Presa turcă vorbește de un adevărat asalt diplomatic și nu numai asupra regimului de la Ankara pentru a abandona actuala strategie de lucru cu Rusia și că după ce Germania nu a mai rezistat presiunilor SUA și a dat drumul tancurilor grele Leopard 2 acum urmează Turcia.
Luis Felipe Moyano (1946-1996), better known as Nimrod de Rosario, was an Argentinian writer who deeply and extensively studied comparative religions, spirituality and mythology throughout history; developing a Gnostic Cosmology known as Hyperborean Wisdom. He is the author of “El Misterio de Belicena Villca”, a mystic- historical novel, and of the two volumes treatise “Fundamentos de la Sabiduría Hiperbórea”, a complex study including many scientific details, dealing often with Physics and time-space correlations.
Many ascribe the first steps in developing a strategy for multipolarity in international relations to Russia as well. Indeed, this claim has some merit. In Moscow on April 23rd, 1997, Russia and China signed the “Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order”, and on May 15th the declaration was registered in the UN.1 The document asserted that the Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China will strive to promote the development of a multipolar world and new international order. The text also remarked that international relations had undergone profound changes at the end of the 20th century and affirmed a diversity of political, economic, and cultural paths of development for all countries and an increasing role for forces advocating peace and broad international cooperation. Furthermore, the document reads: “A growing number of countries are beginning to recognize the need for mutual respect, equality and mutual advantage – but not for hegemony and power politics – and for dialogue and cooperation – but not for confrontation and conflict. The establishment of a peaceful, stable, just and rational new international political and economic order is becoming a pressing need of the times and an imperative of historical development.”
A few days ago I happened to review the cartoon “Asterix and the Kingdom of the Gods”, based on the immortal writings and drawings of René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo.
The similarities with what we have experienced (and are experiencing) from the birth of the “unipolar moment” onwards are perfect and, in their simplicity, give a whole series of food for thought for anyone interested.
Social protest sweeping the country. Economic isolation and a deteriorating security situation in the region. The Islamic Republic of Iran is currently going through one of the most difficult periods in its 44-years old history. Is this the time of the end of clerical rule? Let’s look at the processes that led to the eruption of popular discontent and the current geopolitical environment. What are Iran’s prospects?
In its Freedom in the World 2022 report, Freedom House, a U.S. government funded organization in Washington, D.C., put Turkey in its “not free” category of countries, along with Afghanistan, Angola, Belarus, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and several other third world rogue regimes. Could one, by the criteria of democracy, imagine any of those countries as a NATO member state? But Turkey is.
The Case Against Incrementalism
Nearly a year after he invaded Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has failed to achieve any of his major objectives. He has not unified the alleged single Slavic nation, he has not “denazified” or “demilitarized” Ukraine, and he has not stopped NATO expansion. Instead, the Ukrainian military kept Russian troops out of Kyiv, defended Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv, and launched successful counteroffensives in the fall so that by the end of 2022, it had liberated over 50 percent of the territory previously captured by Russian soldiers that year. In January, Putin removed the general in charge of the war in Ukraine, Sergei Surovikin, whom he had appointed just a few months earlier. Wartime leaders change their top generals only when they know they are losing.
At its core, a country’s defense strategy is a very expensive gamble. Every year, the United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars on defense—all on the assumption that such investments will allow it to win the next war. Absent a conflict in which the United States is directly involved, policymakers rarely get a window into whether these bets have actually paid off.
It seems to be a case of little provision for so much supposed effect. The debates, the squabbles, the to-and-fro about supplying Ukraine with tanks from Western arsenals has served to confirm one thing: this is an ever-broadening war between the West against Russia with Ukraine an experimental proxy convinced it will win through. Efforts to limit the deepening conflict continue to be seen as the quailing sentiments of appeasers, the wobbly types who find democracy a less than lovable thing.
Close to a year since the invasion of Ukraine, activists aligned with Russia are pushing pro-Kremlin messages in Africa using a coordinated French-language network spanning Facebook, YouTube, Telegram and other online channels.