![]() Thus, could it be that the interests of Western globalists were more long-term and thus evasive in their detection? Or was it another miscalculation after Russia had miscalculated its lightning raid into Ukraine? While the interests of Russian nationalists were always straightforward - to re-establish a sphere of Russian dominance, hidden contradictions appeared to emerge among forces operating in the West that necessitate taking a closer look at how the West is governed.Īpparently, that ‘brute force’ recognized some stumbling stones on its way to ‘global glory’ within the context of the existing ‘rules-based order’ established by liberal democracies of the West. ![]() However, the response turned out to be unusual - to fuel an armed conflict in Europe - and its cost-benefit analysis does not show any clear gains that the West can obtain in the short-to medium term, unless it was based on the erroneous assumption of a quick Russian collapse. In one corner, the collective West led by the globalists prepared its response and, in the other - Russia governed by nationalists stood ready. In one of my previous papers ( The Empire Strikes Back), the conflict was described as a competition for power between globalists and nationalists. This conclusion prompts the investigation of this mysterious force, whose interests required fuelling a war, and its identification will help to shed light on how the current conflict may be terminated. It was previously unidentifiable using then publicly available information, but now its presence is a certainty that needs to be described. With the benefit of hindsight and hints subsequently dropped by Western political retirees, that hidden force was detected to be emanating from the West, most likely from the US. Apparently, another decisive force was not accounted for in that policy analysis. ![]() History has proven that was not the case. In February 2022, many policy analysts, including this author, expected that the saber-rattling on both sides of the Russia-West geopolitical divide was simply a means to strengthen the bargaining position of both parties in the imminent forthcoming negotiations. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |