Continentalism Vs Dugin: 1:0 For Europe – Analysis

Continentalism, a geopolitical concept coined by Algis Klimaitis, adviser to Algirdas Brazauskas, the first President of Lithuania after it became independent, stands for a Europe focused on itself. (1) Continentalism is directed against transatlanticism, because it stands for a European social market economy, in other words the continental model of “Rhenish capitalism” and not the Anglo-Saxon model of “shareholder/stakeholder capitalism”, for a Christian-conservative culture, as opposed to the “woke” ideology that has come from the United States, and for a European security system that eclipses NATO.

Iranization And Shi’ization In Syria: Iran Tightens Its Grip On The Country And Deepens Its Influence There

Introduction

Since the outbreak in 2011 of the Syria war between the Bashar Al-Assad regime and its domestic and foreign opponents, Iran has acted to consolidate its presence in Syria and tighten its grip on the country, on every level. For Iran, the activity in Syria is not only a means to shore up the Assad regime, but It is also part of exporting Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. This is a major goal of the Iranian regime, which seeks to expand the Shi’ite-Iranian hegemony in the Islamic world at the expense of the Sunni hegemony.[1]

The Risks of Armenian-Azerbaijani Negotiations

Not all potential developments would lead to a positive outcome.

While European and American political leaders continue to speak optimistically about progress on an elusive Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement, the likelihood of dangerous contingencies arising throughout the negotiating process cannot go ignored. Nor should the West inadvertently contribute to such risky possibilities. Like the lands that have separated Armenian and Azerbaijani armed forces in the over 30-year period since their independence from the Soviet Union and the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, the bilateral negotiating process is littered with minefields waiting to go off at every turn.

US magazine: ‘Hamas is winning’

US Foreign Affairs magazine confirmed on Friday: “Hamas is stronger today than it was on October 7. Its cause is more popular and its appeal stronger than before October 7.”

The magazine wrote in a report: “After nine months of gruelling war, it is time to recognize the stark reality: there is no military-only solution to defeat Hamas,” adding that “Hamas is neither defeated nor on the verge of defeat.”

Wounded Economy: Military Spending Race Threatens Russia With Ruin

The military spending race that has begun in the world in recent years (primarily because of the war in Ukraine) has become a burden on the budgets of many countries, but for Russia in particular, dependence on military injections could prove disastrous, believes Oleg Itskhoki, professor of economics at the University of California, Los Angeles. While military spending in the world is growing from 2% to 3% of GDP, in Russia it is already almost 9% of GDP and 40% of the budget. And even if the war ends tomorrow, it will not be possible to simply get off this needle of military spending, and the money will run out sooner or later.

Compte à rebours vers la fin de l’entité sioniste

Le 7 octobre 2023 aura probablement été un accélérateur de la décomposition de l’entité sioniste. Non pas en raison de ses effets militaires, somme toute limités, mais en raison de la réaction des autorités sionistes qui ont entrepris de livrer une guerre contre la population civile de Gaza au prétexte d’éliminer le Hamas.

Si la guerre dégénère, les infrastructures occidentales deviendront-elles les nouvelles cibles ?

Les alliés occidentaux d’Israël pensent-ils sortir indemnes d’une guerre généralisée ? Comment croient-ils pouvoir armer une agression contre un pays tout en restant en sécurité dans leur capitale ?

L’assaut militaire brutal d’Israël sur Gaza, en cours depuis neuf mois, bénéficie du soutien total de plusieurs États alliés de l’Occident, non seulement en fournissant à la machine de guerre de l’armée d’occupation une large gamme d’armements et de munitions, mais aussi en participant directement à l’action militaire. Les États-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne, par exemple, ont fourni des données de reconnaissance et de renseignement essentielles et ont envoyé leurs forces spéciales pour aider Israël dans ses opérations militaires.