Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Upcoming G8 Forum And The Objectives Behind The Looming Great War

Una serie di ipotesi da valutare.
Molte di esse, a mio parere, forniscono una spiegazione coerente ai 
movimenti in corso.
 
--------------------------------------------------------
Upcoming G8 Forum And The Objectives Behind The Looming Great War
 
Viktor Burbaki | Saturday, May 12, 2012, 0:05 Beijing
 
The dynamics unraveling within the world system and driving deep 
transformations of the existing center-semi-periphery-periphery layout 
is prone with a proliferation of serious armed conflicts. The world is 
entering a transition epoch during which a big war over natural 
resources and spheres of influence, along with a series of preceding 
regional conflicts, become a virtually inescapable scenario.
 
This big war is looming on the horizon as the US is readying the scene 
for it in the Middle East. Far too many forces seem convinced that the 
war has to be the solution of choice to the lingering global crisis.
 
In the meantime, watchers are trying to discern the objectives behind 
the brewing conflict. The first part of the agenda is not deeply hidden- 
the war should.
 
• help switch the attention of the Western population from the crisis to 
the fight against a “global enemy”;
• create conditions for writing off the sky-high sovereign debts;
• stop the US slide towards a new great depression, revitalize the 
country’s economy and give it a fresh start;
• re-institute the US leadership within the world system;
• perpetuate the existing financial order based on the broadly 
interpreted Washington consensus and the status of the US Federal 
Reserve as the global money-printing factory.
 
The same agenda, however, includes a taboo part – the plan is supposed 
to guarantee the survival of Israel which retains the occupied 
Palestinian territories and can only exist in the settings of permanent 
confrontation with its neighbors, provided that the West unwaveringly 
supports it and the Israeli military superiority in the region continues 
into the future.
 
So far, Israel has had a potential to crash practically any coalition of 
Arab countries, while its regional nuclear-arms monopoly serves Tel Aviv 
both as a means of containment and a safeguard in case an armed conflict 
does erupt and takes an unexpected turn. Israel absent the enemies 
surrounding it – a small state with no natural resources on premises – 
is a picture impossible to imagine.
 
The reason why these days Israel desperately needs a great war are:
• a military triumph would confirm Israel’s high global status;
• the outbreak of war would make it impossible for the crisis-ridden 
West, especially for the US, the country accounting for 22% of Israel’s 
foreign trade and known to pour an extra $3.71b into it in direct aid, 
to terminate or to considerably reduce support for Israel. It is worth 
mentioning in the context that Germany paid the last portion of 
compensations to Israel for World War II crimes in 2011. Under normal 
conditions, propping up Israel alone may seem too heavy a burden for the US;
• the war would put an end to Iran’s nuclear program and spare Israel 
any potential regional rivalry in the nuclear arms sphere.
 
The third and, arguably, the top secret part of the big war agenda is 
the rebuilding of the global colonial system.
 
Classic colonialism dominated the world for over five centuries and was 
partially pushed off the global stage only in the second half of the XX 
century when the USSR established itself as a world power. At the 
moment, one gets an impression that, due to the logic of the Western 
economic development, the brief post-colonial interregnum is nearing the 
end.
 
Under pressure from competitors, the Western economic system is 
sustainable only as long as it can draw additional resources from the 
outside. It’s stability takes the existence of a subordinate periphery 
supplying the world system core at affordable costs.
 
The recent developments – from the seizure of Iraq and Afghanistan to 
the rape of Libya and the spill of the Arab Spring – leave no doubt that 
the world system periphery faces a new round of colonial conquests.
 
The geopolitical process is likely imminent since a power capable of 
mounting serious opposition to it is completely missing in today’s 
world, and the only aspect of the situation that currently remains 
unclear is whether the revival of colonialism will follow a bipolar 
pattern, with the US and the EU securing a grip on the rest of the 
world, or some sort of an alternative colonization model is going to emerge.
 
The world subject to a new wave of colonization will see a sweeping 
re-codification of the international law and a full scale-demise of its 
former Yalta-Potsdam framework. The transformation will include a 
definitive departure from the underlying principles of the UN charter, 
the elimination, on an institutional level, of the permanent UN Security 
Council membership, and radical adjustments to the notion that sovereign 
countries should be treated as equal partners in international politics.
 
In a not-so-distant future, occupation and colonization – if perpetrated 
in the confines of “recognized” spheres of influence – will be 
legitimized as substitutes for self-determination and sovereign nations’ 
rights to stay insulated from meddling.
 
The West is already restoring the two-level format of the international 
relations which allows complete sovereignty exclusively to the countries 
belonging to the world system core and leaving the periphery with 
strictly the amount of decision-making freedom transnational 
corporations can painlessly tolerate.
 
Z. Brzezinski expressed with utmost clarity the view that the pillars of 
the new (colonial) order should be the Greater West (the US and the EU) 
and the Greater East (Japan, India, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia), meaning 
that no role is awarded to Russia in the future global politics.
 
Even at present, for example, open talk about imposing international 
control on Siberia is no cause for embarrassment, and it will take 
little time before the concept surfaces that the contemporary Russia is 
the successor to the Russian empire which, in 1884, signed the 
convention which called for the “efficient occupation” of countries 
evidently unprepared to handle their own assets.
 
It may happen sooner than anyone can expect that the “efficient 
occupation” gets a line in the adopted international code of conduct and 
Russia is confronted with the threat of seeing its right to its natural 
riches revoked.
 
NATO is an existing and successfully tested instrument of the new 
colonization. The alliance’s fresh strategic concept sealed in Lisbon in 
2010 states in a thinly veiled form that maintaining the structure of 
the world system comprising the core and the periphery as necessary for 
the Western world’s well-being must be a part of the NATO mission.
 
The above is the quintessential aspect of the new vision for NATO: the 
group of Western heavyweights is bracing for new crusades which have 
always been economically motivated, and the world’s regions supplying 
commodities will imminently come under military pressure.
 
At the moment, the West cannot coexist with countries combining 
ownership of extensive natural resources with geopolitical might. The 
West may go on pretending to be unaware of the nuclear arsenals of 
Israel or Pakistan, a country with chronically poor governance that 
can’t or doesn’t try too hard to throw out the Talibs, but the spotlight 
sticks to the energy-rich Iran with its claims to regional leadership, 
even though the country is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Treaty.
 
By all means, Iran’s nuclear program is nothing more than a casus belli 
– even with no trace of interest in nuclear technologies, the country 
would still be in big trouble. Moscow should, in the meantime, keep in 
mind that it is destined to be the next target after Tehran as the same 
Brzezinski said that in the XXI century the US would develop against 
Russia, at the expense of Russia, and on the ruins of Russia.
 
Among other objectives, the big war planners obviously hope to prevent 
the rise of the Eurasian union. It is clear that their global design 
implies distributing the resources contained in the post-Soviet space 
among the Great West and the Great East, and the point of the current 
projects like Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to the Urals is to 
integrate Russia into the Western world while amputating its Siberian part.
 
Russia will have to endure plenty of arm-twisting at the upcoming G8 
forum in Camp David supposed to coerce it into giving up the support for 
Syria and Iran and the Eurasian initiatives, as well as to make Moscow 
subject its tactic nuclear weapons stockpile to deep cuts.
 
Russia will be offered some perks in return, but cannot rely on China’s 
standing by it, since the Russian comeback exposes China to unwelcome 
competition in Eurasia.
 
The lesson stemming from the entire history of the relations between 
Russia and the West is that Moscow’s beliefs in the possibility of a 
partnership with it eventually prove to be illusions. Similarly, the 
history of big wars convincingly demonstrates that the benefits are 
typically ripped by the countries which are the last to step in.
 
The approach clearly guarantees the wise a place in the ranks of 
winners. B. Borisov was absolutely right when he wrote in 2009 in his 
Damned World: “The creation of a geopolitical configuration akin to the 
Eurasian union that would make it possible – thanks to the aggregation 
of coalition might to the formation of buffer zones – to delay Russia’s 
direct entry into the war (which will not necessarily span the 
metropolitan territory) should be regarded as a priority in Moscow.
 
Essentially, Russia’s dilemma is to choose between putting together a 
bloc right now, while there’s still some freedom of maneuver, or doing 
the same under the pressing circumstances of combat.
 
It must be taken into account immediately that the opportunities to 
reshape the political landscape on the territories and adjacent to the 
Russian borders – as it was done in the wake of the recent conflict with 
Georgia – are evaporating day by day”.
 
Speaking of the reasons why Russia must not slash its tactical nuclear 
weapons, one can overlook the fact that for the country, which risks to 
be the weak side in the coming war, those may be an efficient instrument 
of damping that conflict at its early phase. Lacking the tactic 
component of the nuclear warfare, Russia will have to either capitulate 
or opt for an all-out nuclear nightmare.
 
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/05/12/upcoming-g8-forum-and-the-objectives-behind-the-looming-great-war/
 
-- 
Sostieni Rete ECO
 
http://rete-eco.it/it/sostienici.html
 
 

 control on Siberia is no cause for embarrassment
 
davvero? DOve, per esempio?