Opinion: A new war is in the making for after the coming defeat against Russia

by Thierry Meyssan

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – (Opinion) Publicly, NATO claims to have been strengthened by Putin’s “madness.” Ukraine, heavily armed by the West, conducts a counteroffensive and fends off the “invader.”

Internationally, the sanctions are bearing fruit. Finland and Sweden, feeling threatened, decided to join the Atlantic Alliance. Soon the Russians will overthrow the “Kremlin dictator.”

Read also: Check out our coverage on curated alternative narratives

The facts contradict this grand narrative: Only about a third of Western weapons reach the front lines. But the Ukrainian army is exhausted. It retreats almost everywhere, and a few successes do not change the overall picture.

Two-thirds of the Western weapons, especially the heaviest ones, are already available on the black market in the Balkans, especially in Kosovo and Albania, which have become the main places of smuggling in this area.

Western sanctions create the threat of famine, not in Russia but in the rest of the world, especially in Africa. Turkey and Croatia oppose the accession of new members to NATO. It is possible to persuade them to do so, but at the cost of radical political change, which the West has always opposed.

Even if Russia has the wisdom not to celebrate its victory too loudly, as it did in Syria, it will appear as the failure of the greatest military power in history, NATO. An absolute triumph since the Atlantic Alliance was involved in the fight while only standing around the battlefields in Syria.

In the coming years, the cards will be redistributed. Many of Washington’s vassal states will try to extricate themselves. Their civilian leaders will likely remain intellectually aligned with the West, while their military leaders will turn more quickly to Moscow and Beijing.

It will not be a matter of moving from an alignment with Washington to a different alignment with the new winners but creating a multipolar world in which each will be responsible for itself. It is not about redefining zones of influence but about ending the mentality that establishes a hierarchy between nations.

From this perspective, it is fascinating to observe Western rhetoric. Many Old World experts declare that Russia wants to rebuild its empire. They claim that it has already reconquered Ossetia and Crimea and is now attacking the Donbas.

They reconstruct history and prove it with fake quotes from President Putin. Anyone who studies contemporary Russia and checks the data knows that this is false.

The accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the upcoming acquisition of Ossetia, Donbas, and Transnistria have nothing to do with an empire but with the reconstitution of the Russian nation, which was fragmented during the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In this context, a small section of Western leaders is beginning to question the decisions of their U.S. overlord. The same phenomenon had occurred at the end of French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s term.

The latter, faced with the human catastrophe he had helped create in Libya and his failure in Syria, had agreed to negotiate a separate peace with Damascus. However, Washington, furious at its independence, organized its electoral defeat in favor of François Hollande.

In the days following his entry into the Élysée, the latter revived the Western war machine for a decade. At that very moment, Russia decided to intervene in Syria. After two years, it finished developing its new weapons and then came to fight the jihadists armed by the West and directed by NATO from its Allied Land Command in Turkey.

If NATO’s slogans have triumphed even in the Western press, our studies of the history, meaning, and place of the Banderites ( members of the organization of Ukrainian nationalists) in today’s Ukraine have been widely penetrated in ruling circles around the world.

Many of Washington’s “allies” refuse from now on to support these “Ukrainians” whom they know are neo-Nazis. They believe that in this fight, it is Russia that is right. Germany, France, and Italy have already allowed some members of their governments to talk to Russia without changing their official policies.

At least these three members of the Atlantic Alliance are playing a double game with caution. If things go wrong for NATO, they will be the first to hang their flag in the wind.

Similarly, the Holy See, which almost preached a new crusade against the “Third Rome” (Moscow) and published photos of the Pope praying with wives of Banderites of the Azov Regiment, made contact with Patriarch Cyril but also with the Kremlin.

All these contacts, however discreet, are intolerable to Washington, which is already trying to get the secret emissaries out of the way. But the very fact of having been officially dismissed gives these envoys more room to negotiate.

Importantly, they can be accountable to whoever has the right to do so. This is a dangerous game, as evidenced by President Sarkozy’s electoral defeat when he tried to extricate himself from his U.S. sponsor.

HYPOTHESIS 1: NATO ENLARGEMENT WOULD CONFIRM ITS NEW GOAL

Let’s distance ourselves a little from events and see how they might unfold.

For Turkey and Croatia to accept Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the alliance would have to sign off on their terms. These are for Turkey

(1) to add the PKK and Hizmet (Fethullah Gülen) to the lists of terrorist organizations, arrest and extradite their members

(2) to restore its defense industry in the F-35 production program, and for Croatia

(3) to change the electoral laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina to give political equality to its Croat minority.

The PKK does not represent the Kurds in general, but only some of them. Initially, a Marxist-Leninist party fought against the Turkish military dictatorship during the Cold War. Then, after the arrest of its leader Ocalan and the dissolution of the USSR, it switched sides to become a libertarian party serving the Pentagon in the Middle East.

Today, it is a mercenary militia that serves as a cover for the U.S. occupation of Syria. To consider it a terrorist organization would mean evacuating the G.I.s from Syria and returning the oil wells to Damascus.

Fethullah Gülen is the spiritual father of a large charity that has a presence in many countries. Extraditing him from the United States and classifying his organization as a terrorist would deprive the CIA of connections in many Turkic-speaking African and Asian countries.

This would be conceivable to Washington if AFRICOM were deployed on the African continent instead of being exiled to Germany. Negotiations are underway to establish it in Somaliland, which would become an internationally recognized state.

Given the long series of attacks perpetrated by the PKK in Turkey and the attempted assassination of President Erdoğan followed by the coup attempt in July 2016, in which Hizmet played a central role on behalf of the CIA, Ankara’s demands are legitimate.

Turkey’s reinstatement among nations producing the U.S.-made F-35 fighter costs nothing, but its removal from the list was a sanction against the Turkish military’s purchase of Russian S 400 anti-aircraft missiles.

Satisfying Ankara to expand NATO against Russia would be contradictory and incomprehensible. Moreover, having the F-35 manufactured by a power that has not hesitated to criticize its alleged quality may also be obstructive.

Today’s Bosnia and Herzegovina was fabricated by the “Straussians”, i.e., the disciples of the philosopher Leo Strauss (Richard Perle was not a member of the U.S. delegation but Bosnian at the Dayton Accords).

It was constructed as a homogeneous entity in accordance with the Straussian way of thinking. Therefore, the Croat minority (15% of the population) was ostracized there. Their language is not recognized, and they have no political representatives.

To comply with the request that Croatia made on their behalf would mean questioning why the Straussians organized the Yugoslav wars (separation of ethnic groups and creating homogeneous populations). However, it is the Straussians who are at the helm in Ukraine.

Assuming that these three conditions are met or that the political leaders who formulated them are overthrown, the expansion of the Atlantic Alliance to include Finland and Sweden would confirm the change in the nature of NATO.

As stated in the treaty, it would no longer be a structure aimed at stabilizing the North Atlantic region, which had led President Boris Yeltsin to consider his country’s membership in 1995 seriously. NATO would complete its transformation into a U.S. military administration of its Western empire.

HYPOTHESIS 2: WESTERN SANCTIONS AND MILITARY AID ARE THERE TO PREPARE FOR OTHER CONFLICTS

Let us now look at the actual consequences of Western sanctions. Russia’s exclusion from the international financial system is not achieving its goal. Russia continues to import and export as much as it needs but is forced to change suppliers and customers.

Russia quickly set up an equivalent of SWIFT with the BRICS countries (South Africa, Brazil, China, and India), but it can no longer trade directly with the rest of the world. Already it is impossible to get potash fertilizer in Africa.

Russia and Belarus are their leading exporters. It leads to poorer agricultural yields and, therefore, possible famine. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, has already sounded the alarm. He calls on the West to make an exception to its embargo on potash fertilizer.

When Washington does not change its policy, the famine will trigger new wars and considerable migrations to the European Union in the most likely scenario.

It is surprising, to say the least, that after the fall of Mariupol, the United States was ready to send another US$40 billion to Ukraine, where it had already lost US$14 billion. Two-thirds never reached their destination.

These sums were misappropriated. Some US$18 billion worth of weapons will soon be available in Kosovo and Albania. Either one thinks that the Pentagon is throwing money out the window or that it is investing but withholding this gigantic arsenal from the eyes of Congress.

The U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, “Straussian” Victoria Nuland traveled to Morocco on May 11 to chair a meeting of the Global Coalition to Counter Daesh (Daesh = Islamic State). Eighty-five countries participated at the foreign minister-level.

Predictably, Ms. Nuland condemned Daesh reconstruction, but no longer in the Middle East, but in the Sahel. She invited all participants to join the U.S. in fighting against this enemy.

However, all have noticed in Iraq and Syria the massive support of the jihadists by the Pentagon; all diplomats present well understood that the storm would not be long in coming.

Weapons were missing, and the Pentagon did not want to be caught handing them over to the jihadists again. It will just have to get them out of the Balkans, where they are still waiting in their packing crates for their end-users.

War in the Sahel will not be a problem: It will spare the great powers and claim only African victims. It will last as long as it is maintained, and no ally will allow himself to notice that this conflict has existed only since the allies invaded and destroyed Libya.

Everything can continue as before: the world will remain unipolar for a part of humanity, with Washington as its center.

This article is mirrored and was first published on Voltairenet.