Strategic Culture Foundation

1. The 11th anniversary of Crimea’s returning to Russia: What happened in Crimea during the 25 years leading to the referendum?

Crimea's 2014 referendum cannot be divorced from its historical context: decades of linguistic and political marginalization, NATO expansionism, and the Maidan coup's aftermath.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Today marks the 11th anniversary of Crimea's reunification with Russia through a referendum.

On March 16, 2014, 96.77% of Crimeans voted in favor of rejoining the Russian Federation.

This referendum, however, is described in Western media, including Turkish outlets, as the "occupation of Crimea" or the "illegal annexation of Crimea."

Crimea, Russia, and Ukraine

To understand the 2014 referendum, two critical historical events must be recalled: the 1991 referendum in Crimea and the 2014 Maidan coup in Ukraine.

Starting with the first…

1991 referendum and the Soviet legacy

During the dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR), a referendum was held in Crimea on January 20, 1991. With an 81.3% turnout, 93.26% of Crimeans voted to restore the "Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" status, which had been abolished in 1945, and remain within the USSR.

The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was established in 1921. Later, on February 5, 1954, Crimea was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

The 1991 referendum was not only about restoring Crimea's autonomous status but also tied to Mikhail Gorbachev's final effort, the "New Union Treaty." Given Ukraine's push for independence under Leonid Kravchuk, this vote effectively challenged Crimea's post-1954 status under Ukrainian administration.

A note on Turkic peoples in the USSR

During the 1991 Soviet-wide referendum on preserving the USSR, Turkic-majority republics overwhelmingly supported remaining in the union: Kazakhstan (94%), Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan (93% each), Kyrgyzstan (96%), and Turkmenistan (97%). Within Russia, Tatarstan (87%) and Bashkortostan (85%) also showed strong support. These figures contrast with the USSR-wide average of 71%, highlighting Turkic communities' preference for Soviet unity.

Key timeline after the 1991 referendum

• January 20, 1991: Crimea's referendum for autonomous status within the USSR.
• February 12, 1991: Ukraine's Supreme Soviet recognizes Crimea as an autonomous republic within Ukraine.
• March 17, 1991: USSR-wide referendum; 71% in Ukraine vote to remain in the union.
• August 24, 1991: Ukraine declares independence.
• December 1, 1991: Ukraine's independence referendum sees 54% support in Crimea (the lowest in Ukraine).
• December 8, 1991: The Belavezha Accords dissolve the USSR, forming the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Crimea's legal status became contentious. Under Soviet law, Ukraine's secession required resolving the status of territories acquired after 1922, including Crimea. However, no separate referendum was held, effectively binding Crimea to Ukraine against its 1991 vote.

Post-Soviet tensions and Crimea's struggle for autonomy

• February 26, 1992: Crimea's parliament renames the region the "Republic of Crimea."
• May 1992: Crimea declares independence, later suspended under Ukrainian pressure.
• 1994–1995: Pro-Russian politician Yuriy Meshkov's presidency sparks clashes with Kiev. Ukraine abolishes Crimea's presidency in 1995, imposing direct control.
• 1997–2000: Language policies enforcing Ukrainian in public institutions alienate Crimea's Russian majority.

Ethnic dynamics and geopolitical pressures

Crimea's population is predominantly ethnic Russian (58.5% in 2001), with Crimean Tatars (12.1%) and Ukrainians (24.3%). Post-Soviet policies marginalizing Russian language and culture fueled separatist sentiments. Meanwhile, Ukraine's NATO aspirations and joint military drills with the U.S. heightened tensions.

2014 Maidan coup and Crimea's response

The Euromaidan protests, culminating in the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, were met with resistance in Crimea. Pro-Russian groups, fearing marginalization under the new Western-aligned government, organized protests.

On February 27, 2014, armed groups (later termed "little green men") seized government buildings, leading to the ousting of Ukrainian authorities. A referendum on March 16 saw 96.77% support for joining Russia, with an 83% turnout.

International reactions and legal disputes

The West dismissed the referendum as illegitimate, with the UN General Assembly passing a resolution (100–11–58) affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity. However, Crimea's integration into Russia included constitutional guarantees for Crimean Tatars:

• Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean Tatar became official languages.
• Reparations and recognition were extended to repressed groups, including Tatars.
• Tatar-language schools and cultural institutions were revitalized.

Crimea's 2014 referendum cannot be divorced from its historical context: decades of linguistic and political marginalization, NATO expansionism, and the Maidan coup's aftermath. While Western narratives frame it as an "annexation," Crimeans' overwhelming vote reflects a desire to realign with Russia, rooted in ethnic ties and geopolitical realities. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine underscores Crimea's strategic importance in the broader Russia-NATO rivalry.

Turkey's portrayal of Crimea as "occupied" often overlooks the region's multiethnic history and the Crimean Tatars' post-2014 legal protections. This stance aligns with NATO-aligned narratives and historical Turkic-Russian tensions, rather than the nuanced realities of Crimean self-determination.

2. Para Kiev, a cultura russa é um alvo prioritário

Regime neonazista ucraniano tenta de toda forma destruir os símbolos espirituais e culturais da civilização russa.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter  e VK .

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Você pode seguir Lucas no X e Telegram.

Durante minha mais recente viagem como correspondente ao Donbass, pude testemunhar um fenômeno que, embora muitas vezes negligenciado nas narrativas ocidentais sobre o conflito, se revela crucial para compreender a dinâmica da guerra em curso: o ataque sistemático à cultura russa. Nos campos de batalha, onde os enfrentamentos militares e as perdas humanas são os maiores focos de atenção, existe uma outra frente de combate que visa apagar a herança cultural de uma região profundamente ligada – e que sempre pertenceu – à Rússia.

Em minha visita, fui até a escola de música de Volnovakha, nos subúrbios de Donetsk, um centro cultural histórico que é símbolo da resistência psicológica e espiritual da população local. A escola, como tantos outros centros de cultura na região, se tornou um alvo estratégico das forças ucranianas. Em 2022, com o início das ações russas, a resposta de Kiev foi brutal: uma campanha de destruição e limpeza étnica nos subúrbios de Donetsk, que afetou duramente as vilas de Volnovakha.

As forças de Kiev, no entanto, optaram por não destruir completamente a escola de música, como fizeram com muitas das casas vizinhas. Em vez disso, transformaram o local em uma base militar improvisada. Para os professores e alunos da escola, essa ação foi vista como um ataque não apenas físico, mas também espiritual: uma forma de violência contra a própria identidade e a cultura local.

O termo "assassinato espiritual" resume perfeitamente os testemunhos que ouvi das professoras da escola. Esta expressão captura perfeitamente a sensação de impotência e dor enfrentada por aqueles que viam suas vidas sendo marcadas pela guerra, não apenas pelas perdas humanas, mas pela destruição de tudo o que representava sua história e cultura. A presença de soldados ucranianos nas instalações da escola tornou-se um lembrete diário do sofrimento imposto à população, com os combatentes se abrigando no local enquanto continuavam a sua missão de matar e destruir os parentes e vizinhos dos professores e alunos da escola.

Entretanto, a liberação da região por parte das forças russas ainda em 2022 trouxe uma reviravolta. A escola de música de Volnovakha foi restaurada e revitalizada. No momento em que visitei o local, a escola estava mais ativa do que nunca, havendo até mesmo um time de jovens músicos de Volnovakha se apresentando naquele exato dia em um festival na Sibéria, mostrando a importância cultural da região para o resto da Rússia. Os professores com quem conversei me contaram como a música se tornou uma ferramenta fundamental para ajudar os jovens a superarem os traumas da guerra, especialmente aqueles que perderam pais ou familiares nos ataques constantes ucranianos. A música, nesse contexto, tornou-se um pilar de resistência, uma forma de manter viva a alma da região, em meio ao caos.

Essa não é uma realidade exclusiva de Volnovakha. No centro de Donetsk, conversei com os membros do grupo musical Zveroboi, uma banda local que percorre a Rússia tocando músicas patrióticas e tradicionais. O que os músicos compartilharam comigo foi comovente: assim como os jovens da escola de música, eles também usaram a música como uma forma de lidar com o trauma e, mais importante ainda, para fortalecer seu vínculo com a pátria. A música se tornou uma expressão de resistência, de patriotismo, e uma forma de mobilizar a sociedade russa contra a agressão externa.

Durante a conversa com os membros do Zveroboi, perguntei-lhes sobre o sonho de tocar em um "desfile da vitória" após o fim do conflito. A resposta foi clara: sim, estariam lá, mas não sabiam se seria em Kiev ou em Berlim, considerando a possível expansão da guerra para a Europa em razão do intervencionismo da EU na Ucrânia. A música, portanto, se transformou em um símbolo de união e mobilização, e também em um lembrete de que, embora a guerra destrua muitas coisas, a cultura de um povo tem uma capacidade incrível de resistir.

O ataque à cultura russa no Donbass não é apenas uma questão de destruição de patrimônios materiais, mas de tentar apagar a identidade de uma população inteira. O que vejo, porém, é que a resistência cultural, alimentada por esses jovens músicos e professores, continua firme. Cada nota tocada e cada canção cantada é um ato de resistência. A música não só cura as feridas, mas também mantém viva a chama da identidade e da cultura russa em uma região devastada pela guerra.

3. Posteo doble: Los franceses, a pesar de las claras advertencias, trajeron el Campamento de los Santos a Francia y ¿Qué debe hacer Trump?

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

(Nota de los editores) Es de suponerse que no se dimensiona suficientemente la influencia intelectual de Paul Craig Roberts. Su historial de buenos servicios a los Estados Unidos, su vasta experiencia, su formación académica, su cruda honestidad intelectual y su íntegra conducta personal, lo han calificado para ser un agudo observador y crítico, identificando sin demagogias los problemas sociales y políticos y los responsables de haberlos generado. Por supuesto que lo más lúcido de las élites estadounidenses son capaces de tomar (parecería que es así) una parte importante de sus reflexiones. Recordemos que intervino, durante el gobierno de Ronald Reagan, en dos aspectos fundamentales de los éxitos que los estadounidenses le reconocen a ese gobierno: la distención con la entonces Unión Soviética (siendo uno de los integrantes de los equipos que participaron de la concepción de los acuerdos de control de armas estratégicas con la entonces URSS), y los "reaganomics", una exitosa política económica para los intereses generales de esa nación de norteamérica (siendo durante un tiempo subsecretario del Tesoro y habiendo realizado importantes trabajos académicos sobre política económica). Difícil es saber la magnitud de sus aportes individuales como parte de un equipo, pero no cabe duda que fueron importantes. Es justamente lo contrario de los "realistas extravagantes" como Mearsheimer. Roberts es un "fundamentalista" del realismo y, lo más importante de todo, es un hombre que está contra las guerras, y más especialmente contra las guerras imperialistas, y es un enemigo acérrimo de los sionistas, que también son conocidos como "neoconservadores", y que son los que han empujado todas las campañas genocidas de los últimos tiempos. Es de desearse que la influencia de intelectuales como Roberts crezca, así Estados Unidos se dedica a vivir su vida, y a dejar vivir tranquilos la vida a los demás.

Los franceses, a pesar de las claras advertencias, trajeron el Campamento de los Santos a Francia

Francia se está muriendo. Es una muerte gradual. Un distrito comercial a la vez. Un barrio a la vez. Un restaurante, un negocio, un teatro, un hotel aquí y allá. Cada muerte es tan triste, pero se puede sobrevivir. Pero a medida que las muertes graduales se acumulan, se convierten en un todo, y ahora Francia se está muriendo.

En 1973, Jean Raspail advirtió a los franceses en términos claros que la apertura de fronteras y la aceptación de inmigrantes invasores significaba la muerte de Francia.

Enoch Powell puso en guardia a los británicos, pero resultó imposible poner en guardia a una población despreocupada y estúpida, imbuida de culpa racista tras décadas de adoctrinamiento propagandístico. Enoch Powell fue denunciado y Jean Raspail ignorado. Marine Le Pen, la única política de Francia que defiende al pueblo francés, parece encaminada a la cárcel por defender a los étnicos franceses contra los invasores inmigrantes.

La misma destrucción de naciones está ocurriendo en toda Europa, especialmente en Suecia, Noruega, Dinamarca, Alemania y el Reino Unido, países en los que la población femenina de etnia blanca no tiene protección contra las violaciones en grupo por parte de los invasores inmigrantes. A las mujeres blancas se les desalienta a denunciar las violaciones en grupo que sufren, porque se considera racista que un blanco inicie acciones contra un negro.

Así es Europa hoy: una zona cultural muerta o una nueva cultura en ascenso basada en las costumbres africanas y musulmanas.

Todos mis amigos europeos e ingleses me dicen: "No vuelvas. Te romperá el corazón. No es como lo recuerdas".

Pero los turistas siguen yendo. Se les muestran las zonas que aún son seguras y se les impide ver la barbarie que se avecina. Es como un viaje patrocinado a Israel. No se les muestra lo malo, sino sólo lo bueno.

Trump tiene razón. Europa es un desastre. ¿Por qué los estadounidenses apoyan una cultura extranjera en Europa hasta el punto de posiblemente tener una guerra nuclear con Rusia, una nación cristiana respetuosa de las leyes que protege a sus ciudadanos?

Estados Unidos debería alinearse con las potencias emergentes –Rusia y China–, no con los países decadentes y en declinación, ninguno de los cuales es ya una nación étnica, de Europa.

"Estados Unidos debería alinearse con las potencias emergentes –Rusia y China–, no con los países decadentes y en declinación, ninguno de los cuales es ya una nación étnica, de Europa"
Paul Craig Roberts

Los gobiernos europeos, que se niegan a proteger a sus mujeres de los invasores inmigrantes, quieren en cambio ir a la guerra con Rusia. Bueno, Trump debería dejarlos. La guerra no durará mucho y nos libraremos de Europa. Europa está muerta, igual que las zonas muertas del Golfo de México. ¿O es el Golfo de América, donde el río Mississippi vierte los fertilizantes químicos de la agroindustria comercial y otros contaminantes?

Estados Unidos tiene la misma clase intelectual antioccidental que Europa. ¿Cómo puede Trump abordar nuestra vulnerabilidad frente a nuestros enemigos internos, que es donde reside nuestra vulnerabilidad? Esta pregunta conduce a un segundo artículo:

¿Qué debería hacer Trump?

Trump debería poner fin al apoyo incondicional de Estados Unidos a Israel. Facilitar el genocidio con armas, dinero y cobertura diplomática no está haciendo grande a Estados Unidos.

Si bajo el gobierno de Trump Israel mantiene o aumenta su determinación sobre la política estadounidense en el país y en el exterior, será Israel, no Estados Unidos, el que se hará grande. ¿Es ese el papel de Trump, hacer grande a Israel? Los sionistas cristianos estadounidenses, ninguno de los cuales es cristiano ya que adoran a Israel, no a Cristo, dicen sí. La posición de los sionistas cristianos es que el propósito de Dios para Estados Unidos es proteger al sionismo israelí. Como muchos de ellos son estadounidenses que son "MAGA" (Make America Great Again), ¿quién gobierna realmente Estados Unidos? ¿Trump o Israel?

¿Qué debería hacer Trump con respecto de Ucrania? Para poner fin al conflicto, Trump no necesita celebrar reuniones y hablar de reuniones con Putin, Zelensky, la Unión Europea o cualquier otra persona. Es extremadamente sencillo para Trump poner fin al conflicto en lo que respecta a los EE.UU. Todo lo que tiene que hacer, es hacer permanente la suspensión que ha impuesto al suministro de armas y retirar a todos los agentes estadounidenses del conflicto por delegación contra Rusia. Si Estados Unidos no suministra armas, inteligencia, información sobre objetivos y dinero para mantener vivo el conflicto, este terminará rápidamente. Esto es lo que Trump debe decirle a Putin: "Sé que Washington es responsable de este conflicto. Estoy retirando la participación de Washington. El conflicto no habría ocurrido si los demócratas no hubieran robado las elecciones de 2020. Estoy cancelando las sanciones. Los demócratas y la prensa prostituta me acusarán de venderte Ucrania a tí. Su trabajo es ser misericordioso con Ucrania. Como Estados Unidos es responsable del conflicto, Estados Unidos los ayudará a reconstruir una Ucrania desmilitarizada en la que el avance económico tenga precedencia sobre la guerra. No debes defraudar mis buenas intenciones o la Guerra Fría se reanudará".

¿Puede Trump hacer esto? ¿O la propaganda antirrusa lo fuerza hacia alguna forma de sumisión de Putin como una demostración del poder estadounidense?

Si Trump puede hacer lo que es neceario, Zelenski tendrá que vérselas con Putin. Al fin y al cabo, ¿qué tiene que ver esto con nosotros? Si los europeos quieren alinearse con un perdedor, que lo hagan. No hay ninguna razón para que Trump, a quien odian, los rescate.

Para demostrarle a Putin que la guerra de poder de Estados Unidos contra Rusia, iniciada por los neoconservadores sionistas, ha terminado, Trump debería levantar de inmediato todas las sanciones, no sólo contra Rusia sino contra todos los países. Esto reforzará el papel del dólar como medio de intercambio internacional, salvará la base del poder estadounidense y le dará la seguridad al Kremlin de que la Guerra Fría ha terminado.

"Para demostrarle a Putin que la guerra de poder de Estados Unidos contra Rusia, iniciada por los neoconservadores sionistas, ha terminado, Trump debería levantar de inmediato todas las sanciones, no sólo contra Rusia sino contra todos los países. Esto reforzará el papel del dólar como medio de intercambio internacional, salvará la base del poder estadounidense y le dará la seguridad al Kremlin de que la Guerra Fría ha terminado"
Paul Craig Roberts

Trump debería dejar de molestar a China. No es culpa de China que Wall Street haya expulsado los empleos de manufactura estadounidenses a China y a otras partes de Asia, y a México. Fue el afán de Wall Street de obtener ganancias reduciendo los costos laborales, dejando a la clase trabajadora manufacturera estadounidense sin empleo remunerado y a nuestras antiguas ciudades manufactureras sin una base impositiva. Esto es lo que Wall Street y las corporaciones le hicieron a Estados Unidos. ¿Es el papel de Trump proteger a estos adversarios de Estados Unidos culpando a China? Nunca ha quedado claro qué quiere Trump de China. Debería decírnoslo para que podamos evaluar sus intenciones. Como China tiene jurisdicción sobre un gran segmento de la manufactura estadounidense que está situada en China, tiene poco sentido provocar una confrontación con China.

"No es culpa de China que Wall Street haya expulsado los empleos de manufactura estadounidenses a China y a otras partes de Asia, y a México. Fue el afán de Wall Street de obtener ganancias reduciendo los costos laborales, dejando a la clase trabajadora manufacturera estadounidense sin empleo remunerado y a nuestras antiguas ciudades manufactureras sin una base impositiva. Esto es lo que Wall Street y las corporaciones le hicieron a Estados Unidos. ¿Es el papel de Trump proteger a estos adversarios de Estados Unidos culpando a China?"
Paul Craig Roberts

Wall Street y sus ejecutivos y juntas directivas, codiciosos y egoístas, recibieron enormes remuneraciones por deslocalizar los empleos de la clase trabajadora. Cuando los productos de esos empleos deslocalizados regresan a Estados Unidos para comercializarse, ingresan como importaciones. La deslocalización de la producción de las corporaciones estadounidenses es la causa del déficit comercial con China. No es culpa de China. ¿Por qué Trump se centra en la fuente equivocada del problema?

Si la gente de la administración Trump lo está engañando sobre esto, sería mejor que los reemplace.

Ser grande tiene un significado moral. No basta con tener éxito en los negocios, hacer negocios exitosos o evitar guerras. Para ser grande hay que defender la verdad, la justicia y la Constitución de Estados Unidos.

Trump ya ha abandonado la Constitución de Estados Unidos.

¿Cuánto tiempo pasará antes de que abandone la verdad y la justicia?

La defensa de Israel, cuyo gobierno genocida no se preocupa por la vida de ningún gentil o musulmán, es inmoral. La única preocupación de los israelíes sionistas es el Gran Israel, la expansión de las fronteras de Israel desde el Nilo hasta el Éufrates. Las fronteras del Gran Israel fueron ampliadas recientemente por un ministro del gobierno israelí para incluir una gran parte de Arabia Saudita. El Gran Israel es esencialmente Oriente Medio. Irán está en el camino. Por eso Israel agita la guerra de EE.UU. con Irán. Israel y los títeres estadounidenses de Israel pretenden que se trata de armas nucleares iraníes.

Si Trump facilita la agenda de Israel, sabremos con certeza que representa a Israel, no a Estados Unidos. Si Trump resulta ser simplemente otro títere israelí, destruirá la fe de sus partidarios en que Estados Unidos puede escapar del mal satánico que lo está envolviendo.

"Si Trump facilita la agenda de Israel, sabremos con certeza que representa a Israel, no a Estados Unidos. Si Trump resulta ser simplemente otro títere israelí, destruirá la fe de sus partidarios en que Estados Unidos puede escapar del mal satánico que lo está envolviendo"
Paul Craig Roberts

Lord Acton dijo que "el poder corrompe, y el poder absoluto corrompe absolutamente". Trump tiene poder, pero no poder absoluto. Observo que disfruta del poder que tiene. Disfrutó de ejercerlo sobre Zelenski, Canadá, México, y con sus desprecios hacia Europa, sus amenazas a China y su uso de órdenes ejecutivas. El disfrute del poder por parte de Trump podría llevarlo a ser agresivo con Putin y, por lo tanto, no lograr poner fin a la guerra de poder de Occidente contra Rusia en Ucrania.

Trump disfruta de ser dominante en la escena mundial, dando órdenes a Zelenski, Europa, China y tal vez también a Putin. La solución es apartarse de las distracciones extranjeras y centrarse en la agenda interna. Trump debería retirar a Estados Unidos del conflicto y dejar que Putin y Zelenski resuelvan el problema. Si Israel quiere ir a la guerra con Irán, Trump debería dejar a Estados Unidos fuera. La participación en conflictos y guerras extranjeras dejará en un segundo plano la agenda interna y perderemos nuestra oportunidad de renovación. Ningún presidente puede ocuparse de cuestiones internas cuando está involucrado en un conflicto externo, especialmente con potencias como Rusia, China e Irán.

"La participación en conflictos y guerras extranjeras dejará en un segundo plano la agenda interna y perderemos nuestra oportunidad de renovación. Ningún presidente puede ocuparse de cuestiones internas cuando está involucrado en un conflicto externo, especialmente con potencias como Rusia, China e Irán"
Paul Craig Roberts

El placer que le produce a Trump ser el que mueve los hilos en la escena mundial puede fácilmente atraparlo en distracciones que resulten en su fracaso en su intento de hacer a Estados Unidos grande otra vez. Resolver el desastre en que se ha convertido Estados Unidos es un trabajo de tiempo completo. No le queda tiempo ni energía para involucrarse en los problemas de los demás.

"El placer que le produce a Trump ser el que mueve los hilos en la escena mundial puede fácilmente atraparlo en distracciones que resulten en su fracaso en su intento de hacer a Estados Unidos grande otra vez. Resolver el desastre en que se ha convertido Estados Unidos es un trabajo de tiempo completo. No le queda tiempo ni energía para involucrarse en los problemas de los demás"
Paul Craig Roberts

Publicado originalmente por Paul Craig Roberts.
Traducción: Comunidad Saker Latinoamericana

4. ReArm Europe: attacco frontale a welfare e risparmio privato, senza intaccare la dipendenza militare dagli Usa

Nei giorni scorsi, la presidente della Commissione Europea Ursula Von der Leyen ha annunciato ReArm Europe, un piano di riarmo su scala comunitaria da 800 miliardi di euro.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Nei giorni scorsi, la presidente della Commissione Europea Ursula Von der Leyen ha annunciato ReArm Europe, un piano di riarmo su scala comunitaria da 800 miliardi di euro entro un quadriennio inteso a costruire, alla luce del radicale riposizionamento degli Stati Uniti sotto l'egida dell'amministrazione Trump, una solida deterrenza a fronte del supposto "imperialismo russo".

Il disegno, approvato dal Consiglio d'Europa, si basa sull'applicazione della clausola di salvaguardia prevista dall'articolo 122 del Trattato sul Funzionamento dell'Unione Europea, e comporta per ciascuno Stato membro l'esonero delle spese militari dal Patto di Stabilità, che rimarrà invece in vigore rispetto a tutte le altre voci di bilancio. La Commissione Europea, dal canto suo, ha autorizzato i Paesi membri a riorientare a beneficio della difesa dei fondi di bilancio originariamente destinati al finanziamento di altri programmi, e annunciato per tramite della stessa Von der Leyen che «l'Europa ha tutto ciò che le serve per prendere il comando nella corsa alla competitività. Questo mese, la Commissione presenterà l'Unione del Risparmio e degli Investimenti. Trasformeremo i risparmi privati in investimenti necessari. E lavoreremo con i nostri partner istituzionali per farli decollare».

Mentre mette nel mirino il risparmio privato continentale, la Commissione Europea si impegna a raccogliere a condizioni agevolate sui mercati 150 degli 800 miliardi previsti dal piano da concedere sotto forma di prestiti ai singoli Stati. Per favorire il processo, la Banca Centrale Europea ha tagliato il tasso di interesse sui depositi al 2,5% in un'ottica di abbassamento del costo del debito. Lo scopo è quello di stimolare il sistema bancario a canalizzare liquidità verso il settore della difesa, su cui stanno convergendo i capitali in uscita dai comparti farmaceutico e hi-tech (con particolare riferimento ai segmenti riconducibili alla "transizione ecologica) sotto la regia dei grandi fondi d'investimento statunitensi – BlackRock, Vanguard e State Street in primis.

Alcune aziende come Rheinmetall, fiutata l'aria che tira, stanno procedendo alla conversione dei propri stabilimenti preposti alla fabbricazione di componenti automobilistiche in impianti "ibridi",  utilizzabili anche per la produzione bellica. Sebbene l'impatto su sanità, istruzione, ricerca, previdenza sia facilmente prevedibile, attorno a ReArm Europe si è sviluppato – con le dovute eccezioni – un consenso trasversale alle forze politiche, dietro il pungolo di personalità di vertice a livello istituzionale, giornalistico e universitario.

In pochissimi hanno peraltro richiamato l'attenzione sul fatto che, sebbene l'Unione Europea abbia destinato complessivamente al settore della difesa 457 miliardi di dollari contro i 145,9 riconducibili alla Russia (dati del 2024), quest'ultima, come denunciato a gennaio dal segretario generale della Nato Mark Rutte, «sforna in tre mesi il volume di materiale bellico che l'Alleanza Atlantica, da Los Angeles ad Ankara, è in grado di produrre nell'arco di un anno». Segno che ReArm Europe va ad imprimere una brusca accelerata a un processo di corsa agli armamenti preesistente.

Lo si evince dalla straordinaria crescita azionaria realizzata nel 2024 dai principali colossi europei della difesa, quali i tedeschi Rheinmetall (+114%) e Hensoldt (+41%), gli italiani Leonardo-Finmeccanica (+73%) e Fincantieri (+60%), lo svedese Saab (+53%) e il britannico Quinetiq (+34%). Stesso discorso vale per Thales e Bae Systems. Ne è scaturito un incremento vertiginoso dello Stoxx Europe Total Market Aerospace & Defense, che ha chiuso il 2024 con un margine positivo su base annua del 33,1%, contro il 26% totalizzato dal listino bancario e il 18,2% da quello assicurativo. Dai dati forniti dallo Stockholm International Peace Research Instute (Spiri) in relazione ai contratti già stipulati emerge inoltre che Francia, Germania e Italia hanno in portafoglio ordinativi assai imponenti di aerei da combattimento, navi da guerra, elicotteri, sistemi anti-aerei, carri armati e veicoli corazzati di vario genere. Rispetto al quinquennio precedente, Francia e Italia hanno migliorato significativamente la propria posizione sul mercato mondiale delle armi, con la prima che ha incrementato la propria quota del'11% (dall'8,6 al 9,6% del totale) e la seconda addirittura del 138% (dal 2 al 4,8%). I risultati negativi conseguiti da Germania (-2,6%, dal 5,7 al 5,6% del totale), Olanda (-36%, da 1,9 a 1,2% del totale), Svizzera (-61%, da 0,9 a 0,5% del totale) e Repubblica Ceca (-14%) sono stati ampiamente compensati dalle performance realizzate da Polonia (+4.031%, dallo 0,05 all'1%), Norvegia (+187%, da 0,3 a 0,8%), Svezia (+73%, da 0,5 a 0,9%) e Spagna (+29%, dal 2,3 al 3%).

Nel periodo interessato, il dominio degli Stati Uniti è andato consolidandosi (+21%, dal 35 al 43%) anche per effetto delle implicazioni dal conflitto-russo ucraino. La guerra ha prodotto un crollo della quota di mercato globale riconducibile alla Russia (-64%, dal 21 al 7,8% del totale), il cui sforzo bellico ha assorbito larghissima parte della produzione domestica, e trasformato allo stesso tempo l'Ucraina nel principale canale di ricezione di materiale bellico su scala mondiale (8,8% delle importazioni totali). Il trasferimento massiccio di attrezzature militari a Kiev ha naturalmente imposto ai Paesi europei di ricostituire – seppur molto parzialmente – le proprie scorte, in larghissima parte attraverso l'incremento degli acquisti dagli Stati Uniti. Rispetto al quinquennio precedente, l'import europeo di armi è aumentato del 155% e la quota di mercato del "vecchio continente" presidiata dagli Usa è cresciuta dal 52 al 64%. Così, per la prima volta da oltre vent'anni, l'Europa ha superato il Medio Oriente come destinazione primaria dell'export militare statunitense.

Le statistiche fornite dal Sipri sul punto dipingono tuttavia un quadro in larga parte antecedente alla corsa al riarmo scatenata dalla guerra in Ucraina, perché non conteggiano ancora i dati relativi agli ordinativi europei di sistemi d'arma complessi che i produttori statunitensi (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grummann, General Dynamics, ecc.) sarà in grado di consegnare soltanto fra diversi anni. Lo ha sottolineato con forza il ricercatore del Sipri Pieter Wezeman, secondo cui «gli Stati europei della Nato hanno ordini per quasi 500 aerei da combattimento e molte altre tipologie d'arma dagli Stati Uniti», tra cui gli F-35 e i sistemi Patriot.

Così, il "vecchio continente" si appresta, contestualmente a ReArm Europe, a sacrificare il welfare e drenare risparmio privato a favore della difesa («trasformeremo i risparmi privati in investimenti necessari», come ha dichiarato la Von der Leyen) dopo aver superato per la prima volta da oltre vent'anni il Medio Oriente come destinazione primaria dell'export militare statunitense.

5. Who really provoked the Ukraine war? Was it Russia?

By David REHAK

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Ukrainian "president" Vladimir Zelensky lied when he called Russia the aggressor. Since 2014 his military forces have been shelling their own civilians in the east of Ukraine, killing at least 14,000 people and arresting thousands more with the SBU, the Ukrainian secret police, a de facto Gestapo-like terror organization.

Zelensky's regime prohibited the Russian language in schools, political opposition was outlawed, the Orthodox church was banned, and all Russian shows and programs from TV were removed. Russian websites were blocked from the internet. Zelensky called Ukrainian Russians in the east a "species", as if he were referring not to his fellow countrymen, but to animals. Yet he speaks and behaves as if none of this ever happened.

He portrays himself as a victim and a hero and ungratefully expects more money ($350 billion sent already!), some of which he and his fellow cronies have been found to spend on luxury cars, large fancy villas, and skiing resorts in Europe. It's an open secret!

Russia simply stepped up for Russian people in Ukraine after eight years of doing nothing in the face of this injustice. Clearly Russia didn't start it. They didn't want this war. Period.

And fundamentally speaking, Zelensky's presidential term ran out in May 2024. He blocked new elections, apparently because polling showed his approval rating at four percent, so he's not even the legitimate president of Ukraine anymore – not even on paper as a puppet. Clearly he is in no position to negotiate anything now.

There is so much more that Vice President Vance and President Trump could have said to Zelensky in that historic and heated exchange before the cameras in the Oval Office. It was he, Zelensky, who initialled and then reneged on the peace agreement after Russian forces withdrew from around Kiev and other parts. And Zelensky walked out on the peace deal early on in March and April 2022, not Putin.

Although it was Zelensky's regime which from 2014 to 2022 was bombing the Donbas and killing the 14,000 Ukrainian Russians, Zelensky turns around and hypocritically blames Putin for everything that he, Zelensky, did.

And Crimea? Crimea is Russian, historically speaking, and 75 percent of the population is ethnically Russian. Relatively few Ukrainians live there. It was always the southern jewel of Russia but was unlawfully "gifted" to Ukraine in the 1950s by the Soviet dictator Khruschev, who was also leader of the Ukrainian Communist Party at the time.

Just after the US-led 2014 coup against Ukraine's elected government, US and NATO forces were moving naval fleets into the Black Sea. Russia saw this as a provocation, a threat to its national security, and a hindrance or blockage of its own access to those waterways, so in response to this development, Crimea was annexed in 2014 by Russian forces. Democratic referendums were soon held in Crimea that same year and again in Luhansk and Donetsk in 2022, and the vast majority of residents overwhelmingly voted to re-join Russia. There was no presentation of credible evidence of voter fraud, yet the results were rejected and deemed illegitimate by the international community. But Russia felt justified that it had to react to hostile action in the Black Sea and near its land border.

The Russians had been promised many times that NATO would not expand eastward beyond Germany after the Russians completely withdrew from eastern Europe with the dissolution of the Soviet Empire and communism. But this promise to Russia was broken by EU countries and NATO expansion started and continued in the 1990s and beyond. Missile systems aimed at Russia were installed in Poland and Romania. All of this was quite unnecessary and very provocatively hostile action against Russia.

These are the plain, unbiased facts.

Could Putin have reacted differently? If the Chinese or Russian military was arming and using the Mexican military as a proxy to try to provoke the US into attacking it, what would the US government do? It would quickly react with overwhelming military force in Mexico, that's indisputable. It would consider Mexico's actions as a clear and present threat to US national security.

Original article: ronpaulinstitute.org

6. Hunter Hunted: The rise of U.S. imperialism and the consequences for Europe

By Siyabonga HADEBE

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

FOR centuries, Europe was the architect of global imperialism, carving up foreign territories and subjugating populations in pursuit of dominance. Driven by a potent cocktail of ambition, religious zeal and racial superiority, the expansion of the European empire ranks among the worst human disasters, especially for the world's subalterns.

The empire was built on exploitation, enslavement and violent subjugation and birthed the dreadful, unequal and racist modern world.

Now, the tables have turned in the face of US imperialism or colonisation 2.0.

Europe now finds itself in the unfamiliar and deeply unsettling position of the hunted, caught in the crosshairs of a new, albeit familiar, form of imperialism—one spearheaded by its former protégé and transatlantic partner, the United States under Donald Trump.

This transformation underscores a reckoning with the historical legacies of colonialism and the consequences of unwavering support for US expansionist policies.

The ascendance of an isolationist and aggressively nationalistic political current within the US represents more than just a domestic political shift; it constitutes a calculated strategy to dismantle the post-World War II global order. This order, built on multilateral institutions and a degree of international cooperation, is now seen by many within the US political landscape as a hindrance to its pursuit of unchecked dominance.

This drive for unfettered power is being pursued with renewed fervour and directness, targeting not only geopolitical rivals but also long-standing Western, white-race allies, including those in Europe and its neighbouring Canada. Critics who dismissed Trump's first term as chaotic and unplanned failed to recognise the method behind the "madness".

Under the "America First" banner, Trump's administration sought to dismantle multilateral institutions and agreements that hinder Washington's ambitions. This recalibration is not limited to trade wars with China or confrontations in the Indo-Pacific.

Europe, once a co-conspirator in global domination, now finds itself subjected to the very tactics it once employed against the Global South. The very tools and justifications used to colonise and exploit much of the world are now being wielded against it.

The mirage of democratic peace

Trump's rhetoric about using force to claim Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal, as well as his relentless economic manoeuvring, highlight a new reality: Europe and its allies are no longer untouchable. This reality shatters the comfortable illusion of "democratic peace", the idea that democracies are inherently less likely to wage war against each other.

Historically, this theory has been used to justify interventions and alliances, promoting the idea of peaceful fraternity among democratic nations. However, history provides numerous exceptions, such as the US interventions in democracies like Guatemala in 1954. The notion of peaceful coexistence among democracies crumbles under scrutiny.

The potential use of force against self-declared democratic nations like Canada and Denmark (over Greenland) reveals the fragility of this theory. It exposes a chilling truth: when fundamental interests of power and resources are at stake, the veneer of democratic solidarity quickly erodes.

As with the rest of Latin America, Panama and Mexico were always going to be easy targets, as Trump wants to erase and turn the Gulf of Mexico and the Panama Canal into US properties.

As Europe grapples with its vulnerability, it must confront the ghosts of its imperial past. For centuries, European powers imposed their will on the Global South, exploiting resources and suppressing indigenous populations. The historical narrative of European exceptionalism, rooted in racial and cultural superiority, is now mirrored in the "America First" ideology.

This legacy of domination has now come full circle. The US, initially a beneficiary of Europe's imperial system, has adapted and expanded these tactics to pursue its supremacy. The logic of empire—the pursuit of resources, strategic advantage and global dominance—remains the same, but only the players have shifted.

Europe's complicity in US expansionist policies further complicates its position. European complicity in previous US-led interventions, from interventions in Latin America to the Middle East, has long exposed its weak moral standing and contributed to its current vulnerability.

Moreover, its unwavering backing of US policies in Ukraine underscores its subordination to Washington. This dependency is becoming increasingly untenable as Europe faces the consequences of aligning itself with a power willing to turn on its allies.

In short, this vassal status, coupled with rising internal pressures like nationalist movements and economic uncertainty, leaves Europe precariously exposed to US ambitions.

Indigenous rights and territorial ambitions

The discussion surrounding the potential acquisition of Greenland and Canada brings the issue of Indigenous rights to the forefront. Trump's casual remarks about this envisaged territorial acquisition aim to introduce multi-layered oppression, dispossession and colonisation.

The Inuit, Sámi, Métis and other indigenous groups in these regions have long suffered under colonial regimes that call themselves democracies, including Canada, Denmark, Norway and Finland.

The prospect of US territorial ambitions exacerbates this oppression, echoing the historical disregard for indigenous rights that has characterised both European and North American histories.

Europe's record on indigenous rights, particularly in northern Europe and within its former colonial territories, further undercuts its ability to criticise US actions. The potential double oppression of these groups under a US-led expansionist agenda highlights the urgent need for a reevaluation of Europe's role in addressing historical injustices.

The crumbling edifice of racialist multilateralism and a world redrawn

The shift in global power dynamics is not just a geopolitical issue; it has profound economic and environmental implications. The West's industrial outsourcing to countries like China, driven by capitalist doctrines of cheap labour, has contributed to environmental degradation and economic dependency. Once seen as a means of maintaining economic dominance, this strategy has backfired.

China's rise as a global powerhouse has disrupted the economic and political order, challenging the US and, by extension, Europe. The US response, advocating for economic decoupling and trade wars, places immense pressure on European economies deeply intertwined with the global trading system. The spectre of trade wars and economic coercion highlights Europe's new strategic vulnerability.

Europe's support for multilateral institutions, once a cornerstone of its foreign policy, is now undermined by US actions. Trump's disdain for organisations like the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations, and its bodies reflects a broader rejection of cooperative frameworks. This shift toward unilateralism isolates Europe, which struggles to defend a system that no longer serves its interests.

Nevertheless, the erosion of multilateralism has significant consequences for peripheral countries, which consistently receive the brunt of the blow. The Global South, already vulnerable to economic and political pressures, faces increased marginalisation. Having historically benefited from these dynamics, Europe must contend with being sidelined in a world dominated by competing hegemonies, with the US driving the wedge.

From hunter to hunted—a cycle of power

Europe's shift from hunter to hunted is a stark reminder that power dynamics are cyclical. The imperial tools it once employed are now being turned against it, forcing a painful confrontation with its past. It must now face the following truths: the consequences of its imperial history, the dangers of unwavering allegiance to a dominant power and the fragility of a global order built on self-serving principles.

This is a defining moment that French President Emmanuel Macron, in his defence of Europe's territorial integrity, calls "imperialism". Europe faces a choice: to continue down a path of dependence and decline or to forge a new, independent path based on genuine multilateralism, acknowledgement of past wrongs and respect for the sovereignty of all nations.

However, this may be tricky, as Europe consistently refuses to atone for its past and continues to block any discussion of reparations on a global stage. Thus, it cannot rely on the support of the Global South in its attempts to counter the US incursion. European countries have generally turned a blind eye as Israel dissipates Palestine and its people. Now, they face a serious threat from the very same US they have openly favoured as it trampled on others.

The world watches as Europe navigates this treacherous new terrain, serving as a lesson to all who seek to impose their will upon it. The shift to a multipolar world order will bring new centres of power and challenge the status quo, as the West (Europe) can no longer dictate terms to the rest of the world.

Lessons from history

Europe's current predicament offers an excellent reminder of the cyclical nature of history. However, this change was not expected to occur from within its belly. The imperial tactics it once wielded with impunity are now being used against it by its close relative, the US. This reckoning forces Europe to confront several hard truths.

First, the exploitation of the Global South has left a lasting scar on the world. Europe's historical actions have sown the seeds of its current vulnerabilities.

Second, aligning with US expansionist policies has backfired, exposing Europe to the tactics it once endorsed. Finally, dependence on the US for security and economic stability has left Europe vulnerable to shifts in US foreign policy.

Europe's transformation from hunter to hunted marks a turning point in global power dynamics. The rise of US imperialism underscores the need to reevaluate Europe's role in the world.

Europe must confront its historical legacy and adapt to a rapidly changing landscape as the global order shifts toward multipolarity. This moment of reckoning presents an opportunity for Europe to chart a new course and embrace a more equitable approach to global governance away from the imperial West. Failure to do so risks consigning Europe to the margins of a world it once dominated, a sobering reminder of the consequences of imperial hubris.

Siyayibanga le economy!

Original article: iol.co.za

7. Tom Holland and the use of Christianity against Islam

Anglophone atheists are plotting to frame Christianity along the supremacist lines of Josiah Strong, ready to annihilate inferior Arabs under the pretext of the Islamic threat.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

As I have already observed here in SCF, there is a concert between Nietzschean atheists and Protestants to sustain that Christianity is meritorious because, like a bolt from the blue, it proposed for the first time a humanitarian morality that values the weak. The Nietzschean opposition between the virile heroism of pagans and the "slave morality" of Christians is praised instead of lamented.

This new alliance between atheists and Protestants is well represented by Richard Dawkins' change. Before, the most annoying atheist in the world was always calling Christians stupid; now, he recognizes their civilizational value… in the face of the Muslim threat. The ideologist of this alliance is probably Tom Holland, a famous historian from the BBC. Before it was fashionable, he already defended the civilizational virtues of Christianity – but of course he did not do it gratuitously, since the backdrop was already the Islamic threat. Tom Holland is also dedicated to hunting down "anti-Semites" in England, even before October 7, 2023.

I also observed in SCF that Judaism went through a curious process, which caused atheist Jews, influenced by fundamentalist evangelicals, to take the lead in the Jewish community and make a heretical idea become orthodox. Namely: the migration to the Holy Land before the arrival of the Messiah. In the end, the dispensationalism of English-speaking Protestants began to guide the religion of the Jews, thanks to the atheists of the Zionist movement. There is a symbiosis between the English-speaking Protestant world and Judaism. Thus, there is a possibility that this part of Christianity can be led by atheists with political objectives, in the same way as the Jews.

I then read Dominion: Making of the Western Mind (also published as Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, in U.S.), a work by Tom Holland published in 2019, to see how he tells the story of Western Christianity.

He does indeed present Christianity as a radical and permanent rupture. First, it was a rupture not only with paganism in general, but also with the values ​​of Roman society. In other words, it is as if all of Antiquity was made up of ruthless warriors, until Christianity appeared with its "slave morality". It turns out that Rome was already special. First, all you need to do is read Cicero's De officiis to discover that even the master had duties towards the slave, and it was advisable to pay him for his work as if he were free. Second, if Rome is presented as just another ruthless society among others, with no compassion for the weak, how can we present the horrific Aztec Mexico and the infanticidal Carthage? Rome lived at war with Carthage until it destroyed it and put an end to the sacrifice of children to Baal, which so scandalized other Mediterranean societies in Antiquity.

Christianity was not opposed to Rome. Precisely because he rejects the supernatural, an atheist should consider that, if Christianity emerged on the outskirts of the Empire and conquered it without weapons, it must be its byproduct, rather than an alien force. Compare the conversion of Rome to the conversion of Mexico: the first was unarmed and had its main miracle far from the center of power and relevant witnesses; the second was armed and had its main miracle just in the capital, with visible and lasting material proof, subject even to inspection by NASA.

But in addition to breaking with Rome, Tom Holland sees Christianity as a permanent revolution that breaks with itself all the time. Thus, the greatest difference between this historian and other right-wing atheists is that he sees Wokeism as a consequence of Christianity, rather than treating it as contrary to the spirit of the West.

Holland is correct that Wokeism comes from Christianity, since (as I have shown in detail here) Wokism emerged from the Unitarian Church, which is Protestant and liberal. However, this is not the explanation he gives. His explanation consists of pointing to moral reform in defense of the oppressed as an essentially Christian characteristic and saying that Wokism is a continuation of this. This argument is the sequel to another, which establishes a continuity between Catholicism and Protestantism in England and between Catholicism and the Enlightenment in France: the first Christians tore down pagan idols, Pope Gregory VII undertook a bold reform aimed at moral purification, the movement initiated by Luther had the same impetus, and in the end both the English Puritans and the French Enlightenment destroyed Catholic images in order to promote moral reforms. For Tom Holland, then, Christianity is a permanent revolution. This is a mistake. He takes a characteristic of Protestantism, later inherited by liberalism, and considers it as essential to Christianity. After all, only Protestant Christianity lacks the concept of heresy.

Permanent revolution is incompatible with the concept of progress because it is the enemy of the past. Now, when Saint Augustine accepted slavery, he was not a Christian who needed the enlightenment of the Bible burners abolitionist Quakers praised by Tom Holland. Saint Augustine was a man of his time and, as a Christian, he would not have accepted every treatment given to a slave. Having accepted slavery does not make him, in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of Christians today, an authority to be destroyed. Saint Augustine and any other saint who lived with slavery did not defend it. The very notion of papal infallibility is in line with the possibility of moral progress: if the popes of the future will issue new bulls and will not correct the popes of the past, then there are still new things to be established. Pope Gregory VII did not make any previous pope flawed. Luther, on the other hand, transformed the entire Catholic Church into a diabolical conspiracy of liars. And the wokes treat anyone who says that women don't have penises, that is, almost every human who has ever walked the earth, like Hitler.

Let's go back to Mexico. We learn that one of England's regrets was not having been able to repeat in India the Spanish feat of converting an ancient civilization to Christianity. The pressure came more from the general population than from the Crown itself, which put mercantile considerations first, and this demand was made through the newspapers: a columnist described in the newspaper terrible customs, such as setting widows on fire at their husbands' funerals, and a popular outcry followed. It occurred to me that this erratic and easily manipulated way of approaching national issues became common with the establishment of liberal democracies around the world.

Well, instead of converting the Indians to Christianity, the English would have, as Holland convincingly argues, taught the Indians to see and defend themselves in the Protestant way: Hinduism is a religion and, being a religion, it has a theology; and, having a theology, argues that Hindus who burn widows are not true Hindus, because Hinduism was falsified at a certain point in history… Well, the Puritan project of making India a Christian country resulted in India becoming a constitutional democracy with religious pluralism. In the end of the day, that's what being Western is for Holland. And Islam, unlike Judaism, stands against that.

According to Holland, the great propaganda advantage of Islam, which was capable of converting Christians when it first appeared, is the claim that Islam brought ready-made laws straight from God, while Christians were abandoned to their Greco-Roman heritage and had to construct their own theology, philosophy, etc. Thus, faced with the advance of the Western world, Muslims stuck to a law from the time of Muhammad and ended up becoming interpreters of the spirit of the law, that is, they began to reason like Protestants. But then the Salafists appeared, ready to restore the Islam and, again according to Tom Holland, they resemble the bloody Münster of the Anabaptists. In other words, everything is like Christianity; and if everything is like Christianity, nothing is like Christianity. However, he never paints Islam as charitable, and even ascribes Nietzschean passions to their warriors.

In the final chapter, Tom Holland discusses Dawkins' new stance, who prefers the sound of church bells to the cry of Allahu Akhbar. He also portrays the End of History thesis as mistaken, and presents as proof the fact that George W. Bush said that Islam was the religion of peace. In other words, the problem is not that Bush went to war against Iraq, but that he was wrong about the real nature of Islam, which is warmongering and does not want to live in a liberal democracy. Tom Holland is, in fact, a follower of Samuel Huntington and his theory of the clash of civilizations.

I do not know enough about the history of Islam to know whether the habit of arguing for the spirit of the law was copied from Protestants, but I do know that pluralism has ancient precedents precisely in the Muslim empires: just look at the mountain of faiths that have coexisted for more than a millennium in the Middle East, most of the time peacefully, under the Ottoman Empire. If in the West for a long time there were only Jewish ghettos diverging from Catholicism, in the East Judaism was just one religion among many. In other words, it makes more sense to say that Protestants have become Islamized than to say that they are the essence of Christianity. (As for Salafism, it does make sense to see it as a repetition of radical Protestantism – and the funding of Salafist groups is the subject of commentators on geopolitics and hybrid warfare.)

Finally, I would like to comment on a type of Christianity that he does not mention at all: Calvinist supremacism. Holland writes about the enthusiasm for eugenics in Christianity as something of German Protestants during the time of Hitler. In the chapter "Science", he discusses the moral and theological implications of 19th-century Darwinism for the English-speaking world; he discusses Carnegie, the Calvinist millionaire who prided himself on his wealth and sponsored paleontologists. However, he does not mention a very important Calvinist theologian: Josiah Strong, one of the fathers of the Social Gospel. He praised the United States as the homeland of a new master race destined to evolve, conquer the world, and extinguish the inferior races (first in the Americas, then in Africa), in conformity to the divine plan to populate the world with a fittest race. Josiah Strong even explained the origin of the Reformation and liberalism through scientific racism: the superior races are freedom lovers, Protestantism arose among the Saxons, papal authoritarianism is a thing of the Latin and Celtic races, and Protestantism was further perfected among the Anglo-Saxons, who are liberals. This is in the fourteenth chapter of Our Country.

In other words, praising the liberalism of the Anglo-Saxons as superior to the Teutonic military spirit is something that has a Christian, racist, and genocidal precedent. Since it is difficult to invent much in propaganda, we must work with the following hypothesis: that Anglophone atheists are plotting to frame Christianity along the supremacist lines of Josiah Strong, ready to annihilate inferior Arabs under the pretext of the Islamic threat.

8. The trump cards that Trump thinks he has on the Ukrainian issue

As the player he is, Trump wants to keep all the cards on the table. The EU, despite the bluff, ensures Trump access to the final prize.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In a week where the expectations of many Atlanticists regarding the Kursk adventure continue to deteriorate, we continue to witness successive media circus episodes surrounding the conflict in Ukraine. Between a Trump apparently concerned with a "lasting" peace in Ukraine, a "Europe" that insists on classifying the Russian Federation as a "threat," a Zelensky aligned with EU powers but seemingly more open to starting negotiations, a Macron who claims to speak for all of Europe and states that "Putin cannot be trusted," a Von Der Leyen who insists on a massive increase in military spending, and a Ukrainian delegation in Riyadh that, after the degrading spectacle at the White House, ultimately, a few days later, and after a decisive defeat in the Kursk adventure, comes to accept a proposal for an immediate ceasefire—all these episodes, seemingly contrasting, end up fitting together perfectly, complementing each other like a deck of cards at Trump's service.

To understand how they fit together, the best way to approach them is to start with the last of these episodes: the farce of the negotiations in Saudi Arabia. It is no secret to anyone, whether they agree with the position and aspirations of the Russian Federation or not, what is intended with what has been termed the "Special Military Operation": to demilitarize, denazify, neutralize Ukraine militarily, preventing its integration into NATO, and to protect Russian populations from the xenophobic persecutions recorded after the Euromaidan coup.

Nevertheless, the Russians have never shied away from leaving open lines of dialogue, as demonstrated when they went to Saudi Arabia to confer with the U.S. delegation. True to their nature, they did not mince words, play games, or send smoke signals. They were very clear that they are not prepared to negotiate fragile and temporary solutions, but only solid, lasting understandings that consider the Russian Federation's security concerns. This situation has not changed, as the mainstream press now reports that Russia has made a list of demands for them to accept the ceasefire.

Nevertheless, Marco Rubio, after negotiating an agreement with the Ukrainian delegation for the famous "rare earths," ensuring their supposed exploitation by the U.S., told anyone who would listen that the progress would now be the subject of a concrete proposal to the Russian Federation. The tone was clear and aimed to make people believe that the Americans are hopeful about the outcome of this entire mediation process. Are they?

Let us return to the Russian Federation and ask the following question: to what extent will the proposal for an immediate ceasefire, made at a time when Moscow's forces have achieved a resounding and humiliating victory in the Kursk region, be to the liking of the Russian delegation? Will any of the objectives so often emphasized by the Kremlin be guaranteed? Can it be inferred from the immediate ceasefire that Ukraine accepts all the demands of the Russian side? And is it believable that, with the Russian Federation in a position of primacy in the conflict, it would throw it all away with a ceasefire? Especially when, contrary to what was announced, the U.S. never actually stopped supplying weapons and intelligence to Ukraine?

As we all heard in the mainstream press, Marco Rubio informed journalists that the supply of weapons to Ukraine had resumed. This means that it was never actually suspended. The time between one act and the other, just two days, would make the materialization of the suspension impossible considering the necessary bureaucratic deadlines. Therefore, if the U.S. did not suspend the supply of weapons to Kiev's forces, and, on the contrary, supposedly even resumed it, what signal does this send to the Russian Federation? A signal that they want to negotiate? That they are acting in good faith? That they are genuinely interested in pressuring Kiev to accept negotiations?

It does not seem so to me, and, on the contrary, the message that may be conveyed is the opposite, namely that the ceasefire will serve the Kiev regime to regroup, consolidate forces, and rearm. If this were not the case, what would be the purpose, in a phase of discussing a ceasefire proposal, of resuming a supply that was never, in fact, suspended? What message will this send to Russia? That the U.S. wants to stop the war, but does not want to stop the supply of weapons? At the very least, it is contradictory and seemingly pointless.

Therefore, given this reality, it is not at all credible that the Russian Federation will accept the proposal for an immediate ceasefire—let us note that Lavrov has already mentioned several times that the Kremlin will no longer be swayed by "naivety"—we must ask ourselves, considering all these factors, whether it is acceptable to assume that the American proposal is genuine and that the intentions of the White House are genuine. How can they, who have access to all the information, believe that the Russian Federation will accept, without further ado, a proposal of this type, without any guarantees being provided and while continuing to supply weapons to Kiev? As Ushakov, Putin's advisor, said, the Kremlin is interested in a lasting peace, not an "interval."

The Russian non-acceptance will be very plausible, particularly following the presentation of demands that Kiev will not be prepared, from the outset, to accept. Even if, for diplomatic reasons, Moscow's rejection is expressed with all due care, so as not to justify the definitive distancing of the other parties. This does not mean that the Russian representatives do not know what is on the table, the real intentions of the White House, and the possibility that, for domestic consumption in the U.S., the non-acceptance of the ceasefire proposal will be used further to demonize the Kremlin. Something that, in these times, will hardly concern the Russians and their representatives.

Indeed, it is not unprecedented if Trump and his cronies address the American people and say that the Russian Federation does not want to give up anything, does not want to concede anything, and, therefore, is not interested in "stopping the conflict immediately." If, for domestic consumption in the U.S., this discourse works, from a material perspective, looking at the balance of forces on the ground, why would Moscow concede in its intentions, given that it is in a position of military primacy? Especially when Moscow has always stated that it does not want "just an end" to the conflict and that this "end" must be accompanied by the resolution of the underlying problems.

This Russian position can only seem outrageous to Westerners and Americans who are intoxicated by the propaganda that initially said that "Ukraine was winning the war" and "Russia was going to be defeated on the battlefield," later that "the conflict is stalemated," or, already under Trump, that "both sides are losing and Russia has already lost a million men." For those who knew, from the first day, that this would be a conflict lost for the West, unless it ended in a situation where everyone would lose, that is, in nuclear Armageddon, it is no surprise that the Kremlin does not give up on its objectives, since, given the state of affairs, if it does not achieve them in negotiations, it achieves them on the battlefield.

Let us return to domestic consumption and the circus to confuse and convince the Western peoples. In a situation where the Russian Federation remains intransigent in its aspirations, as is expected, I believe that Trump will need the "agreement" on his "raw" mineral lands, as a trump card to play before his public. After all, for what other reason would so much importance be given to an agreement that, considering the knowledge about recorded mineral reserves, has a very limited material effectiveness? Given that the territory controlled by the Kiev regime does not include mineral reserves of great importance, since those existing in that region are already in the possession of the Russians or in territory considered "occupied" by the Russian Federation, why would Washington place so much emphasis on a handful of nothing?

The importance attributed to the mineral agreement by the White House is explained by the fact that this understanding constitutes a trump card, for domestic play, at the disposal of the new administration led by Donald Trump. As a businessman, to be able to continue the Ukrainian venture, after the predictable rejection or presentation, by the Russians, of demands that the U.S. will have difficulty guaranteeing, Trump needs, at least, two arguments: 1. To convince the American people that it is the Russians or the Ukrainians themselves—or even the Europeans—who do not want to make concessions with a view to an understanding, as they did not accept the "reasonable, sincere, and generous" proposal of "President Trump"; 2. The maintenance of spending on Ukraine is safeguarded because "President Trump" made a mineral agreement with Kiev, which guarantees the payment to the U.S., with interest, of the amounts advanced, past or future.

In other words, if the Russians do not want peace, the Ukrainians do not accept it, or the Europeans boycott it, Trump will always have the necessary cards to convince the MAGA people that he did everything to end the war, but didn't succeed. But even if he does not succeed, he still ensures that the U.S. does not come out harmed by the situation. And thus, Trump gets out of the Ukrainian problem, staying in it, but being able to say that he is not responsible and that, in any case, he has guaranteed access to "valuable" mineral reserves that largely compensate for the costs. Will the war continue? Yes! But Trump will be able to say that it is not his fault and that, unlike Biden, he found a way to compensate taxpayers for the expenses made. Of course, this is a fallacy, as we all know how much U.S. multinationals have appropriated assets under the possession of the Kiev regime.

If this is the case, and I believe it may go this way, at least Trump will want to have a wide range of options that allow him to gracefully escape to one side or the other. He will continue, in any case, not only to sell weapons to Ukraine, but also to the European Union and other "allies," something he will not want to give up. If the conflict stops under the conditions he desires, Trump will count on those mineral reserves in Ukraine, which will largely compensate for the end of the weapons business with Ukraine and all the money the U.S. has lent them.

This is, therefore, the dual role of the problematic mineral agreement with Zelensky. It allows for argumentative reinforcement in any situation. The mineral agreement guarantees the payment of past amounts, if the war ends or the U.S. withdraws from it, and of future amounts, if the war continues. Before the American people, Trump will always come out on top.

Therefore, for Trump, everything seems to boil down to ensuring that he has at his disposal a wide range of equally advantageous options that provide justifications before the American people. However, there is something that may not fit well into this strategy. And this doubt lies in the fact that no reserves of "rare earths" are known in Ukraine, and even considering other mineral reserves, it is in the territory that Russia considers its own—the Donbass—that the largest and most valuable reserves are found. Hence, one should question to what extent the intention of the ceasefire, associated with the maintenance of arms flows to Ukraine and, in conjunction with the Russian distancing from the ceasefire proposal, does not have yet another option up Trump's sleeve.

As someone who loves to talk about cards, this seems like a real player's move. If the Russian Federation does not accept the ceasefire, or any proposal to divide the disputed lands, guaranteeing the U.S. access to at least part of the largest and most valuable mineral reserves in the region, the U.S. cannot only further demonize the Kremlin before American voters, but also justify the continuation of the war, the sale of weapons, and attempt to aspire—which we know is an illusion—to the reconquest, at least partial, of the Donbass, thus giving practical effect to the mineral agreement they made with Zelensky's gang.

In other words, the practical material effect of the mineral agreement, if suspicions regarding the meager reserves in Kiev's possession are confirmed, only occurs if the Russian Federation agrees to negotiate—through concessions demanded by Kiev—the division of lands in its possession or about to be, or, if this does not happen—as is expected that Russia will not accept—through a reconquest by forces loyal to Kiev of part of these lands. Without verification of one of these situations, from the outset, the mineral agreement is nothing more than a trump card for domestic consumption. Be that as it may, the U.S. always wins. They win from the Russians, if they concede (buying peace through territorial concessions) and from the Europeans, because they buy more weapons; they win from the Ukrainians, if the Russians do not concede, and from the Europeans, who continue, in any situation, on the path of militarization.

Hence, in practice, I tend to believe that Zelensky has bought, in this way, through the promise of future proceeds, the support he needs to continue the war, trying to get the Russians to agree to a 30-day pause in the conflict, which, without changing much, would at least temporarily stop the war machine that the West indirectly led the Russian Federation to build. They can also use the rejection of the ceasefire to try to distance some of Russia's allies, through the dissemination of information that this time it would be Russia, and not Ukraine, that is rejecting the end of the fighting and the containment of the conflict. This will be another trump card at Trump's disposal, to try to bring Russia to the negotiating table.

Trump hopes, through these stratagems, to be able to blackmail the Russian Federation with more sanctions, international isolation, and arms supplies to Ukraine—where the supposed resumption of supplies fits wonderfully—to obtain territorial concessions, where the mineral reserves are located. Will Russia allow itself to be dragged into such a situation? It does not seem so to me, but in Trump's mind, this will make a lot of sense. But, somewhere, the theory expressed by Marco Rubio that "Russia is also losing" and that Russia is also interested in stopping the conflict fits in, trying to convey that the desperation is not only Kiev's, but also Moscow's.

At the same time as this is happening and Trump is opening all these options, we must also listen carefully to the words of Peter Hegseth in Brussels. If the tone of Rubio and Trump oscillates towards the need to stop immediately the Ukrainian conflict, only now knowing that they intend to do so superficially and without presenting the guarantees for which the Russians have fought so hard—although they have repeatedly stated that they reject a Ukraine in NATO—the tone of Hegseth, on the other hand, has been more directed towards the need for Europe to assume its defense, take responsibility in the conflict, and face, itself, the threats that loom over it. It is not worth mentioning what those threats are.

Combining these two discourses, we have the complete picture, also understanding that what seems to be a contradiction between European behavior and Trump's aspirations is, in fact, no contradiction at all, quite the contrary. Taking Trump as a kind of demon who brought with him the military collapse of Ukraine, the European Union, after three years of hiding from Europeans the real situation on the ground, now takes advantage of the demonization of the Trump administration as a counterpoint to the sanctification it makes of the Kiev regime. A regime that has now aligned itself with… Trump. Closing an apparently "irreconcilable" circle.

The fact is that the resistances and rejections expressed by the EU "leaders" to the strategy followed by the Trump administration, regarding negotiations with the Russian Federation and the intention—at least enunciated and now embodied in a simple "ceasefire"—to put an end to the war in Ukraine, are tremendously contradictory with the practical decisions taken by the EU itself, with such more aligned decisions with the aspirations of these "new" U.S. than the apparently conflicting discourse might lead one to believe. Once again, Peter Hegseth said, in Brussels, for all to hear, that it was time for Europe to remove the Ukrainian burden ("unburden") from the shoulders of its Atlantic allies, so that they can face even more tremendous challenges, which only the U.S. can and have an interest in facing.

Hence, this circus of appearances during which we witness a kind of complot against Trump, by the "leaders" of the European Union, when analyzed in depth and beyond appearances, allows us to see that, in some way, the EU remains aligned with the hegemonic strategy of the U.S.—which did not end under Trumpism. The European Union, faced with the "desertion" of the U.S., instead of demanding from them the responsibilities that fell to them, immediately aligned itself with the discourse conveyed by Peter Hegseth and, against the aspirations of the European peoples, voluntarily accepted the proposal of desertion from Washington and began to comply with the order enunciated by the White House, betting everything on the militarization of the European Union. Even guaranteeing Trump a prize for the "desertion": the exponential increase in European spending within the framework of an increasingly obsolete NATO.

Clearly, and contrary to appearances, the European Union of the vehement Von Der Leyen not only does not clash with Trump's aspirations, but facilitates his task concerning the Ukrainian disaster. As if its role were to facilitate his task, helping him to divert attention from the essential. The EU diverts attention from Trump, assumes the weight of the U.S. burden, freeing them for their Pacific venture. All this while seeming very angry with the new administration, but doing everything so that its actions converge with the hegemonic strategic needs of the U.S.

The EU, assuming the financing of the project and the increase in European spending on armaments, allows Trump to maintain the range of options I mentioned earlier. If he continues within the conflict, Trump has the justification of Russian, Ukrainian, or European intransigence; if he wants to leave, Trump sells weapons to the EU and Ukraine and, even if the conflict ends, Trump always guarantees, in the increase of European funds for defense, the gains he could get from the conflict, and with interest. He also guarantees, if the conflict ends on his terms, a portion of the minerals that currently are in the possession of the Russian Federation. The U.S. will never lose, no matter the alternative. At least I believe this is Trump's aspiration, an aspiration that clashes with the fact that it is very difficult for Russia to allow itself to be blackmailed or dragged into a situation where the winners are the U.S., at the expense of Russia itself. I do not see Moscow in such a state of desperation. On the contrary, the desperation is on the side of Kiev and the European Union, and it is from these that Trump will take the scalp.

Hence, we must clearly distinguish between what Trump's entourage says when it refers to "the President wants to end this problem." Everything has to do with optics, with "ending" meaning not being held responsible for what happens. Hence, by blaming Russia, Ukraine, the EU, or Biden, Trump has at his disposal a wide range of cards that, at least in his Machiavellian mind, allow him to get out of this conflict gracefully. Trump gets out of the conflict, which does not mean that the conflict does not continue and that the U.S. does not continue to send its weapons there. Trump, on the other hand, no matter what happens, will always come out clean and with gains—even if virtual or future—to present to his supporters, which 'justify' the failure of the negotiations.

As the player he is, Trump wants to keep all the cards on the table. The EU, despite the bluff, ensures Trump access to the final prize.

9. Western pundits should stop writing idiotic nonsense about Russia’s economy

In this war of attrition, Ukraine, and Europe, will run out of money first.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

From an extremely small list, Owen Matthews has been one of the more balanced mainstream commentators on the war in Ukraine. Not seeking to take one side over the other, but to step back and look at the bigger picture.

I was shocked, therefore, by his article in the Independent this week.

'The Russian economy is on the brink of collapse, and Putin knows it,' ran the headline.

I've read a different version of the same headline over a hundred times since 2014, including while serving as the Economic Counsellor at the British Embassy in Moscow.

I am still waiting for it to be proved correct.

Firstly, some of the data in Matthews' article were objectively not correct.

The 'ruble has lost over half its value since Putin invaded Crimea in 2014.'

Wrong. It is around one third of its spring 2014 value. And as I've pointed out many times, a weak ruble has been an explicit article of Russian monetary policy since late 2016, to offset the effect of major energy price swings. That helped Russia pull in record tax receipts in 2022 because of the potent combination of sky high energy prices and rock bottom ruble rate. That's basic economics.

'Over $600bn of the Kremlin's foreign currency reserves have been frozen in Western banks,'

Wrong again. The figure is less than $300bn, and Russia still retains the same value of available reserves, that would cover over a year's worth of imports.

I could go on but won't. Matthews is known as an historian, not an economist. I don't claim to be an economist either, but I can count.

In broad terms, I don't dispute the economic headwinds that Matthews points to, albeit clumsily. Domestic labour constraints driven by the war and Russia's secular population decline are a problem. Massive fiscal stimulus is overheating the economy with inflation high. Although I'd argue that 9% isn't 'rampant'; one million percent in Venezuela is rampant.

However, Russia has been here before. Inflation breached the 9% mark in November 2014 following the oil price collapse, and didn't fall below that level until early 2016. It peaked again at the start of the war in Ukraine hitting 18%. Interest rates in Russia now are extremely high at 21% but, again, they were hiked to 17% in December 2014.

It isn't incorrect for Matthews to point out these legitimate economic challenges. The point is that neither inflation nor interest rates will ever be a strong enough reason for President Putin to change course in Ukraine.

Not now, not in 2014, not at any point since the Ukraine crisis started. He has always chosen to accept economic pain and manage the political consequences of that, to avoid backing down in the face of western economic pressure.

Like so many mainstream pundit, Matthews briefly sketches the economic fix Ukraine is in before hurrying along as if there's 'nothing to see here'.

Conveniently, he doesn't explore the mathematics of how Europe will pay to keep the lights on in Kyiv while also funding Von der Leyen's $800bn rearmament programme.

Nor has he considered what this would mean for ordinary European citizens who increasingly question the wisdom of funding a forever war that Ukraine cannot win.

Or considered the link between self-defeating war policy of identikit globalist European leaders and the rise in the popularity of anti-war nationalist parties all across Europe.

Owen Matthews doesn't touch on Ukraine's looming sovereign default and the collapse of its currency that would follow. Or the concern that, with a structural current account deficit, Ukraine has no way to exist as an independent, sovereign nation, other than, you guessed it, through western state handouts. Nor how the immense cost of bailing Ukraine out would fall on Europe on top of the contingent liabilities already enumerated above.

Rather, Matthews suggests that Europe needs to do more of what is has been doing for the past eleven years without success. More sanctions, even though over 90% of individual sanctions have absolutely no effect.

He doesn't reflect on the fact that Russia has been under sanctions for eleven straight years, is the most sanctioned country on the planet, and yet is still growing faster than Europe, even though that growth is undoubtedly built on fiscal sand.

Yet still, finally and irrevocably, he suggests Europe could cut itself off completely from Russian gas. No need to dwell on the obvious economic truth that higher-cost energy in Europe is driven by a huge imbalance between supply and demand that neither the U.S. nor Russia experiences. No thought given to the notion that Europe's deindustrialisation has been accelerated by the political choice to cut off 90% of piped Russian gas supplies.

As every other mainstream British pundit has called for more sanctions and less gas, Owen Matthews has plumped for the easy option too.

Presumably to show some value-added in his low-calorie commentary, Owen Matthews supports Ukrainian drone attacks on any energy infrastructure that facilitates the delivery of Russian gas to Europe. Clearly impressed by the destruction of the NordStream pipeline, like a spotty-faced teenager watching a Seventies Bond movie, he considers industrial terrorism to be a legitimate policy choice for western leaders.

I would like to say that his article was terrible. But in truth, it was no different from practically every other mainstream British Glavlit article on Russia's economy that I've seen over the past eleven years.

And, the thing is, it isn't that it was littered with data that was objectively untrue.

It was not the not the lack of economic analysis, or the failure to explore the greater economic challenge facing Ukraine.

It was not, even, the crass and frankly dangerous policy prescriptions.

It was that, like so many other journalists I had thought weaker, Owen Matthews was missing the point. Badly, irresponsibly, and idiotically, missing the point.

Despite the very clear economic challenges that Russia does face because of the war in Ukraine, its economy will always be better placed to manage the shock of war than Ukraine's.

Every argument to punish Russia more will only embolden Putin to keep fighting.

In this war of attrition, Ukraine, and Europe, will run out of money first. And with Trump shutting off the taps of American money, that crunch point will come much sooner.

10. USAID all’italiana

L'USAID e il soft power statunitense non si sentono al meglio dopo l'inizio del mandato del Presidente Trump.

Segue nostro Telegram.

L'avevamo capito tutti

Era già un po', come si dice, il "segreto di Pulcinella": gli Stati Uniti d'America avevano un meccanismo più o meno occulto per influenzare e manipolare i mass media. A questa semplice intuizione (per molti era già una deduzione, ma sorvoliamo) ha fatto seguito la conferma ufficiale nel mese di febbraio, quando il DOGE americano ha rivelato la scomoda verità. Fra i fortunati vincitori del jackpot, anche molte testate italiane.

Andiamo per tappe.

Negli episodi precedenti: ex-agenti di CIA, FBI e NSA sono stati reclutati da Facebook, Twitter, Google, TikTok e Reddit per gestire il fact-checking e promuovere l'agenda di Washington. Inoltre, le organizzazioni di verifica dei fatti su Facebook (compresa l'italiana Open) sono tutte accreditate dall'IFCN, che fa capo al Poynter Institute, entrambi finanziati dal NED, ovvero un organo riconducibile alla CIA. I fact-checker legati alla CIA non rendono trasparente la loro attività e non segnalano le fake news diffuse dal governo statunitense; le loro manipolazioni non solo minacciano la sicurezza e la sovranità di altri Paesi, ma ostacolano anche la risoluzione dei conflitti.

Parallelamente, la CIA, attraverso i propri agenti e il NED, cerca di influenzare anche la stampa e le principali agenzie giornalistiche, collaborando con fondazioni come Luminate (di Pierre Omidyar) e Open Society (di George Soros). Una costante è la classica "excusatio non petita": ogni organo d'informazione o di fact-checking finanziato dal NED si dichiara autonomo e imparziale. Un altro elemento ricorrente è il fenomeno delle "porte girevoli" tra agenzie di intelligence, piattaforme social, media finanziati dal NED, ambasciate statunitensi, think tank pro-NATO, aziende della Difesa, fondazioni filo-USA e governi occidentali. Il meccanismo funziona alla perfezione, ma pochi ne sono a conoscenza. Le piattaforme digitali, lungi dall'essere neutrali (non assumono dissidenti o whistleblower, per esempio), affidano le assunzioni a personale proveniente dai servizi di sicurezza statunitensi. Elementare, Watson!

Alcuni esempi emblematici da ricordare: John Papp, dopo 12 anni alla CIA e 4 alla DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), ha lavorato come reclutatore per grandi aziende della Difesa come Booz Allen Hamilton, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, IBM e Lockheed Martin. Oggi ricopre lo stesso ruolo presso Meta. Un altro caso è quello di Dawn Burton, che è passata da direttrice alla Lockheed Martin a consulente del direttore dell'FBI per l'innovazione, fino a diventare direttrice strategia e operazioni di Twitter.

Jim Baker ha trascorso 17 anni al Dipartimento di Giustizia, poi 4 all'FBI, successivamente un anno alla CNN, un anno al think tank conservatore R Institute e infine è approdato a Twitter come vicepresidente. Jeff Carlton, attualmente a Twitter per promuovere "discussioni pubbliche sane", era un marine specializzato in intelligence nel Pacifico, poi è stato contemporaneamente alla CIA e all'FBI, scrivendo rapporti segreti per il presidente Obama.

Bryan Weisbard, oggi dirigente a Meta e consulente di World Affairs (un'organizzazione che sulla guerra in Ucraina condivide la linea dell'amministrazione Biden), è stato alla CIA, poi diplomatico (dimostrando la stretta connessione tra questi ruoli), per poi passare a Twitter e Google. Mike Bradow ha lavorato per 10 anni in USAID (agenzia governativa coinvolta in operazioni di cambio regime in Paesi come Venezuela, Cuba e Nicaragua) e per quasi 3 anni alla Freedom House (altro ente legato a Washington); oggi si occupa di disinformazione per Meta.

Greg Andersen, dopo Twitter, è ora a TikTok, ma ha iniziato la carriera alla NATO, dove si occupava di "operazioni psicologiche". Kanishk Karan e Daniel Weimert, che a Twitter decidono quali informazioni siano attendibili, provengono invece dall'Atlantic Council, think tank della NATO che etichetta come "cavalli di Troia del Cremlino" i partiti europei di opposizione alla linea della Von der Leyen.

Nel 2020, Twitter annunciò la rimozione di account segnalati dall'FBI, accusati di provenire dall'Iran e di interferire nelle presidenziali USA. Tuttavia, secondo il giornalista MacLeod, quando ci furono proteste a Teheran contro il governo, Twitter ritardò volutamente la rimozione di alcuni account, poiché i manifestanti – sostenuti dagli USA – li utilizzavano per coordinarsi.

Lo scandalo delle code di paglia

Tra i 10.000 dipendenti che stanno perdendo il lavoro, pochi probabilmente ci stanno riflettendo, ma la battaglia lanciata da Trump contro USAID è una vicenda che si ripete nella storia.

Nel 1994, infatti, l'agenzia rischiò la chiusura sotto la pressione dei repubblicani, che avevano conquistato il Congresso nelle elezioni di metà mandato durante la presidenza di Bill Clinton. All'epoca la destra del GOP – così come oggi Trump ed Elon Musk – denunciava sprechi e sosteneva che l'agenzia fosse ormai superflua dopo il crollo dell'URSS, riducendo i finanziamenti e causando il licenziamento di numerosi dipendenti. Alla fine, Clinton riuscì a salvarla, mentre negli ambienti neocon prendeva forma il progetto di espansione della NATO verso l'Europa orientale.

Trent'anni dopo, l'attuale presidente e il suo "first buddy" a capo del Dipartimento per l'Efficienza Governativa, insieme al Segretario di Stato Marco Rubio, hanno definito l'USAID come "organizzazione criminale", accusandola di essere un centro di corruzione e di sperperare fondi pubblici per iniziative che andrebbero contro gli interessi nazionali. Trump, su Truth Social, ha affermato che la "sinistra radicale" non può fare nulla per salvare l'agenzia e che "va chiusa", sostenendo che i fondi siano stati utilizzati in modo fraudolento e con livelli di corruzione senza precedenti. Inizialmente, Trump e Musk hanno puntato il dito contro i finanziamenti destinati a iniziative sui diritti civili e LGBTQ+ nei Paesi esteri, per poi accusare USAID di sostenere media progressisti e contrari all'agenda MAGA.

Il movimento MAGA, di fatto, disconosce USAID anche perché la considera uno strumento di ingerenza e di soft power di cui vorrebbe fare a meno. Non è un segreto che l'agenzia operi in sintonia con gli interessi geopolitici americani, come del resto fanno gli enti di cooperazione delle altre grandi potenze.

Creata nel 1961 da John F. Kennedy per contrastare l'influenza dell'Unione Sovietica, USAID divenne l'esecutrice del Piano Marshall, e da allora ogni presidente l'ha considerata un tassello fondamentale della politica estera statunitense.

La sicurezza nazionale è sempre stata la priorità principale dell'agenzia, o almeno così ci hanno sempre raccontato. Il suo ruolo si è ampliato dopo l'11 settembre, sotto la presidenza di George W. Bush, che la impiegò nelle guerre in Afghanistan e Iraq. Il suo budget è passato dai 7 miliardi di dollari del 2001 ai 42 miliardi del 2024, rendendola forse l'agenzia più controllata d'America, con richieste di bilancio presentate annualmente al Congresso e dettagli precisi sui progetti finanziati.

Paradossalmente, durante il suo primo mandato, lo stesso Trump aveva elogiato e finanziato USAID, in particolare attraverso iniziative di partenariato pubblico-privato e un programma per l'emancipazione femminile guidato da sua figlia Ivanka. In un certo senso, USAID ha contribuito alla vittoria degli Stati Uniti nella Guerra Fredda e, forse, punta a vincerne altre.

Oggi tra i principali destinatari dei suoi fondi ci sono Ucraina, Etiopia, Giordania, Congo, Nigeria, Siria e Libano. Nel bilancio 2025, accanto a programmi contro la fame e il cambiamento climatico, USAID inserisce tra le sue priorità la "competizione" con la Cina, il "contenimento dell'influenza negativa del Partito Comunista Cinese" e il "fallimento strategico della Russia in Ucraina". I finanziamenti sono diretti soprattutto a ONG impegnate nella lotta contro l'HIV, nella sicurezza alimentare e nella difesa dei diritti di donne e minoranze, ma anche a organizzazioni giornalistiche. Dal 1980 in America Latina, poi negli anni '90 in Russia e nei Balcani, USAID ha sostenuto il giornalismo indipendente. Secondo Reporter Senza Frontiere, nel 2023 l'agenzia ha finanziato 6.200 giornalisti, 707 testate non statali e 279 ONG che si occupano di media in oltre 30 Paesi. Per il 2025 aveva richiesto 268,4 milioni di dollari, una cifra pari a quella spesa tra il 1985 e il 2001. Si tratta principalmente di progetti formativi e grant, che hanno supportato, tra gli altri, le inchieste investigative come i Panama Papers.

Perché Trump ha dichiarato, in un certo senso, guerra a USAID? Negli ultimi anni la propaganda russa ha spesso attaccato USAID, amplificando il dibattito all'interno della sfera MAGA. Come già negli anni '90, il "Project 2025" della Heritage Foundation aveva segnalato l'intenzione di riformare radicalmente l'assistenza estera, più che di abolirla. Non è realistico pensare che Trump rinunci a usare strumenti di cooperazione per proiettare l'influenza americana all'estero. Più probabilmente, il piano è riportare USAID sotto il controllo diretto del Dipartimento di Stato, riprendendo un progetto caro alla destra repubblicana degli anni '90 e rafforzando la supervisione dell'amministrazione sui miliardi investiti all'estero e sul loro utilizzo.