DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK:
BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq,
The escalation in Nagorno-Karabakh, the on-going protests in Belarus and deadlock in negotiation process on Eastern Ukraine: the European region is witnessing unprecedented deterioration of relations between Russia and the collective West. This vector is rooted to the mid-2000s, when the Russian Federation embarked on the way out of neo-colonial dependence on the United States and the Euro-Atlantic elites. Since that time, relations between the two parties have deteriorated consistently and steadily, passing through regular acute crises, like in 2008, 2012, 2014.
After 2014, the issues that served to demonize the image of Russia among the Western population emerged every year. They were logical, and their goals were clear: the formation of the image of a dangerous external enemy in order to unite the Western population and distract it from ongoing sociopolitical crisis.
The shift in the relations between the two sides that we have seen since April 2020 differs significantly from previous crises. A series of events led the parties to a sharp fierce confrontation, and even calls to unleash an armed conflict are heard from the leaders of several countries.
In April, against the background of the SARS COV-2 epidemic, Russia was accused of using the coronavirus crisis to increase its information pressure. These accusations were accompanied by an ongoing scandal about the fictitious intervention of the Russian Federation in the U.S. electoral campaign, which is gaining momentum as November approaches. Russia was accused of organizing and supporting the BLM protests in the United States in order to destabilize the situation before the Presidential elections, despite the fact that Moscow does not receive any benefit from the ongoing unrest on the other side of the Atlantic, unlike local American actors interested in destabilizing the situation in the country and reducing the popularity of the incumbent President. (LINK)
The unfounded accusations have led to strict censorship of all significant media that represent alternative point of view different from the Western mainstream agenda.
Recently, Russia has been accused not only of interfering in the affairs of other countries, but also of “wrong domestic policy”.
Vladimir Putin’s campaign for amending the Constitution, which strengthened the country’s political construct and also legalized the alternative path of development that has emerged in Russia over the years after the collapse of the USSR, received wide coverage in the Western media. (LINK)
Months after the adoption of the amendments, the European Parliament does not lose hope to dissuade Russian decision makers and influence the internal sovereign policy of Kremlin. The alleged “illegality” of the constitutional reform is spoken of in the resolution of the European Parliament, adopted on September 17, which was regarding the situation in Belarus and around the poisoning of Alexei Navalny.
Against the background of all current accusations against Moscow, European parliamentarians call on the EU authorities “to demand from Russia to cancel or revise all laws that are not compatible with international standards,” the document says.
Despite the appeals to Kremlin to change its policy, there are active measures to support the non-systemic Russian opposition, which was clearly observed during the protests in Khabarovsk in July 2020 (LINK, LINK), and reached its highest point in the awkward case of the Alexei Navalny poisoning.
The fake story about Navalny’s poisoning by the Kremlin, and mainly the international hysteria that followed, in which Navalny himself has already been forgotten, once again emphasize the negative image of Russia, and in particular of President Vladimir Putin, both on the international arena and within Russia. (LINK, LINK)
The staged case of Navalny poisoning became one more pretext to renew a sanctions regime for violation of human rights, similar to the Magnitsky Act. The hysteria itself is nothing more than another attempt to suspend the Nord Stream 2 project. On the German side, the initial initiative to abandon the construction of the pipeline was expressed by the leader of the Green faction. Calls for an end to construction were heard in the United States, and were supported by a number of Western countries, as well as Ukraine. (LINK)
While Germany is paying a heavy price for its commitment to maintain the Nord Stream 2 project, Turkey is forced to dub up the supply of Russian S-400 air defense systems.
In addition to tawdry accusations, information warfare, strengthening of the sanctions regime, obstruction of any cooperation with Russia in the international arena, the Euro-Atlantic elites are moving to active actions that threaten not only Russian stability, but also security and sovereignty of its neighboring countries.
If their previous goal seemed to be the maintaining of frozen conflicts along the Russian border, as it was the case of Eastern Ukraine or Southern Caucasus, then current trends indicate the transition of these conflicts to a hot phase. An armed conflict near the eastern borders of the European Union or even in its own eastern territories is today a quite probable scenario, since it fully meets the interests of the globalist elites.
I. The recent escalation in the Nagorno-Karabakh region is the symptom of the upcoming spread of armed conflicts around the Russian borders.
The transition of confrontation between Armenia and Azerbaijan into war phase posed a direct threat to all regional actors, including Russia.
On September 29, commenting on the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on Russia to shelve the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence and withdraw its troops from their territory.
Russia found itself in a complicated situation. If during the incidents that took place this summer, Moscow had the opportunity not to actively interfere in the conflict, today a real war begins, which leaves it no room to maneuver. It may seem that Moscow remains Yerevan’s main ally, despite all the measures of the Pro-Western Pashinyan regime. Still, in terms of Realpolitik, neutrality or even tacit support for Baku may be more beneficial for the Kremlin in conditions when Russia de facto does not have reliable allies, but has all-round political and territorial pressure backed by the collective West.
Armenia’s foreign policy in recent years has largely undermined its ties with Russia. (LINK) However, today, when a dangerous threat hangs over Armenia, there are no more marches against Russian “occupying” forces held in Yerevan, unlikely it was a case a few years ago, when the groups motivated by the external forces actively supported the country’s independence from Russian influence.
“I draw the attention of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing states and the entire international community to the seriousness of the situation. The beginning of a full-scale war in the South Caucasus, which is actually taking place, may have the most unpredictable consequences. It can go beyond the region and reach a much larger scale, threatening international security and stability.” – claimed Armenian Prime-Minister Nikol Pashinyan.
II. Following the war in the Caucasus, an escalation of the situation in Belarus in the near future should be expected.
It may take the form of terrorist acts organized within the country. The possibility of direct military action by the Baltic States or Poland should not be excluded. Organization, financing and management of opposition movement in Belarus do not have the only goal to overthrow Alexander Lukashenko from the presidency, but a general destabilization of the situation in the country according to the Eastern Ukrainian scenario. (LINK)
In order to maintain alleged adherence to international law, it is most likely that there will be provocations on the western borders of Belarus, rather than direct intervention. They can be organized along the border, or at border checkpoints. A similar incident already took place on September 24, when Belorussian Mi-24 helicopters intercepted balloons launched from the territory of Lithuania. More large-scale provocations by NATO countries, the movement of troops within the borders of Belarus, or, for example, the opening of fire on the border checkpoints are possible. such provocations will be justified by the fact that the Western countries do not recognize Alexander Lukashenko as the legitimate president.
According to the current Belarusian agenda, the organization of terrorist attacks by the radicals is more likely. (LINK) This assumption is confirmed by the recent statement of the head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergey Naryshkin.
“So-called “fighters for a new Belarus” are trained in Poland, Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltic States with the participation of instructors from the CIA, the Pentagon, NGOs affiliated with the American State Department”
According to Naryshkin, the SVR was informed about the preparation of a “resonant provocation” in Belarus by the forces of local radical nationalists. The State Department has launched efforts to engage extremist elements to the protests.
“According to available data, the extremist opposition members, who are currently hiding abroad, plan a resonant provocation, implying one of the authoritative clergy of the Roman Catholic Church to be arrested or even injured or killed. This will significantly increase anti – government sentiment among Catholics and encourage them to participate more actively in street protests,” the head of the SVR concluded.
In recent days, there have been more calls on social media for protesters to use force against law enforcement authorities. Photos and personal information of members of the Belarusian OMON, who became a “target” for their compatriots, are shared with the public. (LINK)
Violence among protesters is on the rise. Aggression is already manifested not only towards the servicemen themselves, but also towards their families. The case when a Belarusian doctor refused to provide assistance to the 3-year-old daughter of a soldier captured the headlines. The cruelty that is now increasing among the Belarusian society was not acceptable even in wartime.
The real directors of these events, by creating another point of instability on the border with Russia, are trying to create a new lever of pressure on their geopolitical enemy.
Pro-Western Belarusian media, which are mostly located or funded from Poland or Lithuania, propagandizing cruelty and violence, are actively supported by the leading “democratic” European countries, and probably act on the instructions of the Euro-Atlantic elites. (LINK)
The Western countries, who fully support the opposition sentiments in Belarus, silently agree with calls to physically violence against Belarusian citizens serving in the law enforcement agencies of their own country. The tacit support for the growing violence in Belarus seems especially surprising, given that the liberal, “democratic” Western countries had assumed the role of global defenders of press freedom, fighters against propaganda. For the same reasons, in particular, an active campaign is being conducted against independent media like SouthFront, which has never called for violence during its entire existence, and only pursued a pacifist agenda. (LINK)
The propaganda of cruelty and calls for violence, which are intended to destabilize the situation in Belarus, and as a possible consequence to undermine the country’s industrial potential competitive to European one, fit the neo-liberal agenda, which the Euro-Atlantic elites see as the only one to have the right to exist.
III. The ongoing protests in Belarus and the artificially whipped-up hysteria on Navalny poisoning have a direct impact on the negotiation process on the de-escalation in Eastern Ukraine.
On September 9, there was another breakdown of the peace initiative. Once again, Kiev quite deliberately put an end to the peace initiative, exposing to the DPR knowingly unacceptable conditions for its implementation. On September 10, the Ukrainian military opened fire on the OSCE inspection who arrived at the separation line in the Donetsk People’s Republic. Apparently, Kiev’s goal was to hide the new positions that they had erected near a strategically important facility – the Northern Donetsk-Donbass water conduit, allowing them to control water supplies for the entire region.
The negotiation process on Donbass has actually been stopped. There has been no progress for several months now, and the situation doesn’t appear to ameliorate until the US presidential election in November.
During this time, the Ukrainian side is asked to do everything possible to freeze the conflict in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics. For this, various levers of influence are used. The information agenda of the Ukrainian media focuses on the cultural and economic transformations of the “Ukrainian Donbass”. This agenda is promoted through the TV channel “Dom”, specially created for broadcasting in the DPR and LPR. Kiev always has the ability to disconnect the republics from joint networks and resources of water supply, electricity networks, gas pipelines.
In parallel, a powerful propaganda campaign is being conducted, accusing Russia and the republics of disrupting the negotiations. Probably, under this pretext, Ukraine will demand the transfer of negotiations from Minsk to one of the EU platforms.
Ukrainian political elites are looking forward the candidate from Democrats Joseph Biden to win the presidential elections in the United States, who is already helping the Ukrainian regime in the fight against Russia in various ways, and promises to significantly increase the support.
Kiev, backed by the American Democrats, is aimed at disrupting the negotiation process, since this primarily prolongs the sanctions regime against Russia.
The United States is also interested in prolonging the current “no war, no peace” situation in Donbas. Washington do not encourage Ukraine to launch an open offensive against the DPR / LPR, which may end with the defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the loss of its territories and destabilization in the country. But, at the same time, they suppress any attempts to finally end the war through the partial implementation of the Minsk agreements.
If the collective West is still preserving the semi-frozen conflict on the territory of Eastern Ukraine, in Nagorno-Karabakh, it has already been transferred to the stage of war, and probably, a similar fate awaits Belarus. Highly likely, the escalation of an armed conflict in Ukraine will finish this chain reaction.
The Euro-Atlanticists have already carried out preparations for the conduct of the offensive actions near the borders of Russia. Against the background of all of the information campaigns and active political actions mentioned above, the military units of NATO and the United States are being redeployed closer to the Russian borders, which the world media do not find interesting enough to cover, unlike the poisoning of Navalny.
In June 2020, the United States decided to withdraw part of the military contingent (12 thousand troops) from Germany, some of which should be redeployed to Poland. This maneuver served as an unambiguous message from Trump to Berlin. However, such a “message” has more than one addressee. The redeployment of troops to Eastern Europe cannot remain without a reaction from Russia. (LINK)
The American presence in Poland is being strengthened on a regular basis, not only by the troops withdrawn from Germany, but also due to the transfer of the American Army units from the United States.
On August 15, the Trump administration announced that it is deploying another 1,000 troops to Poland pursuant to a new defense cooperation agreement signed on the anniversary of the victory of Poland in the Polish-Soviet war of 1920, which reflects the US intention to locate a string of strategic offensive and defensive military infrastructure along Russia’s western border, from Norway in the far north to the Black Sea countries in the south. (LINK)
In the Baltic States, reinforced battalion tactical groups of a multinational composition of up to 1,000 servicemen each were deployed. The American initiative “3 to 30” is being implemented, which provides for the readiness to use 30 mechanized battalions, 30 air squadrons and 30 warships of NATO countries within 30 days.
A new NATO Strategic Communications Center in Riga and a Joint Cyber Defense Center of Excellence in Tallinn have been established to wage a large-scale information war. The main task of these structures is to disable the computer networks of critical facilities and infrastructure of a potential enemy – primarily Russia – by disrupting the functioning of government systems, financial institutions, enterprises, power plants, railway stations and airports.
The establishment and steady expansion of major military bases, logistics and operations hubs located along Russia’s western border is accompanied by an increase in strategic long-range strike exercises and drills involving bombers and submarines operating alone or jointly with other NATO countries or non-NATO partners such as Ukraine and Georgia.
The strengthening of American forces in Eastern Europe comes against the backdrop of statements about the withdrawal of military contingent from the Middle East, as well as from Afghanistan. Trump’s campaign aimed at ending America’s participation in “endless wars” in different parts of the world, apparently does not exclude the outbreak of a new conflict, which is likely to take place in Eastern Europe.
All of the issues mentioned above emerged during less than six months. Such dynamics of deterioration in relations between the collective West and Russia have not been observed over the past 30 years, since the end of the Cold War. This only suggests that the military-political leadership, primarily the United States and NATO elites, is deliberately undertaking activities that can be characterized as preparations for unleashing an offensive war.
- Indeed, there are outreach activities aimed at creating and consolidating the image of a dangerous external enemy.
- There are economic measures aimed at weakening the enemy; consistent political measures are also being taken to deprive the enemy of allies and destabilize his political system.
- There are ideological measures aimed at vulgarizing the enemy’s way of life and way of thinking.
This policy can be explained by the challenges that the Euro-Atlantic bureaucracy and globalist elites face today.
They are worried about possible disintegration processes in Europe and are forced to confront the threat of Donald Trump’s re-election. Their position is complicated by the fact that they have proven their inability to offer the world, or at least “the golden billion”, a model of socioeconomic development that could help in overcoming the global financial and economic crisis.
The hysteria they initiated around SARS-COV 2 brought them tactically positive results in the form of additional profits of more than 200 billion for big pharma, additional profits for high-tech corporations. The crisis atomized society, thereby creating the most favorable conditions for strengthening the digital dictatorship. It created persistent phobias among a significant part of the Western population, primarily among those who share the liberal values and values of the post-liberal world. These phobias fit perfectly into the model of a unique isolated personality, in other words into that post-human format described by the concept of transhumanism.
Even so, the globalist elites failed to fully achieve their goals. In particular, they did not gain dominant influence in the national systems of the world’s leading States and did not completely suppress the will for real, not virtual, freedom among the population of Western countries.
The situation in the world system has returned to the state where the most effective scenario for achieving their goals is the initiation of a regional armed conflict.
For this purpose, the necessary image of a terrible external enemy has already been formed – a conservative Russia oriented towards traditional family and collective values.
At the same time, it is important to prevent the transition of a regional conflict to a global one. That’s why unleashing a war with Russia seems unlikely. Ideal “sacrificial lambs”, those who can be spared to be burned in the coming conflict are the countries of Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and the Ukrainian regime that joined them. The global leading players assigned the role of cannon fodder to these countries. Judging by the foreign policy of these same countries, they strive for it by themselves.
These countries have already been repeatedly playing the sacrificial role earlier in history and always with an obvious result: the loss of a large part of the population, the economy destruction, up to the loss of independence. For example, it is enough to recall the first and second partitions of Poland.
The main alarmists in the European Union are the Baltic countries, fearing that Russia has plans to seize their territories, as it allegedly did in the East of Ukraine, despite the fact that it is Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia who have territorial claims to Russia, and not vice versa.
Today they have no choice but to tearfully ask the leading European states and NATO bureaucracy for protection, because it is precisely for ephemeral security from the nonexistent Russian threat, which NATO is ultimately unable to provide them, that the Baltic countries have traded the development of their own economies and a stable position on the international arena.
The situation in the Baltic States is aggravated by silence from the northern NATO or EU member states: Finland, Sweden and Norway.
The Scandinavian countries are absolutely not interested in fueling conflict with Russia. They have no direct territorial claims against Russia, except the Karelian issue between Finland and Russia, which, however, is not capable to lead to an open confrontation.
The refusal of Norway, which is the main support of the United States in the region, to participate in the NATO Cold Response exercise, which was to be held in March 2020 in the northern regions of the country, was indicative.
The national elites of the Northern Dimension countries are guided by the principle “near is my shirt, but nearer is my skin,” and refrain from aggressive foreign policy. Even if one day the Euro-Atlanticists manage to convince them, the probability that the population of these countries will support the decision to participate in a military conflict is very low.
The neutrality of NATO’s northern flank is one of the main reasons for the disastrous situation in the Baltic countries, where NATO is forced to rapidly build up its military power.
Taking into account the escalation in Nagorno-Karabakh and all the geo-strategic parameters of the European region, today only 2 scenarios are probable, which are included in the agenda promoted by the Euro-Atlantic elites:
- A scenario that might be called “New Barbarossa”: incitement of protest sentiments in Belarus and their transition to the stage of armed confrontation, followed by the introduction of NATO troops into the western territories of the country and inevitable military clashes with national troops. At the same time, the escalation of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine is intended to “divert” part of the Russian troops that will be intended to support national government.
- Domestic political destabilization of Russia through the tools of color revolutions. The collapse of the Russian political system, leading to a sharp increase in separation sentiments among the peoples that inhabit the Russian Federation. The outbreak of civil conflicts within the country will lead to a call from pro-Western local leaders for help, right up to the introduction of military forces. Limited intervention will be accompanied by political support in the international arena and financial support for those regions of the country whose local elites declare their aspirations for sovereignty. Such a development of events will lead to the split of the Russian Federation into 7-9 new entities.
Both the first and second scenarios are in the interests of the Euro-Atlantic elites. The first will allow the collective West to distract its own population from the socioeconomic problems caused by the global economic crisis, to get a new flow of qualified labor from Belarus and Ukraine, as well as get the industrial potential of Belarus and transform Ukraine into an agrarian “growth” of the European Union, etc. According to the second scenario, the collective West has a chance of a de facto territorial seizure of vast Eurasian spaces.
No matter what scenario will be realized, the stabilization of situation in the European region does not seem possible in the near future. Most probable, the approaching 2021 will bring much more “unpleasant surprises” than unstable 2020 did.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
- Averting Barbarossa II: The Liana Space Radioelectronic Surveillance System
- The Old Dependables: Russian Weapons In 21st Century Regional Conflicts