Lavrov, Crooke, Trump, and Typepad Woes

I’ll start with the last point—Typepad software—the type used at MoA—preventing comments from posting because of the hyperlinks they contain. The article I was commenting on is “Russigate's Role In Trump-Putin Relations,” one of two produced today. What follows is what I tried to post as a comment:

The entire West are just a bunch of headless chickens running about aimlessly because the West has absolutely ZERO leverage over Russia--and we see many headless chickens here at the bar. One of Primakov's strategies to utilize when appropriate is "Strategic Procrastination," and that's precisely what we're now seeing from Russia. As I argue in "When the Outlaw US Empire's War on Ukraine Negotiations Fail", which is backed by Alastair Crooke's "Transactional weakness tips the balance of power – ‘Hold to no illusions; there is nothing beyond this reality’"</a> that he further explained in today's chat with Judge Napolitano, there's no way for negotiations to proceed as Zelensky won't capitulate and more important the Nazi cabal behind him in Kiev won't allow him. Plus, the EU elites will not lend any help as it needs a war to salvage their political positions/futures.

So, Russiagate has no bearing on what's happening except for one factor--Trump could be using the term Russiagate to point to the forces that constrain his ability to negotiate or otherwise order Ukraine to act: What keeps Trump from again pulling the 100% support plug? Putin already knows the answer. The Outlaw US Empire's behind the scenes ruling Oligarchy has more power than POTUS and thus Trump is triply frustrated since he cannot have his way.

Now to move first to Lavrov’s short interview with the “No Statute of Limitations. A Front Without a Front Line” documentary makers that covers some familiar ground and resonates with Crooke’s writing and today’s discussion regarding EU behavior:

Question: Mr Lavrov, why are attempts being made today to belittle or deny the role of the Red Army and the Soviet people in the victory over Nazism?

Sergey Lavrov: This is the traditional position of the West–-to weaken competitors. Europeans dominated for about 500 years. First of all, because they wanted to conquer as much land as possible, to enslave as many people as possible. In fact, all the tragedies of mankind before 1939, including World War II, were unleashed by Europeans. Starting from colonialism, slavery, the Turkish wars, the First and Second World Wars. These were all attempts by one or another power, which was in the forefront of Europe, to suppress competitors.

As a matter of fact, there is nothing new in competition. People and states have always competed. But the methods by which Europe suppressed competitors is terrible. These "instincts" are deeply rooted in today's European society. First of all, in those elites that are now in power in most countries of the European Union and NATO. Although the opposition is already understanding the unacceptability of such actions and politics.

The instincts of the ruling class in Europe are clearly manifested in what is happening in Ukraine, in the war that the West, through the hands of the Kiev regime and the bodies of Ukrainian citizens, unleashed against the Russian Federation. Just as Napoleon put almost all of Europe under his banner in the Patriotic War of 1812, so Hitler, having conquered almost all of Europe, put under arms the French, Spaniards and most of the countries of the continent that fought on his side. The French carried out punitive operations, and the Spaniards participated in the blockade of Leningrad. This is well known.

Therefore, even now we see that almost the entire European West has been put under arms in order to try to prolong the "life" of the Nazi regime of Vladimir Zelensky "on its bayonets." As in the era of Adolf Hitler, this is done under Nazi flags, with the SS chevrons of the Totenkopf Division, etc.

If we honestly describe the West's contribution to the development of humanity, we will get an unsightly picture. Therefore, they are trying in every possible way to whitewash their actions, as well as the actions of their predecessors. It is not for nothing that the rehabilitation of Nazism is beginning to become one of the reference points in the position of the West in international discussions. At least, they vote against the resolution that the Russian Federation, together with its allies, annually submits to the UN General Assembly. This resolution requires that the glorification of Nazism and other similar racist practices be prevented. They are hypocritically trying to insert amendments into it that will equate with Nazism what the Russian Federation is doing now, liberating people from Nazi oppression as part of a special military operation. But these attempts were unsuccessful. I am sure that they will not be crowned.

But the tendency to rewrite history, to equate the criminals declared as such by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the liberators of Europe, has been going on for quite a long time in the Baltic States, in Poland, and in a number of other EU countries. This is a trend that must be fought very toughly. Among the examples is the closure of the Russian exhibition in the former Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. This has been happening for several years. We have no opportunity to update our exposition or perform there. We are simply not invited there. It is striking that this year the ceremony dedicated to the next date of the liberation of this concentration camp was attended by those who turned this camp into an extermination camp. And we did not see those who liberated this camp.

I am particularly concerned about the behaviour of the UN Secretary-General. Not because he is approaching ideals as a person, but because he is the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Whoever he is, and he is a Portuguese citizen, he has worked half his life in international organizations and must understand what the UN Secretary-General is in accordance with Article 100 of the Charter. It says: do not accept any instructions from any government, observe neutrality and strive for the only thing - the implementation of the goals of the UN Charter. And Antonio Guterres, speaking at the ceremony dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, never mentioned the Red Army, although the day of remembrance of those victims was established following the results of the feat of the Red Army. This is a sad trend.

This happened about five years ago, long before the start of the special military operation. At the opening of a special monument to the victims of the Leningrad Siege in Jerusalem, which was attended by Presidents Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US Vice President Mike Pence. Everyone mentioned the feat of the Red Army, and Mr Pence said: "We were all happy when the Allies threw open the gates of Auschwitz on January 27, 1945..." Do you understand what allies were meant? That is, from the series "and we plowed". Mournfully.

This is not a new phenomenon due to their anger over the special military operation. This is a trend. It must be fought. We are doing this, primarily at the UN. With the participation of our expert community, numerous seminars, conferences are held, exhibitions are organized, and documents are declassified. We have no right to allow this truth to be forgotten.

Question: What other efforts is Russia making to preserve historical memory and resist the information war unleashed against us, and are the current trials to recognize the actions of the Nazi invaders in the occupied territories as genocide part of the work to restore historical justice?

Sergey Lavrov: Undoubtedly. This is one of the main tasks. Such trials are taking place on the territory of the Russian Federation, on the territory of its constituent entities, especially those that have suffered the most from the loss of human lives and destruction.

We are also actively cooperating with civil society. There are many structures that collect information (through expert assessments, declassified documents, analysis of eyewitness diaries). It will make it possible to achieve (at this stage one of the most important tasks) recognition of what the Germans and their European allies were doing, who actively participated in these atrocities.

I am convinced that the recognition of all these "activities" as genocide of the peoples of the USSR will not happen soon, because the resistance is colossal. The entire philosophy, including the current one, of the majority of modern Western elites in Europe will be called into question. But this work will subsequently be brought to the official international level. [My Emphasis]

What EU elites are scheming is discussed fully by Crooke with Judge Napolitano whereas his SCF essay has to do with the disintegration of the Outlaw US Empire’s post-WW2 financial hegemony where he cites much from Putin’s address to the Congress of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs I reported on 18 March. Crooke argues as I have that the Collective West has zero means to apply leverage on Russia. As a result, Russia can continue its SMO until it decides all its objectives are obtained. What’s key is Russia will only negotiate with a Ukrainian government it deems legitimate, meaning Zelensky and the Nazi cabal behind him must be eliminated. And that would also seem to extend to those EU elites who are essentially Nazis too. So, let’s get you reading Crooke’s “Transactional weakness tips the balance of power – ‘Hold to no illusions; there is nothing beyond this reality’”:

The post-WWII geo-political outcome effectively determined the post-war global economic structure. Both are now undergoing huge change. What remains stuck fast however, is the general (Western) weltanschauung that everything must ‘change’ only for it to stay the same. Things financial will continue as before; do not disturb the slumber. The assumption is that the oligarch/donor class will see to it that things remain the same.

However, the power distribution of the post-war era was unique. There is nothing ‘forever’ about it; nothing inherently permanent.

At a recent conference of Russian industrialists and entrepreneurs, President Putin highlighted both the global fracture and set out an alternate vision which is likely to be adopted by BRICS and many beyond. His address was, metaphorically speaking, the financial counterpart to his 2007 Munich Security Forum speech, at which he accepted the military défie posed by ‘collective NATO’.

Putin is now hinting that Russia has accepted the challenge posed by the post-war financial order. Russia has persevered against the financial war, and is prevailing in that too.

Putin’s address last week was, in one sense, nothing really new: It reflected the classic doctrine of the former premier, Yevgeny Primakov. No romantic about the West, Primakov understood its hegemonic world order would always treat Russia as a subordinate. So he proposed a different model–-the multipolar order–-where Moscow balances power blocs but does not join them.

At its heart, the Primakov Doctrine was the avoidance of binary alignments; the preservation of sovereignty; the cultivation of ties with other great powers, and the rejection of ideology in favour of a Russian nationalist vision.

Today’s negotiations with Washington (now narrowly centred on Ukraine) reflect this logic. Russia isn’t begging for sanctions relief or threatening anything specific. It is conducting strategic procrastination: waiting out electoral cycles, testing Western unity, and keeping all doors ajar. Yet Putin is not adverse either to exerting a little pressure of his own–-the window for accepting Russian sovereignty of the four eastern oblasts is not forever: “This point can also move”, he said.

It is not Russia racing ahead with the negotiations; quite the reverse–-it is Trump who is racing ahead. Why? It appears to hark back to the American attachment to Kissinger-esque triangulation strategy: Subordinate Russia; peel away Iran; and then peel Russia from China. Offer carrots and threaten to ‘stick’ to Russia, and once subordinated in this way, Russia might then be detached from Iran–-thus removing any Russian impediments to an Israel-Washington Axis attack on Iran.

Primakov, were he here, likely would be warning that Trump’s ‘Big Strategy’ is to tie Russia into subordinate status quickly, so that Trump can continue the Israel normalisation of the entire Middle East.

Witkoff has made Trump’s strategy very plain:

“The next thing is: we need to deal with Iran … they’re a benefactor of proxy armies … but if we can get these terrorist organisations eliminated as risks … Then we’ll normalise everywhere. I think Lebanon could normalise with Israel …That’s really possible … Syria, too: So maybe Jolani in Syria [now] is a different guy. They’ve driven Iran out … ImagineImagine if Lebanon … Syria … and the Saudis sign a normalisation treaty with Israel … I mean that would be epic!”

U.S. officials say the deadline for an Iran ‘decision’ is in the spring …

And with Russia reduced to supplicant status and Iran dealt with (in such fantastical thinking), Team Trump can turn to the main adversary–-China.

Putin, of course, understands this well, and duly debunked all such illusions: “Set illusions aside”, he told delegates last week:

“Sanctions and restrictions are today’s reality – together with a new spiral of economic rivalry already unleashed …”.

“Hold to no illusions: There is nothing beyond this reality …”.

“Sanctions are neither temporary nor targeted measures; they constitute a mechanism of systemic, strategic pressure against our nation. Regardless of global developments or shifts in the international order, our competitors will perpetually seek to constrain Russia and diminish its economic and technological capacities …”. [Joint Emphasis]

“You should not hope for complete freedom of trade, payments and capital transfers. You should not count on Western mechanisms to protect the rights of investors and entrepreneurs … I’m not talking about any legal systems – they just don’t exist! They exist there only for themselves! That’s the trick. Do you understand?!” [Joint Emphasis]

Our [Russian] challenges exist, ‘yes’–-“but theirs are abundant also. Western dominance is slipping away. New centres of global growth are taking centre stage”, Putin said.

These [challenges] are not the ‘problem’; they are the opportunity, Putin outlined: ‘We will prioritise domestic manufacturing and the development of tech industries. The old model is over. Oil and gas production will be simply the adjunct to a largely internally circulating, self-sufficient ‘real economy’–-with energy no longer its driver. We are open to western investment–-but only on our terms–-and the small ‘open’ sector of our otherwise closed economy will of course still trade with our BRICS partners’.

What Putin outlined effectively is the return to the mainly closed internally-circulating economy model of the German school (à la Friedrich List) and of the Russian Premier, Sergei Witte. [Witte’s Memoirs]

Just to be clear – Putin was not just explaining how Russia had transformed into a sanctions-resistant economy that could equally disdain the apparent enticements of the West, as well as its threats. He was challenging the Western economic model more fundamentally.

Friedrich List had, from the outset, been wary of Adam Smith’s thinking that formed the basis of the ‘Anglo-model’. List warned that it would ultimately be self-defeating; it would bias the system away from wealth creation, and ultimately make it impossible to consume as much, or to employ so many.

Such a shift of economic model has profound consequences: It undercuts the entirety of the transactional ‘Art of the Deal’ mode of diplomacy on which Trump relies. It exposes the transactional weaknesses. ‘Your enticement of the lifting of sanctions, plus the other inducements of western investment and technology, now mean nothing’–-for we will accept these things henceforth: on our terms only’, Putin said. ‘Nor’, he argued, ‘do your threats of a further sanctions siege carry weight–-for your sanctions were the boon that took us to our new economic model’.

In other words, be it Ukraine, or relations with China and Iran, Russia can be largely impervious (short of the mutually destructive threat of WWIII) to U.S. blandishments. Moscow can take its sweet time on Ukraine and consider other issues on a strictly cost-benefit analysis. It can see that the U.S. has no real leverage. [Joint Emphasis]

Yet the great paradox to this is that List and Witte were right–-and Adam Smith was wrong. For it is now the U.S. that has discovered that the Anglo model indeed has proved to be self-defeating.

The U.S. has been forced into two major conclusions: First, that the budget deficit coupled with exploding Federal debt finally has turned the ‘Resource Curse’ back onto the U.S.

As the ‘keeper’ of the global Reserve Currency–-and as JD Vance explicitly said–-it has necessarily made America’s primordial export to become the U.S. dollar. By extension, it means that the strong dollar (buoyed by a global synthetic demand for the reserve currency) has eviscerated America’s real economy–-its manufacturing base.

This is ‘Dutch Disease’, whereby currency appreciation suppresses the development of productive export sectors and turns politics into a zero-sum conflict over resource rents.

At last year’s Senate hearing with Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve Chair, Vance asked the Fed Chairman whether the U.S. dollar’s status as the global Reserve Currency might have some downsides. Vance drew parallels to the classic “resource curse”, suggesting the dollar’s global role contributed to financialization at the expense of investment in the real economy: The Anglo model leads economies to overspecialize in their abundant factor, be it natural resources, low-wage labour, or financialised assets.

The second point–-related to security–-a subject which the Pentagon has been harping on for ten years or so, is that the Reserve Currency (and consequentially strong dollar) has pushed many U.S. military supply lines out to China. It makes no sense, the Pentagon argues, for the U.S. to depend on Chinese supply lines to provide the inputs to U.S. military manufactured weapons–-by which it would then fight China.

The U.S. Administration has two answers to this conundrum: First, a multilateral agreement (on the lines of the 1985 Plaza Accord) to weaken the value of the dollar (and pari passu, therefore, to increase the value of the partner states’ currencies). This is the ‘Mar-a-Lago Accord’ option. The U.S.’ solution is to force the rest of the world to appreciate their currencies in order to improve U.S. export competitiveness.

The mechanism for achieving these objectives is to threaten trade and investment partners with tariffs and withdrawal of the U.S. security umbrella. As a further twist, the plan considers the possibility to revalue U.S. gold reserves–-a move that would inversely cut the valuation of the dollar, U.S. debt, and foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries.

The second option is the unilateral approach: In the unilateral approach, a ‘user fee’ on foreign official holdings of U.S. Treasuries would be imposed to drive reserve managers out of the dollar–-and thus weaken it.

Well, it is obvious, is it not? A U.S. economic ‘re-balancing’ is coming. Putin is right. The post-WWII economic order “is gone”.

Will bluster and threats of sanctions force big states to strengthen their currencies and accept U.S. debt restructuring (i.e. haircuts imposed on their bond holdings)? It seems improbable.

The Plaza Accord realignment of currencies depended on the co-operation of major states, without which unilateral moves can turn ugly.

Who is the weaker party? Who has the leverage now in the balance of power? Putin answered that question on 18 March 2025. [My Emphasis]

Dexter White’s determination at Bretton Woods that the Outlaw US Empire would control the world financially and not allow fair play has now boomeranged almost completely. Keynes’s system wouldn’t impair US manufacturing leadership for decades, but it might have kept financialization at bay—but of course we’ll never know. The declining Outlaw US Empire is now faced with a stark reality that further denials cannot overcome. The bullying policy won’t work, and the Empire’s treasury lacks the resources to acquire or develop anything. Meanwhile, the Parasites suck up massive amounts of rent that the government could use to facilitate its plans. But that’s just as much a no-go as was Trump’s attempt to pull the plug on support for Ukraine—Putin saw the men with briefcases and wearing dark glasses coming to meet Trump before they arrived. Will Trump further obey those men and attack Iran? The aborted Black Sea deal and Zelensky’s insubordination sealed the fate of further negotiations, all with the EU’s help. It must be noted that the EU is in worse shape financially than the Empire, which is why the hysteria over war planning is so intense. I see Europe is even further dividing with the sentencing of France’s Le Pen to prison on embezzlement charges, causing Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini to erupt. Did French courts act for the EU? How that event scrambles French politics is too soon to tell, but France really needs to get the warmongering Macron out of office. And then there’s the news that England’s last steel mill will likely close making any attempt at rearming Europe all the more improbable.

IMO, there will be no truce come May 9th, no Trump at the parade, and no grand reset or Yalta 2.0 since the situation is now multipolar, not unilateral. Yes, Putin and Xi will talk along with other key BRICS players. Crooke mentions the change in Indian policy toward China—togetherness, not animosity fueled by the Outlaw US Empire or the EU. Yet another Sea Change. I hope readers will enjoy the links to the essential works of List and Witte that can be freely downloaded.

*
*
*
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!