All international problems are currently suspended, awaiting the results of the US mid-term elections. The partisans of the old international order are gambling on a change of majority in Congress and a rapid destitution of President Trump.
Author: Thierry MEYSSAN
The administration of the UNO had been hoping for a clash between the pro- and anti-Trump factions during the General Assembly. What actually happened was very different. While several States, including France, denounced the methods of the resident of the White House, Russia undertook an analysis of the Western alliance.
The confrontation which recently occurred in Lattakia may result in a complete global redistribution of the cards. Now we have to find out whether President Trump, currently in the middle of his election campaign, is capable of supporting his Russian counterpart, in order that the United States and Russia may sanction the colonial powers as they did in 1956, during the Suez crisis.
While on the ground, the war is ending, and only Idlib still needs to be freed from the terrorists, the Western powers are starting trouble all over again. The United States refuse the process led by Russia, for the reason that they didn’t have anything to do with it, while the United Kingdom and France seek to impose institutions which would allow them to govern the country from the shadows.
Seven years after the beginning of the war against Syria, fought by proxy jihadist forces, the partisans of its destruction want to start again. This attempt to restart the war from the beginning can only be understood if its objective has evolved.
The Western powers are moving inexorably towards Internet censorship, thereby facilitating the dissemination of propaganda and war indoctrination in their countries. In this context, an extremely violent tension is tearing apart the international scene.
President Trump won the election on his promise to overthrow financial capitalism and restore productive capitalism. From this standpoint, he considers that war damages owed to Syria should not be paid by the United States, but by transnational corporations. Is this revolution in international relations desirable or even possible?
If we consider the war in Syria not as a singular event, but as the culmination of a world war which has persisted for a quarter of a century, we have to ask ourselves about the consequences of the imminent end of hostilities. Its completion marks the defeat of an ideology, that is to say globalisation and financial capitalism.
During the Cold War, the pro-US states experienced a bloody precedent of illegal, secret repression. While it is clear that this system has been progressively dismantled in Europe, it has never been interrupted in the « Greater Middle East » although it has been transformed. The Benalla affair allows us to admit the possibility that this story is not yet over.
Is Vladimir Putin’s Russia a Wild West where Power can strip a billionaire of his fortune? Is Russia interfering with the United States electoral process? According to the US ruling class, these are questions which leave no room for doubt. And yet all it needed was for President Putin to propose that President Trump accept a mutual exchange of letters rogatory to see panic taking hold of Washington.
Contrary to mainstream thinking, the NATO summit did not set the United States against the other members of the Alliance, but President Trump against the intergovernmental senior administration. The problem is not whether or not people appreciate the personality of the tenant of the White House, but whether they support him because he is the elected representative of them, or if they prefer the system’s bureaucrats.
According to the Western Press, the « fall » of the « cradle of the revolution » marks the end of all « hope of overthrowing Bachar el-Assad ». No doubt, but would it not be fairer to say that the Syrian Arab Republic, its army, its people and its President « liberated » the « cradle of foreign aggression »?