FILE PHOTO: A protestor makes a Victory gesture during a protest at the Main Square to support Polish judges and demonstrate against governmental restrictive judiciary reforms. Krakow, Poland on February 9,, 2020 © Getty Images / Beata Zawrzel/ NurPhoto

By vetoing €1.8tn budget and comparing Brussels enslavement to life under communism, Poles could blow up the whole EU project

Damian Wilson | RT News | November 20, 2020 at 18:09
Damian Wilson is a UK journalist, ex-Fleet Street editor, financial industry consultant and political communications special advisor in the UK and EU.

After Brexit, is Polexit next? The European Union’s insistence that budget funds are linked to the rule of law has incensed Poland’s leaders, who want to protect their sovereignty and are openly questioning the bloc’s future.

Poland’s decision to veto the European Union’s €1.8 trillion joint budget and coronavirus recovery fund poses an existential threat to Brussels, not just because yet another member is proving difficult but because a brand new bête noir has reared its head – Polexit.

Like their allies in Hungary, the Poles are fiercely opposed to the EU linking future funding to their rule of law – “do things like we say or we turn off the money tap” – and that hasn’t gone down well.

In fact, Polish Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, has compared the European Union to Poland’s former communist regime, a touchy analogy given that it’s still a raw memory for many.

In a speech being hailed as the first salvo fired in a battle for Polexit, the PM told the Sejm, Poland’s Parliament, that “The rule of law has become a propaganda bludgeon in the EU. We know the use of propaganda bludgeons very well from communist times.” I bet you could have heard a pin drop in the European Commission HQ when news of that outburst landed.

Morawiecki continued, “A union in which there is a European oligarchy that punishes the weaker and pushes them into a corner is not the EU that we joined. This is not an EU that has a future.” 

Bearing in mind that Poland is the largest net beneficiary of the EU budget, these barbs aimed at the very heart of the European project won't have been fired lightly and will cause serious upset in Brussels. Which is the whole point.

The paternalistic approach by their paymasters has long irritated those countries who have never quite seen eye-to-eye with Brussels. There are some who try to dismiss this as a political clash, with the liberals of western Europe butting up against the newer, but far more conservative, Christian democracies of the east.

Morawiecki dismissed that view. He said, “This is not a division between the left and the right, but between those who want a few officials in Brussels to decide about Poland’s fate and those who care about Poland.”

The Polish justice minister Zbigniew Ziobro showed even more zeal with his attack, as he said, “This is about institutional, political enslavement, a radical reduction of sovereignty.” There’s that word: sovereignty. It’s all about taking back control. Now there’s a slogan that’s free to use.

It certainly worked in the UK, the only former member so far to follow through on its threat to abandon the EU’s political club. But maybe not for long. Hungary has made it clear that it isn’t happy about the ‘new rule of law’ demands, and now Poland has stood up to be counted as well, with some MPs signalling this could be the beginning of the end.

Morawiecki and his Hungarian counterpart, Viktor Orbán, have turned up the heat in such a way that they can’t be simply ignored or placed on the naughty step like scolded children. They are pushing the EU to admit that not all nations can, or even should, be treated the same.

They argue that the differences between them, and the acceptance of those differences, are what make the EU such a post-WW2 peaceable success. If they can stand firm and convince Brussels of the need for some out-of-character self-examination, then maybe the EU will hold together. 

But for as long as it treats Poland and Hungary as errant children who should be grateful for what they have, then this dispute will continue to grow. And if it is allowed to escalate, then the EU will not only see its authority diminish, as the budget and recovery funds it promised others fail to materialise, but it will start to look weak and clueless in the face of growing insurrection.

The only way out is to concede defeat. The Poles and Hungarians have drawn a line in the sand and if the EU were to cross that it could bring the whole house down.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! 
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Original and comments here.

FIM

A Patriot Call To Action

Larry Johnson | Sic Semper Tyrannis | November 21, 2020 at 01:15 AM

The time for sitting back and waiting has passed. It is now time for all patriots keen on preserving and saving the Republic stand up and act. You can no longer sit and wait on the process to work. You must stand up and get engaged. Act.! This is not about simply fighting to ensure that the millions of votes for Donald Trump are accurately recorded and his victory certified. This goes beyond partisan politics. It is about you taking action to restore trust in our judicial and electoral systems and battling to vanquish those corrupt bureaucrats, politicians and corporate kleptocrats who have sold their souls and honor for transient financial gain.

Let us start with actual proof of the electoral fraud. Despite the media and many mainstream Democrats and Republicans insisting there is nothing to see and you should just shut the hell up and move along, the evidence is specific and compelling. There has been a coordinated operation to steal the election from Donald Trump and, ultimately, the American people.

[   …   …  …   ]

So what are you to do? Sit still and do nothing? No. It is incumbent on all American Patriots to take action and not relent. Here are the specifics of what you should do:

1. Contact your Representative in Congress and demand that they protest the stolen election and support President Trump.
2. Contact your Senator and demand that they protest the stolen election and support President Trump. I would note that in my state, Florida, Senators Rubio and Scott have been too damn silent. Senator Mitt Romney is betraying himself as a deep stater. The folks in Utah need to rise up and let Mittens know that he is sealing his political future by betraying the popular vote.
3. Rally and go to your state capitol and demand that Republican legislators do everything in their power to oppose this electoral fraud.
4. Initiate recall petitions against corrupt Secretary’s of State.
5. Flood the Governor’s office with demands that they speak out against the electoral fraud.
6. Call the Republic National Committee and let them know in no uncertain terms that you will not continue to provide funds to an organization that will not fight to protect the rights of disenfranchised voters.
7. Turn off Fox News. Sign on to News Max and OAN. Let the advertisers on Fox know that you will no longer buy their products if they continue to advertise on FOX.
8. Sign up for Parler, MeWe, Rumble and other social media sites that will not censor Trump supporters. Do not continue to post on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media sites under the control of Big Tech.

We must act and act in the force of numbers. The future of our Republic is at stake. What happened in Michigan is not an aberration. It also happened in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Virginia. Donald Trump won a massive popular vote . This is not conspiracy theory. The Deep State is real and must be defeated.

Has Readers Comments

Full text and comments here.

FIM

Russia’s Search for Strategic Depth

George Friedman | Geopolitical Futures | November 17, 2020

In 2005, in a speech delivered in front of Russia’s Federal Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in Russia’s history. What he meant is that the fragmentation of the Soviet Union would cost Russia the element that had allowed it to survive foreign invasions since the 18th century: strategic depth.

For a European country to defeat Russia decisively, it would have to take Moscow. The distance to Moscow is great and would wear down any advancing army, requiring reinforcements and supplies to be moved to the front. As they would advance into Russia, the attackers’ forces would be inevitably weakened. Hitler and Napoleon reached Moscow exhausted. Both were beaten by distance and winter, and by the fact that the defenders were not at the end of their supply line.

At the height of the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,000 miles from NATO forces, and Moscow about 1,300 miles. Today, St. Petersburg is about 100 miles away, and Moscow about 500 miles. NATO has neither the interest nor the capacity to engage Russia. But what Putin understood was that interest and capacity change and that the primary threat to Russia is from the west.

There is another potential entry into Russia from the south. The Russian Empire used this route as a buffer zone with Turkey, especially during the numerous Russo-Turkish wars. Russia was protected by the Caucasus, a rugged, mountainous region that discouraged any attacks to the point that NATO never considered this option. But if anyone managed to force their way through the mountains, they would be about 1,000 miles from Moscow on flat, open terrain in far better weather than attackers from the west would face.

The Caucasus consists of two mountain ranges. The northern is far more rugged. The southern is somewhat less daunting. The North Caucasus contains Chechnya and Dagestan, both of which contain Islamist separatists. Chechnya, at the center of the northern range, posed a serious challenge to Russia, and one that Putin defeated early in his presidency.

What was most frightening to Putin was that the South Caucasus, consisting of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, had left Russia and formed independent states. Russia maintained an alliance with Armenia, the weakest of the three, and complex relations with Azerbaijan, a prosperous oil producer. Georgia, which faced the northern range on a broader front than the others, aligned with the United States.

If the South Caucasus states formed an anti-Russia coalition, and the United States, for example, supported a rising in the North Caucasus, the barrier might be shattered and a path northward opened. Therefore, Russia followed a strategy of imposing strong controls in the North Caucasus while engaging in a war in 2008 with Georgia, its most significant southern threat, based on geography and Georgia’s alliance with the U.S. The war demonstrated the limits of American power while it was engaged in wars in the Muslim world. It was a successful strategy save for the fact that the long-term threat from the south was not eliminated.

Russia needed a strategy in the west and one in the south. In the west, part of that strategy evolved in Ukraine, keeping it from being a threat without the use of major Russian force. A tacit agreement was reached with Washington: The United States would not arm Ukraine with significant offensive weapons, and Russia would not move major force into Ukraine beyond the insurgencies already in place. Neither Russia nor the U.S. wanted war. Each wanted a buffer zone. That is what emerged.

Another piece of the lost buffer became, so to speak, available. Belarus is about 400 miles from Moscow. Poland, to its west, is hostile to Russia and contains some American forces. This represents a significant threat to Russia, unless Belarus could be brought into the Russian fold. The elections in Belarus held this year created an opportunity. President Alexander Lukashenko, a long-time ruler and in many ways the last Brezhnevite, faced serious opposition. The Russians backed Lukashenko and have essentially preserved his position. In return, Lukashenko is locked out of any accommodation with the West that Russia disapproves of, and also must accommodate Russian military requirements. The Baltics are still a threat, but their terrain makes large-scale assaults eastward difficult. The Poles and Americans are blocked from increasing eastward power unless they initiate a conflict, which they won’t. If the Lukashenko regime survives, it represents a major improvement on Russia’s western border.

In the south, we have a messier situation. Azerbaijan and Armenia have long fought, at various levels of intensity, over Nagorno-Karabakh. Recently, Azerbaijan, with the support of Turkey, chose to launch a major attack on Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan has avoided a full-scale conflict there for 20 years. (The Four-Day War in 2016 does not constitute a full-scale conflict.) Its reasons for launching the attack now are obscure. Turkey’s desire for a successful conflict likely derives from economic problems, coupled with reversals in its Mediterranean policy and its inability to impose its will in Syria. It needed a victory somewhere, and aiding its ally in taking Nagorno-Karabakh made sense.

The matter is more complex, however. The Russians are allied with Armenia and ought not to have wanted their ally defeated. Moreover, Russia would not want Turkey to be a significant force in the Caucasus. It undoubtedly knew of Azerbaijan’s plans because its intelligence would have detected Azerbaijani movements, and because Azerbaijan could not afford to alienate its northern neighbor. So the idea that the Russians were unaware of the war plan borders on the impossible. Russia had to have tacitly accepted Azerbaijan’s plans.

The reason all this was possible is that, in the end, it was Russia that helped negotiate the end of the war and, far more important, agreed to send nearly 2,000 troops as peacekeepers to Nagorno-Karabakh for at least five years. Two thousand Russians in this region represent a decisive force. No one will engage them. This means that its ally, Armenia, now has Russian troops to its east, and Azerbaijan has Russian forces to its north and also in the west. Georgia now faces a similar situation. In effect, Russia has made a significant move to reclaim, or at least have a major element of control in, the South Caucasus. The presence of a major Russian force, with a long-term right to remain there, eliminates what had been a potential long-term threat. The presence of U.S. troops in Georgia might be a problem, but given the lack of U.S. offensive intentions, it is unlikely to be willing to invest major forces in the region. And a minor presence of U.S. trainers in Georgia is something Russia can live with.

Apart from Armenia, the great loser in this is Turkey, which was excluded from the peacekeeping force. Turkey saw Azerbaijan, an important ally in the region, accommodate Russia and accept its blocking of Turkish ambitions at a time when Turkey badly needed a win. In addition, this affair – accidentally or deliberately – coincided with the American presidential transition, a time when decision making in the U.S. is usually difficult, and this time near impossible. It is hard not to think that the Russians either took advantage of events or engineered them. In any case, their apparent successes in Belarus and now in the South Caucasus are major steps in Putin’s vow to reverse the strategic consequences of the fall of the Soviet Union without forging a single nation.

Strategic depth is vital in the very long term, and it’s importance is burned into Russia’s memory. But it has minimal significance now. The United States and NATO have no interest in invading Russia. While Russia must assume the worst, its immediate problem remains its economy and reliance on energy exports as a prime revenue source, without any control over pricing. Russia has executed a strategic coup, but it continues to experience the financial and internal political stresses on which we based our forecast. It has not solved its core problems by strategic maneuvers, however useful. Without a transformation of its economy, it continues to be in crisis.

Original here.

FIM

One-third of Biden’s transition team
    comes from military-industrial complex

Voltaire Network | 17 November 2020

Joe Biden, who considers himself the President-elect of the United States, has released the list of his transition team members. Once the election results are officially announced in Biden’s favour, the team will be responsible for contacting the Trump administration and looking over the files.

This mission is not provided for in the Constitution, but has existed for every change of White House tenant since World War II.

At least a third of Joe Biden’s appointees come from the military-industrial complex, primarily from three think tanks: the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and Rand; and four companies: General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin.

“One Third of Biden’s Pentagon Transition Team Hails From Organizations Financed by the Weapons Industry”, Sarah Lazare, In these Times, November 11, 2020.

Original in English here. Original en français ici. Original en español aquí.

FIM

Banana Follies 
A mãe de todas as revoluções coloridas

Tradução (brasileira) de um artigo de Pepe Escobar, jornalista e autor do livro Império do caos, sobre as Eleições Presidenciais nos Estados Unidos da América (EUA) no ano de 2020.

Ler aqui uma sua republicação.

FIM