L’isteria crescente delle classi dominanti – e dei mass media da essi finanziati – ormai buttano tutto nel calderone del “nemico interno”: agenti russi, cittadini pagati dai russi, ingerenze islamiche e, ovviamente, i partiti della sinistra e i comunisti.

Segue nostro Telegram.

E’ stato sufficiente che l’edizione di giovedi del giornale Politico.eu scrivesse qualche riga per mettere in moto una valanga, rivelando che l’Unione Europea ritiene di trovarsi di fronte all’escalation delle operazioni ibride russe e che si sta preparando all’eventualità che, prima o poi, queste azioni provochino delle vittime in Paesi Ue o Nato. Insomma quasi un auspicio che da qualche parte ci scappi il morto da poter strumentalizzare ai fini della propaganda di guerra, sia sul fronte esterno che sul fronte interno.

Si tratta di uno scenario che in Italia abbiamo purtroppo visto e subìto spesso: dalla strage di Piazza Fontana in poi. Su questo, nostro malgrado, potremmo tenere delle lectio magistralis a tutti gli altri paesi europei che non hanno sperimentato tragedie e orrori analoghi

Il giornale Politico.eu riferisce di una riunione di diplomatici della Ue a porte chiuse, senza telefonini e senza assistenti ha valutato il rischio di attacchi gravi, “capaci di provocare vittime su larga scala”. Due fonti diplomatiche hanno confermato a Politico che una riunione degli ambasciatori presso l’Ue, svoltasi mercoledì scorso, ha riguardato proprio questo tipo di scenario.

Per una fonte diplomatica citata dal sito, “data la portata e la vastità dell’azione russa, è inevitabile che prima o poi vi siano delle vittime. È pura fortuna che non ce ne siano ancora state”.

“È abbastanza ovvio che, quando la Russia utilizza strumenti sempre più letali per mettere alla prova la nostra preparazione e la nostra volontà di adottare contromisure, a un certo punto ci saranno delle vittime”, ha dichiarato a Politico la finlandese Teija Tiilikainen, direttore del Centro europeo di eccellenza per il contrasto alle minacce ibride. “Prima o poi, intenzionalmente o meno, questo è ciò che accade”.

Se diversi cittadini di Paesi membri dell’UE o della NATO venissero uccisi in quello che sembra essere un attacco, la pressione ad agire sarebbe enorme per entrambe le istituzioni. “Temiamo fortemente che a un certo punto venga tolta la vita a un nostro alleato”, ha affermato un diplomatico della NATO, il che renderebbe la pressione ad agire “molto alta”, riporta ancora Politico.eu.

Ma l’isteria ormai è talmente dilagante che alcuni Paesi membri della Ue, ritengono che debba essere la Nato e non l’Unione Europea la sede opportuna per trattare di questi argomenti e delle possibili soluzioni, soprattutto perché le riunioni della Ue sarebbero troppo “porose” per la fuga di notizie o di informazioni sensibili.

A rendere il tutto ancora più strumentalizzabile ai fini della mera propaganda di guerra esterna ed interna in Europa, vi è anche il tentativo di leggere le proteste giovanili e popolari in Francia come eterodirette o articolazioni di progetti di destabilizzazione. E in questo gioco sporco tutto fa brodo, dalla guerra ibrida della Russia alle ambizioni dell’islam politico.

“Quello che sta accadendo in Francia non è altro che immigrazione di massa fuori controllo“, ha scritto Donald Trump il 6 ottobre sul suo social Truth riferendosi agli scontri e alle manifestazioni che stanno attraversando la Francia. Per il presidente americano “non si tratta delle scuole”, ma dell’”Islam che vuole prendere il controllo di un Paese un tempo grande“.

A fargli eco è subito arrivato l’eurodeputato lepenista Fabrice Leggeri, esponente del gruppo della destra dei Patrioti al Parlamento di Strasburgo, secondo il quale “sulle proteste in Francia Trump non ha del tutto torto”. Perché, ha affermato durante un punto stampa al Parlamento Europeo, “le rivolte in corso, le rivolte dei cosiddetti studenti o presunti studenti, sono di fatto strumentalizzate dall’estrema sinistra e, come sappiamo, l’estrema sinistra è infiltrata da elementi islamisti”.

L’isteria crescente delle classi dominanti – e dei mass media da essi finanziati – ormai buttano tutto nel calderone del “nemico interno”: agenti russi, cittadini pagati dai russi, ingerenze islamiche e, ovviamente, i partiti della sinistra e i comunisti.

Se al posto degli ebrei mettiamo gli islamici, sono esattamente gli stessi nemici messi all’indice in Europa dai nazifascisti negli anni Trenta.

Articolo originale:  contropiano.org

Lula vence com ajuda do STF e promete transferência de renda. Flávio contesta, Senado bolsonarista pode fazer impeachment. Convulsão social à vista.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Em 2002, Lula ganhou pela primeira vez a eleição com o slogan “A esperança venceu o medo”. Seus adversários alegavam que Lula seria uma espécie de Che Guevara no poder e faria os investimentos correrem – nada mais distante da realidade, pois o presidente é amado pelos banqueiros. De todo modo, não há contraste maior do que aquele entre a primeira e a última vitória de Lula. Nesta, as magras e pouco convincentes propostas de Lula logo deram lugar a uma campanha do medo. Flávio ia acabar com o Bolsa Família, cortar as aposentadorias e até tirar de Nossa Senhora Aparecida o título de Padroeira do Brasil – coisa que só o Papa tem poder para fazer.

Essa é a versão popularesca da campanha do medo, e é a mais racional. A versão de classe média alegava que os gays iam ser impedidos de existir; as mulheres, de abortar; e a democracia acabaria. Democracia, no caso em tela, é um conceito esotérico de difícil apreensão. Se a maioria do povo brasileiro é contra o aborto – que, em tese, já é proibido no Brasil –, então a coisa democrática é justamente impedir as mulheres de usarem o aborto como método contraceptivo. A vermos o surto histérico de parte da classe média brasileira, fica-se com a impressão de que uma Era de Aquário do Mal poderia começar caso Flávio vencesse as eleições.

As coisas iam muito bem para Flávio até as 13h22 do dia 25 de outubro. Flávio venceu o primeiro turno com uma vantagem de 2.224.965 votos sobre Lula, e tinha esperanças de herdar boa parte dos votos dos quatro candidatos terceira via, que é majoritariamente antipetista. Os três candidatos antipetistas somados tiveram 5.607.483 votos. O escritor de autoajuda Augusto Cury teve 3.448.569 votos, e os institutos de pesquisa indicavam que os votos dele seriam divididos entre Flávio e Lula no segundo turno. Assim, seria razoável esperar que Flávio ganhasse uns 7 milhões de votos no segundo turno. Lula, por outro lado, contava com a redução da abstenção para reverter o quadro. Expectativa pouco ou nada realista.

Até o início da campanha, Lula nada tinha para oferecer ao povo além de um dia extra de descanso para trabalhadores de carteira assinada, a revogação de um imposto que ele mesmo criou e o fim das apostas que ele mesmo regulamentou. Durante a campanha, ele deu o primeiro aumento em três anos ao Bolsa Família, o programa neoliberal de transferência de renda que o transformou num símbolo da esquerda brasileira, e, perguntado sobre o porquê da demora, disse que não sabia que não houve aumento, e quando descobriu, aumentou. O aumento sequer estava previsto no orçamento. Além disso, prometeu um depósito de 5 mil reais para pequenos empreendedores e uma mesada de 400 reais para estudantes universitários – sendo que o país já está com dívida pública alta e juros de 13,75% ao ano.

O estilo lulista de fazer política foi explicitado mais uma vez no último debate presidencial: tudo o que ele promete é transferência de renda, e toda a sua retórica se baseia em divisão social. Lula chegou ao ponto de dizer que só um presidente nascido no Nordeste poderia cuidar da região, pois as pessoas do Sul e do Sudeste desdenham o Nordeste. Toda crítica a um governo que passou quase 20 anos no poder é interpretada como ódio aos pobres. Lula se coloca como um pobre apenas porque nasceu nessa condição, mas é o único pobre do mundo a ganhar de um banqueiro um uísque Macallan de meio milhão de reais (80 mil euros). Perguntado por Flávio se ele gostaria de pedir desculpas aos brasileiros endividados, Lula afirmou que quem tem que pedir desculpas é a elite.

Diante dessa estagnação incontornável e deliberada, o fato político mais relevante da campanha de Flávio talvez tenha sido a adesão de Roberto Mangabeira Unger e de Aldo Rebelo, dois ex-ministros de Lula. Aldo Rebelo, em virtude da questão ambiental, já havia se aproximado muito do bolsonarismo, então sua adesão em 2026 não é uma surpresa. Mangabeira Unger, porém, é um professor de Harvard que sempre foi próximo do PDT, m partido de esquerda que recentemente se tornou satélite do lulismo, mas que até pouco tempo atrás era desenvolvimentista. Para que as figuras políticas de esquerda campeãs do desenvolvimentismo se aliem todas ao bolsonarismo, falta apenas Ciro Gomes, e foi o assessor dele, Gustavo Castañon, que organizou o encontro entre Flávio, Aldo e Mangabeira, tendo este último pegado um avião nos Estados Unidos para este fim.

Às 13h22 do dia 25, porém, o otimismo da campanha de Flávio começou a fazer água porque o PT pediu ao Tribunal Eleitoral que a votação em algumas cidades da Bahia fosse prorrogada até as 19 horas. As eleições no Brasil vão das 8 às 17h do horário de Brasília, e uma rápida apuração das urnas eletrônicas se segue. A razão do pedido era o suposto complô de prefeitos apoiadores de Flávio para tirar os ônibus da rua e impedir os eleitores de votar. No entanto, os ônibus atrasaram em Salvador porque sindicalistas petistas fizeram um “adesivaço”: quando os ônibus ainda estavam na garagem, colaram adesivos do PT, e se os ônibus circulassem assim, isso configuraria crime eleitoral. Como a circulação de ônibus é assunto da prefeitura, foi a prefeitura que reteve os ônibus para tirar os adesivos, mas até as 10h30 o trânsito já havia sido normalizado (fora que as seções eleitorais ficam a uma curta distância do endereço do eleitor na hora do cadastro do título, e pode ser mudada depois caso o eleitor queira).

Salvador é uma área que dá muitos votos ao PT. Assim, a campanha de Flávio também pediu que as chuvas em cidades de direita fossem pretextos para retardar a eleição naqueles locais. Depois o PT foi direto ao Supremo Tribunal Federal pedir que as eleições fossem prorrogadas em todo o país. O sistema inauditável do STF sorteou o ministro Zanin, ex-adovado pessoal de Lula, que concedeu a prorrogação às 17h05, depois de muitas urnas já terem sido fechadas e desligadas – sendo vedada a sua abertura.

Por fim, veio a apuração, que aconteceu numa ordem diversa da habitual (os votos do Nordeste costumam entrar por último, por exemplo, então numa eleição brasileira normal a direita começa bem e vai derretendo no final da apuração). Para espanto generalizado, Lula melhorou de desempenho em todas as regiões do país. Flávio ganhou apenas 3.721.538 novos votos (o razoável era esperar uns 7 milhões da terceira via), e Lula conseguiu ganhar inacreditáveis 10.376.694 novos votos.

Flávio anunciou que vai pedir a anulação do segundo turno, mas é pouco provável que consiga algo, já que o grande problema do Brasil no presente momento é justamente a confiabilidade do Judiciário – que trata questionamentos às urnas como atentado à democracia.

Justamente pelo fato de que o STF é percebido por grande parte da população brasileira como o maior problema do país, Flávio se empenhou em eleger senadores para poder votar impeachment de ministros do Supremo. E conseguiu: ano que vem, o Senado terá 45 senadores bolsonaristas, o que é mais da metade. Dada a insatisfação da população com o Supremo, não é implausível que eles consigam totalizar 54 votos (dois terços do senado) para tirar no mínimo um ministro.

Lula já governa com o apoio do Supremo para ignorar as casas legislativas e censurar a população. Quando a crise econômica vindoura se somar à política (imagine o leitor que a partir do ano que vem as empresas vão pagar o imposto tão logo recebam seus pagamentos da clientela), o Brasil deve passar por uma convulsão social e enfrentar uma onda repressiva. Não será fácil o fim da Nova República. No presente momento, uma criança já pagou com a sua saúde: numa favela carioca dominada pelo tráfico, as vítimas da sociedade comemoraram a vitória de Lula com fogos e tiros, dos quais um atingiu uma menina.

Muitos antissionistas exigem que o Brasil vote em Lula por causa das crianças da Palestina. Pelo jeito, só as crianças palestinas importam; as brasileiras, jamais.

Una guerra total en ciernes será parida por el curso inexorable de la Historia.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

“No permitiría que las decisiones de las grandes potencias fueran juzgadas por países pequeños”

Iosif Stalin. Actas de Yalta 1945

“El pasado no puede cambiarse; el futuro está en nuestras manos, pero las leyes que rigen el destino de las civilizaciones son tan implacables como el movimiento de los astros”

  Arnold J. Toynbee. Estudio de la Historia.  1933

Adivinar antes de demostrar. ¿Necesito recordaros que así se han hecho todos los descubrimientos importantes?

— Henri Poincaré El valor de la ciencia 1902

La mayoría de los escritores de otras y esta prestigiosa publicación, Strategic Culture Fundation, entregan sus apreciaciones y cavilaciones con base en una mayor o menor capacidad de acceso a fuentes primarias, complementadas con lo que se denomina ‘fuentes abiertas’.

En mi caso particular mis análisis se fundamentan en el registro histórico, las fuentes abiertas y la información de portales fiables o instituciones oficiales de los gobiernos y estamentos, según el tema abordado en cada tema. A ello sumo una profunda desconfianza acerca de que aquello que puedo observar sea tal cual como se presenta, incluso el decir de los personajes centrales de la vida pública internacional.

Este preámbulo para reivindicar la tarea de todos los analistas, sobre todo aquellos sin fuentes primarias y cercanas al poder, porque ofrecemos eso: un uso objetivo de la imaginación, una intuición afinada a pulso de seguir el día a día del acontecer y afirmarlo, compararlo, ponderarlo con el registro histórico. Van así, algunas especulaciones, sobre lo que será y no será la reunión a tres bandas de las grandes potencias actuales.

Reunión Xi – Putin – Trump ¿Pre-Yalta 2.0?

Los días 18 y 19 de noviembre, tendrá lugar el foro número 33 de Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperacion, APEC, en China. El lema elegido es “Construyendo una comunidad Asia-Pacífico para prosperar juntos”. Al margen de la misma, se especula sobre una reunión a tres bandas de los líderes de las grandes potencias globales y se presume un diálogo donde China, indiferente a la violencia en el mundo, es tenida en cuenta como un alto jerarca que dará la venia a los acuerdos entre las partes del conflicto o al menos, no interferirá, mientras logra algunos intereses.

En Yalta, Península de Crimea, actual Federación de Rusia, los mandatarios, Franklin D. Roosevelt, presidente de Estados Unidos, Winston Churchill, primer ministro del Reino Unido y Iósif Stalin, líder de la Unión Soviética, en febrero de 1945, tuvieron la histórica reunión concretada cuando la derrota de la Alemania Nazi era inminente. Se define como la reunión donde se repartieron las áreas de injerencia de los vencedores de la guerra.

Al parecer, aunque no conozco pronunciamiento definitivo de ningún gobierno, la reunión es tan inminente como la derrota de la OTAN y su proxy ucraniano, y es también inminente la crisis de fertilizantes, ergo de alimentos y de combustibles por el problema en los estrechos de Ormuz y Bab El Mandeb, por la guerra Israel – EE.UU. contra Irán.

Si esto parece un Yalta es porque Ucrania, exhibida como ‘defensora de su soberanía’ bajo el lema europeo de ‘ataque ruso no provocado’, así como la OTAN, de una forma irónica, no son convidadas. Son por el contrario tratadas como al nazismo derrotado.

A esto se suma la ambivalencia hipócrita de Estados Unidos, líder de la OTAN y agresor asesino de civiles rusos y que siendo co-beligerante en el conflicto se exhibe como mediador.

Europa, al margen del nuevo ciclo histórico de grandes potencias, se encuentra inmerso en protestas por la crisis de su Estado de bienestar en varios de sus países y no ignora cómo lo deja su ausencia en la reunión en Shenzhen, según el viejo dicho: ‘si no estás en la mesa de comensal, estás en el menú’. Por cierto. El 27 de octubre, ya comenzaron a llamar los pusilánimes líderes europeos de Finlandia y Noruega, al presidente Putin.

Estados Unidos negocia cierto aislamiento de Irán, por parte de Rusia y China. Esto con el fin de obrar de la mano del sionismo de manera más agresiva e impune. También, hablará de un acuerdo nuclear que comprometa a China, pese a no tener ésta ni una tercera parte del armamento que poseen Rusia o EE.UU.

La compra del diésel a Rusia, no es sólo una cantidad simbólica. Determinará en parte cómo se acumulará tal exportación rusa a través de la ruta del ártico, de la cual acaba de activar su mayor puerto exportador de combustible, Vostok Oil, en la región de Krasnoyarsk, con una capacidad inicial de 30 millones de toneladas al año de petróleo proyectadas en aumento gradual.

En promedio, entre 2023-2024, por el golfo Pérsico circularon alrededor de 860.000–870.000 barriles por día (bpd) de exportaciones marítimas de diésel de la región. Y llegaron a 1,8 millones bpd en junio de 2024, esto impulsado por nuevas refinerías en Kuwait y Omán.

Mientras, Rusia en 2025 exportó alrededor de 780.000–820.000 bpd (aprox. 3,3 millones de toneladas al mes). Siendo el segundo mayor exportador mundial de diésel después de EE.UU. Puede alcanzar 3–3,5 millones de toneladas al mes (equivalente a unos 700.000–850.000 bpd).

Lo anterior tenderá a estabilizar en parte la demanda de diésel y además vincular la ruta ártica como una forma vanguardista de circulación de todas las demás mercancías. De hecho, China, país no ártico, se ha sumado en lo que llama “Ruta de la Seda del Hielo” Donde además hay cooperación científica.

Aun siendo socios de Irán con similares intereses geopolíticos esto de alguna manera debilita la carta iraní para afectar a Trump en las elecciones y tensionar la economía global para presionar a USA y claro, proyecta una ruta poderosa que puede debilitar otros pasos marítimos de su socio BRICS+ -Egipto en el canal de Suez- y en el contexto del cambio de temperatura que afecta también al canal de Panamá con prolongadas sequías mientras se despeja el tránsito glacial del ártico a causa de la misma variación de temperatura.

A lo anterior se conecta, por un lado, el control que finalmente ha ejercido EE.UU. sobre Dinamarca para ceder Groenlandia, punto de salida ártica al Atlántico. Por otro, una dulce venganza china que fue apartada de su participación creciente en Panamá por la ‘doctrina Donroe’.

También EE.UU. negocia inversiones en los óblast nuevos que ha incorporado Rusia, donde hay grandes riquezas naturales, incluido litio e industrias metalúrgicas, además de querer administrar el gaseoducto Nord Stream, luego de haberlo hecho volar por los aires en 2022.

A cambio, Rusia espera que esta vez sí se cumplan los acuerdos a diferencia del encuentro en Anchorage, Alaska, en 2025. Estos acuerdos deben presionar a Ucrania a reconocer las regiones rusas, hacer elecciones, renunciar a su deseo de incorporación en la OTAN y a la vez, crear una arquitectura de seguridad mutuamente beneficiosa para Rusia y Europa; además el reintegro de los activos rusos incautados ilegalmente por Euroclear. A esto se suma la reanudación de las conversaciones trilaterales entre Rusia, Ucrania y Estados Unidos en Abu Dabi en noviembre.

Por su parte China desea respeto a las mismas leyes del mercado inventado ‘libre’ por occidente y articulado por la OMC; lo que implica no ser bloqueado en su rama expansiva automotriz ni de alta tecnología, -IAG- ni interrumpida en su corredor de la Ruta de la Seda que cruza por Irán. Se suma, y creo a esto se debe en parte el resultado electoral en Brasil, respetar las inversiones en el país suramericano, que es el brazo fuerte de Latinoamérica en BRICS+. Esto también implica respetar las inversiones chinas y rusas en la nueva y americanizada Venezuela.

Abro un paréntesis, respecto a las recientes elecciones en Brasil, en mi concepto el Big-Tech estadounidense es lo suficientemente fuerte para acomodar elecciones donde quiera y, por cierto, en la misma fecha del 25 de octubre, Vucic en Serbia, perdió las elecciones y denunció la previsibilidad del resultado ante el acorralamiento planteado por Europa – OTAN.

¿Hubo acaso una guerra electrónica China – EE.UU. determinando el resultado electoral? ¿Cómo entender la derrota sionista en Brasil? ¿En verdad creen que hubo tal derrota? La Bancada Evangélica que hace lobby en el parlamento, Frente Parlamentario Evangélico, o la Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus en São Paulo, réplica del Templo de Salomón, son parte de lo activo que es el sionismo desde hace años. Por si hace falta decirlo, Lula es un administrador del capitalismo brasileño, a ningún millonario le va mal con él y el sionismo sigue en expansión.

Los ‘progres’ del planeta estaban contentos por el triunfo de Lula, pues desconocen los matices duros y subrepticios de la política, sobre todo, de la política de grandes potencias. Yo también la ignoro, pero sé que siempre negocian sus intereses y no los de terceros. Recuerde el lector la cita de Stalin con la que inicio el artículo.

Esto se aprecia en la mirada a otro lado de China, India y Rusia, ante el genocidio israelí en Gaza, Líbano y Cisjordania. Esto se vio en las negociaciones ruso-estadounidenses de la crisis de los misiles en 1962 donde omitieron a Cuba. Esto no los hace países malos, son simplemente las expresiones inerciales del poder; cosa que tenía clara el cubano Enrique José Barona al describir a inicios del siglo XX a la naciente potencia norteamericana.

En mi concepto Brasil ganó con Lula, sí. Pero también puede explicarse como un principio de flexibilidad del neo imperialismo estadounidense que ha aprendido de El arte de la guerra, de Sun Wu (孫武), en aquel segmento donde señala que, al enemigo acorralado siempre se le deja una salida, para evitar volverlo violento, indómito y peligroso, al sólo poder huir hacia delante.

Si la región pierde la esperanza por estar copada de sionistas y neoliberales, puede volverse más proactiva. La tesis funciona también como complemento a las negociaciones entre potencias. No vi muy acongojado a Trump.

Cálculo de la guerra y cumplimiento de los objetivos rusos

Los objetivos de la Operación Militar Especial, si bien no han cambiado en su fondo sí lo han hecho en su forma, y ésta, es la forma de las regiones necesarias a incorporar en Rusia para acabar con la esperanza de nuevas guerras en 20, 50 o 100 años con la Ucrania occidental; que siendo la más anti rusa, es la que menos muertos ha puesto, menos destrucción ha sufrido y la que más respalda la continuación de la guerra. ¿Por qué bailan tranquilas las élites no busificadas -reclutadas por la fuerza- en bares nocturnos en Kiev y Leópolis?

Es la zona más oriental rusa étnica, idiomática y con doctrina ortodoxa la que más destrucción y muerte ha sufrido. Entonces ¿Qué negociará o negoció Rusia?

Dijo el propio presidente Putin que el acuerdo de Anchorage lo había aceptado bajo la condición de que Ucrania cedería gran parte del Donbás (Donetsk) a Rusia y a cambio, Rusia devolvería territorios que ocupa en Sumy y Járkov, que servían como “zonas de amortiguación”. Moscú mantendría su ofensiva hasta que esa fórmula fuera aceptada.

Pero esto fue hace un año. La situación siempre ha cambiado según como marche todo en el terreno. Rusia no quería incorporar regiones en la Operación Militar básica, pero ante el fracaso de las negociaciones en Estambul, saboteadas por Inglaterra, se efectuó un referéndum y se asumieron como rusas las cuatro regiones, más Crimea. Sólo resta un 9% del Donbás, ¿Por qué no tomarlo militarmente?

En mi concepto esto no es suficiente. Rusia debe tomar toda la región de la costa del Mar Negro, que implica adhesión total a Rusia de la región histórica de Novorossiya integrada por Odesa, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk y Crimea. Si esto no se cumple, quedará el mar negro abierto para una futura escalada con Europa, siendo necesario tocar frontera con Moldavia y la franja de Transnistria para evitar también desestabilización, así como apoyar a los ciudadanos rusos, que son el 30% de la población allí, particularmente hostilizada o segregada. Además, toda Novorossiya es étnicamente rusa.

Entonces, luego de casi cinco años de guerra, Rusia simplemente mientras gana abrumadoramente en el campo de batalla, hará un trato que le pondrá en unos años en una amenaza quizá peor, cuando Europa y la OTAN o el cuerpo militar que sea, tal vez la propia Alemania, se hayan recuperado. ¿Perdonará Rusia una vez más a sus enemigos históricos que la odian hasta el tuétano de sus imperialistas huesos?

Los europeos y los nazis ucranianos no firmarán una derrota por convicción, guardarán más resentimiento, sus bases más radicales están casi intactas en Europa y Ucrania occidental, Rusia al menos debería acrecentar los bombardeos en esa zona y entender que es la Ucrania católica prooccidental la que debe ser desmantelada, piedra por piedra, para evitar su resurrección. Un imperio es arrogante por inercia, sólo la derrota humillante en su piel e ideas fundacionales le harán ver la verdad.

El presidente Putin tiene como reto ser tan o más grande que Pedro y Catalina. Debe corregir el error de Lenin, Stalin y Khruschev, así como el error de la firma de acuerdo entre Bielorrusia, Ucrania y Rusia -Tratado de Belavezha de diciembre de 1991- que cimentó en Ucrania el camino hacia la apología al nazismo, a Stephan Bandera y a la reescritura de una historia deformada y excepcionalista.

Otro aspecto que el canciller Sergei Lavrov ha señalado desde el acercamiento con la administración estadounidense trata sobre el castigo a victimarios nazis que deben ser juzgados en un Nuremberg 2.0 y para lo cual debería habilitarse una orca. Este tema de los juicios y reparaciones no se vislumbra o es de lo que menos se habla; lo que implicaría una impunidad de los crímenes sobre la población rusa e incluso la ucraniana desde 2014, cuando con el golpe de Estado, se inició la des rusificación de los oblast que intentaron ser autónomos mediante los acuerdos de Minsk y que ahora son parte del cuerpo político administrativo de la Federación de Rusia y gozan de representantes en la Duma, según las últimas elecciones de septiembre.

Entonces, desmilitarización, desnazificación, castigo a crímenes de guerra, allanamiento de toda posibilidad de osadía occidental contra Rusia, ¿Quedarían totalmente resueltas en una mesa de diálogo? ¿Congelar los logros en el terreno sin copar todos los territorios que ya son parte de Rusia, no es una debilidad? Por otra parte, ¿Entiende el Kremlin que China es un enemigo latente y solapado que tampoco desea la paz de Rusia, sino su atemperamiento mediante una guerra eterna? ¿Dimensiona la pobreza intelectual y diplomática de los emisarios estadounidenses, Kushner y Witkoff, vulgares mercaderes inmobiliarios?

La Historia es superior a los hombres, incluso a los más poderosos

Cuando en el título señalo un pre – Yalta 2.0, quiero enfatizar que, si bien se reúnen tres potencias globales, la única que desea la paz es Rusia y puede ser, como señalé, una paz que sacrifique objetivos urgentes para el futuro.

Sin embargo, la pérfida y detestable Europa, llena de crisis por estos días, no soportará ser un convidado de piedra al concurso del nuevo orden mundial post unipolar. Podría obrar de mala fe. Las élites internas de Estados Unidos que odian a Rusia volverán a impedir un acuerdo; la CIA – Mossad son su arma. Israel no desea una Rusia fuerte, aunque la mayoría de sus sionistas tienen sangre eslava, desde hace ochenta años se alinearon con el mundo anglosajón.

Como señalé, China tampoco es un socio fiable y no olvida la osadía del viejo zarismo ruso que le quitó los actuales oblast de Primorie y Amur. Tampoco los varios conflictos sostenidos, incluso durante la era soviética.

Sólo si alguno de los tres hombres y sus élites se rinde en el pre-Yalta 2.0, habría paz relativa o una nueva forma de guerra solapada. Si entiendo el carácter existencial de esta guerra para al menos dos de las partes, no será una mesa de diálogo la que lleve el fin de la guerra en Ucrania y la que se ha producido en Irán; profundamente interconectada con la primera.

Una guerra total en ciernes será parida por el curso inexorable de la Historia. Nunca un humano ha podido detener aquello que con tanto ahínco se fue formando durante siglos. Pueden los hombres aplazar los fenómenos, pero no detenerlos. Rusia deberá despejar por la fuerza las dudas que tienen sus enemigos sobre su determinación a existir.

Vladímir Putin, presidente de Rusia, siempre ha sido un buen lector de la Historia. La ve como un río que fluye inexorablemente y le pone piedras con cuidado para moldear cadencias en su cause o atemperarlo, retardarlo, pero nunca para detenerlo o desviarlo. Eso implica que la guerra total será, pero en los términos que va moldeando Rusia, Putin, su Staff.

Finland and Norway are hinting at the need for a new approach to the continent`s relationship with Russia

By Matthew Blackburn

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The Trump administration’s latest initiative to end the war is creating heartburn in Europe.

“We have to pressure the aggressor to stop the war, not the victim to surrender,” said European Union High Representative Kaja Kallas. “Squeezing Ukraine is not the right approach, and that’s why Europe is standing by Ukraine.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, insists Russia has no genuine desire for peace, pointing in particular to Russian strikes on Ukrainian civilians.

This moral language frames the conflict as a zero-sum, good-versus-evil struggle. In this light, Europeans have no choice but to unite behind Ukraine to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But not all European leaders are talking this way. The press conference in Oslo on Oct. 20 featuring Zelenskyy, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Finnish President Alexander Stubb was full of constructive language about ending the conflict. Stubb said the Oslo summit was the result of “substantive progress” made “under the radar.” Støre emphasised that “Europe has to be at the table” to secure a “lasting peace.” Europe, it seems, is not united on a negotiated end to the conflict.

Then on Tuesday, the two met with Putin unofficially, in an effort at de-escalation, according to reports. “We are neighboring countries to Russia,” Stubb said in a statement afterwards. “The outcome of this war will have a direct impact on our and the broader European security. Ending the war requires direct discussions.”

The Oslo summit was no bolt from the blue; Finnish and Norwegian representatives have been preparing the ground for several months. At last week’s Warsaw Security Forum, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide avoided the usual binary of Ukraine’s victory or capitulation. He stressed that since the Europeans are now paying for the war, they should also lead the diplomacy to end it. Eide noted that a peace agreement could secure a democratic, independent Ukraine integrated into the EU with 80% of its original territory. Advancing this point among more hawkish European colleagues, Eide struck a tone of hope rather than fear. In an interview last Saturday, Eide noted that Europe must contribute concrete proposals for a post-war security architecture: “in the long run, we need to return to a normal relationship with Russia after the war (….) some kind of order must be restored.”

During his recent visit to the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Stubb presented a complementary argument. Restating his case for a “value-based realism,” he argued that European states should be faithful to their values but would not resolve the conflict by rigidly clinging to the moral high ground. Stubb urged the audience to keep “cooler heads”; fostering a “war mentality” would make it near impossible to conceive of peace.

Eide and Stubb are moving in a different direction from those who claim “victory” over Russia – however defined – is a prerequisite for future European security. They reject the mantra of ex-NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg that “weapons are the way to peace” and emphasize the military reality that neither side has the resources to win decisively.

This is a noble recognition of reality. Offensive actions from both sides have repeatedly failed to produce a breakthrough. Costs keep rising for both warring parties, while gains have become increasingly meagre. Europe, Ukraine, and Russia are stuck in a war that cannot be won on the terms set by either side.

Continuing the current course brings problems for all sides. Putin faces an overheating economy and increasing social fatigue and anxiety. Even if Russia destroys more and more Ukrainian infrastructure from the air, land offensives are likely to incur heavy losses. Ukraine’s situation is even tougher. Its chronic manpower shortages have led to intensified forced mobilization and increased social strains. Blockaded at sea and bombarded from the air, Ukraine is also short of money and weapons, constantly appealing to Western allies to plug the gaps.

The European coalition behind Ukraine faces serious problems of its own. Many European states are facing a sovereign debt crisis as war costs mount. The EU has been unable to persuade Belgium to make use of Russia’s frozen assets to fund the war. All the while, the dirty reality is that, since the war began, Europe has spent more on Russian energy imports than on weapons for Ukraine.

Tuesday’s meeting in Oslo provides a way out of this mess. As Stubb said at Tuesday’s press conference: “Peace requires patience. But unfortunately, war does not wait. People are dying each and every day. Our job is to do what we can to end it.” Norway and Finland are communicating the urgency of ending a senseless war. Referring to the recent spat between Trump and Zelensky, Støre advised against dwelling on past disagreements: “What matters now is what lies ahead of us.”

On the same day, Kaja Kallas looked back in anger. She accused the Trump administration of trying to “push Ukraine into surrender” on “Putin’s terms.” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, for her part, presented Ukraine as Europe’s only protection: “If we allow Ukraine to fall, we will open the way for Russia to advance into other parts of Europe.”

One can understand fears that, if Ukraine is rendered neutral with limits on its armed forces, Russia would hold the whip hand over Europe. Nobody wants to let Moscow dictate the terms of the European security architecture through violence. But at this point, Europe’s rejection of a “dirty deal” could mean impotently watching Ukraine’s destruction over the next six months. How would this outcome improve European security or prestige?

Norway and Finland have offered the most constructive European response to U.S. diplomacy since Trump returned to the White House. They offer Europe a new language of patient diplomacy to replace maximalist rhetoric. This is in line with both countries’ previous experience mediating and building bridges with Russia. It also recognizes a basic fact: all protracted wars not settled decisively on the battlefield — which is to say, the vast majority of wars — end in negotiated settlements between the aggressor and the defender. America’s signature is absolutely necessary to secure such an outcome.

Mainstream analysis seems unable to accept these realities. It is stuck in moral posturing or fearmongering. There is still little serious discussion of what compromises might be struck. The 28-point plan that U.S.-Russian diplomacy developed in 2025 should not be equated with Ukraine’s capitulation, nor is it a recipe for turning Ukraine into Belarus. Ukraine would enter the EU, receive reconstruction assistance, and retain armed forces on a level comparable to Finland’s. It is time to return to the core points on which a deal must be struck.

Russia has responded positively to the proposals sent from Oslo. Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. have agreed to a three-way summit in November, according to Zelensky. The key question now is whether other European governments will take the Oslo initiative seriously and agree on who can represent Europe in these talks. Dmitri Peskov, Putin’s press secretary, has cautiously welcomed the idea that Alexander Stubb could represent Europe in the negotiations.

Finland and Norway’s more moderate language is a crucial first step toward a shared European understanding that continuing the war in its current form is self-defeating. As Eide observed at the U.N. last month, “diplomacy can work – if we allow it to.”

But first, Europe must decide: will it support or sabotage the U.S. effort to build a diplomatic off-ramp?

Original article: responsiblestatecraft.org

This Putin-Trump or Trump-Putin Diesel Deal is a vastly better opportunity for a ‘reset’ than the misspelled red button that Hillary Clinton presented to the Russians all while the Maidan was being orchestrated.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Every once in a while the Mainstream Media can delight us by choosing to show an actual piece of reality. Of the big ones that are out there, Fox News seems to have at least three droplets of their humanity left and so it shouldn’t be too surprising that they invited Federalist editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway onto their program Special Report to argue in favor of Trump’s potentially historic deal with Putin. The most interesting part was that she got the real ‘white hat cowboy’ treatment, seeming to offer to the audience the obviously better path; the path of peace with Russia. This type of propaganda is great for those of us who want to avert a nuclear WWIII, Yahoo!News featured a clip from the previously mentioned show under a headline that summed up things quite nicely; “Mollie Hemingway: Trump’s Russian Oil Deal Puts The American People First, “We’re Not At War With Russia“. Oh how lovey that sounds but is it really a good deal for the public of the United States?

The arguments against the deal are both weak and Globalist

The counterarguments against this diesel deal seem to be that ‘the Russians help Iran and thus they are bad’ that is to say, this deal cannot be supported because it would be against the Zionist agenda in an indirect way. The other seemed to be that this move violates the spirit, but not technicalities, of the Lindsay Graham Bill. Well, if anyone would know about violation it’s the dead senator, but was there ever a moment when the majority of Americans cried out for sanctions packages against Russia? How would spitting on the grave of Graham change anything for the worse for the normies? It wouldn’t, and no one raising kids in America cares about Graham’s legacy when they want to put food on the table for their family.

There is also the counterargument that the diesel deal ‘ betrays Ukraine’, which is a sentiment much stronger in Europe than Washington, but Project Ukraine still has plenty of support from the shadows of the American capital, just not so much from within the White House. But if we examine the arguments against having diesel come from Russia as a whole, they are all related to U.S. foreign policy and/or ‘feels’. That is to say, there don’t seem to be any arguments as to how selling diesel fuel to America could possibly make things worse for Joe Average and that is very telling. All of the arguments say it would somehow be bad for our currently disastrous American foreign policy follies.

So again, in a global sense, how exactly does regulated trade, between two countries on a voluntary basis, that brings down prices in the USA, and does not take away any jobs, cause problems for the American people? How does antagonism of the world’s largest nuclear power with the most potent hypersonic technology, that has repeatedly stated that it doesn’t want war, a problem for the American people? How does supporting Project Ukraine, do anything for the American masses? Control of Delaware is important to Americans especially the ones that live there, is control of the Donbass somehow just as vital to everyone across the 50 States?

At this point in 2026, it is very hard to build any sort of argument for any of the insane spending on foreign conflicts of luxury that have been going on since the end of the Cold War in 1991. All of these dubious expenditures that have added up to our 40 trillion+ dollars in debt were never for the benefit of the American people. It is almost like the talking heads that advocate for a blindly aggressive U.S. foreign policy actually hate the average American, because all of their proposed plans, that may kill foreigners directly, certainly punish Main Street just the same, but in a much slower and more agonizing torturous way.

Dmitriev’s ‘World of Optimism’ is one normal people want to live in

Kirill Dmitriev is convinced that economic cooperation between the USA and Russia does not have to be limited to diesel fuel. He believes that Russia’s excess of fertilizer could also be a major benefit to farmers who may finally be able to fuel up their tractors at an affordable price. Although this might be tricky, Russia has cheap energy and plenty of room in Siberia for data centers too and Dmitriev sees a lot of potential in this area. Russia even has energy exports of electricity to neighboring China, so perhaps some sort of data center collaboration could be possible, but that would require much more trust than is currently present. As we all know Dmitriev is a big believer in the building of the tunnel/bridge from Alaska to Chukotka. He has even proposed to Elon Musk a joint venture to use his Boring Company to drill from the American side. A massive friendship project is surely needed between these two countries but there are many difficulties in making the tunnel work, especially the fact that it would be located in an extremely remote and unpopulated area and the train rail/wheel standards of both nations are different.

But again if we take a look at a famous quote from Kirill Dmitriev we see a big argument in favor of the Trump-Putin Diesel Deal that many Americans could agree with:

“International collaboration between the superpowers is key for the stability of the global economy.”

Beyond just the diesel fuel now, do these words sound like something that would be of benefit to the Average American or should we listen to John McCain’s status quo musings from beyond the grave?:

“Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows.”

In the above quote you could take the name Saddam Hussein and substitute it for President Putin or any other person the establishment doesn’t like. It is this dimwitted ‘defense through offense’ attitude that is destroying the U.S. economy, all while the houses outside of DC just keep getting bigger-and-bigger.

Considering the U.S. just finally and formally gave up on Iraq these words above ring true as an anti-argument for the insane foreign policy that is bankrupting what used to be, and should be today, the wealthiest country in the world. If Washington had not invested in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Project Ukraine, the Iran War, PNAC, Globalism, etc., wouldn’t the average gent in Pittsburgh be living much better?

In terms of economic partnership there are other options beyond what the ever optimistic Dmitriev has stated that I thought would be worth at least listing in brief:

• American-style semi-trucks and trucks in general are road legal in Russia unlike many places on the planet with tight streets. Russia and America share ‘bigness’ and so long-haul American trucks could find a great market in Russia and Russian short-haul trucks would be great for America. All of the European automotive brands have bailed on Russia being replaced by China but there is still plenty of room on the market. This ‘bigness’ capable logic applies to all sorts of machinery beyond trucks, ‘Everything is Bigger in Texas and Tomsk’ and that is a point of economic benefit.
• Entertainment media in Russia is desperately underfunded, while the U.S. side of things is committing suicide via the ‘woke agenda’, there must be some sort of synthesis here. Joint Russo-American entertainment media projects could shake up the entire industry and get those big profits Hollywood blockbusters used to make.
• Education is believed to be much better in Russia and ‘Russian Math’ seems to be a hit in the USA, at least in NYC, so if the nation is to give up on Globalist ambitions the population needs to get smarter and more competitive very fast because the BRICS nations push their children to the max. Russia could assist with this but of course under the complete oversight and control of the American side just in case.
• American Football needs a new market with a nation that has violent macho white guys, Eastern Europe is the only option for the NFL. Russians like violent sports and their soccer teams always underperform, they need a new summer sport and the USA has it.
• New embassies consulates and more could be constructed as part of this new normalization. The old ones were taken away, so why not build new amazing ones for fun and profit?
• Russia’s Far East is the ‘window to Asia’ but it also faces towards Oregon and California, there might be many in America who would want to participate in the massive buildup of the Russian region. Trump himself loves a good real-estate deal.
• It is important to note that anything related to security, policing, and things of a secret nature are of course off limits and are never going to be an option. This cooperation cannot come too close to the ‘hearts’ of either system for obvious reasons. Both America and Russian must be fully sovereign in all regards no matter what they agree to.

This Putin-Trump or Trump-Putin Diesel Deal is a vastly better opportunity for a ‘reset’ than the misspelled red button that Hillary Clinton presented to the Russians all while the Maidan was being orchestrated. This deal tells the American Public that finally we need to use peace to make your lives better. We need to not waste resources antagonizing Russia, and this whole Multipolar World thing may just work out for rural Kansas too. But this is only a start, U.S. sanctions are a punishment for a crime that the Russians believe they did not commit and until those sanctions are truly gone we cannot say ‘it’s over’ but perhaps we can say ‘it’s starting’ unless all good will vanishes after the mid-term elections.

Ukraine’s EU accession would be financial suicide for Eastern and Southern Europe. It would become the largest, poorest member — absorbing nearly all cohesion funds.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

EU enlargement has become a trap in which political intentions collide with economic reality; Eastern and Southern Europe will bear the brunt of the impact if Ukraine joins the European Union. Ukraine is a war‑torn country, and EU citizens are already footing the bill for its reconstruction and the support of its refugees. The EU’s cohesion policy would collapse: Ukraine would become the largest and poorest member state, absorbing virtually all available development funds. Current beneficiaries – such as Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Spain, and Greece – would lose 80% to 100% of their cohesion funding and, overnight, become net contributors.

Compared to Western European countries, nations such as Greece, Spain, and Hungary are “poor countries.” To illustrate: the minimum monthly wage for an employee in Greece is around €900, whereas in the Netherlands it is approximately €2,300 for a 40‑hour workweek.

In the planning for the next seven‑year EU budget, starting in 2028, the potential accession of Ukraine must be taken into account – at least according to the rhetoric of key EU figures, such as Ursula von der Leyen and her political elites.

Such an accession, however, would amount to financial suicide for the former Warsaw Pact countries – Eastern European nations such as Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary – as well as for Southern European countries, particularly Greece and Spain. Furthermore, it would spell disaster for France, a Western European nation currently grappling with large‑scale demonstrations fueled by the state’s insolvency. Some economic experts are already warning that France could become a second Greece – a country that, in 2015, faced extremely harsh austerity measures, endured the eurozone crisis, and remains a financial burden to this day, especially for its own citizens. We are currently witnessing a clash between the political ambitions of Western European figures – such as Ursula von der Leyen and her entourage, as well as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte – and economic reality. It is Eastern and Southern Europe that stand to bear the brunt of the consequences.

The problem with Ukraine is not just the issue of reconstruction and the funding required for the many refugees – who, in theory, could return home, though in practice this rarely happens (consider the case of Syria, where tens of thousands remain in the EU, either unwilling or unable to return). There is also the matter of the devastation of the agricultural sector: Ukraine’s vast, fertile farmlands and massive agribusinesses would consume roughly one‑third of the EU’s entire agricultural budget.

To prevent a collapse, Brussels would either have to increase contributions from member states – a move likely to be blocked by Western nations – or drastically cut per‑hectare subsidies for farmers in countries like France, Germany, Poland, and Hungary. Such a move would risk an agricultural breakdown, potentially leading to tractor blockades across Europe.

In reality, an agricultural collapse is already underway within the EU – not because of Ukraine, but due to the EU’s utopian policies. The Netherlands, in particular, has implemented strict EU nitrogen‑reduction directives in an extreme manner, leading to the buyout of hundreds of farms and the departure of many farmers to countries outside the EU (notably Canada). Agricultural enterprises that have existed for centuries – and which once formed the backbone of the economy in the Netherlands – are now disappearing to make way for defense interests; after all, the military requires ammunition depots and training grounds for an imagined war against Russia. Under the guise of nitrogen reduction and climate change, the state is effectively securing farmers’ land for military use, and the accession of Ukraine will only exacerbate the situation.

Since 2022 (the year of what the EU refers to as the Russian invasion), the European Union has largely suspended import tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural products to provide economic support to the country. As a result, imports of inexpensive Ukrainian poultry and eggs into the EU have risen exponentially. In 2025, the Dutch poultry sector, which was the largest in Europe, expressed concern regarding the renewed trade deal between Europe and Ukraine. Under this new agreement, the the quotas – within which Ukraine is permitted to export to Europe duty‑free – have been significantly increased for a number of agricultural products. For instance, the quota for chicken meat entering Europe has been raised from 90,000 tonnes to 120,000 tonnes, and for eggs from 6,000 tonnes to 18,000 tonnes.

This points toward the “death” of the poultry industry in Western Europe (the Netherlands) and an increase in the emigration of Western European businesses. Some refer to this as “depopulation” – a sensitive term in Europe – but I would describe it more accurately as “depopulation of businesses” coupled with the “expropriation of farmers and businesses.”

However, the Brussels elites face another major problem: they have promised Ukraine a swift accession to the European Union. These elites make almost monthly “unexpected” visits to Kiev to assure their “hero,” Zelensky, of their support – in the form of money (from EU taxpayers), weapons, and the prospect of EU membership. Yet a rapid accession would be suicidal for the European Union (and for the elites themselves).

The most likely solution is that Ukraine will not be granted full membership in terms of the distribution of funds. A transitional period of 10–15 years could be introduced – much like the way Albania, Turkey, and North Macedonia have been kept on a string for years – during which Kiev would have only minimal access to funds, and its participation in the agricultural market would also be restricted. Yet this would expose the European political elites (such as former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte) as liars – though, in fairness, that is nothing new.

Almost every year, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, visits Albania, North Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Montenegro to assure them of her support (and that of the EU) – a practice that has continued for more than 15 years. Meanwhile, the citizens of these countries have largely grown completely fed up with the empty promises. We are now also seeing unrest emerge in Albania, where Prime Minister Edi Rama – a good friend of Mark Rutte, who also visits the country regularly – has been in power for years but is currently facing significant resistance from his own population; an opposition that has reached an unprecedented level, fueled in part by the so‑called “Flamingo Revolution.”

Take Turkey, for example, which has been waiting 39 years to join the European Union. It first submitted an application for membership in 1987 – to what was then called the European Economic Community – and it has been 27 years since it was officially recognized as an EU candidate country in 1999. This has only served to distance Turkey further from Europe, especially when contrasted with the almost obsessive rhetoric from the EU regarding its unwavering, unconditional support for Ukraine in its war against Russia – or, as they term it, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Other countries in and around Europe – such as Montenegro – are also involved in the so‑called accession process, with active negotiations and a projected timeline pointing toward potential membership around 2028. As with Ukraine, however, it is unlikely that they will meet the requirements regarding corruption. Serbia finds itself in a similar position, and Georgia is also a potential candidate – a fact that causes displeasure in Russia. After all, the majority of Georgian territory lies just south of the Greater Caucasus, which is traditionally considered the boundary between Europe and Asia; a situation comparable to that of Turkey. Armenia (in Western Asia) intends to submit a formal application for EU membership in the near future, though it has not yet done so. Armenia is not a European country; the EU views such nations primarily as geopolitical, strategic tools to help encircle Russia, even though, in reality, these countries remain far removed from Europe.

For Ukraine, and for Zelensky in particular, this would be a slap in the face if they could not join in 2028, as they are not fighting for second‑class membership or to be kept waiting like the above‑mentioned countries, and in particular Turkey. Consequently, EU enlargement has turned into a trap for the European Union, whereas said political will collides with harsh economic reality.

In 2016, a referendum was held in the Netherlands regarding Ukraine’s accession and its association agreement with the EU – the first and, to date, only referendum to take place in the Netherlands, a country that considers itself a democracy! The outcome was unwelcome to Dutch politicians and the EU (it should be noted that the Netherlands is one of the EU’s founding member states); consequently, no further referendums have been held in the Netherlands, and the mechanism itself has even been abolished. The Dutch public voted “NO” to Ukraine’s accession; the primary reason for this “NO” vote was the widespread corruption in Ukraine.

Moreover, many (Dutch) citizens feared even then that this would lead to problems with Russia and that Europe might ultimately have to fight on behalf of Ukraine – pointing to the European Union’s mutual assistance clause (Article 42, paragraph 7). This clause stipulates that if an EU country becomes the victim of armed aggression on its own territory, the other EU member states are obligated to provide all the aid and assistance within their power. It now appears that this obligation is effectively being acted upon, even though Ukraine is not an EU member state; the public and EU citizens have, in effect, been misled by their own politicians and are now paying a high price in the form of arms shipments, the loss of gas supplies, and the deployment of weaponry.

Anyone who wants to view the protests in Italy as a national anomaly, the result of some “maranza” or a few agitators, should look beyond the Alps.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

An increasingly tense situation

On October 24, in the center of Milan, several stores on the shopping streets covered their windows with wooden panels, and some large international chains closed their stores, urging customers to shop at outlying locations. A picture is worth a thousand words. Merchandise is barricaded away, the citizen-consumer is sent to the suburbs, and the “showcase city” discovers it is afraid of the real city. In Turin, at the head of the march, a banner read: “We won’t pay for the war.” The march was stopped by several police charges.

Seven days earlier, on October 17, the Milan demonstration against the high cost of living had ended in clashes all the way to Piazza Duomo, with fifty people detained, half of whom were minors; tensions also flared in Turin and Bologna. The mobilization calendar already has two dates marked: the general strike by the grassroots unions on October 30 and the CGIL strike on November 20, which will be joined by the European student strike.

The government’s official narrative is well known: public order, infiltrators, and violent elements to be isolated. This article offers an alternative interpretation – that of scientific socialism. It asks who is paying for the crisis, who is profiting from it, and what role the state and its foreign policy play in distributing the burden. The answer, I’ll say in advance, does not flatter Palazzo Chigi.

Let’s start with the numbers, which have the merit of not aligning with any political party – at least for now. In September, Italian inflation rose to 4.2% year-over-year, up from 3.3% in August, driven by energy prices, which rose by 22.3%. Frequently purchased items – those bought every week – rose by 5.3%; unprocessed food by 5.5%. This is the highest figure in three years.

So much for the statistics. The political dimension comes into play when we break down the average. In the third quarter, the harmonized index rose by 4.4% for households with low spending levels and by 2.9% for those with the highest spending levels. A difference of one and a half percentage points, which Istat attributes to the different composition of consumption: those with low incomes spend almost everything on utility bills, gas, and groceries – exactly the items that are becoming more expensive. In short, inflation isn’t a rain that wets everyone equally. It’s an umbrella for some and a bucket for others. Marx would have called it by its name: a redistribution of value shifting from wages to profit and rent without needing to alter the contract, because all it takes is adjusting the price.

The National Consumers’ Union has translated the 4.2% into hard cash: an additional 1,108 euros per year for the average family, 1,516 for a couple with two children. On the same day, Istat recorded a plunge in consumer confidence, from 94.5 to 91.2. The October protests are the political expression of that 91.2.

The wage picture brings things full circle. According to the Istat Annual Report, Italian contractual wages have lost 8.6% of their purchasing power since 2019. In the second quarter of 2026, after ten quarters of modest recovery, wages once again began to rise at a slower rate than prices. The OECD forecasts a further 0.9% loss for Italy in 2026 and calculates that, compared to 2021, Italian workers have effectively worked 20 days a year for free. The government flaunts record employment figures like a trophy. It’s right to flaunt them: they’re the trophy of a capitalism that has learned to make people work more while paying them less. More people employed, lower wages. It’s not a paradox – it’s the formula.

The “Leopard” fiscal maneuver

Faced with this scenario, what has the Meloni government done? It has done what it does best: it has shifted cents from one pocket to another of the same citizen, calling it relief.

Take diesel, the fuel for trucks, tractors, fishing boats, and sixteen million cars. With the budget law for 2026, the government had accelerated the alignment of excise taxes between gasoline and diesel, raising the tax on diesel by 4.05 cents starting January 1. Then came the energy crisis of 2026, and, starting in March, a series of stopgap decrees offering temporary discounts. By the end of September, the discount on diesel had been cut in half, from about 12 to 6 cents, and the average price reached nearly 2.36 euros per liter – the highest level since records began. On October 5, the discount expired, replaced by “variable excise taxes”: the government promises to return tomorrow, in the form of a reduced excise tax, the additional VAT revenue it collects today due to the price increase. On October 21, self-service diesel still cost 2.259 euros per liter. The CGIA estimates a total increase of 13.6 billion in fuel spending by households and businesses in 2026 compared to 2025. Meanwhile, Germany – which no one accuses of lax accounting – has cut the tax on gasoline and diesel by 14 cents per liter from October 1 through the end of the year. In Rome, the tax authorities have a long memory when it comes to collecting revenue and a short one when it comes to refunding it.

Then there’s the 2027 budget law, the last of this legislative term, the one that’s supposed to see the government through to the next election. The total budget announced is 23.4 billion. But upon closer inspection, the pie shrinks: according to calculations reported by la Repubblica, about 9.5 billion remains for the government’s “identity-based” measures, while 14.3 billion is absorbed by energy and defense spending financed through the flexibility requested from Brussels. Parliament voted for a deviation of 29 billion “for energy and defense” – two words that, in the government’s lexicon, are now uttered in the same breath.

The mechanism allocates up to 0.3% of GDP per year for defense and the same amount for energy security in 2027 and 2028. According to the Budget Policy Document, approximately 2.4 billion is allocated to healthcare.

The government claims the contribution requested from banks and insurance companies – just over five billion in 2027 and about 10.7 billion over the three-year period. “Fine,” one might say. But the proportions tell the story better than the press releases: the financial sector is making a temporary and decreasing contribution (0.21% of GDP in 2027, 0.10% in 2029) after having reaped inflated margins for years – driven precisely by high interest rates and inflation – while workers bear the burden structurally. Starting in 2027, with the phasing out of “Quota 103” and the “Women’s Option,” the automatic adjustment based on life expectancy takes effect: old-age retirement at 67 years and one month, with early retirement available at 42 years and 11 months of contributions for men. The government that had promised to abolish the Fornero reform has become its most diligent enforcer. For the bank, a one-time payment; for the worker, one more month of life on the factory floor, on a permanent contract.

The European Commission, for its part, warns that incentives for consumption would further fuel the cost-of-living crisis. This is the core of the doctrine: if energy prices rise, demand is to blame; if demand falls, it’s because wages are too rigid. In both cases, the bill falls on those who live on wages. Where, however, is the fiscal leeway? In the clause that grants it for tanks. Butter must wait; the cannon has the fast lane.

Kalecki at Palazzo Chigi: Italian-style military Keynesianism

Here we arrive at the crux of the matter that the mainstream press carefully avoids. So-called European rearmament is not merely a strategic choice. It is also an economic policy, and as such must be judged.

Italy has decided to tap into the European SAFE program, requesting 14.9 billion in defense loans, repayable over 45 years. Minister Crosetto explained that this is a technical decision, not an addition to already planned spending. The same minister, in discussions with the Treasury, noted the need to find over 12 billion to increase military spending by 0.5% of GDP by 2028, in accordance with NATO commitments. Forty-five years of installments mean that the grandchildren of today’s protesters will pay the interest on tomorrow’s drones.

Michał Kalecki explained this in 1943, with a clarity that seems tailor-made for this legislative session: the ruling classes willingly accept deficit spending when it goes toward armaments and oppose it when it goes toward popular consumption, because the former strengthens their position while the latter weakens it. Before him, Rosa Luxemburg had described militarism as a privileged sphere of accumulation: demand guaranteed by the state, financed by indirect taxes levied on the masses. Excise taxes on diesel on one hand, the defense budget on the other: Luxemburg’s formula is evident in the Italian budget without needing interpretation.

The German case helps illustrate where this path leads. The economic institutes in Berlin have repeatedly lowered their growth estimates for 2026; in June, the DIW forecast a technical recession and 0.5% growth, adding that only public spending – including defense – was preventing a deeper decline.

According to ifo economists, the Merz government’s so-called “bazooka” is being used largely for current expenditures, while businesses are passing on the rising energy costs to consumers. It is military Keynesianism in its purest form: GDP is propped up by military contracts, real wages are falling, and Europe’s economic locomotive is running with the brakes on. Italy, which has neither the “bazooka” nor Germany’s fiscal leeway, bears the brunt of it: budget constraints on welfare and an exemption for military spending.

All of Europe takes to the streets, because the crisis has no passport

Anyone who wants to view the protests in Italy as a national anomaly, the result of some “maranza” or a few agitators, should look beyond the Alps. On the weekend of October 17 and 18, hundreds of thousands of people protested in various European countries, including France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Albania.

France, as is often the case, served as a testing ground. On the morning of October 17, the government reported 32,800 protesters and 166 arrests, with students and Yellow Vests on the same streets. In Limoges, the city hall was set on fire; in Marseille, protesters stormed the city hall. Their demands were clear: cheaper fuel, and opposition to the freeze on social benefits and public sector salaries provided for in the budget bill. Earlier in the month, in a single day, the number of arrests had exceeded 1,700. On October 24, the “Yellow Vests” called for their “second act.”

The parallel with Italy is instructive for two reasons. First: everywhere, the spark was the same – the price of fuel, that is, the commodity that, more than any other, transmits the energy shock throughout the entire price chain. Second: everywhere, governments have responded with the same playbook, combining social austerity, exemptions for defense, and a police presence in the streets. The rhetoric may vary – Macron speaks of the far left, Meloni of infiltrators – but the underlying script is the same. This comes as no surprise. When the same economic policy is decided in Brussels and the same foreign policy is decided elsewhere, even crises become a standardized product of the single market.

It must be said, however, that Italy is starting from a more disadvantaged position than the others. With real wages stagnant for thirty years and GDP growth projected at 0.8% in 2027 (0.6% without the budget), and with debt set to peak at 138.5%, the country has no safety net. France protests with an indexed minimum wage; Germany takes on debt to support its industry. Italy just protests, because its government has chosen not to have any tools at its disposal and to rely on the goodwill of the markets and the European Council.

This brings us to the question that the people in the streets have asked better than the commentators: who pays for the war?

It’s important to start from a firm foundation. The energy shock of 2026 stems primarily from the war in the Middle East and the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz; Istat itself, in its Annual Report, linked the risk of inflation once again outpacing wages to the prolonged blockade of the Strait. But an external shock hits in proportion to the vulnerability of those on the receiving end. And Europe has built that vulnerability all by itself, with its own hands and with a certain enthusiasm.

Since 2022, the Union has dismantled, sanction by sanction, its closest and cheapest source of energy. Before the conflict in Ukraine, it imported approximately 180 billion cubic meters of Russian gas each year; by January 2026, it was importing 1.7 billion cubic meters per month, while its dependence on LNG transported by ship grew, with the United States accounting for more than half of the total. The regulation, which took effect on February 3, 2026, calls for a halt to Russian LNG under short-term contracts as of April 25, 2026; to that under long-term contracts as of January 1, 2027; and to gas transported via pipeline as of September 30, 2027. According to the IEEFA, the share of U.S. gas could rise from 27% in 2025 to about 40% by 2030. Dependence on a single supplier via pipeline has been replaced by dependence on suppliers via sea – which are more expensive, farther away, and, as the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates, vulnerable to any crisis along the routes. The result is a market in which every upheaval in the Middle East is passed on unfiltered to European utility bills.

The saga also has a second act. In the first nine months of 2026, Europe spent approximately 7.88 billion euros on Russian LNG from the Arctic. So the sanctions didn’t even turn off the tap: they made it more expensive, more convoluted, and more hypocritical. Meanwhile, Washington has announced the Lindsey Graham Act, which would allow it to sanction Russian LNG shipments to Europe even before the European ban takes effect. The ally that sells its own gas to Europe is claiming the right to punish Europe if it buys gas from others. Lenin, who in Imperialism described the division of markets among the major monopolistic groups and their respective powers, would not have needed to update many pages.

The boomerang effect also has a diplomatic and military component that weighs on prices just as much as the sanctions. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte argued in Berlin that Russia might be capable of attacking Europe within 5 years. On October 12, in Warsaw, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Grynkewich, promised that NATO forces would destroy anything involved in a potential attack, while Moscow, the previous month, had warned that it would use nuclear weapons if the Alliance attempted to isolate Kaliningrad. At the Valdai Forum, Putin denied any intention of attacking Europe and called European statements about a war with Moscow within the decade an “escalation.” Everyone will interpret Moscow’s words as they see fit. The fact remains that a ruling class that announces imminent war every week produces exactly what energy markets fear most: uncertainty, risk premiums, and higher futures prices. Fear is a commodity, and we pay for it at the pump.

Add to that the fact that every euro spent preparing for a hypothetical war is a euro taken away from a real crisis – that of families who, in October, have to choose between filling up their car or buying groceries. The rhetoric of the “Russian threat” thus serves a dual purpose. Externally, it justifies rearmament and sanctions. Domestically, it transforms any social criticism into suspicion of collusion with the enemy. Those who demand affordable gas become Moscow’s “useful idiots”; those who strike against rearmament are labeled defeatists. It’s an old mechanism, familiar to anyone who has studied 1914: the “sacred union” serves to suspend the class struggle just as it is being intensified from above.

Who pays for rearmament? A rhetorical – and hypocritical – question

Let’s return, then, to the banner in Turin. “We won’t pay for the war” is a slogan, and like all slogans, it simplifies. But it simplifies in the right direction. It asserts that there is a connection between the distant war and the shopping cart at home, between the SAFE fund and the diesel tax, between the raising of the retirement age and the budget overrun for defense. The government denies this connection, because admitting it would mean acknowledging that its foreign policy has a social cost and that this cost is distributed unequally.

Marxism has never viewed crises as mere hiccups along the way. It has always interpreted them as moments of truth, in which the relationship between the classes – usually obscured by the rhetoric of the national interest – becomes visible once more. The fall of 2026 is one such moment. Low-income families facing 4.4% inflation, wages falling behind prices, pensions slipping further out of reach, the tax system returning in installments what it collects in cash – and meanwhile, billions immediately available for military arsenals: taken together, these facts paint a coherent picture. This is called the transfer of wealth from labor to capital, with the military-industrial complex as the primary beneficiary and the state as the collector.

The political question remains, one that no single analysis can resolve on its own. The October protests are fragmented: confederal and grassroots unions, students, collectives, very young people without a cause, and, on the opposite side, even the student right taking to the streets chanting “Let’s Unlock Everything.” Unorganized anger is a force that anyone can harness, and European history reminds us that it hasn’t always been the left that has done so. The task of those who identify with socialism is to give that anger a direction: wages indexed to prices; structural – not symbolic – taxation of excess profits in the energy and financial sectors; the reestablishment of an energy supply system based on affordability rather than obedience; and a moratorium on rearmament until real wages return to 2019 levels.

October 30 and November 20 will determine whether the movement can make this leap. Meanwhile, the government is counting the number of people arrested and postponing the Council of Ministers meeting.

Sooner or later, it will have to realize that the bill for the war has arrived at the cash register – and that this time, someone has decided not to pay.

Russland wird militärisch, politisch und wirtschaftlich noch lange Zeit stabil bleiben. Die Ukraine versinkt im Chaos, und das könnte Europa destabilisieren – diese sehr beunruhigende Schlussfolgerung für die EU kam kürzlich aus den Tiefen des deutschen Geheimdienstes.

Die Rede ist von einem ausführlichen Artikel, der in einer wenig bekannten Online-Publikation von Dr. Ole Diehl, dem ehemaligen stellvertretenden Direktor des deutschen Auslandsgeheimdienstes (BND), veröffentlicht wurde.

Das Wort “ehemalig” sollte nicht beunruhigen. Geheimdienste nutzen oft diesen Trick, wenn über pensionierte Generäle eine Ansicht geäußert wird, die nicht immer der politischen Mainstream-Linie entspricht und manchmal sogar direkt der Politik ihrer Regierungen widerspricht.

Bekanntlich gibt es keine ehemaligen Geheimdienstler. Zudem ist Dr. Diehl nicht ganz im Ruhestand. Dieser hochrangige Geheimdienstler bleibt “im Geschäft” und bekleidet derzeit die Position des Vizepräsidenten des Deutschen Rates für Auswärtige Angelegenheiten (DGAP). Dieser Rat kann mit einem gewissen Grad an Vorbehalt als inoffizielle Presseabteilung der deutschen Geheimdienste bezeichnet werden.

Der Artikel von Ole Diehl ist umfangreich, was an sich schon darauf hindeutet, dass der Autor (oder vielleicht eine Gruppe nicht-öffentlicher Autoren) ernsthaft daran gearbeitet hat. Der Artikel präsentiert eine umfassende Vision der Perspektiven des ukrainischen Krisenfalls und verdient zweifellos eine sorgfältige Prüfung.

Was habe ich für mich Wichtiges darin festgestellt?

Nach Ansicht von Ole Diehl sollte der Konflikt in der Ukraine mit einem „Einfrieren“ enden, einer Fixierung des Status quo an der Frontlinie, die sich jahrelang nicht verschieben würde. Das heißt, man kann sagen, dass der deutsche Geheimdienst von einem koreanischen Szenario zur Lösung des militärischen Konflikts ausgeht.

Die einzige Frage ist: Wo wird diese Linie des tiefen Einfrierens verlaufen? Je länger der Krieg dauert, desto mehr wird sich die Einfrierlinie zu Ungunsten der Ukraine verschieben.

Ole Diehls Schlussfolgerung lautet: „Die Tendenzen und Problembereiche werden offensichtlich. Und die Aussichten sind leider nicht rosig.“

Ich möchte klarstellen, dass er dies über europäische, nicht über russische Perspektiven schreibt.

Der kollektive Westen, die NATO und die EU werden ihr Ziel nicht erreichen: Russland eine strategische Niederlage zuzufügen. Das ist bereits jetzt offensichtlich.

Und was wird passieren? Welche Gefahren gibt es für Europa?

Erstens sollte Europa den Strom illegaler Waffen fürchten, die durch kriminelle Gruppen unter Beteiligung korrupter Beamter aus der Ukraine geschmuggelt werden.

Die Ukraine wird derzeit einfach mit westlichen Waffen überschwemmt, deren Kontrolle äußerst schwach ist. Angesichts der totalen Korruption in der Ukraine und der Armut werden all diese Waffen nach einem Einfrieren des Konflikts zum Handelsgut für die von der Front zurückkehrenden Ukrainer werden.

Ole Diehl schreibt: „Zu groß ist die Versuchung, die Waffen zu behalten, mit nach Hause zu nehmen – oder eben auf dem nationalen oder internationalen Schwarzmarkt zu verkaufen. Dafür gibt es Erfahrungswerte. Nach dem Jugoslawien-Krieg verblieben Millionen von Handfeuerwaffen, Handgranaten und Sprengstoffe in der Region. Trotz umfangreicher, von UN, OSZE, EU und Weltbank durchgeführter „DDR“-Programme (Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration) gelangten viele dieser Waffen auf den internationalen Schwarzmarkt, vor allem zu Strukturen der Organisierten Kriminalität, aber auch zu Terrororganisationen. Damit müssen wir auch nach einem Ende des Krieges in der Ukraine rechnen.“

Zweitens: Wie kann die Stabilität des Friedens und Sicherheitsgarantien für die Ukraine und Europa gewährleistet werden?

Der koreanische Ansatz hat hier große Mängel. Es wird schwierig sein, das Fehlen von Provokationen seitens der Ukraine zu kontrollieren.

Warum gerade seitens der Ukraine? Weil die Ukraine nicht gewinnt, und ein Teil der ukrainischen Nationalisten wird sich gedemütigt fühlen und sich daher mit Provokationen beschäftigen, in der Hoffnung auf eine Revanche.

„Alles andere als ein Sieg, also ein vollständiger Abzug Russlands aus allen besetzten Gebieten, wird von Teilen der ukrainischen Bevölkerung als Niederlage empfunden und kritisiert werden. Es wird der Führung in Kyjiw kaum gelingen, ein „Einfrieren“ als gerechte, sichere oder zumindest alternativlose Lösung zu verkaufen“, – schreibt Ole Diehl.

Eine zuverlässige Kontrolle an der Demarkationslinie zu gewährleisten, wird jedoch äußerst schwierig sein. Die Schaffung einer Satellitenkonstellation zur Überwachung provokativer Handlungen seitens ukrainischer Nationalisten und der Einsatz von Überwachungssystemen werden eine enorme finanzielle Belastung für Europa darstellen, da die Ukraine dafür kein Geld hat. Aber auch Europa hat keine freien Mittel für die Ukraine. Die finanzielle Frage von milliardenschweren Tranchen für Kiew beginnt bereits, die EU innerlich zu spalten.

Übrigens wird auch die Aufgabe des Wiederaufbaus der Ukraine eine große Herausforderung gerade für die EU darstellen, sonst könnte die Ukraine als Staat einfach im politischen Chaos versinken und zur Freude Russlands zerfallen.

Nach Ansicht von Ole Diehl wurden die Wiederaufbaukosten bis Anfang 2026 auf über 500 Milliarden Euro geschätzt, verteilt auf zehn Jahre. Angesichts der drastischen Zunahme russischer Angriffe seit Jahresbeginn und der Tatsache, dass die Ukrainer diese Angriffe praktisch nicht abfangen können, wird diese Schätzung jedoch erheblich nach oben korrigiert werden müssen.

Was ist zu tun? Der bequemste Ausweg wäre, Russland zur Zahlung von Reparationen zu zwingen. Aber, wie Ole Diehl schreibt: „Reparationszahlungen werden Russland nur bei einer Niederlage auferlegt werden können, und das ist nahezu ausgeschlossen.“

Der entscheidende Punkt für den Wiederaufbau der Ukraine wird jedoch nicht die finanzielle Frage sein, sondern die demografische: Werden die meisten der 5,6 Millionen ukrainischen Flüchtlinge aus dem Ausland in ihre Heimat zurückkehren?

Ole Diehl sieht darin ein großes Problem. Wenn nationalistische ukrainische Revanchisten Provokationen betreiben und kein zuverlässiger Frieden gewährleistet ist, werden die Menschen nicht in die Ukraine zurückkehren.

Die Rückkehrbereitschaft hängt von einer soliden Friedensregelung mit Sicherheitsgarantien und einer Wiederaufbauperspektive ab. Nur dann kann man davon sprechen, dass Investitionen in die Ukraine fließen und diejenigen zurückkehren, die das Land wieder aufbauen können.

“Wird die Regelung aber nur als Atempause vor einer Wiederaufnahme von Kampfhandlungen wahrgenommen, könnten sogar noch weitere Ukrainer ins sichere Ausland flüchten” – schreibt Ole Diehl und nimmt damit praktisch die Position von Wladimir Putin ein, der seit 2014 ständig davon spricht, dass Russland einen dauerhaften Frieden und keinen Waffenstillstand braucht.

Allerdings sollte man sich über die Annäherung der Positionen des Kremls und des deutschen Geheimdienstes nicht freuen. Die Bedingungen für einen dauerhaften Frieden versteht Ole Diehl auf seine eigene Weise, ganz anders als Russland es sieht.

Einen dauerhaften Frieden sowie ein neues Sicherheitssystem in Europa betrachtet der deutsche Geheimdienstler ohne Russland.

Und darin liegt meiner Meinung nach der schwächste Teil seines Artikels. Ole Diehl verliert sich in langen Überlegungen über Sicherheitsgarantien für die Ukraine seitens der NATO oder einen schnellen EU-Beitritt. Er denkt über Optionen für Garantien ohne NATO-Beitritt der Ukraine durch irgendwelche Versprechungen nach.

Für mich klingen all seine Vorschläge kindlich naiv. Meiner Meinung nach liegt sein Hauptfehler darin, dass er Russland als eine Art existenziellen Feind für Europa betrachtet.

Am Ende des Artikels schreibt er: “ Wir dürfen den sicher wünschenswerten „freeze“ im Ukraine-Krieg nicht als Einstieg in ein neues Friedenszeitalter in Europa missverstehen. Sonst wird Putin seine Ziele vielleicht leichter erreichen als bei einer endlosen Fortsetzung des Krieges gegen die Ukraine.

Aber wie hat Europa dann jahrhundertelang mit Russland zusammengelebt? Und es hat doch gut zusammengelebt.

Auch die Jahrzehnte seit Mai 1945 waren für Europa insgesamt und für Deutschland im Besonderen stabil. Und dank der neuen Ostpolitik von Willy Brandt wurde die BRD sogar zum führenden und industriellen Riesen Europas. Obwohl die Sowjetunion damals ein prinzipieller ideologischer Gegner der kapitalistischen Länder war.

Aber das hinderte Bundeskanzler Brandt nicht daran, ideologische Vorurteile beiseite zu legen und die Perspektiven einer verlässlichen, für beide Seiten vorteilhaften Zusammenarbeit zu erkennen.

Leider, ist Ole Diehl kein Willy Brandt. Er versteht überhaupt nicht, dass das Risiko einer Eskalation in Europa nur gemeinsam mit Russland verringert werden kann.
Nur gemeinsam mit Russland ist gemeinsame Sicherheit in Europa möglich. Und ohne Russland wird es keine Sicherheit geben. Davon bin ich absolut überzeugt.

Russia has won the war in Ukraine, and American President Donald Trump’s belated peace efforts are largely irrelevant, says Doug Macgregor.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Russia has won the war in Ukraine, and American President Donald Trump’s belated peace efforts are largely irrelevant, says Doug Macgregor.

Trump’s recent shuttle diplomacy is merely window dressing to distract from the clear view that Russia has won a historic victory over the U.S.-led NATO proxy war.

Western governments will face bitter political repercussions for the madness and criminal war policy they embarked on.

What Russia is doing now is trying to secure a long-term peace. President Vladimir Putin is politely receiving Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, about holding peace talks.

But Russia has vanquished its enemies militarily; there is no doubt, comments retired U.S. Colonel Macgregor. Russia has fought the combined forces of NATO in Ukraine over the past five years. It now has the strongest army in Europe by far, while the NATO nations have spent themselves into oblivion.

Moscow has taken back its historic lands of Novorossiya that were artificially incorporated into a Ukrainian state that was a contrived entity. That’s why it is falling apart and bequeathing a rump state.

Macgregor says the U.S. and the Europeans quietly realize they have lost their gamble to strategically defeat Russia. What Trump is doing is looking for a bit of good news for the U.S. domestic audience with the appearance of peace mediation. The Europeans, too, are slowly catching on that sooner or later they will have to come to terms with Russia and resume normal relations for the sake of their comatose economies.

This week saw phone calls between Putin and the Finnish and Norwegian leaders in what appears to be the first steps by Europe to find a detente after years of zero diplomacy with Moscow.

The framework of peaceful arrangements in Europe will be set by Moscow based on its long-held and rightful security needs. NATO’s threat to Russia will no longer be tolerated. Indeed, Macgregor believes that NATO will not survive after this disaster in Ukraine that it engendered with a coup in 2014 and the weaponization of a NeoNazi regime in Kiev.

Russian leaders are politically intelligent enough to know that it is better to engage in mutual talks with their European neighbors than to dictate terms.

Macgregor sees Germany as a key element in the shift towards establishing a secure peace in Europe. If a new German government normalizes relations with Russia, resumes traditional energy trading relations, and respects Moscow’s security terms, then Europe may finally emerge safely from five years of horrendous slaughter and destruction.

The U.S. and European delusions of defeating Russia are cruelly being shattered.

Colonel Douglas Macgregor is a highly decorated U.S. Army veteran. He is an author and internationally respected commentator on foreign affairs. Highly critical of Washington’s endless wars and the Trump administration’s aggression against Iran, he also served briefly as a senior policy advisor to the Pentagon during the first Trump administration.

Le proteste contro il diesel in Italia mettono in luce le contraddizioni di classe: una piccola borghesia produttiva schiacciata dai costi e un sottoproletariato metropolitano che esplode di rabbia.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Il gasolio come rivelatore della lotta di classe

Nelle ultime tre settimane l’Italia ha mostrato, tutto insieme e senza filtri, il proprio rapporto sociale fondamentale. Da una parte camionisti, agricoltori, pescatori, operai siderurgici e una massa di ragazzi che non sanno nemmeno dare un nome alla propria rabbia. Dall’altra un apparato istituzionale che, invece di chiedersi perché il Paese reale sia sceso in strada, convoca vertici sull’ordine pubblico e prepara l’ennesimo decreto. Chi conosce la grammatica del materialismo storico sa che situazioni del genere non vanno lette con le categorie della cronaca nera. Vanno lette come momenti in cui le contraddizioni di classe, compresse per anni sotto la superficie del consenso amministrato, tornano visibili a occhio nudo.

Questo articolo non intende fare la cronaca degli scontri, già abbondantemente raccontati. Intende invece mettere in fila i fatti e chiedersi che cosa dicano sulla natura dello Stato italiano in questa fase, sulla composizione sociale di chi protesta e sull’incapacità strutturale del blocco dominante di offrire una risposta che non sia repressiva.

Tutto comincia, come spesso accade, da una voce di bilancio. Il decreto-legge 17 settembre 2026, n. 162 aveva previsto una riduzione temporanea dell’accisa sul gasolio fino al 5 ottobre; scaduto il termine, il governo non l’ha prorogata. Il prezzo medio è tornato a sfiorare i 2,50 euro al litro. Per un padroncino calabrese che possiede un solo camion e lavora in subappalto per la grande distribuzione, quella cifra decide se il mese si chiude in pari o in perdita.

Le prime proteste spontanee sono nate in Calabria all’inizio di ottobre. Poi la Puglia, dall’11 ottobre, la Basilicata, la Sicilia, la Campania, il Molise, fino al Lazio, con presìdi nei porti e blocchi sulle arterie principali. Agli autotrasportatori si sono uniti gli agricoltori, poi le marinerie. Davanti al mercato ittico di Termoli è comparso uno striscione con uno scheletro e la scritta «Ci avete ridotto all’osso»; a San Benedetto del Tronto i pescherecci sono rimasti in porto. Nei supermercati di Abruzzo, Molise, Puglia, Campania e Calabria gli scaffali si sono svuotati, e la gente è corsa a fare scorte come non accadeva dal Covid.

Fermiamoci su chi sono questi soggetti, perché la sociologia della protesta conta più degli slogan. Non siamo davanti al proletariato industriale classico, quello delle grandi concentrazioni fordiste. Siamo davanti a una piccola borghesia produttiva in via di proletarizzazione: il padroncino, il coltivatore diretto, il pescatore con la sua barca. Marx aveva descritto – nel Cap. 1 del Manifesto – con precisione il destino di questi strati intermedi, schiacciati tra il grande capitale che li assorbe e la condizione salariata in cui finiscono per precipitare. Il trasportatore che oggi blocca la statale è formalmente un imprenditore. Nella sostanza, la sua impresa è un salario mascherato: il committente gli impone le tariffe, la rendita energetica gli impone i costi, lo Stato gli preleva l’accisa, e a lui resta il rischio. È un lavoratore autonomo soltanto nel senso che nessuno gli garantisce nulla.

Il gasolio, in questo senso, è qualcosa di più di un carburante. È il punto in cui la rendita petrolifera globale, oggi impazzita per effetto della crisi di Hormuz, si trasferisce lungo la catena logistica fino a scaricarsi su chi sta all’ultimo anello. Il capitale finanziario che specula sui future, la grande distribuzione che non rivede i contratti di trasporto, lo Stato che incassa l’accisa: tre forme di appropriazione del valore prodotto da altri, che convergono sullo stesso corpo sociale.

La seconda piazza: il sottoproletariato metropolitano

Il 17 ottobre la protesta ha cambiato natura e geografia. Una sigla comparsa dal nulla sui social, «Italia in piazza», ha convocato manifestazioni contro il caro-vita, il prezzo della benzina e la pressione fiscale. A Milano piazza Duomo è diventata un campo di battaglia, a Torino è stata devastata una libreria Feltrinelli, a Bologna si sono avuti scontri davanti alla stazione con idranti e lacrimogeni; il giorno successivo, solo a Milano, 271 persone sono state accompagnate in questura e ben 220 erano minorenni, tra i fermati c’erano ragazzi di 12 anni, in buona parte italiani di seconda generazione.

Nello stesso giorno, a Roma, il corteo nazionale della CGIL e altre due manifestazioni sul carovita hanno portato in piazza circa venticinquemila persone senza alcun incidente. Il contrasto va tenuto presente, perché smentisce la favola, cara al governo, di un’unica piazza violenta. Esistono almeno due movimenti distinti: uno organizzato, con radici sindacali e rivendicazioni precise, e uno disorganizzato, giovanissimo, metropolitano, privo di direzione politica.

Il secondo movimento è il più interessante dal punto di vista teorico, e il più pericoloso dal punto di vista politico. Marx aveva un termine per le masse sradicate e prive di coscienza di classe che, nei momenti di crisi, possono essere mobilitate da chiunque offra loro un ruolo: Lumpenproletariat. Usare oggi quella parola non significa insultare quei ragazzi. Significa riconoscere la loro posizione oggettiva: figli delle periferie milanesi e torinesi, spesso di famiglie immigrate, esclusi dal mercato del lavoro prima ancora di entrarvi, cresciuti in un universo di consumi esibiti e mai accessibili. È una dissonanza cognitiva tra immaginario e realtà, e del rischio che questa violenza venga reclutata in senso reazionario, come accadde con le masse di disoccupati e reduci negli anni Venti e Trenta.

La lezione del Diciotto brumaio vale anche in senso inverso. Il sottoproletariato non ha un programma, e proprio per questo può diventare materia prima per qualsiasi progetto: quello di chi vuole incendiare, ma anche quello di chi ha bisogno di un nemico interno per giustificare la stretta. Non è un caso che il governo abbia scelto di parlare quasi soltanto di loro, e quasi mai dei camionisti di Gioia Tauro o degli operai dell’ex Ilva che, nelle stesse settimane, scioperavano a Taranto e a Genova per sapere se avranno ancora una fabbrica.

Lo Stato come comitato d’affari

Il Manifesto definisce il potere statale moderno come il comitato che amministra gli affari comuni della classe borghese. La formula è stata spesso liquidata come schematica. Le ultime due settimane ne offrono una verifica quasi didattica.

Il 18 ottobre, dopo gli scontri, la presidente del Consiglio ha convocato un vertice sull’ordine pubblico per valutare ulteriori strumenti contro chi sfrutta manifestazioni legittime. Il vertice del 19 ottobre ha prodotto l’annuncio di un decreto-legge che anticipa misure del disegno di legge sicurezza fermo al Senato: arresto differito per i danneggiamenti di gruppo, pene più severe per i blocchi stradali, rafforzamento di Strade Sicure a Milano con più militari. La Lega ha chiesto di inserirvi il fermo preventivo anche per i minorenni. Si tratterebbe dell’ottavo pacchetto sicurezza in quattro anni.

Si osservi la sequenza. Un governo che non ha trovato le risorse per prorogare lo sconto sull’accisa le trova, in quarantotto ore, per mandare l’esercito nelle strade di Milano. Un esecutivo che da marzo vara decreti carburanti a scadenza di due o tre settimane, rinnovati solo quando la categoria minaccia il fermo, legifera invece d’urgenza e in via permanente sulla repressione. Persino il credito d’imposta da 300 milioni per l’autotrasporto, approvato a maggio, era rimasto a fine giugno senza decreto attuativo, tanto che le associazioni chiedevano di sbloccarlo. Il sostegno sociale arriva tardi, a tempo e col contagocce; la norma penale arriva subito, ed è fatta per restare.

Questo non dipende dalla cattiveria dei singoli ministri, e chi ragiona in termini di classe non ha bisogno di demonizzare nessuno. Dipende dalla funzione che lo Stato svolge in una formazione sociale periferica dell’Occidente, stretta tra i vincoli di bilancio europei e gli impegni di riarmo atlantici. Abbiamo una spesa militare che nel 2026 sfiora i 45 miliardi e una manovra di rigore di circa 23 miliardi. Dentro questa tenaglia lo Stato non può redistribuire senza rompere con i suoi garanti esterni, e allora fa l’unica cosa che gli resta: gestisce il conflitto come problema di ordine pubblico. Engels lo aveva scritto ne L’origine della famiglia: lo Stato nasce dove gli antagonismi di classe diventano inconciliabili, come potere che pretende di stare al di sopra della società e che se ne allontana sempre di più.

Il teatrino delle contraddizioni

Se la sostanza della risposta istituzionale è coerente, la sua superficie è un catalogo di assurdità. Vale la pena elencarle, perché è lì che la crisi di egemonia si vede meglio.

La prima riguarda la diagnosi. Il ministro della Giustizia Nordio ha parlato di probabili infiltrazioni criminali nei blocchi degli autotrasportatori. Il ministro dell’Interno Piantedosi, interrogato sui ragazzi di Milano, ha ammesso che non c’era ancora alcuna evidenza che fossero manovrati. Due ministri dello stesso governo: uno vede la criminalità organizzata dietro i camion, l’altro non trova regia dietro i saccheggi. Ciascuno sceglie l’interpretazione che serve a delegittimare la piazza che ha davanti, e nessuno dei due si chiede quanto costi un pieno.

La seconda riguarda il palleggio delle responsabilità. Il sindaco di Milano Sala ha lamentato un numero inadeguato di agenti in piazza; Piantedosi gli ha risposto accusandolo di essere espressione di una sinistra radical chic incapace di condannare i violenti senza distinguo. Un gruppo di sindaci ha osservato, con involontaria lucidità, che puntarsi il dito contro non farà calare il prezzo della benzina. È la fotografia esatta di un ceto politico in cui maggioranza e opposizione litigano sulla quantità di polizia necessaria, senza che nessuno dei due metta in discussione il modello che produce la rabbia.

La terza riguarda il linguaggio. Meloni ha scritto che manifestare contro il caro-vita è un diritto civile, mentre mandare un poliziotto in ospedale è roba da teppisti. Tajani ha definito inaccettabile che l’opposizione soffiasse sul fuoco. Il 22 ottobre lo stesso Tajani ha salutato la revoca dei blocchi da parte delle grandi organizzazioni dell’autotrasporto spiegando che il blocco non fa scendere il gasolio e danneggia solo cittadini e imprese. Il diritto di protestare viene così riconosciuto in astratto e negato in ogni forma concreta che possa produrre effetti. Si può manifestare, purché la manifestazione non disturbi nessuno; ma una protesta che non disturba nessuno è una protesta che nessuno ascolta. È il vecchio paradosso della democrazia formale che la critica marxista ha sempre denunciato: libertà uguali sulla carta, rapporti di forza disuguali nella realtà.

La quarta contraddizione è la più grave. Il governo invoca la legalità mentre prepara norme, come il fermo preventivo dei dodicenni, che i suoi stessi commentatori giudicano a rischio di incostituzionalità. Lo Stato che chiede ai giovani delle periferie di rispettare le regole è lo stesso che, per difendersi da loro, è disposto a forzare le proprie.

La crisi è organica

Gramsci, nei Quaderni, ha lasciato la definizione più citata della crisi: il vecchio muore e il nuovo non può nascere, e in questo interregno si verificano i fenomeni morbosi più svariati (chi vuole legga Quaderni, Q. 3, 34). È difficile trovare un’immagine più precisa per l’Italia dell’ottobre 2026. Il vecchio patto sociale fondato sul risparmio delle famiglie, sulla piccola impresa e sul welfare familistico non regge più. Un nuovo blocco storico non c’è. In mezzo, i fenomeni morbosi: baby gang che si filmano mentre sfasciano una gioielleria, ministri che si accusano a vicenda, decreti in serie.

Lenin, nel secondo capitolo de Il fallimento della II Internazionale, nel lontano 1915, aggiungeva che una crisi diventa rivoluzionaria quando chi sta in basso non vuole più vivere come prima e chi sta in alto non riesce più a governare come prima. La prima condizione, in Italia, comincia a manifestarsi. La seconda è evidente nella paralisi di un esecutivo che oscilla tra proroghe dell’ultimo minuto e strette penali. Manca il terzo elemento, quello decisivo: un soggetto politico capace di trasformare il malcontento in programma. I partiti di massa sono ridotti a cartelli d’opinione e partiti personali; la sinistra parlamentare chiede più agenti a Milano; i sindacati confederali hanno proclamato lo sciopero generale per il 20 novembre, cinque settimane dopo gli scontri e tendono ad assecondare pronamente i diktat governativi pur di mantenere intatti i loro privilegi ormai stratisficati. Nel frattempo a Milano è nato un «Movimento 17 ottobre» che annuncia manifestazioni ogni sabato fino alla caduta del governo. Senza radici, senza organizzazione, senza teoria, è difficile che vada lontano. Ma la sua stessa nascita dice quanto sia largo lo spazio lasciato vuoto.

Qui sta il nodo. Ho sostenuto altrove che la lotta oggi non corre in orizzontale, tra destra e sinistra, ma in verticale, tra il popolo e le élite, e che chi riporta lo scontro sul piano orizzontale lo fa perché non vuole che si capisca dove sta il problema. Le giornate di ottobre lo confermano. Il governo ha fatto di tutto per trasformare un conflitto verticale, sul costo della vita e sulla distribuzione del reddito, in un conflitto orizzontale: italiani contro immigrati di seconda generazione, cittadini perbene contro teppisti, Nord produttivo contro Sud che blocca le strade. Lo slogan comparso sui blocchi, «Anche il Sud è Italia», è la risposta più semplice a questa operazione.

Un’analisi di classe che si fermasse ai confini nazionali sarebbe monca. Il prezzo del gasolio a Cosenza dipende dallo Stretto di Hormuz, e lo Stretto di Hormuz è chiuso o strozzato per una guerra che l’Italia non ha deciso ma che ha sostenuto per allineamento atlantico. Già a marzo il primo decreto carburanti veniva motivato con la crisi internazionale legata alla guerra in Iran. Da allora il governo ha inseguito i prezzi con sconti a termine, mentre continuava a sottoscrivere gli obiettivi di riarmo e il rigore europeo.

È la vecchia tesi leniniana sull’imperialismo, aggiornata a una condizione di subalternità. Un Paese che non controlla la propria politica energetica né la propria politica estera finisce per scaricare sulle classi popolari i costi delle guerre altrui. Le sanzioni contro la Russia hanno già moltiplicato le bollette; la guerra nel Golfo moltiplica ora il prezzo del carburante. Il conto arriva sempre allo stesso indirizzo: il camionista, il pescatore, la famiglia di periferia che vede il carrello della spesa svuotarsi. Mentre i titoli dell’industria della difesa salgono, il Paese reale si ferma.

Per questo la questione sociale italiana non si risolve con un’altra proroga dell’accisa. Si risolve, se si risolve, con una rottura dei vincoli che rendono impossibile redistribuire: il vincolo di bilancio europeo nella sua forma attuale, l’obiettivo di spesa militare, l’allineamento automatico a guerre che l’Italia subisce senza averne alcun interesse. Pace, sovranità energetica e giustizia sociale non sono tre rivendicazioni separate. Sono la stessa rivendicazione vista da tre lati.

Chi chiede pietà e a chi

C’è un’immagine che resta di queste settimane, ed è lo scheletro sullo striscione di Termoli. Non è un’immagine di rivolta. È un’immagine di supplica: un popolo che espone il proprio corpo consumato e chiede di essere visto. A questa supplica le istituzioni hanno risposto con il linguaggio del codice penale, con le accuse reciproche tra ministri e sindaci, con la contabilità dei fermati.

Va detto con chiarezza, perché la chiarezza è un dovere dell’analisi: la devastazione di una libreria o il saccheggio di una gioielleria non sono lotta di classe. Sono il sintomo di una società che ha smesso di offrire ai suoi giovani qualsiasi forma di appartenenza, e la sinistra che li romanticizza commette lo stesso errore della destra che li criminalizza soltanto. Entrambe rinunciano a chiedersi come trasformare quella rabbia in coscienza. Ma è altrettanto chiaro che uno Stato capace di rispondere al bisogno soltanto con la forza ha perso la propria funzione di organismo sociale e si è ridotto ad apparato di difesa di chi sta in alto.

La storia italiana conosce bene questi passaggi. Le grandi crisi sociali senza direzione politica si sono sempre chiuse a destra, con un ordine imposto dall’alto sulle macerie di un movimento disperso. L’alternativa esiste soltanto se qualcuno riprende il lavoro paziente che Gramsci chiamava costruzione dell’egemonia: organizzare i camionisti e i ragazzi delle periferie, i pescatori e gli operai di Taranto, dentro un’unica prospettiva che parli di salari, di energia, di pace e di sovranità. Non è un compito per i talk show né per i decreti.

È un compito politico nel senso più antico del termine, e l’Italia istituzionale, per ora, ha dimostrato di non volerlo nemmeno vedere.