Categories
Expert Analysis

Unexpected Trouble In The Three Seas States Might Cause Them To Rethink Their Policies

Unexpected Trouble In The Three Seas States Might Cause Them To Rethink Their Policies

12 AUGUST 2021

Unexpected Trouble In The Three Seas States Might Cause Them To Rethink Their Policies

Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland – the top “Three Seas Initiative” states most active in the US-backed Hybrid War on Belarus – are experiencing some unexpected trouble at home and along their frontiers with that former Soviet Republic which might cause them to rethink their aggressive policies against Minsk for pragmatism’s sake.

Recent developments might compel the “Three Seas Initiative” (3SI) states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland into backing off from the active role that they play in the US-backed Hybrid War on Belarus. Each of them has suddenly experienced some unexpected trouble either at home and/or along their frontiers with that former Soviet Republic. All three of them are struggling in their response to the surge in illegal immigration coming from their shared neighbor, which Minsk denies is being weaponized by its leadership as an unconventional response to their pressure upon it but which nevertheless seems to at the very least be “passively facilitated” by it. Furthermore, Lithuania and Poland recently saw some large-scale protests in response to contentious domestic policies, all the while the Color Revolution in Belarus continues to peter out into practically nothing.

Vilnius saw some chaos outside its parliament earlier in the week due to its people’s fury at the authorities’ plans to legally discriminate against non-vaccinated citizens. Meanwhile, Warsaw and several other Polish cities saw demonstrations against the government’s media reform bill which has drawn the ire of the country’s nominal American and German allies. That development also resulted in the governing coalition fraying after the sacking of a Deputy Prime Minister and subsequent withdrawal of his party from that selfsame coalition due to their opposition to that policy. Furthermore, Poland just submitted to the EU’s “financial imperialism”. All of this coincided with Belarusian President Lukashenko signaling a “phased leadership transition” in the coming future and detained anti-government blogger Protasevich admitting that the coup against him failed.

With each of these four countries caught up in their own domestic crises, it’s therefore sensible that Lukashenko extended an olive branch to his 3SI opponents and in particular Poland with the hope that they’d accept so that everyone can then focus more on resolving their more pressing problems at home. It’s unclear whether this attempt at a so-called “non-aggression pact” will bear any fruit, but it’s a welcome development in any case. It also puts the onus on those three countries over whether or not to continue escalating regional tensions like Minsk accused Vilnius of recently doing along their shared border. The argument can be made that some of those countries, especially little Lithuania, have a self-interested desire in provoking a regional crisis in order to sabotage the US’ efforts to broker its own “non-aggression pact” with Russia and focus more on China.

Be that as it may, it’s veritably in their national interests to seriously consider Belarus’ olive branch. Latvia and Lithuania are disproportionately affected by the regional migration crisis coming from Belarus due to their small populations. Lithuania also has to confront the unexpectedly violent resistance to its COVID-19 policies on top of whatever unconventional response China might undertake following Vilnius’ decision to host a de facto so-called “Taiwanese embassy” as part of its ploy to become the US’ top regional partner. Poland is under even more pressure than both of its 3SI allies combined since it must confront the intensifying US-German Hybrid War against its ruling conservative-nationalist party. Warsaw is in no position to continue waging a US-backed proxy war against Belarus, especially since Washington is waging its own against Warsaw right now.

The 3SI-driven perpetuation of the US-backed Hybrid War on Belarus is a waste of time and money for the three vanguard states involved. They’re now paying unexpected costs along their border and in terms of the associated social instability that their failure to deal with this regional migration crisis might entail. Protasevich’s admission that the coup against Lukahsnko failed should be the final nail in the coffin of that regime change campaign. Keeping it going only drains those three 3SI states of resources that would be better invested at home during these increasingly unstable times. In particular, it distracts the Polish security services from dealing with the more urgent task of thwarting the US-German Hybrid War. Gray Cardinal Kaczynski should have hopefully realized by now that fighting this proxy war won’t protect Poland from the US’ latest plots against it.

The best-case scenario is that Poland pragmatically accepts Belarus’ olive branch even if it doesn’t publicly make too much of a fuss about it for “face-saving” reasons. That would take the wind out of Latvia’s and Lithuania’s regime change sails and encourage them to follow suit. They still might not do so though if they’ve riskily gambled that their subjectively defined national interests are best advanced by continuing that campaign at the US’ behest, but Poland’s increasingly less prominent participation in it, if not eventual abandonment of its “active measures”, would greatly neutralize its effectiveness. What’s most important is that aspiring regional hegemon Poland reconsiders its policies in this respect. Even piecemeal progress on this front could have a positive effect on the region and bolster Poland’s defenses against the US-German Hybrid War at home.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Three Seas Initiative, US, Russia, Germany, Illegal Immigration, Hybrid War, Color Revolution, Regime Change.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

The US-German Hybrid War Against Poland Is Intensifying

The US-German Hybrid War Against Poland Is Intensifying

26 JULY 2021

The US-German Hybrid War Against Poland Is Intensifying

Poland has come under intensified Hybrid War attack by the US and Germany after its hoped-for Baltic Pipe’s construction has been delayed by their Danish ally, the influential Washington Post published a scathing editorial imploring American decision makers to push back against Poland’s plans to regain control of a US-owned anti-government broadcaster, and it became official that the US and Germany cut a deal with Russia over Nord Stream II.

The geostrategic situation is going from bad to worse for Poland after it came under intensified Hybrid War attack by the US and Germany at the end of July. I already chronicled the reasons for its increasingly disadvantageous position in a recent piece here which lists eight of my other relevant works on this subject. They all boil down to Poland remaining blind to the rapidly changing regional reality whereby the US and Russia are actively negotiating a so-called “non-aggression pact” which will occur at the expense of Warsaw’s national interests as it understands them to be. Germany is party to this process and hopes to take advantage of it to submit Poland to its envisioned continental hegemony. All three Great Powers are also opposed to the Warsaw-led “Three Seas Initiative” (3SI) that the former Trump Administration enthusiastically supported as a pivotal balancing force in European affairs but which the Biden one regards as geopolitically obstructive to its goals.

What recently happened is that Poland’s hoped-for Baltic Pipe’s construction was delayed by the US’ and Germany’s Danish ally. This powerfully impacts on the country’s energy security policy and will therefore compel it to continue relying on cheaper but more “politically sensitive” (from the perspective of the Polish leadership) Russian supplies. Just prior to that, the influential Washington Post published a scathing editorial imploring American decision makers to push back against Poland’s plans to regain control of a US-owned anti-government broadcaster that’s been stirring Colo Revolution unrest in the country. They ominously concluded their article by writing that “The United States must use all the leverage it can muster to ensure that independent television news in the country survives.” Finally, it became official that the US and Germany cut a deal with Russia over Nord Stream II, which Poland regards as being at the expense of its national interests.

Astute students of history might rightly compare this to the infamous “Western Betrayal” of the past century, though the consequences have yet to be as geopolitically dramatic as back then. Nevertheless, Poland is obviously at risk of losing its hard-earned sovereignty if the joint US-German Color Revolution succeeds, the country returns to being Berlin’s vassal, and the government is compelled by circumstances to finally re-engage with Russia but as a junior partner instead of the equal one that it deserves to be. There would be no need to partition Poland again since it’s now an almost entirely “ethnically pure” state apart from the growing mass of Ukrainian migrants in recent years and all foreign influence (American, German, and Russian) in the country could be managed through Donald Tusk’s Civic Platform (PO) if it returns to power. Poland used to be the subject of regional geopolitics during the Trump years, but it’s now returning to being an object under Biden.

The tragedy is that all of this was avoidable and so obvious since the start of the year. The moment that Biden’s liberal-globalist forces entered the White House, Poland’s conservative-nationalist government should have known that the German Hybrid War against them would be intensified due to Washington’s and Berlin’s shared ideological visions that contradict Warsaw’s own. The ruling Law & Justice Party (PiS) should have also immediately entered into secret talks with Russia upon learning through the media earlier this year that Biden planned to meet with Putin. Poland and Russia could have begun negotiating their own “non-aggression pact” in Belarus & Ukraine in order to boost one another’s strategic negotiating leverage vis-a-vis the US, which could have also prevented Poland from being forced to respond to whatever the US, Russia, and Germany agreed to behind its back like ultimately happened.

It’s still not too late for Poland to do this, though its own negotiating position is greatly diminished now that the Baltic Pipe has been unexpectedly delayed by the US’ and Germany’s Danish ally (likely as part of the larger US-Russian “non-aggression pact”). Russia is also keenly aware of how increasingly desperate Poland is becoming in the strategic sense so the Kremlin might demand more concessions from Warsaw when it comes to the Central European leader’s envisioned “sphere of influence” over their shared Belarusian and Ukrainian borderlands than if they began such negotiations a few months back for example. One possible way to improve its leverage in this respect would be if Poland simultaneously reached out to China as a balancing force against the US just like neighboring Ukraine recently did, became an equally important economic bridge between East and West, and then used this newfound geo-economic role to entice Russia to give it a more “balanced” deal.

Whatever it ends up doing, it’s obvious that PiS must do something to relieve the joint US-German pressure upon it and then refocus its efforts on thwarting their plans to neutralize Poland’s sovereignty. Just like fellow NATO ally Turkey pragmatically turned East in the face of unprecedented pressure from the West a few years back in order to survive the regime change onslaught against it at the time, so too must Poland do the same lest it risk irreversibly losing everything. It might be very difficult for PiS to understand for “politically correct” reasons, but its American patron just backstabbed it and sold Poland out to Germany. The end is certainly nigh unless Poland prioritizes an urgent Eastern Pivot towards Russia and China in order to safeguard its sovereignty and bolster its “Democratic Security” capabilities for fending off the joint US-German Hybrid War. If PiS fails to do so, then Poland will be forced to submit to German hegemony, from which it’ll never escape.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: US, Germany, Poland, Regime Change, Color Revolution, Hybrid War, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, China, Three Seas Initiative.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

Is Foreign Meddling In Ethiopia Actually A Proxy War Against China?

Is Foreign Meddling In Ethiopia Actually A Proxy War Against China?

5 JULY 2021

Is Foreign Meddling In Ethiopia Actually A Proxy War Against China?

The US, its Western allies, and the Arab League must stop meddling in Ethiopia’s internal affairs and the GERD issue should be resolved via African Union-led talks, not the UNSC.

Africa’s second most populous country of Ethiopia has recently experienced a surge in foreign meddling over the past year. This former kingdom, which was among the world’s oldest prior to its 1974 revolution, has always proudly defended its independence. Emperor Menelik II defeated the Italians in 1896 and secured his compatriots’ independence during the height of European colonialism. One of his successors, Emperor Haile Selassie, promoted the Ethiopian cause at the League of Nations after Italy’s fascist invasion in the run-up to World War II. His efforts generated global sympathy for Ethiopia and etched its struggle in the minds of many.

In the present day, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed is following in the tradition of his predecessors by standing firm against the latest foreign meddling campaigns that once again threaten Ethiopia’s independence. The most pressing is the American-led Western pressure against him following his decision to commence a law enforcement operation in the rebellious Tirgray Region last November. To oversimplify a complex situation, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) – previously the most powerful member of Ethiopia’s former ruling coalition – broke with PM Abiy, launched a separatist campaign, and was designated a terrorist group.

The TPLF was upset at the pace and scope and PM Abiy’s ambitious socio-economic reforms. They were also reportedly very unhappy with his success in ending Ethiopia’s nearly two-decade-long conflict with neighboring Eritrea which separated from the former in 1993 following a three-decade-long struggle. PM Abiy was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019 for ending this war. Although he began his rule by implying a vision of broader decentralization, PM Abiy ultimately had to recalibrate his policies due to the inadvertently centrifugal consequences thereof. This generated dissent among some of its diverse people that the TPLF then exploited.

The lingering conflict there has prompted US-led Western accusations of war crimes against the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF), which in turn were the pretext for Washington to impose sanctions against several individuals allegedly linked to them. America is also leading the charge in warning about a supposedly impending famine in the Tigray Province that its perception managers strongly imply would be solely due to the ENDF. Furthermore, an airstrike in the region last month is reported to have caused many civilian casualties, thus leading to more US pressure. Addis Ababa described all of this as an “orchestrated attack” against Ethiopia.

Concurrent with this is another meddling campaign led by Egypt through the Arab League. Cairo accuses Addis Ababa of weaponizing the Nile River due to its plans to fill the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). The North African state recently succeeded in getting the Arab League to call on the UNSC to intervene in this dispute. Ethiopia, meanwhile, believes that only an African Union-led resolution is acceptable. China also supports this proposal, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said earlier this month that his country opposes foreign interference in Ethiopia’s internal affairs.

The recent surge in foreign meddling there might be part of a proxy war against Chinese interests in Africa. Ethiopia’s developmental paradigm was powerfully influenced by China’s after the end of the former’s civil war in 1991. China is Ethiopia’s top trade and investment partner. The People’s Republic also helped construct the Addis Ababa-Djibouti Railway, which serves as the Belt & Road Initiative’s (BRI) flagship project in the Horn of Africa. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Ethiopia was Africa’s fastest-growing economy. The Chinese-Ethiopian Strategic Partnership is mutually beneficial and serves as a shining example of South-South cooperation.

Foreign meddling aims to undermine this partnership and could potentially result in Ethiopia’s disastrous “Balkanization” in the worst-case scenario. This makes Ethiopia the latest victim of Hybrid War, and the stakes couldn’t be higher considering that it’s Africa’s second most populous country. Nevertheless, just as it’s historically done, Ethiopia is standing strong against the latest foreign pressure. The US, its Western allies, and the Arab League must stop meddling in Ethiopia’s internal affairs and the GERD issue should be resolved via African Union-led talks, not the UNSC. No matter what happens, Ethiopia can always count on China’s support.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Ethiopia, China, Eritrea, Tigray, US, Egypt, Arab League, Regime Change, Hybrid War, GERD, Horn Of Africa, BRI.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

Polish-US Missile Defense Co-Op Is A Strategic Smokescreen

Polish-US Missile Defense Co-Op Is A Strategic Smokescreen

24 JUNE 2021

Polish-US Missile Defense Co-Op Is A Strategic Smokescreen

The prevailing uncertainty about the future of Polish-US relations following Biden’s publicly expressed desire to improve relations with Russia won’t affect their military cooperation as proven by the latest progress made in deploying elements of America’s “missile defense shield” in this aspiring Central & Eastern European hegemon, but this development will likely also be exploited as a smokescreen to obscure the ongoing joint US-German Hybrid War against Poland’s conservative-nationalist government.

The US’ Missile Defense Agency announced earlier this week that it’s begun deploying elements of its “missile defense shield” (MDS) in Poland, the aspiring hegemon of the Central & Eastern European (CEE) space. This decision predated Biden’s publicly expressed desire last week during his Geneva Summit with President Putin to repair relations with Russia, a move that unexpectedly threw the future of Polish-American relations into uncertainty. I elaborated on the emerging differences of grand strategic vision between these allied nations in an analysis last week that also explored their possible consequences. This latest development shows that their ties will remain stable at the military level despite very serious political disagreements.

While the present liberal-globalist American administration doesn’t like the Polish conservative-nationalist one all that much, the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) are in agreement that the CEE country’s geostrategic locations means that their MDS cooperation mustn’t be sacrificed because of it, let alone as part of an incipient rapprochement with Russia. A few clarifying points must be mentioned at this time in order for the reader to better understand the US’ strategic calculus. Improving relations with Russia will enable the US to redeploy some of its CEE forces to the Asia-Pacific in an attempt to more aggressively “contain” China there as well as spark an Asian arms race to assist with that.

Upon the MDS’ complete deployment in Poland, the US will be able to militarily “contain” Russia a lot more effectively without having to rely on the same number of troops as before. Furthermore, this system will help to partially reassure the Poles that their paranoid fears of being “sold out” to Moscow aren’t justified, which might in turn prevent or at the very least decelerate Poland’s possible pivot to China in response that I proposed in the analysis cited in the first paragraph of this present piece. To be clear, however, Russia doesn’t even need to be “contained” since it harbors no aggressive intentions against its neighbors, but this false notion has been weaponized in order to exploit the CEE countries’ “negative nationalism” against it for pro-American purposes.

In fact, the very concept of a MDS is deceitful since it doesn’t aim to “protect” the US and its allies, but to undercut Russia’s nuclear second-strike capabilities and therefore advance America’s devious plans to possibly one day place the Eurasian Great Power in a position of nuclear blackmail. The two-decade-long unofficial arms race between these two that was sparked by Bush Jr.’s decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty prompted Russia to double down on its hypersonic missile research and development, thus recently resulting in Moscow achieving global dominance in this field. It didn’t aspire to this envious position for aggressive purposes, but solely to defend itself from the above-mentioned scenario of nuclear blackmail.

Nevertheless, the Poles don’t see it that way at all because the US (and also Germany to a large extent) have masterfully manipulated their “negative nationalism” in such a way that many of these people and especially their present leadership are almost pathologically obsessed at this point with “containing” Russia. They take the MDS’ officially stated purpose at face value and might even delight in provoking Russia despite how dangerous this could be for them in the worst-case scenario of a US/NATO-Russia war. This latest MDS development will therefore likely succeed in reassuring them of the US’ military support in the event that Poland’s extremely improbable fear of a so-called “Russian invasion” ever comes to pass.

At the same time, however, the US and Germany will probably continue to undermine the present Polish government for ideological reasons related to their liberal-globalist vision. This schizophrenic policy of militarily supporting it while politically subverting it should be obvious to all objective observers but is regrettably lost on most Poles due to their intense “negative nationalism” against Russia. Their leadership also appears to naively believe that the MDS’ deployment on their territory might also politically shield them from the ongoing US-German Hybrid War, though this is nothing but a groundless wishful thinking fallacy. The reality is that Poland is being played by its so-called “allies” much worse than it could have ever imagined that Russia would play it.

The MDS therefore serves several purposes: it enables the US to more effectively “contain” Russia; thus freeing it up to redeploy some of its CEE forces to the Asia-Pacific to more aggressively “contain” China; and it functions as a smokescreen to obscure Washington and Berlin’s ongoing Hybrid War against Poland’s conservative-nationalist government by superficially reassuring them of the US’ supposedly “positive” strategic intentions. Regardless of the government in power, US-Polish military relations will remain strong even if solely as a result of their MDS cooperation, though this won’t stop the joint Washington-German Hybrid War on Warsaw. Naively believing otherwise will only result in getting Poland to put its strategic guard down even more.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: US, Poland, Missile Shield, Arms Race, Russia, China, New Detente, New Cold War, Germany, Color Revolution, Regime Change, Hybrid War.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

The US Won’t Succeed In Provoking Another Color Revolution In China

The US Won’t Succeed In Provoking Another Color Revolution In China

9 JUNE 2021

The US Won

With these impressive socio-economic and security accomplishments in mind, there’s absolutely no way that the US will ever succeed in provoking another Color Revolution in China.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken crossed a red line last week while commenting on the 32nd anniversary of the 4 June 1989 events in Beijing. For all intents and purposes, he sought to provoke another Color Revolution in China through his factually inaccurate description of what happened on that fateful day. The average Western news consumer was likely misled into believing that it was a so-called “bloodbath” of allegedly “peaceful pro-democracy activists” when in reality it was an externally encouraged and highly violent regime change attempt that was thankfully stopped through the authorities’ responsible and timely intervention.

The reasons for why that event happened in the first place are myriad but are largely connected to the manipulative information warfare campaign that foreign forces waged inside of China at the time. The global context was such that the communist countries of the then-Soviet Union’s former Warsaw Pact were experiencing unprecedented unrest of a similar fashion and provoked in a parallel way. Coupled with the activities of foreign agents operating within the People’s Republic under diplomatic and other covers such as humanitarian ones, some citizens were misled into attempting to replicate those scenarios at home.

That was a gross error of judgment on their part as they were, consciously or not, behaving as pawns of a foreign regime change plot aimed at ushering in the West’s complete dominance of International Relations in the last few years of what many now consider in hindsight to have been the Old Cold War (as compared to what quite a few compellingly describe as the ongoing New Cold War). The aftermath of that incident spurred the Communist Party of China (CPC) to prioritize securing the People’s Republic from Hybrid War threats, which in turn resulted in the promulgation of decisive policies related to regulating foreign media and organizations.

Concurrent with those security-centric policies was the CPC’s continued focus on comprehensively improving the lives of its citizenry so as to simultaneously build a modern socialist country alongside ensuring that nobody feels neglected and is thus vulnerable to falling under foreign influence. The outcome of these prudent policies is that China achieved historically unprecedented growth and is now the world’s top economy by some metrics. So successful has this forward-looking strategy been that China is now assisting its countless partners across the world in replicating its growth model via its Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) investments.

In recent years, China has also sought to pragmatically counteract foreign cultural influences that have proven themselves to have pernicious consequences for domestic security whenever they uncontrollably spread throughout other societies. The newfound focus on prioritizing China’s unique civilizational attributes and in imbuing its citizenry with associated patriotic sentiments has created a social firewall against these ever-evolving Hybrid War threats without cutting the country off from the rest of the world like some other states have done when attempting to defend themselves from the aforesaid.

With these impressive socio-economic and security accomplishments in mind, there’s absolutely no way that the US will ever succeed in provoking another Color Revolution in China. This isn’t just a boastful statement either but is proven by recent events in the Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region (SAR). America’s attempt to export its cutting-edge Color Revolution technology to that city dramatically failed and represented a major setback for its strategic plans. In fact, one can even say that it was a huge self-inflicted blow to that country’s soft power since the rest of the world now knows that its regime change attempts can be stopped.

The US can no longer wield the Damocles’ sword of Color Revolutions over the heads of sovereign states like it used to since their people are no longer as scared of these scenarios as before after China recently showed that they can be thwarted. With this Hybrid War tool of American policy increasingly becoming irrelevant and the country’s appetite for conventional military interventions declining by the day as it urgently focuses more on resolving its growing number of domestic crises, one can predict that a new era of International Relations might be inevitable whereby the world will soon become much more peaceful than at any time in recent memory.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: China, US, Color Revolution, Regime Change, Hybrid War, Blinken.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

The Strategic Significance Of The Syrian Elections

The Strategic Significance Of The Syrian Elections

25 MAY 2021

The Strategic Significance Of The Syrian Elections

Syria’s presidential elections signify the country’s victory in the decade-long Hybrid War of Terror and will help it transition towards its inevitable post-war future.

The Hybrid War of Terror on Syria isn’t yet fully over, but the country’s presidential elections nevertheless signify its victory. The entire purpose of that campaign was to forcefully remove President Assad from office, after which Syria would surrender its sovereignty to its neighbors, first and foremost “Israel” and Turkey. The country’s infrastructure and economy have been devastated by the humanitarian crisis that this conflict provoked, yet the Syrian people still stand strong. Although there exist some among them who despise their leader, the vast majority of the Syrian people still proudly support him, in some cases even more now after ten years of war than they did at its onset. That’s because many of them eventually realized that this is about much more than him personally, but the future of their civilization-state.

As it stands, Syria is presently divided into three “spheres of influence” – the liberated majority of the country, the American-controlled eastern portion beyond the Euphrates River, and the sliver of Turkish-controlled territory along the northern border that also importantly includes Idlib. Syrians in the last two regions didn’t have the chance to exercise their democratic rights since the occupying authorities naturally prevented them from doing so. In fact, they’ve made it all but impossible to reunify the country since the military situation is such that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) doesn’t want to risk a much larger war by attacking NATO forces there despite having the international legal right to expel the invaders. Resolving this dilemma will be among the top tasks facing President Assad during his next term seeing as how few doubt that he’ll win the elections.

I proposed some solutions in the analyses that I published back in February about how “Syria Should Talk With The US Since Its Iranian & Russian Allies Are Already Doing So” and “Balancing Regional Interests In Syria Is The Only Way To Reach A Compromise Solution”. In short, some form of decentralization granting broader political rights to the occupied regions might be a pragmatic means of resolving this dilemma, though of course, the devil is in the details so to speak. Iran’s military presence in the country, despite being legal and premised on fighting international terrorism there, is a major problem for the US. It’s unlikely that America will agree to any compromise solution so long as Iranian forces remain in Syria, but it’s also equally unlikely that Syria will ask them to leave, even through a phased but dignified withdrawal. Damascus depends on Tehran’s anti-terrorist support, and the Iranian presence also prevents Syria from falling under disproportionate Russian influence.

On the topic of Russian-Syrian relations, ties remain excellent and continue to diversify into other fields beyond the military one, but there hasn’t been as much progress on courting Russian businesses as Syria had hoped. The unilateral US sanctions regime acts as a powerful deterrent to reconstruction efforts, though these are unlikely to be lifted so long as Iranian military forces remain in the country. America seems to have realized that President Assad isn’t going anywhere since he genuinely enjoys tremendous grassroots support among the vast majority of his people so regime change no longer remains a viable policy option. Instead, the US will predictably seek to transition towards “regime tweaking”, or pressuring Syria to make certain political changes that accommodate American interests such as decentralization.

It’s unclear whether such a policy will succeed, especially remembering that Iran probably won’t be asked to withdraw from Syria, so observers can expect for this issue to remain unresolved for the indefinite future. That being the case, President Assad’s other top priority is to more comprehensively rebuild the liberated majority of the country. This will be difficult so long as the US’ unilateral sanctions regime and secondary sanctions threats remain in place, but progress could prospectively be achieved through a combination of Russian, Iranian, Chinese, and Emirati efforts. So long as their companies have the will to face possible American sanctions, which is admittedly questionable, they’ll be able to help rebuild Syria. As an incentive, Damascus could offer them preferential partnerships, but this still might not be enough for some of them to take that risk.

It’s indeed possible for there to be no political or economic breakthroughs in Syria anytime soon, in which case the country will continue to struggle but nevertheless continue making gradual progress in a positive direction. The only real security threats that remain come from ISIS sleeper cells, mostly outside the most populated areas judging by recent reports about their attacks. This will always be a problem and probably won’t ever be fully resolved considering the nature of the threat itself. Even so, the Syrian intelligence agencies and their allies will continue to infiltrate and dismantle such groups, but some will always evade detection until it’s too late. That, however, shouldn’t represent any considerable obstacle to Syria’s gradual reconstruction, but highly publicized attacks might dissuade all but the bravest international investors.

Another priority of President Assad’s next term in office will be encouraging his compatriots who fled over the past decade to return home and help rebuild their country. Some will decide not to if they retain political grievances or committed war crimes of course, but it’s expected that more Syrians will eventually move back over the coming years. The state will therefore have to continue supporting this special category of citizens, made all the more difficult by the never-ending economic crises caused by the US’ unilateral sanctions regime, but it also has a lot to gain in the sphere of soft power so it’ll probably do its best in this respect in order to show the world that the situation is normalizing. With time, and combined with possible investment incentives amid continually improving security, Syria might be able to turn the tide on its economic crisis.

Returning back to the lead-in topic of this analysis, the strategic significance of the Syrian elections, it can be said that they represent a new phase of normalization there. The last ones in 2014 took place during the worsening war, but this time everything is comparatively much better. The Western Mainstream Media will continue to delegitimize the Syrians’ exercise of their democratic rights, but policymakers will pragmatically realize that it’s a dead-end for them to continue agitating for regime change. Syria might even eventually repair some of its political relations with certain Western countries, not right away of course, but with time. Its political and economic challenges will likely remain unresolved for a while, but even so, the world should realize that Syria emerged victorious in the decade-long Hybrid War of Terror and that better days are surely ahead.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Syria, Hybrid War, Color Revolutions, Regime Change, Infowars, Terrorism, Multipolarity.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

The EU Parliament’s Anti-Russian Resolution Is Dangerous

30 APRIL 2021

The EU Parliament

Russia is a major world power, and if the EU can attempt to bully it in such a dangerous way, then there’s nothing stopping the bloc from doing the same to comparatively weaker countries.

The European Parliament (EP) passed a resolution on Thursday threatening very serious consequence against Russia if it carries out an “invasion” of Ukraine. These include immediately stopping oil and gas imports from the country and cutting it off from the SWIFT payment system, as well as freezing the assets of so-called “oligarchs” and their families on top of canceling their visas. The text also condemns alleged Russian intelligence operations in Europe, including disinformation operations and the latest claims that its agents were behind the 2014 munitions blast in Czechia. They also want to stop Nord Stream II.

The EP also supports meddling in Russia’s internal affairs. Examples of this include criticism of the country’s recent jailing of anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny due to his parole violations and the authorities’ decision to investigate whether his organization is extremist. The resolution expresses support for unsanctioned rallies in Russia too while criticizing the authorities’ response to them. One of the most disturbing proposals put forth is to seriously consider the UK’s proposal for a “Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regime”, which could predictably be exploited for political purposes considering the tense relations with Russia.

The EP’s resolution is therefore very dangerous because it shows that ideologically driven anti-Russian political forces in Europe are serious about imposing extreme costs on Moscow solely for warning that it might defend its legitimate border interests and those of its citizens in Eastern Ukraine in the event that Kiev launches a military operation there. Cutting Russia off from the SWIFT payment system might be akin to an unofficial declaration of war considering the country’s international financial dependence on it. In addition, it’s counterproductive to stop importing Russian oil and gas when no viable alternatives exist at the moment.

Russia, like all countries, has an obligation to enforce its laws. Navalny’s jailing was done in accordance with existing legislation on this issue, as is its breaking up of unsanctioned rallies and temporary detainment of their participants. As a case in point, some EU countries have also detained participants of unsanctioned rallies that were organized against their COVID-19 lockdowns in recent months, especially whenever they clash with police. Furthermore, France is currently investigating various organizations as extremist ones, just like Russia is doing too. The basis of Brussels’ proposed meddling in Moscow’s internal affairs is therefore hypocritical.

The rest of the world is rightly concerned after this resolution was just passed. Russia is a major world power, and if the EU can attempt to bully it in such a dangerous way, then there’s nothing stopping the bloc from doing the same to comparatively weaker countries. In addition, similar resolutions might one day be tabled against China too on a similar basis as well. Basically, nobody would be safe if the EU succeeds in cutting Russia off from SWIFT and so openly meddling in its internal affairs by criticizing its law enforcement agencies and their work. That’s why this resolution is so dangerous to world peace.

COVID-19 is still sweeping across the world, and the extended effect of lockdown has been disastrous for the EU member states’ economies, not to mention the psychological health of their citizens. There are much more urgent tasks at hand for the EP to tackle than concocting a list of threats and criticisms to officially make against Russia. It’s disappointing to see that it’s more focused on such issues than those much closer to home. Their supporters might argue that Russia’s alleged assassinations, attacks, and disinformation plots constitute pressing domestic threats, but none of these have been publicly proven and thus remain speculation.

The EU is approaching an historic crossroads whereby it can finally become more independent of American influence or it can continue to languish under the boots of US neo-imperialism. Judging by the latest resolution, it regrettably appears that the EP is opting for the latter after jumping on America’s anti-Russian bandwagon to score political points with their patron across the Atlantic. This is dangerous and counterproductive to EU interests. What’s more, it’s also deeply unfortunate too since the EP can and should put its legislative skills to work trying to solve more urgent crises like COVID-19 instead.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: EU, Russia, SWIFT, Ukraine, Nord Stream II, Navalny, Color Revolution, Regime Change, Hybrid War, Sanctions, US.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

 

MORE GEOPOLITICS ISSUES:

GLOBAL GEOPOLITICS NEWS

 

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

What Explains The Latest De-Escalation In Donbass?

24 APRIL 2021

What Explains The Latest De-Escalation In Donbass?

The latest de-escalation in Donbass is attributable to Russia’s resoluteness in refusing to fall into the US’ Hybrid War trap of launching an all-out military intervention there in support of its legal interests while nevertheless flexing its muscles in this respect by sending the signal that it reserves the right to deliver a crushing strike in defense of its border and/or citizens if they’re seriously threatened.

The month of April was marked by serious tension in the Eastern Ukrainian region of Donbass after Kiev appeared to be gearing up for an Operation Storm-like genocidal advance against the Russian-friendly separatists there which many predicted might trigger a major military response from Moscow. Of course, the Mainstream Media flipped the victims and villains in order to misportray Russia as the aggressor even though it was Ukraine that declined to implement its legal obligations as agreed to during the Minsk peace process and thus unilaterally worsened the situation. I published two analyses at the time explaining the complicated dynamics of those tense events, which should be reviewed by interested readers in case they aren’t already familiar with them:

* 6 April: “Are Vaccines The Real Driving Force Behind The Latest Donbass Destabilization?

* 8 April: “Why Does Ukraine Want War?

Basically, Kiev was being put up to this by its Washington patron which wanted to provoke a scenario that would make it politically impossible for most of the EU nations to purchase Russia’s Sputnik V like they were reportedly planning to do up until that point. The US feared the long-term strategic impact of improved Russian-EU relations as a result of their prospective epidemiological cooperation. It hoped to “bait the bear” into launching an all-out military intervention in support of its border and/or citizens, which could in turn function as a Hybrid War trap for creating an Afghan-like quagmire in the worst-case scenario. Russia refused to fall for this scheme but nevertheless flexed its muscles by sending the signal that it still reserves the right to deliver a crushing strike in defense of its legal interests if they’re threatened, which got the West to back off.

The situation could of course change at any moment since the strategic dynamics haven’t changed all that much, but Russia’s confident moves must have made the West rethink the wisdom of this Hybrid War plot considering the obviously unacceptable costs that it would likely entail. For the moment at least, everything seems to be de-escalating a bit as a result of Russia’s prudent policy. The Russian “spy” scandal in Czechia was manufactured to serve as a convenient distraction from Western warmongers backtracking in Eastern Ukraine since their leadership couldn’t openly acknowledge that they blinked in the face of Russian resoluteness lest they lose credibility with their populace which has been hyped up by anti-Russian propaganda. This was followed by President Putin’s annual address to the Federal Assembly and the end of Russian drills in the south.

About those last two, they’re actually interconnected if one takes the time to think about them. The Russian leader very clearly implied that his country’s red lines are connected not only to conventional security interests such as the obvious ones in Eastern Ukraine that everyone had been talking about up until that point, but also “Democratic Security” insofar as announcing how unacceptable the recently foiled Belarusian regime change plot was. Without saying as much but clearly hinting in this direction, President Putin was conveying the message that the West mustn’t dare even think about attempting to assassinate him, stage a Color Revolution (the ongoing Navalny-inspired unrest isn’t a serious threat), try to co-opt military officials for a coup plot, or launch a crippling cyber offensive attack to shut down the national capital like was all planned for Belarus.

Since Russia’s southern military drills were sufficient enough to prove how resolute it was in defending its legal interests if need be, and considering the fact that the West had already begun to de facto de-escalate the situation by staging the Russian “spy” distraction in Czechia and subsequent expulsion of diplomats across a growing number of European countries, it naturally followed that Russia would reciprocate by ending its exercises. Moscow had already managed to show the West that it won’t be pushed around, and its military forces can always snap back into action at a moment’s notice if the situation requires them to do so. In other words, those drills and President Putin’s very clearly implied “Democratic Security” (counter-Hybrid War) red lines were responsible for getting the West to de-escalate, after which Russia responded in kind as is the norm.

The lessons to be learned are several. Firstly, Russia is much too wise to fall into Hybrid War traps that are so obviously laid out for it. Secondly, it still succeeded in showing its opponents that they’ll suffer unacceptably high costs for their schemes if they force Russia to militarily respond in a limited way in defense of its legal interests. Thirdly, awareness of these first two points resulted in a rethink of Western strategy, which was fourthly followed by their desperate manufacturing of the Russian “spy” scandal in Czechia to distract their hyped-up Russophobic populations that had expected the West to be the one to deliver a crushing blow to Russia and not the inverse. Fifthly, Russia conveyed its “Democratic Security” red lines, thereby essentially expanding the list of unacceptable actions against it which could provoke a hot war in the worst-case scenario.

This sequence of events explains the latest de-escalation in Donbass, but observers must remember that the present respite might only be short-lived since the strategic dynamics that provoked the original tensions still remain. There’s nothing stopping the West from trying to provoke Russia again and again, albeit perhaps modifying their approach each time. That would of course increase the chances of a war by miscalculation and contradict the so-called “rational actor theory” upon which many had (naively?) premised their understanding of International Relations up until this point. It might still be premature to predict that this will happen and that the US isn’t behaving rationally since it did after all de-escalate, though only in the face of Russian resoluteness, but everything should become much clearer by the time NATO’s Defender Europe 2021 drills end in June.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

MORE GEOPOLITICS ISSUES:

GLOBAL GEOPOLITICS NEWS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

Chad: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same?

23 APRIL 2021

Chad: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same?

The reported killing of long-serving Chadian leader Idriss Deby at the hands of his country’s latest rebel group and subsequent imposition of a military transitional government were thought by some to herald long-overdue change in this geostrategically pivotal state, yet it might very well be that nothing will end up changing all that much since such a scenario could result in France losing control of one of its top regional allies if that happens.

Deby’s Death

Observers were shocked after learning that long-serving Chadian leader Idriss Deby was killed at the hands of his country’s latest rebel group. Some even suspected that foul play might have been involved, with one of the most prominent theories speculating that it was an inside job by rogue members of the military who attempted to pull off an armed coup. Regardless of whatever might have really happened, the fact of the matter is that Chad experienced a sudden regime change instead of the “phased leadership transition” that usually occurs in “national democracies” such as this one which don’t employ Western models of governance. What’s most controversial about the immediate consequences of this unexpected development is that the armed forces suspended the constitution, established an 18-month military transitional government, and appointed the president’s son Mahamat “Kaka” Idriss Deby Itno as leader in a move condemned by some as an unconstitutional coup and possibly indicative of a power struggle among the inner military elite.

High Hopes

Nevertheless, some observers expressed hope that these moves might herald long-overdue change in this geostrategically pivotal state, perhaps resulting in a more Western form of governance in partnership with the leading “Front for Change and Concord in Chad” (FACT by its French acronym) rebel group and others when all’s said and done similar in a sense to the precedent that’s gradually unfolding in neighboring Sudan. Others think that the new military government might soon fall if FACT is able to successfully take the capital of N’Djamena in the coming future like it’s promised to do, inspired by Deby’s death and incensed by what they described as the “dynastic devolution of power” in the country. Those hopes, however well intended they may be, are probably premature and much too high when considering that such scenarios could result in France losing control of one of its top regional allies if that happens. The casual observer probably doesn’t know much about their historical patron-proxy relations, so some background reading is required.

Background Briefing

Here are three relevant analyses that I published over the years about Chad:

* 23 March 2017: “Chad: Hybrid War Strategic Risk Analysis

* 15 March 2019: “Has The World Been Ignoring An Almost Decade-Long ‘African Spring’?

* 25 March 2019: “Is Chad Losing Control Of The Central African Pivot Space?

Chad is “too big to fail” for France despite being ripe for regime change by protesters, rebels, and terrorists.

Anti-Terrorism Or Neo-Imperialism?

France justifies its patron-proxy relationship with Chad on the basis of shared anti-terrorist concerns, the latter of which veritably exist and are legitimate to a large extent but are nevertheless exploited for neo-imperialist purposes. Despite being oil rich, the country consistently ranks near the absolute bottom of the Human Development Index and is regarded as one of the most destitute places on the planet. This is attributable to rampant corruption, which the military is also suspected of participating in. France turns a blind eye to these practices despite publicly supporting “accountability and transparency among all” abroad because it conveniently enables it to maintain its proxy network among the country’s powerful armed forces, which in turn helps advance its regional goals, most recently in Mali. For all of its governing faults, Chad objectively has one of Africa’s most powerful militaries, which explains why former President Deby’s government had yet to fall to rebels despite coming close on several occasions. France airstrikes at critical moments also helped too.

Scenario Forecasting

It remains to be seen whether the Chadian National Armed Forces (FANT by their French acronym) can stem FACT’s week-long blitzkrieg towards the capital from their Libyan base, but if they can’t, then it’s very likely that France will intervene once again to save its struggling proxies. In the unlikely event that Paris doesn’t do so, then it might stand to lose enormous regional influence if the revolutionary authorities espouse any sincere anti-imperialist principles. It’s much more likely, however, that the military transitional government will remain in power and overcome the speculative differences between some of its factions. In that event, France might either go along with the possibility of its proxy potentially rigging elections to ensure “Kaka’s” victory if he isn’t able to win through legitimate means or it might flexibly adapt to changing circumstances to guide Chad’s incipient democracy through an unseen hand in the direction of its strategic interests. The only wild card is whether the Chadian people can successfully employ a grassroots-driven Color Revolution to stop this.

Concluding Thoughts

Chad is a very diverse and highly impoverished country in spite of its rich resource wealth, and it’s pretty much only been held together by a tight fist since independence, whether that was most recently Deby or his several predecessors. It’s quite typical of many African countries in this respect, which means that the onset of sudden instability such as the capital’s fall to rebel forces who might potentially be opposed in principle to continuing the country’s present course in foreign affairs (i.e. retaining the patron-proxy neo-imperialist relationship with France) or a successful Color Revolution inspired by Deby’s death could catalyze far-reaching and largely unpredictable consequences in the worst-case scenario. France is unlikely to sit back and lose one of its top allies in Africa which is why it’s predicted that Paris might soon militarily intervene in support of FANT should the need arise, and if need be, clandestinely “manage” (i.e. hijack) Chad’s incipient democracy.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Chad, France, Terrorism, Regime Change, Color Revolution, Hybrid War, Sahel.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

 

MORE GEOPOLITICS ISSUES:

GLOBAL GEOPOLITICS NEWS

 

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

Why’s The West Covering Up The Foiled Belarusian Coup Attempt?

22 APRIL 2021

Why

President Putin used the global attention afforded to him during his annual address to the Federal Assembly on Wednesday to raise widespread awareness of the Belarusian coup attempt that his security services helped foil last weekend but which has since been mostly ignored by the Western Mainstream Media.

The Hybrid War On Belarus

The ongoing Hybrid War on Belarus could have taken a dramatic turn for the worse had the Russian security services and their Belarusian counterparts not foiled an assassination and coup attempt against President Lukashenko over the weekend that was being planned for the very near future. President Putin remarked about this near the end of his approximately 1,5-hour-long annual address to the Federal Assembly on Wednesday, wisely using the global attention afforded to him during this time to raise widespread awareness of this scheme. The Russian leader even remarked how strange it was that the West has been mostly ignoring this dramatic development despite the potential consequences of its successful implementation predictably being disastrous for the Eastern European nation.

The News Story That Never Broke

Another point to keep in mind is that his spokesman Dmitry Peskov informed the press on Monday that President Putin discussed the issue with his American counterpart during their last phone call, which strongly suggests that the US government might have pressured its Mainstream Media proxies not to report on that aspect of their conversation. After all, there were plenty of leaks in the last administration, yet curiously barely any have thus have happened in the present one. Nevertheless, Russian media reported on the scandal over the weekend after it first broke, but few outlets elsewhere picked up on it. It can’t be known for sure, but apart from the previously mentioned reasonable speculation, this might also be attributable to self-censorship. Some outlets might simply not want to portray Biden’s foreign policy in any negative light.

American Tradecraft

Although the US officially denied any involvement in the plot, the details that the media disclosed about it (and which President Putin also repeated to everyone on Wednesday) bear the hallmarks of American tradecraft. The scheme involved assassinating President Lukashenko, reportedly during the military parade on Victory Day (9 May), which was to have been followed by a military coup carried out by compromised elements of the armed forces. In addition, the capital of Minsk was supposed to have been cut off from the rest of the country and victimized by a massive power outage, presumably as a result of a cyber offensive operation. The ongoing Color Revolution movement would have also been ordered to repeat the EuroMaidan scenario of all-out urban terrorism during this sensitive time in order to ensure that the coup succeeds by one means or another.

The Ukrainian & Venezuelan Precedents

President Putin compared this plot to what had previously been employed against former Ukrainian President Yanukovich and current Venezuelan President Maduro, thereby implying an American hand in the reported Belarusian events considering that the US’ leading tactical and strategic involvement in the prior two bears close resemblance to the Belarusian scenario. The Western Mainstream Media wanted to keep silent about this scheme out of fear of making Biden look bad since their targeted audience has been indoctrinated into thinking that he’s a comprehensive improvement upon everything that former US President Trump earlier was. If Biden – or rather, the military, intelligence, and diplomatic power structure (“deep state”) behind him – was implicated in a foreign assassination and coup attempt, then it might raise questions about whether the US’ ostensibly “democratically driven” regime change last November actually changed anything across the world.

Biden’s Following In Trump’s Footsteps

It shouldn’t be forgotten that despite legally discredited accusations of being a so-called “Russian puppet”, former President Trump did more to destabilize Russia than any US leader in history, which in this context includes organizing the ongoing Hybrid War on Belarus. Biden is therefore following in Trump’s footsteps whether his supporters acknowledge it or not, but this observation is very “politically inconvenient” for his base and must therefore be suppressed from the public’s consciousness. That explains why it’s practically forbidden from being discussed by the Mainstream Media, but that might have suddenly changed after President Putin ensured that the whole world became aware of it during his address to the Federal Assembly. He didn’t just do this to spite Biden, though, but for very practical reasons related to Russia’s national security interests.

Belarusian Threats = Russian Threats

The context in which the Russian leader talked about the foiled assassination and coup attempt in neighboring Belarus concerned the West’s larger campaign of maximum pressure against his country. Since Belarus is a civilizationally similar state that’s also proudly part of what many in Moscow consider the so-called “Russian World”, it naturally follows that its latest Hybrid War intrigue directly threatens Russia itself since the successful implementation of that regime change scenario could one day result in its replication inside Russia too. The socio-economic and even political situations are remarkably similar between those two nations, even though their security capabilities are incomparable by virtue of Russia being a Great Power while Belarus is simply a moderately sized regional state with very limited influence even within its own neighborhood.

Russia’s Red Lines

Even so, President Putin warned his country’s opponents against getting any crazy ideas by attempting to cross Russia’s red lines, which he said his country will draw at its own discretion on a case-by-case basis. Considering that he had just finished talking about the latest Hybrid War escalation against neighboring Belarus with which Russia has a mutual defense treaty through the CSTO and which is civilizationally similar to his own country, the implied message is obvious and it’s that Moscow won’t tolerate any such plots being attempted within its own borders. It would arguably constitute the crossing of a very clear red line if the West attempted (let alone coordinated) the assassination of President Putin, a military coup, a serious Color Revolution (the Navalny-inspired one isn’t all that threatening), and/or a crippling cyber attack.

The Truth About The New Cold War

The Belarusian attempt was foiled which is why it’s not being discussed by the Western Mainstream Media because of how embarrassing this failure is for their leaders. It also confirms what President Putin has been saying all along, namely that the real aggressor in the New Cold War isn’t Russia, but the West and especially the US. Most of the people living in the West have been indoctrinated through an incessant stream of propaganda and intense perception management operations into thinking the inverse, but even these brainwashed masses might reconsider their dogmatic beliefs if they took the time to reflect on the implications of their governments organizing the assassination of a Russian-friendly foreign leader and a military coup against him. That might, in the “worst-case scenario” from their leaders’ perspectives, get them to wake up.

Concluding Thoughts

Many of President Putin’s foreign supporters oftentimes describe him as “5D chess grandmaster”, and while this label is sometimes laughably exploited to deflect from some seemingly unsavory parts of his foreign policy such as Russia’s indisputable alliance with “Israel”, it can be said that this time it’s right on the mark when talking about his strategic genius in bringing up the foiled assassination and coup attempt in Belarus during his address to the Federal Assembly. The Russian leader broke through the Western Mainstream Media’s censorship firewall and forced this politically suppressed issue into the wider discussion, though it remains to be seen whether it’ll have any meaningful impact on public perceptions. In any case, it was a wily move to make and completely in line with the Russian leader’s style of responding to the West in asymmetrical ways.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

MORE GEOPOLITICS ISSUES:

GLOBAL GEOPOLITICS NEWS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.