2022: Masks have fallen

Luc Brunet – 21 January 2023

A Year of Revelations

The year 2022 was indeed a revelation year. Not one, but many revelations.

The first revelation is of strategic nature, when both Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel admitted that the Minsk agreements were a trap for Russia, signed but never implemented in order to win time and allow Ukraine to get militarily stronger with the support of NATO. Although many wrote about such version of events over the past years, the fact that such people mention it publicly transforms the “conspiracy” into reality.

And if put in perspective together with many declarations from both the US/EU (we shall bleed Russia and ruin its economy for decades, etc) and Russia (the west has been lying to us and we cannot trust them anymore, we see the fight between global neo-liberalism and multi-polar sovereignty), we can conclude about the second revelation: what we are seeing now is part of a giant conflict for survival between two projects of how the world should evolved.

On one side the globalist, neo-liberal model, where the power is in the hands of a few oligarch billionaires, with country governments put in place by those oligarchs (on a soft manner, through lobbying and upstream selection of young politicians for example). In that model, and we see it happening in Europe already, history, traditions and culture are to be destroyed and be replaced by the homo-consumens.

On the other side, the sovereign model, based on nations’ culture and traditions, where political leaders are regulating and controlling the oligarchs.

Those two models are obviously incompatible, as the globalist model does not make any sense if not global. In that way, the conflict between both can only end with the capitulation or destruction of one of them.

A world order is ending

The end of a world order created in 1945 is often mentioned in the media. I think that what happens now if much deeper and wider than that. What we see and shall see over the next years is the end of a world order that was created 500 years ago. In the 15th century, something radically changed in the world order, with European powers entering into a phase of colonization of most of the rest of the world.

This was made possible because of two reasons. First the progress of ship-building in maritime powers, allowing to travel far away and transport large loads of people or goods. The second reason is the constant need for money in order to finance the wars that European countries kept fighting against each other.

The colonial area was totally driven by maritime powers like England, France, Spain, Portugal and Holland, while more continental powers in central Europe were practically out of that business, including the Germanic states. Russia, also expended but only by foot towards the East, in almost empty territories. In some cases it was a settler colonialism, often accompanied by the extermination of the local populations like in Northern America or Australia, but it could be exploitation colonialism like in most of the African continent, including human exploitation as part of slavery. The colonial period changed the world for a very long period of time, and indeed until the present time.

Of course decolonization happened fast for some settlers region, like the Americas, or much later for African countries. The US developed fast in the 19th century, benefiting from a massive migration from troubled Europe. But for all of us, the picture we have of the world remains on one side the “developed”, “industrialized” world and the rest. I remember the terms “third world” or “under-developed” countries used by everybody in the 70’s or 80’s. Even now this is the split most western people have in mind, and it looked like it was doing to last for ever. Many countries are therefore “developing” since 60 years, a stupid concept.

For centuries, western European countries benefited from the exploitation of remote lands and populations, allowing them to finance their local wars and enrich their elite, with two major players being France and England. Russia was always aside and considered with fear and envy, due to the almost infinite natural resources coming from its enormous territories. But until the 20th century, Russian energy resources were not so important for western Europe, as the first industrial revolution was mostly relying on coal, that was at that time largely available in most western countries.

Colonization 2.0

This apparently stable world order started to shift in the first half of the 20th century, with the emergence of the US as a the first world economy and a raising star in terms of technology and military power.

In parallel the century is also the period when England and France lost most of their colonies. However, the influence and the economical role of those two countries survived in many cases the end of formal colonization.

I shall not discuss here the good or bad impact of colonization, as this is a very different debate. However, the benefits of it are clear for western powers:

– new territories won in the Americas, populated with an enslaved working class imported from Africa, although all of them got independent early

– exploitation of natural resources in Africa and Asia that even survived the decolonization, with the maintained presence of western companies in most countries

The 20th century was also the period when Russia (or rather the USSR) became a nuisance for the west, already including all the countries that are now called the “international community” by western media, thus Northern America, western Europe, Australia and a few Asian countries. The USSR indeed supported ex-colonies trying to get away from their old western masters and willing to gain control over their country’s natural resources. Everybody who was around in the 60’s or 70’s remembers the term “non-aligned country group” at the UN, or the epic fights against Nasser in Egypt or Mosaddegh in Iran.

But from 1945 onwards, England and France lost for good their status of western leaders to the US, that became the undisputed leader of the west, and declared that is was the leader of the world after the end of the USSR. The new role of the US is indeed pretty much in the continuation of colonialism, including the window dressing moral justifications: England, Spain or France brought civilization and true religion to the “primitive” humans, and now the US bringing “democracy”. And in both cases, reality is much simpler: we want your gold or your oil.

Capitalism 2.0

With the end of the USSR, we also saw a rapid evolution of the nature of capitalism, in the absence of alternative. Even if soviet communism was inefficient and stagnant in its last years, it provided a theoretical alternative system that frightened the western world and created a sort of auto-limitation, avoiding the greed of big business to become dominant. This statement is not an anti-capitalist statement, but rather a realistic assessment of what human beings are made of.

With growing debt in the US and the west in general, both state and private debt, the system became addicted to growth. Only growth could avoid the system to stall under its overwhelming debt. Economists (especially the ones spending most of their time on TV shows) even invented the term “negative growth” when the economy contracted.

The new role of the US as the “leader of the free world”, gave the US the opportunity to continue on the path to growth, as it replaced European powers in the role of “policeman” of the world order.

The wars that took place after 1945 are all linked to that rivalry, like the Korean or the Vietnam war, but many other smaller conflicts took place in that context, as well as many coups that displaced regimes that wanted to deprive the west of the revenue rent it was getting from ex-colonies. To name a few: again Mosaddegh in Iran, Indonesia, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile and many more. Colonialism 2.0!

Looking at more recent cases, all the wars lead directly or indirectly by the US, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, were related to economic interests, in particular the control of energy production. In all cases, exploitation of local resources remind of 19th century’s colonial exploitation, like for example part of the oil resources in Syria, still stolen by the US today.

Another important point to remember when we talk about the relation between Russia and the west, is the fact that industrial and technological developments in the second half of the 20th century required new forms of resources. The role of coal became marginal, replaced by oil and gas, with an expanded role of oil, required in many modern manufacturing processes like for example plastic materials. On top of it, due to the use of new technologies like computers, electronics, TV sets etc demand grew for a lot of other natural resources, not to mention raw material used for nuclear power generation. The west has such resource but in quite limited amounts, especially Europe, and Russia (with China) have become critical suppliers of those goods. This and the other natural resources of Russia (wood to name only one) makes that the old fear and envy sentiments towards Russia considerably grew and the end of the USSR was perceived as a fantastic opportunity to gain access to all of those gigantic reserves of natural resources. Access to them was important, but not only. The plan was not only to have access to those assets but also get the profits from selling them worldwide, a typical colonial attitude.

About the western attitude towards Russia, a lot of the above is documented in the literature published by many think-tanks, like for example the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) created by Willliam Kristol and Robert Kagan (the husband of Victoria Nuland who distributed cookies on the Maidan) or the books of Zbigniew Brzezinski.

I also wrote an article on that in 2015, that you can read on that link:

The Russia of their Dreams

The Yeltsin years were completely supported and occasionally financed by the western neo-conservatives. After the election of Putin in 2000, by the way also supported by the west, the expectation was to continue on that path. However, Putin turned out to follow his own way and put a stop to the plans. The stop was not achieved in one day and lasted many years, but all attempts to counter it (for example with Khodorkovsky) were killed on-time by the Putin regime.

Democracy 2.0

Coming back to globalization, we have to look at the evolution of power in the west. The end of the USSR created a unique situation in the west, a real euphoria after a victory, with the feeling that capitalism had won for ever and that the rules could be defined by the western capitalist without discussion. Large corporations and banks gave a free ride to their appetite and greed, and managed (again under the intellectual umbrella of many think-tanks) to use their enormous profits to “buy” the power. Buying power is by far not limited to real corruption, but uses many other legal options. In the US, lobbying and political campaigns financing are legal ways to “buy” power. In Europe, young leaders are “educated” in groups like the Global Leaders for Tomorrow (now Young Global Leaders), a WEF initiative, increasing the synergy between business and politics. The word synergy is weak of course. The best way to verify that logic is to observe the real power that local political leaders do have, and draw your conclusions. What is the difference in the policies run by Hollande, Sarkozy or Macron in France? none. Why do people elected on a non globalist program change after a few weeks or months and come back to “reason”? Tsipras in Greece. Even Hollande in France (my enemy is the finance), or Zelensky in Ukraine who was elected on a program including the implementation of the Minsk agreements.

As a result, the west is no longer ruled by political leaders who are theoretically elected to represent and protect the people of each country, but by global oligarchs controlling the media, and able to ruin the carrier of the politicians not playing the game of globalization.

Grow or die

As it is well known since 2008, those in power are on top of a debt mountain and need growth to survive. Growth can be obtained in two ways: get more territories under their control, or get more business from existing territories.

Increasing profit from western countries is now difficult, although recent moves in several countries, especially after the COVID crisis, shows a trend to eliminate small businesses, the ones that are still not under the control of big corporations. The privatization of large state business is achieved in many countries, so the only area left is that small business like restaurants, shops, farms and other services. Recent statistics show that more and more of those segments see a growing number of bankruptcies and difficulties. All of them shall be replaced by large groups a la Starbucks, have no doubt about that.

Here is the right time to mention that my apparent anti-US or anti-western position has nothing to do with the countries or the people living there. 99% of western population and their countries’ infrastructure, culture and micro-economy is also used by the globalists to increase their profits and power. They have no more consideration for their own population than they have for Syrians or Ukrainians. More and more people start to understand this now.

Coming back to external growth, the end of the Yeltsin period definitely was a set-back for the globalists. But they did not give up, and the usual regime change tactic was applied to countries surrounding Russia, for example in Georgia with partial success, Ukraine with success and more recently Kazakhstan and Belarus without success. Even during Yeltsin years, Islamists were active in Chechnya, probably to further destabilize Russia and accelerate the “acquisition” of Russian natural resources by western corporations.

Ukraine

Like in Afghanistan in the Soviet area, islamists were often used by the US to destabilize regimes that did not comply to the globalist program, like Syria, Iraq or Libya. In Ukraine, the same tactic was used, and luckily for the west, Ukraine counted a number of fanatical anti-USSR and anti-Russian extremists, mostly in the west of the country. Those Banderists, glorifying Bandera and his cooperation with the Nazis during WW2 played a role very similar to Al Qaida in Afghanistan or ISIS in Iraq and Syria. They fight today and die at the service of the globalists.

It is important to realize that Ukraine is only an avatar in the fight between the globalist and multi-polar visions of the world. In a way we could say that it was at the wrong place at the wrong moment. Its destiny is the one of Syria, and even worst, as Syria war was limited to an asymmetrical war. In Ukraine we see a symmetrical war between Russia and NATO. Although NATO does not use all of its resources, this shall probably be enough to completely destroy the country.

Ukraine is one more Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Libya. The only difference is that it is in Europe, close to Europeans and dying soldiers and civilians are white Europeans, making western populations much more inconfortable.

What we see since February 2022 is the consequence of all the above. This is one of the wars we could expect. See also an article published in 2018:

Next War? Pick one in the List!

And another article published in 2014, asking for a peaceful solution, that was, we now know it fully, not acceptable by the west:

Ukraine: A split to save lifes!

What is happening now?

The difference with those previous conflicts is that the fight reached a new level in Ukraine. Let’s be more specific.

First, the real reasons are discussed publicly on both sides. It never was the case in previous wars like Syria or Iraq. Russia is openly talking about the fight between globalism and multi-polar world structure, and the west is not denying at all, on the contrary.

Secondly, three full blown wars have been launched in parallel to the military operations:

• a PR war, as usual dominated by the west, where the ruling oligarchy makes full use of the media they own and control
• a cultural war, between traditional culture and values, and the western anti-culture
• and of course an economic war, that may be shall play the largest role in the issue of the conflict

Many learnings

Here we should look at what happened since February last year and now. Indeed, both sides have learned a lot.

On the military side, Russia understood that the Ukrainian army was more solid than expected and did not collapse after the first hits in March 2022. It had to reduce the front line twice in 2022, and in parallel increase its number of soldiers with a partial mobilization, trying to find a difficult compromise between the military needs and the strategic requirement to maintain a reasonable economic development that would be ruined by a large mobilization.

We should know soon if that shall be enough to bring victory.

Again on the military side, NATO countries understood that the war was consuming much more equipment than expected (I do not write “planned” as I honestly do not see much planning on NATO side). Many countries have now a very reduced stock of weapons that makes them very vulnerable in case of geographical extension of the conflict. NATO also expects Russia to run out of ammunitions, but Russia showed it could cope and manufacture enough weapons to fight for a very long time.

On the economic side, the surprise came from the excellent response of Russia to all sanctions and its ability to replace sales to Europe by sales to Asia, where a lot of energy products are resold to Europe at much higher price, making Asian countries richer and Europe poorer.

Other consequences of the conflict is also a visible satisfaction of many ex-colonies, in Africa and Asia, to see western powers who colonized them years ago, get into economical and geo-political fight with Russia and China. They suddenly feel more confortable to break ties with those western countries and establish trusted relationships with Russia, China and other countries like Iran or India.

What should we expect?

What shall happen next is of course difficult to plan, but I believe that the following trends shall happen.

First the military part of the war in Ukraine shall definitely last at least all of 2023. Both sides have reached a level of distrust that makes a diplomatic conclusion improbable. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, both sides shall not give up, as they run for two incompatible systems.

If Russia wins in Ukraine, the west shall respond and further escalate, possibly allowing Poland to enter the conflict. In that case, Poland shall become the new Ukraine and again one year or two of destructions shall be needed to get a winner. If this is Russia, other European countries could apply to be the next victim, or NATO blows up and capitulates. All options are possible, as both sides are ready to fight to the end. But here is a very important detail: unlike Russia, the US is ready to fight, but only with the blood and life of Europeans, and only if there is no direct threat to US territory. If Russia takes the upper hand on the military side, I expect the US to get out of the fights in Europe and activate alternative conflicts on other borders of Russia, or in the Pacific. Indeed, the US has the option to give up without losing too much face, like saying: Europeans are not willing to fight, and this is not really our fight, we just wanted to help but NATO failed, sorry guys but we have to go.

On the economic side, we already see that Russia is winning, that the US is not losing, but that Europe is losing big time. The real value of the GNP numbers also appears clearly. A smaller GNP like the one of Russia, but including a majority of real products and raw materials can win against a large GNP like the EU/US one, highly inflated by services of all types, that do not correspond to any real down to earth value. Life continues without Facebook or banks, but it stops without energy or food.

Overall, I see one clear loser on all sides, military and economic. On military side, a part of Europe shall end-up in ruins, for sure Ukraine, and perhaps more, depending on how long Europeans shall tolerate that incompetent and arrogant people like Stoltenberg or von der Leyen decide on their future and their life.

All in all, I think and of course hope that the globalists shall lose. But it shall take time and 4 to 5 years look like a reasonable period, looking at the enormous changes at stake, and my guess is definitely that the winner shall be the one winning the economic war.

You may ask about the nuclear option. Accidents can happen, but I believe that both sides, even the most rabid ones shall stop before a massive nuclear response becomes a real option (I hope I am not too optimistic on that one!). It does not mean however that long range non-nuclear missiles cannot be used to destroy military targets across continents (not cities, as this would trigger a nuclear retaliation).

We should indeed be thankful that we have such nuclear dissuasion. Without it, we already would have missiles falling on Moscow, Warsaw and many other places!