Having considered a plethora of articles pontificating on Moscow’s military action in Ukraine, whether journalistic, academic, ideological, purely propagandistic and/or emotional, I feel constrained to say, as a diplomat turned historian of diplomatic history, that there seems to be a lack of understanding of why the so-called ‘international community’ (read ‘collective West’) currently seems to be suffering from a bout of ignorance, confusion and inconsistency in its inter-state relations. At the risk of sounding supercilious, I shall explain why so many agenda-driven pundits, in their shallow ‘analyses’, do not seem to have a clue about why our alleged leaders are running around like headless chickens. To begin to understand, we need to go deep into the causes of our institutional instability. These causes begin with the individual.
My starting point is that the current disorder is directly related to the quality of our alleged leaders, who no longer seem to have the space to reflect on reality. This is reflected in society as a whole. Put more subtly, in order to reflect, one needs the space not to have to think. Think about this (if you have some mental space), and you may begin to get my point. If you cannot grasp this, then you had better stop reading, since you may have inadvertently succumbed to the phenomenon of mind-numbing globalism-induced speed and greed assailing much of the ‘international community’ (i.e. the ‘West’), which has resulted in a lack of awareness of history. The teaching of history in western universities is indeed dying. Opinions have been replaced with appinions, and diplomacy with Twittering and Facebooking. Let us now deal with the salient factors, beginning with our mental underpinning, and then comment on the current ‘Ukrainian stupidity’.
Fear of Simplicity
In his history of the Peloponnesian Wars, Thucydides wrote that the simple way of considering matters, which is so much the example of a noble nature, was seen as an absurd characteristic, and soon died. Humans, most of whom feel insecure, do indeed tend to avoid simplicity, often hiding in theory, psychological models and circumlocution to justify their behaviour or approach to problems. In short, they fear being naked and exposed, often for no logical reason. Many look only to the future, ignoring the fact that only history in its purest form—the past—exists. As all is permanently flowing, the present cannot exist, as it becomes history as it happens. It follows that the future cannot exist, as it, too, becomes history as it occurs. By future, then, we really mean our desires and plans. And by ‘present’ we mean ‘awareness’. Mankind expends great effort in ignoring, or cherry-picking from, history, even decrying it as a dangerous irrelevance to progress (whatever ‘progress’ actually means).
It seems that many pundits are unaware of what triggered the current disorder. For example, in 2004, I took the risk of predicting to myself that the addition of ten new members to the EU, including atavistically Russophobic Poland and the Baltic statelets, also NATO members, would lead to a lack of EU foreign policy cohesion, and to institutional instability. And so it has, but many of our so-called western analysts appear oblivious to even this recent history (let alone of earlier history), preferring to concentrate on the current engineered narrative—often imposed—of Russia trying to re-create the Soviet Union, which is balderdash. Let us now try to think a little deeper, and leave the gutter press—and ‘mainstream’—narrative.
From Individual to State
Individual human characteristics such as fear, insecurity, greed, love and hate are what make up groups, institutions and states. The more secure a state is and feels, the less likely it will be to behave irrationally and aggressively, just as is the case with an individual. But when lack of communication sets in, suspicion and fear increase, as does, concomitantly, lust for power. As Thucydides wrote, ‘love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all this evil.’ The evil was of course the Peloponnesian Wars that so devasted the Greek world. The result of suspicion and greed has been with us since time immemorial, and serious statesman like Bismarck and de Gaulle understood this well. Today matters have altered: there are few real statesmen left in the West. Comparing the likes of de Gaulle, Willi Brandt, Jean Monnet and Helmut Schmidt with Anthony Blair, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Joe Biden, is totally unfeasible.
Such people seem more emotional about nations, rather than states, not understanding the difference, and that states came into being in order to control the atavistic lusts of humans. Any even brief reading of Giambattista Vico (beloved of James Joyce) will grasp that the world moves from chaos and back to order, and then back to chaos. At the moment, there is increasing chaos, particularly in the so-called ‘West’. Yet still most people in the ‘West’ have been systemically and systematically inculcated with the idea that they are an example to the rest of the world, which is apparently less developed and lacking in real values.
Many pundits lack clear understanding of the difference between the concept of ‘state’ and ‘nation’, the latter muddied by the idea of the ‘nation-state’, a veritable oxymoron. Etymologically speaking, a nation is where one is born. Nowadays, a nation is a group of people of similar language, culture, religion, blood and heritage, usually born in the same area. As such, very few nations correspond precisely to state borders. Perhaps the Jewish State can claim to be, since the majority of its inhabitants are Jewish. The question becomes tricky, however, when one considers that more Jews reside outside the Jewish State than inside it. In this sense, the Jewish nation covers most countries of the world. Mass movements of populations have rendered a completely precise definition of a nation difficult. For example, when an American president speaks of the American nation, one can wonder whether he means anyone born in the US, which includes original indigenous tribes and elements of various other nations, or whether he really means ‘state’, but prefers the more emotional sounding ‘nation’.
The concept of state is simpler: a group of peoples living within a defined and internationally recognised border, with its own government and sovereignty. As such, territory is the essential factor. We know enough about the ancient Greek city states and Renaissance Italy to see that states based on territory have existed for a long time. One can also argue that pre-imperial England and France were states, rather than empires. But when we come to the term ‘nation-state’, matters become complicated.
First, many IR analysts, often of the realist school, use the words ‘nation’ and ‘state’ interchangeably. A way of avoiding this ambiguity is to use the word ‘country’, but even that is vague. To confuse the issue, politicians and others use the term ‘national interest’, when they really mean ‘state interest’. Even the term ‘international relations’ lacks in precision, since it really means ‘inter-state relations’.
Unlike with the word ‘state’, it is difficult to come to terms with the term (pardon the pun) ‘nation-state’; it seems to be a utopian ideal at best or an oxymoron at worst. The fixation with the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 by many IR analysts and historians has rather muddied the waters, since there are claims that the concept of sovereignty arose out of the various associated treaties. While it is true that various sovereign German states were created out of the Holy Roman Empire, and that they were able to choose whether to be Roman Catholic or Protestant, and that the principle of equality between states was established, Jean Bodin had already established the concept of sovereignty in 1576, in his work Les Six Livres de la République, in which he argued that a state should be sovereign. There are also differing interpretations of sovereignty, perhaps one of the more extreme versions being encapsulated in Louis XIV’s statement ‘L’état, c’est moi’. A geohistorian might prefer the word ‘independence’. But for all the Peace of Westphalia’s contribution to the idea of sovereign states respecting each other’s sovereignty, it could even be argued that it served as a failed attempt to establish a permanent peace, since in fact it led to further strife, this time between nominally sovereign countries, perhaps because de Groot’s ideas on international law, encapsulated in his book ‘On the Law of War and Peace’, published in 1625, were not to every sovereign state’s liking.
As to the idea of Westphalian religious freedom, in 1685, France revoked the Edict of Nantes, which guaranteed freedom of worship to Protestants in 1598, and England continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics until well into the Nineteenth Century. Religion and nationalism continue to be a problem to this day, as the case of the break-up of Yugoslavia and, at a world level, Moslem fundamentalism and Christian Zionism, demonstrate. Attempts to create states based on nations have failed, as for example the case of the Kurds and Yugoslavia dramatically show, and continue to show. Consider the history of Albanian nationalism, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia. The nation-state is simply an ideal, rendered impossible because the word ‘nation’, with its emotional content, clashes with the cold and rational state. A homogenous nation governed by its own sovereign state is more of an ideal than a reality, although Iceland and Japan may lay claim to a measure of convergence.
Ukrainian Identity Weakness
Technically and legally, Ukraine is a sovereign state, but hardly a solid one: a mishmash of Slavic tribes and religions, a history of strife and border changes, only papered over by the Soviet experience. Then, just as in the Balkans, atavism took over, and previously externally imposed artificial constructs began their inevitable collapse. As an astute British ambassador wrote, ‘it is certainly arguable that the younger the state, the more the quest to seek an identity’. The older and more established the state, the more entrenched will be the characteristics of its people, since the institutions established hundreds of years ago are part and parcel of those states. Such states (and here we are thinking of, for example, Russia, France, England and Japan) have a certain linguistic continuity and an unbroken line of literature going back to even before the state was formed. In the case of Ukraine, the oldest institution is the Russian Church.
To crown it all, we have the current obsession with the term ‘geopolitics’, used almost ad nauseam by politicians, journalists and academics today to explain matters. Usually, they do not even know the difference between geopolitics and geostrategy, using the terms interchangeably, blissfully unaware of the dangers of over-simplification (as opposed to their shying away from simplicity). It all boils down to the fact that geopolitics has proven to be an excuse for creating unnatural borders based on business, and grabbing other people’s resources. It is enough to look at a map of the Middle east and Africa to grasp this. Certain Arab states were created because of oil interests. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States come to mind. The fact that the close links of these countries to the West can be explained geopolitically (thanks to oil or, as I call it, black blood) demonstrates that geopolitics today has little to do with people or morality, but more with the interests of large corporations and the governments that support them in the name of ‘national’ interests. People become geostrategic fodder. From a British viewpoint, geopolitics means keeping Germany and Europe away from Russia, as it has done for at least the last two hundred years, and is currently doing, along with US-controlled NATO. Morality and regard for human life have little to do with geopolitics, whose proponents tend to suffer from inconsistency and hypocrisy.
Inconsistency and Hypocrisy
Listening to the US Secretary of State, Blinken, pontificating on a rules-based international order is a bizarre experience, given that the US has itself been destroying this order for several years, by unilaterally pulling out of international treaties, and illegally attacking sovereign states, with its acolytes. The pundits seem to have forgotten Kosovo, Iraq and Libya. When former US president Bush, of Iraq-killing fame, mixed up the Ukraine and Iraq, this spoke volumes for his stupidity, even if after sniggers from the audience, he recognised his Freudian slip. To hear a British ambassador speak to some Athenian students of ‘we, the forces of good’ in the run-up to the illegal destruction of Iraq reduces him to an arrogant puppet propagandist. Given what has happened to western diplomacy in the age of digitalised globalism, this not surprising.
Death of Western Diplomacy
Not all western diplomacy has succumbed to egotism, digitalisaton and Twitterisation: the Vatican, for example, still sticks mainly to tradition. Professional diplomats were once the nuts and bolts of relations between states. Before electronic communication came to the fore, they had considerable authority, but once political leaders in different countries could communicate with each other on the telephone, jump on an aeroplane to meet their homologues abroad, and nowadays hold video conferences, ambassadors and their staff and officials at home found their importance diminishing to that of a public relations agent. Nevertheless, their advisory rôle remained crucial: a Foreign Minister can hardly be expected to know his counterparts the world over, let alone the hundreds of bilateral issues between his country and the two hundred odd countries with which his country has relations.
But globalisation, and the speed of its accompanying digital technology, have had a major effect on traditional diplomacy. Take the case of the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO): the registry no longer exists, the typing pools have disappeared, and ambassadors no longer write valedictory despatches. Despatches as a whole are disappearing. With the slow but inexorable introduction of the desktop computer, e-grams (the first one was sent in 2004) have replaced telegrams, and minutes are e-mailed to colleagues, sometimes in the same room. Since there are no registries, it is far more difficult to access the file: instead, there is a series of cumbersome electronic steps to be gone through. Although all communications are meant to be registered, the procedure is far too time-consuming for most officers to bother to register a minute, letter or e-gram. In the serious days, whenever one read a letter, telegram or report, and had acted on it, one wrote either ‘pa’ (‘put away’) or ‘BU’ (Bring Up’), with a date. Before filing the paper, the registry clerk would note the ‘BU’ date, and give the file to the desk officer on the desired date.
All that is gone. According to a recently retired ambassador, the collective memory has gone, and most written work is done ‘on the hoof’. Where once the FCO had three personnel departments, namely Personnel Operations Department, Personnel Services Department and Personnel Policy Department, there is now a ‘Human Resources Directorate’. Where there was once Training Department, we now have the Human Resources Directorate, which includes a ‘Recruitment and Development Department’, including in turn a ‘Learning and Development Team’.
The FCDO now uses the language of globalisation. This change has been accompanied by a dumbing down in training. A human resource (person) no longer benefits from week-long—and longer—drafting courses, which were once run by retired diplomats. They are now offered through ‘Civil Service Learning’. Thus, much of the FCO’s past expertise in training has been subsumed into the broader Civil Service, and partly stultified.
The upshot of all this is that diplomats meet each other far less during their working day, huddled as they are in front of their computers. On-line meetings also often replace face-to-face ones. Electronic communication substitutes for natural communication. The American spell-check, based on American operating systems and Windows has by and large replaced the draft wending its way upwards to be perfected. There is far less formality. Only older members of the service sign letters to their homologues with ‘Yours ever’, as was once the accepted custom. As for the enjoyable quick gossip sessions, the demise of the Registry has killed them off.
A ‘Chief Operating Officer’ (once known as ‘Chief Clerk’) of the Diplomatic Service proudly announced not long ago that six ministers and eighty ambassadors were on Twitter, almost as if this is the be-all and end-all of successful diplomacy and communication. Yet it is well known how controversial Twitter can be, and that it can lead to all kind of spats, not to mention being open to attack from virtually any quarter. Twitter is essentially a private game, often for people to bloat their egos. Those who use it to promote their official views or careers open themselves to unwarranted attacks from cranks and enemies. To imply that it is a useful part of diplomacy is off-beam. It can actually lead to a dissipation of seriousness, and is but a cheap substitute for serious analysis and evaluation, so vital to the formulation of policy. For even if there is still some traditional formulation of policy, it is surely being eroded subliminally in the minds of those responsible for the interests of the United Kingdom. As Guicciardini wrote: ‘Any man who takes upon him to introduce changes into the government of Florence, unless he be constrained thereto by necessity or happen to be at the head of affairs, lacks wisdom. […] after the change is made you are condemned to endless torment in having always to fear further innovation.’ We see how fashionable innovations can create their own momentum, and get out of control. This is what is currently happening, with the Ukrainian stupidity a prime example.
In the West’s current obsession to attack all things Russian, we are constantly bombarded with the phrase ‘our values’, as if we are better than the rest. The word ‘democratic’ is used non-stop in the propaganda. Never mind that the American/NATO export of our ‘superior’ values has led to millions of dead civilians in lesser countries, rendering them failed states, and worse than before. Never mind that NATO member Turkey is dictatorial in many ways, or that the UK has a political prisoner, Julian Assange. In fact, much of the West has descended into moral decadence and decay, in the name of ‘neo-liberalism’, with ‘wokishness’ and egotism in the ascendant. Now it is considered good practice to teach little schoolchildren about unnatural sex and changing gender (as if that is possible!). LGBTQ etc rules the roost. Indeed, it is one of the FCDO’s official aims to export the message to the world. This is western morality. A clear exception in the West is Hungary, which has a decent leader. Russia has realised the insidious influence of the neo-liberal woke brigade, and has taken steps to prevent its children being seduced.
If any of you think that this is irrelevant to the title of this brief essay, think again: people as a whole, including our leaders, have been affected by the decay which, let us note, includes the undermining of education. Not so long ago, the British Prime Minister, Cameron, spoke of ‘broken Britain’, referring to family life. He would have done well to mention the increasing disappearance of history. As we start to conclude, bearing in mind our starting point that the current disorder is directly related to the quality of our alleged leaders, who no longer seem to have the space to reflect on reality, let us mention the German Green Party: it has transmogrified from a peace-loving, environment-loving movement to a war-mongering anti-Russian party. It is bizarre that a youngish woman, Annalena Baerbok, is a Green, and German Foreign Minister, doing all she can to promote NATO’s anti-Russia agenda. In this connexion, I wonder if any of you has noticed the increase in the number of youngish women politicians in Europe, presumably in the name of having to be politically correct and wokish. A recent photograph of foreign ministers of the G7 shows four women and four men. The women are all wearing trousers. One is inclined to wonder whether one day some of the men will be wearing skirts or dresses. Even the revered and reviled Margaret Thatcher would wear a dress. Should anyone think that I am tending towards misogyny, think again: one of the most impressive women on the world stage is the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova. She makes Baerbok look like a small-minded and badly educated child, just as Sergei Lavrov does. Indeed, the quality of Russian officials reflects a superior education and knowledge of history, as well as a sense of decent manners.
If you have got this far, you may agree that it is time to conclude. As a former diplomat turned historian of diplomatic history, this is what I have gathered, simply put: following the West’s failure to westernise Russia during the Yeltsin years, it was unable to accept this failure, since the NATO business juggernaut had no reverse gear. Once atavistically anti-Russian Poland and the Baltic statelets had jumped on the bandwagon, prodded by the US and EU, it was only a question of time before Moscow would have to react in one way or another. NATO’s eastward expansion continued, for no logical reason. The Maidan coup was the last straw, when the Donbas was attacked. The Kiev regime began to kill Russian-speakers, and despite the Minsk agreements, Kiev did not honour them. Moscow felt morally obliged to help its Russians. To cut a long and tortuous story short, there is now a proxy war between NATO and Moscow. NATO has no reverse gear, and the low-quality western ‘leaders’ are simply not up to the job.
Strange though it may seem, it has fallen to the cynical but realistic Henry Kissinger to say what needs to be done: Ukraine must cede territory to Russia for the killing to stop, and to avoid nuclear war. As for the pundits saying that things will never be the same again, this is nonsense: Ukraine will simply return to its former natural shape as a small and hopefully neutral buffer state. To paraphrase Guicciardini, things have always been the same, the past sheds light on the future, and the same things return, albeit in different names and colours. He also wrote: ‘In my youth I believed that no amount of reflection would enable me to see more than I took in at a glance. But experience has shown me this opinion to be utterly false; and you may laugh at anyone who maintains the contrary. The longer we reflect, the clearer things grow and the better we understand them […] The affairs of this world are so shifting, and depend on so many accidents, that it is hard to form any judgment concerning the future.’
I doubt very much whether the likes of Baerbok and Truss have even heard of Guicciardini, but I’ll wager that Lavrov has. Only history exists.
From our partner RIAC
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.
Substantial progress made in Vienna; sides focusing on Safeguards
The third day of talks between experts from Iran and the EU centered around technical and legal matters regarding the...
Giraffes, parrots, and oak trees, among many species facing extinction
Around one million species are facing extinction, according to a report from IPBES, an independent intergovernmental science and policy body...
Escalation of violence in Gaza
The ongoing and serious escalation of violence in and around Gaza between Palestinian militants and Israel has claimed the lives...
Central African Republic: Militias spreading ‘terror, insecurity’, must lay down arms
Armed groups in the Central African Republic (CAR) must lay down their arms and engage in political dialogue, a UN-appointed...
Winter sports in Saudi Arabia? An unproven concept except for the surveillance aspect
Temperatures in north-western Saudi Arabia, on average, seldom, if ever, drop below eight degrees Celsius except in the 2,400-metre high...
Tension prevails after Pelosi’s Visit
Already tense geopolitics are boiling and making the whole world more nervous. Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan has damaged International politics...
Ups And Downs of Women’s Property Rights
In the English speaking world during the first part of the 19th century, women were considered either too frivolous or...
Economy4 days ago
The Real Estate and Banking Crisis in China Is Spreading to Other Aspects of the Chinese Economy
East Asia4 days ago
BRICS – How Will the Organisation Get a ‘Second Wind’?
Intelligence4 days ago
The penetration tactics of the CIA and the Israeli Mossad and the Chinese experience
Eastern Europe4 days ago
Both Zelensky and Poroshenko Acknowledged They Came to Power Illegally
East Asia4 days ago
A Game of Brinkmanship: Pelosi’s Taiwan visit and what China is likely to do
Economy3 days ago
Policy Support Indispensable for China’s Economic and Financial Recovery
Terrorism3 days ago
With Al Qaeda down but not out, killing Zawahiri is symbolic
Middle East2 days ago
How Russia’s Policy in the Middle East and North Africa is Changing After February 24