Lordre: European

Showing posts with label European_Union. Show all posts

Turkey and the expanding dead body of NATO

Turkey has too many grievances against Washington's foreign policy to just yield to American demands concerning NATO expansion in Scandinavia.

What we will see, as the US tries to overcome resistance from Turkey, is that the initiative to expand NATO does not at all come from Finland or Sweden’s leadership. It comes entirely from the regime in the United States, which always relied on what it calls influence operations and suitcases of cash to achieve its selfish foreign policy objectives.

Pushing NATO to the limit

Turkey essentially demands that its NATO allies stop supporting its foreign and domestic enemies, and is looking to get US sanctions reversed in exchange for its cooperation on NATO expansion. These are reasonable demands of an ally.

However, in the above link, where the demands are listed, American Iraq War lunatic Michael Rubin does an adequate job expressing how NATO heads will probably react to the defiance expressed by a member state. They will argue that Turkey should be expelled from NATO, for which there is no mechanism, and neither is there a mechanism that may override the veto right of Turkey.

Some NATO ideologues will probably say that Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan should be killed, as this reflects the kind of damaged and deranged ideation in American foreign policy now.

A more and more coercive NATO, in which the US government simply compels member states to obey it and serve its narrow foreign policy interests, is a NATO that could fall apart.

Is NATO dead?

The standoff could reveal that, far from being reinvigorated by Russia's actions in Ukraine, NATO is dead.

The lack of a mechanism to remove Turkey from NATO means that the NATO members will have to all become law-breakers and fail to follow their own founding document, if they want to cast Turkey out. If, alternatively, the US decides to place additional sanctions on Turkey, this will likely backfire and result in Turkey using its veto more regularly, as well as even more cooperation by the NATO member with Russia and China, making the alliance an increasingly meaningless dead weight.

What is happening suggests that NATO at least does not function very well for US foreign goals. This only raises the question as to why anyone would want to expand an alliance that is dead and simply retains the bulk of the members from a bygone political constellation in the Cold War. The current standoff makes a much better case for dissolving and replacing NATO than expanding it, even if one holds the aggressive American views that guide foreign policy in the North Atlantic Area now.

NATO and the EU could both be replaced by smaller blocs, with the EU also experiencing a similar impasse with Poland and Hungary and the ideologues similarly threatening expulsion.

Sinn Féin is set to be the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly, after the results in local elections that took place in the United Kingdom on May 5.

What has happened pushes the UK towards a perhaps inevitable breakup, as Sinn Féin has long sought a united island of Ireland, which would be noble if they can secure majority support in Northern Ireland for it.

A return to Great Britain?

The people of Britain actually have no need for Ireland. If we were to lose Northern Ireland, the imposing name of the “Kingdom of Great Britain” (or just Great Britain) could be restored as the official one, as could the flag of 1707-1801, which British troops carried to war against America and France. Such days were hardly those of a lesser power, as we are now.

Even if things went a step further, and Scotland was also to gain independence, England would likely remain a powerhouse, keeping the neighbouring countries in its influence, unless the European Union was to actively work against such sway

Unionist backlash

The only peril may come from unionists in Northern Ireland, and their ties to that land, in the event that they refuse to accept the breakup of the country they were loyal to. Political radicals and aggrieved parties often end up punching above their weight, and it is not atypical that they can take a whole country hostage with their politics.

As well as a surge in violence taking place within a united Ireland, possibly drawing in outside forces such as the European Union, there is a greater risk of political radicals fleeing Northern Ireland to assume huge influence within the newly diminished Great Britain. Should anything atrocious befall the unionists residing in the united Ireland, or even a murmur of it, it would result in radical transformations of opinion in Great Britain, creating increasingly hostile English feelings towards Ireland and its EU backers. As well as undermining Scottish independence (assuming Irish unity occurs first), a wave of unionism finding a home in Great Britain could also be big enough to turn policy in London in an aggressive or revanchist direction. If Scotland in turn got independence, further flight of radical British nationalists into England could make them even more concentrated and capable of influencing London.

The return of England

In the most extreme course of future events, breakup could result in an English war not just with Scotland and Ireland but, by proxy, with old enemies like France, Spain and Germany via the European Union as the Scots and Irish will warm to them rather than the ostracised England.

The war on Russia's periphery in Ukraine exposes new vulnerabilities for all nuclear-armed powers, revealing that they are not as invulnerable as they had assumed and that the victors of the Second World War have no guarantee of security. Having a nuclear deterrent doesn't prevent conflict being actively inflamed by outside competitors on your doorstep, or result in the adjacent non-nuclear power standing down if you use force. The informal understanding that nuclear powers cannot incite a proxy to directly attack each other's territory and infrastructure is also gone, now. Now, everyone will be just expected to refrain from using nuclear weapons, as long as sneaky enough methods are being used to kill us and there is not a direct clash. This change may cause huge displeasure to Britain in the future, since it creates new rules that put the country in a new state of vulnerability. It allows the peril of a return to past ages, when Scotland was eligible as a French proxy against England.

Restored medieval conflicts

The idea of an English-EU clash reigniting Medieval-era tensions may seem farfetched, but it is not. Medieval leaders were not less civilised or educated in statehood than modern leaders. Some conflicts are inevitable, just because of the configuration of pieces on the board.

England has a much vaster population than Scotland or Ireland. It is not too hard to predict, if the UK breaks up, that these countries will be afraid and possibly even hateful of the economically and militarily giant England after being estranged from it. The temptation to bring in France or other European powers as protectors, and English resentment at this course of events, would be almost inevitable.

Nationalism, however benign at first, can unleash unpredictable and long-buried forces, as it did after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It can create opportunities for outside interference that will jeopardise a country’s security.

When an arrangement works peacefully, like the Union, it is best to treasure it and not to change it, even if we would personally prefer things to be different. This is the same case with the monarchy.

Ahead of local elections on May 5, there is a chance that many in Labour heartlands could commit folly and forgetfulness, to vote for that complacent party and miss their chance to punish it.

The Conservatives don't have much to offer deprived areas of the country, especially as they are contributing to a cost of living crisis, so voting for them is hardly an appropriate suggestion. However, Labour is in many ways the enemy of such regions in a more direct way. The current Labour leadership has demonstrated continuous contempt and condescension towards many working class people in England.

Keir's Biden-Kamala Ticket for Britain?

Far from being the party of working people, Labour is now simply the party of college liberalism, trying to base itself wholly on the Democratic Party in the US.

Keir Starmer is essentially presenting himself as Britain's Joe Biden, with nothing to offer other than not having the messy haircut of the eccentric current PM.

Party of snakes and ingrates?

The Labour Party has no concern for local communities, preferring to impale the land with whatever standard the party's national leadership told it to bear, even if it means destroying your home and berating you for being there. This much is evident from their lack of consideration for preserving local greenbelt land, as the party answers much more to its donors than local communities. They would rather see construction zones and their sponsors' logos everywhere, than happy constituents. In the process, Labour councillors prefer to insult people rather than to stand up for them when it comes to this issue.

Labour's current leaders are the ones who have the greatest determination to re-join the European Union, as the party and its leader Keir Starmer are still filled with frustration and hatred towards their own English base who voted for Brexit in 2016.

You may be forgetful enough to vote for Labour this time, but Labour leaders will never forgive you if you voted for Brexit. If you should cast your vote for them now, Labour's scum leadership will only see you as some half-witted enemy they managed to trick. These ingrates, even after receiving your vote, will only cite such a vote to berate you and prove that their narrow interests have some democratic mandate because they successfully tricked you.

Far from representing the people or standing up for the people, the Labour Party's primary goal is to cajole people into agreeing with the leaders of the Labour Party. Those leaders in turn have goals that are informed by their donors. The party is unmoved by yearnings of local communities or even by any kind of decency, which is why they have none. Their ideas originate elsewhere, aloof, in Labour Party offices, and their job is to foist them on you.

Give the Greens a go

It would be wiser to turn over a new leaf. It would be a good idea to go, at least temporarily, to an alternative. The Greens are a particularly attractive one, maintaining a number of policies that are to the left of Labour, and they emphasise localism.

One valid complaint may be that parties like the Greens are inexperienced with governance, and that only Labour can deliver. However, simply voting for people who have pre-existing governing experience over and over again is no different than backing the incumbent and refusing to participate in a democracy. In addition, a Labour Party pushed into crisis by increasing competition from the Greens would eventually see major defections to the latter, which would transfer the necessary governing experience to the Greens. It would also pressure Labour back to a more sensible course, and sensitivity to the people's wishes.

Despite the UK presenting itself as the leading defender of Europe, Britain’s armoured vehicle production and repair is going to increasingly take place in Germany, as is shown by British interest in the “Eurotank” project as the means to get a new Main Battle Tank.

However impressive the Eurotank will be, interdependence with the continent we are meant to defend could be a major weakness. We already rely on the Germans to upgrade our panzers at their workshops, somehow managing to brag about it in the process.

We also aim to replace our Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) with Franco-German wheeled designs, rather than choosing to continue the history of unique and iconic British armoured vehicle designs. Bear in mind that the French and Germans were historic enemies of Britain, at different eras, and the current state of affairs is tantamount to British troops dressing in enemy uniforms.

Europe is no haven

From a historically savvy perspective, Britain growing reliant on German help with armoured vehicles is similar to defeat and demilitarisation at German hands, since no wise British leadership would ever have allowed the Germans or French to seize British military production capabilities and take them to their countries. Especially in a place as historically volatile as Europe, which is already undergoing significant disruption due to the Ukrainian conflict and could face an increasingly violent and destabilised future, which is historically normal for the Continent.

Europe, and Germany particularly, also have a strong historical tendency to instability and conflict that goes all the way back to the Thirty Years' War and perhaps earlier. European integration has been a fact for so little time that to think it is permanent is premature and immature. The advantage of Great Britain has always been its isolation from the contagion of European conflict, by the sea.

Even assuming the UK never returns to an era of tension with the Germans or French, it is still a fact that having our military production and repair facilities be in Germany potentially magnifies security and strategic problems, from espionage to the possibility of Germany itself being simply misgoverned and overrun with conflicts or political intrigue in the future. If things get bad in Europe, they could unnecessarily imperil British national security if we are reliant on sites there for defence production and repair.

UK arms production and repair capability being located in a non-nuclear country such as Germany is also problematic because it creates the possibility that our war production could be wiped out, without being protected by our nuclear deterrent. NATO does not necessarily protect Germany from all conflict scenarios, including nuclear ones, with the reliability that the British nuclear deterrent has.

The hollowness of Brexit

Britain’s disinterest in being an independent arms producer, and increased interest in partnering with the French and Germans instead, makes Brexit less significant, nay meaningless, in terms of turning the country into an independent strategic player. Moreover, it reveals that those in business and government who decide our priorities are merely resentful about the departure from the EU and want to do everything to offset any impact on our trajectory as a country.

British government and corporate elites have no real thought for national security. They don’t see our island as anything more than a shabby council estate that is to be left behind, to pursue their interests via the United States and the European Union or via supranational organisations like NATO. This may suit them, but it does not suit future generations who will emerge in a country that has no brand, no pride, and no security, being little more than a dump for foreign powers.

The behaviour of those who propose undemocratic measures against elected leaders, while portraying them as somehow undermining democracy, is remarkable.

When the EU and Europhile journalists speak of democracy, they seem to really only be talking of the dictatorship of their important selves and their opinions as they interfere around the world. They hate the rule of the people's will, which is meant to be the meaning of democracy. The same bewildering lack of appreciation for popular rule exists among Americans who continue to chant the word "democracy" as the alleged basis of their foreign policy.

Love of fake democracy

From the point of view of democratically dubious or outright unelected elites the world over, "democracy" seems to be the favoured word when engaging in empty rhetoric. They insinuate that this word refers to their esoteric authority or superiority, rather than submission to the wisdom of the people.

The rule of the people, in fact, is equated by these corrupt beings with demagoguery and described by them as "populism". That is a favoured word among the narrow few who are frustrated when they find, to their dismay, that the people have resisted them and attempted to survive.

Hatred of "populists"

Establishment scribblers, unthink tanks and other self-appointed guardians of democratic civilisation command the international news media, as well as the constructed currents of social media. They are infuriated by the popularity of Vucic, Orban and Le Pen, although in each case the candidates are popular because they genuinely represent the views of the people. The European Parliament could not even refrain from punishing Poland, despite the adjacent Ukraine war.

The same people were also distressed at Pakistan's (now ex-) Prime Minister Imran Khan's independent foreign policy, encouraging every measure except an election to safeguard "democracy". There, we find that "democracy" used as the secret word for the deeds of unelected, bought people and schemers, rather than a genuine demonstration of popularity such as an election.

Without Mr Khan, the leadership of Pakistan is expected to be handed over to a man who said "beggars can't be choosers", in English, in response to a question about his country's foreign policy. Military chiefs in the country also broke with the elected government to say they were believers in strong ties to the United States. In contrast to that beggar, Mr Khan apparently earned hatred from the US and its allies for saying his country will not be slaves.

Undemocratic worms sighted

Skyrocketing prices and what might be approaching food shortages on the European continent are tolerated by those who are evidently motivated by something other than the wellbeing of their constituents. They believe that their challenge is not to derive their legitimacy from the population, but to chastise the population and tell them to bear the costs of their policies.

If democracy is real, the right of the people to throw out worms from society and the political system is paramount. It is essential that when undemocratic worms utter the word "democracy", it is considered a blasphemy against the people and their interests.

Russia has defied Europe on a scale never before seen since the days of Josef Stalin. We are, without question, now moving into a new Cold War. How does Russia justify what the EU has described as "barbaric"?

Russia's national security leadership may have valid reasons to stage a premeditated intervention in Ukraine, but the action is legally dubious, if this means anything anymore. Russian leaders likely foresaw an increasingly heavily-equipped Ukrainian irregular faction such as the neofascist Azov Battalion (Western journalists reject their reported existence as disinformation despite it being a fact), and feared that they may infiltrate Russian territory in future years with their increasing stockpile of NATO-supplied weaponry. Russia chose to nip this threat in the bud with a huge military operation and fully secure its Western frontier against NATO, whose leaders were already labelling Russia as their adversary to be confronted, years before the Russian intervention.

Inaction or vacillation on Russia's part could have been disastrous. NATO weapons were being sent to Ukraine's anti-Russian regime in increasing quantities, curtailing the potential success of Russian military action. With groups like Azov not necessarily following government orders, and accumulating sophisticated equipment and training, it would have been plausible for such people to launch opportunistic terrorist attacks in Russia. We could have seen an unconventional military campaign coordinated secretly by NATO on Russian territory using these irregulars (in concert with foreign-organised protests against the Russian government), to bypass a nuclear standoff while destroying Russia. It is fortunate for Russia that the conflict is taking place inside Ukraine, instead, and that this army of irregulars is being killed off prematurely inside Ukraine.

Ending Nazism again

It is a shame that a lot of anti-Nazis in the West did not notice the return of literal, gun-toting Nazism to Ukraine, with its thousands of armed stormtroopers, and have failed to appreciate Russia destroying Nazism for the second time. Instead, we see convoluted and cerebral claims that Russia is instead somehow analogous to Nazi Germany itself, based on the mere fact that Russia has soldiers and is sending them into combat against those people.

The Ukrainian government is not neo-Nazi, but it wilfully presides over territory filled with them and their weapons, and that makes Ukraine Russia's business.

To Russians: I assure you that some of us in Britain have not been brainwashed by false captions and lies from our government, but we instead still believe in the alliance of 1941-45. We appreciate Russia saving Europe from this Nazi scourge for the second time, and hope for their crushing and prompt defeat.

Russia's lesser evil

The haste with which everything happened, event after event, suggests that Russia had all of it planned or at least was creating contingencies with great enthusiasm (the law of the instrument), and that the recognition of the republics (DPR and LPR) as states is itself just part of a military strategy. The side that has been caught unprepared is Ukraine, which evidently just expected the eight-year war in Donbass to continue its slow creep even despite Western warnings that Russia would attack.

The West made the situation very bad for Ukraine. They seemed to be idiotic in their handling of intelligence by telegraphing their own actions in the press (timelines of equipping Ukraine, types and quantities of missiles, and the fact they were espying the Russian military build-up) to Russia, meanwhile failing to convince Ukraine of the imminent attack it foresaw. These idiots telegraphed how they expected Russia to attack, likely allowing it to adjust its attack plan. Many disbelieved the West, myself included, seeing all kinds of holes in what they were saying, because of their thorough record of lying while quoting intelligence officers, such as in the 2003 Iraq War. It is likely that the only beneficiary of the hysterical coverage was, in the end, the Russian military.

The main moral difference between Russia's intervention and the US and NATO interventions in various countries is that this conflict zone was close to Russia, and many of those suffering in the crisis area were Russian civilians, whether holding Russian citizenship or not. If the US or UK were in a similar position to Russia's position with Donbass, military intervention against the neighbouring country would be treated as righteous. The normal anti-war criticisms, decrying the government for bombing distant countries to capture oil and failing to bring stability, would be muted because the target country is not distant and the goal is clearly not oil. In addition, Ukraine was already highly unstable due to the US action supporting a violent takeover in 2014.

Arming freedom fighters in Ukraine

NATO's policy toward the crisis in Ukraine is erratic and reactive, and Russia has taken the initiative. The most popular view among Western leaders now seems to be to equip the Ukrainians with weapons, similarly to the effort to arm militants in Syria against Bashar al-Assad, which was essentially a failure and is probably less viable in Ukraine. Comparisons are made to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which the US reacted to by arming militants with Stinger missiles over a long period of time. It is doubtful that this comparison holds. The Russian military is not the Soviet military, being now highly specialised in countering insurgents in Syria. Russia likely has no fear of NATO-equipped militants, because it is already facing them in Syria and expects to face them in any case, whether in the Caucasus or elsewhere. From Russia's point of view, defeating such militants is to be pursued eagerly rather than avoiding them.

What is happening in Ukraine is a conventional war that will likely succeed in subjugating the country, if Russia wants to do that. If NATO wanted to preserve a place for Western influence in Ukraine, it would need to send tanks across the border into the western regions of the country immediately, to provide safe haven for those afraid of pro-Russian reprisals in the aftermath of this conflict. However, most likely, they will instead cling to neoconservative fantasies about aiding freedom fighters and repeating the 1980s struggle in Europe.

In a European country, a forced and inapplicable strategy of armed civilian resistance will only claim civilian lives and alienate people. Ukraine is not tribal. Treating it like Afghanistan will only amount to terrorism, prolonging suffering and death among those who want a decent life, ultimately turning the peaceful population against those staging attacks, in revulsion. Afghans are used to war and hardship, but the more important observation is that they have no choice. Even if we literally transferred all the Taliban to Ukraine, they would flee into the EU rather than wage a brutal insurgency. People's predicament in Afghanistan is due to geographic and cultural isolation, and this doesn't apply in Ukraine. Ukrainians won't resist like the Afghans, even under an occupation. Europeans will welcome refugees with open arms, and they won't volunteer to go back and shoot up their own villages or stage car bombings outside schools.

I believe that if the Afghan resistance model failed in Syria, it has no hope of success in Ukraine. However, if it does succeed, that insurgency will spread all over Europe, with car bombs and assassinations becoming a normal form of politics in European capitals, just as the Afghan wars resulted in such regional instability and terror.

The sum of NATO's arrogance and incompetence

What we have is the combined problem of a West that is too arrogant to follow international law consistently, and now this same West is weak and facing defeat in all its foreign policy gambits. To actually be the guarantor of international peace and security, a country has to both follow its own rules and display some success. The US has failed on both counts, spreading misery and violating international law for decades (my own main reason for distrust of the United States foreign policy), and now becoming craven and trying to use third countries to fight dubious battles, now goading pro-Western Ukrainians to get themselves killed.

The European Union's attempt to impose a liberal monoculture on all member states risks destroying the entire EU project.

Unelected EU authorities, in this case foreign judges at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), have clashed with the parliaments of sovereign states that represent nations comprised of millions of people, threatening them with funding cuts.

Progress forced

Far from "democratic values", what the EU says it wants to impose on Poland and Hungary using funding cuts as a weapon amounts to some specific cultural changes. It is in the hope of changing their stubborn attitudes to LGBT content and immigration, that resistant countries are to undergo this forced conversion to the Euro-liberal ideology. Even if one supports this ideology and considers it to be a fulfilment of social progress, funding cuts seem like an awful way of achieving it.

The EU wants the power to ensure that the next generation in places like Poland are educated and inculcated in such as way that they will share the EU bureaucrats' cultural opinions, and will help stamp out their own local Catholic traditions and values. Without the monolithic liberal monoculture, which the Pope referred to as one-track thinking, the ideological righteousness and uniformity of a superstate can be in jeopardy.

Siege against the majority

What is happening is a basic failure of statecraft that creates significant division in even one country, let alone a confederation of multiple nation states. It is a rejection of the sovereignty of a people, which always leads to the oppression of that people. One cannot impose compliance with a set of cultural norms on a region or nation without oppression, such as as this financial siege the EU now threatens on disobedient countries.

Action by the EU is also unlikely to improve the situation for minorities the EU supposedly wants to make life easier for. They too will be hit by indiscriminate financial punishment of a country. As well as being morally problematic, financial punishment of a country due to the majority sentiment against a minority is folly from a pragmatic point of view. It may only increase acts of hostility by majority against minority, with the latter being now associated with a foreign siege against the nation, thereby having the opposite effect to what the EU hoped, even if the nation eventually yields.

Disregard for sovereignty

The utter disdain for the self-determination of nations, the very basis of democracy, being displayed by the EU is yet another manifestation of a familiar colonial arrogance. This disdain is part of the same mindset that brought Western armies to Afghanistan, only to cause more suffering and problems before falling back in retreat after twenty years of failed vision.

Many people value their national culture and identity more than any economic benefit, which drove Brexit against unheeded warnings of empty shelves and queues. Rather than give in, people in places like Poland should be prepared to endure significant hardship to resist and abandon an imperious confederation

If the Poles eventually decide they have had enough of the EU, they can always look to the seas, learn from Britain, and count on us as a trading partner. In addition, it would not take long for other countries to leave.

Brexit was marketed under the slogan of taking control. However, what is being presented by PM Boris Johnson as the "Brexit Freedoms Bill" is fast coming across as a betrayal of that promise, giving control to ministers and not even to this country's Parliament.

The idea that Parliament might approve something that disempowers their own Houses and robs them of their duty to the British people seems scandalous. Even if you supported Brexit as a means of freedom from foreign authorities in the EU, it is an absolutely good thing that each and every item of EU legislation should remain in force in the UK until debated and struck down by Parliament.

Individual laws should be confronted

When something is in force, and there is no specific demand to remove it, it can be taken to have the tacit approval of the population, a sort of informal contract. To seek powers that suddenly pull the rug from under the feet of the British people, striking down regulation that they may in fact approve of, without giving MPs the chance to intervene on their behalf, is no favour to the British people.

Now that Britain has left the EU, the Conservatives have every right to argue against and strike down specific bits of EU legislation, or even large portions of it, and they should be pleased with that, rather than trying to remove all of it in a single chop. The desire to strike everything down at once is suspicious, especially considering that many environmental protections were enshrined in EU law and mirrored in UK law.

Remainers were right on this

Even as it seeks the authority to strike down EU legislation without debate, the Conservative government is avoiding making the most of Brexit to benefit the people, such as scrapping the minimum five percent VAT on energy bills enforced by the EU. Such behaviour points to a government that exploited genuine wishes for a divorce from the EU, to pursue power-grabbing and greed.

Remainers warned about this moment for a long time, and they were probably right that Conservatives were only in it as a scheme to benefit business interests. Whether or not they want to continue appending comments denigrating the many millions of people who sought Brexit, their point is valid and must be heeded at this stage.

Right now, the British people are not taking control of anything, but helping ministers take control and override Parliament. People voted to leave the EU because they wanted more control over the laws of the land, not less control, so now there is something for Leavers and Remainers to all agree on, provided that they can put aside partisan loyalty.

Although unthinkable from a historical perspective, it is likely that both Catholics and Muslims will become more politically active in Western countries and find common ground.

Inclusivity activists in the West, crusading against all forms of social exclusion or distinction everywhere, have gained more and more influence over government and academia. They are likely to collide, increasingly harshly, with all those who hold tradition dear.

It is only a matter of time before a renewed attempt to destroy the Roman Catholic Church begins to manifest in Western countries, this time facilitated by inclusivity-focused politics. The proponents will also implicitly demand Islam be destroyed, too, although they may try to defeat the Catholics first and dupe Muslims into helping them attack this first target.

Pope senses the problem

Pope Francis has made a number of denunciations to assert a firmer stance by the Roman Catholic Church against forces that may next seek to destroy its foundation. Calls for inclusivity at the expense of doctrine have been explicitly rejected by the Church. LGBT activists' calls have gone unheard. The Pope even reached out to explicitly condemn the EU for trying to diminish Christmas for the sake of inclusive language, showing the Church's frustration with cultural liberal campaigners and their influence.

The Pope has rejected "cancel culture", perhaps in recognition that the vindictiveness of modern-day cultural liberal reformers who topple statues is likely to result in some assault on the Church in the near future. Branding it as "one-track thinking", he stated, "any historical situation must be interpreted in accordance with a hermeneutics of that particular time." With the sleeping giant of the Roman Catholic Church arising to confront cultural liberalism, we may see an ever firmer stance being taken in many communities against it, as formerly quiet people emerge to defend their traditions.

Abrahamic religions to face massive pressure

Many ideas are central and non-negotiable in the three Arbahamic faiths. Catholics hold that men and women are distinct creations, and that there is no changing from one to another. Muslims hold a similar view at present.

There is no way to square Western cultural liberal views about inclusion with Catholic Christianity or Islam, yet Western campaigners and culture warriors have shown they will tolerate nothing encumbering their goal of inclusivity, including cultural and traditional barriers. The goal to rewrite the meaning of man and woman in the interests of inclusivity everywhere will probably mandate an attack on other languages and cultures beyond the West, because what is really intended is to change a concept itself.

Ultimately there will be attempts to rewrite Catholic and Islamic doctrine for the sake of inclusivity, causing a fundamental corruption. This will be unacceptable to both, prompting them to try to build an unmoving wall of social conservatism among voters in democratic countries to block all such change.

Huge social conservative backlash is inevitable

Muslims, while often apolitical or simply supporting the left, as is the case with the UK's Labour Party, are likely to seek out their own social conservative platforms within Western countries as soon as this controversy begins to take real shape. They are likely to find common ground with Christians, if the latter can set aside the absurdity of their islamophobia.

In countries such as the UK, Muslims may concentrate in a few alternative platforms such as the Workers Party of Britain, which espouses social conservatism alongside a number of typically left-wing positions. They will likely abandon all support for the Labour Party in time, especially if it continues to be driven by the likes of Sir Keir Starmer, who is deaf, dumb and blind to all the concerns of Muslims in the UK.

The gaffes of Labour in its failure to maintain Muslims votes were apparent when Starmer suggested a preference for India over the rights of the people of Kashmir, prompting condemnation by Muslims and frantic backpedalling by him. Muslims are unlikely to forget such betrayals or overlook the possible threat of dubious cultural liberalism to Islamic doctrine and life.

The result of all this is that a significant base is forming, not perhaps for George Galloway's idea of a socialism-infused migrant-friendly party but for a more staunch social conservative party with religious principles embedded in its core ideology. If managed properly, such a platform could not only secure the votes of all Muslims in Britain but even secure enough traditionalist Christian votes to become one of the largest parties in the UK. Of course, this is all speculative, and any number of new political forces and agendas could prevent such ties from ever forming.

What of Jews?

Of course, Judaism should be mentioned, too, although I am less informed to comment on this religion. With it being a much smaller religion with less command over any voter base, it will most likely be spared most of the turbulence caused by cultural liberalism, except in Israel itself, where orthodox Jews will face pressure from Israeli liberals.

Because ultra-orthodox Jews have a much higher birth rate, cultural liberal agendas in Israel could be doomed to fail and be reversed simply due to a large number of the population being against such ideas in the future.

As with the exit from the European Union, could Britain exit other major international organisations, in particular NATO?

Exiting NATO is considered unacceptable within British politics, and even the ex-leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn seems to have been pressured to abandon that stance before he had any chance at becoming Prime Minister, which ultimately failed anyway. Most Brits support the Alliance.

The exit process

Discussion about a country leaving NATO has mostly focused on Turkey lately, due to its policy clashes with multiple member states including Greece, France and even the US. It is noted that while the organisation has everything in place for letting countries in, there is no process for expulsion.

The process for exiting NATO voluntarily by a member state seems simple enough. It requires diplomatic correspondence with the United States, followed by a one year transition period. If the UK wanted to leave, it is an easy process.

It should be noted that the organisation's founding document (Article XIII) treats the Alliance as temporary, suggesting a 20-year duration, placing no importance in maintaining it. The Alliance, however, is now maintained by a fandom of unilateralists who see it as a marvellous superhero organisation battling against evil, evidently disappointed with the United Nations, the constraints of international law, or any grasp of reality.

The Leave Movement

The virtues of NATO for security were cited by Leave campaigners during the campaign for Brexit, as a reason the EU wasn't needed for keeping the country safe. Considering this, they aren't likely to take on the cause of exiting NATO now that they are done with the EU. In fact, Leave campaigners claimed they were helping NATO by undermining the EU, seen as a rival institution in European defence.

The Eurosceptic movement was originally not taken very seriously by opponents in the UK, but support grew, and it drew very prominent politicians who were able to attract even more interest in it. Those who want to exit NATO are not taken seriously now, but someone similar to Nigel Farage might hypothetically be able to pull it off. We know of Farage's alignment with Donald Trump, who is a sceptic of NATO, but Farage himself is a certainly a NATO fan.

However, the question remains: why exit NATO? There were numerous complaints about the EU negatively affecting people in Britain, that could be spun into a narrative of the country being subverted and undermined by a foreign yoke. This helped to stimulate Brexit. However, there is no such tale be told about NATO. We maintain a nuclear arsenal as a country and are a major military player and ally of the US. Simply exiting NATO would not affect those stances or make us less of a target for a hypothetical aggressor, and in fact may make us more vulnerable, because NATO membership could be helping to deter some forms of attack.

No point

The main thing to consider about another Brexit, this time from NATO, is that there is no point. There are significant perks of membership, no consequences or expulsion process for failing to meet one's commitments, and less spending on defence is necessary when compared to being an independent military power.

A country should remain within NATO even if it regards the alliance with scorn and has no intentions of coming to anyone's aid. Everything is on offer that could encourage you to stay, even if you don't want to.

The core of NATO

In the case of Britain, no political conversation needs to be had about NATO. The very nucleus of NATO is the coalition, or Special Relationship, of our country with America. That's really how NATO started.

One could withdraw from NATO as a snub to Atlanticists and pro-American warmongers within British politics, but why? They would not be going anywhere. Their lifelong cradling and nursing of Americans and love of their culture would not be forgotten by these idolaters, if they simply walk out of the NATO door. If anything, we would see even more aggressive stances taken in support of American foreign policy, and without a formal framework to create some restraint, by those who worship the Americans.

The only way to break it

The British-American alliance exists independently of NATO and is reinforced by extensive cooperation between both countries' armed forces. In addition, the cultural and linguistic connection is essential to the Special Relationship. The foreign policy thought and practice of the two countries are entirely intertwined and inseparable, with British diplomats and jurists more devoted to justifying American actions than their own.

To break these things would be a multigenerational process, but it could be inevitable. An increasing and potentially politically decisive Muslim minority in Britain is likely to favour disengagement from aggressive American foreign policy, considering the catastrophe it brought their fellow Muslims.

Absent the long way described above, there are only two ways the British-American coalition could be eliminated quickly: (1) a major historic dispute or incident making the British realise the Americans are traitorous, offensive and unworthy as allies and resulting in numerous condemnations being uttered by British politicians, and (2) the final depreciation and end of the British Armed Forces (possibly aided by Scottish independence or further breakup of the UK) at which point the Americans themselves no longer call on us to aid them or find us to be worthy allies.

How to be an anti-NATO Brit

NATO is inessential and possibly results in a confused course, steering British military power away from the country's national interests and into unnecessary conflicts started by Americans. It diminishes Britain's interest in the welfare of the Commonwealth of Nations, where we have actual moral debts, cultural ties, and civilisational commitments. There are valid reasons to abandon the Atlanticist obsession.

As valid as the above criticism of NATO may be, it is never a good idea to just swim against the tide of popular opinion, no matter how dull or foolish such opinion may seem. One must instead only give lacklustre support to NATO, and show a lack of enthusiasm towards it.

The best role one can take as an opponent of what NATO represents in the UK, whether simply trying to convince people or seeking political office, would be to mention NATO as a good and stable thing when talking of foreign policy. Mentioning continued NATO commitments is an effective way of throwing a bone to the Atlanticists without actually doing anything.

Membership of NATO can be cited when trying to cut defence spending, as well, since we can point to collective defence and the many buffer states between us and any adversary. One might consider asking the Americans to reform NATO. We could request to reduce the 2% of GDP required to go to defence, asking instead to spend 1% due our lack of proximity to an adversary, and see how the US deals with that. Or we could just reduce spending anyway, since the organisation has no expulsion process or sanctions mechanism to punish the UK with. The UK has no adjacent adversary and is surrounded by allies or neutral parties, making internal policing far more important than force projection abroad.

Every now and then, I see or hear some opinion about how bad the country's decision to leave the EU (the EU exit, or more fashionably, Brexit), was.

The pandemic has limited cross-borders travel and overshadowed any economic fallout caused by Brexit, although leaving the EU was a shakier economic path to take than staying. There was little to be gained economically by leaving the EU, at least in the short term.

Were Britain to benefit more from bilateral trade and the markets of the Commonwealth following the exit, such gains might eventually offset the losses caused by Brexit. However, the diminished and less seamless movement of goods and workers through Europe will always be a loss to the economy.

Brexit is no way to "make Britain great again"

Some may have seen Brexit as a way to "make Britain great again" - "Global Britain", to use the term favoured by Foreign Secretary Liz Truss. However, such days are long gone. Were Britain to attempt anything like that empire again, it would only be a farce this time rather than a repetition of tragedy, to paraphrase Karl Marx.

Economic concerns over Brexit failed to move those who voted to leave the EU, and it is not difficult to see why. Economic issues are only prominent in the headlines because the newspapers and news networks are owned by the rich, who stand to lose a lot.

Most people don't notice economic issues or care

News headlines almost always say more about the concerns of the small minority writing them, than about the interests of the common people.

For the proletarian majority, economic growth and the rise of the country on an chart of performance means quite little. They still exist in a state of wage slavery that only gets them through the day, and each day is much the same, regardless of the economic performance of the company or country.

The majority of people would not even agree that anything was wrong with the economy unless the country ran out of food and petrol or the prices skyrocketed until they were unaffordable. Nothing like that is going to happen. The supply lines for anything vital are unthreatened. This much is obvious to anyone, as no politician dependent on votes could tolerate the contrary.

We know from the population's acquiescence to Covid rules, that the majority are able to do just fine not even having any foreign holidays, and in fact many can't afford them anyway. They are okay with restrictions even on how and when to shop, and these things are worse than anything that could have been caused by Brexit.

Life is the same to most people, regardless of proclamations about the country's international standing or economic performance in the news. Some average joes may try to talk or tweet about these issues, but such is more an attempt to sound clever with their peers rather than any reflection of it actually affecting them in any way.

By and large, most people who voted for Brexit have shrugged off the economic warnings with good reason and are not bothered. They are completely unaffected, there is still food on the shelves and fuel in their cars.

Brits rejected Europe as a national identity

So, the talk of economic opportunities gained and lost through Brexit is irrelevant to the real feelings that likely motivated both sides when they cast their votes on the matter back in 2016. Brexit was more an issue of identity than performance on economic charts.

The European Union increasingly presents itself as a single nation, with a common foreign policy, and it is presented as the big boss on all matters social and economic. There is now a unified liberal "European" culture and values, which for some reason resemble the United States more than anything that was fought for by European people.

Bear in mind that many European countries carry crosses on their flags and have state religions, whereas the European Union is secular and carries stars on its flag. These icons of secular liberalism are the features of the United States, not Europe. The United States, which is distinctly non-European and was founded to reject the model of the states of Europe, but first and foremost to reject Britain and everything it represented.

It seems as if the EU is tone-deaf about identity and the sensibilities of the member countries, and has no historical roots in anything. Its very flag and values are like American graffiti. The term "United States of Europe" describes, really, what the EU is: the uneducated scheme of the witless Americanophiles whose father figures were the GIs who liberated their countries in World War Two.

In addition to the fact the EU fails to properly represent anything authentically European, and instead looks American, "Europeanness" even as an authentic ethnicity is rejected by the British. This schism dates all the way back to the reign of Elizabeth I, who set England on a path away from Catholicism at the time, causing the country's isolation from Catholic Europe.

In fact, Britain's original excommunication (or Brexcommunication?) from the Holy Mother Church resembled Brexit, including the search for alternate trade deals outside of Europe. No doubt, the British heretics were condemned then by their opponents at home and abroad to hell, as they are once again.

Shadows of the threat of Europe

While sectarian doctrinal differences are no longer of any importance to the matter, Britain's schism with European civilisation is still real, written into the country's history in blood.

Geopolitical anxieties are not limited to rulers and people who read Horrible Histories. They are very much present in the cultural and collective memory of a country. The British know the French were their enemies for a long time, and the memory of Germany occupying Europe only across the English Channel is known to them all. With this psychological aspect, European encroachment, even supposedly for our own good, is not welcome for many.

And Europe is significantly larger than Britain. When a larger power absorbs a smaller one, what is there to gain for the smaller power? What guarantees can there be that this empire won't devour the country, as its predecessors would have done?

When a hostile power has continuously manifested in the same place, even the least informed peasant in any land will become almost prescient about it. The memory of the geopolitical enemy gets under their skin if any similar power begins to assemble in that same place where the foreign threats arise.

Environmentalism is set to replace the discredited ideas of missionary democracy and militant Christianity as the basis of the next crusades, massacres and wars conducted by the West.

In fact, Russia's UN delegation recently saw through this Grim Reaper's first disguise attempt and sniped it at the UN.

Although it has built up a gentle liberal reputation in recent decades, Europe's history is filled with colonialist patronisation, conquest and bloodlust against its own economic periphery and less developed countries. This is likely to return, under new ideological guises, as it did before.

Utopias and messianic violence

It is not unheard of for pacifistic and revolutionary ideas, like those of Green parties, to be hijacked by militarists and employed to develop messianic reasoning for organised violence. Although this will come to the disgust of many Greens, who are resolutely against war and waste, it is already happening in Germany.

In Germany, the Greens are ascending as some of the biggest zealots of confrontation with Russia. They have even compromised their own core values for this, favouring the environmentally harmful liquefied natural gas (LNG) derived from fracking in the US and transported in polluting ships as an alternative to cheap natural gas from Russia.

In time, Green ideology's youth and optimism will fade. As environmentalist activists' faces wither with time, their beliefs will similarly degrade into a familiar foolish crusade against some countries, increasing war and waste across the world.

America to be discredited as Europe takes over

Next in line to the throne of the liberal order, which has conducted the deadliest crusades of this century, is the European Union. It has often championed the protection of the environment, making this the perfect ideology for it to cite when employing force and seeking mastery over others.

The United States, in comparison with Europe, is losing credibility and many are turning away from its ideals, including itself. Its focus on China, in addition to its own internal divides, are likely to take it out of the game in Europe at some point in the future.

France can already sense the decay of the American military mandate in Europe, and is seeking a more powerful unified EU military instead. President Macron has referred to the US-led NATO alliance as "braindead", and has been hesitant to support it in the confrontations with Moscow.

From the Cross to the Climate

Crusades need justifications. They need images to inspire zealots to take up arms and make sacrifices. Sometimes, these images are even fact-based, such as the oppression of the proletariat or the pollution of the atmosphere, but they are wrongly used to justify atrocities.

There is valid reason to fear that the fact-based plea to stop manmade climate change will eventually morph into a new urgent justification to bomb poorer countries and change regimes. Certainly, many of the likely candidates to be bombed again, from the familiar Iraq to Iran, rely on selling fossil fuels.

Despite their current desire to be friendly, Europeans conducted the worst massacres in history. It is when given a sense of irrefutable righteousness that these crusaders and Teutonic Knights take up the sword. There is ample reason to suspect Europe will take this dark path again, under a new pretext.

What better way for bureaucrats to prove their strength than to poke a bear and see what happens? Surely, an angry bear with its back to the wall, cornered in its own den, is the best one to safely poke as it can do nothing?

NATO's defiance of Russian pleas to avoid further expansion are making Russia feel cornered. While this may cause some in the West to gloat over Russia because NATO is growing seemingly invincible, a Russian reaction could be serious.

Should Georgia and Ukraine join NATO?

NATO candidates Georgia and Ukraine have ongoing territorial disputes and Russian troops within their internationally recognised borders (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea), motivating their desire to get NATO membership so the alliance can kick the Russians out. If they join, Russia and NATO will be claiming the same territories as their responsibility. Adding these countries to NATO would lead to regular NATO encounters with Russian civilians and soldiers while Russia's entire armed forces watch from nearby. Russia already complained of NATO's near misses with Russian civilian aircraft and vessels. This could mean an extremely grave and perilous situation that might delegate more and more responsibility for keeping the peace to frontline soldiers and even civilians, removing it from the politicians who created the situation.

Is it good for NATO if airline pilots and merchant captains are responsible for preventing World War Three? Does this make the alliance more powerful, or a step closer to the Stone Age?

Russia is now spoken of dismissively in the press and among leaders, as some minor threat that can be eliminated by sending a few rocket artillery to Ukraine or imposing some financial penalty. Russia, meanwhile, believes the stakes are extremely high and that its national security is in jeopardy.

The encroachment of NATO close to Russia does not create any possibility of interdicting Russian missiles and making the West safe from Russia. In fact, it may crowd the Russian border with missiles threatening both sides and increase the likelihood of a Russian first strike because the stakes are higher for them now.

NATO suggestions about countering Russian nuclear weapons in Europe without nuclear weapons are perplexing. If true, this would put NATO at a significant disadvantage to Russia. The Russians express a lack of trust, meaning they think NATO is lying or is itself deceived.

An accidental nuclear war on the horizon?

If NATO is lying about whether nuclear weapons will be sent to the Russian border, we're in trouble. The Russians being unaware of the types and yields of the weapons being deployed against them could cause an accidental nuclear war, since they won't know this type of weapon is in the area. For Russia to even think NATO is lying entails the same problem.

In fact, being dishonest may be incompatible with NATO's entire mission as an openly declared alliance, making it unable to achieve deterrence. If NATO is dishonest, then the adversary cannot even perceive what it is doing, much less be deterred by it.

This was the problem with the alliances of World War One, whose secrecy made them ineffective at preventing a world war. NATO was meant to be an alternative to this, a clearly defined alliance with its own flag.

NATO troops on Russia border are paralysed by escalation risk

Russia officially reserves the right to a first strike if its statehood is threatened, which could even be short of an actual attack on its territory, if the enemy is at the gates. In a border conflict, Russia would be very resolute about removing an enemy force they say is menacing their civilians, just as the UK or America would be.

Finally, what NATO risks doing if there are tensions at the Russian border is placing soldiers who aren't even authorised to shoot in the direction of their opponent if they take fire. An attack on Russian soil is out of the question, to avoid the risk of escalation into a full nuclear war. This will paralyse NATO troops' ability to do anything, while the Russians have permission to do as they please.

So, what starts like a brilliant plan to corner the bear could instead just end up tying the hands of NATO troops so this bear can eat them.

This is a short explanation of what is happening in Ukraine, looking at the country's conflict from a neutral perspective. The war in Ukraine originated in a political crisis in 2014 and has sometimes shown signs that it will become very intense and violent.

The pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych was deposed through the Euromaidan street protests in 2014. Following this, pro-Russian elements of the population in the country's east and Crimea rebelled against the new pro-European Union administration.

Russian troops sneaked into Ukraine during the crisis in 2014, taking over Crimea and assisting armed rebellion in the east of Ukraine. Crimea was subsequently declared as part of Russia following a referendum rejected by Western countries, creating an intense standoff that lasts to this day.

False alarms

Fortunately, each time the conflict looked like it would result in a full-scale clash with Russia, the situation quickly calmed down. It happened earlier this year, already. In April, alarm was raised over a Russian build-up in preparation to invade Ukraine. The Russian troops withdrew, and it turned out to be a false alarm.

By November, we began to hear reports of Russia building up troops to invade Ukraine once again. These reports have continued as we entered December and so far there is no report of any withdrawal of troops.

What is really happening in Ukraine is that the country wishes to restore complete control over its territory. It states this as its goal, referring to the Russian-claimed Crimean Peninsula as temporarily occupied and claiming it will retake the Peninsula by force in the future, although this is just grandstanding.

Russia is against the Ukrainian government going on the offensive in the eastern zones and most likely has objectives limited to protecting that area, deriving popular support due to the high Russian-speaking population there. Russia. whether cynical or sincere about it, most likely assesses that an eventual Ukrainian offensive will cause a lot of civilian deaths. If a certain threshold is reached, it can launch its own large-scale attack on Ukrainian troops and present it as a limited response aiming to protect civilians.

Some may see the US as being behind the escalation in Ukraine, but this is unlikely (barring their involvement in the original events of 2014). The US is heavily focused on China. Being distracted by a major conflict in Europe would put an end to the attempted pivot to Asia. Lifting of targeted sanctions to allow US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland to visit Moscow may represent one of the attempts to somewhat mend ties as the US tries to form alliances against China.

The most likely outcome is that the US will convince Ukraine to stand down, following which the Russians will also stand down. The same happened back in April.

Russia's secret plans for Ukraine

A Russian attack could begin with vague objectives in eastern Ukraine but could secretly be entirely open-ended, allowing their military to accomplish anything it deems possible, including the total occupation of Ukraine. Although this could not be a Russian goal in 2014, it now may be one of their goals.

NATO suggestions about moving nuclear weapons into Europe, potentially to the Russian border, alarmed Moscow. They most likely demand a very heavy response from the Russian side and there is already the offer by Belarus to host Russian nukes in response. The Russian military may have demanded access to Ukrainian territory so nuclear weapons can be stationed there in response to NATO.

Although NATO nuclear deployments were denied by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, it could be too late as the perception now exists that NATO wants nukes close to Russia. NATO failed to keep its plans secret: it wants nuclear strike capability close enough to Moscow to deny Russia the chance to retaliate. If Russia is going to respond to this, Ukraine has no hope.

Ukraine should not attempt to restore its control over the eastern parts of the country or Crimea. It especially should not offer to host US missile defences or nuclear weapons. Such actions would trigger Russian intervention and Russia would be able to enact its own plans for Ukraine.

Russia may choose to enact its plans anyway, feeling compelled to respond to the NATO nuclear weapons that could otherwise be positioned at its border. The decision may have already been made to secure launch sites in Ukraine at all costs.

During the course of any Russian intervention, Russian troops could get very close to Ukraine's capital city, Kiev. They could suddenly decide to decapitate the Ukrainian government in such a conflict, even if it was not their original plan.

The reality is that Ukraine is much weaker than Russia and cannot count on NATO support. The best thing for both sides to do would be to maintain the status quo, not start any offensive, and wait to see if changes of government in Kiev and Moscow in future result in better relations.

Social networking websites and apps aim to manage almost every aspect of your life, curtail your access to information and take responsibility for your safety. In this regard, they are replacing government authority with their own. But when it comes to a clash with states, can they win?

As some background, Russian President Vladimir Putin allegedly said at this year's Valdai forum that social media companies had attempted to take on some form of state-like authority and displace the state itself in this regard, and that they had failed. The remarks are quoted by Russian broadcaster RT.

Unfortunately, the source linked by RT is a more than three hour-long video with an English translation in which Putin does not seem to make the alleged remarks, so it is hard to tell what exactly he meant.

If the RT quote was valid, Putin may have said large tech companies tried to assume some roles traditionally held by governments, and the attempts were "fleeting". He would have claimed, "in the US, the owners of these platforms were taken down a peg or two as it was in Europe as well," with some clarity added that this was due to "anti-monopolisation measures".

So, what did Putin mean?

Antitrust laws

The European Union currently has the Digital Markets Act (DMA) on the cards, which apparently will prevent a tech company from trapping users in an operating system or bundle of apps that solely favours its own services (and by extension news feeds) over any other firm's. It also apparently hopes to make sure users can uninstall pre-installed apps, which presumably means preventing US digital giants from forcing European users to use their apps and look at their news feeds.

Antitrust lawsuits have already targeted large tech companies in the US and Australia, with Amazon and Apple often being in focus. Facebook has also had a hard time in Australia, where the government sought for Facebook to pay news outlets for their content and Facebook attempted to push back against the government with help from Alphabet (who own Google), by carrying out a news blackout. Back at the start of the year, the push from Facebook failed to deter the Australian government and in fact other governments took Australia's side.

Subduing African governments?

Social media companies are uniquely confrontational towards governments, lately seeing themselves as authorities on par with some governments. Silicon Valley-based corporations like Twitter certainly see themselves as more reliable and legitimate authorities than African governments, as can be seen from their enforcement actions targeting government accounts in Uganda and Ethiopia.

Twitter's removal of government communications because they promoted violence is an attempt to de-recognise a state, because the monopoly on the legal use of violence is a defining aspect of a state. It is also an ineffective and failed usurpation of the state's responsibilities, since a state can still commit or allow violence whether Twitter deletes posts about it or not.

Victory over Trump?

Some might consider the banning of Trump to be a victory of social media over the US state, but in reality Trump was always an outsider to the US state and it was the US state that defeated Trump. The other branches of the US government certainly hated Trump, as did a majority of lawmakers. The spectre of these state figures cracking down after the evident electoral defeat of Trump was the factor most responsible for compelling organisations like Twitter and Facebook to kick Trump off social media.

The behaviour of social networks certainly suggests they have or had a willingness to compel governments to do their bidding, yet they have been ineffective. The actions of Twitter in Africa have simply resulted in bans targeting the website. Governments have shown they are willing and capable of pushing back against what are really just weak outfits. Social networks can be forcibly broken up due to laws, taken offline or bankrupted by fines at any moment the state truly loses patience with them.

States as continuous victors

Whether or not Putin was actually making comments like the above or sought to discuss the above developments, I do not know. However, the reported observation that social networks are losing their battle with states is valid. There have been plenty of times when new media, organisations and other actors created upheaval in the internal and international order, but they are ultimately crushed under the tank-treads of whoever wields the real power. At this moment, that still means nation-states.

It has been called the weaponisation of migrants. But, with the Poles more culturally averse to migration than their western allies, it may be better described as part of the EU's own internal split.

The EU Civil War

The EU is divided. In the east, we have more conservative states such as Poland and Hungary. In the west, there are those liberal-leaning, more (so-called) advanced democracies in Western Europe. The members of the eastern flank of the EU (and by extension NATO) see migrants as hostile objects. The migrants are weapons - like guns flying into a country to shoot people and cause chaos. The other, frankly more important EU states do not see migrants this way but rather as a way to reinvigorate their economy with fresh workers - more like shovels than guns - who don't need 18 years to be constructed before being used.

Although the leading NATO states (now including the US) have overwhelmingly condemned Belarus for letting migrants cross their border to Poland, it is inconsistent with their own positive view of migrants. Their insincere condemnation is really just an extension of their disdain for the current Belarusian leader Lukashenko, whose political opponents have been explicitly endorsed by Western powers and unilaterally recognised as the country's new regime by at least Lithuania.

Are migrants weapons?

Mindless NATO chants for Belarus to stop its supposed weaponisation of migrants, portraying migrants as agents of foreign harm rather than people, will only work for as long as civil society organisations such as humanitarian NGOs are not involved or on the scene. It is easy enough for governments to make propaganda-like statements about the vague evils of their opponents and use warlike language while no-one else is present at the scene of the controversy, but the liberal civil society of the West will likely side against Poland for its anti-immigration views.

Despite attempts to call on Belarus to take responsibility for the refugees, no expert of migration would tell you that the migrants are trying to stay in Belarus. The destination of the migrants, as in every other similar case, is the European Union. To claim Belarus is somehow the party abusing the rights of the migrants by letting them gather on the border to the EU, their destination, is absurd. They are gathering there because they know the EU will let them in, and it will. The decision to delay and potentially expose the migrants to an approaching deadly winter will be the EU's decision.

The EU's problem is still its own problem, even if 'Putin did it'

Even if Belarus and Russia are conspiring to create the cultural rift between the eastern and western EU sooner than it would otherwise happen, it is still inevitable. If Belarus was not aiding migration through its border to Poland, the migration would eventually just come from somewhere else and the same controversy would happen, with the Polish government receiving all the condemnation from its allies.

Blaming Lukashenko or Putin for painful problems in the innards of the West itself does not do anything to alleviate them. Problems still exist and have to be dealt with, even if they are the result of foreign mischief or trickery. The same lesson must be learned in America, where the claim that Trump voters were simply tricked by Russia sounds patronising and does nothing to change their radicalised minds or address why so many of them were attracted to extremist views in the first place. Sooner or later, Western alliances have to deal with their internal tensions rather than calling the name of a foreign country in the belief this magically moves their problem elsewhere.

Remember who destroyed the homelands of refugees?

Finally, we must remember who created the migrant flows. These are the result of chaos that needed not be created. The United States and allies did not need need to impose their liberal democratic ideology using sanctions, aerial bombardment and other means of force against countries in the Middle East, to the point of neglecting human life and living standards. Poland was a huge offender in this, zealously following America into Iraq in 2003, supporting every reckless military adventure by every American administration in the hope America will return the favour one day (spoiler: it won't).

Poland helped to create the instability, chaos and destroyed infrastructure that migrants are fleeing from in the Middle East. If it does not welcome the consequences of American foreign policy, much as it does not welcome the prevalent liberal ideology and civil society at the heart of NATO and the EU, it should rethink its relationship with its allies.

Pages