The hole in security
From February 14 to February 16, 2025, the 61st Munich Security Conference 2025 (MSC 2025) was held in Munich (Germany) at the Bayerischer Hof Hotel. It was attended by about 60 heads of State and Government, 150 ministers and heads of international organizations. So what does the world remember about this conference? How significant was this event for the international media?
After the publication of the articles about the terrorist attack in Munich on the eve of the conference, it became clear that all of the gathered “security guards” were exposed by the media as incompetent in their field, to put it mildly. Along with the news about the terrorist attack, this narrative is supported by reports from Donald Trump, who announced negotiations between Russia and the United States, and before the end of the conference made a number of statements that the United States and Russia would negotiate without Europe.
It is necessary to understand Trump’s use of language and his psychology. In the paradigm of the United States, the main tool for solving all political issues, for centuries, has been and remains the use of tough business technologies. And Trump is not just the president of the United States—he is, chiefly, a tough American businessman. In informational and political terms, the United States uses a forceful method, and uses solid arguments. But what is the catch, or the “weak link”?
And here it is necessary to recall–and for some to understand–some examples. After the end of World War II, the United States obliged the USSR to return all the funds America had spent on the lend-lease. It is worth noting that this debt was finally paid off and closed not by the USSR, but by Russia only in August of 2006… Thus, the US “assistance” to the Soviet Union at the end of WWII instead amounted to the fact that the USSR did not have another enemy on the side of the Axis countries. Although at the beginning of World War II, the very same America sponsored Nazi Europe, supplied them with heavy duty trucks, and armed Germany through neutral Switzerland and its agro-industrial complex. And Finnish pilots, flying American planes, shot down Soviet planes during the winter war of ’39-’40. Essentially, it is not entirely clear who helped whom in the end.…
And today, something similar is occuring—Ukraine is now being sold for $500 billion: “pay us, and Ukraine is yours.” The United States, as it did 80 years ago, in not taking a specific side in the conflict, and only takes a position advantageous for themselves.
Not negotiations, but counter-interpretations.
In Europe, Fascism has been algorithmically cultivated, while in the United States—most likely narcissism. Europe is satisfied with a strong ally in the form of the United States, but only until it turns against them. The United States, as a hegemon, is used to dictating the rules to the whole world.
In these conditions conducting military operations in Ukraine, as well as pumping them full of weapons, is very beneficial for both the EU and the United States, but only until the escalation of the conflict leads to global problems. The term “Middle War” was even created for this purpose, when conflicts are used to stagnate a single state (or group of states), in order to deplete their resources and change the focus of the economy.
Over the past three years, we have seen manifestations of the Middle War against Russia in all respects, but at the last talks in Riyadh, a couple of substantial arguments for deterring Western attacks were also discussed. One of these arguments is the use of targeted nuclear strikes to eliminate the increased amount of NATO groups on the border of the Russian Federation, as well as to disable infrastructure facilities on the territory of a number of aggressor countries from the North Atlantic Alliance. In this case, Europe will become a nuclear Polygon (grave) for the period of the next 50-150 years, in the most modest of calculations. In addition, the Russian Federation has gained support from eastern countries, including North Korea and China, who will take their side in the event that the conflict escalates.
Another argument is the technological dominance of Russian developments in the field of quantum technologies and encryption. The United States is significantly lagging behind China and Russia in these areas, and developments in the field of thermonuclear fusion and nuclear energy still remain Russian know-how. For that reason, Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, came to Riyadh with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
«Europe’s Worst Nightmare» — The Economist journal cover
The meeting «negotiations» that took place can rightfully be compared with the Tehran Conference of 1943. Both then and now, an uncompromising position is an indicator of the subjectivity of the state. In these circumstances, the attempts of the United States to talk sternly with Russia in their usual manner, when it is already exhibiting subjectivity, is, to put it mildly, an incorrect assessment of the situation.
The Seed of Discord in the United West
In today’s realities, Europe is represented by two extraterritorial groupings. Let’s call the first one “Paris – Legion of Honor”, and the second one “London – Haifa”.
Two nuclear alliances, they advocate war and escalation, had wanted to drag Trump into a nuclear conflict. But the United States rejected such a scenario. Back in February 2023, the analytical Center for Renewing America, working for Trump (it was founded by Republican Russell Vaught, whom Trump appointed director of the White House Office of Management and Budget), published a program article about the “ideal” future of NATO. The expansion of NATO does not correspond to the concept of the defense bloc, the article says. Small European countries, primarily the Baltic states, having become “more belligerent than the United States,” and freeloading off America, demanding that it be a guarantor of their survival in everything. There is no evidence that Russia wants to attack Europe. But instead of deterrence and defense, NATO is “concerned about its own growth and maintenance,” and for this it needs an opponent. The authors of the article propose a “New Great European Strategy”, which includes halting the expansion of the Alliance, as well as reducing the US armed forces in Europe, while America remains the guarantor of freedom of maritime and trade routes. “Europe must arm itself, grow its defense industry, and buy weapons and ammunition from the United States.”
It turns out that Trump’s announcement of the withdrawal of troops from Europe is far from a new idea, but for the Paris–Legion of Honor and London–Haifa groups, this is the equivalent to declaring war. Trump declares to Europe that they will not survive without the support of the United States themselves, while simultaneously announcing the annexation of Canada (controlled by Britain, i.e. the colony of the London–Haifa group) and Greenland (Denmark is the lever of pressure for the Paris – Legion of Honor group). Trump is hurting both groups, the owners of the Old World, thereby trying to exclude the United States from a possible nuclear conflict. In response, Canada, as a satellite of Britain, imposes reciprocal taxes on exports of goods from the United States. So, we see nothing more than a two-way tough business policy based on coercion.
Is Canada ready for war?
Trump’s rise to power in America is supported by a certain organized group. It is also extraterritorial and different from the two European ones. It is this group that dictates the “Trump rules.” It is this group that shapes his policies and pronouncements, which seem radical to many allies and opponents of the United States. Trump declared, “Canada is mine,” and went on to negotiate with Israel about the Gaza Strip (as you might have guessed, with representatives of the London–Haifa group). Canada has a lot of resources, but not enough military power to defend the country and wage a large-scale war. But America could well enter Canada with not just three, but eight tank attack groups. Only, Haifa doesn’t care about the fate of the northern country, and London doesn’t care at all.
In modern realities, Canada is not a subject of world politics. After exchanging sanctions with Trump, is it ready to escalate the conflict? Is it ready for war? While Canada is sending its contingent and preparing assault troops on the border with Russia, can the people of Canada take care of their own safety and choose a worthy leader for the civil resistance?
Geopolitical Poker
Recently, two opposite trends have been unfolding in world politics: Europe has played around too much and does not hear the hegemon, and the hegemon acts in his usual logic – tough negotiations. They (the Europeans) have created his hegemony themselves.
Zelensky attacks Trump. But he’s not a subject. If he attacks the hegemon, then it is quite obvious that someone has instructed him to do so. He is supported by two European clans who want to defeat the hegemon and take his place. The London–Haifa and Paris–Legion of Honor groups do not want to lose their positions in transatlantic trade, so their confrontation with the United States is obvious, but they are not ready to protect Canada and Greenland and are in conflict with the United States through Zelensky. In response, America is offering an ultimatum – to sign the surrender of Ukraine in three weeks.
The Western world is redeveloping. Three centers are trying to divide the clearing: Bureaucracy, Foggy Albion, democracy – different models of Pax Romana. This is a common trade – deception, blackmail, pokerface. Posturing without a legal basis. It is important to understand that none of the parties of this trade are on our side. They all protect themselves and their own interests. And everyone is trying to impose their own standard. Therefore, we advise you not to pay much attention to the loud statements of political leaders. It is still too early to draw conclusions from the announcements.
And for those who want to understand what is going on, we advise you to study the materials on our website: center-si.com.
P.S. By the way, I wonder how much the Russian Direct Investment Fund is ready to buy Canada from America for? And how tolerant would sound to say that Seattle is a historically Russian city?
Оставить комментарий