Tuesday 26th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the US doctrine: conquer and control the world according to the anglo/saxon dream…….

US President Joe Biden is acting out the script written for the so-called “Obama Doctrine” perfectly. Which is no small feat considering the man seems narcoleptic. The truly sad part of all this is that the people of the countries involved do not want war. The world does not want more war. We are sick to death of the bloodshed so that all our elites can profit. The pundits of America’s foreign policy decisions, unfortunately, do not give a damn what the normal people want. If we truly are facing an endgame, history will tell how we marched in blindfolded.

The key to understanding what is going on between the United States and Russia lies in a definition and analysis of this doctrine attached to the Obama years. Though very few ever venture to correlate the polities from when Joe Biden was vice-president, doing so will uncover a bitter truth. America is the law. We are a nation so exceptional, so above other peoples and systems, that it is our duty to run everything on planet Earth. Our exceptionalism, and something known as moral multilateralism, are part of a core philosophy ancient Rome’s most sadistic emperors could not have dreamed up.

 

BY Phil Butler

 

Few Americans have any understanding of geopolitics, geostrategy, or even geography and history. Telling a fast food assistant manager in Atlanta there is such a thing as an “Obama Doctrine” will inadvertently result in a comment about whether or not the individual likes Democrats or Republicans. If the food service worker graduated from a decent high school, he or she may respond as if Obama’s morality on using force were something akin to the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Or, in other words, most people in my country are clueless AND could care less how, when, or where our leaders commit US troops.

We are, by and large, only concerned with pump prices, football scores, and what time the beer store opens. We are like Germans, in this respect. This is another story. Right now it’s crucial that intelligent people understand this moral multilateralism, and what is about to happen because of our adherence to the philosophy. To begin with, there are those in my country that would call this Obama strategy for detente a kind of Christian realism. And, no, I am not joking here. This quote from Obama’s speech before graduating cadets of the United States Military Academy at West Point in 2014, is from Providence, and the Institute on Religion and Democracy:

“The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it—when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger… On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States—when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us—then the threshold for military action must be higher. In such circumstances, we should not go it alone. Instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action.”

What this means is, the new strategy of the United States is to let foreigners bleed and die on the battlefields unless we are attacked directly. Or, America will let mercenaries and other soldiers do our bidding on whichever battlefields we deem worthy of our meddling. If at all possible, we will pit the whole world against one another in order that our moral superiority is established over the entire world. I will skip space here for you to digest this.

The Associated Press (AP) reported President Biden saying “We are united in our support of Ukraine. We are united in our opposition to Russian aggression.” The former Obama running mate went on to suggest that the public should not be misled on Russia’s security concerns and justifications for action, Biden said, “None of us should be fooled. None of us will be fooled. There is no justification.” Just like every one of his predecessors, the president resorts to the “liar, liar, pants on fire,” strategy in dealing with any other nation’s concerns about his, or America’s actions.

The Biden Doctrine, a redux of the Obama one before, is going to scorch the earth of eastern Europe sooner, rather than later. My countrymen also fail to realize that NATO does not have the capability to stop Russia from rolling back up to Berlin. If America does not commit massive forces, the 4 complete divisions the Poles have would last a few hours.

I leave you with brazen words and ideas from a Washington think tank on the “purpose of multilateralism,” something the Brookings Institute suggests is necessary for “democracies in a geopolitically competitive world,” as if that weren’t enough to tell us what the Ukraine situation is all about. The authors of the guidance manual for expanding our morality say we need the “multilateral order grounded in underlying liberal principles” that has manifested throughout the western world. This order is pitched in the dire battle we see taking shape. The raving lunatic authors say more assertive China and Russia are seeking to reshape multilateralism. They claim these two nations are “challenging the foundational liberal principles that have guided the post-Cold War multilateral order to which the world has become accustomed.”

 

 

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

READ MORE: 

https://journal-neo.org/2022/07/20/the-obama-doctrine-and-where-it-leads-us/

 

 

SEE THE DREAM: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW........................

global battle of narratives….

 

BY Oleg Pavlov

 

On July 11 Josep Borrell, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, declared that, for now, the EU is not winning the “global battle of narratives”. But five months have not yet passed… He then again repeated his time-worn claim that Europe is on the side of truth – although many countries are inclined to disagree.

In other words, Josep Borrell can see with one eye that Europe’s arguments are not winning, but he is afraid to open his other eye. Because, as anyone with both eyes open is forced to admit the obvious fact, that many countries outside NATO see the war in Ukraine rather differently, and their reasons for disagreeing with the “collective West” go far beyond those cited by the EU’s senior diplomat.

In short,  Borrell’s main arguments are that many countries do not wish to quarrel with Russia, they complain about double standards and they do not want to jeopardize their geopolitical interests. But he does not see fit to examine the very sensible reasons for many of those countries, including the members of the African Union, not wishing to blindly follow in NATO’s or the EU’s footsteps. And yet these reasons are quite logical. The EU and USA defend international law only when it is in their interests. They wring their hands over the situation in Ukraine, but the plight of Iraq during its civil war or of Syria or Libya during the conflicts that have torn those countries left them unmoved. Nobody accused the West of infringing the UN Charter or required it to play “by the rules” in those conflicts. But they are depicting a “special military operation” against neo-Nazis in a small area of Ukraine as a global conflict.

In the current situation there is no reason why African nations should quarrel with Russia, which, unlike the European powers, never had any colonies in Africa, played no part in splitting the continent up, and was never involved in slave trading or in looting its natural resources. It was not Russia that imposed one-sided trading deals or neo-colonial policies that have prevented Africa from developing.  Russia has never, either during the Soviet period or since the fall of the USSR, given the Africans any reason to question its determination to help them build up their own nation states and protect their sovereignty. Borrell cannot deny this statement, but to agree with it outright would be to proclaim that the “Emperor has no clothes”.

It is certainly true that the African nations do not wish to lose such an important ally as Russia, and, as Josep Borrell quite rightly says – although without giving this argument its full due, they have no wish to jeopardize their geopolitical interests, including their food security, which to a great extent depends on Russia, currently responsible for a massive 20% of wheat exports.

And the final reason, omitted by Josep Borrell, is that the Africans genuinely see the events in Ukraine not as an act of aggression against a peaceful state but as an attempt by Moscow to protect itself from the West’s attempts to turn Ukraine into a neo-Nazi stronghold for NATO – an aggressive military organization that is bent on world dominance. Far from being puppets of the West, most African nations are led by independent governments and are mindful of their national interests and unwilling to submit to a foreign political agenda, even when it is expressed in terms of fine concepts such as the fight for independence and the respect for international law. They can see how the West manipulates international law, using it to further its own wishes and ignoring it whenever it poses an obstacle to the West’s ability to dictate terms or dominate other nations.

It appears from Josep Borrell’s remarks that the EU is either unaware or unwilling to accept that the global power balance has now shifted and that Washington and Brussels can no longer retain their dominant position. Yes, Europe is still in a position to put pressure of Africa, especially in view of the fact that it provides three quarters of the African Union’s budget, and supports a wide range of humanitarian programs. But Europe’s influence over Africa is becoming weaker and weaker – the gap between the promises and the real achievements is already too great – and as a result European politicians are resorting to threats or outright blackmail to pressurize the African nations into doing their bidding.

But the real danger for Europe lies not so much in opposition from Africa as in the African nations’ real interest in joining the struggle for a fairer, multi-polar world in which their huge resources could be used not just to enrich the world’s wealthy but to support their own development and integration, thereby potentially turning the continent into one of the world’s main economic centers.

And the Western nations will have to decide what position to adopt in relation to the reform of the UN Security Council when Africa claims two permanent places on that body, as it is entitled to do under the Ezulwini Consensus, or in relation to the problem of changing the conditions for the receipt of support from the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund.

Of course it would be wrong to dismiss all politicians as stubborn bureaucrats who, like Josep Borrell, are unwilling to look the truth in its face. Many politicians or former politicians are beginning to see that neither Africa nor Russia can be dictated to and that neither can be forced into doing anyone’s bidding. The former British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke about this global change in the Ditchley Annual Lecture, given on July 16. As a core member of the liberal global elite, it was something of a surprise to hear him claim that the period of Western political and economic dominance is coming to an end and that world is going to be multi-polar. This realistic assessment, of course, has come rather late, but at least it is a sign that a number of figures in the Western European (and, more importantly, British or American) elite understand: that a new era is approaching in which the West will be just one of the main global power centers, and will be unable to unilaterally dictate the rules of engagement to the rest of the world.

But this instance of British realism certainly does not mean that the West, least of all as represented by its veteran statesmen, has decided to throw in the towel and stop trying to retain its dominant status in some form or other. On the contrary, it suggests the West now intends to adapt to the new world of a resurgent Russia and China and is trying to bring Africa, the Middle East, as well as India and Indonesia, over to its side. To do this it is adopting a number of strategies: boosting arms spending, providing countries with superior technology and relying on “soft power” methods, such as by raising a new generation of pro-Western African leaders.

But, given Britain’s past form, it is clear things will not stop there. London, as the West’s intellectual leader, will intrigue against, confront or undermine all those who dare to challenge the Anglo-American world order. And the African nations will need to keep their eyes open and be aware of who they can count on as a true friend – one who has stood the tests of time and history.

 

 

Oleg Pavlov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

READ MORE:

https://journal-neo.org/2022/07/20/the-battle-of-narratives-and-africa-s-food-crisis/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW