Interview With Tucker Carlson: Issues of Terminology

The interview with Tucker Carlson in Russian has been translated hastily and not quite correctly. On the whole, everything can be understood. But there are a few nuances. I am talking to an American and addressing the American public as a priority. Judging by the thousands of comments, they understood me perfectly well.

So here it is: in the political language of the modern States there are common terms—for example, woke, wokeism—that we do not use. It is a call to all liberals to immediately write denunciations of those who differ from the LGBT (banned in Russia) agenda, or from critical racial theory (the same needs clarification, but that is for another time), who question internationalism and globalism, who question the need to protect illegal and any migration. Then there is the vilification of all patriots and conservatives (present and historical) by accusing them of “fascism.” Apparently wokeism is now being actively mastered by the younger generation of the CRPF, but they are not the ones I am addressing.

The logic is as follows: woke left-liberal identifies a victim (conservative), writes a series of denunciations, makes a video on YouTube, Instagram (banned in Russia), gathers a flash mob, etc., and then canceling comes into play—inspections at the place of work, biased interviews reminiscent of interrogations, commissioned articles, and then dismissal, ostracism, search pessimization in social networks, financial checks, ban on loans, account disconnection—in extreme cases, murder (of the figurehead himself or a relative). A complete cycle of left-liberal terror. With a historical figure, the same thing is done to his legacy—books (paintings, movies) are censored or banned, his place in the query hierarchy drops dramatically in search engines, a defamation section appears on Wikipedia that cannot be removed. This process can affect Dante, Dostoevsky, Rowling, and even Scripture if it is found not politically correct enough.

Therefore, when I say “woke” I am immediately understood by everyone in the USA. But in our country, we would have to publish a whole article with explanations and examples, after which many of our domestic leftists and left-liberals would be ashamed (if they have a conscience, and this still needs to be proven).

Further, there is also the familiar US meaning of the term “progressive” or “progressist.” This is the self-designation of left-wing liberals, deadly opponents of Trump, Tucker Carlson, conservatism, religion, family, traditional values. We do not use the term “progressive” or “progressist” in this sense either.

There is a real war going on in the United States between “progressives” and “conservatives.” The “conservatives” believe that the “progressives,” though mistaken, have the right to exist, while the “progressives” brand all “conservatives” as “fascists” and insist that they have no right to life and their ideas. They are “enemies of the open society” (Popper), who must be destroyed before they destroy the “open society” itself. That is, “progressives” are woke and canceling. The core of the “progressives” are Trotskyists, both direct the left wing of the Democratic Party and those who have become neocons (like Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Victoria Nuland, etc.). In essence, “progressives” are supporters of World Revolution (only liberal, globalist) and Jacobin terror.

And finally, the most difficult term, “liberals.” It means several things at once in modern American political parlance:

  1. The entire American political system as a whole, that is, recognizing the legitimacy and supremacy of capitalism, can be called liberalism. In this sense, “liberals” in the US are everyone: the left liberal Democrat Party, the right liberal Republican Party (GOP). The former are more in favor of free migration, perversion and wokeism, the latter are more in favor of flat tax and big capital.
  2. More narrowly, and in a bipartisan discussion, it is usually the “liberals” who are referred to specifically as “left liberals,” that is, those who are for wokeism, cancel culture, and who are “progressive.” Sometimes they—being real fascists—appear as “anti-fascists.” Their logic is: “if you don’t send a suspected ‘fascist’ to a concentration camp in advance, he will send you there.” Such “liberals” believe that Republicans, and especially Trumpists, i.e., the republican conservative flank, should be locked up, or even cut out. And again—until they cut them out themselves (see the new movie “The Civil War”—it is about exactly that and accurately captures the mindset of American—left-wing—liberals).
  3. In an entirely different context, one might call “liberals” (though this is increasingly rare) “old liberals”—such as Tucker Carlson himself. Sometimes the term “libertarians” is used to distinguish them. They are most like anarchists, only right-wing rather than left-wing. “Progressives” often identify them as “fascists” because they interpret “liberalism” quite differently than the liberal left themselves. And anyone who is not a left liberal is a “fascist” and should be “abolished.” Libertarian liberals are in favor of a flat income tax or no income tax at all and are against state and government involvement in the economy. They are also in favor of bearing arms (2nd Amendment to the Constitution) and the complete and unrestricted freedom to do what you want, say what you want, and be whoever you want. Such “old liberals” believe that the “new liberals” (woke, LGBT, “progressive”, internationalists) have taken over the Federal Government and want to build “Stalinism” or “communism” or a “corporate state” in the US.

So, when talking to Tucker Carlson about liberalism, I had to take into account all three meanings of the term, and as the comments show, the American audience understood me perfectly well. If I were to explain all this in more detail, Tucker Carlson would really, as in the memes, turn gray and grow old. And for the Russian audience I would have to organize a whole course on liberalism, its history, its origins, its mutations (from right-wing Hayek to left-wing Soros—and this is only at the very last stage), and on contemporary political semantics in the United States. And then another course showing that it has nothing to do with us—then what was the first course for, those who will understand the second will ask? Actually, I have done this many times—including at the Center for Conservative Studies at Moscow State University, at the Tsargrad Institute, at the Ilyin Higher Political School, in countless lectures, courses, videos (short and long), textbooks and monographs.

That said, the American public is also a bit prepared for my ideas. There was a wild campaign of globalists and left-wing liberals for my total vilification. Sometimes I was even referred to as a “Trump advisor” to make it easier to destroy him. In other words, for “progressives,” Wokeists and “liberals,” I am a “Dr. Evil” of global proportions, “the most dangerous philosopher in the world.” At the same time, Dimitri Simes Jr., son of the prominent political expert, thinker and analyst Dimitri Simes Sr., who grew up in the United States, told me that he became acquainted with my books (in English, of course—at least a dozen of them translated and published in the United States) at school. His fellow students showed him, sub rosa, The Foundations of Geopolitics or The Theory of a Multipolar World, bragging about their access to dissident literature—until some woke Afro-lesbian noticed and wrote a denunciation—with imminent expulsion.

But I did not have such a format of addressing Americans as I did in the case of the interview with Tucker Carlson and especially after the historic phenomenal interview of our President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin with the world’s number 1 journalist. The globalist media shows only what is favorable to them, and everything I say is not favorable to them. That is why they say all kinds of invented and absurd things on my behalf. And the alternative American media, where I appear from time to time, do not have much coverage and are themselves semi-legal—as are the bright, freedom-loving journalists—like Alex Jones or Larry Johnson. Tucker Carlson is an exception. He and his program are still mainstream American, and his views are at complete odds with the totalitarian dominated ruling class of “progressives,” “woke,” “liberals,” and “anti-fascists.”

Alexander Dugin is a widely-known and influential Russian philosopher. His most famous work is The Fourth Political Theory (a book banned by major book retailers), in which he proposes a new polity, one that transcends liberal democracy, Marxism and fascism. He has also introduced and developed the idea of Eurasianism, rooted in traditionalism. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Geopolitika.

The Invading Friend: The United States of America

Debates about Americanism and anti-Americanism, Americanophilia and Americanophobia, are continually rekindled as major geopolitical events unfold. To be precise, it would be more accurate to speak of love and hatred of the United States of America rather than of America, because with 10 million km2 and 332 million inhabitants, the United States is only a minor part of a continent that covers no less than 42.5 million km2 for a population of over a billion “Americans.” But ideological prejudices, linguistic conventions and semantic misappropriations being what they are, it is not easy to overcome them. Just one example: For forty years I have been protesting, without any real success, against the dubious use by French historians and journalists of the term “nationalist” instead of “national” to describe one of the two sides in the Spanish Civil War. My Hispano-American friends will therefore forgive me, at least I hope they will, for using the terms “America” and “Americans” in the conventional, partial and arbitrary senses they are given in Europe, rather than exclusively the expressions “United States” and “United Statesmen” (which are themselves problematic, since they also refer to the country and inhabitants of Estados Unidos Mexicanos).

The problem addressed in this article is that of the image of “America” and its evolution since the creation of the United States in 1776. What has been and what is the meaning given by observers of international political life to the events in which the United States has been involved since its foundation? It is worth noting at the outset that this age-old debate, which is still being rekindled, never takes the form of a clear right-left opposition. Pro- and anti-Americans have been recruited and split across the political spectrum for over a century and a half.

Many analysts have pointed out that there is, on the one hand, a structural or essentialist Americanism and anti-Americanism and, on the other, a conjunctural or circumstantial Americanism and anti-Americanism, which are limited to the praise or criticism of a given point at a given time. Among essentialist authors, we usually cite the “pro-American” French journalist Jean François Revel (who denounced his European adversaries’ “complex,” resentment” and “anti-American obsession”), or the American neoconservative Robert Kagan (theorist of the “benevolent” Empire) and, conversely, among the anti-Americans, Benjamin Barber or Noam Chomsky (who have often been denounced in the USA as traitors or masochists dominated by “self-hatred”). [See, Jean-François Revel, L’Obsession antiaméricaine, 2002. See also, Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, 1988, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997].

According to essentialist authors, there is an “essence,” i.e., a positive or negative permanence, independent of history. America and Americans, according to some, struggle to spread progress, freedom, democracy, human rights and happiness throughout the world, but, according to others, they are guilty of all the errors, injustices, crimes and suffering of humanity. America and Americans thus are, for some, the beneficent friend, the disinterested defender of the oppressed, the “camp of good,” to be defended and loved, and, for others, the atavistic enemy, the incarnation of the eternal “fascist” bastard, the irredeemable nation, to be hated and slaughtered. There is thus both an essentialist xenophilia and xenophobia, which sees the Other as an immutable “essence,” sometimes admirable, sometimes detestable. The contempt, hubris and arrogance of some is always counterbalanced by the bitterness, rancor and resentment of others.

The problem is that the definition of Americanophilia or Americanophobia is very rarely fixed in the same author, and essentialist and conjunctural arguments are usually inextricably intertwined. In reality, Americanophile and Americanophobic discourses are mostly linked to historical events. Opinions hostile or favorable to the United States vary according to the era and ideological presuppositions of the actors involved, and are highly dependent on historical moments.

What are the Objective Reasons for Admiring the United States?

There are, of course, objective reasons to admire the United States of America. Admirable is the scientific and technical level of this great nation. One would have to be devoid of reason and heart to ignore it. Who would dare to claim that American literature has not reached the highest summits? Hollywood cinema, often mediocre, is certainly not as shabby as the most chauvinistic Europeans claim. Qualitatively pitiful (nearly a thousand films are produced every year), it nonetheless boasts many masterpieces. In terms of quality, 1% of American production has always rivaled the best European cinema, and for almost forty years, with the exception of a few rare cases, it has far surpassed it. Another example: the history of facts and ideas and political science. The social science or “societal” rantings of turn-of-the-20th-century American academics, fanatical followers of the “woke” ideology, cannot overshadow the admirable work of authors as diverse as Christopher Lasch, Paul Gottfried, Robert Nisbet, John Lukacs and Paul Piconne, to name but a few. All of them equal, and sometimes surpass, those of the most illustrious intellectual figures in Europe at the turn of the 21st century.

Equally admirable is the commitment of the American people to the First Amendment of their Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Of course, one cannot ignore the ability of American jurists to reinterpret a constitutional text, sometimes in a direction absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Founding Fathers, in order to satisfy the interests of the political-economical-media oligarchy or to respond to its injunctions. Of course, we cannot be so naive as to believe that this loyalty to the Bill of Rights will endure forever without fail. But to this day, despite setbacks and repeated accusations of violations, the principle and its application stand firm. And that is no mean feat! Just compare the situation in the USA with that in France or Spain. A memorial law, which would impose the State’s official viewpoint on historical events, is still inconceivable in the United States.

All this, we must acknowledge, without being blind to the imperfections of a highly imperfect representative democracy regularly marked by elections marred by irregularities and even by soft coups d’état by the dominant oligarchy. The press in the United States is theoretically free, but in practice it is tightly controlled by the powerful and the wealthy; society is particularly unequal; the proclaimed freedom is compromised by anti-terrorism laws; the political oligarchy is partially corrupt; Mafia influences on the White House have been frequent [See, Jean-François Gayraud, La Mafia et la Maison Blanche, 2023]; untimely military interventions in the world are beyond count. All these criticisms are well known.

The Intensity of Anti-Americanism Goes Hand-in-Hand with the Intensity of Americanism

Anti-Americanism is not simply a matter of prejudice or detestation. The denunciation of the system’s dysfunctions, the distrust and fear of imperialism, are not the product of fantasy. Exceptionalism and expansionism were present from the very beginning of the American Republic. They were bound to provoke international concern, apprehension and hostility.

The foundation of any true foreign policy is the national interest. This is as true of the United States as it is of any other power. Theorizing about cosmopolitanism, globalization and multiculturalism, so fashionable among Western oligarchies, cannot mask this reality. As recent history has shown, there is no such thing as globalist “inevitability.” On the contrary, the overcoming of national interests, the phenomenon of convergence advocated and driven by Western pseudo-elites, is accompanied by new fragmentations, oppositions and reconfigurations of international relations. After all, transnational globalization is only exacerbating the desire for state sovereignty and independence, including on the “old continent.” De Gaulle rightly said that we must not make the mistake of confusing peoples, states, regimes and rulers. To ignore this is to fail to understand why virulent criticism of the United States is now the most widely shared view in the world.

Significantly, in the “Old World,” they are the defenders of the European-Atlanticist oligarchy (that of the “poodles” of Uncle Sam, Merkel, Scholz, Macron, Van der Leyen or Sánchez, all epigones of Monnet, Schuman, de Gasperi, Spaak, Hallstein, etc., themselves often accused of being nothing more than “agents of the CIA.” Walter Hallstein, first president of the European commission was, let us not forget, a former Nazi lawyer cleared by the Americans), who never wanted to see de Gaulle as anything other than an anti-American, champion of identity and national sovereignty. They never fail to blame the old General for having accepted the entry of communist ministers into his second government in 1945 when the PCF represented 26% of the electorate, but de Gaulle, critic of the “party regime,” resigned after just two months. The same people criticized the fact that de Gaulle, with Stalin’s support, had obtained a seat for France on the UN Security Council on the same footing as the victors of the Second World War. Invariably they also deplore the Phnom-Penh speech against military intervention in Vietnam (1966), the withdrawal from NATO’s integrated command to overcome bloc logic (1966) and, of course, the Montreal speech “Vive le Québec libre!” denouncing too much Anglo-Saxon influence (1967). Yet de Gaulle was not anti-American. In every serious crisis that could lead to a dreadful nuclear confrontation, the “Connétable” always honored France’s alliances against the USSR. This was the case, for example, in 1961, during the construction of the Berlin Wall (“wall of shame” for liberals and social democrats, and “wall of anti-fascist protection” for communists), or in 1962, during the Soviet missile affair in Cuba [See, Éric Branca, L’ami américain : Washington contre de Gaulle, 2017]. De Gaulle was never anti-American, even if his opponents, past and present, globalists and other Europeanists and Atlanticists, try to pass him off as a model of anti-Americanism. Clearly, for them, one cannot be a friend of America if one refuses to slavishly align oneself with the positions of the American government.

Paradoxically, it was in fact President François Mitterrand (a Socialist leader, elected President of the French Republic because of the votes of the Communists, even though in his youth he had been awarded the Francisque, the highest distinction of the Vichy regime), who had the harshest words to say about the United States. In the twilight of his last term of office, fully aware that American governments had been pursuing the definitive expulsion of France from Africa since the end of the Second World War (an expulsion completed under Emmanuel Macron with the unplanned help of Russia and China), Mitterrand confided these edifying words to journalist George-Marc Benhamou: “France does not know it, but we are at war with America. Yes, a permanent war, a vital war, an economic war, apparently a war without killings. Yes, the Americans are very tough; they are voracious. They want undivided power over the world. It is an unknown war, a permanent war, apparently without killings, and yet a war to the death” [George-Marc Benhamou, Le dernier Mitterrand, 1998. Mitterrand also said: “I am the last of the great presidents. After me, there will only be financiers and accountants.”]

[On the role of the CIA in the destruction of European states and the construction of an Atlanticist Europe, see Bruno Riondel, Cet étrange Monsieur Monnet, 2017. Former advisor to President Georges Pompidou, Marie-France Garaud, who was also a supporter of the young Jacques Chirac and an “éminence grise” of the Gaullist movement the Rassemblement pour la République (founded in 1976), said bluntly that Jean Monnet “was an American agent” (See broadcast “Ce soir ou jamais”, France 2, May 17, 2013). Disappointed by the reversals and betrayals of his protégé, Jacques Chirac, he said of him, with his usual frankness, “I thought Jacques Chirac was marble for statues, but he’s actually faience for bidets” (“Canard Enchainé,” December 2, 1985).

It is worth noting that, on the occasion of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the Fratelli d’Italia (G. Meloni), Vox (S. Abascal), Reconquête (M. Maréchal rather than E. Zemmour) and Rassemblement National (J. Bardella rather than M. Le Pen) parties all openly distanced themselves from the neutralist, pacifist and terciferist line, opting, unambiguously, for the Euro-Atlanticist line.]

In fact, the intensity of anti-Americanism goes hand-in-hand with that of Americanism. From Monroe to Biden, via Wilson, F.D. Roosevelt, Bush, Obama and Trump, the speeches of American presidents are nourished by simple convictions: the people of the United States are “chosen and predestined;” “the destiny of the American nation is inseparable from Progress, Science, the Good of Mankind, Democracy and the Will of God.” American liberal democracy is the “best of regimes,” the “best form of modernity,” universally applicable. Articles of faith that in themselves legitimize America’s “world leadership” and planetary crusade, just as yesterday the most specious “humanist” arguments of Communist anti-capitalist propaganda camouflaged the USSR’s global expansion.
Yet these pro-American ideas and values are shared more or less consciously in Europe by virtually the entire political-economy-media oligarchy, all of whom are more or less Americanolatrous, collaborationist and servile. It cannot be repeated too often—for the latter, the history of the United States is synonymous with freedom, tolerance, prosperity, democracy and civilization. Consequently, the slightest reservation, the slightest criticism of the dysfunctions of the American system is interpreted by them as a sign of resentment, ingratitude, a spirit of decadence, or worse, an obsessive hatred of the free market and liberal democracy. In this way, the obsessive EU-NATOists condemn themselves to twisting reality to suit their ideology. As the Polish political scientist Ryszard Legutko has remarkably shown [see, Ryszard Legutko, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies, 2018], paradoxically, these “European federalists” claim to be part of a “new” liberal democracy that shares some of the most characteristic and worrying features of fallen communism [cult of “progress,” certainty of the existence of the “meaning of history,” desire to transform society by fighting against opponents of “emancipation and equality” ostensibly condemned to “the dustbin of history,” inability to tolerate contrary opinion, declared intention to create a new demos and a new man, submission of popular suffrage to unelected oligarchic bodies, dislike, sometimes verging on hatred, of the Church, religion, the nation, the family, classical metaphysics and morality, etc.]

Alongside these Americanolaters, as well as the patent detractors, there are of course the analysts, historians and political scientists who strive to circumscribe the debate on a geostrategic level. They point out that, for two centuries, North American foreign policy has oscillated between two opposing interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine (1823). On the one hand, there are those who defend the concept of a great space, the American continent, delimited and forbidden to any foreign interference, and, on the other, those who claim its antithesis, the policy of security of communication routes and the right to intervene in any space crossed by these communications. On the one hand, the supranational ideology of Pan-Americanism; on the other, the policy of interference on every continent, an instrument for the penetration of American capitalism, particularly in the markets of Asia and Europe. There are striking analogies with the Russian attitude to the Ukraine crisis. But with one major difference: Putin does not want world domination—he simply does not want to be threatened by American bases on his borders.

Similarities have often been noted, not in theory but in practice, between French republican universalism and Anglo-Saxon or American communitarian universalism. But there is a fundamental difference between the two. French republican universalism, a kind of secular, anti-Catholic counter-religion, sought to federate all members of the national community around common political and cultural values, treating them all solely as citizens. In contrast, Anglo-Saxon communitarian universalism is based on the coexistence of heterogeneous religious, ethnic and cultural groups within the same society, with mutual tolerance encouraged. The United States has historically been constructed as a collection of minority communities and cultures, with a universally accepted “founding myth” of the dominant WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) culture. But the long process that began two and a half centuries ago finally culminated in the militant separatism of the Woke.

When it comes to Americanism and anti-Americanism, perspective is everything. For Spanish-American historians and geo-politologists, the classic distinction between the two interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine, so dear to European political scientists, is not really relevant. For them, the great principles laid down by US diplomacy [Monroe Doctrine (1823), Manifest Destiny ideology (1845), Theodore Roosevelt’s Big Stick policy (1901), Franklin Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy (1932), Truman’s National Security Theory (1947), Bush’s Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) process, etc.] all lead to a single goal, all lead to the same end, summed up in these words: “America for Americans… of the North.”

Why is Anti-Americanism So Widespread Around the World?
That said, honest controversy about ideas cannot do without a reminder of the chronology of a few historical facts. In 1620, Puritan settlers, passengers on the Mayflower, landed on the North American coast. All of them were fervent Calvinists who wanted to purge Christianity of the tares of Catholicism. They defined themselves as the “new people chosen by God” to found a “new Jerusalem.” In a way, it was Calvin who landed in America with them, becoming one of the Founding Fathers of the worldview of the future United States of America. Tocqueville explains that democracy in America was born of the Protestant Reformation; that it had its origins in the English Puritan revolution, and that to a large extent the Puritans shaped the entire destiny of the United States. More recently, Huntington also recognized that the culture of the founding colonists coexisted with many other cultures, but that these were always subordinate to the dominant culture: “This culture of the founding colonists has constituted the central and most enduring component of American identity.” The “founding myth” of the Puritan settlers remains relatively solid today, although it has been increasingly reinterpreted and challenged since the 1970s, to the great danger of the American Empire.

Let us not forget that it was this same Puritan people (or at least their representatives) who, meeting in assembly, decided on and carried out the purge and ethnic cleansing of the Amerindian nations between 1637 and 1898. As Argentinian historian Marcelo Gullo rightly writes, “in the religious training of the Puritan colonists, the Old Testament prevailed over the New Testament.” In their eyes, cruelty against an Indian was “a cruelty necessary for good to prevail and for the realization of the Kingdom of God.” From the outset, the Puritan settlers knew that Indians, “the incarnation of sin and the devil,” could not be part of their “New Jerusalem.” They knew they were not there to evangelize, but to build the new Kingdom of God. Gullo explains: “To build the ‘new Jerusalem,’ the Indians had to be exterminated. There was no place for the Devil’s children in God’s Country” [see, Marcelo Gullo, Nada por lo que pedir perdón, 2022].

Nor was there any possibility of ethnic mixing with the Indians, in whom the Protestant colonists saw only men of inferior status. And this is a major difference from the conquest and evangelization of Hispanic America. “The anti-Hispanic legend in its American version,” honestly admits French Protestant historian Pierre Chaunu, “plays… the salutary role of an abscess of fixation… The alleged massacre of the Indians in the 16th century [by the Spaniards] covers the objective massacre of frontier colonization in the 19th century [by North Americans]; non-Iberian America and Northern Europe free themselves of their crimes on the other America and the other Europe.” After the iniquitous treatment inflicted on the natives by the American colonists and their rulers (massacres, treaty violations and deportations), North American Indians only existed in homeopathic doses. On the other hand, south of the Rio Grande and all the way to Argentina, the presence of large numbers of Indians and mestizos testifies to the fact that the Hispanic Empire and Catholicism were infinitely less inhumane than what is presented in the anti-Spanish Black Legend, so prized by Protestant historians.

Before the native adversary had been totally decimated after 65 conflicts (1778-1890), the United States very soon began to expand beyond its borders. Their image in the world obviously suffered enormously due to their hyper-interventionist stance. In the 19th century, between 1800 and 1898, the list of their military interventions was already impressive: Tripoli, Florida, Mexico, Argentina, Nicaragua, Japan, China, Uruguay, Panama, Fiji, Angola, Colombia, Taiwan, Korea, Hawaii, Egypt, Samoa, Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippines. In 1846, they invaded the territories of Mexico. After occupying the country for two years, under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), they wrested from it the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, etc. (i.e. 15% of the territory of the United States and 119% of the present-day territory of Mexico). Texas had already been taken by force from Mexico in 1836, and officially attached to the United States in 1845.

But it was undoubtedly Cuba (1898), which was the first real testing ground for their expansionist methods. Some authors even see it as the baptismal act of anti-Americanism. The daily, Le Temps, forerunner of the newspaper, Le Monde, was not mistaken, calling the Cuban operation “high filibustering” (April 11, 1898). The Cuban affair is an archetypal example of provocation, violence, cynicism and hypocrisy camouflaged behind generous motives. A textbook case, it marks the beginning of U.S. imperialism, the first international intervention or aggression in a never-ending series.

In the Luso-Hispanic world alone, the number of U.S. interventions and assaults over the last two centuries amounts to almost 70 for the major ones (and almost 800 for the minor ones). [The bibliography on the subject is considerable. Just one example is the encyclopedic work by Argentinian historian Gregorio Selser, Cronología de las intervenciones extranjeras en América Latina, 4 volumes, Mexico, CAMENA, 2010.]

From its creation in 1776 to 2019, the United States has carried out nearly 400 military interventions, more than a quarter of which took place after the fall of the Berlin Wall [see, Sidita Kushi and Monica Toft, “Introducing the Military Intervention Project: A New Dataset on US Military Interventions, 1776–2019,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2022]. The end of the Cold War unleashed the global ambitions of US governments. Since 1990, interventions “in the name of democracy and the defense of human rights” have multiplied (Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Macedonia, Haiti, Bosnia, Sudan, Yugoslavia, East Timor, Afghanistan, Philippines, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, and so on). U.S. defense spending now totals over $800 billion a year, representing almost 47% of global military spending. By way of comparison, the defense budgets of the other powers, expressed in billions of dollars, are as follows: China 278, Russia 84 (110 in 2024), India 82, Saudi Arabia 71, UK 65, Germany 53, France 44, Italy 28, Spain 27. In addition, the United States has nearly 800 military bases worldwide, while the UK has 50, Russia around ten in neighboring countries, France 6 and China just one. In February 2024, in the midst of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, The New York Times revealed that since 2016 the CIA has financed 12 bases in Ukraine along the Russian border.

The war in Ukraine has been a terrible revelation of the incompetence and subservience of European leaders to interests that are not their own. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have been sacrificed, not only to repel Russian aggression, but also to deny the European economy access to the abundant, cheap energy it needs in Russia, for the benefit of the American energy economy and its arms industries.

Few Western political, cultural or religious authorities have dared to make a frank appeal for moderation without fear of being branded traitors and Putinists by the media. Pope Francis sparked an outcry when he urged Ukrainians to “have the courage to raise the white flag and negotiate to end the war ‘before things get worse'” (“When you see that you are defeated, that things are not working, have the courage to negotiate” [Swiss television, RTS, March 9, 2024].

Arrogant, uneducated, deaf and blind, the leaders of the EU were unable to anticipate the refusal of China and India, or more broadly that of 162 states out of 195, to vote their unilateral sanctions against Russia. In two years of war, the United States and Great Britain have admirably achieved their objective: to prevent the creation of Eurasia by creating a wall of hatred between Europe and Russia. What is more, thanks to the American neocons and their European friends, the process of global de-Westernization has accelerated and now seems unstoppable. The already palpable decline of European vassal states may well be the prelude to the inevitable end of the hegemony of the “American empire.” Hats off to you! Bravo, artists!

The Collaborative Spirit of the European Oligarchy

It would be a mistake, however, to blame North America’s rulers alone for the attitude of a caste and the shortcomings of a model of society that the majority of the European oligarchy worships on a daily basis. Has not cultural identity been replaced in the hearts and minds of the “elites” of the “Old World” just as much as in those of the “elites” of the “New World” by the exaltation of GNP growth, the glorification of massive access to consumption, the desire to extend the Western way of life to the rest of the world, the mad hope that the development of the forces of production can be perpetuated everywhere indefinitely without triggering terrible catastrophes? Are not “human rights” and so-called “universal values” just as sacralized by the European ruling class? Do Europe’s vassalized and submissive “elites” or pseudo-elites not magnify the global democratic crusade on a daily basis, while at the same time scorning historical and cultural circumstances and data? Does not the narrative of Europe’s mainstream media also serve to camouflage the aspirations and material interests of the globalized caste under the guise of universal moral objectives?

To this day, the United States is the holder of global leadership. It is the superpower, the hyperpower or the Empire. In the current phase of multipolarization, of recomposition of the world’s political-economic-cultural poles, the North American thalassocratic Empire is gradually losing influence, but it nonetheless retains a hegemonic position. No emerging power is yet in a position to surpass it. The United States produces just under a quarter of the world’s wealth, but it can exploit fabulous shale gas deposits and, above all, has an overwhelming military force. Their decline is undoubtedly historically inevitable, but the fall can be slowed down for the long term.

The hubris of the American rulers, their imperial overextension and the excesses dictated by their pride, now constitute a formidable danger to the stability of the planet. Economic warfare, of which they have been a major perpetrator for decades, is a tangible planetary reality. The oil and gas war is just one of the most blatant aspects of this. To deny or ignore what is at stake—the control of the world’s energy and agri-food reserves, the domination of information, communications, civil and military intelligence—is the sign of blindness, incompetence or treason.

But intellectual honesty dictates that it must be said again and again that the American ruling class benefits from the active complicity and benevolent collaboration of the majority of the European political and economic caste. Nor should we forget to underline the role and effective action of multinational managers and major consultancies.

Let us be clear: the U.S. oligarchy, the “Deep State,” is not our only adversary. The adversary is the mortifying ideology of the globalist pseudo-elite, on both left and right; that of the leaders and apparatchiks of the main European parties in power; that of the neo-social democrats and neoliberals, so close to the Democrat and neoconservative apparatchiks on the other side of the Atlantic; that of the masters of global finance and their media affianced, jealous guardians of political correctness; that of the “organic intellectuals,” tirelessly contemptuous of sovereignty, identity and populism, which they always declare to be “demagogic.”

The cultural-political battle is not between Europe and North America, but between two cultural traditions that are tearing each other apart within modernity. One, a political minority, is that of civic humanism, the virtuous Republic and the defense of a multipolar world; the other, a majority, is that of individualist humanism, consumerist homogenization, the managerial state and global “governance,” under the dual banner of multiculturalism and neo-capitalist productivism.

Arnaud Imatz, a Basque-French political scientist and historian, holds a State Doctorate (DrE) in political science and is a correspondent-member of the Royal Academy of History (Spain), and a former international civil servant at OECDHe is a specialist in the Spanish Civil War, European populism, and the political struggles of the Right and the Left – all subjects on which he has written several books. He has also published numerous articles on the political thought of the founder and theoretician of the Falange, José Antonio Primo de Rivera, as well as the Liberal philosopher, José Ortega y Gasset, and the Catholic traditionalist, Juan Donoso Cortés. A version of this article appeared in La gaceta de la Iberosfera.

Featured: Over the Top, poster by Sidney H. Riesenberg and Ketterlinus of Philadelphia; printed in 1918.

The Economic Personality

Personality and individual: Differentiation of Concepts

The concept of the “total laborer” as a source of economic history can be supplemented by the formula “economic personality.” Economic personality is a total (integral) worker. In this case, the focus is on the personality in its anthropological interpretation (primarily in the French school of Durkheim-Moss and the followers of F. Boas in the USA). Here, the personality (la personne) is opposed to the individual (l’individu), since the personality is something social, public, complex and artificially created in contrast to the individual, which is an atomic datum of a separate human being without any additional characteristics. The individual is the product of the subtraction of the personality from the person, the result of the liberation of the human unit from any ties and collective structures. Personality consists of the intersection of various forms of collective identity, which can be conceptualized as roles (in sociology) or as filiation (in anthropology). Personality exists and makes sense only in relationship to society. Personality is a set of functions, as well as the result of a person’s conscious and meaningful creation of his or her identity. Personality is never a given; it is a process and a task. Personality is constantly being constructed, and in the course of this construction the surrounding world is established, ordered or, on the contrary, destroyed and chaotized.

Personality is the intersection of numerous identities, each of which belongs to a species; that is, it includes an indefinitely large number of identities as aspects of them. A particular identity is a combination of these filiations (species), each time representing something original—since the number of possibilities within each species, and even more so the combinations of these possibilities, is unlimited. Thus, people use the same language, but they utter with its help many different discourses, which are not so original (as it seems sometimes to the person himself), but also not so predictably recurrent as in the case of a machine or even the signaling system of animal species. Also, identities consist of the overlapping of age, gender, social, ethnic, religious, professional, class, etc. identities, each of which has its own structure. Thus, identity is the intersection of structures whose semantics is determined by the structural context.

The individual is the product of external observation of the human individual, where the personal aspect is either unclear or removed altogether. The individual is thought of in isolation from structures and affiliations and is fixed only on the basis of his actual bodily presence, reactive nervous system, and capacity for autonomous movement. In a certain sense, the individual as a concept is best understood in behaviorist theory: in this theory, the person is black-boxed, and that which interacts with the environment is the individual in its prima facie empirical state. However, while empirically the individual is quite realistic, as a metaphysical concept it is purely nihilistic. Behaviorism claims that it knows nothing about the content of the “black box” and, moreover, that it is not interested in this content. In principle, this is a logical conclusion from the American philosophy of pragmatism. But just because the content is “not interesting” does not mean that it does not exist. This is very important: pure pragmatism, while refusing to be interested in the structure of the individual, still does so modestly and does not draw any conclusion from it about the ontology of what is in the “black box.” American pragmatism is therefore individualism only in part—in its empirical aspect. Radical individualism has different—purely English—roots and is associated with the idea of the elimination of all filial lines. In other words, individualism is built on the conscious and consistent annihilation of the individual, on its negation and on giving this negation a metaphysical and moral status: the annihilation of the individual is a movement toward “truth” and “goodness,” which means “toward the truth of the individual” and “goodness for the individual.

Here we see the line between indifference and hatred: American pragmatism is simply indifferent to the individual, while English liberalism and its universalist and globalist derivatives hate and seek to destroy it. The goal is to transform the individual from an empty concept obtained by subtraction into something real, in which the physical separateness of the singular being would interlock with the element of the metaphysical abyss (obtained by eliminating the individual and all the structures that ground it).

Economy of the Personality

After this explanation, it is easy to apply both concepts—personality and individual—to the economy. The integral (total) worker is precisely an economic personality, not an economic individual. Here integrality, which we characterize as the connection of production and consumption and ownership of the means of production, is supplemented by the most important characteristic: inclusion in social structures that have an organic nature. The integral worker lives (including production and consumption) in a historical and cultural environment, which offers him a branching set of collective identities. This set predetermines his language, clan, faction, place in the kinship system (C. Lévi-Strauss), gender, religion, profession, belonging to a secret society, connection with space, etc. In each of the structures, a person occupies a certain place, endowing him/her with appropriate semantics. And this is what determines his economic activity. The laborer (first of all, the peasant) works not just for survival or enrichment, but for many other—and much more important—motives arising from the structures that form his personality. The laborer labors because of language (which is also a kind of economy—an exchange of speech, greetings, blessings or curses), kin, gender, religion and other statuses. At the same time, labor also involves the whole person—in all the diversity of its constituent elements. In this sense, the integral worker in the process of farming constantly and continuously affirms personal structures, which makes farming a kind of ontological liturgy, creation, protection and renewal of the world.

Economic personality is a quite concrete expression of species properties, where these properties, having multiple levels, are combined in a complex and dynamic combination. If structures are common (although this commonality is not universal, but is determined by the boundaries of culture), their expression and affirmation in personality is always isolated: not only are the structures themselves different in some cases (for example, in the field of gender, profession, castes, where they are, etc.), but their moments are manifested with different degrees of intensity, purity and brightness. Hence, differentials arise, which make life unpredictably diverse: individuals reflecting combinations of common (adjusted for cultural boundaries) structures are always diverse, as they carry differently emphasized and combined elements of these structures. This is what allows us to consider society both as something uniform, permanent, and subject to a common paradigmatic logic, and as something unique and historical, since individual freedom is extremely great and can generate a myriad of situations.

Nevertheless, the society of the integral laborer as a whole is defined by the unity of the paradigm, where the main law is the domination of the individual as the basic gestalt.

This is the kind of society any traditional society is, where the sphere of economy is singled out as a separate rather independent sphere, distinct from the other sphere, which includes warriors, rulers and priests. It is important that warriors and priests do not participate directly in the economy and act as the Other, called to consume the surplus of the economic activity of the integral laborer. It is important that it is the surplus. If warriors and priests demanded something more than surplus (“the cursed part”, J. Bataille), the laborers would die of hunger and shortage, and this would entail the death of warriors and priests themselves. At the same time, in societies where there is no social stratification, the addressee of the destruction of the “cursed part” (excesses) are the spirits, the dead and the gods in whose honor the potlatch is carried out. The Russian word “lihva” is very expressive: it means something superfluous, as well as bank interest, and comes from the base “liho,” “evil.”

From this observation an important principle in the theory of integral toilers emerges: the labor community of integral toilers must be sovereign in the economic sense; that is, it must have complete autarky in every sense. In this case, it will be independent of the superstructure (warriors and priests), who can consume the “cursed part,” or they can be absent, in which case the “cursed part” will be destroyed by the integral laborers themselves in the course of a sacred ritual. Thus, the very prerequisite for the interiorization of the curse will be eliminated. And this interiorization of the curse is the split (Spaltung), which means capitalism.

Capitalism brings with it the splitting of the economic personality, its detachment from structures, that is, its depersonalization. This simultaneously leads to the de-secularization of the labor community, to its dependence on external factors, to the division of labor and to the economic curse: the integral worker (peasant) becomes a bourgeois, that is, an immanent consumer of the cursed part. From here comes the disintegration of the personal character of the economy and a change in the whole nature of the economy: from the economy as a sacred way of life in the context of personal structures to the economy as a way of accumulating material resources. According to Aristotle, this is the transition from economy (οἰκονόμος) to chrematistics (χρηματιστική). The personality is the central figure of the economy as a household. The individual is the artificial unit of chrematistics as a continuous process of enrichment.

Chrematic Individual

The model of capitalism is based on the view of society as a set of economic individuals. In other words, capitalism is not an economic doctrine of the household of personalities, but an anti-economic doctrine that absolutizes the chrematistic individual as a schematization of the egoistic activity of individuals. The chrematistic individual is the result of the split (Spaltung) of the economic personality.

Capitalism assumes that at the heart of economic activity is the individual who seeks enrichment. Not to the balance of the cosmic structure and the sacred element of the liturgy of labor (as an integral toiler), but precisely to enrichment as a monotonous process and an increase in asymmetry. This means that capitalism is the conscious desire to interiorize and cultivate the “cursed part.” This is exactly what the chrematist individual is—he seeks to maximize wealth, and this desire is reflected in the capitalism of desire. Desire here is depersonalized (hence M. Foucault’s “desire machine”), for it is not the desire of the personality, reflecting the structures of filiation, but the nihilistic will of the individual, directed against the structures as such. This chrematistic desire is the force of pure nihilism, directed not only against the personality, but also against the economy as such, and moreover, against man as a structure.

Capitalism destroys the cosmos as a sacred field of existentialization of a community of personalities, asserting instead a space of transactions between chrematistic individuals. These individuals do not exist because each particular person is still—even under capitalism—phenomenologically a person, that is, the intersection of collective filiation. But capitalism seeks to reduce this personal aspect as much as possible, which is only possible by replacing humanity with posthuman individuals. It is in the transition to posthumanism that the chrematistic desire reaches its culmination: the “damned part” realizes the implosion of the human that began with capitalism.

A perfect transaction is only possible between two cyborgs—neural networks that completely lack existentials and connection to personal structures.

But the cyborg is not introduced into the economy today. From the very beginning, capitalism has dealt with the cyborg, because the chrematic individual is the cyborg, an artificial concept obtained through the splitting of the total (integral) laborer. Both the proletarian and the bourgeois are artificial figures obtained by decomposing the peasant (the traditional third function) and then artificially folding the parts into two non-equilibrium sets, the urban exploited and the urban exploiters. Cyborg bourgeois and cyborg proletarians are equally individual and mechanistic at the same time; but the former are dominated by the liberated “accursed part,” while the latter are dominated by the dark mechanical fate of production rooted in the poverty and insignificance of matter. We become bourgeois and proletarian when we cease to be human beings, when we give up our personality.

Economic Eschatology and the 4PT

In the context of the overall structure of the Fourth Political Theory, we can speak of the eschatological structure of economic history.

In the beginning stands the economic personality, the integral (total) worker, which in the specifics of Indo-European societies (primarily in Europe) is represented by the gestalt of the peasant. The full-fledged personality is the peasant, who represents the aspect of man (in the broad sense of the Anthropos) turned to the element of the Earth. In the course of growing bread, the peasant goes through the mystery of death and resurrection, seeing in the fate of grain the fate of man. Peasant labor is an Eleusinian mystery, and it is important that Demeter’s gift to people, thanks to which they moved from hunting and gathering to agriculture (i.e., the gift of the Neolithic revolution), was bread and wine, an ear of wheat and a bunch of grapes. The peasant is a person of mystery, and the economy in its original sense was based on the mysteries of Demeter and Dionysus. These cults did not simply accompany peasant activity; they were this activity itself, represented paradigmatically. The Athenians considered a full-fledged person to be an initiate in the mysteries, and specifically in the Eleusinian mysteries—the mysteries of bread and wine, that is, in the peasant mysteries of death and new birth. This figure is the figure of the integral laborer.

The next point in economic history is the advent of capitalism. It is associated with the splitting of the economic personality, the disintegration of the unified image of the sacred toiler, and consequently with industrialization, urbanization, and the emergence of classes—the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Capitalism postulates the chrematic individual as a normative figure, describing him as a symbiosis of animal and machine. The metaphor of the animal “explains” the will to survive and “desire” (as well as the predatory motivation of (anti)social behavior—Hobbes’ lupus), while rationality (Kant’s “pure reason”) is seen as the prototype of artificial intelligence.

This was implicit in early capitalism (the beginning of the New Age) and explicit in late capitalism (Postmodern). Thus, the integral laborer repeated the fate of grain once again, not in the structure of the annual rural cycle, but in “linear” history. However, the linear time of capitalism is a vector directed toward the pure element of death, which nothing follows and is fraught with nothing. The death of the New Age is death without resurrection, death without meaning or hope. And this vector of irreversible death, of annihilation, reaches its maximum at the moment of the appearance of the pure individual, as the culmination of capitalism as a historical stage. The pure individual must be the bearer of physical immortality, because there will be nothing in him that can die. There should be no hint of structure or filiation in him. He must be completely free of all forms of collective identity as well as existentialism. This is the “end of the economy” and the “death of the personality,” but at the same time the flowering of chrematistics and the immortality of the (posthuman) individual. The grain of the human rots, but in its place comes not a resurrected life, but a simulacrum, an electronic Antichrist. Capital is etymologically related to the head (Latin, caput), i.e., capital has historically been a preparation for the coming of artificial intelligence.

So, what is the economic aspect of the Fourth Political Theory that challenges liberalism in its final (terminal) stage?

Theoretically, we should argue for a radical return to the integral toiler, to the economic personality against the disintegrated capitalist “order” (or rather controlled chaos) and the chrematistic individual. This means radical deurbanization and a return to agricultural practices, to the creation of sovereign peasant communities. This is the economic program of the 4PT—the resurrection of the economy after the black night of chrematism, the revival of the economic personality from the abyss of individualism.

But we cannot ignore the bottomless scale of capitalist nihilism. The problem has no technical solution: capitalism cannot be corrected; it must be destroyed. Capitalism is not just the accumulation of the “damned part,” it is the damned part itself, its very essence. Therefore, the struggle against capitalism is not a competition for a more efficient way of life, but a religious eschatological struggle against death. Capitalism historically, or rather hierohistorically, Seynsgeschichtliche, is the penultimate chord of the Eleusinian mystery. The economy rots under the spud of chrematistics, the economic personality is ruptured by the individual, the element and structure of life is destroyed by the mechanics of electronic desire. But all this makes sense if we take economic history as a mystery. This is the last pre-dawn hour. Capitalism today has come to its last stand. The seal of the electronic Antichrist has been broken; everything is coming to light. Not just a crisis or a technical failure, we are entering the moment of the Last Judgment.

But this is the moment of the Resurrection. And for the Resurrection to take place, there must be a subject of Resurrection, that is, an initiate, a person, a peasant, a human being. But it is precisely this figure who dies in history. And it seems to be gone. It is already gone. And it is impossible to bring it back: the distance from the moment of innocence (traditional society) is irreversibly distant and grows so with each passing moment. But at the same time the distance to the final moment of Resurrection is shortening. And all bets are on the fact that what is destined to be resurrected will preserve itself until the final explosive thunder of the trumpet of the Archangel.

Therefore, in the end we see not just an integral laborer, a peasant, an economic personality, but an integrated laborer, not a grain personality, but a sprout personality, a bread personality, a wine personality. The peasant today is conscripted into the militia, his destiny in the last hour before dawn—the darkest hour—to become part of the economic army, whose goal is to defeat Death, to tame time again, to subjugate it to eternity. The Fourth Economic Theory cannot be another projection and fantasies of modernization and optimization. These are not our projections and fantasies; they are encoded and embedded in our imaginarium by Capital. We need to think personally, not individually, historically, not situationally, economically, not chrematically. It is not about building a better economy than liberalism; it is about how to destroy the “damned part.” Accumulated wealth is a gift from the devil; it will disintegrate into shards at the first crowing of the rooster. Only the gratuitous gift belongs to us personally; only the given, the donated, the freely given constitutes our patrimony. Therefore, the dream of the economy must be a knowingly resurrectional, resurrecting, dream of the Gift.

Alexander Dugin is a widely-known and influential Russian philosopher. His most famous work is The Fourth Political Theory (a book banned by major book retailers), in which he proposes a new polity, one that transcends liberal democracy, Marxism and fascism. He has also introduced and developed the idea of Eurasianism, rooted in traditionalism. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Geopolitika.

Featured: Farmers’ Lunch in the Field, by Vladimir Makovsky; painted in 1871.

Venezuela Reaffirms its Social Course

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, despite US sanctions, continues to pursue the socialist course founded by Hugo Chavez. At the same time, unlike other Latin American countries that also claim a leftist agenda, it is Venezuela that demonstrates its resilience and irreconcilability with US hegemony. While Brazil used to be a regular venue for the World Social Forum, after years of Jair Bolsonaro’s rule and Lula da Silva’s current controversial policies (flirting with the US Democratic Party), and Cuba being uncomfortable with the longstanding US embargo, Venezuela has been quite successful in coping with external pressure and continues to serve as a venue for high-level events.

On April 18-19, the international forum “World Social Alternative” was held in Caracas. It was organized by the Simón Bolivar Institute and took place within the framework of ALBA-TCP. However, the geography of the participants was not limited to the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of the Americas, but was global: from Malaysia, South Korea and Bangladesh in Asia to Kenya, Guiana and even the Polisario Front, which is fighting for the independence of the Saharawi people from the domination of Morocco and Mauritania.

The event focused on the current global crisis with an emphasis on the guilt of Western countries, which were deservedly accused of artificially creating numerous problems all over the planet due to the greed of bourgeois capitalism, which is part of the system of liberal democracies. In other words, the collective West and their unipolar hegemony, which in these countries is called no other than the “rule-based order,” were criticized.

The speakers of the forum talked about this. At the same time, constructive ways of solving problems and methods of solidarity with the peoples of those countries that have suffered the most from Western aggression in one form or another—political, economic, intellectual, etc. were proposed. Of course, on the agenda were the issues of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israel, the actions of the World Bank, as well as solidarity with the peoples of Cuba and Haiti. Separately, words of support were expressed for former Ecuadorian Vice President Jorge Glass, who was forcibly seized at the Mexican Embassy in early April of this year.

ALBA-TCP Secretary Jorge Arreaza and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro spoke at the closing plenary session. Former Bolivian President Evo Morales and former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya also shared their views. It is indicative that Nicolas Maduro emphasized that “the multipolar world has already been born” and quoted the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Incidentally, at the forum, Jorge Arreaza gave a presentation on “The Principle of Unity as a Transformative Element” and noted that the bloc’s goal is to achieve self-determination. He stated that “we are free and satisfied with needs met.” He also added that the strategy includes new projects to strengthen plans in sectors, such as economy, health, education, nutrition and environmental protection. It was also announced that ALBA-TCP member countries will hold the 23rd Summit of Heads of State and Government of the bloc in Caracas, where the presentation of the Strategic Agenda 2030 is expected to take place.

In parallel, forum participants from other countries (200 people from 80 nations in total) were able to familiarize themselves with Venezuelan culture and various aspects of domestic politics. In particular, some participated as international observers two days later. Since April 21, popular consultations were held throughout the country. This initiative is supported by Article 70 of the Venezuelan Constitution, which implies that important issues are regularly discussed with the people. This involved 4,500 voting centers across the country.

In Venezuela itself, this approach is called radical essential democracy, although in the international lexicon there is a term, “participatory democracy,” when the people not only elect deputies and heads of state from time to time, but also directly participate in the political process through discussions of key issues. This is probably what ancient democracy once looked like, when citizens in the polis met regularly to work out a decision on some pressing issues.

In this case, the range of issues focused exclusively on domestic matters: roads, access to water and electricity, health (including sports and recreational facilities), and education. At the same time, the projects themselves differed, depending on the voting location due to local specificities. A total of 27,156 projects were considered nationwide, which had been previously reviewed by community councils on the ground.

Previously, in 2022 and 2023, the State of Miranda consulted with the communal councils and this experience was used in the current plebiscite.

I was able to visit four polling stations in Caracas, not only in the center (where polling places were set up in schools and a library), but also in the Atlántico district and in the commune of Antimano-Mamero, which are part of the famous slums with houses stacked on top of each other on the mountainside. Unlike the famous favelas of Rio de Janeiro, where even the police are afraid to enter, these areas of Caracas, which are called barrios, are quite socialized. Although they look a bit creepy from afar (although in some ways they resemble some traditional villages in mountainous Dagestan, where some houses stand on the roofs of others), there is running water and electricity inside the dwellings, and the locals are quite friendly and sociable. Particularly in these communities, the issues of improving infrastructure and reorganization of living space were discussed during the consultations.

The previous plebiscite was held on December 2, 2023, to discuss the annexation of the disputed territory with Guyana. The overwhelming majority, including the opposition, recognized it as the new state of Esequibo.

And the next vote will be held on July 28 to elect the country’s president. In fact, the two past plebiscites are strengthening the social base of incumbent President Nicolas Maduro and indirectly helping to improve his position compared to the Western-oriented opposition, which nominated 13 candidates who have neither charisma nor adequate political experience to be a real competition. There is no doubt that Maduro will win again, and the country’s current course in both foreign and domestic policy will continue.

Leonid Savin is Editor-in-Chief of the Analytical Center, General Director of the Cultural and Territorial Spaces Monitoring and Forecasting Foundation and Head of the International Eurasia Movement Administration. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Geopolitika.


This address was given by Maurice Timothy Dooling (1860–1924), in 1918. He was a district judge in California. It is a succinct expression of the nature and purpose of “Americanism.”


The evening of Tuesday, September 24, 1918, was set apart in the Bohemian Club as American Night. There had been celebrated previously, French Night, British Night, Belgian Night, and Italian Night.

American Night is memorable particularly for the response of the Honorable M. T. Dooling, Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, to the toast, “Americanism.” Its lofty sentiments and the manner of the address electrified all those who were present, creating the greatest enthusiasm and causing immediate and repeated demands for its publication.

The evening was a most patriotic one. The Club dining room was decorated with the colors of the Allies—our Stars and Stripes draping the Club’s service flag of one hundred and fifty-one Stars. The entire Club chorus entered the room singing “America, the Beautiful.” During the dinner, popular songs representing this country’s wars were sung by the chorus joined by the members. These were rendered chronologically, commencing with “Yankee Doodle,” followed by “When Johnnie Comes Marching Home” (substituting “the Yanks” for “Johnnie’’), “Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean,” “ Dixie,” “A Hot Time in the Old Town To-night,” “Over There,” “There’s a Long, Long Trail” and “Joan of Arc.” Pledges to the President of the United States, to the Allies and their rulers, were made. Mr. George Sterling read a poem, “Service,” written for the occasion. Remarks followed by Lieutenant de la Sevre of the French Artillery (an officer who has seen three years service in the trenches and who bore two chevrons for wounds received); by Captain Tymms, M. C., of the Royal Air Force, a distinguished British aviator, visiting the camps in the United States; and by Mr. R. S. Browne, military attaché to the Red Cross Mission in France, a member of the Club who had just returned from France and had been several days at the front during the battle of Chateau-Thierry. Songs of a patriotic character were sung at intervals, and then came Judge Dooling with the stirring speech which is presented in this publication in order that it may be preserved and brought to the attention of a larger number than the few hundred who heard it upon that notable occasion.


I have been asked to say a few words upon Americanism on this our American Night. In complying, I am embarrassed, not by any lack, but rather by the excess of material that the subject brings to hand. Indeed, what one may briefly say upon a subject so broad depends altogether upon the angle of approach, and I am led, by training perhaps, to a phase that may seem commonplace. But, in these days, I believe we should occasionally be brought face to face with fundamental ideas—ideas which, because they are so familiar, are constantly; overlooked, forgotten, or ignored. Yet it is in their defense that we are now engaged in this tremendous war.

Americanism is something of an abstraction, and hard to define. No two persons, perhaps, would define it exactly alike, even though to all the idea may be basically the same. To me it means the great common spirit which everywhere pervades the land; the spirit of individual liberty, properly protected and duly restrained. It is a product, a result, an emanation rather, from the system which at once affords the protection and imposes the restraint. It is so interwoven with that system that it is impossible to say where the concrete ends and the abstract begins. But we cannot understand the one without a consideration of the other. To us, who are accustomed to our free institutions, who are born under the American flag or admitted into American citizenship—there comes no doubt of their justice or permanence, and the great social and civil truths that underlie and sustain them are so much a part of our very existence that it seems to us they must have sprung fully developed from man’s uncultivated instinct. But nothing could be further from the truth.

In the long upward struggle of the human race for individual liberty, every form and variety of government had been tried, from the extreme slavery and subjection of millions to the caprice of one man; through long centuries of suffering and hope, of struggles on the field and contests in the forum, by dungeon, rack and scaffold, with the. fires of liberty now burning brightly for a moment, and now all but extinguished in the blood of its adherents, from India westward by way of Greece and Rome, and the medieval municipalities; through all the varied feudal forms, the changing political experiences of England, France and the Low Countries; and finally culminating in the happy success of American patriots in establishing in a newly discovered land a government based, not upon the rights of rulers, but upon the rights of man, and for which no possible abiding place could have been found in all the world as it had theretofore been known.

Upon this new and broad domain, in the wide, free spaces of a land of unknown limits, old theories were overthrown, and a new principle enunciated, that upon foundations where liberty and law find equal support, a government could be maintained, not by the power of standing armies, or the might of floating navies, but by the willing support of an enlightened, free, and patriotic people. By a distribution of powers, untried till then and by the world regarded as a hopeless experiment, they granted to local communities the control of domestic affairs, and entrusted their care and maintenance to the various state governments. They collected and deposited under a written constitution, all the power necessary to guard the larger and the common interests, and established a central government sufficiently powerful to protect the meanest and restrain the most august; to maintain the dignity of law-abiding freedom among the powers of the earth; to defend now the interests of a hundred million freemen, to hold their authority and speak their voice in the face of all mankind.

Warned by the wrecks of the past, they liberated religion from bondage to the temporal power, separated Church from State, and blotted from the statute books, the crimes of nonconformity. They quenched the torch that kindled persecution’s cruel fires, prevented the enactment of any law to compel adherence to a specific form of worship; disestablished churches and removed religious disabilities; abolished all exactions for the maintenance of ecclesiastical authority; guaranteed to everyone the utmost freedom in the exercise of his religion and restrained forever the power of the government from being enlisted against the adherents of any sect or creed, protecting with equal impartiality the mosque of the Musselman, and the altar of the fire-worshipper, the Jewish synagogue and the Roman cathedral.

The result has been the absolute triumph of disenthralled humanity. In those great ideas of responsible and popular government, of civil and religious liberty, lie the causes that have made of Americanism the thing that we know it to be. They bring into action the noblest impulses of our natures and encourage the development of the best that is in our citizenship. They lead the humblest among us to exert himself to the utmost, as no limit is placed upon the rewards to be attained. Within our boundaries each man stands upon an equal footing with his fellows. The road to advancement is open to all. Our history on its every page records the names of those who under every disadvantage, have amassed fortune or acquired fame.

It is the glory of our free institutions that they open to all the avenues of wealth and distinction, and secure to all protection in the enjoyment of the fruits of their labor.

There is no boy in America today, however humble his birth or in whatever depths of poverty his lot may be cast, who, if he have but a clear head, a strong arm, and a brave heart, may not rise, by the freedom of our laws and the liberality of our people, until he stands with the foremost in the honor and estimation of his country. Unlike that of other and less favored lands, where stern distinctions of class and caste have beaten down the aspirations of many a noble heart, and closed the doors of advancement to everyone not fortunately born, our society does not resemble the rigid crust of the earth, with its impassible barriers of rock and its impenetrable layers of stone, but rather the waters of the mighty sea, broad, deep, boundless, but so free in all its movements that the drop which today sweeps the sands in its unfathomable depths, may rise to-morrow, through all the vast expanse till it flashes in the sunlight on the crest of the highest wave.

Out of these conditions arises that Americanism which, under God tonight, is to be the deciding factor against the most dread menace that ever confronted a vexed and tortured world. An Americanism, which, seeking nothing for itself, now battles unselfishly for justice, freedom and security for all; which states its purposes in such certain tones their echoes ring above the clash of arms; which pledges all its strength of wealth and men to crush the power that is driving decency and safety from the world; which, having set its hand to that great task, will not be stayed until its work is done; which, to that end, turns all its energies from their wonted ways to meet the new and grim demands of war; which, though it make mistakes, still heaps miracle on miracle, achieving the impossible as though engaged in every day affairs; which launches ships in all its bays like falling autumn leaves; which enrolls in its potential armies twenty-three and a half millions in less than thirty hours; which, with its ally, converts the Atlantic into a ferry and through its submarine-infested waters safely transports its soldiers in numbers staggering belief; which, with ready cheer and amazing prodigality, contributes of its treasure to every agency that can assist the work in hand; which voluntarily saves from a supply already scant an abundance of food for its want-oppressed allies; whose engineers amaze a world in arms by the vastness of their works and the celerity of their achievements; whose daughters go by thousands to the fields of France, there to undo, so far as possible, the devastating work of war; whose peaceful sons, untrained but yesterday, now meet and turn the mightiest machine of war the world has ever known.

I am not boasting when I say that these are but some of the fruits of an aroused Americanism, with the story not yet half-way told. But this is true. When not aroused, we are a patient, long-enduring, easygoing people, and sinister forces have been at work among us, the full effects of whose evil activities we but dimly begin to see. Aside from the winning of the war, no more important duty now lies before us than to Americanize America; to bring everyone within our borders to a realization of the fact that if he remain here, he must adapt himself to our institutions, and conform to our laws; to suppress every lawless organization whatsoever its name or pretended reason for existence, and whether its lawlessness find expression in the wanton slaughter of spectators at a parade, or the maiming of housewives, unprotected in common carriers that have fallen under the ban.

Capitalism and Morality: A Conversation with Jayant Bhandari

Capitalism and the West have long been inseparable. In order to understand this special relationship a little better, we recently had a fascinating discussion with Jayant Bhandari whose area of expertise is investment in various sectors of industry, especially natural resources. Mr. Bhandari brings an important blend of experience and wisdom that veers past the usual nostrums that we are often forced to hear. He has published widely on economics, investment, culture and the question of liberty.

Mr. Bhandari also organizes and runs, “Capitalism & Morality,” an annual seminar on freedom. Further information about his work may be found on his website.

The Postil (TP): Your project of “Capitalism & Morality” is a very interesting one. Could you please give us a description of it, and what led you to start it?

Jayant Bhandari (JB): My first flight and trip outside India was to the UK in 1991. Though I often felt hungry while living there, those 20 months were the best of my life. I experienced liberty and respect, witnessing the harmony with which people worked. From my perspective, it was a well-oiled machine. People walked around unmolested, unafraid of those in power. The constant dynamic of the oppressor-subservient relationship I was accustomed to in India was nowhere to be seen among the native English. People did their work without asserting power or asking for bribes.

People in the UK were sophisticated and knowledgeable about their work areas, unlike in India, where people didn’t pursue further learning or reading after leaving university. In India, education was viewed not as a means to learn skills or provide services but as a tool to acquire wealth and power. Anyone with even a slight amount of power was bound to flaunt and abuse it.

In the UK, people openly and freely engaged in conversations without the pressure of being proven correct. They sought truth, a concept alien to me, as discussions as matches to be won. There, I began to grasp the meaning of “truth” for the first time.

I was surrounded by immense prosperity and well-being, shocking me for decades. Could all that wealth indeed be possible? I had only a superficial glimpse of the UK before I moved there. With time, I would discover the reservoir of virtues inherent in Western civilization beneath the visible surface.

In the society where I grew up, moral values held no significance. People could not distinguish between sins and virtues, and the larger society admired individuals who engaged in criminal activities and evaded consequences.

Without foundations in objectivity, reason, and morality, India was so dysfunctional or non-functional that I often say that any Indian organization with two people has one person too many. Everything was a show-off, with “might is right” as the operating principle.

I was often amazed at how the UK worked. The authorities were not predatory; weak, disabled, or older people were respected and helped rather than preyed upon. Even children and beggars were treated with respect. I say “even” because in India, the weaker you are, the worse you are treated. Disabled and weak people, widows, orphan girls, and boys were labeled as such and exploited without guilt or shame.

In the UK, men and women were respectful to each other. In India, “happy smiley families” is cynically used to describe families that maintain a façade of niceness while being bloodthirsty. Having grown up in this environment, I was so accustomed to this hypocrisy that I didn’t consider families could be different in the West.

It took me a couple of decades living in the West to realize that families could have decent, happy, and mutually loving relationships. The realization that love could be anything other than physical marked a paradigm shift for me.

My stay in the UK exposed me to the essence of civilization or at least set me on a path to a deeper understanding. It made me aware of the humanistic values that must underpin any civilization. I was awed by the honesty, integrity, honor, fairness, and empathy I witnessed.

I was trusted by people in the West, quite in contrast to India, where no one trusted anyone. In India, trusting someone was seen as foolish, and others would readily label you as such if you made that mistake.

Later, for work and to learn, I traveled extensively worldwide. I have lived in 7-8 countries and visited a hundred. I was driven to understand what distinguished prosperous societies from those in wretched conditions. I extensively researched this topic, delving into a wide range of literature, including new-age books that erroneously claim that poor people are happy even in their drudgery—despite such claims, India consistently ranks as one of the most stressed countries in the world.

I have realized that what the West possesses is unique, something distinct from the rest of the world: a culture of honor and reason intertwined with Christianity. Westerners possess a unique ability to remain rooted in truth and utilize it as a fulcrum to assess facts. Many who grow up within this system often assume their values are universal. However, the truth is far from it; much of the world sees no issue in being envious and covetous. Sins proliferate in their hearts, while virtues remain elusive to them.

In my seminar, I aim to underscore the greatness of Western civilization, the only civilization I have known and come to admire. Capitalism, the economic branch of civilization, is often defined overly simply, mechanistically, and linearly. However, capitalism requires a society with a solid moral foundation, as I have nuanced so far. Ethical values must be instilled and internalized by individuals and integrated into our social and economic relationships.

TP: As you know, “capitalism” and “morality” are often seen as being incompatible categories. How do you understand “capitalism?”

JB: As I have mentioned, morality, reason, and honor are inherent in the concept of capitalism. However, many people perceive capitalism as a system driven by unrestrained greed, akin to the Wild West, where certain individuals have the right to exploit the underprivileged and the weak. For these individuals, money devoid of values is all that matters. This distorted version of capitalism is often termed “crony capitalism,” which is, in essence, an anti-concept. It unfairly tarnishes the reputation of capitalism, especially in the minds of those who do not delve deeply into the matter.

The very term “crony capitalism” is deceptive, juxtaposed with the seemingly benign term “socialism.”

Most people fail to delve deeply enough to recognize how their base instincts are exploited for manipulation. Our emotions and primal instincts are deeply ingrained, exerting immense pressure that renders our reasoning capacity malleable and highly vulnerable. Constantly seeking rationalizations, our animalistic instincts and primal desires yearn for expression by any means necessary. Invariably, emotions prevail over reason. Nothing is more cathartic than discovering a gap, a loophole—using the language of software—in our civilizational values to indulge our sinful nature.”

People are infused with certain emotions through propaganda, marketing, sloganeering, and soundbites, all disguised as virtuous cover-ups and rationalizations for their envy and covetousness. This serves as the foundation for their disdain towards capitalism. This hypocritical approach is even more insidious than raw envy because the believer becomes entrenched in his narrative, preventing them from ever examining their subconscious.

Some individuals have turned their sugar-coated sinful nature into a profession. These are the so-called do-gooders, the modern-day Robin Hoods who believe they know better how others should live or use their money. Scratch beneath their veneer of virtuosity, and you’ll find a lust for power and a desperate desire to control other people’s money.

There is a reason why our base desires should be channeled appropriately or restrained from the outset. Sins and virtues are not inherent in the universal firmament; they require continual reminders and conscious awareness to ensure we remain vigilant in recognizing them. We must be reminded regularly of the actions we should adamantly refuse to engage in. Otherwise, we risk falling into rationalizations, as often seen in the behavior of so-called do-gooders.

In essence, those who blame capitalism—within the detailed definition I provided earlier—for being regressive and sinful, ironically, often project their own character flaws onto others.

The question remains: Do systems of exploitation, abuse of power, and sadism exist in the world? Sadly, this is how most of the world is run, reflecting our original, natural state of existence. In at least half of the world—Africa, Latin America, the Indian subcontinent—oppression is so rampant and the law of the jungle so prevalent that those who grew up there cannot conceive of a moral system. This included me. This worldview handicapped me from understanding the meanings of certain words and concepts. As I mentioned earlier, I had a skewed understanding of the word “truth.” Similarly, before arriving in the UK, I believed that “socialism” meant the power to abuse and exploit others.”

Virtually all of the oppressed world claims to be socialist or communist, with their leaders often portraying themselves as do-gooders. However, the only places where exploitation and abuses are minimized are the capitalist nations of the West and East Asian countries like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and, increasingly, China. These countries have adopted institutions and social behaviorism modeled after the West, leading to their relative stability and prosperity.

If a society lacks morality, the notion that an external structure like a socialistic government can enforce morality is logically fallacious. Governments, at best, arise from within their people, although they may manifest in psychopathic forms with far less accountability.

While some individuals mistakenly believe that the capitalist system offers unrestricted freedom, this notion is fundamentally flawed. Actions that curtail the liberties of others through fraud, oppression, or theft directly contradict the principles of the free market. To truly grasp the concept of the free market, one must understand its inherent complexity, wherein individual actions are intricately interwoven with transactions among people.

The essence of the free market lies in its universality—it can only truly be free if it ensures freedom for everyone.

As a corollary, the free market can exist only among morally evolved people. The degree to which people are amoral or immoral creates fissures for psychopaths to emerge into positions of power and tyrannical governments to emerge. Expecting such socialists or communists to do anything except predation is a fool’s errand.

It’s worth reflecting on the cultural evolution ignited in England during the Industrial Revolution. This era ushered in a surge of prosperity that left the rest of Europe bewildered. While the inventions existing for centuries played a role, the true catalyst lay in the invisible workings of capitalism and its underlying social and moral values. The English harnessed these inventions for societal betterment, guided by principles of fairness, respect for contracts, and honor. These values served as the bedrock that harmonized society’s intricate workings, though it’s important to acknowledge the generations of turmoil that also ensued from this transformative period.

Capitalism transcends mere economics; it fosters a symbiotic relationship with meritocracy, honor, and other human virtues. Through this synergy, capitalism facilitates a continuous refinement of society, as evidenced by Europe’s historical evolution over time. Even those who fail to understand or respect moral values must act them out in such a system.

Capitalism refines and inculcates moral values in society.

In societies lacking moral evolution, kleptocracy and a dog-eat-dog mentality prevail. Some argue for enforced socialist structures in such contexts to hinder wretchedness, predation, and degradation. This is very idealistic and detached from reality. Unfortunately, there is no easy remedy for morally backward societies, condemning them to a wretched existence. Whatever you do, their economic and social relationships and law and order would mirror the moral impoverishment of such societies. Moreover, imposing socialism would exacerbate the situation, providing opportunities for even worse psychopaths to ascend to power, as evidenced by the post-colonial experiences of the Third World countries. Such a system would institutionalize predation and foster citizen apathy and fatalism due to the lack of incentives for self-improvement.

The only hope for morally impoverished societies lies in establishing a benevolent dictatorship supported by an army of ethically strong bureaucrats. This is only possible through colonization. The British, French, Germans, and Portuguese should never have left sub-Saharan Africa, India, and elsewhere. Despite centuries of efforts by colonizers and Christian missionaries to awaken these societies, success was limited. As it stands today, the only future I see is that the Third World countries will fall apart and devolve into Taliban-like systems, which will be an improvement on their current so-called socialism. Over centuries and millennia, some may organically evolve into civilizations, but the prospects are dim for most.

Not too long ago, I advocated for the end of drug prohibition, the legalization of prostitution, and the open expression of one’s sexuality. However, witnessing the consequences firsthand in places like Vancouver, where I have spent much time, has led me to reconsider. With the increasing legalization of drugs, crime has surged, and more individuals have become unhinged and dependent on society. The availability of drugs has made it easier for them to be pushed onto vulnerable individuals, including children.

One might argue that within capitalism, as long as transactions are conducted fairly and with consent, the availability of drugs, prostitution, and other vices should not be restricted. However, we must acknowledge that even seemingly victimless sins can have detrimental effects on society as a whole. Prostitution often breaks apart families, while drug use fosters dependence on society’s resources.

A crucial aspect of capitalism is the existence of civil society, along with institutions of liberty and social opprobrium associated with unethical behavior. Those who envision capitalism as a lawless, do-as-you-please environment have not fully grasped its complexities.

TP: And “morality” first necessitates transcendence; in other words, where do you base “morality” that can then work alongside capitalism?

JB: As I mentioned earlier, morality is intrinsic to capitalism. We are all driven by base, primal, animalistic desires that often override reason unless tempered by moral consciousness. Discipline and self-control are essential precursors, necessary to restrain and direct our base desires toward morally right actions rather than succumbing to emotionally attractive impulses.

The emergence of moral consciousness marks the beginning of civilization. Europe is a prime example, undergoing millennia-long processes that intertwined Greco-Roman philosophy, a culture of honor, and Christianity. This amalgamation was a transcendence, a pivotal shift from mere animals to fully realized human beings. Similarly, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean societies developed honor cultures that enabled them to adopt positive aspects of European civilization.

However, much of the world remains oblivious to these civilizational values and instead indulges in hedonism and materialism, relegating themselves to savagery and barbarism.

TP: Since “Wokeism” is also a “moral” project, there is also therefore “woke capitalism,” where all the mega-corporations push progressivism as their “morality.” How are we to separate “Woke morality” from your own project?

JB: I don’t see it that way. “Woke capitalism” is an oxymoron. Values are essential for accumulating both philosophical and financial capital. Wokeism has non-values of hedonism and virtue signaling. It has fantastic similarities with Third World non-cultures. It embodies a regression, a departure from civilizational constraints towards a feral existence.

Wokeism is repulsive and fundamentally anti-civilization. It is inherently amoral and leads inevitably toward savagery and barbarism. Woke people might look cute and admirable only within the confines of a civilized and prosperous society that bears the costs and burdens of their ideology.

There is a reason why all religions disdain hedonism. Initially, wokeism appears innocuous, even appealing, but left unchecked, it becomes increasingly perverse. Like termites, it will eat away the civilizational innards of the West.

Wokes are often associated with leftist ideologies. It’s worth considering what Stalin or Mao would have done with them—they likely would have been among the first sent to the Gulag.

At first glance, wokes may appear affable and non-threatening. They might engage in peaceful protests or civil disobedience, occasionally inconveniencing others by blocking roads. However, they don’t pose direct harm like terrorists. They seem to care about poor people and the environment. They might smoke a joint and then immerse themselves in a pleasant feeling. They express their sexuality freely, unrestrained from societal expectations.

Wokes have employed political correctness and cancel culture to shut out free speech and manipulate language to neutralize social opprobrium and effectively alter societal standards, all to steer society into following their feral ways.

I trace the emergence of wokeism to the 1960s, particularly when the hippies began traveling to India. The Beatles, in particular, played a significant role in popularizing India as a mystical land imbued with spirituality. For visitors coming from disciplined societies with strong honor codes and civilizational constraints, the Indian experience was cathartic. India is chaotic and has no civilizational boundaries. The visitors to India partook in drugs and an ecology of no dos and don’ts. The money they brought from the West went far, further enhancing their sense of freedom and euphoria.

These visitors did not engage in societal life in India, thus avoiding exposure to the less glamorous aspects of paganism and moral relativity. Their experience was akin to visiting a pub on a Friday evening and being surprised by the friendliness of the people there—without experiencing the less pleasant aspects of those same individuals. It was a selective encounter with freedom and liberation, divorced from the broader context of societal realities.

Catharsis is not spirituality.

For an Indian, however privileged or well-placed, India is an unmitigated hellhole—a cesspool of corruption, savagery, and barbarism characterized by the absence of honor, values, civilization, and, ironically, freedom. This grim reality starkly contrasts the romanticized view of India experienced by the hippies. The consequences of wokeism, as seen through the lens of Indian society, reveal a disturbing truth. I recommend watching a documentary, The Gods of New Age, to gain an insight into the insidious effect of seemingly benign belief systems.

Over time, woke beliefs have permeated deeply and widely in society. Today, the notion of diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) has become ubiquitous. It’s no longer confined to mega-corporations; even smaller companies and family gatherings must pay lip service to these principles under the threat of cancellation. Banks and other service providers may refuse to cater to individuals whose views they find objectionable. This is their way of marketing themselves as chivalrous to get more clients and business. This money-centeredness, which confuses everyone, including themselves, in the garb of virtue-signaling, is not capitalism.

I envision a capitalist as akin to the heroes depicted in Ayn Rand’s books—willing to shrug and risk losing everything for their values.

Wokeism, if seen for what it truly is, emerges as fundamentally anti-meritocratic. This ideology is eroding our corporations, even impacting safety-critical industries like Boeing. It’s concerning to ponder the compromised state of their organization, where individuals lacking merit may have risen to top positions, and subcontracting decisions may prioritize factors other than quality.

Wokeism and the anti-meritocratic order it engenders will prove to be the death kneel of Western civilization. As termites do, it will eat away the innards of the West.

TP: Many countries deploy capitalism in differing ways; for example, China’s use of capitalism has led to different results than, say, India where capitalism seems to have only created greater chaos and a deeper divide between the rich and the poor. How would you explain this dynamic? Does this mean that capitalism is not good for all nation-states?

JB: I am a frequent visitor to India and China. Chinese banks open until late in the day and even on holidays. Chinese want my business. If they don’t have what I want, they will find a way to provide it. There is a huge emphasis on children’s education, their extra-curricular activities, and developing them into well-rounded human beings. While I may not always agree with the methods employed, I admire the determination and willpower driving China’s rapid economic growth and its aspirations toward becoming an educated and well-rounded society.

During my visits spanning the last two decades, I’ve witnessed remarkable progress in China, both economically and culturally. The country has become notably more prosperous, sophisticated, and environmentally conscious, leading to greater well-being and happiness among its people. Once marred by pollution and environmental degradation, Chinese cities have radically transformed. Rivers once littered with animal carcasses are now actively maintained, and the air quality has significantly improved.

The Chinese are remarkably eager to learn from foreigners, often approaching them to practice English and showing a keen interest in emulating aspects of Western, Japanese, and Korean cultures. Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, whom I consider the greatest statesman of the last century, was pivotal in guiding Deng Xiaoping in establishing effective systems and institutions. This influence is evident in their public transportation system, which resembles Singapore’s. Today, traversing the highways of China can evoke the feeling of being in the USA or Canada, a testament to their capacity for rapid adaptation and transformation.

Over time, I’ve noticed significant changes in Chinese society. There’s been a noticeable decline in behaviors like spitting on the streets, with people increasingly adhering to norms like lining up. Contrary to the narrative often portrayed by the international media, I’ve witnessed instances of Chinese citizens actively fighting for their rights with police and government authorities. While openly challenging the legitimacy of the CCP may be risky, it’s essential to recognize that no country is perfect, and comparisons should not be based on an idealized notion of perfection. Although political conversations are not openly conducted, it’s worth questioning whether widespread political activism, as seen in the West, is necessary in a society where many individuals may lack awareness of political developments.

During my visits to China, I’ve witnessed firsthand the flourishing free-market economy. Everything seems readily available, from abundant fruit and groceries to a wide range of goods and services. What’s more striking is the remarkable improvement in quality across the board compared to my visits over the past years. It’s evident that people take pride in their work and are committed to providing high-quality services, reflecting the dynamism and vitality of China’s economy.

While China lacks some of the philosophical and moral values of the West, its day-to-day operations reflect a strong adherence to capitalism, sometimes even surpassing that of the West. It’s conceivable that China will gradually absorb more Western values, aided by the corrective interactions inherent in capitalist systems.

India does not follow capitalism. It is a wretched hellhole, wallowing in poverty, sadism, mysticism, irrationality, depravities, exploitation, and degradation. I would not have used these words had I seen India improve. It continues to worsen with time, with its institutions now hallowed out and with utterly corrupt and, worse, braindead people manning those.

The Indian mind is ossifying. It is becoming increasingly xenophobic, anti-minorities, parochial, mystical, irrational, and uncivilized. India is dominant in the list of the world’s most polluted cities. Ironically, it became polluted even before industrialization started.

Indians don’t set high standards for themselves and ridicule those who do. Indians find shortcuts at the cost of quality and safety. In an economic transaction, they think in terms of transferring money from your pocket to theirs—any value they create is incidental.

The concept of philosophy and ideas is missing in India. If you discuss ideas, people laugh at you. People are incredibly money-minded and materialistic. When they grow more prosperous, unlike in China, they become even less compassionate and more sadistic. When given higher positions, the lower-caste people exploit in ways that the higher-caste couldn’t even dream about.

India does not have capitalism. I call its system chaos-ism or feral-ism. So dysfunctional it is that even socialism would be a vast improvement. Alas, India is continuously getting worse. Society is disintegrating, and the institutions that the British left behind have been hallowed out. India will continue to regress towards its pre-colonial days.

I have no issue with a divide between the rich and poor as long as people are not denied opportunities and the institutions treat them fairly, which includes letting them go hungry if they refuse to pull their weight. Ironically, when poor people get into a victim mentality, their low position in life solidifies. I have yet to meet a German, a Japanese, or a Japanese-American who complains about what the USA did to them during World War II. Winners move on in life, which is why Germany and Japan have become one of the most prosperous nations in the world and Japanese-Americans among the most assimilated people in the US society.

Unless wealth disparity exists within a legitimate institutional framework that is not predicated on class, caste, racism, sexism, or affirmative policies that perpetuate new forms of bigotry, there is no incentive for individuals to strive for improvement. The implementation of redistribution and welfare systems in the West has led to a decline in values such as self-reliance, honor, and the pursuit of excellence. Instead of fostering a culture of self-improvement and aspiring to higher values, reliance on welfare programs contributes to a decaying sense of individual agency.

At the heart of capitalism lies morality, which gives rise to institutions built on principles of liberty, justice, and contractual integrity. Societies lacking in ethics see the proliferation of tyrannical and predatory systems. Attempts to enforce top-down values in such societies backfire as institutions adapt to underlying moral deficiencies, exacerbating societal issues.

In essence, artificially enforced institutions can become distorted and work against their intended purpose, leading to outcomes that contradict their original design. While this perspective may seem unconventional to modern Western sensibilities, many parts of the world find structures resembling the Taliban’s governance to be natural, sustainable, and equitable. India’s trajectory reflects a move towards such a model.

The key lies in fostering a moral society where capitalism can organically emerge. My seminars have reflected this, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing morality in societal development efforts.

TP: What stage are we at with capitalism in North America; and here perhaps you could contrast Canada and the USA?

JB: In both Canada and the USA, the pillars of morality, social opprobrium against bad behavior, and the integrity of law and order have faced continuous erosion. Canada, historically ahead of the USA in terms of welfare and liberal policies, has seen these initiatives stealthily undermine the foundations of society, akin to the gradual but unseen until-too-late destruction wrought by termites. Despite my deep affection for both countries and their vibrant, compassionate populations, the undeniable reality is that our societal foundations have decayed.

I find it challenging to pinpoint the singular root cause behind the erosion of Western societal values. Could it be feminism or the misguided acceptance of compassion and tolerance as unassailable virtues? Or is a multi-ethnic society, like the USA, destined to decay, which also passed on its political correctness to the rest of the West? The emphasis on multiculturalism, with its portrayal of every culture as equally valid, may have inadvertently fostered moral relativism akin to the pitfalls of paganism and polytheism. Alternatively, the post-World War II guilt, possibly fueled by Christianity, could have played a role. Why have honor and individual responsibility slipped away as social values? Or was it the misinterpretation of liberty, as exemplified by the hippie movement and its association with India’s feral culture, easy access to drugs, promiscuity, and the facilitation of public protests, that catalyzed this metastasis in the West?

I find myself pondering why countries like Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong, despite extensive adoption of Western practices, have managed to sustain societal improvement without succumbing to the decay observed since in the West. East Asia’s survival involves staying ethnically homogenous. Homogeneity does not allow any subgroup to feel victimized and ask for special privileges, compromising meritocracy. Additionally, these societies’ prevalent sense of shame ensures that social opprobrium effectively reinforces societal norms, and they do not feel guilty about ancestral actions. While East Asian nations afford many liberties similar to the West, they strictly prohibit drugs and view woke ideologies unfavorably, and their overt promotion is often met with legal repercussions.

Some believe societal awakening will occur in the West as conditions deteriorate. However, history suggests societies that worsen because of moral compromises adapt to those circumstances rather than mobilize for change. With weakening objectivity and fraying anchoring to truth, analogous to the proverbial frog in a boiling pot, we acclimate to progressively deteriorating conditions. The West was fortunate to inherit foundational principles such as honor, Greco-Roman philosophy and reason, and Christianity. Yet, once lost, the reconstruction of these values could require a lengthy cycle spanning millennia, potentially accompanied by violence, backlash, and collateral damage. Those who grew up in a society with a moral compass think that it exists in nature. It does not, and discovering it is virtually impossible.

Given these considerations, the future outlook for Canada and the USA is bleak.

TP: In your moral approach to capitalism, how do you understand debt and the banking system in general?

JB: Our society has regressed to a state more degraded than even that of cavemen. We have no money. Erroneously, we consider fiat currency to be money, which hypocritically promises to pay us a clone of the same paper.

Fiat currency, lacking defined backing, means its perceived value depends on government diktats and its ever-changing mood. The government can acquire goods and services by printing new currency, essentially implementing the most fraudulent tax possible, disproportionately harming the poor. This system also imposes substantial unnecessary risk and uncertainty on entrepreneurs, especially regarding long-term planning.

The result is boom-and-bust cycles that the government creates and then tries to dampen or avoid, keeping the pressure down until it can no longer be maintained, as happened in 2008 and as we are currently experiencing with increased nominal interest rates.

Despite being the top currency in the world, the US dollar has lost over 95% of its value over the last century. The real interest rate people get on their cash is negative, even today when the nominal rate is around 5%. Consequently, individuals are compelled to speculate and take risks they don’t fully comprehend to preserve their wealth.

Desperate for yield in a negative-yielding fiat currency system, savers have no choice but to chase investments they don’t understand in hopes of protecting their assets. This desperation creates an opening for scammers to exploit.

You seriously harm society by enriching and empowering crooks and scammers.

Some people chase properties, which are depreciating assets or, at best, non-yielding, although those who have bought properties over the last few decades might not perceive them that way. This situation results in a lot of housing being unoccupied, collecting dust, and succumbing to mold, while for millions, housing remains unaffordable.

There were Keynesians who believed that you could create wealth by breaking someone’s window or even by digging a hole and filling it up. Now, we have an advanced version of these, called MMT economists, who believe that the government’s printing of money creates value and generates no inflation. Those in the government love these MMT quacks.

Fiat currency also imposes a moral hazard on the individual.

The abstract nature of fiat currency fosters a speculative mindset, promoting a focus on money-making without regard for value creation. Ironically, the financial sector is one of the most “valuable” activities in economic terms in the USA. Yet, it so often detracts value from other industries, resulting in significant frictional costs and diverting talented individuals from roles beneficial to society. Many of our brightest mathematicians and physicists find themselves working in the stock market.

Citizens are led to believe that wealth creation lies in trading on the stock exchange, and they often engage in hectic day-trading sessions.

Fiat money fosters a mindset within government circles that money grows on trees. Career bureaucrats and demagogues frequently lack real-life experience, and even if they do possess it, they often have incentives to disregard it due to their positions’ lack of accountability. This environment nurtures a god-like image of themselves as they wield billions of other people’s money or freely printable fiat currency.

Recipients of welfare money, often not too rational or honorable, convince themselves that money is there for the taking, with no cost or burden on others involved. This mentality leads to a deep and widespread decay in moral values. It also fosters the irrational belief that one can improve one’s life simply by printing money rather than through hard work. This incentivizes irrational behavior and promotes a belief in magic.

Without the capability to print money, governments would not have initiated so many wars, nor would we have created a massive population reliant on welfare payments. In the West, we have skewed the balance to such an extent that if welfare recipients are not outright the majority, they hold a significant swing vote. We find ourselves trapped in a vicious cycle.

In short, the harm caused by fiat currency is profound, extensive, and multifaceted.

TP: Closely tied to capitalism is the culture of consumerism where the economy becomes fetishized. Do you see this as a problem?

JB: Although often misunderstood, capitalism has nothing to do with consumerism and materialism. If anything, capitalism encourages thrift. For instance, the owner of IKEA drove a mid-sized car. Despite being one of the wealthiest people in the world, Warren Buffet still resides in the same house he moved into when he was relatively poor.

People who accumulate wealth through productive endeavors do not use it for ostentatious purposes. When a wealthy person was looking for a vehicle in Vancouver, I suggested a Mercedes SUV. It is safe, gives a good pickup, and beats the starting traffic at the intersection lights. He responded that he would be too embarrassed to drive such a car.

The trouble arises when people discover ways to make money easily through financial games and welfare checks, which the fiat currency encourages. For these individuals, money flows like water, appearing easy and free.

The most ostentatious, materialistic, and consumerist societies are not capitalist but rather socialist, as are those in the feral Third World. Those who have bothered to read socialist literature realize it is fixated on money and how to redistribute it.

Materialism is a state of mind resulting from a lack of spiritual interests. Materialists are hedonistic, believing that life revolves around seeking pleasure. Even worse are the money-minded individuals who obsessively collect wealth by any means necessary. Ironically, these people fail to get lasting pleasure, money, or peace. In rare cases, when they acquire such, they fail to find fulfillment.

Materialism proves to be an unsatisfying pursuit, often leaving adherents financially impoverished. Hedonists, constantly chasing temporary highs, struggle to find enduring happiness, perpetually seeking the next thrill. Similarly, those solely focused on accumulating wealth find that money cannot provide lasting security or contentment. Such is the nature of life: external sources of fulfillment are fleeting and transient at best.

TP: There is a capitalist Left and a capitalist Right. How do we distinguish the two? Why is one better than the other?

JB: Capitalists lean towards conservative and libertarian ideologies, valuing solid communities and individual autonomy. Capitalism itself fosters the weaving and maintenance of moral fabric, as individuals learn to engage in transactions without relying on government intervention. A capitalist system establishes invisible moral boundaries, guiding individuals to align their behavior with ethical values. Even those who may not naturally incline towards moral living are influenced to do so by this invisible force. Capitalism enforces a social stigma against unethical behavior.

Upon arriving in the UK for the first time, I was astonished by the cooperative and helpful nature of the people, their aversion to backstabbing, and their willingness to work together. It was a revelation that took me years to appreciate fully.

However, as Western societies increasingly lean towards the left and the regulatory and welfare state has expanded, the incentive for moral behavior has seriously diminished. The government has increasingly become the nanny of people and the husband of women. As a result, society, churches, and temples have mattered less and less, weakening social opprobrium. Moral hazards have emerged as individuals rely on the government for future savings and healthcare needs.

There is no left capitalism. There is only one kind of capitalism, and it indeed has a symbiotic relationship with spiritual and conservative values. You might call it right capitalism, but “right” would be superfluous.”

TP: Does capitalism have a limit? Or is it limitless in its expanse?

JB: Human fallibility and egotism necessitate a robust framework of rules and institutions to maintain a functional society. Contracts must be upheld, justice must be administered, and an external authority is needed if voluntary compliance is lacking.

Capitalism has a symbiotic relationship with morality. To the degree a society lacks values, its deficiencies will reflect in bigger governments and psychopaths in power. If we cannot monitor our behavior, something has to emerge to do so. A morally weak society will have a big government, and alas, a big government will create an ethically weak society.

I am no big fan of the state because it lacks competition and accountability, making everything slow, expensive, often convoluted, and even corrupt.

We cannot go back in time to experience how Europeans ran their countries or when the USA had no income tax, but we can still visit minimal states like Singapore that keep the government small and tight. Eventually, we should work towards minimizing the state and aiming for a no-state situation with maximum competition and accountability. However, a force to keep the state small can only come from a morally improving society.

Prioritizing the development of moral values is crucial. Christian missionaries recognized this, emphasizing the importance of moral awakening in sustaining institutions.

TP: What is the role of the nation-state in relation to capitalism?

JB: The nations of Europe emerged from a tumultuous period marked by decades of wars in the middle of the last millennium. They were organic products shaped by their societies’ desires and social and ethical values, forged through churning, massive violence, and continuous conflict. It’s understandable why they, as nation-states, sought to protect their values from external aggression.

However, Western nations transitioned over time into welfare states, eroding their civilization and core values. They opened their borders without regard for their cultural heritage, diluting the essence of their existence. Trudeau’s characterization of Canada as a post-national state epitomizes this trend.

The state has usurped the roles of local communities, religious institutions, and even husbands within families. Consequently, our communities, families, and civic life have significantly weakened. The state takes away half of your earnings through taxes and interferes in every aspect of your life. Despite this, policing has deteriorated, and crime and drug addiction have risen. Seeking justice is not easy. Doug Casey argues that the judiciary and policing are too essential to be left to unaccountable bureaucrats and demagogue politicians.

The issue with the nation-state, especially within a democratic framework, lies in its inherent incentive to expand unchecked. The USA was initially envisioned as a minimal state, allowing for the flourishing of entrepreneurship, individual liberties, and economic and philosophical growth. However, those in power often succumb to the temptation of increasing government size and intervention, dipping into citizens’ wallets under the guise of promoting the general welfare. Unfortunately, a minimal state tends to grow over time, as has occurred not only in the US but also across the Western world.

An informed citizenry, aware that taxes, regardless of their magnitude, equate to forceful confiscation, can exert pressure to minimize state intervention and taxation. The state should not usurp functions that private entities, churches, and local communities handle better. This awareness empowers individuals to advocate for limited government involvement and taxation, promoting freedom and self-reliance while ensuring that the most appropriate entities efficiently and effectively deliver essential services.

TP: Any last words?

JB: Capitalism and morality share a profound relationship, yet the latter often receives insufficient attention in our increasingly mechanistic worldview, which has also corrupted science and reason into scientism. This issue is exacerbated among socialists and Marxists, who believe they can engineer society and human nature—an extreme form of naivety. The emerging woke culture, lacking even the slight objectivity of Marxism, is proving to be even more extreme, placing undue emphasis on hopes, positive thinking, and hedonism as the sole constituents of life.

In closing, let’s address a few issues often wrongly attributed to capitalism: outcomes of wealth, comfort, societal complexity, division of labor, and the subsequent erosion of our moral compass. Adam Smith aptly noted the adverse effects of commerce on human courage and martial spirit, especially under the division of labor, leading to moral deformity and vulnerability to demagoguery. Marx termed this “alienation.” Even the higher classes can focus excessively on their limited work area, forgetting whether they generate social value.

In a similar vein, Hannah Arendt uses the phrase “the banality of evil” to describe Eichmann’s behavior at the trial, which included showing no guilt or hatred for those trying him and claiming he was “doing his job.” Arendt warns of the dangers of technocracy, pointing to the blunted moral conscience of Eichmann, a Technocrat, who reasoned that he was only putting people on trains and did not have the intellectual curiosity to consider their destination and the likely outcome or was casually indifferent.

As we become wealthy, we risk becoming too comfortable, which dulls our moral spirit and sense of honor. We become too tolerant for selfish reasons. Why fight when it does not directly affect us? We learn to compromise when financial costs look higher than the benefits. Constant compromises drain the warrior spirit. I can understand why asceticism is so highly valued in most religions.

Unless we understand our place in the larger ecosystem and how our actions within our limited area of work affect society, we are likely to rationalize or remain unaware of the burdens we may be imposing on society while making money personally. This situation is exacerbated among socialists; at least in the capitalist system, competition and feedback mechanisms exist, which unaccountable bureaucrats don’t have.

Wealth should have only one purpose: to provide a better platform to improve ourselves spiritually.

TP: Thank you so very much for sharing your views with us.

JB: Thank you.

The Need for American Hegemony

The report that follows was prepared for the United States Marine Corps, in 2009. It clearly lays out the continuing American policy of belligerent “benignity;” in other words, the entirety of the world is America’s “Manifest Destiny,” wherein the unipolar world must be maintained for the good of humanity.


The American Idea becomes a commodity for export, maybe the only item of domestic manufacture that can’t be replaced by cheap foreign knock-offs.

The world witnessed a vast shift in the polarity of geopolitics after the Cold War. The United States became the world’s greatest hegemon with an unequalled ability to globally project cultural, political, economic, and military power in a manner not seen since the days of the Roman Empire. Coined the “unipolar moment” by syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, the disparity of power between the U.S. and all other nations allows the U.S. to influence the world for the mutual benefit of all responsible states. Unfortunately, the United States is increasingly forced to act unilaterally as a result of both foreign and domestic resentment to U.S. dominance and the rise of liberal internationalism. The United States must exercise benevolent global hegemony, unilaterally if necessary, to ensure its security and maintain global peace and prosperity.

Benevolent Nature

The fall of the Soviet Union ended a period of bipolarity and created an “ideological vacuum” in the absence of anticommunism. U.S. intervention against Soviet aggression in Europe was no longer necessary. Thus, the significance of future U.S. hegemony came into question.

America decided that its benignity would be extended to the rest of the world through the protection of Western interests and assurance of free trade. With the resurgence of worldwide terrorism, the U.S. eventually found itself as the sole guarantor of human rights and dignity for oppressed people. This new role benefitted the entire world.

In the 1990’s, for example, the U.S. intervened militarily in Kosovo, Somalia, and the Middle East to protect innocent people from oppressive and tyrannical rulers. However, socialist contemporaries Spyros Sakellaropoulos and Panagiotis Sotiris argue that U.S. motives were selfish. They contend that the U.S. in fact sought to enhance “capitalist profitability” and “foreign investment.” While this argument may be partially credible, the socialist elite often fails to recognize the U.S. guarantee of freedom extended to millions of Kosovars, Somalians, and Kuwaitis.

Certainly, the United States has been prudent in its application of force. Its decision to repulse the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia was directly linked to international dependence on free-flowing oil from the Middle East. The global market economy depends heavily on the accessibility of world commodities and consequently compels the U.S. to safeguard free and fair trade globally. Hence, the protection of American trade interests and free-market capitalism around the world remains a primary focus of U.S. foreign policy. The National Security Strategy of the United States verifies this commitment. The National Security Strategy pledges to promote peace and economic prosperity through the exportation of democracy, market capitalism, and the use of force when necessary.

U.S. Security and Global Peace and Prosperity

American benevolent hegemony indeed benefits the entire world. Robert Kagan, a well-known neoconservative, states “the truth is that the benevolent hegemony exercised by the United States is good for a vast portion of the world’s population” and that to undermine U.S. hegemony “would cost many others around the world far more than it would cost Americans.” In fact, billions of people worldwide live safe and prosper under the umbrella of U.S. military might and American-influenced global markets.

Imagine the world without U.S. hegemony. Who would deter nations like North Korea, China, and Iran from attacking their neighbors? For 55 years, an American presence in South Korea has deterred North Korean belligerence. Across the East China Sea, the U.S. 7th Fleet discourages the People’s Republic of China from using military power to force the annexation of the 60-year old democratic de-facto nation of Taiwan. Of course, the American-led Multi-National Force—Iraq continues to ensure freedom and democracy in Iraq while daunting regional Iranian aggression.

Of course, American benevolence abroad arose from the wastelands of post-World War II Europe and Asia. During the Cold War, the U.S. found itself as the sole guarantor of freedom for numerous Asian and European counties threatened by Soviet aggression. America’s ability to influence the world economy and maintain significant military presences in West Germany and Japan allowed its allies to prosper in relative safety.

Over time, American grand strategy of Soviet containment and Western economic prosperity made American hegemony not only palatable, but attractive to friendly nations. They understood that U.S. allies would be subjected to vast amounts of U.S. economic aid. That monetary aid ultimately created powerful economic competitors in Europe and Asia out of the ashes of World War II.

Furthermore, U.S. defense policy during the Cold War ensured U.S. security through the security of its allies. This policy guaranteed the peace and safety of democratic societies globally. Additionally, this benign U.S. hegemony was “augmented for a time by a monopoly of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them.” U.S. policy of nuclear deterrence, for example, dissuaded any Soviet invasion of western Europe. The U.S. continues today to identify its interests and national security with those of its allies. In fact, American prosperity, freedom, and security at home are made possible only by ensuring the same around the world. Accordingly, the U.S. stays the course in Iraq and Afghanistan at the cost of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. This creates an enormous disparity between U.S. funding for Homeland Security and the Global War on Terror in what Robert Kagan accurately describes as “making good” on American “international commitments.” This clearly negates the socialist delusion of a selfish U.S. foreign policy.

Admittedly, the ultimate objective of U.S. hegemony is the advancement of American lives on the home front. No government intends its policies to cripple its nation’s security and economy. However, U.S. policies are meant to also benefit its friends and allies.

Unfortunately, Americans begin to “take the fruits of their hegemonic power for granted” as lengthy prosperity turns into complacency. This results in American ignorance towards growing international resentment of U.S. dominance. It also facilitates the rise of liberal internationalist fantasies of a multipolar world “characterized by a balance among relative equals.”

An Alternative Perspective

The liberal internationalist school of thought is based on the concept of multilateralism, which became popular in the 1990’s due to “an obsession with international legality.” This resulted in the creation of liberal international bodies such as the European Union and World Trade Organization. Unfortunately, multilateral principles have become the mainstay of European politics over the last decade in response to U.S. hegemony. History, however, confirms multilateralism to be unsustainable and impractical.


The idea of international approval to justify the morality of governmental decisions is mind-boggling. Consider a U.N. Security Council resolution to pose sanctions on another country. The approving nations will probably act in their own interests thereby making suspect any cause for agreement. The
U.N. and E.U. were nonetheless founded on this way of thinking. However, these organizations were not Europe’s earliest “utopian” dream of a “transnational economic era” characterized by a lack of borders, state sovereignty, and military power. The first ended abruptly with “the war to end all wars.”

Yet, liberal internationalists, like Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT, insist that a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. disregards U.N. principles concerning the mutual defense of nations and precipitates a “divided” and “insecure” world. Thus, the multilateralist solution is not state sovereignty, but rather the interdependence of states, which consequently weakens the notion of the nation-state. Multilateralists believe that peace and prosperity are achieved through international cooperation and the application of law. They argue that the United States’ “do-it-alone” attitude, regarding multilateral treaties in particular, discounts the rule of international law and isolates the U.S. from the international community.

While multilateralists strive to replace state sovereignty with international charters, they fail to recognize the infeasibility of a multipolar world. No other nation is currently capable or willing to assume equal responsibility for maintaining global peace and prosperity. This became apparent as European allies slashed their defense budgets and failed to take the lead in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and Bosnia. Such was also the case at the end of the Cold War when European nations cut military spending to below two percent of their GDPs while they “cashed in on a sizeable peace dividend” paid in full by America. Europe cannot maintain peace and prosperity with an underfunded military force.

Still, Europe demands “multilateral action through the U.N.” and insists on equal say in solving global issues without providing equal funding. Alas, these are typical tactics of weaker nations unwilling to carry their weight on the international stage, though they are eager to be “free riders” on a global “American pax.” They beg for U.S. aid and security during crisis only to resume their usual criticisms thereafter.

Frankly, most nations do not desire multipolarity. The reluctance of foreign powers to increase their world presence speaks to this end. Consider the limited European contribution to the Global War on Terror. Europe’s lack of participation creates a global need for American hegemony since the U.S. is willing to provide a last line of defense for many countries. In fact, American “unipolarity, managed benignly, is far more likely to keep the peace.” Of course, the concept of benignity is subjective.

Impossible Benignity

Felix Ciuta, a social sciences professor at the University College in London, argues that words like “benign” and “benevolent” are not hegemonic since the very nature of hegemony reflects the selfish interests of the hegemon. Critics typically cite the Bush Doctrine of preemption as proof of this argument. They contend, for example, that the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq violated Iraq’s sovereignty under pretenses of WMD proliferation and human rights violations in order to secure U.S. interests in the region. Furthermore, critics feel that preemptive war is a war crime since it entails the use of “unrestrained, extra-legal violence.” Thus, its application in the name of human rights and democracy mocks those very principles.

Admittedly, even truly benevolent motives do not always produce beneficent outcomes. The British Empire viewed itself as benevolent; however, its “benign” unilateral actions were often deemed malevolent by its colonies resulting in various independence movements. From 1945 to 1997, British
“benevolence” caused the disintegration of the empire as colonies worldwide broke ties with the English Crown and declared their independence.

However, America’s benevolence is evidenced by its track record. The U.S. successfully mediated peace between nations on numerous occasions. For over 50 years, U.S. efforts diverted various clashes between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, prevented a second war in Korea, and ensured an autonomous Taiwan. When a situation called for force, the application of U.S. military power was “limited in time and scope” since the nature of American hegemony is ideological, not territorial as it was with the Roman or British Empires. If not, would the U.S. be concerned with exit strategies in the Middle East as it was in Bosnia? America has never entertained delusions of a “One Thousand Year Reich” or a “New Soviet Man.” Instead, America expends its own blood and treasure to extend hope and freedom to billions of people globally.


The world is safer and more prosperous because of U.S. hegemony. The free world enjoys unprecedented economic prosperity while starvation and poverty continue to decline.

Furthermore, the “amicus populi romani,” still call upon the U.S. during times of distress. They require U.S. hegemony for their own self-interests as well as to foster good relations with the world’s superpower. Therefore, the U.S. must exercise benevolent global hegemony, unilaterally if necessary, to ensure its security and maintain global peace and prosperity.

What are the alternatives? A Chinese or Russian hegemony would be unlikely to benefit the rest of the world. A multilateral coalition of nations proved to be ineffective and unsustainable. American isolationism would leave the world vulnerable to tyranny. Ultimately, the future of the world depends on American willingness to guarantee the freedom of others. To quote Ronald Reagan: “We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression—to preserve freedom and peace.”

The full report with references:

The Russian Revolution

The experts repeatedly emphasize that Russia is isolated, which, if true, would not be the first time this has happened in its history. But, looking at reality closely, this Robinsonian Russian isolation is very peculiar because Russia’s ostracism is alleviated by China and North Korea; Iran and Syria; India, South Africa and Brazil; Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali; Serbia and Belarus; Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua; Libya, Yemen and Algeria; not to mention its less committed partners, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, fickle Turkey, Indonesia or Kazakhstan. And I am sure I am leaving out many others. The clever policy of Biden and his European puppets has succeeded in forming a bloc between Moscow and Beijing that has served as a pole of attraction for all the nations that want to free themselves from the Anglo-Saxon noose. It seems incredible that the liberal hierarchs have forgotten Kissinger’s intelligent policy of confronting the two decisive powers of the Eurasian Heartland, the abc of strategy and diplomacy. Does this not enter the manuals of gender, resistant, matriarchal and animalistic Geopolitics?

During my last stay in “isolated” Moscow, I had the good fortune to talk to people from all corners of the wide world, from Tanzania to El Salvador, passing through Indonesia. I was especially interested in the opinion of my African colleagues, protagonists of one of the most important geopolitical changes of the last decade: the disappearance of French influence in the Sahel, which occurred when Paris exhausted the patience of the military of those States, who realized that the Islamist threat from which Paris had come to protect them was financed by their alleged protector, who took advantage of the occasion to take the uranium of the area at a bargain price. The succession of African revolutions in recent years was not sought by the Kremlin; Russia came to the Sahel at the request of states that needed to protect themselves both from France and from the various Islamist organizations in cahoots with Paris and Qatar.

Central Africa, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and now Togo and Senegal, have “resized” France to its rightful position: a second-rate world power and a colony of the Anglo-Saxons, those faithful allies who did not lift a finger to help Macron, the architect of the French decline in the Sahel. The Russian flag in Africa is a sign of liberation from that of NATO which destroyed the Libyan state and has only brought instability to the region. Moreover, Russia and China treat African countries as partners and equals: they offer works and projects instead of credits and financial “aid.” If, for example, Beijing needs cobalt from an African country, it offers infrastructure, consumer goods or whatever it needs in exchange. All this, using as few dollars as possible, the main colonial instrument of our era. Hence the enormous sympathy of all the Africans I met, for Russia and China. They, who were colonized, know what is at stake. And they are very clear about it—Europe is now the colonial and colonized space.

A common feeling for many of us who have spent this time in Russia is that there was a certain parallelism between us and the revolutionaries from all over the world who came to Moscow to see how the Soviet revolution was evolving. Something new was brewing in Moscow and it had to be known. But now this revolution has no dogmas, no infallible methods, no Komintern, not even the slightest ideological cohesion, except for the profound repulsion we all felt for globalist liberalism. Without doctrine or propaganda, this profound historical movement is not even aware of its revolutionary character, possibly because it is a radical and definitive change that does not obey a political movement stuffed with ideology, but a reaction of the peoples and states worthy of the name against the global elites, against the appropriation of sovereignty by the large consortiums. It is the refusal of the most conscious part of the planet to become an aggregate of production and consumption units without God, family or homeland; the refusal to degrade nations into a horde that is brutalized and animalized by false rights while it loses social, economic and political power to plutocracies.

Something is moving in Russia that endangers almost three hundred years of Anglo-Saxon financial and colonial capitalist domination. A revolution is beginning in the world that neither Marx nor Lenin had imagined. A colossal struggle for world power between the global oligarchies and the sovereign states.

Sertorio lives, writes and thinks in Spain. this review comes through the kind courtesy of El Manifiesto.

Akhand Bharat: Greater India

India—to the surprise of many—now has the fastest growing economy. The country’s GDP grew by 8.4% in 2023. By 2027, it will become the world’s third largest economy. If this trend continues, India has a chance of overtaking the US and even China in the 2030s.

India is a leader in both demographics and the IT vector. The Indian diaspora now controls a significant segment of Silicon Valley, and Britain’s prime minister is an ethnic Indian, Rishi Sunak, albeit a liberal-globalist. Interestingly, Vivek Ramaswamy, an influential conservative politician in the American Republican Party, a staunch Trump supporter, also of Indian descent, is Sunak’s complete ideological antipode. In any case, Indians are making inroads.

We are dealing with a completely new phenomenon—the birth of a new center of the world before our eyes. India owes much of its success to the new turn in politics that came with the rise to power of the conservative Bharatiya Janata Party. Actually, modern India was founded during decolonization by a different—leftist and progressive—party, the Indian National Congress. Of course, the highest value for Indians after independence was liberation from the effects of colonialism, but India remained a member of the post-colonial British-dominated Commonwealth of Nations and clung tightly to British-installed democracy, indeed, even boasted of being “the largest democracy in the world.” The Congress was content with the country’s political independence from its former masters, but agreed to imitate the socio-political, economic and cultural paradigm of the West.

The Congress’ monopoly on power in India was first undermined by the victory of an alternative right-conservative party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, in the 1996 elections to the lower house of parliament (Lok Sabha). This party itself was formed from the extreme conservative Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh movement in 1980.

In 2014, Narendra Modi became Prime Minister, from this party, and remains so till now. According to analysts, Modi has every reason to retain his post in the 2024 elections, which began on April 19 and will end on June 1.

The rule of the Bharatiya Janata Party and Modi’s personal political charisma have fundamentally changed India. By the way, the official name of India under Modi was changed to the Sanskrit name Bharat. The fact is that Modi is based on a completely different ideology than the Indian National Congress.

Initially, there were two directions in the Indian struggle for independence from the British: one mild and pacifist, embodied in the figure of Mahatma Gandhi, who relied on non-violent resistance, and the other more militant and uncompromising, represented by such figures as the Indian traditionalist Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the founder of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Keshav Hedgewar, and the nationalist Vinayak Savarkar.

The British, who were leaving the country, quietly entrusted power in India (having previously ceded a number of territories inhabited by Muslims—Pakistan and Bangladesh, as well as Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Nepal) to the Congress, believing that this party would keep India in the zone of Anglo-Saxon influence and lead it along the path of modernization and westernization (with regional specifics), i.e., some form of colonial control would be retained.

In contrast, the main opponents of the Congress from the very beginning of the struggle for independence believed that India was not just a country or a former colony, but the territory of a powerful and distinctive civilization. Today we call it a state-civilization. This idea was first articulated by Kanaiyalal Munshi and was called “Akhand Bharat,” “Undivided India” or “Greater India.”

In 2022, Narendra Modi called the main goal the “decolonization of the Indian mind.” And before us appears an India we did not know at all—a right-wing conservative India, a Vedic state-civilization, a Greater India on the path of total sovereignty.

Of course, a superficial observer will notice a contradiction here: India is geopolitically getting closer and closer to the US and Israel; it is drawn into a growing border conflict with China (hence India’s participation in several regional anti-China blocs, such as QUAD, etc.), and relations with the Islamic world are aggravating, both within India and with respect to Pakistan. If Indian traditionalists are concerned with “decolonizing the Indian mind” and fighting Western material civilization, what do they have in common with the United States?

To resolve this ambiguity, we can look to the history of the rise of modern China. Representatives of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and especially Henry Kissinger himself, offered China a bilateral partnership against the USSR back in the late 1970s to finally break the socialist camp. China under Deng Xiaoping took advantage of this and gradually over the course of 40 years turned from an economic client of the US into a powerful independent pole with which the US has now entered into competition and, in fact, a trade war. The escalation of the problem around Taiwan makes it possible to predict the transition of this confrontation to a hot stage.

Now the same globalist forces in the West have decided to support India, this time against China. And Modi, given China’s experience, adopted this strategy. But just as China has used globalization for its own purposes, not losing but strengthening its sovereignty, Greater India intends to do the same. First, taking into account the objective realities of international politics, to maximize its power, raise the welfare of its huge population, the volume of the domestic market, military power, technological potential, and then at the right moment to act as a fully independent and sovereign pole.

This strategy is best understood by the globalists themselves. Thus, George Soros and his Open Society Foundation, banned in Russia, which openly set as its main goal the fight against tradition, sovereignty and independent cultures and societies, declared war on Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party. In doing so, he not only supported the opposition Congress, but also began to actively foment social and ethnic discord in India, in particular, calling on Dalits (a widespread caste of untouchables) to revolt against Modi. This is another version of the “color revolution” that the globalists are leading the charge towards.

Russia simply needs to realize the fundamental changes taking place in India. It is a very different country from the one with which we built up quite close relations during the Soviet period. Yes, Indians are still very sympathetic and nostalgic towards Russians. And this applies not only to the leftists in the Congress (where, by the way, under the influence of Soros, the voices of Russophobes are becoming louder and louder), but also to right-wing traditionalists. And in this case, the key role is played not by inertia, but by a clear understanding that Russia declares itself as a civilization state, is the most important force in the construction of a multipolar world, and is also undergoing a kind of “decolonization of consciousness.” While India has certain conflict issues—especially in the border areas—with China, another civilization state and another pole of the multipolar world, there is nothing like that with Russia, even in the distant future.

At the same time, we should not get closer to India in spite of our close strategic partnership with China. On the contrary, we have a vital interest in resolving relations between these two great powers, because if a conflict breaks out between them (which is exactly what the West is pushing for), the prospects for a multipolar world will be pushed back indefinitely. Russia is now standing up for its traditional values. In this case, we should better understand all those who have stood up for their own.

And then the energy partnership, strategic plans for the North-South transport corridor, Eurasian integration processes, cooperation in high-tech (and India is now one of the world leaders in IT) and the financial sphere will acquire a new ideological dimension: traditionalists interested in civilizational sovereignty and in stopping the expansion of the Western hegemon will understand each other much better than anyone else.

Alexander Dugin is a widely-known and influential Russian philosopher. His most famous work is The Fourth Political Theory (a book banned by major book retailers), in which he proposes a new polity, one that transcends liberal democracy, Marxism and fascism. He has also introduced and developed the idea of Eurasianism, rooted in traditionalism. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Geopolitika.

Featured: Map of Hindoostan, Farther India, China, and Tibet by Samuel Augustus Mitchell, printed in 1860.

The Melting Horn of Africa

The decomposition of the international community from its consolidated patterns is becoming a constant element of the current landscape and this makes it very difficult for actors and powers to analyze and manage situations, being them old, new and/or renewed presences, and builds instrumental alliances depending on the areas where interests and crises are concentrated.

An example of this situation where allies are competitors and competitors can be potential partners is the Horn of Africa, region which currently experiencing high levels of political violence and instability, from the conflicts in Sudan and Ethiopia to Islamist militant activity in Kenya, the al-Shabab insurgency in Somalia to end up with the brutal, and seems endless till now, civil war in Sudan.

This region is proving to be one of the most delicate hubs on the international scene and its dynamics transcend purely geographical terms, but extend their effects to surrounding areas, such as southern and eastern Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, the Indian Ocean up to the Mediterranean.

At the center of these dynamics there is a group of states and quasi-state realities, where there are ambitions, attempts to recompose internal cohesion and international image, jarring socio-economic situations, extreme meteorological and environmental phenomena, intrusions of new powers, international and regional organizations always undecided and velleitarian. All this creates a potential mix of instability, but, paradoxically, also of opportunities.

The Horn of Africa, which includes four states (at least those officially recognized), Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Djibouti, is heavily marked by the legacy (at least in three out of four, excluding Djibouti, French, and British for Somaliland) of Italian colonization (colonialism of a poor nation, which has its own characteristics), a failed decolonization, the Cold War, the chaotic post-Cold War and the more chaotic new Cold War of the present days.

The post-World War II systematization scheme held until the 1970s, with the end of the Ethiopian empire, replaced by a pro-Soviet government, while the USSR already had a foot in Somalia since the coup d’état of the dictator Siad Barre in 1970.

In this context, Somalia, precisely because of its geographical location, multiple weaknesses, represents a central hub of regional, pan-regional and beyond, balances and fractures. What are these weaknesses? An institutional reality of a nominal federal structure, a façade to hide a clannish reality, in the process of further disintegration starting from Somaliland, a de facto independent state since 1991 and now Puntland, which looks towards the end of the ‘special autonomy’ of that territory, the ancient Migurtinia (it should be recalled that from this region started the uprising of ‘90 which overthrow the regime of general Siad Barre, in power since 1969).

The recent decision by the Federal Government of Somalia to suspend the provisional constitution, a foundation for unity and state-building, has raised concerns. This decision, made on 4 April of this year, is perceived as detrimental to the original concept of establishing a federal state (in 2012) as only possible wat to push Somalia out of the quagmire where the country is since 1991, the removal of Siad Barre, the explosion of the civil war between ‘warlords’ and the explosion of the armed Islamism. Further, Puntland has affirmed its commitment to engaging with neighboring countries, the international community, and Somalia’s partners.

The other major problem is that of security represented by the threat of Al Shabab and the inability of Mogadishu, precisely due to its mentioned clan reality, to form credible national military institutions, despite a prolonged commitment and, so far not up to various military training missions (UN, USA, EU, UK, UAE, Türkiye) and an African Union (AU) military mission, deployed since 2007 (fully financed by the EU), which suffered heavy losses and only managed to contain the pressure of the Al Shabab. This despite the presence of thousands of foreign military operators, contractors and US regular elements, mostly with members of the special forces, drones (for the US alone we are talking about 2,000 units between instructors, personnel of special forces and drones’ operators).

Now Somalia’s security situation faces a greater challenge, the announced withdrawal of the AU ‘green berets’, which began in 2023 and continued despite several obstacles posed by Mogadishu and planned to be completed in 2024. The Somali government is seriously worried for a security vacuum that could be truly fatal for the African nation.

The shape, size and mandate of a new force to secure Somalia — after the exit of the current African Union peacekeeping mission at the end of this year — remain unknown as it emerges that the Horn of Africa nation is yet to submit its plan before the UNSC (UN Security Council) for consideration and final endorsement.

In a communique issued at the beginning of April, AU said Somalia’s plan for a new force to replace ATMIS (African [Union] Transition Mission is Somalia, which replaced AMISOM, African [Union] Mission in Somalia, the initial deployment of AU-backed troops since 2007, but with limited successes in the stabilization of the country against Islamist terrorists of Al Shabab) will be submitted next month after the continental body undertakes a comprehensive study, and a initial political approval, of the threats and needs on the ground before seeking endorsement of the UNSC.

Mogadishu missed its initial timeline of end of March when it was expected to submit its proposal, due to consultations with the AU PSC (Peace and Security Council) on 26 March and 3 April to plan for the new force that will start operations on 1 January 2025, once ATMIS withdrawal will be completed. Mogadishu indicated only that the ideal force level would be around 10.000 troops.

The AU gave its support to Mogadishu call for a full assessment of the threats and current security needs, in a briefing by Somalia on its proposal for a post-ATMIS security arrangement, pursuant to the UNSC Resolution 2710 (2023).

The new force would be deployed and assume security responsibilities to support Somali security forces on 1 January 2025, a scenario that requires boots on the ground before end of this year to ensure seamless exit of ATMIS troops and immediate replacement.

The AU is keen to preserve the gains that its mission has registered in Somalia for 17 years battling the Al Shabab extremists and (allegedly) liberating more than 80% of Somali territory from the control of the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group, the already mentioned Al Shabab.

But as the mission gradually departs the Horn of Africa nation, with periodic drawdown of troops — with another 4.000 troops to leave at the end of June — experts say Somalia remains vulnerable as the country’s efforts for force generation was not synchronized with ATMIS numbers reduction.

Accordingly, the AU underlines the importance of preserving the gains registered since 2007. International partners that have supported the AU mission and the rebuilding of Somalia’s army to take full responsibility of its security, want a “lean mission focusing on supporting the Somali security forces” to complete the country’s transition without creating a new strain on donor budgets, under a serious fatigue.

But the AU also reiterates its deep concern over the ATMIS funding gap — even as the force’s tenure ends in under eight months — stressing the need for adequate, sustainable and predictable funding for the mission, the burden of which, international partners have borne since 2007.

The EU, for instance, which funds the mission (€2.7 billion for AMISOM/ATMIS till now), face competing funding priorities elsewhere, while the AU still looks the same source for “adequate, predictable and sustainable financing to the post-ATMIS force.

In the same period, were recorded an increased number of attacks of Al Shabab attacks against security forces and ATMIS bases, as well as security force operations against the militants.

Last month, particularly in Galmudug and Hirshabelle states, the Somali troops suffered significant setbacks, which led Al Shabab to regain control of several areas after security forces withdrew from several bases, and showing how fragile were the gains of AMISOM/ATMIS and the solidity of regular somali troops, where internal tensions over logistics failures, corruption, and power struggles were reported.

Despite these shortcomings and the low level of political empathy with the Somalian leadership, the international community cannot ignore the dire stability needs of Mogadishu and want to avert any vacuum between ATMIS and the follow force (in whatever format). In the last week of April EU had approved €116 million ($117 million) for stabilisation efforts in Somalia via its Political and Security Committee. The EU added that it would add $75 million to the resources already mobilised for ATMIS in previous years, covering July 2021 to December 2023, specifying that previous support to the peacekeepers under the EPF (European Peace Facility, an off-budget EU financing tool set up in March 2021, which aims towards the delivery of military aid to partner countries and funds the deployment of EU military missions abroad under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, ECFSP) amounted to €270 million ($271 million). The agreed funding for Somali National Army amounts to €42 million ($43 million) while, according to the EU, “Previous support to the SNA under the EPF amounts to €50 million ($51 million).” This came as the UK announced a contribution of $2.8 million in support of Somali security forces via the UNSOS (UN Support Office in Somalia).

Britain already provided $29.17 million of voluntary contributions in support of UNSOS since 2022 and provides financial support to the ATMIS, which in the while has fulfilled the first two phases of its drawdown of 5,000 troops, handing over 13 FOB (Forward Operating Bases) to Somalia security forces since the beginning of 2023. The next drawdown of peacekeepers is expected to be 4,000 before end of June 2024.

But for Mogadishu, security is also undermined by unresolved internal issues and, as mentioned, external intrusions. And the recent events in Somaliland are a perfect example of this.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali, who survived the Tigray insurrection, and with revolts that risk taking on similar proportions in the Amhara region (the heart of the Ethiopian ethnic group and nation), has done research since his inauguration in 2018 of his country’s access to the sea an existential question. Last October 13th he described the situation in Ethiopia as a geographical prison from which it need be freed.

Landlocked since 1991 following Eritrean independence, Ethiopia is in vital need of a maritime opening, which involves either returning the port of Assab, at Asmara’s expense, or having access to it as a free port free from Eritrean customs. But given the difficult relations with Eritrea, Addis Ababa is looking elsewhere, such as facilities in the self-proclaimed state of Somaliland.

Addis Ababa announced an agreement with Hargeisa on 1 January, but without providing many details. It is useful to remember that in 1950 Eritrea, from 1941 under British military government, was federated to Ethiopia, through a vote of the UN General Assembly, as compensation for the Italian invasion and reward for the decisive pro-Western position of the late emperor Haile Selassie; Ethiopia was committed to keeping Eritrea a federated entity; in 1962, with a unilateral act, Addis Ababa formally annexed Eritrea, without any international protest.

The situation deteriorated when the pro-Soviet communist regime led by Menghistu Haile Mariam came to power in 1974 with a coup that deposed the emperor. The head of the Derg (the military junta) initiates a ferocious repression against the Eritrean independence movement, but also against the Somalis of the Ogaden, the populations of the Oromo and Tigray. The repression is so ruthless that the various resistance movements band together and lead to the fall of that bloody regime, despite the help of Soviet ‘advisers’ and Cuban troops.

In 1991, Ethiopia became a federal state and Eritrea became fully independent, but the bilateral relations, after a promising start, quickly became difficult and led to open war between 1998 and 2000. As evidence of the fluctuating relations between Addis Ababa and Asmara, on the occasion of the recent revolt in the state of Tigray, the intervention of the Eritrean forces saved Ethiopia from military collapse in the face of the Tigrayan offensive.

After this interval, bilateral relations returned to the bad and Aby Ahmed Ali realized that an outlet to the sea, moreover into a closed basin like the Red Sea and, as can be seen in this phase due to the strike of Yemenite Houtis militias against international maritime trade, was a weak option. Aby Ahmed turned his gaze and action elsewhere and the choice of Somaliland seemed obligatory and better than the port of Assab; firstly reduce the contacts with a ‘pariah’ state as Eritrea; secondly, it would give Ethiopia direct access to the Indian Ocean and international maritime trade routes.

Especially now that Ethiopia participation in the Russian-Chinese influenced BRICS group of states became effective on 1 January as well.

But this agreement impacts on a difficult geopolitical situation. Also, in this case it is useful to take a quick look at the past to better understand the present and ask questions about the future.

Somaliland is the former British Somalia and after the end of the trusteeship of Rome over the former Italian Somalia assigned by the United Nations (between 1950-1960 and started when Italy was not even part of the organization, joined only in 1955), it was united with Mogadishu, but always remaining a peripheral and little-considered reality. This situation promoted and preserved the existence of pro-independence groups.

When the regime of Mohammed Siad Barre, in power since 1969, collapsed in 1991, Somaliland took the opportunity and proclaimed itself independent and sought international recognition and attempted to assert the fact that, although for a very short period (less than one week), the former British colony was in fact independent before being united with Somalia.

So far, this project has had very little success despite Somaliland’s enviable strategic position. In fact, only Taiwan has established diplomatic contacts with Hargheisa; the very strong ties with the UAE, which has port and military installations in Somaliland to support its operations in Yemen, have not led to the expected diplomatic recognition. It must be said that Somaliland has nevertheless made good use of its independence, ensuring political stability, economic and social development, democratic openness, and respect for electoral and democratic rules and, above all, the absence of Al Shabab terrorists, who instead infest Somalia.

Somaliland has seized a window of opportunity by focusing on Ethiopia’s strategic interest in exchange for what it has stubbornly sought for more than thirty years: to unblock, even formally, its isolation.

But the agreement between Ethiopia and Somaliland did not arise out of nowhere; already in 2018, Hargeisa, Addis Ababa and Dubai had signed an agreement for the development of the port of Berbera, the largest port of the small state (but this agreement was preceded by a bilateral one between the UAE and Somaliland, signed in 2017, which allowed the ‘little Sparta’ of the Arabic peninsula to open a military base on African soil).

In exchange for a coastal window in the port area of Berbera, on the coast of the Gulf of Aden and at the mouth of the Red Sea, Ethiopia would have committed to recognizing the self-proclaimed republic of Somaliland. With the signing of a memorandum of understanding on 1 January 2024, Somaliland grants Ethiopia 20 km of its coastline for a period of 50 years (renewable).

The second most populous country on the African continent with 120 million inhabitants, Ethiopia has 90% of its foreign trade passing through the port of Djibouti with an annual cost of around 1.5 billion dollars in custom duties.

The need of a free harbour, cheaper than the cost of Eritrean customs have a strategic relevance for the Ethiopian economy and its stability. Aby Ahmed needs a sustained economic growth other than the skyline of Addis Ababa; the dissemination of the socioeconomic development is a way to pay and buy the social and tribal calm in order to compensate his program to dismantling the federal nature of Ethiopia and cutting the nails at the states resistances.

The details of the agreement, presented on 1 January in the Ethiopian capital by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali and Somaliland President Muse Bihi Abdi, will have to be revealed later and it is still unclear precisely which part of the coast should come under Ethiopian control, but the cities of Zeilah and Zughaya, not far from Djibouti, have been mentioned by several sources. Addis Ababa plans to build a commercial port, a naval base, an industrial development zone and a road corridor.

This decision by Ethiopia leads to the effective revival of the national naval forces. In fact, the Ethiopian Navy, was reactivated in 2019, is making preparations to establish a naval facility in Somaliland. The Ethiopian navy, one of the most skilled naval forces on the continent, was disbanded in the early 1990s when Ethiopia lost its coastline to the separation of Eritrea. The restoration of the naval force was one of the first initiatives undertaken by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali when he assumed office in early 2018. Over the past five years, with the assistance of friendly nations (which were not disclosed), the Naval Force was formally re-established, with efforts concentrated on the organization of the structure and the training of officers and staff, and the first activities took place, such as the dispatch of relief teams for the Somali populations affected by catastrophic floods.

The Ethiopian Naval Force is currently training its personnel overseas and plans are underway to establish a naval training facility, academy and navy headquarters. For his part, Hargeisa is expected to acquire shares in two thriving Ethiopian companies, Ethiopian Airlines, Africa’s most profitable airline, and telecommunications giant Ethio Telecom. But Somaliland hopes above all that the agreement with Ethiopia will open the way to other diplomatic relations, to be officially recognized as a sovereign state and to emerge from the galaxy of states ignored by the international community.

For its part, the Mogadishu government has denounced a flagrant violation of its sovereignty over a separatist territory not recognized by the international community and announced that Somalia will defend its territory by all means. He also recalled his ambassador to Ethiopia in response to what he considers a unilateral act that endangers regional stability; then expelled the Ethiopian ambassador and ordered to close the Ethiopian consulates in Somaliland and Puntland, which both openly ignored.

The Puntland State makes it clear that it will continue its engagements with neighboring countries, the International Community, and Somalia’s partners adding that the decision to close the Ethiopian Consulate in Garowe does not apply to Puntland. Further, Somaliland consider that the diplomatic representation of Ethiopia is now at the ambassadorial level, after the agreement of 1 January and also threatens the use of force and in the meantime Mogadishu appealed to the IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development, a regional body that brings together Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, Kenya and Uganda) which however took a Pilate-like position, awaiting further developments.

Meanwhile, Mogadishu is widening its diplomatic offensive (some analyst says that Somalia has only those) as much as it can, also appealing to the EAC (East African Community, recently joined) and the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) and similar initiatives are planned at the African Union, United Nations, International Court of Justice, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the Arab League.

Mogadishu has never accepted the independence of Somaliland, however Somalia’s hopes of bringing Somaliland (and the ‘autonomous’ Puntland) back under its control, even if in a federal form, are very limited, due to its political weakness, institutional, economic and military.

In this perspective, the approach of the Somalian president, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, recall a lot the ones of the Ethiopian PM Abiy Ahmed, who tried to empty the federal system of his country and replacing it with a more centralized system. The first answer to this strategy was the violent uprising of Tigrai, which risked to topple him, and the groving turmoil which across Oromo and Amhara states, which openly refuse the disbandment of their own state forces.

Under general point of view, when there are ongoing strong separatist trends, a federal system, instead of control those and bring it back in a harmonious and constructive balance, risk to exacerbate it and bring to a serious fragmentation and instability. In both Ethiopia and Somalia, the federal system clearly shows a poor approach which exasperated the already existing tensions. The problem is that, between the two, Somalia appears more fragile and with more limited options.

A military action by Mogadishu towards Somaliland, as well as being unlikely, would risk involving Ethiopia, which already has troops in Somalia in ATMIS (thousands of Ethiopian soldiers with the ‘green helmet’ garrisoning Bay, Bakool and Gedo regions and some areas of the Hiiraan and Galgaduud regions, even these areas are largely under the security responsibility of the Djibouti Armed Forces), but there are other thousands Ethiopian troops out of the AU framework and operate under the aegis of a previous bilateral agreement between Addis Ababa and Mogadishu, always focused to fight the Al Shabab.

One option in the hands of Mogadishu would be to ignite the rebellious forces of the Somali-speaking populations of the Ogaden, as well as accentuate the intolerance of the Dhulbahante clan, located between Somalia, Somaliland, Puntland and Ethiopia; but a harsh reaction from Addis Ababa would be foreseeable with the risk, however, of being fuel for the fire of other ongoing regional revolts which would risk breaking up East Africa and all the surrounding areas, which already have their own problems, starting from the ferocious civil war that is tearing Sudan apart, and the other civil war which, even now silenced, still affect South Sudan.

The agreement between Ethiopia and Somaliland is looked favorably by Russia, which has already allowed Ethiopia and the UAE join the BRICS and sees its regional position being strengthened and threatening, even if indirectly, the jugular routes of maritime traffic towards Europe and the Mediterranean. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that Eritrea is a faithful ally of Moscow. As is clear at this stage, the agreement between Ethiopia and Somaliland is part of a complex regional context. In Djibouti, although there are French, US, Japanese and Italian bases (other NATO and EU countries make extensive use of these bases), there is a Chinese military installation. As for it, the general context remains difficult, and there is the risk that other actors will enter, complicating the situation.

In fact, almost a month after the agreement between Addis Ababa and Hargeisa, Egypt also appeared on the scene; President-Marshal Al Sissi expressed a harsh judgment on the agreement between Ethiopia and Somaliland, clearly expressing support for Mogadishu. Behind Egypt’s position is the unresolved issue of the construction of the GERD (Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam) on the Blue Nile River, which has been going on with ups and downs for 12 years. It could appear realistic that Egypt wants to use the triangular dispute to put pressure on Ethiopia and make it be less drastic and participatory in the management of the waters of the Blue Nile which Cairo absolutely needs for its economic development and social stability.

Furthermore, there is the situation in Yemen, divided and in the hands of de facto warring factions and one of them, the Houthis, in conflict in 2014 against everyone (or almost everyone) and avalanche effects are feared. Finally, after a too short pause, threats that were thought to be overcome, but which the very difficult economic and social situation in Somalia has caused to re-emerge, such as piracy. The IMB (International Maritime Bureau) of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) recently advised shipping companies and operators to remain vigilant while transiting waters off Somalia and the Gulf of Aden. Since November several ships have been seized off the coast of Somalia, with some still held hostage, showing that Somali pirates have rebuilt their capability.

Somalia is trying in every way to strengthen its position and find partners who can help it get out of a humiliating situation. In early February, Turkish Defense Minister Yasar Guler and Somalia’s Defense Minister Abdulkadir Mohamed Nur signed a framework agreement on defense and economic cooperation between two countries in Ankara. The agreement, which adds to the previous ones (2009, technical cooperation agreement; 2010 training cooperation agreement, scientific and technical cooperation; 2012, training and cooperation agreement; 2015 defense industry agreement) as well as starting a training program of the Somali navy, aims to improve Somalia’s security perception and at the same time supports Ankara’s ambitions to project maritime power beyond its shores. The agreement falls within a regional context weakened by the recent agreement between Ethiopia and Somaliland to give Addis Ababa access to the open sea in exchange for the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations.

The two nations have released few details on the terms of the agreement. What is certainly known is that Turkey will support Somalia in training and equipping its small navy, thus expanding the impact of the training mission of the Turkish army that has been operating in Mogadishu since 2017. Mogadishu, despite all its problems, has launched in a massive diplomatic offensive to counter Addis Ababa’s initiative and to give legitimacy to its claims on a territory that Somalia considers secessionist and illegal. But there is more behind the naval agreement than just a simple deterrent for Ethiopia by Somalia. It is also about Turkey’s long-standing ambitions to project its power in the Red Sea region and pave the way for further defense deals in the region in the future and the culmination of more than a decade of Turkish involvement in Somalia.

This involvement focused on a broad project of nation-building, security sector reform, humanitarian assistance and socio-economic development at a time when Somalia was a nation forgotten by the international community. The agreement aims to secure mutual interests, positioning Ankara as a significant player in the strategic dynamics of the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa in times to come. This can also be seen as part of Ankara’s hard power projection capability and its advanced defense policy.

Through the agreement with Somalia, Ankara will further strengthen its defense ties with Mogadishu, which will bring benefits for the Turkish defense industry and Turkish commercial interests, while consolidating Turkey’s military presence in the strategic Horn Africa and the Red Sea. Ankara is already a regional power, active in the southern and eastern Mediterranean, in Libya, the Sahel, Central Asia, the Gulf, Syria and Iraq. It has the second largest armed forces in NATO and a very effective and active diplomatic corps that is based on a vast network of embassies, consulates and specialized institutions. The expansion of its naval presence in the Red Sea is the logical next step and it is not impossible to even imagine a future naval base in Somalia, to match ‘Turksom’ (the name of the Turkish training compound in Mogadishu).

As mentioned above, the agreement with Somalia, beyond the security needs of Mogadishu, is for Turkey a part of the broader national strategy to protect its supply chains and create strategic depth in the maritime sector and in this is the materialization of the 2021 ‘Mavi Vatan’ maritime strategy which is corroborated by recent orders for a second aircraft carrier (with a larger displacement and capacity than the ‘Anadolou’, currently in service and due to the expulsion of Ankara from the F-35 Lighting II programme, carrying only helicopters and drones) and four other frigates. ‘Mavi Vatan’ is a strategy that aims to re-establish Turkey as a maritime power with a reach well beyond the eastern Mediterranean and beyond its immediate coasts to develop a deep-sea Navy with a strategic reach and depth ranging beyond the Mediterranean, to the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa and the Indian Ocean.

However, reflecting the persistent ambiguity of Turkey, originated by the requirements of multiple alignment of Ankara, despite a verbal acknowledgment of the territorial integrity of Mogadishu, the hopes of Somalian president, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, to see a Turkish navy squadron showing the flag in front of the waters of Somaliland and Puntland remain pure theory, despite a visit of Turkish Navy warship to Mogadishu on 24 April and the promise to assist the country to build up a navy (and apparently putting an end to a similar project launched by the Italian Minister of Defence).

After trying to block it in every way, Somalia had to accept the option of withdrawing the ‘green berets’ of ATMIS. Aware of the weakness of its armed forces, Mogadishu looks anxiously for every possible gap filler, and in case of a weak answer of AU for a post-ATMIS operation, may consider that Ankara in the perennial search of affirmation (or self-affirmation), it would be interested in support her security needs and maybe being the leading nation of another anti-Shabab coalition.

Turkey, in the eyes of some Somali leaders, could represent an alternate option in security provider in case that the ATMIS option will fail. Mogadishu is already thinking about and whose terms should be made known after the summer.

But the relations between Mogadishu and Ankara, as confirmed by the large number of agreements, include of course the economic dimension, or better say, the exploitation of natural resources (in this case hydrocarbons) by the stronger partner who leave royalties to the weak one.

Somalia says Turkey will begin drilling oil off the country’s massive coastline from next year, according to the Director General of the Somali Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Mohamed Hashi Abdi ‘Arabey’, who confirmed the recent assertion by a Turkish official on a plan for deep-sea oil drilling operation from early 2025. They will begin seismic works and drilling at the coasts facing Barawe and Hobbio districts (Barawe is about 200 km south of Mogadishu while Hobbio is about 500 km to the northeast). In addition to the inclusion of Turkey in the Red Sea-Bab el Mandeb Strait chessboard, the renewed rivalry between Ethiopia and Somalia regarding the future Somaliland has awakened another significant problem.

In fact, both Ethiopia and Somaliland, in addition to agreeing on the issue of the portion of territory that should be leased to Addis Ababa, have also agreed on the management of commercial air traffic control, creating an unclear situation as various and sometimes contradictory, instructions to airlines, which found themselves forced to modify the routes of their aircrafts and reducing access to Somali airspace, bringing to the surface the jurisdictional and political problem of who (really) controls the airspace of Somalia and whether or not this includes Somaliland.

For many years, the unstable political situation in Somalia has had a serious impact on the country’s aviation sector. The previous national airline, Somali Airlines, also suffered due to civil war in the early 1990s. However, following improvements in some areas, last year the airspace over Somalia was reclassified to “Class A” (therefore normal) and saw the return of air traffic control services to the country after three decades. Also highlighting the progress made by the aviation sector, Somalia recently opened its first MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul) center in over 30 years and therefore now has a facility to repair and inspect aircraft locally. The airspace over Somalia and the surrounding ocean is managed by the SCAA (Somali Civil Aviation Authority) from the Mogadishu Area Control Center, which claims to be able to exercise its jurisdiction also over Somaliland, which instead it refuses on the grounds that it has its own independent state.

This airspace, known as the Mogadishu FIR (Flight Information Region ) and its controlling authority are defined in the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) Air Navigation Plan for the Africa and Indian Ocean Region (AFI), which recognizes Somalia (including Somaliland) as the controlling state, and by extension, the Somali Civil Aviation Authority, and this position is also shared by the IATA (International Air Transport Association), the umbrella organization airlines around the world. Somaliland has control over its airports but the question of airspace remains effectively open.

Egal International Airport (HGA) is the state’s main airport and serves the capital Hargeisa. Following the signing of the Ethiopia-Somaliland MoU, Somali authorities began restricting flight activity in Somaliland to assert their authority over their airspace. As a result of the ongoing litigation, on January 17, the SCAA blocked an Ethiopian Airlines aircraft carrying Ethiopian diplomatic delegates from entering the airspace, saying it did not have permission to enter the country. According to media sources, the SCAA also blocked an air ambulance carrying a Somaliland citizen who “needed urgent help”, in violation of the rules that govern international civil aviation in such cases. However, Somali authorities have denied this latest claim.

In return, Somaliland claimed independence and jurisdiction over its territory and surrounding areas, issuing an international aviation warning and a statement on its X (formerly Twitter) page. Since both states claim the right to control traffic, there have been numerous reports of airlines receiving conflicting instructions while flying over the area from people posing as ‘air traffic controllers’ and risking collisions. It is not entirely clear whether this was also the result of the dispute between the controllers of Mogadishu and Hargeisa.

This was followed by a February 19 statement in which Mogadishu accused Somaliland of disrupting air routes used by aircraft over portions of the airspace of the northern regions of Somalia. The Somalian government added that if these offensive measures continue, Mogadishu will take strong measures to ensure the safety and security of Somali civil aviation. The dispute has also saw obscure events such as the murder of an civilian air traffic controller of the Hargheisa airport in Mogadishu and Somaliland’s protest over the arrest of six people from that territory by Somali police.

The fate of operations in Somali airspace is almost as delicate as that of maritime traffic between the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. The East African area is one of the busiest on the continent. The region is also home to some of Africa’s largest airlines, including Ethiopian Airlines and Kenya Airways. Some of the major airlines connecting the African subcontinent south of Ethiopia with destinations in the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent pass through Somali airspace.

The same applies to air connections between Western Europe and the islands of the Indian Ocean. As IATA has stated, no airline would fly in unsafe airspace and signaling the worsening situation, Ethiopian Airlines has announced that it will change some of its routes to avoid Somali airspace. For airlines still flying to the country, crews have been advised to pay attention to the environment and follow the instructions contained in the NOTAM issued by the Mogadishu authorities which advise them to contact the Mogadishu Area Control Center in particular in the area within a radius of 150 nautical miles from Hargeisa.

Despite several attempt to reorganize the state, like blocking illegal fishing in its territorial waters (that is a real challenge giving that the coast guard and maritime police have mere ‘brown waters’ capacities), Mogadishu and make public the improving financial situation, thanks to erasure of debt from countries like Russia, Somalia is banking on new opportunities coming out of recent debt relief to seek new credit lines and open up for trade.

Last year, Mogadishu was the only East African country that had zero debt after all the debts were forgiven by the World Bank and IMF (in blatant rivalry with the cancellation of debt decided by Moscow in occasion of the last Russia-Africa summit on last July, around 600 million of US$; but not only Moscow, cancel the Mogadishu debt, also London; in fact, without providing details on the amount, UK has cancelled 100% of its Somalia’s historic debts). It gave a fresh start and opens a huge market for East Africa. In December, Somalia reached an agreement to cancel $4.5 billion of debt with international lenders. That, the diplomat says, gave it new opportunity to attract investors as well as be eligible to borrow more from lenders.

So far, Mogadishu has been cautious of simply piling new debt and officials have said they will prioritise opening up and rebuilding state institutions instead. In the month of April, Somalia signed a financial agreement with the IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development, a Rome-based UN specialized institution) which will see Mogadishu receive up to $31.22 million for support programmes related to food security in rural areas. The money is to be channelled under the Rural Livelihood Resilience Programme, aimed at improving food security and resilience in rural areas. The funding will the first direct investment by IFAD in Somalia since Mogadishu’s external debt pile was cleared. Despite the finance portfolio’s optimism, it expects that global problems affect the country both directly and indirectly.

In mid-March this year, representatives of the Paris Club met with representatives of Somalia government and reached consensus on a debt cancellation. The Club’s announcement indicated that debt cancellation came as a result of the Horn of Africa country reaching its Completion Point under the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (Enhanced HIPC) Initiative approval by the Executive Boards of the IMF and the World Bank in December 2023.

The debt owed to Paris Club creditors was estimated to be $2 billion as of January 1, 2023, which means 99% of that is now forgiven by the creditors.

However, the regional perspectives are complex. The problems of Somalia seem endless and not limited to the relations with Ethiopia, Somaliland and the collapsing of the federal system. Also, Puntland, which for years remained in a kind of political limbo, not independence but within a special ‘autonomy’ (not octroyed by Mogadishu, but self-gained), showed the fragility of attraction and coercion capability of Mogadishu.

The (Federal, nominally) Government of Somalia’s military toothlessness is responsible for its impotence; instead of focusing on rectifying the former ahead of the foreseeable terrorist upsurge that’ll follow the withdrawal of foreign forces, Mogadishu saber-rattling against Somaliland, Ethiopia, and Puntland are a distraction. As above-mentioned, the Government of Somalia demanded that the autonomous State of Puntland close the Ethiopian consulate in the regional capital of Garowe as part of Mogadishu’s latest diplomatic move to protest January’s Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Ethiopia and Somaliland. Mogadishu also expelled the Ethiopian ambassador and his diplomatic staff alongside demanding the closure of that country’s consulate in Somaliland’s capital of Hargeisa. While the refusal of Somaliland to comply with Mogadishu instructions are understandable giving the precedent situation, the reject of Puntland is more surprising and widely based on the evolution of the situation between Addis Ababa, Hargeisha and Mogadishu. Garowe see in that a momentum which will reinforce its, never hidden, hopes to complete the independence path.

Somalia is powerless to impose its declared writ over those two regions that it still claims as its own, with this latest development exposing just the impotency of Mogadishu. Neither of Ethiopia’s traditional rivals appear really interested in joining Somalia in his efforts for reconquering Somaliland, and even his country’s Turkish military ally, even promising, could be hesitant into to get involved. About that Ankara despite the symbolic visit of its ship to Mogadishu, it still has close ties with Ethiopia despite signing a maritime security deal with Somalia in late February.

As said, even if Ankara officially regards both Somaliland and Puntland as part of the Somalia, yet it hasn’t signaled that it’ll dispatch warships to their waters (nor has Mogadishu officially requested this either, also maybe to avoid another humiliation in getting this request pushed back). The impression is that the Mogadishu barks loudly but doesn’t bite, not because it doesn’t want to do the latter, but simply because has not an autonomy military capability and there are few countries interested in involvement on behalf of a partner without capability, regardless its strategic relevance. The country’s security is dependent on those foreign forces that assist it in trying to degrade Al Shabab military potential, but their substantial reduction by the end of the year will likely lead to an explosion in terrorism. Instead of preparing for that, the Somalian leadership would rather indulge in distractions and saber-rattling, while insisting in the dismantling the fragile federal architecture and preparing for the potential blow of another civil war between new ‘warlords’.

There is a concern that spewing ultra-nationalist rhetoric can bring the Al Shabab militias, which are proved to be very efficient and deadly, onto its side as an “ally of convenience” for waging hybrid war against Somaliland, Ethiopia, and soon possibly Puntland as well. If the terrorists can’t be co-opted through these means, for obvious reasons, the threat of Islamist remain and in long-medium perspective Somalia risks to be like the erstwhile Western-backed Islamic Republic of Afghanistan did in summer 2021 and with the possible emerging of another “emirate” (of terror). This is a nightmare scenario of epic proportions giving the importance of the Horn and the possibly impending fall of Mogadishu under the evil influence of Al Shabab could open a Pandora’s Box of security threats if then-erstwhile Somalia becomes an ungovernable terrorist sanctuary.

Enrico Magnani, PhD, is a retired UN official and expert in military history and international politico-military affairs.