Ironically, Trump’s evident hatred for Europe and calls by his neocon Praetorian Guard for the US to dominate the entire globe have made Europe turn away from its old subservience to Washington and talk about real independence. But building true Euro-armed forces will be frightfully expensive and politically fraught.
Unfortunately, Heiko Maas’ plan to strengthen arms control is poorly thought out and does not take adequate account of the true state of affairs in this area. His proposal puts the diametrically opposed military and political policies of the United States and Russia on an equal footing internationally and is also unbalanced with regard to China.
Canada’s very lenient immigration regime that practically amounts to a policy of “open borders” made the country an ideal destination for these terrorist-linked forces to flee to, where the government could always try to justify its decision under any future pressure on the grounds of guilting the populace into accepting what the Mainstream Media portrays as “innocent victims of the Assad regime”.
In recent years in addition to the sanctions that Finland is a part of, an unhealthy level of military activity is also occurring in that country. Finnish opposition leaders believe this activity is intended to push Finland — which is still officially neutral — into potential aggression against Russia.
There’s a certain strategic logic inherent in the US flexing its muscles to show that it will still retain control over part of the Northern Sea Route in spite of Russia’s dominating position in the center of it. The point is to put pressure on China and get it to “compromise” with the US on a new trade deal.
Similarly to Serbia after October 2000, a new post-revolution Macedonian Government was expected by its Western sponsors to transform Macedonia into another client state of the post-Cold War NATO’s World Order. The current political post-referendum stalemate in Macedonia can be solved according to the recipe of Kosovization with the ethnic Albanians as the main actors.
Inadvertently, NATO drew attention to its anti-democratic expansion between the two Cold Wars by behaving so arrogantly after the failed Macedonian referendum. The bloc has no practical reason to admit Macedonia other than to send a message to Russia, Serbia, and even its own fellow members about its continued “relevancy”.
The message from eastern Siberia was clear: Washington’s reckless hostility and bellicosity is causing its foes to band together. A full third of the Russian Army just moved from Europe to the Far East for the war games. The Chinese dragon of which Napoleon warned is awakening.
For the reason that Turkey has been up today a faithful US and NATO ally, Washington and Brussels have called upon it to play an important role in the Balkans, Near East, and former Soviet Union republics commensurate with its new-found political and economic development.
It should be expected that the US will only continue intensifying the pressure that it puts on Turkey concurrent with the exacerbation of its existing sanctions measures on neighboring Iran, essentially pairing the two Great Powers together to form a single Mideast battlefield on which the US’ economic warfare is fought.
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.
So long as the nuclear balance between Pakistan and India can be maintained, then a conventional military peace between the two Great Powers is assured, but the disruption of this equilibrium is dangerous for the entire world because of the encouragement that this could give either state to launch a first strike.