Geopolitics

Blockade of the Strait of Hormuz – possible consequences

The 2022 energy crisis was an unprecedented shock for Europe. The sharp decline in Russian gas and oil supplies following the invasion of Ukraine, which resulted from irresponsible decisions by politicians in Brussels, led to record prices for energy sources and a rise in inflation. At its peak, gas on European exchanges cost ten times more than the average in previous years, and EU countries competed for every LNG delivery to avoid disruptions to energy supplies.

Before the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022, Russia supplied about 45% of all imported gas to the European Union. In the case of oil, Russia’s share was slightly lower, but still very high. In the years before the war, Russia supplied about 25 to 30% of the oil needed in the EU.

After abandoning Russian oil in 2022, Europe increased its imports of this raw material from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait). Currently, around 15 to 25% of the oil imported by Europe comes from the Gulf region. The vast majority of this oil has to be transported through Hormuz. This is a major dependency, but there are other suppliers for Europe: Norway, the US, West Africa and Brazil. Norway and the US together account for around 30% of EU oil imports, which is roughly the same amount that Russia was responsible for before 2022.

And what about gas? Following the reduction in supplies from Russia, the EU has increased its LNG imports, mainly from Qatar. However, the main supplier of LNG to Europe was the US, with a share of approximately 55%. Qatar has a significant but not dominant share (approximately 10-14%). The rest of LNG imports come from many smaller sources (e.g. Algeria, Norway or other countries). Therefore, dependence on the Middle East for oil and gas imports into the EU is currently much lower than dependence on Russia was before 2022.

Although Hormuz is mainly associated with oil and LNG, it is also an important trade route for many other types of raw materials. Plastics, ethylene, propylene and even fertilisers (urea, ammonia) travel through the strait. Therefore, disruptions in transport there can also lead to rising prices for plastics, packaging, car parts, fertilisers, etc. The UAE and Bahrain are among the major aluminium exporters (energy-intensive production based on cheap gas). In return, electronics and machinery pass through the ports of Dubai (Jebel Ali), Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

In summary, rising energy prices are inevitable and will affect both Europe and the rest of the world. However, Europe should not be as severely affected as it was in 2022, as the Old Continent’s energy independence has increased significantly. If the conflict escalates, Asian countries such as India and China will be most vulnerable to problems with energy availability.

Hormuz is also very important for countries in the Middle East because ships carrying agricultural raw materials arrive there. The Gulf states are heavily dependent on food imports because the climate (hot, dry, desert) limits local agricultural production. A protracted blockade is therefore unlikely.

 

Iran war

So, the United States has attacked Iran. Some held it for impossible, others are not surprised at all. To be precise, it was not merely that United States, but the United States in cahoots with Israel that carried out the assult. Talk of the impending war with Iran has been present in the media for years, so the recent events are merely a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Two most spectacular events stand out: the intentional killing of Al Khamenei, the top spiritual leader of Shiite Muslims, and the (unintentional?) destruction of a school, where approximately 150 schoolgirls were killed. These two events are potent enough to enrage Iranians, and to upset the Muslim world.

Iran is striking back. How much the retaliation is effective is hard to say since the Western media will not report such data.

Picture to yourself a similar event launched by Russia… Yes, there would be a deafening howl across the Western world, while Putin would be called another Hitler. As it is, the American president justifies the assault on Iran, saying, that the United States had to defend itself because it felt threatened by Tehran… Weird. When Russia says it feels threatened by Western military presence in Ukraine, then such a claim is dismissed as unfounded; when, however, it is the United States that claims to be threatened by Iran, a country located thousands of miles away from America, then such a claim is legitimate.

One might tend to think that even the blind can see the hypocrisy, but rest assured: there are many who do not see it. As the saying goes: no one is as blind as the one who won’t see.

Why did the United States attack Iran? The answers are many. One is that Iran posed a threat to Israel, America’s most important and influential ally. Another is that that West wants to lay hold on Iranian oil and gas reserves. Still some others hold forth that it is the almost sixty-million strong Christian-Zionist community in America that did all in its power to necessitate the war. Christian Zionists identify more with Judaism than with Christianity, and since some of their members are the influential politicians and billionaires, they have much political leverage. President Donald Trump is believed to share the religious convictions of the Christian Zionists. After all, his daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism after she had married a Jewish man.

Sure enough, it is not only money that makes politicians act. Ideologies and religions are equally potent. The medieval Crusaders were motivated by religious principles; Montezuma, the ruler of the Aztec state in Mexico, rather than resisting the Spanish incursion, gave in to them, being convinced that the Spaniards were God’s messengers. American Christian Zionists are doing the same. Their loyalties lie with the state of Israel in the first place. Split loyalties is a phenomenon testified by history many a time. Religious minorities very often did not feel the ethnic ties with their compatriots. Rather, they felt and acted in unison with other ethnicities against their own so long as the other ethnicity shared the same creed. The same was true of ideologies.

Now what was the purpose of killing Ayatollah Al Khamenei? This act can only stiffen Iran’s resistance. The murder of a spiritual – religious – leader sets the war in a different dimension. Add to this the murder of the 150 schoolgirls: Iranians of whatever ethnicity will rather rally around the government than betray it. While the school event might be understood as a miscalculation, the killing of the Ayatollah was beyond a shadow of a doubt purposeful.

Despite what the Americans and the Israelis had expected, Iran has not disintegrated nor has it collapsed. Iranian did not take to the streets, so regime change is nowhere in sight. What can be envisaged is a protracted war. Washington had not reckoned with it, or did it?

 

An example of gross injustice

The world is asking the question whether the United States will attack Iran. Some say it will, others say it won’t. Time will tell. Neither are we going to predict the future. Someone wise said once that although God created man in his image, he reserved exclusively for himself three things: to be able to make something out of nothing, to judge human conscience, and to know the future. Neither we nor any pundit knows the future, and all the prophets – religious or non-religious – are useless. The stuff that they impart is such that you and me can create similar prophecies because all the prophecies go something like this: somewhere, sometimes, someone will do something if something somewhere sometime performs something or fails to perform something. The only prophecy that comes true is the timetable showing the arrivals and departures of trains, buses and planes. Even if reality diverges from what the timetable says, it diverges but a little and only sometimes. In comparison to religious or non-religious (the famed Nostradamus) prophecies, timetable prophecies exhibit pinpoint accuracy and are 99% reliable.

Having said which, we are not going to predict the future, viewing such business as pointless. We are more into the whys and the wherefores of the mounting conflict between the United States and Iran. But facts first.

It is not the United States against Iran, but rather the United States and Israel on the one hand, and Iran on the other. Or, to be more precise: the conflict is between Israel and Iran, with the United States acting as a battering ram for the Jewish state.

Tel Aviv wishes to weaken Iran because Tel Aviv views Iran as its greatest enemy. Israel fears Tehran as such, but it will fear it even more if Tehran manufactures its own nuclear weapons. Though Israel is separated from Iran by Jordan or Syria and Iraq, Tel Aviv fears that Iran, once it produces its own nukes, will be capable of delivering a deadly strike by means of long-range missiles.

Now, does Iran want to strike Israel? According to Tel Aviv it does. Is that claim substantiated? Hardly.

Does Israel have nuclear weapons of its own? The whole world knows it does. If it does have nuclear weapons, then why should Iran or any other state, indeed, also have such weapons? Israel’s claim that it fears Iran, especially a nuclear-armed Iran, can be easily flipped to say that Iran fears nuclear-armed Israel. Whose fear is (more) legitimate? Tel Aviv claims it has peaceful intentions while Tehran has bellicose plans. Again, Tehran might flip the argumentation and say precisely the same about Tel Aviv. Such arguments and counterarguments just don’t make sense. It is obvious that if one country has weapons of mass destruction, the other feels threatened; and it is all too obvious that to allow one country (Israel) to have nukes while denying it another country (Iran) is simply an example of gross injustice.

The picture can be broadened. Why should France and the United Kingdom have weapons of mass destruction and not Italy or Spain? Why should Pakistan or India have such weapons, but God forbid that Indonesia or Vietnam should have them?

Iraq, Libya and Syria have been politically incapacitated by the actions of the United States and Israel. It is now Iran’s turn to be incapacitated. But why should Iranians toe the line drawn by Tel Aviv and Washington? Why should they swallow their national pride, why should they convert into Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s vassals? Sure enough, Tel Aviv would like to see Iran fragmented into a number of smaller states, but why should Tehran oblige Tel Aviv? Iran’s authorities know it all too well that once they deprive themselves of the possibility of manufacturing the weapons of mass destruction, once they cave in to American (Israeli) demands, they are going to slide into crisis and chaos and final disintegration. Once they lose the military leverage – even if potential as at present – they will be viewed as fair game.

Iranian leaders are fully aware of what happened to Russia once it had followed the West’s lead: it became weak and as such incapable of defending its most basic national interests. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin acted in good faith towards the West, but this good faith was mercilessly exploited. Think of the economic crisis that Russia fell into and was stuck in throughout 1990s, think of the expansion of NATO that began to strangle Russia. Should Iran give in an inch, the same fate will surely haunt it as well. Already at present, Tehran has experienced US-controlled street riots and a twelve-day war that erupted on June 13, 2025, and was conducted while the US-Iranian talks were in full swing! Consider this perfidy.

Does this perfidy not remind you of the perfidy perpetrated by the Europeans who – having signed the Minsk I and Minsk II Accords between Ukraine and Russia – violated them on the following day? You will have remembered that both President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel bragged about it that they only signed those accords in order to play for time and lull the opponent. Why should Tehran believe Washington and Tel Aviv? Russia believed and lost on more than one occasion.

While Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria were isolated at the time when they were being attacked by the West, Iran is not. It can count on the support of Russia and China. The Middle Kingdom purchases much oil from Iran (between 13% and 20% of its oil imports) and certainly does not wish to lose such a trade partner or to have this partner under US dominance.

Why should pressurizing Iran into submission be viewed as a justified action? What if the roles were inverted? What if Israel were pressurized into a similar submission? Or the United Kingdom? Or France?

 

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Gone are the days when the world watched, with bated breath, the many talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on reduction and control of nuclear arms development. Gone are the headlines announcing the beginning, continuation and completion of the SALT or START talks. The world has changed.

Now it is the United States – as before – Russia – a replacement for the Soviet Union – and… China! When the SALT and START talks were conducted, no one paid any attention to the Middle Kingdom. Now China is a power to reckon with, not merely economically but also militarily. China is estimated to have some 350 strategic missile launching pads as opposed to some 480 American. That’s hard on America’s heels. Now what negotiations on nuclear arms control and arms limitation can be conducted between the United States and the Russian Federation without taking into the equation the Middle Kingdom?

The problem is that Moscow says it has nothing to do with China: China is not Russia’s military ally, though Washington perceives it as such. Contrarily, Russia views France and the United Kingdom as America’s closest allies, and rightly so: all the three countries belong to NATO. Hence, Russia’s demand that both France and Great Britain be included in the talks is legitimate.

On the other hand, Washington is legitimately concerned about China: under the current circumstances Beijing can certainly be viewed as Russia’s ally rather than that of America. (Just to think of it: China’s might have been created by the United States of which we’ll make a reminder later in the text.) Neither does the Middle Kingdom want to be included in the trilateral talks with the Russian Federation: why should it? It is an independent power – superpower – and it can act at the negotiating table on its own. So much so that Beijing has something to win from Washington: ok, the Chinese may say, we could reduce our military development if you lift the sanctions on China and the countries that wish to trade with the Middle Kingdom. How about that? Nuclear might is always a fine bargaining chip, is it not?

It is even true of tiny North Korea as well: not that North Korea is so powerful as to be considered for joint talks. No. But Korean nuclear potential is a sufficient deterrent even for such a superpower as the United States. And there is something more to the nuclear potential: it is the determination of the Korean leadership to actually use the missiles if push comes to shove. It is not Venezuela, whose president can be adducted in broad daylight without the perpetrator of the abduction fearing any retaliation, but we are digressing.

The balance of forces has changed since the year in which the Soviet Union disintegrated. For maybe as many as two decades the United States dominated the globe and felt so self-assured that Washington began to dictate to the whole globe. This, however, has changed. Russia has reasserted herself while China has risen to the status of a(n almost) superpower.

Which by the way is good for humanity. One superpower with no rival to fear would soon become corrupted and degenerated. All the other countries would have felt intimidated with no alternative anywhere in sight. Fortunately, a world emerges where there are three or maybe four (if we include India) big players, which allows for the smaller entities to have a political alternative, and which keeps each superpower in check.

A new arrangement needs to be made – no one power wants the prospect of a nuclear shootout. Talks are not going to be easy, because it is now three big entities, not two.

Political persistent rumour has it that Adolf Hitler was the creation of the Western elites who wished to rebuild Germany and direct its power against the Bolshevik Soviet Union. That is why London and Paris did not react when Germany began to arm itself, when Germany incorporated Austria and annexed Czechia; that explains why they did not react when Poland was attacked. The Western elites wanted Germany to expand, grow stronger, and come into physical contact with the Soviet Union. Now Adolf Hitler – assuming he was the darling of the Western elites – stopped playing by their script and turned against them when he attacked Denmark and Norway, the Low Countries and eventually France. It came as a shock: he was supposed to attack the Soviet Union!

Isn’t history repeating itself? The Middle Kingdom was supported by the United States for the express purpose to turn it against the Soviet Union. Washington would have rubbed its hands in glee if Beijing and Moscow started a real hot war! Decades have passed and – due to clumsy American policy-making – Moscow was pushed into Beijing’s embrace while Beijing was pushed in Moscow’s. Now they are – though not formally – economic and military allies. But again, the Kremlin may repeat: we have nothing to do with it. Had not Washington acted the way it did, there would have been no war in Ukraine, no sanctions on Russia and China, and consequently no Russo-Chinese cooperation.

The three gunslingers have a hard nut to crack. Certainly, none wants a nuclear exchange, yet each wants to get the upper hand. They are observing each other attentively, not knowing in which direction to level their guns. It reminds one of the cultic cemetery scene from the 1966 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly classic movie. Do you recall it? Good Blondie (Clint Eastwood), bad Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), and ugly Tuco (Eli Wallach) are facing each other – graves and crosses around them, their hands over their holsters, their eyes darting from face to face, their minds calculating. That’s the United States, that’s the Russian Federation, and that’s the People’s Republic of China facing each other (who is the good, the bad or the ugly is a matter of your political persuasion). In the graveyard scene only one emerges victorious. How will things play out in political reality at beginning of the 21 century? 

Davos 2026

After the notorious Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, resigned following allegations of financial and ethical misconduct, the forum took on a new dynamic. Whereas speeches used to be an expression of blind faith in mainstream ideology such as globalisation, green transition, climate change, sustainable development, human and LGBT rights, today they feel like a breath of fresh air. Take, for example, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who said:

“We are in Davos at the World Economic Forum and the Trump administration and myself, we are here to make a very clear point. Globalization has failed the West and the United States of America. It’s a failed policy. It is what the W has stood for which is export offshore farshore find the cheapest labor in the world and the world is a better place for it. The fact is it has left America behind. It has left the American workers behind and what we are here to say is that America first is a different model. one that we encourage other countries to consider, which is that our workers come first. We can have policies that impact our workers. Sovereignty is your borders. You’re entitled to have borders. You shouldn’t offshore your medicine. You shouldn’t offshore your semiconductors. You shouldn’t offshore your entire industrial base and have it be hollowed out beneath you. You should not be dependent for that which is fundamental to your sovereignty on any other nation. And if you’re going to be dependent on someone, it darn well better be your best allies. Okay? And so that is a different way of thinking. It is completely different than the WEF” (Video)

Oh dear! It’s a good thing Klaus Schwab can’t hear that, otherwise he’d have a heart attack.

Canadian Prime Minister Carney also pointed out in Davos that “the existing world order is collapsing.” He also highlighted the plight of small and medium-sized countries, which now have to cope with pressure from the largest ones. The Canadian Prime Minister said that these states should join forces so as “not to be crushed by the rivalry of the superpowers.” It seems that these words refer most to the countries of the European Union, which in recent months have pursued a different policy as a group from what Donald Trump is trying to do.

Due to the many controversial actions of the US president, we are gradually reaching a situation where simply showing resistance to him is enough to gain popularity. Previously, Justin Trudeau’s popularity grew because of such a conflict (it was Trump’s fault, not Trudeau’s merit), and now Carney also received a lot of praise after his speech, although as a former banker, he is more reminiscent of Macron in terms of credibility.

Among other important statements from Davos, the following are also worth mentioning:

[1] Larry Fink (CEO of Blackrock) stated that tokenising assets is the only sensible decision and that next-generation financial markets should already be based on tokenised shares or bonds.

This proves that the elites have not given up the fight against cash.

[2] Christine Lagarde (head of the ECB) drew attention to the problem of wealth inequality. And indeed, this problem does exist, but Ms Lagarde has probably forgotten who fuelled this problem over the last decade through massive money printing and intervention in the financial markets.

[3] Javier Milei (President of Argentina) reminded us that the West could still have a bright future ahead of it, but that it needs to turn towards freedom. These words were probably directed at the United Kingdom, Belarus and Germany, where freedom of expression is being fiercely opposed. (See also: Article in Gefira)

Mare Nostrum

At the peak of its development, the Roman Empire ruled over all the countries that were located around the Mediterranean. Carthage had been destroyed, Greece had been subjugated, even Egypt had been conquered. Gaul and Spain had been turned into Roman provinces as were the coastal regions of the Adriatic Sea. Hence the proud Romans could declare that all the waters in between Europe and Africa and Asia were Mare Nostrum or Our Sea. All merchantmen were controlled by Rome as were all the ports. No one could travel freely without Rome’s permission. The Romans did not need to bother about tolls or tariffs or whatever. (Sometimes they were bothered by pirates, but that problem would be swiftly solved by Rome’s military might.)  

The Baltic Sea is five times smaller than the Mediterranean (approximately 0.5 million square kilometres against 2.5 million square kilometres), but it is an important and – in many cases – the only sea route for many European countries to the high seas, to the Atlantic Ocean.  These countries include (clockwise, starting from the north) Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia again (the Kaliningrad oblast), Poland, Germany, and Denmark. Since Sweden and Finland have recently joined NATO, the Baltic Sea had become a sea that is surrounded by NATO member countries with the exception of Russia. But Russia has a very narrow access through the Finnish Gulf (that’s where St Petersburg is located) and through the Kaliningrad oblast, which in turn is cut off from Russia proper by territories that belong to Poland and Lithuania. Having in mind the two narrow slips of land where Russia has access to the Baltic Sea, we can say that the Baltic has become NATO’s Mare Nostrum.

Considering the enmity that reigns supreme between the Western bloc and the Russian Federation, we can easily imagine the temptation on the part of the Western countries to view the Baltic Sea as a stranglehold on Russia. The leaders of these countries might choose to block Russia from sending its ships via the Baltic to the Atlantic Ocean or they might at least want to make life miserable for the Russian fleet. Let us not forget that Russia might access the Atlantic Ocean also through the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, but then, again, the access looks like a narrow throttle – especially in the place called the Bosporus Straight. It is controlled by Turkey, and although the 1936 Montreux Convention makes the Straight passable internationally, Turkey is a NATO member.

As it is, Russia can easily be cut off from the Atlantic Ocean irrespective of whether she chooses to access the ocean through the Baltic or through the Black and the Mediterranean Seas. Yet, being a nuclear superpower and finding itself in a mortal struggle with the West for sheer survival as an independent, sovereign state, the Russian Federation might be compelled to (aggressive? defensive? pre-emptive?) measures. Recall how the so-called Polish Corridor – a strip of land that cut off East Prussia from Germany proper during the time of 1918-1939 sparked the war between Germany and Poland, and consequently the Second World War. At that time Germany did not fight for its survival, certainly not against Poland, which did not threaten Germany’s existence, and still Berlin decided that Germany could not do without the corridor. Now Russia as a superpower needs access to the high seas or else. The Russian Federation is the largest country by territory, but its location is somewhat infelicitous. While the United States has unrestricted access to both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, Russia only has direct access to the Pacific Ocean. The problem is that while the United States’ eastern and western seaboards are equally well economically developed, Russia’s far east is not. The other point is that Russia’s far east is far flung from the European part of Russia. The distance between the western- and easternmost parts of the Russian Federation is much longer than that between America’s western and eastern seaboard. Moscow must, therefore, fight for access to the high seas cost it what it may. What may we expect?

If any one or all of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) choose to alienate Russia, to deny its access to the Baltic, then they might fall prey to Russia’s military intervention. Will the said Baltic states risk such policy? In all probability, they will. Why? Because already we can see how bellicose they are in their dealings with the Russian Federation, and how their leaders bend over backwards to oblige their Western overlords. They might choose to take over the role which has been played by Ukraine for the last several years. Taking such steps, they will force Russia to step in militarily. Once Russia intervenes in the Baltic states, she might choose to either incorporate them, or install there governments that will be Russia friendly. Bear in mind that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia used to be parts of imperial Russia (where they had no autonomy) and then of the Soviet Union (where they enjoyed the status of union republics with their governments, constitutions and the like; a status similar to that that they have now within the framework of the European Union).

If Finland chooses to thwart Russia’s access to the Baltic Sea, it might expose itself to a repeat of the Winter War of 30 November 1939 – 13 March 1940. That war cost it territorial losses. Finland, too, used to be part of the Russian empire as an autonomous grand duchy (1809-1917) with its own parliament. If push comes to shove, Finland may again lose some of its territory or become an autonomous part of the Russian Federation.

I hear you say NATO will never allow that kind of land grab! If you think so, then, please, think again. If the scenario that we are presenting materializes, the ruling classes of the Baltic states and Finland will swiftly and comfortably run away (that’s the usual behaviour of the ruling classes), while the common Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians and Finns will remain, as is usually the case with the common people.

The Baltic as Mare Nostrum is a powerful geostrategic instrument in the hands of the managers of the Western world, but concurrently – a curse for the common people of small nations who matter to the managers of the world about as much as the pawns on the chessboard.

Discrepant Exegeses

It was not executed in broad daylight – rather, in the dead of night – but still it was disrespectful as disrespectful can be. A head of state of a sovereign nation was abducted as if he were a criminal. Handcuffs were put on his hands, he was blindfolded and transported – together with his wife – from his own country to the United States. What a show! For all to see. For all leaders to take notice. For all top politicians to be on their guard. That happened on January 3. We all know it, the whole world knows it – the whole world observed it with bated breath.

A head of a relatively large country was captured like he was a street ruffian. Apart from his personal security detail that attempted to put up a fight there was no resistance in the true sense of the word. American aircraft hovered over Caracas the way they might hover over their own turf. There were casualties to be sure but no appreciable resistance of the country as such. Pundits draw conclusions that Nicolás Maduro’s closest associates – generals, ministers – had betrayed him, had let themselves be bribed, and abandoned him in the critical moment. Word has it that only Cuban bodyguards stood up for Nicolás Maduro, as a result of which some of them were killed.

The warrant for the action? The drug trafficking into the United States that allegedly had been sponsored by Caracas and the president himself. Sure enough that is the declared objective, not the genuine one. We’ll talk about the genuine objective later in the text. Here let us make an assumption that it was drug trafficking that triggered the US action, and that Nicolás Maduro really sponsored it. If that were the case then a couple of questions arise.

For at least four years during the Biden administration the American southern border was not merely porous: it was wide open for all to come. Arrivals from South America were flocking across the border and they were not even vetted! Sure enough, drug traffickers may have been among them. Why should Venezuela be punished for that? The drugs are distributed in American cities – does anybody forces the purchase of them at gun point? Last but not least, why are the American police not effective enough? Why must the American army step in? If particular countries were to be blamed for particular sorts of crime that is perpetrated on American soil, then the US army should be intervening around the globe twenty-four seven. But then, if you do not want to have drug traffickers, why have borders open wide for all to cross them?

The event of January 3rd compels one to draw a comparison between the intervention of the US Army in Venezuela and the intervention of the armed forces of the Russian Federation in Ukraine. How alike they are and at the same time how different! Americans claim that Venezuela posed a security threat to the United States; Russia claims that Ukraine posed a security threat to the Russian Federation. Washington says it is protecting its citizens from drug trafficking cartels; Russia maintains it is protecting its citizens from Banderite fascist ideology and the military bases complete with ballistic missiles to be installed in Ukraine once Kiev joins NATO. Washington feels threatened by a country that is three-four thousand kilometers away from America’s coastline; Russia feels threatened by a neighbouring country, a country that is adjacent to Russia, a country that is not separated from the Russian Federation by a body of sea as the United States is separated from Venezuela.

Knowing all this full well, America’s allies go out of their way to either support politically the United States or keep their mouths shut; contrarily, they are beside themselves with outrage when it comes to the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Caracas had diplomatic and economic ties with China and Russia – America’s rivals, but Kiev had ties with the United States and was planning to join NATO, a military alliance which is openly hostile to Russia. These are mirror events and yet they are adjudicated entirely differently. Why?

The United States has executed an action of decapitation which is just yet another one in the long string of such actions. Think about Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Serbia’s Slobodan Milošević, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, and many others. Leaders of sovereign states are put on trial (Slobodan Milošević, Nicolás Maduro) or killed (Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević) or chased away (Bashar al-Assad). Do you still remember the repulsive repugnant disgusting sickening abhorrent enunciation of one Hillary Clinton as she said – commenting on Gaddafi’s death and paraphrasing Julius Caesar – We came, we saw, he died! – and laughed heartily at that? Imagine Vladimir Putin saying something along these lines, commenting on the death of, say, Volodymyr Zelenskyy… What a howl would be raised in the the ‘free’ world! A statement like that would be interpreted as ultimate evidence of Putin’s wickedness.

Might is right, that’s all there is to it. So, America intervened in Venezuela because it saw it fit. All the justification that is being rolled out is either easily refutable or laughable. Isn’t it ridiculous to hear that the world’s dominant superpower needs to abduct the head of a small country located thousands of miles away across the sea because the superpower feels insecure? Isn’t it laughable to hear that the Russian Federation has no legitimate grounds for intervening in a neighbouring country that is about to join a military alliance which is openly hostile to Russia? And yet, millions of people do not seem to see it.

Now the genuine reasons for the American intervention in Venezuela. Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves than any other country, including Saudi Arabia. Venezuela also has other valuable resources. Control over them will provide the United States with enormous economic and – what follows – political leverage. We should not lose the sight of the fact that Saudi Arabia has not prolonged the agreement it once signed with Washington to only sell its oil for American dollars. That in itself is dangerous for the United States. It was the petrodollars that safeguarded American might and American development. All countries and any country wishing to buy oil – and they all need oil for a variety of purposes – needed to first have dollars. Dollars are issued by the United States, so ultimately all the world’s nations needed to directly or indirectly either sell to the United States their goods and services or borrow from the United States. Americans were growing rich by simply… printing dollars or transferring electronic impulses from their bank account to the bank account of a country which was in need of dollars.

The capture of the head of state and the installment of someone who might be willing to comply with American wishes is also a strike dealt against China. China has been spreading its tentacles to Africa and… South America. Beijing has been replacing European colonial powers on the Dark Continent and attempting to dislodge American influence from the Western hemisphere. Americans suddenly remembered the 1823 Monroe’s doctrine, which stated that both American continents are the sphere of influence of the United States alone. No one should dare to set foot anywhere south of the American border. The Chinese have financed the construction of the Port of Chancay in Peru as a part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Its task is to enable the exports to China from South American countries and imports from China to South America. The Middle Kingdom is setting foot where it should not dare, according to the Monroe doctrine.

With this intervention Americans have set yet another example – a warning sign – a mafioso-like manifestation what awaits those leaders who will not comply…

Be it as it may, what strikes the eye is pure hubris, the kind of hubris that has always been present throughout history and always will be. In 1939, the Third Reich and the Soviet Union signed a pact to divide Poland. That pact has been branded by the European Union as a conspiracy against peace; the leaders of the contracting states – Hitler and Stalin – were labeled warmongers who paved the way for the outbreak of the Second World War. Now almost a whole year earlier another pact had been signed, a pact between Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom, a pact that paved the way for the partitioning of Czechoslovakia. This pact – signed by Hitler, Mussolini, Daladier and Chamberlain – in Munich has not been branded by the European Union as outrageous, although it, too, led straight to the outbreak of the Second World War. You see? Very similar events, very different interpretations. Much the same is true of the current interventions in Venezuela and Ukraine: American intervention is regarded as the right one, Russian intervention as abominable. History is full of events mirroring each other and receiving discrepant exegeses.