Source: Katehon
16.03.2017
Britain and its European pawns in the offensive against Russia
If on the one hand the farcical state of Italian foreign policy – and
the very same meaning of Italy’s standing in the global arena – never fails to
regularly make itself grotesquely visible, then on the other it often unveils
wider geopolitical dynamics, thus highlighting historically persistent patterns
in the relations between global powers.
Such was the case recently when the British liberal newspaper “The Guardian”
claimed Russia was suspected of being behind an unsuccessful attempt to hack
into Paolo Genitloni’s email account, at the time when the unelected Italian PM
held the post of Foreign Minister in Matteo Renzi’s government.
The article claimed that then Foreign Minister Gentiloni wasn’t affected
by the attack, further stating that:
The foreign ministry “field offices”, including embassies and staff
members who report back to Rome about meetings with foreign officials, were
affected by the malware attack. But the government official said sensitive
information had not been compromised because it would also been encrypted.
The similarities between this ‘revelation’ and the circumstances
surrounding the built-up of neo-McCarthyism during the recent presidential
elections in the United States are embarrassingly noticeable.
Indeed, as with previous claims of Russian meddling in American internal
political discourse and the Kremlin’s alleged hacking of Hillary Clinton’s
e-mail account, the accusations made by the British newspaper are also entirely
unsubstantiated. The lack of any evidence is too conspicuous to be
ignored even by the author of the article, who claims that the allegations
aren’t confirmed by any official source. adding, however, that:
Two other people with knowledge of the attack said the Russian state was
believed to have been behind it.
Moreover, on the grounds of tips received from anonymous sources, the
exposé conveniently corroborates Barack Obama’s solemn premonition of Russian
efforts to disrupt the ‘democratic course’ of the European Union within the
year, by concluding that the aborted attack on Italy’s cyber infrastructure was
meant to “gain insight into decision-making within the Italian government”.
Such a statement stands as a bitterly ironic oxymoron in light of
historical evidence highlighting the fact that Italy has been lacking any
decision-making capability ever since 1945. However, if possessing anything
more than a basic grasp of contemporary history – along with the slightest
resemblance of deontological standards – might be too much to expect from
anyone working within the constraints of modern mainstream media, the clumsily
calculated timing of The Guardian’s revelation bears testimony to
the true nature of Atlanticist propaganda – one that is so aggressive as not to
concern itself anymore with presenting its instrumental narrative in a
believable guise.
The article came just two days after Gentiloni’s official meeting with
British PM Theresa May, held in London on the 9th of February.
On that occasion, the Italian PM reassured his British counterpart about Rome’s
friendly and cooperative stance on the issue of post-Brexit negotiations.
More significantly, Gentiloni stated that President Putin wouldn’t be
invited to the next G7 summit to be held in Taormina, Sicily. In doing so,
Italian politics didn’t miss yet another opportunity to reaffirm the country’s
unconditional surrender to the strategy masterminded and executed by the axis
connecting the control rooms in Washington, London, and Brussels, which was
responsible for the exclusion of Russia from the G7 in 2014 following the
Crimean crisis and the implementation of the sanctions.
Rome’s inevitable feebleness in dealing with the externally imposed
escalation of tension with the Kremlin came at a high price for Italian
economy, one that – unlike the British one – relied extensively on strong trade
relationships built with Russia over time. Indeed, the total volume of exports
from Italy to the Russian Federation nearly halved as a result of the
sanctions, plunging from a total of fourteen billion US dollars in 2013 to
seven billion in 2015.
With fears of a possibly softer American approach to Russia by the newly
elected US President Donald Trump casting menacing clouds over the unipolar
world order, the United Kingdom has taken upon itself the ad interim responsibility
of spearheading the globalist offensive against Moscow.
Immediately before Donald Trump was inaugurated, indiscretions emerged
regarding a series of briefings being held by the British government, as part
of what officials from the Russian Embassy in London described as an
out-and-out “witch hunt” against the Kremlin. Following suit with a narrative
ignited by the Obama administration in the dying days of its rule, Britain’s
conservative government justified its Cold War frenzy with the need to remain
vigilant against a non-well specified Russian plot to undermine the “democratic
course” of the nation. Amidst the escalation of diplomatic tension between
London and Moscow, British Foreign Minister and former Brexit chieftain Boris
Johnson added fuel to the fire, claiming Russia pursued a policy of deceit and
sabotage of Western democracies by means of cyber-espionage and “all sorts of dirty tricks”.
Moreover, recently revealed were plans by the flamboyant British FM for
the allocation of 700 million GBP to an “empowerment fund” aimed
at boosting United Kingdom’s Eastern European allies’ strength– namely Ukraine
and the Baltic nations –against the allegedly increased “Russian aggression”.
Short of being embarrassingly amusing – given the pre-emptive and unprovoked
build-up of NATO troops on the Baltic front – Boris Johnson’s statement is a
by-product of Britain’s long-lived anti-Russian sentiment, one that is deeply
rooted in the dynamics of 19thcentury “Great Game”.
Mainstream Western historiography depicts the “Great Game” as the
diplomatic confrontation which took place between two geopolitical superpowers
of the time – the Russian and British empires – whose spheres of influence had
naturally come to overlap in Central Asia due to mutual expansion, resulting in
an inevitable clash for ultimate predominance over such strategic area. This
narrative, however, fails to differentiate between the opposite natures of the
two empires. Indeed, whilst Britain – a sea-locked entity, geographically
cut-off from the natural network of cultures and economies connecting Europe to
the Middle East and Asia – built a thalassocratic empire whose components had
no mutual geographic and anthropological connection, Russia always was the
social, cultural, and economic cusp of the Eurasian heartland – the telluric
and organic entity spanning from the black land of Ukraine to the wooded
mountains of Eastern Siberia and beyond - a vital space, the Eurasian one, that
Britain, true to a corroborated tradition based on piracy and sabotage,
attempted to intrude upon from its southern Indian possessions in order to gain
access to the vital routes of economic, cultural and political interdependence
connecting mainland Europe to Asia. The espionage and deceit techniques
utilised by Old Albion in its quest for Eurasian dominance were glorified and
romanticised by British author Peter Hopkirk in its bestseller named “The Great
Game”.
It therefore comes as no surprise that the United Kingdom, concurrently
with concerted Chinese attempts to implement a logistic network spanning the
length of the Eurasian continent, has recently revived its predatory and
imperialist old habits of towards the heartland that doesn’t naturally belong
to it.
With logistic land solutions allowing for a threefold reduction of
current maritime delivery times between China and Europe, the “One road-one
belt” Chinese initiative would constitute one of the greatest breakthroughs in
the history of contemporary economics.
Simultaneously, this ambitious Chinese project promotes the
long-awaited, all-rounded cooperation between China and the Eurasian block in
an organic system that fosters the establishment of a multipolar world, one in
which Russia would naturally acquire centre stage.
Should the “One road-one belt” vision become reality, it would happen to
the dismay of Washington and London, whose fortunes have so far relied on the
imposition of a unipolar order, rooted in the firm belief in the moral,
political, and economic right of the Anglo-Americans to exploit the vast Third
World Belt spanning the length of Central and South America, Africa, and Asia.
The emergence of a solid and stable Sino-Eurasian bloc to counteract
Atlanticist hegemony is a prospect both the United States and Britain are
forced to disrupt by any means,for the world order that emerged from the end of
the Cold War to be preserved.
With Russia representing the social, cultural, and political glue to
hold East and West together, and with the White House taking what might be seen
as a temporary back seat on the anti-Kremlin propaganda, London has revived the
“Great Game”.
The fact that The Guardian’s revelations surfaced
immediately after the “entente” between the Italian and British Prime
Ministers,reveals the depth of the aforementioned strategy – one that envisions
most continental European nations as pawns for the Anglo-American grand
strategy, to be utilised as buffers or as forward operators in the never ending
globalist attack against the Eurasian landmass.
Instead of attempting to mend the breach caused by the sanctions in
order to re-establish the traditionally amicable relations between Rome and
Moscow – thus partially improving the agonizing Italian economy – Gentiloni
conceded to playing the role of an eager pawn in the hands of his Atlanticist
master.
No comments:
Post a Comment