear, the frozen funds had generated €3.4 billion ($3.6 billion) in interest as of mid-July.

Russia has repeatedly warned that seizing its assets would amount to “theft” and would violate international law and undermine reserve currencies, the global financial system, and the world economy.

The International Monetary Fund has also been raising concerns that such actions could undermine trust in the Western financial system. Siluanov earlier warned that global players are closely following the story involving the Russian assets and are drawing their own conclusions.

While the finance minister did not elaborate on the amount of Western assets currently held in Russia, previous calculations by RIA Novosti put the figure at roughly equal the size of the Russian funds frozen abroad. The news agency reported that total foreign direct investments in the Russian economy by the EU, G7, Australia, and Switzerland amounted to $288 billion as of the end of 2022.

October 25, 2024 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

BRICS rejects ‘illegal’ Western sanctions

RT | October 23, 2024

BRICS countries strongly oppose and condemn the practice of unlawful politically motivated sanctions that undermine the development of other states, according to a joint declaration adopted at the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia.

Entitled ‘Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security,’ the 43-page ‘Kazan Declaration’ was released on Wednesday following a range of multi-format meetings by the BRICS leaders.

“We are deeply concerned about the disruptive effect of unlawful unilateral coercive measures, including illegal sanctions, on the world economy, international trade, and the achievement of the sustainable development goals,” the declaration reads.

The joint statement pointed out that such measures are “inconsistent with rules” of the WTO, undermine the UN Charter and jeopardize the multilateral trading system.

The sanctions also “negatively impact economic growth, energy, health and food security exacerbating poverty and environmental challenges,” the document said.

The declaration underlined that the “unilateral coercive measures, inter-alia in the form of unilateral economic sanctions and secondary sanctions that are contrary to international law,” have far-reaching implications for the human rights, including the right to development, of the general population of targeted states, disproportionally affecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.

“Therefore, we call for their elimination,” the BRICS statement stressed.

The group’s members have been deepening their economic ties and strengthening cooperation despite unprecedented Western sanctions against Russia and the threat of secondary sanctions. The US and its allies have introduced a record number of restrictions against Moscow, freezing an estimated $300 billion in assets belonging to the Russian state, as well as sanctioning individuals and entities, including those in the energy, metals and mining, and financial sectors.

Moscow has repeatedly condemned the curbs as illegal, responding with travel bans on Western officials and warning of other countermeasures.

Meanwhile, some high-ranking Western politicians and diplomats have acknowledged that the sanctions on Russia are ineffective, noting that the scope for further restrictions is narrowing.

October 23, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Solidarity and Activism | | Leave a comment

G7 Not Planning to Unfreeze Russian Assets After End of Ukraine Conflict – Reports

Sputnik – 22.10.2024

The Group of Seven nations will announce later this month that they will keep Russian assets frozen in their jurisdictions even after the end of hostilities in Ukraine, media reported on Tuesday, citing an Italy-led draft statement.

“We … reaffirm that Russia’s sovereign assets in our jurisdictions will remain immobilized until Russia ends its aggression and pays for the damage it has caused to Ukraine,” the draft of the leaders’ statement, quoted by Nikkei, read.

The G7 intends to guarantee a $50 billion loan for Ukraine, to be repaid by windfall profits from the frozen Russian assets, the news agency said, citing multiple G7 and EU sources.

Last month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recommended EU member states to consider loaning Ukraine 35 billion euros ($38 billion) that will be repaid with windfall profits earned by Russia’s frozen assets. The proposal was endorsed by the European Parliament earlier on Tuesday. European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders said that the G7 would announce their contributions to Kiev’s $50 billion loan secured by Russian assets in Washington on October 25.

October 22, 2024 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

EU to tap frozen Russian assets

RT | October 22, 2024

The European Parliament has approved a €35 billion ($38 billion) loan to Ukraine to be repaid with revenues from frozen Russian assets, according to an official statement on Tuesday. The financing fulfils the EU’s share of a $50 billion aid package for Kiev agreed by G7 countries in June.

MEPs approved the move with 518 votes in favor, 56 against and 61 abstentions, the parliament announced. The funds will be transferred through the end of next year, it added.

Future revenues from frozen Russian Central Bank assets will be made available to Ukraine to service the EU loan and loans from other G7 partners. The statement added that Kiev may also allocate the funds “as it sees fit.”

The proposal was endorsed earlier this month by EU governments. The European Council now plans to adopt it as a regulation, and it will enter into force after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU, the statement notes.

The EU froze approximately €210 billion ($227 billion) in Russian Central Bank assets following the start of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Russia has denounced the move as “theft.” The immobilized assets had generated €3.4 billion ($3.7 billion) in interest as of mid-July, according to Brussels-based central securities depository Euroclear, which holds most of Russia’s funds. In July, a transfer of €1.5 billion ($1.6 billion) of that money was approved by the European Commission to support Ukraine’s “military capabilities.”

The US is reportedly planning to contribute up to $20 billion to the G7 package, also on condition that the funds are repaid using proceeds generated by the immobilized Russian assets.

The US previously expressed concern that the EU policy of reviewing Russia sanctions every six months makes repayment of the loan uncertain as it could result in a lapse in restrictions. In response, Brussels proposed extending the renewal timeframe to three years. Hungary opposed the idea and said it would delay a decision until after the US presidential election on November 5.

Kiev’s Western backers have been trying to accelerate negotiations over the loan due to mounting concern that Washington’s aid to the country could be cut off if Donald Trump returns to the White House, Financial Times reported last week. The former US president has repeatedly threatened to scale back assistance if he is elected.

Moscow maintains that any seizure of its funds is illegal under international law and would further undermine global trust in the Western financial system.

October 22, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US-Russia trade expected to fall to lowest level since 1992 under Biden regime

Sputnik – 19.10.2024

MOSCOW – The trade between Russia and the United States is expected to decline to $3.7 billion by the end of this year, the lowest level since 1992, according to Sputnik’s calculations based on data of the US statistical service.

Russian exports to the US from January to August amounted to $2.26 billion, down from $3.4 billion the previous year. Based on current trends, annual shipments may reach approximately $3.12 billion, which would be a third lower than previous year’s volumes and the lowest level since 1993.

Meanwhile, US business sales to Russia fell by 16% over eight months, totaling $334 million. For the year, they are expected to reach a record low of $539.3 million, down by 10% compared to 2023, according to Sputnik’s calculations.

During Joe Biden’s presidency, trade between the two countries has decreased sixfold. In 2020, the last year of Donald Trump’s term, trade was at $21.8 billion. This figure was slightly lower in 2016 under Barack Obama, who initiated the first wave of sanctions against Russia, at $20.4 billion.

October 19, 2024 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

US to pay $20 billion into loan for Ukraine – FT

RT | October 19, 2024

The US is set to provide up to $20 billion to Ukraine as part of a G7 loan, which will then be repaid using proceeds generated by the Russian assets immobilized by the West as part of Ukraine-related sanctions, Financial Times has reported, citing sources.

Kiev’s backers have been trying to accelerate negotiations over the loan in an effort to secure funding to Ukraine before the end of the year, due to mounting concern that Washington’s aid to the country could be cut off if Donald Trump wins the upcoming US election, FT noted, in an article posted on Friday. The former US president has repeatedly threatened to scale back assistance to Kiev if he were elected.

The US and its allies have frozen an estimated $300 billion in assets belonging to the Russian state after the Ukraine conflict broke out in 2022. The bulk of the money, nearly €197 billion ($214 billion) is being held by Brussels-based clearinghouse Euroclear. The immobilized funds have generated €3.4 billion ($3.7 billion) in interest as of mid-July, according to the depository.

Moscow has denounced the freeze as “theft” and said that any seizure of its funds would be against the law and would further undermine global trust in the Western financial system.

In June, G7 members agreed to grant Kiev a $50 billion loan to be financed by interest from the frozen Russian assets. The US and the EU were initially expected to provide $20 billion each as Canada, Japan and the UK were set to jointly lend the rest of the massive loan.

Later, to reassure allies that the bloc’s sanctions regime on the funds is not lifted, Brussels proposed a three-year extension of the EU’s mandate to freeze Russian assets. EU lawmakers have been renewing their sanctions every six months by unanimous decision, meaning that each vote may bring about a break in restrictions. Hungary opposed the proposal, and announced plans to postpone the decision until the US presidential elections on November 5.

Last week, the EU approved its own contribution of up to €35 billion to the G7 loan, but the bloc would need to contribute less if Washington provided the full $20 billion, Reuters reported last week. The funds, which will be managed by the World Bank, will be used for several purposes, including defense or humanitarian needs.

US senior officials, however, told FT that Washington would provide the full agreed $20 billion, even if the EU failed to convince Hungary’s premier Viktor Orban to drop his veto on extending EU sanctions, which had previously been voiced among the US demands. According to two sources cited by the paper, G7 finance ministers will make a statement on the distribution and structure of the loan on the sidelines of the IMF and World Bank meetings on October 25.

October 19, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »