A wide-ranging insightful discussion of the developing flashpoints in the global war between Russia and her allies and the Anglo-American empire and its numerous vassals, the so-called “Freedom-loving West”, what Moscow and China are now calling “the collective West”.
EDWARD CURTIN—This is expert opinion for dummies. A vast tapestry of lies, as Harold Pinter said in his Nobel Prize address. The war escalation the editorial writers are promoting is in their words, “this time pitting Western arms against a desperate Russia,” as if the U.S./NATO does not have CIA and special forces in Ukraine, just weapons, and as if “this time” means it wasn’t so for the past nine years at least as the U.S. was building Ukraine’s military and arms for this very fight. It is a fight they will lose in the days to come. Russia was, is, and will triumph.
ERIC ZUESSE—The more that goes to the MIC, the less that goes to everything (and everyone) else; the public increasingly fend for themselves. For example: in a country where the Government doesn’t protect small businesses but only giant ones, this is how they protect themselves — no thanks to, and maybe against the laws of, that MIC-dominated Government. It’s what happens when and where 57.16% of the money that is legally donated to politicians comes from the wealthiest 0.1% — the richest one in ten thousand — of the nation’s population.
PEPE ESCOBAR—The icing on the Alpine cake is arrogance/stupidity actually giving away the game: the City of London and its vassals are livid because the “world Davos made” is fast collapsing. Davos did not “make” any world apart from its own simulacrum. Davos never got anything right, because these “elites” were always busy eulogizing the Empire of Chaos and its lethal “adventures” across the Global South.
SCOTT RITTER—The information operation run by the Troika had failed. Their plan to cancel voices in opposition to their respective points of view had backfired—what should have been a quiet, small-town panel had now garnered global attention, exposing the pro-Ukrainian position as ideologically weak, while allowing a fact-based appraisal of the Russian position.
