A Crooke & More Monday

Some excellent writing has surfaced, some of which will be repeated below, Crooke’s SCF essay as usual and a very insightful recap and more by Tariq Marzbaan writing in Al-Mayadeen. But first kudos must be extended to Dmitry Orlov for his “War and Punishment” entry at his blog where he invents the pen name “Tolstoyevsky” and opens thusly:

"War and Punishment" is not just a great novel by a great Russian author Tolstoyevsky; it is also Russia's foreign policy. Suppose you ignite a war on Russia's border with the hopes of destroying Russia — and lose it. What do you suppose will happen to you next? Peace? No, you will be punished. Your punishment, for didactic purposes, could be separated into five categories: financial, economic, political, social and cultural:

How the genuine instigators of the Ukraine conflict and all the others waged to support the Wolfowitz Doctrine will be punished remains to be seen, but billions of humans want to see it applied. A major “moving along” point made by Putin and getting reemphasized today by Lavrov is the fact that the Euro-Atlantic security system is dead in answer to a question about Putin’s Eurasian Security Plan:

As for our joint initiative with our Belarusian friends, it concerns the entire Eurasian continent. A number of countries that we are talking about now are located on the continent of Eurasia.

Our proposal is addressed to everyone who wants to consider the prospect of creating a new security system on an equal basis, taking into account the interests and on the basis of a balance of interests of all countries of the continent, without outside interference. It was the voice from abroad, from abroad, from across the ocean that played a decisive role in the fact that the Euro-Atlantic security system completely discredited itself and failed. [My Emphasis]

Going forward might be a more proper expression. The opening excerpt to Marzbaan’s essay is “Much of the world is tired of monsters and seeks not a "re-set" but a rebirth of its original identities and historical legacies… which have been held too long hostage by a ruthless all-devouring Empire.” And so it is in many ways a rebirth, particularly of the UN System that’s been captured by the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals for most of its existence, although it was formulated as a multipolar institution. I’ll note again that Putin’s Eurasian Security Plan only differs in its title to Xi Jinping’s Global Security Initiative as both proclaim the same goal—Indivisible Security for All. And Indivisible Security was also the UN Charter’s goal. So, let’s examine “The Moribund vs. the Nascent” that unfortunately will exclude the three graphics that can be seen at the link in a montage and individually:

Since the early 1900s, Mackinder's "Heartland doctrine" dominated the geopolitical mindset and actions of the West (primarily the British, but also Nazi Germany adopted this obsession). The strategy initially envisaged the undermining, dismantling and total takeover of the "Russian Empire"… the domination of the entire European and Asian continents would follow… and then the rest of the world. As Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Friedmann of Stratfor pointed out, it was always about controlling the rich resources and geopolitical position of Russia and Asia.

But following WW2, during the ensuing Cold War, this essentially British agenda no longer seemed to be the order of the day, as the imperial and colonial centre of power had shifted away from the UK to the US… and the US had already begun pursuing its many imperial ambitions in other parts of the world to expand its own influence (through various wars, proxy wars and conflicts around the world (Vietnam, Korea, West Asia, Africa, Central, and South America).

For a while (in historical terms: 1945-1989) it seemed as though the "Heartland Doctrine" no longer had any relevance. In reality, it led a shadowy existence, as no one spoke about it openly… because a certain group – the neocons – did not yet have enough sway over the politics and public opinion of the US… But we know now that they remained engaged in this agenda behind the scenes.

The global geopolitical situation began to shift in the late 1980s. (And the big change came abruptly in 1989 with the Fall of the Wall in Berlin and the end of the Soviet Union.) The haste and zeal with which first Gorbachev and then Yeltsin sought to bring about and implement changes and "reforms" in the giant Soviet empire proved later on to be counterproductive, if not fatal, and not only led to the collapse of the USSR but also severely debilitated Russia. This was compounded by the Soviets' ingenuous belief that, with the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the enmity and the ideological conflict with the West would also disappear… and that "normality" would take its place. (Yeltsin to Jeffrey Sachs, from 1:19:08: "We want to be normal.") But exactly what the Russians (or the Soviets) understood back then by "normality" (with regards to capitalism/US imperialism) remains unclear to this day.

Following this dramatic downfall, Russia was economically, militarily, politically, culturally and socially devastated. 

The Western elites around the neocons, intoxicated with the unexpected "victory" over their "enemy", set out to devour Russia and the rest of the former USSR. They saw themselves as the undisputed autocrats of the world according to the motto: "winner takes all". Now nothing stood in the way of the true "American dream", namely the domination of the entire world –  excepting perhaps those few smaller states that had not yet recognised this paradigm shift or were not prepared to accept it. To deal with those pesky obstacles, neoliberal tools came to the rescue: infiltration, the corrupting of governments and their elites, colour revolutions… and, if those didn't help, bombing and terror.

The first bombs fell on Iraq in 1990; in 1999, NATO, helmed by the US, bombed Yugoslavia; then followed the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria… According to US General Wesley Clark (link), seven countries were to be invaded within five years and subjected to "regime change": Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

In the meantime, the unstoppable eastward expansion of NATO began, despite the promises made to Russia. Russia's offer of a partnership between equals and even its participation in NATO was rejected. Instead, the US demanded Russia's subordination to its hegemony… but this was rebuffed by Yevgeny Primakov (1999 – "the U-turn across the Atlantic") and again by Vladimir Putin… who has now set Russia on a whole other set of sovereign tracks.

Today, while the neocons remain "stuck behind at the Mackinder station" of an outdated, festering British imperialist agenda… the locomotive of The Grand Eurasian Project is speeding ahead on newly laid tracks - not seeking hegemony but harmonic partnerships in a new and multipolar world.

The descent into irrationality

The centuries of imperialist hegemony of the Western elites, which had secured a life of progress and prosperity for themselves and their subjects at home by deliberately preventing these very advantages for others - a key principle of colonialist ideology that guaranteed them success - led to the moulding of their psyche, general mindset, personality and ultimately their identity, the effects of which can be seen in their supremacy, racism, fascism, and hubris.

However, the Western elites began to fear that their liberal capitalist system would collapse sooner or later, with the consequence that they (the elites) would be confronted with serious and dangerous economic, political and social upheavals, revolts, revolutions at home, and a loss of power and hegemony on a global scale.

Their wars in Gaza and Ukraine, the bellicose tensions created by them in the South China Sea, as well as the actions, statements, and reactions of Western politicians and their media, clearly demonstrate their desperation.

In the face of resistance and opposition from other nations, Western elites have always responded with threats, sanctions, and the corruption of their leaders, and if these were not effective they resorted to covert terror ops, proxy wars, and ultimately hot wars.

But now they are standing on the edge of their own abyss, and the abyss is gazing back into them. The mere thought of losing power and prestige is fueling their insanity.

Their growing panic led them to become increasingly irrational in their decisions, leading them to make reckless misjudgments and grave errors.

Their own states became saturated with Russophobia, Islamophobia, cancel culture, the arming of police and security agencies for counter-insurgency purposes, detrimental immigration policies, the defamation and persecution of opposition figures, the synchronisation of the media, the breakdown of infrastructures, of education, of society itself, a general erosion of morals and ethics… and a Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab, who are concocting deranged plans for the future of mankind.

The agony of the Empire: it cannot win, and it cannot walk away…

The "Cold War" was "cold" because a kind of military balance was created between "East" and "West", as both sides consisted of territories with nuclear powers. Today, not much has changed from a nuclear-military point of view with regard to the possession of nuclear weapons. However, the situation back then (during the Cold War) required politicians and elites in the West to think and act realistically and rationally, which is no longer the case today – and that is the critical point at which we find ourselves.

The point has been reached where the West can only decide in favour of a retreat… or a fight to the finish, as it is ultimately an existential battle for them. And - seeing as there are currently too many insane people, contemptuous of human life, in political and military leadership positions in the Western camp who operate according to the motto "all or nothing" and "if we don't get to have it, no one else should get it either" - it seems they are deciding in favour of fighting to the bitter and final end, which could lead to nuclear Armageddon.

With such a mindset, the West has led itself into an extremely desperate situation that is typical of people who are suicidal, with one difference: the West has chosen to play the role of suicide bombers.

But a third potential option for the Western elites might be - if they still refuse to admit their defeat but were at least able to finally feel deterred by a nuclear threat - that they create a new division in the world between "the West and the Rest" by erecting an Iron Curtain of their own and … a kind of new "Cold War", during which they would go on living in a bubble where they could remain under the illusion of preserving their supremacy in a delusional manner… like a patient in a psychiatric clinic who cannot be cured but has at least been pacified.

This sorry state of affairs is best manifested in the figure of the "most powerful man in the world" (as promulgated by the Western propagandists): Joe Biden (aka Genocide Joe). The figure of Biden – almost by some "cosmic coincidence" - embodies today's Western world. He is in fact its icon... moribund and rotting... with a zombified view of the world, clinging not to life but only to ruthless power… and completely out of touch with reality.

Without realising it, Tucker Carlson just described in this video (in which he says: "Biden is dying in real time") not just Biden's condition, but the condition of the entire Western hegemony.

The Hegemony has nearly reached its end… but it is not going quietly.

The other side… entering an era of new global perceptions and visions for harmony and cooperation

The decaying state of the West has led to the empowerment of more and more non-Western states, starting with China, Russia, Iran, India, South Africa, Brazil… all of whom already had their own bitter historical experiences with the supremacist and violent nature of Western colonialism. Following the formation of BRICS and other such alliances, other non-western countries have begun to turn away from the West and seek more opportune alliances and harmonious partnerships.

In Asia and elsewhere in the world, a multi-nodal, poly-centrist, multipolar system is now emerging, spearheaded by a resurgent Russia, that is not per se "anti-West", but rejects its several centuries old colonial hegemony and its "rules-based order" and yearns for a new world founded on justice and equality.

Much of the world is tired of monsters and seeks not a "re-set" but a rebirth of its original identities and historical legacies… which have been held too long hostage by a ruthless all-devouring Empire. [My Emphasis]

IMO, it’s unfair to omit China as a driver. Also, the neocons still don’t have sway over public opinion as none have ever been elected on what the neocons espouse, the best proof being Clinton agreeing to Putin’s suggestion in 2000 that Russia join NATO—after saying yes, Clinton returned a few hours later to say it couldn’t be done. And as stated for many years now, the Age of Plunder was driven by three main psychological maladies—exceptionalist hubris, pleonexia, and megalomania—all of which were present within the elites of the Plundering nations, but few beyond a small circle of analysts understand that fundamental driver. The population of the primary remaining plundering nation is perhaps 340 million while global population is just beyond 8 Billion. Even when the Outlaw US Empire’s vassals are added, that makes its size about 13% of the global total, clearly a rather small minority that ought to act better towards those beyond its small region. The recent political turn in Europe signals that many understand that equation and perhaps that third solution of at least caging the crazies can be accomplished. Change of the newest hot term, zeitgeist, is where we now turn.

“Putin’s “war” to re-shape the American Zeitgeist” is Crooke’s title for his SCF essay and the theme of his chat with Judge Napolitano. It’s been ten days since Putin’s address to Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs cadre where he laid out his legal brief and proposal to end the Ukraine Conflict, which Putin later revealed he was under no illusions about how the Outlaw US Empire would respond—negatively. That served to sink the Swiss confab touting Zelensky’s fake peace and finally send it to history’s circular file. But as mentioned above, the address brought forth two points of reality: the death of the Euro-Atlantic Security Scheme aimed at controlling Europe, and the announcement of a Eurasian security formula that teams with Xi Jinping’s. Crooke details the hurdles needing to be overcome so the old can die so the new can be born:

The G7 and the subsequent Swiss ‘Bürgenstock Conference’ can – in retrospect – be understood as preparation for a prolonged Ukraine war. The three centrepiece announcements emerging from the G7 – the 10 year Ukraine security pact; the $50 ‘billion Ukraine loan’; and the seizing of interest on Russian frozen funds – make the point. The war is about to escalate.

These stances were intended as preparation of the western public ahead of events. And in case of any doubts, the blistering belligerency towards Russia emerging from the European election leaders was plain enough: They sought to convey a clear impression of Europe preparing for war.

What then lies ahead? According to White House Spokesman John Kirby: “Washington’s position on Kiev is “absolutely clear”:

“First, they’ve got to win this war”.

“They gotta win the war first. So, number one: We’re doing everything we can to make sure they can do that. Then when the war’s over … Washington will assist in building up Ukraine’s military industrial base”.

If that was not plain, the U.S. intent to prolong and take the war deep into Russia was underlined by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan: “Authorization for Ukrainian use of American weapons for cross-border attacks extends to anywhere [from which] Russian forces are coming across the border”. He affirmed, too, that Ukraine can use F-16s to attack Russia and use U.S. supplied air defence systems “to take down Russian planes – even if in Russian airspace – if they’re about to fire into Ukrainian airspace”.

Ukrainian pilots have the latitude to judge ‘the intent’ of Russian fighter aircraft? Expect the parameters of this ‘authorisation’ to widen quickly – deeper to air bases from which Russian fighter bombers launch.

Understanding that the war is about to transform radically – and extremely dangerously – President Putin (in his speech to the Foreign Ministry Board) detailed just how the world had arrived at this pivotal juncture – one which could extend to nuclear exchanges.

The gravity of the situation itself demanded the making of one ‘last chance’ offer to the West, which Putin emphatically said was “no temporary ceasefire for Kiev to prepare a new offensive; nor was it about freezing the conflict”; but rather, his proposals were about the war’s final completion.

“If, as before, Kiev and western capitals refuse it – then at the end, that’s their business”, Putin said.

Just to be clear, Putin almost certainly never expected the proposals to be received in the West other than by the scorn and derision with which they, in fact, were met. Nor would Putin trust – for a moment – the West not to renege on an agreement, were some arrangement to be reached on these lines.

If so, why then did President Putin make such a proposal last weekend, if the West cannot be trusted and its reaction was so predictable?

Well, maybe we need to search for the nesting inner Matryoshka doll, rather than fix on the outer casing: Putin’s ‘final completion’ likely will not credibly be achieved through some itinerant peace broker. In his Foreign Ministry address, Putin dismisses devices such as ‘ceasefires’ or ‘freezes’. He is seeking something permanent: An arrangement that has ‘solid legs’; one that has durability.

Such a solution – as Putin before has hinted – requires a new world security architecture to come into being; and were that to happen, then a complete solution for Ukraine would flow as an implicit part to a new world order. That is to say, with the microcosm of a Ukraine solution flowing implicitly from the macrocosm agreement between the U.S. and the ‘Heartland’ powers – settling the borders to their respective security interests.

This clearly is impossible now, with the U.S. in its psychological mindset stuck in the Cold War era of the 1970s and 1980s. The end to that war – the seeming U.S. victory – set the foundation to the 1992 Wolfowitz Doctrine which underscored American supremacy at all costs in a post-Soviet world, together with “stamping out rivals, wherever they may emerge”.

“In conjunction with this, the Wolfowitz Doctrine stipulated that the U.S. would … [inaugurate] a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic zone of peace”. Russia, on the other hand, was dealt with differently—the country fell off the radar. It became insignificant as a geopolitical competitor in the eyes of the West, as its gestures of peaceful offerings were rebuffed – and guarantees given to it regarding NATO’s expansion forfeited”.

“Moscow could do nothing to prevent such an endeavour. The successor state of the mighty Soviet Union was not its equal, and thus not considered important enough to be involved in global decision-making. Yet, despite its reduced size and sphere of influence, Russia has persisted in being considered a key player in international affairs”.

Russia today is a preeminent global actor in both the economic and political spheres. Yet for the Ruling Strata in the U.S., equal status between Moscow and Washington is out of the question. The Cold War mentality still infuses the Beltway with the unwarranted confidence that the Ukraine conflict might somehow result in Russian collapse and dismemberment.

Putin in his address, by contrast, looked ahead to the collapse of the Euro-Atlantic security system – and of a new architecture emerging. “The world will never be the same again”, Putin said.

Implicitly, he hints that such a radical shift would be the only way credibly to end the Ukraine war. An agreement emerging from the wider framework of consensus on the division of interests between the Rimland and the Heartland (in Mackinder-esque language) would reflect the security interests of each party – and not be achieved at the expense of others’ security.

And to be clear: If this analysis is correct, Russia may not be in such a hurry to conclude matters in Ukraine. The prospect of such a ‘global’ negotiation between Russia-China and the U.S. is still far off.

The point here is that the collective western psyche has not been transformed sufficiently. Treating Moscow with equal esteem remains out of the question for Washington.

The new American narrative is no negotiations with Moscow now, but maybe it will become possible sometime early in the new year – after the U.S. elections.

Well, Putin might surprise again – by not jumping at the prospect, but rebuffing it; assessing that the Americans still are not ready for negotiations for a ‘complete end’ to the war – especially as this latest narrative runs concurrently with talk of a new Ukraine offensive shaping up for 2025. Of course, much is likely to change over the coming year.

The documents outlining a putative new security order however, were already drafted by Russia in 2021 – and duly ignored in the West. Russia perhaps can afford to wait out military events in Ukraine, in Israel, and in the financial sphere.

They are all, in any event, trending Putin’s way. They are all inter-connected and have the potential for wide metamorphosis.

Put plainly: Putin is waiting on the shaping of the American Zeitgeist. He seemed very confident both at St Petersburg and last week at the Foreign Ministry.

The backdrop to the G7’s Ukraine preoccupation seemed to be more U.S. elections-related, than real: This implies that the priority in Italy was election optics, rather than a desire to start a full-blown hot war. But this may be wrong.

Russian speakers during these recent gatherings – notably Sergei Lavrov – hinted broadly that the order already had come down for war with Russia. Europe seems, however improbably, to be gearing up for war – with much chatter about military conscription.

Will it all blow away with the passing of a hot summer of elections? Maybe.

The coming phase seems likely to entail western escalation, with provocations occurring inside Russia. The latter will react strongly to any crossing of (real) red lines by NATO, or any false flag provocation (now widely expected by Russiam military bloggers).

And herein lies the greatest danger: In the context of escalation, American disdain for Russia poses the greatest danger. The West now says it treats notions of putative nuclear exchange as Putin’s ‘bluff’. The Financial Times tells us that Russia’s nuclear warnings are ‘wearing thin’ in the West.

If this is true, western officials utterly misconceive the reality. It is only by understanding and taking the Russian nuclear warnings seriously that we may exclude the risk of nuclear weapons coming into play, as we move up the escalatory ladder with tit-for-tat measures.

Even though they say they believe them to be bluff, U.S. figures nonetheless hype the risk of a nuclear exchange. If they think it to be a bluff, it appears to be based on the presumption that Russia has few other options.

This would be wrong: There are several escalatory steps that Russia can take up the ladder, before reaching the tactical nuclear weapon stage: Trade and financial counter-attack; symmetrical provision of advanced weaponry to western adversaries (corresponding to U.S. supplies to Ukraine); cutting the electricity branch distribution coming from Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania; strikes on border munition crossings; and taking a leaf from the Houthis who have knocked down several sophisticated and costly U.S. drones, disabling America’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) infrastructure. [My Emphasis]

I’ve long seen the changing Big Picture as a series of steps, the most important ones actually being made by the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals as they attempt to use sanctions to strangle Russia and China. As Putin has said several times, the Empire is destroying its most valuable asset all by itself by making it clear to the Global Majority that an alternative to Dollar Hegemony must be created that’s fair and balanced, not hegemonic. The process of this new system’s creation has largely been off camera, although as I noted last year it would be based on Central Bank Digital Currencies that are not your normal everyday national currencies.

As far as Ukraine winning against Russia, that’s been folly from the outset as NATO has never provided the means for Ukraine to even have a chance of winning. Across the front Ukie troops are backpedaling as their lines get thinner and thinner. Yes, resistance does seem stronger when larger towns are assaulted s they take longer to be liberated, but much of that delay has to do with Russia’s attrition strategy to keep its casualty rate low and the Ukie rate high—1:15 is now the stated ratio of Russian to Ukie casualties. And there are many videos of captured Ukies who just a week before were civilians. News reports say 100 per day seek to flee Ukraine. The use of State Terror against Russia will only serve to increase the distance between the West and the Global Majority and also invite some reprisals that will likely target soft infrastructure in NATOland. One thing we haven’t seen yet are long distance Russian drones tasked with hitting Ukrainian diesel locomotives since most of the Ukie electrical grid is toast.

A last item or two. Here’s one that’s disgusting:

EU foreign policy spokesman Peter Stano, in response to a TASS inquiry, stated that the European Union considers the information from Crimean authorities about the death of 4 people and over 150 injured as "not credible."

According to Stano, statements from Russian authorities about Ukraine's actions and their consequences "have credibility close to zero for Brussels and cannot be considered trustworthy."

And Russian public opinion is asking for some form of visible, tangible response to the recent terror attacks, like turning most of the Black Sea region into a No-Fly zone that kills NATO drones and other aircraft. Medvedev’s rants don’t provide much solace any longer.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!