Connect with us

Europe

UK’s Tory Victory Likely to Bind U.S. & UK against Europe & Asia

Published

on

Huffington Post headlined on December 21st “I Left Increasingly Right-Wing Britain And Now I Don’t Know If I Will Ever Return Home”, but the young woman who wrote it seems to have had no idea of the deep international forces that — as she sadly noted — are driving ever-larger numbers of young Brits, like herself, to relocate to continental Europe. This is part of a long war against Russia that started in her own UK, then took over in the United States on 26 July 1945, and seems likely to intensify greatly in the future, and to propel UK itself even further into America’s anti-Russian orbit, while Europe will ultimately unify increasingly with the rest of the EurAsian continent — including with both Russia and China. 

The U.S. Government has actually been behind all of this reorganization of the international political map (as will be documented here in the links to the present article).

The U.S. Government, by means of its coups, overthrew democratically elected progressive governments and replaced them with brutal fascist dictatorships in Thailand 1948, Iran 1953, Chile 1973, Honduras 2009, and Ukraine 2014, just to mention a few U.S.-hired coups; and, now — with the December 12th Tory landslide and resultant inevitability of Brexit — the UK (America’s former colonizer) will itself become just another American colony. Here is how all of this is happening:

On December 14th, CNBC headlined “US isn’t weaponizing the dollar; sanctions are the alternative to war, Mnuchin says” and reported enormously important news, regarding the strategy that the U.S. Government has increasingly been using ever since, in 2012, it imposed (on fraudulent grounds) the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, and subsequently imposed the many other sanctions regimens used against nations that are either allied with or merely friendly toward Russia. That article also discussed the international alliances which will be involved in a military World War III if this preliminary stage of global warfare (the sanctions-phase) won’t produce the capitulation of Russia and of China, but instead an outright military war becomes resorted-to.

That CNBC article mentioned the U.S. Government is even fighting against some of America’s own allies in order to maintain the dollar as the global reserve currency: “Earlier this year, France, Germany and the U.K. set up the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), which uses euros to bypass U.S. sanctions on Iran. While it’s not shown itself to be economically effective, it’s a sign that even allies are seeking dollar alternatives to rebel against U.S. policies they oppose.” Thus, even U.S.-friendly governments are now straining against the U.S. leash, to become free, no longer mere vassals. However, the Tory electoral victory in UK on December 12th assured that Britain will become more, not less, dependent upon the U.S. during coming years. So, Britain is being propelled away from the EU, and toward America, but Europe could actually end up on the anti-U.S. side.

That article interviewed the U.S. Trump Administration, through U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who said that the U.S. is employing sanctions — and especially is employing secondary sanctions (sanctions penalizing any country that does trade with a country the U.S. sanctions) — as a less costly way than military invasions (of the targeted country), in order to conquer the entire world, including especially Russia and China. Mnuchin’s CNBC interviewer there volunteered to say (at 2:00 in the video-interview there) “Just over the last few days, we didn’t just get a U.S.-China Phase One, we also got a resounding victory for the Tories in the United Kingdom”, and both parts of that cryptic statement will be explained here, because both parts are geostrategically crucial.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is, of course, aware of the U.S. regime’s successes in their long-term plans to win control over the country he leads, and he has been struggling to block these plans. On December 20th, Russia’s RT bannered “Russia & Ukraine sign ‘protocol of agreement’ for gas transit to Europe – Gazprom”, and reported that “After months of tense negotiations and years of legal battles, Moscow and Kiev have made an agreement on extension to the current gas transit agreement, which expires on December 31.” Those “years of legal battles” go all the way back to America’s successful coup in February 2014 that ousted an internationally neutralist and democratically elected Ukrainian Government and installed a rabidly anti-Russian racist-fascist regime in Ukraine, which refused to pay its bills (then around $3 billion) for gas from Russia. Ukraine also was the main route of pipelines supplying Russia’s gas into the European Union. U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2014 capture for the U.S., of Ukraine — the nation having the longest European border with Russia, 1,625 miles — constituted a major coup for U.S. foreign policy, a coup which is equivalent to if Russia were to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Mexico or Canada and take control over that border as a potential location to place its missiles. Obama’s successor Trump is following through on Obama’s successful anti-Russian policy regarding Ukraine, and Trump is even bolder than Obama in telling Europeans to buy costly trans-Atlantic-shipped U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) in preference to the far cheaper pipelined gas from Russia. Of course, if European nations were to do that, their increased energy-costs would weaken their economies so much that the U.S. would be unquestionably the king of the world.

On December 21st, RT headlined “Big bully at work: Firm laying Nord Stream 2 pipeline halts all ‘activities’ faced with ‘crushing sanctions’ by US” and reported that the U.S. Congress and the Trump Administration are forcing EU-based corporations to abandon their participations in the completion of the Russia-EU Nordstream II gas pipeline or else lose all their business with the U.S., by their facing what are called “secondary sanctions” against them, the sanctions that are in addition to the direct sanctions the U.S. already has in place against Russia. Secondary sanctions are punishments against any country which violates the trading-bans that are in the primary sanctions, which are against the targeted country (in this case, Russia). Trump and the U.S. Congress (with the support of overwhelming majorities in both houses) have made clear to the EU either to choose the U.S. and UK, or else to choose Russia and China, as being their main trading-partners. The U.S. already has the pro-jihadist governments in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Israel, etc. (all of them against Iran) — and is now especially trying to cement the loyalty of EU nations. Under Trump, America is willing even to employ the first stage of war, the sanctions stage, against the EU, in order to compel this loyalty to the owners of U.S.-based international corporations.

Thus, two global trading-blocs are in the process of being formed by Trump (with the near-100-% backing of both Parties — Democrats and Republicans — in Congress), one centered around the U.S., and the other centered around Russia and the countries that have friendly relations with Russia, including China, Iran, and Venezuela. Three of America’s core allies are UK, Israel, and the royal Saud family who own Saudi Arabia.

The landslide victory, on 12 December 2019, of UK’s libertarian/neoliberal Conservative Party, defeating the post-Tony-Blair, progressive (or democratic socialist), Labour Party, means not only that UK’s exit from the European Union is now inevitable, but that there will soon be massive privatization of public services — such as health, education, and welfare — in UK (thus making it more American); and that therefore U.S. international corporations will increasingly dominate UK, which will become, in effect, America’s 51st state (like Israel already is) and a growing market for U.S. brands. Per-capita healthcare costs will thus likely soar in UK to around the U.S. level (where healthcare already is a vastly overpriced bloated libertarian mess and the worst among industrialized countries), which is, in fact, over twice as costly as in today’s socialized-healthcare UK. Healthcare is a necessity, not a luxury, and so anyone in UK who can afford healthcare will increasingly need to pay the resulting sharply increasing costs, but everyone else will simply get sicker and die younger; life-expectancy there will thus decline, in the new, U.S.-dominated, UK (as is already starting to happen in the U.S. itself). The idea that not socializing a necessity is good instead of bad is stupid; there is already ample historical evidence that that idea is false and creates massive unnecessary suffering, but that’s what UK’s voters opted for.

The Jeremy-Corbyn Labour Party was committed to protecting and improving social services and to allowing another vote on Brexit, but UK’s voters rejected that platform in a landslide on December 12th. The UK’s only future now is with U.S.-based international corporations.

Here is what UK’s elections were actually all about — not only Brexit, but also radical libertarianism/neoliberalism and an exclusive alliance with a similarly ideological (libertarian-neoliberal-fascist-neoconservative-imperialist) U.S.:

——

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/27/jeremy-corbyn-reveals-dossier-proving-nhs-up-for-sale

“Jeremy Corbyn reveals dossier ‘proving NHS up for sale’”

Jeremy Corbyn reveals 451-page unredacted document ‘proving NHS up for sale’ – video

27 November 2019, Frances Perraudin

Labour has obtained official documents showing that the US is demanding that the NHS will be “on the table” in talks on a post-Brexit trade deal, Jeremy Corbyn has said.

The Labour leader said the uncensored papers gave the lie to Boris Johnson’s claims that the NHS would not be part of any trade talks, and revealed that the US wanted “total market access” after the UK leaves the EU.

“The uncensored documents leave Boris Johnson’s denials in absolute tatters,” he said at a news conference in London. “We have now got evidence that under Boris Johnson the NHS is on the table and will be up for sale. He tried to cover it up in a secret agenda and today it has been exposed.”

Corbyn said the 451 pages of documents covered six rounds of talks from July 2017 to “just a few months ago”. He said the meetings took place in Washington and London. “We are talking here about secret talks for a deal with Donald Trump after Brexit,” he said.

Responding to the Labour claims, the Conservatives said the documents had already been online for two months and were simply readouts from meetings of the UK-US trade and investment working group. The Tories accused Labour of using the documents to try to divert attention from the issue of antisemitism in its ranks.

On medicine pricing, Corbyn said discussions had already been concluded between the two sides on lengthening patents. “Longer patents can only mean one thing: more expensive drugs. Lives will be put at risk as a result of this,” he said.

He used the example of Humira, used to treat Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis. “It costs our NHS £1,409 a packet. In the US, the same packet costs £8,115. Get the difference: £1,409 in our NHS, £8,115 in the USA,” Corbyn said. “One of the reasons for US drug prices being on average 250% of those here is a patent regime rigged for the big pharmaceutical companies.”

He added: “Let’s be frank, the US is not going to negotiate to sell its own medicines for less.”

Labour is battling to bring the focus back on to safer ground after Corbyn’s handling of antisemitism came under renewed criticism on Tuesday. [He was called an “anti-Semite” for criticizing apartheid Israel; and U.S. and UK ‘news’-media equate that with anti-Semitism.]

Corbyn avoided apologising to Jewish communities in a TV interview after the chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, alleged he had let the poison of antisemitism take root in the party.

Corbyn had previously highlighted heavily redacted documents obtained by Labour campaigners relating to private meetings between UK and US officials discussing health being included in a trade deal. It is understood the party obtained unredacted versions in the last couple of days.

Corbyn said the documents revealed that the UK and US were closer to a deal than hoped. “[Officials] are ready to ‘exchange text’, which is trade-negotiator-speak for it being at a very advanced stage,” he said. “And they say they are ready to, I quote, ‘really take significant further steps’.”

Corbyn said the report from the third meeting said “everything is included [in trade talks] unless something is specifically excluded” and that the US wanted “total market access” as the “baseline assumption of the trade negotiations”.

He said officials had discussed a system to give corporations the power to sue the UK. “This is not only a plot against our NHS,” said Corbyn. “It is a plot against the whole country.”

He pointed to a passage in the documents that suggested the US would prefer a no-deal Brexit. “There would be all to play for in a no-deal situation but UK commitment to the customs union and single market would make a US-UK [free trade agreement] a non-starter,” it reads.

The Conservatives said it was simply fact that it would not be possible to strike a free-trade deal with the US if the UK remained in the single market and customs union.

The international trade secretary, Liz Truss, said: “Jeremy Corbyn is getting desperate and is out-and-out lying to the public about what these documents contain.”

She said it was Corbyn’s belief in “conspiracy theories” that had led him to fail to crack down on antisemitism in his party, pointing to reports that he had called on “western governments” to confront “the Zionist lobby” in a piece written for the Morning Star in 2011.

“People should not believe a word that he says, this stunt is simply a smokescreen for the fact that he has no plan for Brexit and that he has been forced to admit that he wants to increase taxes for millions of families,” she said.

“As we have consistently made clear, the NHS will not be on the table in any future trade deal and the price that the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. This sort of conspiracy theory fuelled nonsense is not befitting of the leader of a major political party.”

Labour’s manifesto includes a pledge to increase NHS funding by an average of 4.3% every year of the next parliament, which is more generous than Conservative and Liberal Democrat proposals.

The party has also promised to “end and reverse privatisation in the NHS in the next parliament”, as well as offering free annual NHS dental checkups and a new national care service to tackle the social care crisis.

Here is the main prior history behind that Tory victory:

Back in 1902, the aristocrat Cecil Rhodes, an enormously successful protégé of the European Rothschild family, established The Rhodes Trust, which was based entirely upon Rhodes’s viewpoint, not on that of his Rothschild business-sponsors and investors. Rhodes’s chief agent was W.T. Stead, and page 209 of Sir Frederick Whyte, Life of W.T. Stead, v. II, Ch. 25, stated that “Rothschild would not like that, Stead objected laughingly. ‘When he reads the will and finds that I am in it also, there will be ructions!’ ‘Well,’ said Rhodes, ‘I don’t mind. I shall be gone!” (Unfortunately, only v. I can be directly downloaded online, and it is here. However, v. II can sometimes be found available second-hand online.)

Although his will, which established the Trust, said (p. 39 here) that “No student shall be qualified or disqualified for election to a Scholarship on account of his race or religious opinions,” Rhodes was widely considered to be racist; and, for example, he wrote in 1877, “I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. I contend that every acre added to our territory means the birth of more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. Added to this, the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars.” That statement is stunning to any person who is sensitive to a person’s logically contradicting him-or-her self; it is shocking logical stupidity. Rhodes simply refused to recognize that imperialism means taking over other countries and therefore means creating wars — the exact opposite of “the end of all wars.” Though Rhodes was a brilliant strategist in business, he was a fool regarding his philosophy, because his moralisms always gave way to his sheer psychopathic greed in actual practise. He continued there by saying that his main goals were “The furtherance of the British Empire, for the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.” And, from the very start of the Rhodes scholarship program, after its first selectees in 1903, the program became, from 1907 onward, almost entirely selectees from the U.S. This reflected not only Rhodes’s determination to bring the U.S. back into the British Empire, but also the very realistic recognition that, going forward into the 20th Century and beyond, the U.S. was going to dominate the world. Therefore, the Rhodes program was designed for UK’s Government and aristocracy to control U.S.’s Government and press. This has been an effort by Britain to reverse the U.S. Revolution, which had been waged against not only Britain but its entire aristocracy, and even against any aristocracy from ever forming in the U.S. (Of course, today’s America is the opposite of their intentions.)

The 12 December 2019 UK elections mean that UK has instead become a vassal of America’s aristocracy. This evil outcome is a humiliation of Cecil Rhodes’s evil dream — it’s a reversal of the master-slave relationship that was championed by Rhodes. He had wanted America to again be ruled by Britain; but, now, instead, Britain will be ruled by America (i.e., by the U.S. aristocracy).

Anyone who doubts the authenticity of the history behind the present article should consult the brilliantly written and superbly documented blog-post titled “The Round Table”, which is undated and comes from a “Mike McClaughry” and which was actually first posted on “January 23, 2015”. (That author might be this Scientologist; but, regardless, the sources to which his blog-post there about Cecil Rhodes links are high quality.) It lists a few of its sources but fails to link to the main one, which was the 370-page masterpiece by Professor Carroll Quigley, which work had been completed in 1949 but remained unpublished until 1981 (after the author’s 1977 death, because he wanted to be safe against their destroying him). That masterpiece from Quigley is titled The Anglo-American Establishment. On page 326 of the photographed book shown in McClaughry’s article, 311 of the searchable text of the book, appears the list of the 31 original members of the innermost group that controlled the British Empire’s as-of-12-December-2019 doomed expansion-operation, which they had been intending should ultimately take over the entire world:

A. The Society of the Elect 

Cecil John Rhodes 

Nathan Rothschild, Baron Rothschild 

Sir Harry Johnston 

William T. Stead 

Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher 

Alfred Milner, Viscount Milner 

B. F. Hawksley 

Thomas Brassey, Lord Brassey 

Edmund Garrett 

Alfred Beit 

Sir Abe Bailey 

Albert Grey, Earl Grey 

Archibald Primrose, Earl of Rosebery 

Arthur James Balfour 

Sir George R. Parkin 

Philip Lyttelton Gell 

Sir Henry Birchenough 

Sir Reginald Sothern Holland 

Arthur Lionel Smith 

Herbert A. L. Fisher 

William Waldegrave Palmer, Earl of Selborne 

Sir Patrick Duncan 

Robert Henry Brand, Baron Brand 

Philip Kerr, Marquess of Lothian 

Lionel Curtis 

Geoffrey Dawson 

Edward Grigg, Baron Altrincham 

Jan C. Smuts 

Leopold Amery 

Waldorf Astor, Viscount Astor 

Nancy Astor, Lady Astor 

——

Furthermore, out of the thousands of winners of Rhodes scholarships, at least 71 are now famous (virtually all of them being leaders in the English-speaking world):

John Marshall Harlan

J.W. Fulbright

Robert J. Van de Graaff

Robert Penn Warren

Carl Albert

Dean Rusk

Daniel J. Boorstin

John B. Oakes

Howard K. Smith

Walt Rostow

Byron White

Nicholas Katzenbach

Stansfield Turner

Guido Calabresi

Ronald Dworkin

Paul Sarbanes

Richard Lugar

Kris Kristofferson

Joseph Nye

Jonathan Kozol

Lester Thurow

David Souter

David Boren

Walter Slocombe

James Woolsey

Larry Pressler

Bill Bradley

Wesley Clark

A. Michael Spence

David E. Kendall

Terence Malick

Dennis C. Blair

Robert Reich

Bill Clinton

Strobe Talbot

Ira Magaziner

James Fallows

Franklin Raines

Michael Kinsley

E.J. Dionne

Richard N. Haass

Walter Isaacson

Larry Sabato

Russ Feingold

Michael Sandel

Ashton Carter

NancyAnn DeParle

Tony Abbott, PM Australia

Nicholas Kristof

Barton Gellman

Heather Wilson

David Vitter

George Stephanopoulos

Naomi Wolf

Michael McFaul

Susan Rice

David Chalmers

Atul Gewande

Ben Jealous

Jeff Shesol

Cory Booker

Noah Feldman

Bobby Jindal

Peter Beinart

Chrystia Freeland

Eric Garcetti

Siddhartha Mukherjee

Rachel Maddow

Jake Sullivan

Jared Cohen

Pete Buttigieg

——

The Rhodes Trust organization is extremely secretive and provides no list of its total winners (identifying each winner in each year), which list would reveal the extent to which they had picked from among the tens or hundreds of thousands of applicants the individuals whom the Rhodes Trust had actually helped to become shapers and leaders of their respective professions in the U.S., UK, and their vassal nations. However, the Trust’s known picks seem to be oriented toward leading and shaping the U.S. empire (not actually the British Empire). The selectees carry on the work of Cecil Rhodes; and, now, the U.S. aristocracy (after the 12 December 2019 UK elections) clearly controls the UK aristocracy, which had created the Rhodes Trust (and which currently controls UK’s ‘news’-media through the participating billionaires). This organization’s selectees are not only trained to take over the empire for America’s billionaires but are indoctrinated to respect not only the empire but imperialism itself, and the subordinacy of the empire’s vassal nations, to the imperial center, and the absolute inferiority of other (as Rhodes preached it) “races.” 

Consequently: history, going forward, will now be a contest between, on one side, the U.S. and UK aristocracies, versus, on the opposed side, the aristocracies of the EurAsian Continent. Because of the results of UK’s December 12th elections, the ties that bind European nations to the U.S. regime are even likelier to unravel than was the case prior to December 12th. This will be good news for Iran, Russia, China, and Turkey, but bad news for NATO, EU, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and U.S. ‘allies’ (vassal-operations or dependencies) in general. In other words: the dream of the U.S. imperialists, which Barack Obama stated often by his bold assertion that “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation” — meaning that every other nation is “dispensable” — is even more shattered now than it was when he was in office. By winning UK so overwhelmingly on December 12th, America’s aristocracy becomes considerably likelier to lose the vastly larger prize of EurAsia.

The Western Hemisphere, except for U.S. itself, will be weak vassal nations, and Africa will be even more extremely so. Those weaker nations will now need to ally themselves with either U.S.-UK, or else Eurasia. That’s their choice, going forward.

Here are excerpts from Cecil Rhodes’s 1877 “Confession of Faith”:

I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. Added to this the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars. …

Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. … 

Even from an American’s point of view just picture what they have lost, look at their government, are not the frauds that yearly come before the public view a disgrace to any country and especially their’s which is the finest in the world. …

Africa is still lying ready for us it is our duty to take it. … More territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses.

To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object. …

In every Colonial legislature the Society should attempt to have its members prepared at all times to vote or speak and advocate the closer union of England and the colonies, to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire. The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people. …

For fear that death might cut me off before the time for attempting its development I leave all my worldly goods in trust to S. G. Shippard and the Secretary for the Colonies at the time of my death to try to form such a Society with such an object. 

In that same year, 1877, when he was not yet a wealthy man, he first drafted his will. He revised it up until his death in 1902.

Here is the opening of Quigley’s 1981 masterpiece, The Anglo-American Establishment:

One wintry afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in earnest conversation in London. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest importance to the British Empire and to the world as a whole. For these men were organizing a secret society that was, for more than fifty years, to be one of the most important forces in the formulation and execution of British imperial and foreign policy.

The three men who were thus engaged were already well known in England. The leader was Cecil Rhodes, fabulously wealthy empire-builder and the most important person in South Africa. The second was William T. Stead, the most famous, and probably also the most sensational, journalist of the day. The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential adviser of King Edward VII and King George V.

The details of this important conversation will be examined later. At present we need only point out that the three drew up a plan of organization for their secret society and a list of original members. The plan of organization provided for an inner circle, to be known as “The Society of the Elect,” and an outer circle, to be known as “The Association of Helpers.” Within The Society of the Elect, the real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a “Junta of Three.” The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Alfred Milner. In accordance with this decision, Milner was added to the society by Stead shortly after that meeting we have described.[1].

The creation of this secret society was not a matter of a moment. As we shall see, Rhodes had been planning for this event for more than seventeen years. Stead had been introduced to the plan on 4 April 1899, and Brett had been told of it on 3 February 1890. Nor was the society thus founded an ephemeral thing, for, in modified form, it exists to this day.

So, what had begun as a plan to globalize the UK empire by means of attaching the U.S. to it, has by now become a vassalage of UK to U.S., which vassalization will produce an asset-stripping of the UK state, and a resultant soaring impoverishment of the UK public, which population the U.S. and UK international corporations will then drain, thus creating a greatly increased emigration from the UK.

The UK empire has thus come crashing down.

Rhodes, the first of the “neoconservatives” (or promoters of an all-encompassing U.S.-UK Empire) had made his fortune on the giant Kimberly Mine in South Africa, the world’s biggest diamond mine. And South Africa during its racist apartheid era happens also to point the way toward what the future UK might become. 

The great 1989 movie A Dry White Season is a meticulously accurate reconstruction of South Africa during the apartheid period, and of the way that Blacks were treated there (not only in that movie but in the reality). The way that Blacks were treated there, by South Africa’s U.S-backed apartheid Government, could turn out to be the way that all but the few wealthiest UK ‘citizens’ (actually royal subjects) will be treated by the U.S.-backed UK’s Government, in UK’s future. But, unlike in South Africa, revenge by the public would then produce in UK a very bloody revolution, which would be destructive, not the “Truth and Reconciliation” result that occurred in South Africa. This is only the beginning (and though that news-report on December 13th which is linked-to by that “This,” has an anti-leftist, pro-conservative slant, its videos display the start of what is likely to grow into a full-fledged revolution in UK). Fascism isn’t pretty, and it doesn’t always end in the peaceful way that it did in Franco’s Spain, or in apartheid South Africa. Sometimes, it ends more like France’s monarchy did during the 1789-99 French Revolution — with one imperialistic dictatorship giving rise to yet another. This revolution will probably happen to UK before it happens to U.S. If it does, then U.S. will probably bloodily put down the revolution in UK, but if that happens, then only a control over the ‘news’-media that’s even more total than what currently exists in U.S. would be able to prevent a revolution from resulting in U.S. — and such extremely total control over the media is unlikely anywhere. 

To this reporter’s knowledge (which, however, might be incomplete), the first-ever public report that the U.S. regime is using sanctions as the preliminary and cheaper stage toward a possible military invasion was here (from me on 27 May 2019). What Mnuchin on December 14th said, to CNBC, provides the first official confirmation that this reporter has yet seen of this now not-only-established but even officially acknowledged fact. It is now, officially, the U.S. regime versus, actually, the entire rest of the world, and sanctions are the first line of attack. This is an even more-aggressive official assertion of that “Amerika über alles” than was Barack Obama’s repeatedly asserted “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.” There it is, in black and white: to the U.S. regime, every other nation is “dispensable.” Cecil Rhodes, and the prominent followers in his tradition, such as George Soros, couldn’t have said it better. Trump likewise is in that tradition, though his rhetoric is quite different.

Right now, EU media appear to be reluctant to report that the U.S. regime is exceeding the bounds of the post-WW-II alliance — reluctant to report that America is going overtly hostile. For example, whereas, on December 22nd, the very top of the home-page of Russia’s RT headlined “Oh, really? US envoy to Germany says Nord Stream 2 sanctions ‘EXTREMELY PRO-EUROPEAN’ despite Berlin & EU criticism”, Germany’s Deutsche Welle was still ignoring the problem (underplaying, when not simply ignoring altogether, that “Berlin & EU criticism”), and, on its home page, didn’t show even a single headline which related to this momentous matter concerning the future for all Germans. Perhaps they’re hoping there’s hope, and think that reporting the current reality would be ‘premature’ at the present time. But isn’t the current reality what the “news” is supposed to be reporting? Why aren’t they? 

P.S.: The posting of this article at The Saker produced from readers there some objections that, as one put it, “The EU and US are not antipodes they are twin. The EU is controlled through NATO and the ongoing occupation of Europe.” But nothing in this article contradicts that. Another said, “I know from reading (also for work) that NATO membership = Phase 1; EU membership = phase 2, of ‘integration’ into Europe. And, yes, the weapons and command systems are all integrated.” To that, I responded: “My article here is predicting the breakup of NATO.” So, I state this here, just in case anyone here doesn’t recognize that it does predict NATO’s breakup. The U.S. is mainly going to get to keep EU/NATO nations bordering Russia, because America’s aristocracy plans to launch from there its invasion of Russia. As far as their other objective of boosting foreign sales of U.S. weaponry is concerned, those foreign sales are already going mainly to the Arab royals and Israel, so NATO’s original main function, of selling U.S. weapons to Europe, is already now secondary. And it’s also important to recognize that all of this started on 26 July 1945 when Truman decided to start what became subsequently known as “the Cold War”, and that this war has secretly continued till now after G.H.W. Bush on 24 February 1990 secretly ordered his European vassals to do so. 

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

EU: The stalemate in negotiations brings Serbia ever closer to Russia and China

Published

on

Serbia has been waiting since 2012 for the European Union to respond to its application to become a full member of the EU.

In spite of exhausting negotiations, this response is slow in coming and the main cause of the stalemate has a clear name: Kosovo. Before accepting Serbia’s application for membership, the EU requires a definitive solution to the relations between Serbia and that region that broke away from it after the 1999 conflict – when NATO came to the aid of the Kosovo Albanians – and proclaimed its independence in February 2008.

Serbia has never recognised the birth of the Kosovo Republic, just as many other important countries have not: out of 193 UN members, only 110 have formally accepted the birth of the new republic, while the rest, including Russia, China, Spain, Greece and Romania – to name just the most important ones – refuse to recognise the independence of the Albanians of what was once a region of Serbia.

The European Union cannot accept that one of its members is in fact unable to guarantee control over its borders, as would be the case for Serbia if its membership were accepted.

In fact, since the end of the war between Kosovo and Serbia, there is no clear and controlled border between the two countries. In order to avoid continuous clashes, Kosovo and Serbia have actually left the border open, turning a blind eye to the ‘smuggling economy’ that thrives on both sides of the border.

In this situation, if Serbia were to become a full member of the European Union, it would create a gap in the borders of the entire Schengen area, as anyone passing through Kosovo could then move into all EU countries.This is not the only obstacle to Serbia’s accession to the European

Union: many European chancelleries are wary of Serbian foreign policy which, since the dissolution of the Yugoslav Federation, has maintained a privileged relationship with Russia, refusing to adhere to the sanctions decided by Europe against Russia after the annexation of Crimea to the detriment of Ukraine.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, Serbia even agreed to produce the Russian vaccine ‘Sputnik V’ directly in its own laboratories, blatantly snubbing EU’s vaccine offer.

For the United States and some important European countries, Serbia’s formal accession to the European Union could shift the centre of gravity of Europe’s geopolitics towards the East, opening a preferential channel for dialogue between Russia and the European Union through Serbia.

This possibility, however, is not viewed unfavourably by Germany which, in the intentions of the CDU President, Armin Laschet, the next candidate to succeed Angela Merkel as Chancellor, has recently declared he is in favour of a foreign policy that “develops in multiple directions”, warning his Western partners of the danger resulting from “the interruption of the dialogue with Russia and China”. In this regard, Laschet has publicly stated that ‘foreign policy must always focus on finding ways to interact, including cooperation with countries that have different social models from ours, such as Russia, China and the nations of the Arab world’.

Today we do not know whether in autumn Laschet will take over the leadership of the most powerful country in the European Union, but what is certain is that Serbia’s possible formal membership of the European Union could force Europe to revise some of its foreign policy stances, under the pressure of a new Serbian-German axis.

Currently, however, Serbia’s membership of the European Union still seems a long way off, precisely because of the stalemate in the Serbia-Kosovo negotiations.

In 2013 Kosovo and Serbia signed the so-called ‘Brussels Pact’, an agreement optimistically considered by European diplomats to be capable of rapidly normalising relations between Serbia and Kosovo, in view of mutual political and diplomatic recognition.

An integral part of the agreement was, on the one hand, the commitment of Kosovo’s authorities to recognise a high degree of administrative autonomy to the Kosovo municipalities inhabited by a Serb majority and, on the other hand, the collaboration of the Serbs in the search for the remains of the thousands of Kosovar Albanians presumably eliminated by Milosevic’s troops during the repression that preceded the 1999 war.

Neither of the two commitments has so far been fulfilled and, during the meeting held in Brussels on July 21 between Serbian President Alexander Vucic and Kosovo’s Prime Minister Albin Kurti, harsh words and reciprocal accusations were reportedly exchanged concerning the failure to implement the ‘Pact’, to the extent that the Head of European foreign policy, Josep Borrel, publicly asked the two parties to ‘close the chapter of a painful past through a legally binding agreement on the normalisation of mutual relations, with a view to building a European future for its citizens’. This future seems nebulous, to say the least, if we consider that Serbia, in fact, refuses to recognise the legal value of degrees and diplomas awarded by the Kosovo academic authorities also to members of the Kosovo Serb minority.

Currently, however, both contenders are securing support and alliances in Europe and overseas.

Serbia is viewed favourably by the current President of the European Union, Slovenian Janez Jansa, who is a supporter of its membership because “this would definitively mark the dissolution of the Yugoslav Federation”. The vast majority of European right-wing parties, ranging from the French ‘Rassemblement National’ to the Hungarian ‘Fydesz’, also approve of Serbia’s membership application and openly court the Serbian minorities living in their respective countries while, after the years of US disengagement from the Balkans under Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump, the Biden administration has decided to put the region back on the list of priority foreign policy commitments, entrusting the ‘Serbia dossier’ to the undersecretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, Matthew Palmer, an authoritative and experienced diplomat.

With a view to supporting its application for European membership, Serbia has also deployed official lobbyists.

Last June, Natasha Dragojilovic Ciric’s lobbying firm ND Consulting officially registered in the so-called EU ‘transparency register’ to promote support for Serbia’s membership. ND is financed by a group of international donors and is advised by Igor Bandovic, former researcher at the American Gallup and Head of the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy, by lawyer Katarina Golubovic of the ‘Committee of Human Rights Lawyers’ and Jovana Spremo, former OSCE consultant.

These are the legal experts deployed by Serbia in Brussels to support its application for formal European integration, but in the meantime Serbia is not neglecting its “eastern” alliances.

Earlier this month, the Head of the SVR, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergey Naryshkin, paid an official visit to Belgrade, a few weeks after the conclusion of a joint military exercise between Russian special forces (the “Spetznaz”) and Serbian special forces.

In the Serbian capital, Naryshkin not only met his Serbian counterpart Bratislav Gasic, Head of the ‘Bezbednosno Informativna Agencija’, the small but powerful Serbian secret service, but was also received by the President of the Republic Alexander Vucic with the aim of publicising the closeness between Serbia and Russia.

The timing of the visit coincides with the resumption of talks in Brussels on Serbia’s accession to the European Union and can clearly be considered as instrumental in exerting subtle diplomatic pressure aimed at convincing the European Union of the possibility that, in the event of a refusal, Serbia may decide to definitely turn its back on the West and ally with an East that is evidently more willing to treat the Serbs with the dignity and attention that a proud and tenacious people believes it deserves.

A piece of news confirming that Serbia is ready to turn its back on the West, should Europe continue to postpone the decision on its accession to the European Union is the fact that China has recently signed a partnership agreement with Serbia in the field of pharmaceutical research, an agreement that makes Serbia one of China’s current largest commercial partners on the European continent.

Continue Reading

Europe

NATO’s Cypriot Trick

Published

on

UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact died, there was much speculation that NATO would consider itself redundant and either disappear or at least transmogrify into a less aggressive body.

Failing that, Moscow at least felt assured that NATO would not include Germany, let alone expand eastwards. Even the NATO Review, NATO’s PR organ, wrote self-apologetically twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin wall: “Thus, the debate about the enlargement of NATO evolved solely in the context of German reunification. In these negotiations Bonn and Washington managed to allay Soviet reservations about a reunited Germany remaining in NATO. This was achieved by generous financial aid, and by the ‘2+4 Treaty’ ruling out the stationing of foreign NATO forces on the territory of the former East Germany. However, it was also achieved through countless personal conversations in which Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders were assured that the West would not take advantage of the Soviet Union’s weakness and willingness to withdraw militarily from Central and Eastern Europe.”

Whatever the polemics about Russia’s claim that NATO broke its promises, the facts of what happened following the fall of the Berlin wall and the negotiations about German re-unification strongly demonstrate that Moscow felt cheated and that the NATO business and military machine, driven by a jingoistic Cold War Britain, a selfish U.S. military-industrial-congressional complex and an atavistic Russia-hating Poland, saw an opportunity to become a world policeman.

This helps to explain why, in contrast to Berlin, NATO decided to keep Nicosia as the world’s last divided city. For Cyprus is in fact NATO’s southernmost point, de facto. And to have resolved Cyprus’ problem by heeding UN resolutions and getting rid of all foreign forces and re-unifying the country would have meant that NATO would have ‘lost’ Cyprus: hardly helpful to the idea of making NATO the world policeman. Let us look a little more closely at the history behind this.

Following the Suez debacle in 1956, Britain had already moved its Middle East Headquarters from Aden to Cyprus, while the U.S. was taking over from the UK and France in the Middle East. Although, to some extent under U.S. pressure, Britain was forced to bring Makarios out of exile and begin negotiating with Greece and Turkey to give up its colony, the U.S. opted for a NATO solution. It would not do to have a truly sovereign Cyprus, but only one which accepted the existence of the Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) as part and parcel of any settlement; and so it has remained, whatever the sophistic semantics about a bizonal settlement and a double-headed government. The set of twisted and oft-contradictory treaties that have bedevilled the island since 1960 are still afflicting the part-occupied island which has been a de facto NATO base since 1949. Let us look at some more history.

When Cyprus obtained its qualified independence in 1960, Greece and Turkey had already signed, on 11 February 1959, a so called ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, agreeing that they would support Cyprus’ entry into NATO.1 This was, however, mere posture diplomacy, since Britain—and the U.S. for that matter—did not trust Cyprus, given the strength of the Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL) and the latter’s links to Moscow. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) wrote: ‘Membership of NATO might make it easier for the Republic of Cyprus and possibly for the Greeks and Turks to cause political embarrassment should the United Kingdom wish to use the bases […] for national ends outside Cyprus […] The access of the Cypriot Government to NATO plans and documents would present a serious security risk, particularly in view of the strength of the Cypriot Communist Party. […] The Chiefs of Staff, therefore, feel most strongly that, from the military point of view, it would be a grave disadvantage to admit Cyprus to NATO.’2 In short, Cyprus was considered unreliable.

As is well known, the unworkable constitution (described as such by the Foreign Office and even by David Hannay, the Annan reunification plan’s PR man), resulted in chaos and civil strife: in January 1964, during the chaos caused by the Foreign Office’s help and encouragement to President Makarios to introduce a ‘thirteen point plan’ to solve Cyprus’ problems, British Prime Minister Douglas-Home told the Cabinet: ‘If the Turks invade or if we are seriously prevented from fulfilling our political role, we have made it quite clear that we will retire into base.’3 Put more simply, Britain had never had any intention of upholding the Treaty of Guarantee.

In July of the same year, the Foreign Office wrote: ‘The Americans have made it quite clear that there would be no question of using the 6th Fleet to prevent any possible Turkish invasion […] We have all along made it clear to the United Nations that we could not agree to UNFICYP’s being used for the purpose of repelling external intervention, and the standing orders to our troops outside UNFYCYP are to withdraw to the sovereign base areas immediately any such intervention takes place.’4

It was mainly thanks to Moscow and President Makarios that in 1964 a Turkish invasion and/or the island being divided between Greece and Turkey was prevented. Such a solution would have strengthened NATO, since Cyprus would no longer exist other than as a part of NATO members Greece and Turkey. Moscow had issued the following statement: ‘The Soviet Government hereby states that if there is an armed foreign invasion of Cypriot territory, the Soviet Union will help the Republic of Cyprus to defend its freedom and independence against foreign intervention.’5

Privately, Britain, realising the unworkability of the 1960 treaties, was embarrassed, and wished to relieve itself of the whole problem. The following gives us the backstage truth: ‘The bases and retained sites, and their usefulness to us, depend in large measure on Greek Cypriot co-operation and at least acquiescence. A ‘Guantanamo’6 position is out of the question. Their future therefore must depend on the extent to which we can retain Greek and/or Cypriot goodwill and counter USSR and UAR pressures. There seems little doubt, however, that in the long term, our sovereign rights in the SBA’s will be considered increasingly irksome by the Greek Cypriots and will be regarded as increasingly anachronistic by world public opinion.7

Following the Turkish invasion ten years later, Britain tried to give up its bases: ‘British strategic interests in Cyprus are now minimal. Cyprus has never figured in NATO strategy and our bases there have no direct NATO role. The strategic value of Cyprus to us has declined sharply since our virtual withdrawal from east of Suez. This will remain the case when the Suez Canal has reopened.8

A Cabinet paper concluded: ‘Our policy should continue to be one of complete withdrawal of our military presence on Cyprus as soon as feasible. […] In the circumstances I think that we should make the Americans aware of our growing difficulty in continuing to provide a military presence in Cyprus while sustaining our main contribution to NATO. […]9

Britain kept trying to give up the bases, but the enabler of the Turkish invasion, Henry Kissinger, did not allow Britain to give up its bases and listening posts, since that would have weakened NATO, and since Kissinger needed the bases because of the Arab-Israel dispute.10

Thus, by the end of 1980, in a private about-turn, Britain had completely succumbed to American pressure: ‘The benefits which we derive from the SBAs are of major significance and virtually irreplaceable. They are an essential contribution to the Anglo-American relationship. The Department have regularly considered with those concerned which circumstances in Cyprus are most conducive to our retaining unfettered use of our SBA facilities. On balance, the conclusion is that an early ‘solution’ might not help (since pressures against the SBAs might then build up), just as breakdown and return to strife would not, and that our interests are best served by continuing movement towards a solution – without the early prospect of arrival [author’s italics]11.

And so it is today: Cyprus is a de facto NATO territory. A truly independent, sovereign and united Cyprus is an anathema to the U.S. and Britain, since such a scenario would afford Russia the hypothetical opportunity to increase its influence in the Eastern Mediterranean.

From our partner RIAC

[1] Ministry of Defence paper JP (59) 163, I January 1960, BNA DEFE 13/99/MO/5/1/5, in Mallinson, William, Cyprus, a Modern History, I.B. Tauris (now Bloomsbury), London and New York, 2005, 2009, 2012, p.49.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Memorandum by Prime Minister, 2 January 1964, BNA CAB/129/116, in ibid, Mallinson, William, p.37.

[4] British Embassy, Washington, to Foreign Office, 7 July 1964, telegram 8541, BNA FO 371/174766, file C1205/2/G, in ibid.’, Mallinson, William, p. 37.

[5] Joseph, Joseph S., Cyprus, Ethnic Conflict and International Politics, St Martin’s Press, London and New York, 1997, p. 66.

[6] In 1964, Cuba cut off supplies to the American base at Guantanamo Bay, since the US refused to return it to Cuba, as a result of which the US took measures to make it self-sufficient.

[7] Briefing paper, 18 June 1964, BNA-DO/220/170, file MED 193/105/2, part A. Mallinson,William, Kissinger and the Invasion of Cyprus, p. 127.

[8] ‘British Interests in the Eastern Mediterranean’, draft paper, 11 April 1975, BNA-FCO 46/1248, file DPI/515/1.

[9] Cabinet paper, 29 September 1976, in op. cit. Mallinson, William, Kissinger and the Invasion of Cyprus, p.134.

[10] Mallinson, William, Britain and Cyprus: Key Themes and Documents, I.B. Tauris, London and New York, 2011, and Bloomsbury, London and New York, 2020, pp. 87-121.

[11] Fergusson to Foreign Minister’s Private Secretary, minute, 8 December 1980, BNA-FCO 9/2949, file WSC/023/1, part C.

Continue Reading

Europe

Belarus divorces from the Eastern Partnership: A new challenge for the EU Neighborhood Policy

Published

on

The Eastern Partnership (EaP) is the Eastern dimension of the EU Neighborhood Policy adopted back in 2009 aimed at deepening relations between Brussels and six Eastern European partners – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The EaP has been regarded as a strategic initiative based on mutual interests and common values with a goal of strengthening political and economic relations with those countries, helping them enhance their institutional capacity through sustainable reforms. While increasing stability and paving the way for the sustainable development of those societies, the EU’s overall goal has been to secure its Eastern borders.

Since the very beginning the EaP has been suspiciously viewed by Russia as an attempt of expansion of the sphere of influence and as a first step of EU membership of these countries. Russians point to the EU and NATO ambitious expansion eastward as the main reason for complicated relations and in this context the EaP has been regarded with traditional fears and paranoic perceptions. The Russian hard power approach causes serious problems for the EaP which fails to mitigate security concerns of partner countries and to come up with serious initiatives for conflict settlement. Being a laggard in terms of soft power, the Russian ruling elite has continuously used all hard power foreign policy instruments at its disposal trying to undermine the coherence of the initiative. And the very recent démarche of Belarus to withdraw from the EaP should be seen in this context of confrontation.

On 28th of June, the ministry of foreign affairs of Belarus announced a decision to halt its membership in the EaP as a response to the EU sanctions imposed on Minsk accompanied by the recalling ambassadors from both sides. Actually, this isn’t the first case of the EaP walkout blackmailed by Lukashenko. The first escape was attempted in September-October 2011, but the difficulties were soon resolved and Lukashenko revised his decision. This time situation seems very complicated and these far-reaching tensions may have tough consequences for Lukashenko’s regime. This new group of sectoral sanctions which target banking, oil, telecommunication spheres and also ban the export of potash, is a harsh response from the EU against Lukashneko’s scandalous hijacking activity in May to detain a Belarusian opposition journalist and blogger Roman Protasevich.

Lukashenko’s administration not only challenges the EU Neighborhood Policy and shows no retreat, but also goes forward escalating the situation. Minsk takes high risks freezing the Readmission Agreement signed by the EU. This document is a legal basis for bilateral cooperation aimed at struggling against irregular migration flows. It’s not a secret that the territory of Belarus has been used for illegal migration for the groups from the Middle East to penetrate into neighboring EU member states such as Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. Moreover, Belarus territory has served as a transit route for smuggling circles going from East to West and vice versa.  And now closing eyes on all these channels, Minsk hopes to increase the bargaining power vis-à-vis Brussels. However, given the Western reactions, it seems that this time the EU is resolute.

Despite the fact that Charles Michel, the President of the EU Council, described this withdrawal as “another step backwards” and even threatened that “this will escalate tensions having clear negative impacts”, the EU wants to continue working with the Belarusian society  as Josep Borrel stated. The EU’s determination to keep the bridges alive with the Belarusian people, in spite of Lukashneko’s radical stance, is aimed at preventing further isolationism of Minsk which would benefit only Russia.

In contrast to the increasing level of tensions with the EU, the Russian authorities continue to support Lukasheno’s administration, thus trying to deepen the gap and to bring Belarus under their total influence. Russia uses Belarus in its chessboard with the EU and the USA in Eastern Europe. Last year’s fraud elections and brutal crackdown by Lukashenko left him alone with the only source of power stemming from the Kremlin. Thus the withdrawal from the EaP should be understood not only as a convulsion of the Belarusian authorities in response to the sanctions, but also Russia’s employment of the Belarus card to respond to the recent joint statement of the EU-US summit in Brussels, when both parties declared their intention to stand with the people of Belarus, supporting their demands for human rights and democracy simultaneously criticising Lukashenko’s regime and his reckless political behavior and also criticising Russian’s unacceptable behavior.

So, Lukashenko’s step to quit the EaP can be seen as a well-calculated adulatory sign towards Moscow sacrificing the last remnants of sovereignty in order to receive financial and political lifebuoy amid the increasing crisis in the result of sanctions.  And the recent visit of N. Patrushev, the Secretary of the Security Council of Russia, to Minsk right after the withdrawal decision shows Russian inclination to strike while the iron is hot and to abuse the vulnerable situation of Belarus. Patrushev stated that the ultimate goal of foreign powers is to change the power in Belarus and he suggested instead of focusing on internal issues, to bring their forces together against external threats as their influence affects internal developments. For this reason, deeper integration of security and military services of both countries are on the table.

The reaction of opposition leader S. Tikhanovskaya was very rough, stating that this suspension will cut the opportunities of ordinary citizens who benefit from the political and economic outcomes of the EaP. Moreover, she claims that Lukashenko doesn’t have a right to represent Belarus since August 2020 and his decisions don’t have legal consequences for Belarus. This kind of approach is shared by the leadership of Lithuania too, whose president and minister of foreign affairs not only refuse to recognize Lukashenko as a legitimate president, but also highlight the role of the Kremlin in supporting the dictatorial power of Lukashenko in exchange for decreasing sovereignty.

The blackmail of Lukashenko to challenge the EU Eastern Neighborhood Policy  in order to have the sanctions lifted may bring about such kind of precedents with other partnering countries as well. First of all, this concerns Azerbaijan which continues to face serious problems related with human rights, freedom of expression, the problem of Prisoners of War and other traits of authoritarian power. It’s well-known that  human rights issues have been the underwater stones in the EU and Azerbaijan relations and they continue to pose new challenges for Aliyev’s non-democratice regime. Another weak ring of the EaP chain is Armenia. Even though reelected N. Pashinyan is eager to pursue a balanced foreign policy, post-war Armenia still faces serious limitations given its vulnerable dependence on Russia. Besides, Pashinyan’s main rival and the former President R. Kocharyan, whose alliance will be the second largest faction in the newly elected Parliament has recently stated that this new parliament can last up to one and half years and nobody can exclude the possibility of new snap elections. His pro-Russian attitude and anti-Western stance are well-known and in case he becomes a prime-minister, there is no guarantee that he will follow the path of Lukashenko. 

Therefore  the statement of the Austrian MFA, that ”we cannot leave South Caucasus to others” during the  recent official visit of the Austrian, Romanian and Latvian MFA under the mandate of the EU High Representative to the South Caucasus, reminds  about the EU presence in the region and also the fact that the ‘normative power’ can be a source of balance and a status quo changer.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending