Media and geopolitics


But the geo-political analysis of the many western “Centres” and funds is often far from the truth. Although they do sometimes have to give us a few facts. For example during the Greek economic crisis, such “centres” carried out the orders of hedge funds which were speculating on the situation in Greece and receiving a large profit for this.

And even if we focus of the numbers which are used as market prices and GDP, such a financial and economic approach is fraught with serious consequences. If we take into account the importance of geoeconomics as pointed out by its founder Edward Luttwak as a new tool of political science, then answering the call of globalisation, that it is worth remembering that realpolitik with all its fundamental components, culture, history, national character has not disappeared.

We will give an impartial assessment of what is happening from the perspective of geopolitical imperatives no matter what the opposing forces are made up of. Now more than ever, when the rules of the world chess board are changing, it is imperative to monitor all the many events. Especially as the world is now moving from a monopolar to a multipolar order with more than two players, it is extremely important to remember the context of the occurring changes and to know all the many details.

For example, recall the SCO and BRICS summits, which were held some time before in Russia.

The West reflected on this important international event in the characteristic manner of double standards and information war. In the publication in Bloomberg during the BRICS summit in Ufa was notice that the joint BRICS nation’s economy has almost caught up with the economy of the USA. This is far from the truth as according to the IMF in 2014 only China’s economy had out performed that of the USA. The council for foreign relations, pointed out more realistically, that BRICS aims to lessen the influence of the west. A Stratfor claimed that BRICS and SCO only existed to appose the USA. Its appears that America didn’t hear or didn’t want to listen to the main speeches of the heads of state of the BRICS nations, when the clearly pointed out that BRICS is not aimed in opposition to any country and has a clear agenda, and SCO is about cooperation in defence and economic spheres in Eurasia.

Now 5 countries that take up about 26% of the Earth’s land area and represent 42% of the world’s population and 27% of the worlds GDP and now considered a new collective player in a multipolar world, based on the principal of de-centralisation and capable to answer the many questions of the 21st Century.

The BRICS Bank has already started work and its principles completely differ from the methods of neo-liberal economics. Instead of the strangle hold of loans with ever growing rates the bank with help in real sectors of economics. The bank isn’t only here to help the BRICS countries but any country that requires its support. At this moment a neo-liberal grouping is trying to enter the leading structures of BRICS using the old Trotskyite method of “entryism”. We will follow closely how these neo-liberals try to change the BRICS agenda.

The work of SCO is no less important as an action plan has been agreed up on to work together in the struggle with new threats including ISIS which has come about with a lot of help from the USA. The whole strategy of the US’s war against ISIS has so far been incompetent. This being shown in the intelligence services complete lack of knowledge of planned terrorist attacks.

Firstly the military cannot decide on the best strategy to take, as air strikes has been rendered useless due to the geographical make-up of the sprawling quasi state. And such bombing raids have started to hit the civilian populations of Iraq and Syria. Secondly the USA and EU has been unable to stop its own citizens going to ISIS held territory to take part in the conflict. Far a lot of the disenchanted youth, the ideology of extremism is far more attractive than the ideology of civil society. It certainly highlights the crisis in liberal democracy. And thirdly the using of revenues from oil in the ISIS held territories have helped to legitimize and pay for ISIS and its terror attacks. The West takes no action against those that buy oil from ISIS showing up the double standards and hypocrisy in the wests so called fight against Islamic extremism. At the same time Turkey is paying for Erdogan’s mistake of supporting for and helping terrorists fight against the legitimate Syrian government, Jordan is looking at a destabilisation of its own country. Ala' Alrababa'h from Foreign Affairs magazine has stated that the creation of a buffer zone may lead to an even greater catastrophe.

Returning to the SCO, it’s important to point out that this organisation has added to new members, India and Pakistan. These are countries which have a nuclear arsenal and now there is a block which houses 4 nuclear nations. NATO has only 3 such countries with in it. It is enough to take a look at the map of Eurasia to see what strength SCO represents especially taking into account the perspective of a possible new member in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Such an alliance of countries with different world views and experiences can more effectively understand the essence of regional conflicts and can liquidate the threat of terrorism and not make the problem worse as happened in Syria and Iraq with the help of the West with the support of the UN.

Another important point to note is that in connection with the BRICS and SCO summits Russia and China have showed their willingness to coordinate on questions of Eurasian integration and New Silk Road project. This has the added bonus of any Sino-Russian competition in central Asia can quickly be dealt with and help grow cooperation in the Sino-Russian spheres of influence. But this new cooperation and geopolitical coordination is not to the liking of the USA who as ever are sticking to their old strategy of “divide and rule”. But now this is becoming harder especially with the denunciation of the Kyrgyz-US treaty of cooperation, this has to be encouraged so as not to give the US a platform to use “Soft Power” in destabilising the region.

Discussions have been taking place between Russia and Syria and Syria’s entrance into the Eurasian economic union and singles of interest are coming from many different countries from North Africa to South East Asia.

And if Washington’s project transatlantic and transpacific partnership based on benefiting a small group of transnational cooperation’s and political bureaucracy then Russia and China have a more far sighted strategy where economics will benefit people. In the short term it is a forum for infrastructural projects but in the long term it is the change in the geopolitical environment in a more democratic and pluralistic shift answering the demands of the 21st Century.

The old rudiments of the cold war and NATO are still showing signs of life. Although hawks are actively lobbying for the uniting of Montenegro and Macedonia, frightening Europe with the so called “Russian threat”, it’s already clear that there are a lot of contradictions and differences of opinion in this organisation.
The Politico-Military Group on February 11 sent a letter to the Council of Europe, where it was stated that all member states of EU politically support operations or missions, but only a limited number are willing or has the ability to take military involvement.

The recommendation of the military-political group has forced the EU to take a new position on the mechanism of the general administration of costs to the European Union military operation, codenamed Athena. The main idea was to present the EU as a source of security. But the EU is not capable of doing this and cannot even moderate in frozen conflicts.

It should be noted that the various civil-military missions of the EU are now held in states, most of them, far from the borders of the European Union: Afghanistan, Djibouti, Somalia, Seychelles, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Niger, Central African Republic, Palestine, Kosovo, Bosnia, Georgia and Ukraine.
In March 2015 there was decision in which 49 points and two additions were dedicated to financing, compensation and reporting on the preparation and conduct of operations. This cumbersome bureaucratic document has been criticized by the public for his discrepancy with reality. In general, the imbalance between wishes and possibilities, especially financial, were declared military and political crisis of the EU.

Another European crisis is the migrant problem.

Brussels recently reached that conclusion to sink ships carrying illegal migrants. It turns out that the statements about the need for humanitarian missions and tolerance - is nothing more than a hypocritical policy of double standards. Opinion polls in EU countries show that the local populations are strongly opposed the new influx of illegal immigrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Meanwhile, the European Commission and the European Parliament have proposed quotas on arriving migrants, which primarily hit the countries of Eastern Europe, where there exists a pretty sad demographic situation as it is.

There is also a noticeable crisis in the energy strategy. Bulgaria is desperately seeking a means to pay the American company which operates in Bulgaria to with Nuclear energy, other countries are paying too high a price for gas. And others are connected with the pressure to Russia which has offered cheaper prices.

A report by the German institute of international affairs and security, which was dedicated to questions of the politics of energy stated that “The question of an energy union can be interpreted as a symptom of the crisis of integration within the EU”. Taking into account all the programs and strategies including the regulation of gas supply, green energy, climate change and so on, the authors claim that only a pragmatic approach can give the necessary results. It needs to be pointed out that the stated institute works on internal politics for Germany and its domination over other countries. Given the organisational capacity of the Germans it can be assumed that Germany plans to take over the management of the future Energy Union, from behind the scenes with a focus on renewable energy sources. Any leakage of the German plans and infringement of the interests of countries that still have the choice of energy sources, can generate a deeper crisis and a split among EU members.

Finally we must remember the series of broken promises leading to crisis, starting with of course Greece.

The Declaration of Thessaloniki of 2003 is still unfulfilled. The Western Balkan Nations have not turned into the enlightened safe region that was hoped for but have become even less safe and prosperous. The blame for this can be squarely laid at the door of the EU.

Current actions of European bureaucrats show that in the near future it is unlikely to find the right solutions for all these problems. On the contrary, the situation will be drawn out, which will inevitably lead to disastrous consequences. This may cause the citizens of these countries to more adequately understand real politics and to act within the framework of the interests of their peoples, and not continuing the consumer policy in the interest of corporations.