Representatives from Iran, Russia, and Turkey met in Sochi to discuss the fate of the province of Idlib. Specifically – to debate the price of a Turkish pullout from the region. But the most significant long-term issues center on Iran.
The resolution of the Syrian crisis is quite close, but the European leaders must realize that the full settlement is impossible without resolving some humanitarian issues. In particular, the return of refugees. Both the Syrians and Europeans are interested in this.
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.
From the recent rampant attacks within the EU, threats pose to international security have become more severe than ever. The ripple effects will affect all member nations of the EU in varying extent. The common European Security Policy must reach its implementation stage.
If looked at as the opening salvo of a global energy war being waged in parallel with the trade one as opposed to being dismissed as the populist piece of legislation that it’s being portrayed as by the media, NOPEC can be seen as the strategic superweapon that it actually is, with its ultimate effectiveness being dependent of course on whether it’s properly wielded by American decision makers.
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.
Khamenei’s speech makes it clear that in the pursuit of national interest, Iran will have to navigate its path on its own steam, as has been the case during its past 4-decade old history. The diplomacy will be supple but purposive (“wise and oriented”).
Connecting Nigeria to the emerging Multipolar World Order through China’s interlinked oil, financial, and developmental deals is a step in the right direction, but it’ll nevertheless take more than the “petroyuan” and railroads to save this failing state, but if Beijing is successful, then it might also end up saving Europe from the Migrant Crisis 2.0.
Strangely enough, any resultant US-Chinese wrangling over Montenegro could add a weird wrinkle to the New Cold War whereby Washington turns against its decades-long proxy and begins contemplating a “manageable” regime change against Djukanovic while Beijing bolsters his rule.
Trump referred to the EU as a “foe” because it’s the most clear-cut characterization of the economic-strategic competition between these two so-called “frenemies”, no matter how surprising it might have been for the Europeans to finally be called out on this scheme by none other than the US President himself.
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.
Trump lectured and scolded the heads of NATO on live TV. They took the verbal thrashing like truant schoolboys. NATO’s secretary general, former Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, who was put into office by the US, muttered a few lame excuses. Trump supporters in the US were delighted to see the snotty, godless Europeans given a good dressing down.