Global Analysis from the European Perspective. Preparing for the world of tomorrow

Who benefited from all this?

The mechanism is simple. The Hegemon has power. The Hegemon has power not only because it is economically powerful and because it has a powerful military force. The Hegemon has power also and perhaps above all because it has a mint where it mints the world’s coin. The Hegemon can therefore, for example, put too much money into circulation, i.e. create inflation, and since the whole world uses the Hegemon’s money in trade between countries, this inflation hits all the economies of the world! Inflation in the Hegemon translates into inflation in all the other political players. This is a political masterstroke!

We wanted to draw attention to yet another mechanism, equally efficient, equally cleverly devised. Here it is. The Hegemon looks around to select nations or states, anywhere on the globe, but especially those where there are various natural resources or developed industries. Having found a region of the world that the Hegemon would like to exploit, the Hegemon looks around for such two nations, two states or social groups that do not like each other very much. Never and nowhere in the world is this task difficult. All neighbourhoods are fraught with a long history of conflict: France-Germany, France-England, Germany-Poland, Hungary-Romania, Croatia-Serbia, Greece-Turkey, Poland-Russia, Poland-Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia… and these are just a handful of conflicts and just European ones! They all can be revived, they all can be fuelled and they all can be exploited. Religious and ideological divisions can also be skilfully manipualted: Catholic-Protestant, Catholic-Orthodox, Sunni-Shiite, believer-infidel, right-left, liberal-conservative, you name it.

States are governed by different people, not necessarily the wisest, not necessarily the most sensible, not necessarily the prudent. Since they are not the wisest or most prudent people, since they are people who have weaknesses and (often) burning ambitions, they can be skilfully controlled. This is precisely what the Hegemon does. The Hegemon seeks out individuals who have exuberant political ambitions and helps such individuals to take power in a country. The Hegemon selects people with a psychological profile that ensures they will be remotely controllable. The Hegemon can create compromising situations for such an individual or it can nurture such an individual: the Forum of Young Global(!) Leaders of the International Economic Forum or universities founded or financed by various NGOs are breeding grounds for such leaders.

Political dissidents from the countries of Central Europe before 1989, people who often emigrated to the West, acted in the West, received support from the West, these people were excellent material for the Western secret services. These services were able to pick and choose human tools, human puppets for their intelligence games and political manoeuvres, and these puppets usually did not even realise that they were someone else’s… tools. The awarding of scholarships to such people for study or research, or the granting of prizes in various fields, tied the beneficiaries to the centres that exercised power over them in an extremely strong and thus permanent manner. Who can resist an award, international recognition, acclaim, or interviews for CNN or the BBC?

When at last such people, people raised by the Hegemon, people bought by the Hegemon, people over whom the Hegemon rules, knowing their infamous secrets, when such people take power in a state, they will act not for the benefit of that state but in the interests of the Hegemon. If they only tried to disobey, they would quickly lose power. After all, they have a host of other ambitious careerists around them, all of whom are controlled by the Hegemon.

What does the Hegemon do once he has his people at the helm of government in one country or another? The Hegemon makes these people subordinate their own countries to the Hegemon: financially and economically (enforcing on them the advice of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank or the Bank of International Settlements) and politically (by making them sign all those migration pacts, climate pacts, pandemic pacts). People put in positions of power shape the minds of the citizens of their own country, so that these citizens equate their own nation’s self-interest with that of the Hegemon’s. For example, the citizens of a country dominated by the Hegemon may slowly begin to claim and start to genuinely believe that they don’t need their own national industry, or that they should grow this crop rather than that crop, or that they should renounce their own culture, or that they should get into conflict with their neighbour. What for? Obviously to help a neighbouring nation achieve democracy and human rights. Isn’t that obvious?

Point in case: Poland. The country has been in conflict with Belarus for at least two decades, providing shelter to Belarusian political dissidents (people who work with foreign countries against their own state), training Belarusian activists to be able to lead a colour revolution in Minsk, broadcasting television programmes from Poland to Belarus to make its inhabitants hostile to its own authorities. Why is Poland doing this? Will the prosperity of its citizens increase as a result? Is Belarus a threat to Poland? Do Belarusians really live under a cruel tyranny?

Take Ukraine, for example. How was it exploited by the Hegemon and what has this led to? Just think: if there had been no Maidan in Kiev, if Moscow had not been provoked by Ukraine’s accession to NATO, if the Kremlin had not been insulted by anti-Russian demonstrations, if the Russian language had not been banned, if a sensible policy had been pursued (supposedly politics is the art of achieving achievable things, isn’t that what we say?), if all this had not happened, Ukraine would still be at peace today, it would still have Crimea! So many people would not have died, so many inhabitants would not have fled the country and the infrastructure would not have been destroyed while the country would not have run up the enormous amount of debt it is currently incurring, taking weapons and other aid from the West and from the Hegemon. All of this money will have to be paid for for decades!

Did not the same happen with Croatia and Serbia? For a good few years, these two brotherly nations speaking one and the same language destroyed each other and killed tens of thousands of people on both sides to finally…. land up with the kind of borders that divided them in the days of Yugoslavia! During that time they ran up debt with governments that supported them and now this debt will be paid back for years!

Did not the same happen with Iraq and with Iran? The Hegemon lost its influence in Iran when the Islamic revolution broke out there, it lost the annuity it enjoyed from Iran’s oil and gas fields. In retaliation, the Hegemon sought out the leader of a neighbouring country, it found him in Iraq, and deftly maneuvered him into a war with Iran. If you ask people what this war was about, the vast majority will not be able to answer. Eight years of fighting only for nothing to change! However, the Hegemon benefited. An unruly Tehran was punished: every war is about destruction. Baghdad, on the other hand, became so indebted – it was buying arms in the West – that it teetered on the brink of extinction. It could pay off its debts by selling its own oil and gas. If the Hegemon had managed, through its influence and alliance with Saudi Arabia, to keep the prices of these raw materials low, it would have prolonged the time it would have taken Iraq to pay off its debts. Saddam Hussein could have followed the path of Nicolae Ceaușescu: paying off debts and destroying his own people, just as the Romanian leader drove his own people into misery; Saddam Hussein could also have carried out a bank robbery (perhaps here too he succumbed to the whispers of the Hegemon?) and he chose the latter: he attacked Kuwait. The rest – as they say – is history. Today Iraq is a dummy state, just like Afghanistan and – precisely – Ukraine.

It was enough to pursue a sensible policy, that is to say to do things that were feasible in a given place and time, rather than bite off more than one could chew to avoid deep trouble. If Napoleon Bonaparte had not attacked Russia – who knows? – maybe Europe would still be dominated by France today; if Adolf Hitler had contented himself with annexing Austria and maybe the Sudetenland, Europe would still be dominated by Germany. Unfortunately, greed and avarice along with a failure to reckon with what was possible led to the downfall of one and the other.

Politics – let us repeat – is about achieving achievable goals, it is about reckoning with reality, with the current balance of power; it is about cutting your coat according to your cloth:

– Iraq did not have to go to war with Iran;

– Croatia and Serbia could have divorced peacefully as Czechia and Slovakia did;

– Ukraine did not have to irritate Russia persistently; nor

– should Poland flex its muscles towards Minsk or Moscow.

But someone is making the elites of these countries act against the interests of their own peoples. We write that someone is doing this because it is hard to believe that the elites of these countries are so short-sighted, are so damn, incredibly, monumentally… stupid!

What purpose, for example, does the Ukrainian army’s persistent resistance to Russian troops serve? Does Kiev really believe that it will chase the Russians away? Does Kiev really believe that it will regain lost territories? Does Kiev really believe that the West or the Hegemon will spill its own blood in defence of Ukraine? Does Kiev not see what the long-standing policy of hostility towards Moscow has led to, what the trust they placed in Western leaders has led to? Does Kiev really not see that the majority of the millions of Ukrainians who have left the country will not return?

Does Warsaw really not see that Moscow is cleansing Ukraine of the followers of the Stepan Bandera political testament and driving them straight to Poland, where the ancestors of those followers slaughtered Poles? Does Warsaw really not see that the millions of Russian-speaking refugees from Ukraine are a hotbed of future conflicts, a breeding ground for Ukrainian nationalists and an excellent base for Russian agents?

How has Poland benefited from supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia? How has it benefited from teasing Belarus? How has the European Union benefited from conflicting Kiev with Moscow? How much has life improved for Ukrainians and, indeed, for Europeans themselves? To what extent has security on the continent been strengthened? Who benefited from all this?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

GEFIRA provides in-depth and comprehensive analysis of and valuable insight into current events that investors, financial planners and politicians need to know to anticipate the world of tomorrow; it is intended for professional and non-professional readers.

Yearly subscription: 10 issues for €225/$250
Renewal: €160/$175

The Gefira bulletin is available in ENGLISH, GERMAN and SPANISH.