If you happen to live within the spheres of the Anglo-American empire, the long arm of the empire’s “soft power”complex, i.e. media propaganda, has most likely tried to convince you that all those other “bogeymen” a la Russian, Iranian, Syrian, North Korean and Chinese threats etc… seem to always be the aggressors. But are they really? Is the empire honestly explaining its own geopolitical strategy in this global game, to its own people? Not really, – but it seems to be very willing to tell us all about the machinations of everybody else – other than the Anglo-American empire that is. And that’s because it goes against what most people seem to think they understand, as promoted by the “soft power” complex in Hollywood and the CIA-infiltrated mainstream media.
If you are an empire subject, living within the confines of the empire, whether in America or other occupied territories, there is a sort of “halo effect” that affects you as being in the empire’s “bubble”, which you need to overcome. The halo is mostly psychological. Basically, like fish in the ocean who are surrounded by water, people are swayed by the mainstream narratives of the empire that are peddled all around them, thanks to a captured and infiltrated establishment media apparatus. Like the surrounding water, this cloud of information is taken for granted, and for different reasons, – fish don’t think much about the water they are immersed in, and similarly, most people are intellectually lazy and generally take the mainstream narratives for granted, which end up immersing them in an ocean of the empire’s preferred narratives. Which are merely one set of narratives out of an entire available spectrum, – and usually misleading, especially in a dominant over-stretched empire with too much to lose. This is how the empire sways public opinion onto its side, the side of “might is right”, which the better of us understand isn’t always right and ought to be challenged when wrong. So what is the real strategy of the Anglo-American empire? Let me first illustrate with 3 cases – Ukraine, North Korea and Syria, and then draw the conclusion.
Ukraine – “Russian aggression” or US backed regime change?
Western narrative: If one listens to the Western mainstream media narratives on Ukraine – how Russia flagrantly invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea, because it is run by an evil man called Putin who is on a quest to take over Europe and destroy freedom and democracy, one needs to take a step back and notice how the media prefer to leave out the initial aggressive behaviour by the US, and instead focus on the Russian reaction, taking it out of context. Nobody in this captured media apparatus has ever asked – is it really in Putin’s interest to have an unstable, volatile and anti-Russo Ukraine next door? Of course not!
What actually happened: The US took advantage of internal Ukrainian divisions, – divisions that have gone on for a long time in a country where rampant corruption has plagued all sides of politics. In 2014, what started out as popular protests against then-incumbent President Victor Yanukovych, were quickly hijacked by the American CIA contingent in Kiev, spear-headed by the endearing Neocon lady Vicky “Fuck the EU” Nuland, who helped install long-time CIA asset Petro Poroshenko into power, to turn Ukraine into a fascist anti-Russo outpost that the US could control like putty. In typical formulaic fashion, the US could thus justify inserting itself into the Nth failed-state as the “saviour”. Of course, ulterior motives were behind this move. As one can imagine, with such developments unfolding on Russia’s doorstep, Putin had to react decisively, not only for the sake of legitimate Russian security concerns, but also for the Novorussians living in eastern Ukraine and for the vitally strategic Russian naval base in Sevastopol, Crimea. Putin thus pre-empted this blatant regime change attempt that the US began to steer, and backed the Novorussians and seized Crimea in the process with the full backing of the majority of Crimeans who happen to be Russo-leaning, a referendum of course, not recognised by the “democracy espousing” West. This thus raised alarms in the West, and the rest is history. Did Putin do the right thing given the circumstances? From his perspective, he would rather preserve the important Russian naval base than lose it, and protect Russians in a country that was about to become a dangerous Neocon wet dream on the doorsteps of Russia. Thus Putin reacted to protect Russian interests in the face of a threat; he was not the aggressor in this provocation initiated by the Neocons. Ukraine was unfortunately all but a pawn piece on the board, caught between the flimsy machinations of the Neocons in their attempt to discredit Russia’s strongman. Russia as usual, was forced to douse the conflagration America lit.
North Korea – Taming “Crazy Kim” or US backed provocations to justify a military presence in Korea?
What is going on: This is an ongoing “issue” as of 2017. The North Korean regime has survived almost 70 years in power, proving to possess an acute sense of self-preservation, i.e. it is not run by “crazy”, “suicidal” or “insane” people as the Western media would insinuate. We can certainly all agree that the regime is not a bastion of freedom and liberal values, but once again, ulterior motives are at play behind the empire’s provocative behaviour on the Korean peninsula. After Japan occupied Korea in WWII, and subsequently lost the war, the northern part of Korea was occupied by the Soviets, and the southern part by the Americans. A hot war shortly followed, – the “Korean War”, with the North fighting the South on the ground, and the USSR fighting the USA in the air. An armistice was signed by the war’s end, but no peace treaty declared. The demilitarised zone (DMZ) in Korea, established by the armistice of 1953, remains one of the most tensely militarised regions in the world. The US has 28,000 troops still stationed in South Korea, the second largest troop contingent outside of America. So what seems to be the problem?
The North Koreans now have achieved nuclear deterrence, that’s what. US regime change attempts are now thwarted by the sheer risk of nuclear exchange and potentially devastating collateral damage to Seoul and Tokyo. By seeking nuclear weapons, Pyongyang is effectively rendering regime change an increasingly painful exercise. We all constantly hear about those “provocative” North Korean missile tests, but are they really aggressive, or defensive? Is the North Korean regime stupid enough to threaten the US with nuclear weapons without a reciprocal threat made unto itself? Of course not. In August 2017 for example, Western media spun into a frenzy about North Korean missile tests, yet at the same time, South Korea and the US conducted provocative “decapitation” war games on the doorsteps of North Korea – war games that simulated a “decapitation” strike against the North Korean leadership. If that isn’t provocative regime change wet dreaming, I don’t know what is. What can we say? It takes two to tango. And Western media obviously ignored the US-led aggression and chose instead to focus on the North Korean reaction. It seems that having Kim ramp up his defences plays right into the hands of US war-mongers, to continue to justify a military presence on the Korean peninsula, and insert THAAD on the doorsteps of China and Russia, in the criminally insane game of nuclear first strike.
Syria – “Civil War” or US backed regime change?
Western narrative: Again, if one listens to the Western mainstream media narratives on Syria, it would be something like this: Assad is an evil butcher who hates his own people and there is a civil war raging in Syria where the good guys are against Assad and his supporters. He hence must be removed from power. Those were some eerily similar echoes to the failed Western-led Libyan R2P fiasco and the Neocon project in Ukraine, if it wasn’t for the Syrian government’s powerful allies in Moscow and Teheran who managed to stymie the almost tripartite US-led toppling of secular strongmen in the MENA region within 10 years (Saddam and Qaddafi being the other victims). And a good thing it was that a resistance bloc emerged to stymie these Western plots to turn yet another multi-ethnic, multi-religious secular melting pot into a sea of religious fanaticism, with the hopes of justifying more US meddling in the Middle East.
What actually happened: In the wake of the “Arab Spring” uprisings across the MENA region beginning in Tunisia in 2011, a similar popular uprising began in Syria’s Daraa. The spectre of a genuine “civil war” loomed over Syria, but not for long; this was quickly hijacked by a mob of opportunistic foreign governments, all with various agendas but converging on the one common goal of deposing the Syrian government. It was a classic regime change operation, and the appellation of “civil war” to this conflict would be misleading – a foreign sponsored insurgency a.k.a regime change would be more apt. A keen observer could prove this simple fact by looking at the map of where the foreign backed terrorists tended to linger most in Syria – next to convenient supply lines all along the borders of Turkey, Jordan and Israel – all eager participants in the regime change. With full cover of the Western mainstream media, the usual suspects in this crime, – the Anglo-American empire, along with Israel, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and Qatar, all backed various terrorists against the Syrian government. These states supported ISIS, FSA and any “good” Jihadist terrorist group that opposed Assad, and his Iranian and Russian allies, with Western media using the notoriously lame title of “moderate rebel” to sterilise their crimes. These terrorists had full foreign government backing – uniforms, weapons, drugs, ammunition, pickups, intelligence, ideology, the full force of the Western propaganda machine and a willing air force – the USAF, to propel them towards the stupendous goal of destroying Syria for having a friendly Takfiri puppet installed, who could run favoured pipelines into Europe and wage Jihad on the Shia minority and counter the Russian presence in Syria, while at the same time weakening the Palestinian resistance based in Syria and making the Zionists in Israel feel even safer to continue to oppress Palestinians.
The plan sounded great on paper, but alas, it went awry on the ground. The superior intelligence of the famed Syrian mukhabarat, the well disciplined Iranian militias and the involvement of the Russian air force, worked wonders to stifle the regime change wet dream of the Neocons. When ISIS was beginning to lose “utility” with certain foreign governments, after being harassed relentlessly by the Russian air force, they were dropped like rock and became the whipping boys of the conflict. With hard-fought victories on the ground and master-stroke diplomatic initiatives, Syria’s allies managed to turn most foreign governments who once backed regime change in Syria, away from it, thus accepting Assad in power as fait accompli. All through-out the conflict, the US shamelessly and provocatively attacked Syrian forces in hopes of eliciting a direct counter-response, thus muscling in on the conflict even more. But Syria and her allies didn’t fall for the trap and out-manoeuvred the US by neutering its aggression by other means.
If Assad was such a “butcher who hated his own people”, why did so many former Syrian terrorists join the amnesty and reconciliation programs brokered by Russia and Assad to re-enter Syrian society and give up their arms? Why were there no protests against Assad in all the major cities under his control during the major course of the war? If this conflict was indeed a “civil war”, why were over half of the insurgents foreign? Clearly, the Western, Zionist and Wahhabist aim of reducing Assadist, Iranian and Russian influence in Syria backfired, and resulted in quite the opposite. The main take-away was that if Israel enjoyed unbridled and unhinged US support, then Syria has the full right to also enjoy support from her own allies in times of need – Russia and Iran. It’s too bad that it took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and much bloodshed for the Western empire and its yes-men to give up on this regime change racketeering. And will they be prosecuted and sanctioned for war crimes? You bet they won’t. Empire subjects are conditioned to believe that this is just “the way things are”.
US strategy – push the other side enough to elicit a response, then take the response out of context
This is what the infiltrated mainstream media also spouts. In essence what we have here is nothing spectacular from a historical point of view, – the Anglo-American empire relies on the principle of “might is right” like all powerful empires. Senator John McCain is acutely aware of this, and he is a well known proponent for abusing this power shamelessly. The key subtlety however rests in how this “might” is exercised – the modus operandi of the Neocon cabal seems to be a common strategy, as seen across the Ukrainian, North Korean and Syrian theatres. It involves pushing the adversary provocatively and aggressively enough, by way of either regime change or some other offensive action, irrespective of whether it violates international law or not, in the hopes that the other side will buckle at the daunting inability to challenge the most potent military force in the world, or if a counter-response is indeed bravely crafted by the adversary, the US then swiftly takes that response out of context and uses it to justify its next aggressive behaviour. One must notice how the Western empire media lasers in on this very response and treats it as the starting point in aggressive behaviour, whitewashing and ignoring the underlying US underhandedness which triggered the response in the first place. This is not only a flagrant abuse of power, it must also be challenged, which is why we ultimately need a more balanced multi-polar world order, where Anglo-American uni-polarity is kept in check. A key lesson of economics is that monopolies are almost always bad and anti-competitive. The same applies to geopolitics.