The “Consensus” against Russia Is Limited to the West

If one’s view of present world politics is limited to the psychological war machine known as the “mainstream media”, one would likely conclude that 1.) Putin is evil and Russia is isolated; 2.) Russia is losing the “hybrid” or information war, as well as the military conflict; and 3.) Most of the world knows this and is acting accordingly.

That line was pushed in Politico, which gloatingly portrayed the isolation of the Russian Ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, who was described as “one of the loneliest men in Washington”, with little or no access to U.S. officials, and a shrinking staff at the Embassy due to expulsions. Yet, it does note that he participated in the April 9 Schiller Institute conference on the need to build a new global security and development architecture, with a link to the proceedings (cf. SAS 15-16/22).

However, The Economist, a mouthpiece of the City of London and British intelligence insiders, in an April 16 article had to begrudgingly admit the decline of the influence of the West, and in particular of the U.S. In spite of the false axioms embedded in the article (“What is at stake in Ukraine”), it reveals a deep sense of the panic gripping the Trans-Atlantic oligarchy, as they have decided to go for broke to carry out a regime change in Moscow.

The magazine’s intelligence unit carried out an analytical breakdown of the vote in the UN condemning the Russian military operation in Ukraine, which concludes that the West is actually losing! One-third of the world’s population live in nations which voted to condemn Russia, most of which are western states and poor nations totally dependent on the west. Another third live in nations, such as India, Egypt and Indonesia, which are neutral, and abstained from the vote. Another third live in nations which, according to the article, “echo” Russia’s rationale for the invasion. These are described as part of the “emerging world”, i.e., former colonies, whose citizens see the West as “decadent, self-serving and hypocritical.”

The Economist describes the reaction of the great majority of nations as “a stunning rebuke” to the West, and “a poisonous cocktail of legitimate grievances and exaggeration, all laced with lingering resentment of colonialism.”

A number of these nations are deepening their ties to Russia and China, as those two nations are moving toward an alternative to the collapsing western financial/economic system, driven in part by the economic warfare being conducted against them. That includes India and Egypt as well as a majority of African nations, which are looking to increase their trade relations with Russia.

Even in Latin America, Washington’s proverbial “back yard”, resistance is growing. Although the Organization of American States voted up on April 21 a resolution (sponsored by the U.S.) to suspend Russia’s status as permanent observer, , the eight countries that abstained included the “Big Three” — Argentina, Brazil and Mexico.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email