As Turkey-Russia disagreements intensify in northern Syria, another theater – the Black Sea and the South Caucasus – is starting to play a bigger role in Turkey’s thinking in the coming years. Ankara is likely to increase its military and economic cooperation with Georgia and try to shore up Tbilisi’s NATO membership aspirations.
Turkey’s significance in the regional geopolitics is dictated by the country’s geography and the fact that it borders regions of different geopolitical importance. Whether it is the Black Sea, South Caucasus or Syria, all these regions experience crises of alternating magnitude, which directly impacts Turkey’s borders. Though over the past decade Ankara has remained perceptive of various military and economic developments along its borders, nevertheless, it could be argued that it is the Syrian crisis that has largely consumed Turkey’s entire foreign policy attention. It is in Syria that Ankara has faced its major competitors, Russia and Iran, which, both, against Turkish interests, pursue their strategic goals of securing the sovereignty of Syria under the current president, Bashar al-Assad.
However, as Moscow’s pressure on Ankara in Syria grows, Turkey might turn its attention to other regions to offset Russian influence. Two such regions are the Black Sea region and the South Caucasus where the security situation has worsened significantly. Over the past decade there have been consistent efforts from Russia to increase its military and economic influence in the region. The annexation of Crimea in 2014, ensuing military efforts to limit maritime traffic across the Kerch Strait, exponential growth of the Russian military personnel in Georgia’s Abkhazia, Tskhinvali Region, etc. all these measures complicate any viable western countermeasures in the region. Therefore, due to its geographic proximity and geopolitical interests in the Black Sea and South Caucasus regions, Ankara, in light of heightened competition with Russia in Syria, is likely to play a more active role in these theaters.
Indeed, Turkey is quite worried over the recent decade’s developments to its north and north-east. Though Ankara and Moscow have shown that both could successfully cooperate in different theaters, they, however, remain geopolitical competitors with diverging visions over the Black Sea and the South Caucasus. Russia’s annexation of Crimea leaves little chance for two powers to find a lasting compromise. In fact, Ankara has already started addressing this problem through helping Ukraine build a powerful military which could serve as a certain limit on Russia’s ambitions in the Black Sea area.
This geopolitical thinking was underscored in February when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Ukraine and announced $36 million in Turkish military aid for Ukraine. During the visit a framework agreement on cooperation in the defense sector was signed, which aims to facilitate cooperation between the countries in the defense sphere on the basis of reciprocity. This Turkish policy builds upon its recent consistent efforts to shore up Ukraine’s military capabilities through intense cooperation meetings. Moreover, in 2019 Baykar Makina, a privately owned Turkish drone maker, has won a $69 million contract to sell six Bayraktar TB2 UAVs to Ukraine. Indeed, on February 12 Turkish and Ukrainian military delegations openly discussed the possibility of enhancing bilateral security cooperation in the Black Sea region. This also involved potential participation in joint exercises and intensification of dialogue between Turkish and Ukrainian naval forces.
Thus, based on this trend, it is likely that in the coming years we could witness a further growth in military cooperation between Kyiv and Ankara. The latter would specifically work on expanding Ukraine’s defense capabilities both, maritime and land, vital to limit Russia’s military operations in eastern Ukraine or at sea along Ukraine’s Black Sea coast.
In the South Caucasus
That Turkey’s evolving thinking towards the Black Sea region is not an isolated case is also clear in Ankara’s recent growing attention paid to Georgia. For example, in December 2019 Turkey announced it would allocate 100 million Turkish liras (about $17 million) to the Georgian Ministry of Defense to carry out a reform in the sphere of the military logistics. This follows a significant growth in the transfer of Turkish defense capabilities to Georgia throughout 2019. In the first 11 months of 2019, exports of Turkish defense products to Georgia amounted to $3.9 million, which is approximately 37.8% more than what was during the same period of 2018. These measures also link up with a deep military cooperation that both states enjoy within Turkey-Georgia-Azerbaijan trilateral format (extended for 2022) when in mid-2019 the parties agreed to cooperate in creating military forces and defense systems in line with NATO standards.
This region has always been a space of intense Turkish-Russian competition and it is a crucial component of the country’s strategy of foreign policy diversification Ankara has pursued since early 1990s. Turkey has actively worked on connecting the South Caucasus region to its growing energy market consumption by initiating/facilitating various east-west energy and infrastructure projects. The TANAP, Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan etc. have served as a powerful tool for Ankara to secure/strengthen its vital geopolitical interests. This thinking was clearly reflected during the latest meeting between the Turkish President and Georgian PM, Giorgi Gakharia in October 2019. For example, Erdogan stressed that the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway represents not only “a step of historic importance,” but it also “introduces a new means [of transportation infrastructure] that interconnects the three friendly countries [Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan].” Thus, it is in Turkey’s vital interest to keep the corridor to Azerbaijan and the wider Caspian basin as free and secure as possible primarily from Russian military and economic ambitions.
To pursue this agenda would be possible through an increase of military cooperation with Tbilisi. However, though significant in numbers, just Turkish military aid (provided to Georgia in 2019 and in previous years) might not be enough to extensively increase Georgia’s military capabilities. Indeed, over the past decade or so, while Syria dominated Ankara’s agenda, Russia’s intensive militarization of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region changed a balance of power in the South Caucasus.
This geopolitical thinking could have been behind an interesting reappraisal of Turkish foreign policy. This January, during the Davos World Economic Forum in Switzerland, the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu unexpectedly called for Georgia’s accession into NATO: “I don’t understand why we have not invited Georgia, or [that] we haven’t activated the action plan for Georgia to become a member.” He also added “We are criticized for having relatively better relations with Russia as a neighbor, but our western friends are not agreeing to invite Georgia because they don’t want to provoke Russia. But Georgia needs us, and we need an ally like Georgia. So, we need enlargement and Georgia should be made a member.”
This represents a novelty in Turkey’s approach. Growth in military cooperation with Georgia as well as an open support for its NATO aspirations could well signal the beginning of a new strategic approach within Turkey’s neighborhood. Considering the military pressure emanating from Moscow in the Black Sea and Syria, Ankara could start pressuring the Kremlin by propping up those very borderland states which share difficult relations with Russia.
This is still far from a clear proxy competition, which takes place between the US and Russia. Moreover, Turkey and Russia will be striving to avoid confronting each other militarily. Even if the Syrian conflict ends in the near future, Turkey will still have to address a changing military, thence geopolitical, balance of power to its north and north-east, to limit a predominant Russia.
For Tbilisi, on the other hand, an evolving perspective in Turkey’s foreign policy could provide a significant geopolitical boost in its quest to link up with NATO. Turkey using its vital position as a NATO member could offer a much deeper military cooperation beyond what is already seen within the Turkey-Georgia-Azerbaijan trilateral cooperation.
Author’s note: first published in Caucasus Watch
Both Zelensky and Poroshenko Acknowledged They Came to Power Illegally
A coup is an illegal way to come to power, and both of Ukraine’s Presidents after the February 2014 overthrow of the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych acknowledged that the overthrow of him violated the law, and that the government which became installed after Yanukovych’s overthrow has no legitimacy whatsoever — that the “Maidan of dignity” and “democratic revolution” was actually a hoax.
On 22 June 2015, I headlined “Ukraine’s President Poroshenko Admits Overthrow Of Yanukovych Was A Coup” and I provided full online documentation both of his allegation and of its being entirely true. I even documented that on 26 February 2014 (the final day of the actual coup) he had informed the EU that this was the case, and that they were surprised to hear it but ignored it. The U.S. allegations that Yanukovych had been overthrown by a spontaneous and mass-supported revolution against him — and which were clearly a lie even as early as 4 February 2014 but a lie that was pumped ceaselessly in the ‘news’-media regardless of that evidence — those U.S. allegations were thoroughly documented, in a 12 March 2014 video-compilation that was posted to youtube, to be false, a hoax, and yet nonetheless, this fact continued to be ignored in U.S.-&-allied ‘news’-media, as-if truth had nothing whatsoever to do with news-reporting and analysis — as-if evidence doesn’t matter, regardless of how extensive and reliable and conclusive it is. As-if The West is floating on lies, and its public won’t ever much care about that fact. (That’s the assumption; and, if by “the public” is meant the nation’s press, then that assumption is unquestionably true, because the press don’t care about it, at all — they instead support it; they support this status-quo, of lies-based ‘history’.)
Then, on 11 February 2020, Ukraine’s own Interfax News Agency issued the following news-report (as auto-translated into English):
11 February 2020
The President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyi, believes that the investigation and completion of the tragic events on Independence Square during the Revolution of Dignity is the most difficult matter [to discuss] in the country.
“Lost evidence, documents. There are no people, there are no witnesses. Some say that in general, in places after this tragedy, all these events have been removed by many. The most difficult case that we have in our country is the Maidan,” he said in an exclusive interview with “Interfax-Ukraine” agency.
Zelensky pointed out that “everyone is engaged in these matters”.
“I know for sure that they are working faster than it was a few years ago. When they will find customers, because it is more understandable with murderers, I cannot say. All forces are involved in these cases, and we are doing everything possible,” he said.
Actually, there were plenty of witnesses, and even some of the participants subsequently came forth to admit publicly that they had participated in the coup, but the ‘news’-media in U.S.&-and-allied countries weren’t interested (even if the public there might have been, if only they had known about it).
On 24 February 2020, Putin ordered an invasion of Ukraine so that the coup-installed regime in Ukraine and its U.S.-NATO-EU sponsors won’t be able to install U.S. nuclear missiles within 5-minute flying-distance from Moscow on Ukraine’s border with Russia.
This is the result of the ideology that now controls The West, called “neoliberalism” in domestic or intranational policymaking, and “neoconservatism” in international policymaking; and it is that every dollar is equal, and that every person isn’t only different from every other person but is unequal, that all rights should therefore depend upon how rich a person is — investors therefore should control the government: they have a right to use their wealth to hire whomever they must in order to deceive the voters, so that wealth will control the government, and the public won’t. A microcosmic documentary about this U.S.-epitomized-and-championed ideology, in action, showing how it actually works, is the film “DOWNFALL: The Case Against Boeing”. It’s about the most deadly passenger plane that was ever designed and built by any company anywhere, Boeing’s model 737 Max. It’s about the U.S. Government being controlled by the nation’s super-rich, who are overwhelmingly psychopaths; and, since they control the Government, the most psychopathic individuals keep getting richer and richer (‘better and better’) and never get life in prison or the death penalty, no matter how much they ought to. It’s about the worst people controlling the Government, while the elected Government officials are s‘elected’ by the super-rich and merely pretending to care about the public that they are supposed to be (and claim to be) representing (but know they actually don’t).
Ukraine’s Government is merely a client-state of our own. It is a subsidiary of America Incorporated. It’s like Boeing. It’s the way that Boeing is, and the way that its Government has been set up for Boeing (and all successful corporations) to be. But in international affairs, which is the realm of neoconservatism, power comes as much from weapons as it comes from deceiving voters. It’s about the system that empowers the most-evil individuals and that traps the public and encourages the public to fight against each other instead of against the few individuals (the successful investors) who profit from this system: the system that is called neoliberalism-neoconservatism, and that profits the predators, at the expense of the public. Mussolini called it “fascism,” and also called it “corporationism”, and he got that ideology from his teacher Vilfredo Pareto, who was its inventor. In it, the order both of rights and of power is: (1) investors; (2) executives; (3) consumers; (4) employees. (Anyone who isn’t in any of those 4 categories is considered to be worthless. The dollar rules; they don’t count, at all.)
The documentary’s creator remained, at the end, a confused, non-comprehending liberal, only slightly less of a neoliberal-neoconservative than she was before it. But at least she seems sincere. She is simply deceived by the liberal ‘news’-media that she is subjected to — still a believing Democrat, obviously against Republicans: her “us” (CNN, NYT, etc.) against “them” (FNC, WSJ, etc.). But the viewers of her documentary might see in her documentary what she does not — something which goes beyond her narrow sphere of concern.
She is Rory Kennedy — a daughter of RFK, sister of RFK Jr., and niece of JFK.
Anyway: Ukraine, at least ever since February 2014, is being run in accord with the same ideology that guides Boeing Corporation. The U.S. Government calls this “the rules-based international order,” and those “rules” come from the U.S. Government, and NOT from the U.N. and its international laws. It’s the world in which the most-successful gangsters rule, not merely nationally, but internationally. That’s called “hegemony,” and the rulers of America like it just fine, because it’s theirs — they own it, and they want to keep it. They certainly don’t want it to end.
Ukraine: Prospects for end to war look bleak
The war in Ukraine shows no signs of ending, more than five months after the Russian invasion, and fighting is intensifying, the UN Security Council heard on Friday.
Ambassadors were briefed by UN political affairs chief Rosemary DiCarlo, who pointed to the recent agreement on the safe resumption of grain exports via the Black Sea as a bright light in the conflict, though acknowledging the dim prospects for peace.
“The grain agreement is a sign that dialogue between the parties is possible in the search to ease human suffering,” said Ms. DiCarlo, officially the Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs.
She added that the UN is making every effort to support implementation of the deal, which was signed last week in Türkiye.
Diplomatic efforts needed
The war’s impact globally is “glaringly clear”, said Ms. DiCarlo, noting that the consequences will only become more pronounced the longer fighting lasts, particularly with the onset of winter.
“Despite the encouraging developments on grain and fertilizers, we remain deeply concerned about the lack of prospects for a shift towards a meaningful resumption of diplomatic efforts to end the war,” she told the Council.
“Escalatory rhetoric from any side, including about expanding the conflict geographically or denying Ukraine’s statehood, is not consistent with the constructive spirit demonstrated in Istanbul.”
Attacks continue unabated
Ms. DiCarlo said that since her last briefing in late June, deadly attacks by Russian forces have continued unabated, reducing many Ukrainian cities and towns to rubble.
The number of civilians killed, wounded, or maimed has also increased. As of Wednesday, there were 12,272 civilian casualties, including 5,237 deaths, according to the UN human rights office, OHCHR.
“This represents at least 1,641 new civilian casualties since my last briefing: 506 killed and 1,135 injured. These are figures based on verified incidents; the actual numbers are considerably higher,” she said.
Ms. DiCarlo also warned of reported efforts to alter administrative structures on the ground, including attempts to introduce local governing bodies in Russian-controlled areas, which raise serious concerns about the political implications of the war.
“As the conflict enters a more protracted phase, attention is increasingly turning to its longer-term humanitarian, recovery, reconstruction, and socio-economic impact. As summer wanes, the need for winterization planning is also becoming pressing,” she said.
“Regrettably, political dialogue has virtually ground to a halt, leaving people without the hope that peace will come anytime soon.”
UN agencies also continue to document damage and destruction to civilian infrastructure such as homes, schools and healthcare facilities.
The impact on the health sector is “particularly alarming”, she said, as there have been 414 attacks so far, resulting in 85 deaths and 100 injuries.
“This includes 350 attacks on facilities in areas of conflict, where on average around 316,000 patients were treated per month,” she said.
Assistance to millions
Since the start of the war, the UN and humanitarian partners have provided aid to some 11 million people, including in the form of food and livelihood assistance, protection services, mine clearance, and in accessing safe water and sanitation.
Nearly six million Ukrainian refugees have found shelter across Europe. Since the war began on 24 February, border crossings from Ukraine have totalled more than 9.5 million, while crossings to Ukraine numbered 3.8 million.
“We are concerned that winter will make it harder for the displaced or the returnee community to have access to shelter and health care,” said Ms. DiCarlo.
Impacts on women
She also drew attention to the war’s specific impact on women and girls, particularly in areas such as food security and health.
Women’s access to health services, including sexual and reproductive health, is rapidly deteriorating, as is access to newborn and child healthcare. They are also now largely responsible for home-schooling, as access to education is severely hindered due to the constant threat of bombing.
“Further, women in Ukraine face significantly increased safety and protection risks,” she added.
“Incidents of gender-based violence, including allegations of sexual violence in conflict have increased, but services for survivors are not provided in full. It is also likely that many victims and survivors are currently unable to report their cases.”
Ms. DiCarlo stressed that it is especially for these reasons why women must be meaningful participants in discussions and initiatives to shape the future of the country, including peace negotiations, recovery efforts, peacebuilding and accountability efforts.
Hope for grain shipments
The top UN humanitarian official in Ukraine, Osnat Lubrani, was in the port city of Odessa on Friday, together with the country’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and ambassadors from G7 countries, according to her official Twitter account.
This week saw the start of an operation under the grain exports deal, known as the Joint Coordination Centre (JCC), which will monitor ships transporting grain, as well as related foodstuffs and fertilizers, from Odessa and two other ports along the Black Sea.
The JCC brings together representatives from Ukraine, Russia, Türkiye, and the UN.
Ms. Lubrani wrote that she was “very hopeful for the movements of ships to take place soon, taking much needed grain and related foodstuffs from Ukraine to countries that need them the most”.
She added that it was an honour to talk to President Zelenskyy and to reaffirm the UN’s ongoing support to Ukraine.
The visit took place on Ms. Lubrani’s final day as the UN’s Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator in Ukraine. Her successor, Denise Brown, will assume the post starting on Saturday.
Humanitarians call for greater access
The launch of the Joint Coordination Centre (JCC) is an example of how the international community can affect change even amid the war in Ukraine, a UN humanitarian official said in the capital, Kyiv, on Friday.
Saviano Abreu of the UN humanitarian affairs office, OCHA, was among representatives from six UN agencies who briefed journalists on their ongoing operations to assist millions both within and outside Ukraine whose lives have been uprooted by the conflict.
“Although the world’s attention seems to be moving elsewhere, the situation in the country is far from any change,” he said.
While humanitarians have provided support to 11 million people so far, he said “we do know that it is not enough”.
Mr. Abreu reported that since the start of the Russian invasion, aid workers have not been able to send relief items to areas beyond the government’s control.
He underscored the obligation to allow free and safe humanitarian passage to all people in need.
“We saw this week that when there is a will, things can change”, said Mr. Abreu, referring to the JCC launch.
“Now we have to go one step further and make sure that no one is left behind also here in Ukraine. We need the parties to gently agree on humanitarian access to all regions of Ukraine, so we can save lives and alleviate the suffering of people who have endured these five months of war.”
Ukraine Is Only the Start: Special Operations’ Geopolitical Repercussions Will Transform How We View the World
The Russian Federation’s armed forces are still conducting a special operation in Ukraine. Serious changes in the Russian group of forces’ operational use are occurring, which suggests that the nature of the armed conflict is changing. In these circumstances, the issue of what will happen next emerges. Will the West release its pressure on Russia and begin dialogue, as many Russians expect, or will it be the other way around—will the pressure intensify and new violent conflicts develop ?
In order to properly identify ties between Russia and the united West, one must turn to a military-political study of the situation, focusing on its major components. It is first important to realize that the West functions as a single system. This is demonstrated by the fact that all NATO members under American leadership, as well as their allies in the Pacific Ocean, Japan and Australia, consistently impose a range of pressure on the Russian Federation. This provides support for the claim that a coalition of nations, led by one global powerhouse—the United States—and many regional ones, including Japan, Germany, and France—opposes Russia. As a result, there is an open conflict between the coalition leading one global center of power and another, whose allies are less numerous—Belarus is Russia’s current open ally, but it is continuing to grow.
Second, open economic warfare can be used to explain the series of steps made by the West to challenge Russia. Nearly all of the most severe sanctions that the EU is capable of imposing have been implemented. Josep Borrell, the president of the European Parliament, publicly confirmed this. In other words, all available resources of the participating countries are under pressure, which is a hallmark of war. As of now, Russia has only taken symmetrical and ineffective responses. However, the EU and the US have already suffered significant economic losses as a result of Western sanctions, which in the future risk developing into societal issues. However, the pressure from penalties on ancillary regions keeps growing. This attests to the Western coalition’s ferocious commitment, which is also one of the symptoms of war.
Third, the West is conducting a very aggressive foreign policy in an effort to persuade those nations to join its alliance or at the very least dissuade them from backing Russian policy. To divide the burgeoning Russian-Chinese alliance, there are particularly strong attempts being made in the Chinese direction.
Fourth, the conflict between the Western coalition and Russia in the information sphere has all the hallmarks of a time of war: resentment, disregard for all moral standards, immense power, and the use of tactically important but short-term fakes that have operational or tactical value but are not intended to have long-term effects; and additionally, the coordination of the communication strategy across all the U.S. and NATO media.
Fifth, giving Ukraine, which is engaged in an armed conflict with Russia, full-scale military support while ignoring all except the most crucial constraints. In actuality, the West can only provide small-sized portable weapons systems—no other weaponry than those that are being provided to Ukraine. The size of the country’s territory and the rate of Russian troop and police unit advancement in the LPR (Luhansk People’s Republic) and DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic) do not permit the provision of larger and more complex items, as they will be quickly identified and destroyed, and the soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine simply do not have time to master them. Due to the extremely high likelihood that the Russian-Ukrainian armed struggle will end in nuclear war, or at the very least result in significant losses of the alliance’s troops, it is also impossible to directly intervene with NATO army to provide military aid to Ukraine. Due to the peculiarities of the operational-strategic scenario and military-geographical constraints, even the establishment of a no-fly zone may result in intolerable losses of NATO and U.S. aircraft. Additionally, despite the current arsenal’s plainly limited effectiveness, it is clear that the West is determined to avoid at all costs the total defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the country’s Nazi régime. As a result, the Western coalition’s behavior perfectly matches a time of war.
Sixth, it is important to identify what the parties’ defining objectives are. The Western alliance seeks to subjugate Russia by staging a coup there to overthrow President Putin’s administration, not ruling out the prospect of his bodily demise, and establishing complete rule of Russia by Western and international élites. Russia’s effort aims to obstruct attempts by the West and other global players to encroach on the post-Soviet space.
Seventh, regardless of the outcome of the conflict between the Western coalition and Russia, the system of regional relations and even the geopolitical landscape of the world will undergo a profound transformation, which is also a sign of war—and a major one at that. Finally, it is impossible to ignore the “fifth column’s” unparalleled activity, which started acting virtually openly and undermined the president and the Russian Armed Forces. This actually amounts to a demand for Russia to submit to Ukraine and the unified West behind it under the current circumstances.
So, it is safe to say that the West as a whole and Russia are at war right now. Compared to the conflicts that occurred in the twentieth century, this one is of a different kind. It cannot be declared since, in essence, it is a classic hybrid conflict on the part of the West: Russia is undertaking a particular military operation in Ukraine but has not yet started applying tactics typical of hybrid conflicts on a big scale. After all, even gas still travels to Europe, especially via the Ukrainian GTS (gas pipeline). The size of this hybrid war with the West suggests that it has all the characteristics of a world war: the presence of opposing coalitions led by global centers of power that have engaged in direct military conflict, even if only in the information and economic spheres; the steadfastness of goals; the use of all available means of confrontation; the refusal to comply with legal norms of peacetime; and the transition to the principle of military expediency practically on a daily basis.
That is to say, we are discussing the start of the third world war, which is still ongoing in a refined hybrid form. The Western coalition engages in armed conflict with Russia while waging extensive economic and information warfare against it globally through the use of its proxies, the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It can be argued that it is premature to discuss a world war. Let’s contrast the state of the globe today with that at the start of World War II. It started on September 1st, 1939, when Nazi Germany attacked Poland. Due to a contract with Poland, France and Great Britain immediately declared war on Germany. Despite the fact that Hitler did not have combat-ready forces in the West when they declared war, they did not move an inch to attack Germany from that direction. Poland fought on its own, without assistance from its allies in the West, not even in the shape of shipments of weapons. The sole action taken by the British and French was to begin a blockade on Germany’s economy. Does it not make you think of anything? In actuality, the situation in the autumn of 1939 is structurally identical to the current one: the three major geopolitical centers at the time, namely Germany, Great Britain, and France, officially entered the war. However, only Poland saw combat, where the “Wehrmacht” was opposed by the Polish Armed Forces, which can be thought of as a proxy for Western powers. The only thing that made the interests different at the time was that France and Great Britain wanted to destroy Poland in order for their higher-level proxies—Hitler—to attack the USSR. As a result, today’s unified West would suffer a significant strategic setback if Nazi Ukraine were to be defeated. Therefore, February 24th, 2022, may be remembered by military historians in the future as the beginning of the third world war.
It is conceivable to forecast the evolution of the global geopolitical situation and the direction of the warring parties’ strategic endeavors based on such an understanding of the core of the current historical moment. It must be said that, if we look at the special operation in Ukraine from a purely military perspective, the loss of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the entire Nazi regime is already predestined and will happen very quickly. Numerous indicators exist for this. Among them are shifts in how Russian aviation is used, the appearance of fairly senior prisoners of war who gave up their weapons voluntarily, actions by Western élites that are completely meaningless from a military and economic point of view, like the supply of S-300 air defense systems to Kiev from Slovenia or demands for Turkey to give Ukrainians S-400 air defense systems, and the blatantly decadent speeches of the Ukrainian leadership. In these circumstances, if the “fifth column” is able to obtain a ceasefire of hostilities before the Armed Forces of Ukraine are completely destroyed and forced to complete and unconditional surrender, then only political defection can stop the total loss of the Ukrainian Nazi state. The Western coalition’s fight against Russia will nonetheless intensify regardless of the result of the special operation in Ukraine because the Western élites and the rest of the world cannot stop unless they have ultimately defeated Russia or suffered a defeat in this war. Since there are only two possible future world shapes, a lot is at stake.
One identified Klaus Schwab as the globalists’ spokesperson. States and national élites have no place in it because multinational companies rule and even privatize the world. An alternative to it is the idea of a multipolar world, which president Putin advocated last year at the Davos forum and succeeding important international summits. In such a world, states continue to be the focus of international politics, and transnational corporations and the corresponding élites have no place in the global power structure. Both of these choices are unavailable. If one of them succeeds, the other will inevitably fail, die—at least in a political and economic sense—and the proponents and supporters of the alternate course will vanish into history. When all available tactics are employed without endangering their own immediate lives, the conflict takes on an exceedingly severe character.
Since Russia is currently the only leader who has declared an alternative global agenda to globalism, the defeat and subjugation of Russia is the key objective for Western and global élites on this road. Russia possesses nuclear weapons that could literally obliterate the world’s ruling class and the entire West. It is impossible to bring down China without the fusion of American and Russian nuclear power under the direction of the globalists. Therefore, it is imperative for globalists and the existing Western élites to overthrow Russia by starting a revolution there within the next couple of years (two to three years).
The entire strategy developed by the West and globalists over the previous 20 years will fail if Nazi Ukraine is defeated. The repercussions of this setback could be geopolitically significant and catastrophic for globalists. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are beginning to warm up to Russia, China is taking a hard line on the Ukrainian issue, Venezuela wants to negotiate oil supplies with the United States only after it recognizes Maduro as the country’s legitimate president, and there are other similar manifestations that show the United States and the West are losing influence in the world.
The demise of Nazi Ukraine will lead to a dramatic decline in American and overall Western power, which will have the worst effects on the global economy. In these circumstances, avenging the Ukrainian defeat may take center stage in U.S.-European geopolitics. In turn, even with a plethora of other treaty assurances, the end of the special operation and the maintenance of the current régime will result in a military defeat for Russia. And this will have very negative effects, especially on the sociopolitical climate at home. Such a move would be detrimental to Moscow’s standing and reputation abroad.
As a result, we can anticipate a further rise in global tension, particularly on the military front, as well as the continuation of the third world [warbeginning ]’s phase. Based on the anticipated global power balance following the outcomes of the special operation in Ukraine, its primary content will most likely be the final division of states in the world into opposing coalitions, economic and informational conflict, as well as the establishment of armed conflict zones between irregular formations and regular armed forces of nations that serve as proxies for the major centers of power.
Each coalition will have a distinct core made up of the major power centers and their closest allies, who rigidly pursue a single strategy and actively engage in the conflict, and a peripheral made up of nations that support the coalition but only minimally participate in its operations. The United States and Britain, as well as possibly France, Germany, and Turkey, will form the backbone of the Western coalition. The remainder of the EU nations, which are either focused on advancing Western civilisation or are dependent on countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa, will make up the periphery. Russia, Belarus, China, and possibly North Korea and Iran might form the nucleus of a different coalition. The remainder of the CSTO members as well as the nations in the aforementioned regions that are oriented towards Russia and China, in particular Syria, might be considered to be part of the periphery.
Within the context of this phase, the Western coalition will concentrate its efforts primarily on finding a solution to the issue of Russia’s ultimate defeat by starting an unlawful transition of power followed by control of it. In order to do this, an endless economic and informational war will go on, along with efforts to establish bases for local as well as international armed confrontations on our nation’s soil or close to its borders.
The North Caucasus, Russia, Ukraine’s borderlands, poor regions, and parts of the Russian Federation with sizable Muslim populations are possible locations where the Western coalition might try to start a war. The Ukraine, where the West will attempt to deploy troops and support the Bandera movement, Central Asian nations with unstable régimes or territorial claims to their neighbors, as well as those bordering Afghanistan, are potential theaters of external military conflicts into which our nation could be sucked. One cannot completely rule out U.S. efforts to pressure Japan towards a military solution to the issue of the northern territories if certain circumstances arise, the most significant of which may be the special operation’s end without accomplishing the declared goals.
While simultaneously resolving the tasks of parrying the threats posed by the Western coalition, paying special attention to the military ones, Russia will likely be forced to take radical economic measures against the EU, up to and including a complete shutdown of energy supplies and other raw materials. China may choose a forceful solution to the Taiwan issue in light of the waning influence of the United States in the globe and the diminished integrity and economic potential of the NATO alliance as a result of sanctions against Russia.
In light of this, one should prepare for a significant rise in military tension surrounding Iran. Conflicts between nations that are on the perimeter of opposing coalitions are also likely to intensify in Latin America and Africa. This phase of the third global war can last anywhere between one and three years. It will come to an end when opposing coalitions are formed and distinct areas of armed conflict are established, laying the groundwork for the beginning of direct military conflict between the armies and warships of the major international powers. The world will be on the verge of nuclear war when this time period starts.
And it may be expected with a high degree of probability that actions will be made to stop further escalation by all disputing parties as soon as a precedent of confrontation involving the military forces of the United States, China, and Russia emerges on a more-or-less large-scale. The third global war’s current phase may come to an end concurrently with the United States, the world’s most powerful nation, leaving the Western coalition. This is feasible as a result of the growing internal conflict in American culture, which is manifested in the clash between national and globalist élites. After the autumn elections, it might enter an acute phase as the United States delves headfirst into resolving domestic issues. This might lower global tension and signal the start of a de-escalation of the conflict between Russia and the Western coalitions.
The Changing Political Dynamics of the Middle East
It is often said that the politics of the Middle East is as clear as mud. The fresh events that...
An interview with Joel Angel Bravo Anduaga: Are international organizations still relevant?
With recent developments in the international arena, and ghost conflicts from the past exacerbating contemporary global issues, it is inevitable...
Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban and the Modus Operandi of Jihadi Terrorism in Africa
According to sources, the violence in the Southern African country of Mozambique is on the rise and there is a...
War Victim Becomes Hope For Pakistan’s Tribal Districts
A 10-Year-old boy Irfan Ullah Jan would walk down the streets of Sadda, Kurram district heading to his school with...
Water in a loop: how to combat water scarcity on remote islands
BY SARAH WILD Every summer, thousands of tourists travel to Greece’s idyllic islands to enjoy their sunny beaches. Even the...
China’s economy showing resilience and potentials amid headwinds
Since the beginning of this year, the increasingly complicated international environment and weakened global economic recovery, as well as sporadic...
On Chinese Democracy
In recent years, China has been following the adage that “he who controls the discourse controls the world” with increasing...
Middle East4 days ago
How Russia’s Policy in the Middle East and North Africa is Changing After February 24
South Asia4 days ago
Crisis in Sri Lanka and The India-South Asia Challenges: Way Forward
Defense3 days ago
Escalating Big Power Contestation on Taiwan: Can It Lead to War?
Africa3 days ago
Russia and Zimbabwe Relations Remain Work-in-Progress, says Brig. Gen. Nicholas Mike Sango
Economy4 days ago
The Assembly Lines of Grand Eurasia
Russia3 days ago
Astana Trilateral Summit 2022: What did Russian President Achieve?
World News3 days ago
Horn of Africa faces most ‘catastrophic’ food insecurity in decades
South Asia3 days ago
The Need for Feminist Foreign Policy in India