The Tug of War-The Civilization State Emerges
As the Remnants of Empire act like the Tail of the Dragon
“Standing at a crossroads, humanity is faced with two opposing options. One is to revert to the Cold War mentality that deepens division and antagonism… The other is to act for the common wellbeing of humanity… The tug of war between these two options will shape the future of humanity and our planet in a profound way,” assesses China in its publication “A Global Community of Shared Future: China’s Proposals and Actions.”
Actions taken around the world can help decide the outcome. Will the Global Majority speak with its moral authority, not just as the center of world population, but as the locus of the greatest (and most needed) potential for growth, to demand an end to the pointless conflict? Will expanding discussions prompted by the peace proposal of four eminent Germans cause a change of heart among NATO countries?”1
The above quotes are lifted from an opinion piece posted on Laroucheorganization .com. A number of its member organizers and commentators have been involved in unrelenting joint efforts to organize a coalition that spans a partisan divide and international borders to form an International Peace Coalition (IPC) that can unmistakably demand that all parties to the war in Ukraine come to the negotiating table to begin serious talks for ending that conflict.
As Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute has stated recently: “We are trying to build this International Peace Coalition to be so powerful that its voice cannot be passed over. If you are a peace activist, or you should be a peace activist, contact us, and make the activities of the IPC known to other people. You should absolutely get active with us. This is not a moment in history to just contemplate. This is a moment when it is you, and many individuals, who can make the difference.”
The article containing that quote is headlined by this bold call to action:
Call Your Congressman: Cut the Funding for the War Now!2
At the heart of a strategy to bring Russia and Ukraine to a negotiated settlement is a peace proposal brought forward by 3 German professors and a retired general, now being circulated (by the IPC). The document outlines a realistic approach to bringing the warring sides to a diplomatic solution to the war’s end. (See link in footnote 1.)
Providing and examining the details for the path forward to obtaining a necessary peace accord is an exercise that for now, seems to elude the leadership at the helm of the Biden administration and the Western collective establishment. Not just politicians but media pundits at large seem locked into a narrative that is calculated to embroil the NATO member states into an inevitable escalation of regional conflict, perhaps leading to a hot war that could devolve into a nuclear confrontation between the superpowers.
The sheer gravity and danger of the political rhetoric coming out of the opposing sides, as covered by Harley Schlanger’s weekly video updates is extremely inflammatory. Comments recently made by the new British Defense Secretary, Grant Shapps of the United Kingdom forwarding ideas of British troops and military hardware companies setting up shop on Ukrainian soil has heightened tensions simmering between Russia and the West. After his recent visit with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the first time in Kyiv, in light of his press remarks, it is apparent that the UK is doubling and tripling down in its support of continuing the war despite the gruesome number of (Ukrainian) causalities on the battlefront and the utter failure of their forces to take back any territory already seized by the Russians.
A visit to the UK’s official government website reconfirms my journalistic inquiry into the stance being made by the heavy influencers of NATO policy decisions. The UK admits and is proud that it has ratcheted up its support of training Ukraine’s soldiers and provided the armaments and funding to sustain the war against “Putin’s illegal invasion”.
While British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has walked back some of the comments made by his Defense Secretary regarding sending British troops to train Ukrainian fighters (in Ukraine), he did not denounce the statements that covered possible manufacturing of weapons and military hardware in Ukraine by transplanted UK companies.
These press releases surrounding Shapps’ visit have since been interpreted by Harley’s cogent analysis as intentional provocations to test the response of both the Russians and the English public to such policy statements.
There was no mistaking the Russian response to the earlier statements released by Shapps immediately following his talks with President Zelensky.
“[F]ormer Russian President Dmitry Medvedev who currently serves as the deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, suggested that British soldiers training Ukrainian troops in Ukraine would be legitimate targets for Russian forces…
In a post on Telegram, Medvedev first slammed Shapps's proposal to deploy military instructors to Ukraine, in addition to training Ukrainian armed forces in Britain or other Western countries as at present.
"(This will) turn their instructors into a legitimate target for our armed forces," Medvedev wrote on Telegram. "Understanding perfectly well that they will be ruthlessly destroyed. And not as mercenaries, but namely as British NATO specialists." (Source, Zerohedge)
Fortunately, the heated rhetoric has subdued for now. The incendiary exchange of bellicose remarks could have been instigated by an overtly candid minister new to his post in a government office. Nevertheless, it does reveal what is behind the strategic, long-range thinking of the current UK government and its apparent disregard for how Moscow feels about NATO operations conducted inside the borders of Ukraine.
The insensitivity to the legitimate security concerns of sovereign nations, (on the part of the West) in this context, particularly Russia, has been at the bottom, the most troubling aspect in its lack of diplomatic outreach that allowed this geopolitical juggernaut to reach the heightened threat level to world peace we are facing today.
A lucid synopsis of where we are today is provided by (retired) Colonel Douglas Macgregor. His description of both the military and political realities as they exist today is untarnished by the gaslighting and propaganda ploys generally accessible to the American viewing public.
Looking at the published date of Macgregor’s article, it is plausible to consider if the removal of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has changed the political dynamics impacting the continued funding of the Ukrainian war efforts by Congress. It is reported that it was back-room deal-making with the Democrats over the debt ceiling and his private assurances that Ukraine would receive additional billions in aid that led to his ouster by the House. However, in the final vote that turned McCarthy out of the speakership, not a single Democrat voted to keep him in that position.
Support for continued funding of foreign aid to Ukraine is being weakened by the MAGA elements within the Republican Party. Representative Matt Gaetz (Fla. R.) along with 7 other Republicans sided with the Democrats for the no-confidence vote that removed McCarthy as speaker, but the Uniparty run by both sides of the House still exhibits a tenacious dedication to the globalist and neo-con objectives of using the NATO war machine to attempt to dictate what happens on the world stage.
The information warfare lines drawn between the NATO bloc of nations and what is termed the “non-West” could not have found a starker example of how events are shaped and manipulated to control the Mindspace here in the U.S. and its allies abroad.
As an exercise in attempting to get an unbiased perspective while summarizing the points written here, I noticed headlines that Russian President Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 20th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi.
This assembly brings “together political leaders and researchers, experts and civil society activists from many countries around the world, once again reaffirming its high status as a relevant intellectual platform.”3
Putin gave the keynote address and included some very important remarks relevant to the ongoing Ukraine conflict. I read the entire transcript of Putin’s speech which he made from the podium. Other quotes were gleaned from his participation of nearly 4 hours of follow-up dialogue and Q&A while seated before a microphone or taking questions from the podium.
It is those extemporaneous comments in that meeting’s discussions that the Western press has used to emphasize a more belligerent posture coming out of Putin’s answers given to the participants.
Here’s the coverage according to the UK’s Daily Mail:
“Putin threatens the West with total nuclear destruction leaving 'no chance of survival' in the event of a strike on Russia as he warns his 'Satan-2' and 'Flying Chernobyl' missiles are ready for use in ranting anti-US speech.”
Putin said that no one in the world in their right mind would use nuclear weapons against Russia4
The takeaway that should be garnered by a sober-minded objective observer and listener to these comments is, yes, it would be an insane move to initiate a nuclear first strike against the modernized, nuclear-armed Russia that exists today. Further, any and all provocations that purposely or mistakenly induce Russia into making a retaliatory launch of nuclear ballistic missiles against any NATO country should be avoided as the West’s highest international priority.
It is so glaringly obvious that Western media spins and reframes the news reporting that is published for popular consumption. News editors know that the average reader doesn’t usually take the time to delve deep into an article, nor is there much possibility that someone in the trans-Atlantic West is going to avail themselves of actually reading the text of Putin’s remarks in their totality which is purposely censored by the news organizations here Stateside.
And of course, it is true that the quotes above were actually made by the Russian president. What is hardly ever grasped by many here in the U.S. and probably many of our partner nations in Europe and the UK is the full context in which those statements were uttered. Nor is it widely circulated in the Western media the statesman-like manner and historical accuracy to which Putin cleaves when making a case for Russia’s stance for defending its national, sovereign interests.
I know if I were a popular figure and this newsletter had a wider audience, I would be accused of being a Putin puppet and apologist and even a traitor to my country by those aligned with the current administration. And yet it is so ironic that all the journalists whom I read and respect, even the presidential candidates whom I consider, to be honest and patriotic, and even going so far as to read the comments being made by the overwhelming majority of readers of independent news sources located outside the jurisdiction of the United States, all affirm the rationale and logic that Putin coolly and calmly presented before his assembled audience.
Far from the “ranting” as described by UK sources, if you make the effort to watch the actual video footage afforded by RT news, you will see and learn of the real story and background to the legitimacy of the claims that Putin makes.
It was amusing to hear Alexander Mercouris of the popular podcast and YouTube channel; The Duran opine on Putin’s speech in Sochi. He jocularly wondered if Putin may have been listening to the Duran podcasts recently, so close were the President’s remarks to what Mercouris himself has been saying all along.
And that’s the point. Step outside the propaganda bubble maintained by Big Tech and the corporate, mainstream press narrative and you are faced with THE narrative that is finally slipping through the cracks.
As Ana Karenina comments among many others within a similar vein in response to the press releases coming out of the Valdai International Discussion Club symposium.
“Write what President Putin says in red ink:" Western countries have accumulated their riches and influence through centuries of “endless expansion,” colonialism, and economic exploitation, Putin claimed.
The model, built on subjugation and blatant disregard of other nations' legitimate interests, is the source of contemporary tensions and will “inevitably lead us into a dead end.”
Outlook for ‘new world order’ [being strategically planned and contemplated by the Global South in cooperation with the BRICS nations…]
“Nobody has the right to control the world at the expense of others or in their name,” Putin said. " Thank you, Putin, that's it!”
Now. How to square the civilizational state philosophy articulated in Putin’s speech with the beliefs propounded by the cabal of climate alarmists who are determined to use the corporate cartel model to tell us all how we can live our lives.
Recommended Reading:
3 Cogent Proposals to Address the Global Crisis
Notes: