Russian President Vladimir Putin attends an interview with Rossiya Segodnya International Media Group Director General Dmitry Kiselev at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia.
Exploitation of other nations by the so-called “golden billion” is coming to an end, the Russian president has stated.
The era of Western elites being able to exploit other nations and other peoples across the world is coming to an end, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an exclusive interview published by Rossiya 1 and RIA Novosti on Wednesday.
The president stated that over the past few centuries, the so-called “golden billion” has grown accustomed to being able to “fill their bellies with human flesh and their pockets with money” as they have been “parasitizing” other peoples in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
“But they must understand that the vampire ball is ending,” Putin said.
He added that the citizens of the aforementioned regions, which have been continuously exploited by the West over the past 500 years, have started to associate Russia’s struggle for sovereignty with “their own aspirations for sovereignty and independent development.”
Comment: The above statement will be remembered for the “vampires’ ball” comment, but note also the way he sees the global geopolitical battle shaping up: that Russia’s efforts to realize full sovereignty are resonating with desire for such in peoples from Latin America to Africa to Asia. Contrast this with the more coarse, bi-polar understanding in Western capitals that the battle revolves around the dichotomy of ‘alliance with the West or alliance with China’.
At the same time, Putin noted that Western elites have a very strong desire to “freeze the current situation” and preserve the “unjust state of affairs in international affairs.”
Previously, in his keynote address to Russia’s Federal Assembly last month, Putin stated that the West, with its “colonial habits” of “igniting national conflicts all over the world,” intends to do everything it can to stall Russia’s development and turn it, as it did Ukraine, into a dying failed state.
“In place of Russia, they want a dependent, withering, dying space, where they can do whatever they want,” he said.
The president followed up on those comments in Wednesday’s interview, stating that many Western elites, who have been “blinded by their Russophobia” were “thrilled” when they were able to push Russia to the point where it had to launch its military offensive in Ukraine in order to end the war unleashed by the West in 2014.
“They were even happy, I think because they believed that now they would finish us off using a barrage of sanctions, having practically declared a sanctions war against us, and with the help of Western weapons in the hands of Ukrainian nationalists,” said Putin, suggesting that this mindset was behind Western calls to “inflict a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield.”
Now, the West appears to have realized that defeating Russia in this way is not only unlikely, but impossible due to the unity of its people, the fundamental foundations and stability of its economy and the growing potential of its military, the president said.
“Those who are smarter” have now come to the conclusion that it is necessary to change their strategy in relation to Russia, Putin surmised.
Comment: On the 2024 US presidential election: “It’s absurd that Trump is persecuted because of any connection to me. Their election is becoming uncivilized.”
On Polish/NATO troops entering Ukraine: “This will have serious geopolitical consequences. Polish troops will never leave, and Ukrainian statehood will end.”
Kenyan Biologist Mordecai Ogada: "The carbon credit story is — and I don't say this lightly — is probably the biggest scam to ever be visited on mankind in history" https://t.co/YgL8kM1rAP
For centuries Western civilization has depended heavily on war, genocide, theft, colonialism and imperialism, which it has justified using narratives premised on religion, racism and ethnic supremacy — all of which we are seeing play out in the incineration of Gaza today.
It’s been so surreal watching Western rightists babbling about how savage and barbaric Muslim culture is amid the 2023 zombie resurrection of Bush-era Islamophobia, even while Western civilization amasses a mountain of 10 thousand child corpses.
What we see in Gaza is a much better representation of what Western civilization is really about than all the gibberish about freedom and democracy we learned in school.
Israeli forces bombing the Gaza Strip on Oct. 10. (Al Araby, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0)
When Israeli President Isaac Herzog described the assault on Gaza as a war “to save Western civilization, to save the values of Western civilization,” he wasn’t really lying. He was telling the truth — just maybe not quite in the way that he meant it.
The demolition of Gaza is indeed being perpetrated in defense of Western values and is itself a perfect embodiment of Western values. Not the Western values they teach you about in school, but the hidden ones they don’t want you to look at. Not the attractive packaging with the advertising slogans on the label, but the product that’s actually inside the box.
For centuries Western civilization has depended heavily on war, genocide, theft, colonialism and imperialism, which it has justified using narratives premised on religion, racism and ethnic supremacy — all of which we are seeing play out in the incineration of Gaza today.
What we are seeing in Gaza is a much better representation of what Western civilization is really about than all the gibberish about freedom and democracy we learned about in school.
A much better representation of Western civilization than all the art and literature we’ve been proudly congratulating ourselves on over the centuries.
A much better representation of Western civilization than the love and compassion we like to pretend our Judeo-Christian values revolve around.
It’s been so surreal watching Western rightists babbling about how savage and barbaric Muslim culture is amid the 2023 zombie resurrection of Bush-era Islamophobia, even while Western civilization amasses a mountain of 10 thousand child corpses.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken with Herzog in Tel Aviv on Nov. 3. (State Department, Chuck Kennedy)
That mountain of child corpses is a much better representation of Western culture than anything Mozart, da Vinci or Shakespeare ever produced.
This is Western civilization. This is what it looks like.
Western civilization, where Julian Assange awaits his final appeal in February against U.S. extradition for journalism which exposed US war crimes.
Where we are kept distracted by vapid entertainment and artificial culture wars so we don’t think too hard about what this civilization is and who it is killing and maiming and starving and exploiting.
Where news cycles are dominated more by celebrity gossip and Donald Trump’s latest mouth farts than by the mass atrocities that are being actively facilitated by Western governments.
Where liberals congratulate themselves for having progressive views on race and gender while the officials they elect help rip apart children’s bodies with military explosives.
Where Zionist Jews center themselves and their emotions because opposition to an active genocide makes them feel like they are being persecuted, and where Israel supporters who are not Jewish still kind of feel like they are being persecuted also.
Where a giant globe-spanning empire powered by militarism, imperialism, capitalism and authoritarianism devours human flesh with an insatiable appetite while we congratulate ourselves on how much better we are than nations like Iran or China.
These are Western values. This is Western civilization.
Ask somebody to tell you what their values are and they’ll give you a bunch of pleasant-sounding words about family and love and caring or whatever. Watch their actions to see what their actual values are and you’ll often get a very different story.
That’s us. That’s Western civilization. We say we value freedom, justice, truth, peace and free expression, but our actions paint a very different picture. The real Western values, the actual product inside the box underneath the attractive label, are the ones you see acted out in Gaza today.
The formation of a multipolar world is the objective course of history, the Russian foreign minister said
“Is there a single place where the US intervened with military force, where life has become better? I think you know the answer,” Lavrov told the forum participants.
The 500-year-long dominance of the West is coming to an end, being replaced by “a new polycentric world,” Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said Sunday in a video address to the Doha Forum.
The minister expressed regret that certain “circumstances” prevented him from coming to the Qatari capital in person and hearing the discussions at the annual high-profile event.
“But I assume that you were discussing the multipolar world, which is emerging after 500 years of domination of what we call the ‘collective West,’” Lavrov said.
This hegemony of the US and its allies had been “based on a diverse history, including ruthless exploitation of peoples and territories of other countries,” he said.
According to the minister, the West suggested that it could use the model of globalization, which it had been building for centuries, to maintain its dominance. “However, other countries, using exactly the principles and instruments of the Western globalization, managed to beat the West on its own turf, building the economies on the basis of national sovereignty, on the basis of balance of interests with other countries.”
New centers of economic growth and political influence have been emerging, “changing the balance of power in the world, and not to the West’s liking,” he said.
“In order to suppress this kind of development,” the US and its allies have in recent years “sacrificed” globalization in favor of the so-called ‘rules-based world order,’ Lavrov continued.
“The rules were never published, were never even announced by anyone to anyone, and they are being applied depending on what exactly the West needs at a particular moment of modern history,” he added.
The FM said that such an approach is most seen “in various conflicts, which the West ignites all over the world,” including the one in Ukraine. “Everything goes to keep the hegemony. Intervention in domestic affairs, sanctions against all the principles of competition, regime change, and of course direct military interventions, like we have seen in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere.”
“Is there a single place where the US intervened with military force, where life has become better? I think you know the answer,” Lavrov told the forum participants.
According to the diplomat, new formats like BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, ASEAN, African Union, and others will become “the bricks of the new polycentric world.”
It should be recognized, including by those in the West, that “the objective course of history… is the evolution of a multipolar world,” Lavrov insisted.
The unfair world order dominated by the West needs to end, Omani Crown Prince Prince Theyazin bin Haitham Al Said said on Thursday, while speaking with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Prince Theyazin was in Moscow for the ‘Russia Calling’ Forum hosted by VTB Bank and met with the Russian leader on the sidelines of the investment conference.
“I listened very carefully to your opening speech,” said the prince, according to translated remarks published by the Kremlin. “I share all your assessments of the current international situation, primarily with regard to the need to end the current unfair world order and the dominance of the West, as well as to build a new fair world order and economic relations without double standards.”
In his opening remarks, Putin had described globalization as a phenomenon used by the US and the collective West to exploit both its allies and the “global periphery” instead of giving every nation an opportunity to develop and thrive.
That system is currently undergoing “radical and irreversible” changes into a more democratic and multipolar order, the Russian leader said.
Prince Theyazin said it was necessary to create new mechanisms for trade and international relations that would not “impose any ideologies,” and develop new economic centers in Africa and Asia. The Middle East was strategically positioned to play a promising role in strategic infrastructure projects, he added.
Oman is located on the southeastern tip of the Arabian peninsula, across the mouth of the Persian Gulf from Iran. Its longtime ruler, Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said, died in 2020 without any children – leaving the kingdom to his cousin Haitham bin Tariq. His son Prince Theyazin currently serves as Oman’s minister of youth, culture and sports.
The history of relations between Paris and its former colonies on the continent explains the recent spate of anti-French coups
“The atrocities committed by the French in Niger could have never come to light, if one of the junior officers, Lieutenant Louis Péteau, had not described them in a letter to his fiancée. In the 15-page letter, he wrote how porters who were too weak from dysentery were beheaded and replaced by enslaved locals. Voulet ordered the severed heads to be placed on stakes in order to scare the inhabitants of the surrounding villages. The letter contains many details of war crimes committed by French soldiers. It was eventually made public and provoked a major scandal.”
The French, who are so proud of their elegant cultural heritage and Enlightenment values, were actually capable of savage atrocities against those who were not part of their culture, particularly colonized peoples. The cruelty of the French knew no bounds. They were involved in murder, rape, the plundering of African wealth, and the use of slave labor in the Central African Republic, Chad, and the Republic of the Congo. All these events happened in recent history and were recorded in archives, but no one has been held accountable so far.
As the whole world has turned its attention to the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the events in Ukraine have faded into the background, nearly everyone has forgotten about another region that is permanently unstable and immersed in conflicts and crises – Africa.
Over the past several years, there have been a series of coups in Africa – precisely, eight coups in three years. The last one occurred in Gabon. At the time, the media discussed Africa’s anger at colonialist France and the pro-French governments that toppled like dominoes. For Paris, that was a real disaster, since African countries had only formally escaped from under its ‘wing’ and were still subordinated to France politically and economically. Moreover, Africa is rich in minerals, oil, gas, gold, and other resources. For example, Niger supplies about 15% of France’s uranium needs.
We will find out why Africans have such a hostile attitude towards France and how this confrontation may end.
Occupied Niger
French colonialism in Niger began with the infamous and brutal military campaign to expand control over West Africa in 1899 (the so-called Central African-Chad Mission). The local population fiercely resisted the invaders, headed by captains Paul Voulet and Charles-Paul-Louis Chanoine (also known as Julien Chanoine). However, the forces of the two sides were unequal.
After leaving Dakar, the Voulet-Chanoine Mission was supposed to explore Chad and Niger and unite the French territories. Voulet had previously demonstrated sadistic tendencies in Burkina Faso, and his associate Chanoine was not any better. Moreover, Chanoine was the son of the powerful general and Minister of War Jules Chanoine, a fact that untied the mission’s hands.
The atrocities committed by the French in Niger could have never come to light, if one of the junior officers, Lieutenant Louis Péteau, had not described them in a letter to his fiancée. In the 15-page letter, he wrote how porters who were too weak from dysentery were beheaded and replaced by enslaved locals. Voulet ordered the severed heads to be placed on stakes in order to scare the inhabitants of the surrounding villages. The letter contains many details of war crimes committed by French soldiers. It was eventually made public and provoked a major scandal.
This did not stop the mission, however, and in 1922, after a severe drought and famine, the French established control over the territory.
France was primarily interested in Niger’s natural resources. Despite the fact that the country’s economy largely depended on agriculture and animal husbandry, the world’s largest uranium deposits were later discovered there. France seized hold of these resources.
In 1960, Niger was formally liberated. However, even after the 1960s, all the officers of Niger’s army were Frenchmen with French-Nigerian dual-citizenship. As of 1960, there were only ten African officers in the Armed Forces of Niger, all of low rank.
Paris would continue to exploit Niger’s rich resources for many years. Most recently, Niamey criticized the agreement with France and demanded a fairer share of the profits from the extraction of uranium ore.
Africa soaked in blood
A few years ago, the adviser to Algerian President Abdelmadjid Cheikhi said that after the massacre staged by the French in Algeria, the bones of the Algerians were taken out of the country and used to make soap and for sugar filtration. Cheikhi stressed that his country had become “a real field of experiments for the brutal practices that France later applied in other colonies.” He added that today Paris attempts to hide the crimes by destroying historical archives.
Some tragedies, however, could not be hidden, since they were witnessed by tens and even hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are still alive. Here are just a few chilling episodes from France’s colonial past.
Burning everything in its path
The French, who are so proud of their elegant cultural heritage and Enlightenment values, were actually capable of savage atrocities against those who were not part of their culture, particularly colonized peoples. The cruelty of the French knew no bounds. They were involved in murder, rape, the plundering of African wealth, and the use of slave labor in the Central African Republic, Chad, and the Republic of the Congo. All these events happened in recent history and were recorded in archives, but no one has been held accountable so far.
There has been no justice in the case of the Thiaroye massacre, when on the outskirts of Dakar French forces shot West African veterans who had once defended France in cold blood. Likewise, no one was held responsible for the Rwandan genocide, nor for France’s nuclear experiments in Algeria. In February 1960, France tested its first atomic bomb, exposing over 24,000 people to radiation. It is difficult to imagine the real losses caused by the resulting pollution since today we do not know the locations of all the test sites and areas of disposal of nuclear waste. But it’s safe to say that the French don’t care about this.
An uprising soaked in blood
The people of Madagascar also have many painful memories. The French army subjected them to severe repressions simply because they wished to be independent– and this despite the fact that at the time, France itself had just been liberated from Nazi occupation. Tens of thousands of Malagasy people were tortured and killed during the Franco-Malagasy Wars and in their aftermath. There were even cases when people were thrown out of airplanes.
In 1946, the Democratic Movement for Malagasy Rejuvenation (abbreviated MDRM in French) was founded in Madagascar. It wanted to put an end to the inhumane treatment of people and advocated political equality, prosperity, and independence. But less than a year after the party was formed, France intervened. On May 5, 1947, a massacre happened in Moramanga – a city that had become the epicenter of the Madagascar uprising against colonial rule. At midnight, French officers gave the order to attack three passenger train cars with MDRM members inside. The train cars were fired upon using a machine gun. Most of the people inside were killed, and those who survived were executed without a trial shortly afterward. This event became a symbol of French repression in Madagascar.
The forgotten genocide
The fate of the Bamileke people of Cameroon is sometimes compared to the fate of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. It is not known exactly how many were killed – the numbers vary from 100,000 to 500,000 people. Some even say there were a million victims. In any case, this was a real genocide staged by the French under the leadership of the anti-communists Charles de Gaulle and Jacques Foccart, in their fight against the Union of Populations of Cameroon (UPC) – a liberation movement founded in April 1948.
We find an eyewitness account of those horrible events online. Jeannette was just a little girl when her country became flooded with blood and tears:
“In the evening, the military convoys come back filled with heads that are dumped and exposed at the crossroads that will become the crossroads of the maquisards, until my departure from Cameroon, in 1976, and even perhaps until today. It is in the heart of Bafoussam, about thirty meters from the house of my parents that all this is exposed. This is also where the executions take place. After a certain pause, because of the famine and in the absence of any help, the populations returned to the kingdoms without homes and without cultures. Others went to camps created by the occupier, without water, without access to the wood, and terrorized by the military.”
“Some, especially the occupier himself, have dared to advance the figure of 400,000 dead. Over what period? Are dead people in the Mungo area counted? Many died there. Others were tattooed and sent back to the West, where massacres and crowding in the camps were raging.
“After the war, the region was almost empty…”
Hell on Earth
Doubtlessly one of the most terrible genocides in world history was the Rwandan genocide, which claimed the lives of over 800,000 Tutsis in 100 days (other sources claim there were over a million victims).
France also carries the burden of this crime on its conscience. Numerous human rights organizations and historians (basing their assumption on documents) claim that France armed the Hutu government. Moreover, these events happened in light of Operation Turquoise, launched by France on June 23, 1994, in order to supposedly stop the mass killings of people. Instead, France secretly helped the participants of the genocide to flee.
Renowned French historian Vincent Duclert, who was commissioned by President Macron to prepare a report on the Rwandan genocide, concluded that Paris was responsible for what happened, at least in terms of ignoring the racist nature and brutality of the Hutu regime.
“Françafrique”: The illusion of freedom
The UN proclaimed 1960 the “Year of Africa”: 17 African nations gained independence that year – but only on paper.
France didn’t take leave of Africa without making sure that it could continue to exploit the resources of its former colonies, and continue to dominate them – even if from now on, that would happen behind the scenes.
In his memoirs, Charles de Gaulle wrote that France brought civilization to Africa, helped it build nation states and educated the elites, teaching them to act based on principles of human rights and freedoms (and, of course, French interests). At the same time, the founder of the Fifth Republic wrote that Paris was supposed to become a “specially privileged partner” for Africans. In other words, the colonizers wanted to take leave of Africa but preserve their influence over it. This is probably what de Gaulle meant by “privileged partnership.”
This is how the “Françafrique” [“French Africa”] concept was born – a system of special ties between Paris and its former colonies, developed by Jacques Foccart. Informal ‘guardianship’ of Africa through the Françafrique system guaranteed France political, economic, and military control over the region and, as a result, uninterrupted access to its natural resources – whether it was oil from Gabon, uranium from Niger, or cocoa from the Ivory Coast.
Making use of the economic whip and corruption, Foccart appointed his own people to high-ranking positions – these were the ‘elite’ raised by the French, which de Gaulle mentioned in his memoirs. If something went wrong, the French resorted to contract killing, terror, blackmail, intrigue, and bribery. When that did not help, France used its special services to eliminate high-profile politicians and even organize military rebellions. This is what the legendary French mercenary Bob Denard spoke about.
“One way or another, there was always some kind of interaction with the special services. Sometimes, Monsieur Foccart acted as a link. To involve the army in this or that operation, a lot of preliminary preparation was required. But my squad was light and mobile and could carry out the same mission using small forces,” Denard said.
Finally, in those cases when the efforts of mercenaries and the intrigues of special services failed, France conducted direct military interventions, meddling in the affairs of the “free” African nations. To this end, Paris had and still has military bases in Senegal, Djibouti, Gabon, and on the Ivory Coast. Until 2008, eight African countries had active agreements with France which allowed the latter to legally invade their territory and “restore order.”
Modern colonialism
On July 31, 2022, the government of Mali demanded that French President Emmanuel Macron abandon the principles of neocolonialism – above all, with regard to economic control over the continent.
Experts around the world have long discussed the CFA franc, which was introduced in December 1945. At the time, the abbreviation CFA stood for “French African colonies” (Colonies Françaises d’Afrique). By the 1960s, it meant “African Financial Community” (Communauté Financière Africaine). Today, the CFA franc is pegged to the euro, but until recently it was dependent on the exchange rate of the French franc. Moreover, the member countries of the zone where the CFA franc is in use are required to keep half of their monetary and gold reserves in the Treasury of France.
The CFA franc makes it possible for Paris to buy up Africa’s natural resources at extremely low prices. And considering the Françafrique system, local elites often derive benefits from the economic intervention of France.
Paris is almost impossible to push away since it is a major investor in the region. In 2020, for example, French foreign direct investments (FDI) in Cote d’Ivoire topped $500 million. It is just one example – other such countries include Tunisia, Morocco, etc. The French industrial sector in West Africa is also quite influential. For example, TotalEnergies accounts for 17 percent of the African oil market and is the leading distributor of petroleum products in Africa.
For Paris, the African continent has become a giant market for selling overpriced goods – despite the fact that France itself was indignant when the US took advantage of the political situation and sold it gas at exorbitant prices. In contrast, goods from the former French colonies are sold cheaply.
This system is called neocolonialism, and this is exactly what Africa is rebelling against.
In conclusion
France continued to devour Africa in the decades after de Gaulle. Each of the eight subsequent presidents contributed to the disintegration of the African continent. Of course, African leaders, who saw France as a natural guarantor of their personal security, were also responsible for the situation. Africa gifted its patrons, bowed before them, and coordinated every step with the Élysée Palace. But this didn’t help. The fate of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is a good example – and this is the man who financed the election campaign of Nicolas Sarkozy.
The political processes happening in Niger today are not a color revolution or a nonconformist riot backed by an external force. These processes are a result of wounds and sorrows accumulated over many decades. There is a chance that Niger may help other African countries move towards real liberation, particularly now that France has encountered major competitors in Africa in the face of China and Russia. But in fact, these developments have only accelerated inevitable changes.
Israel’s US-sponsored massacre in Gaza is much bigger than a mere “war between Israel and Hamas”.
Apartheid Israel’s genocidal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is part of a larger US-led Western neocolonialist war against the indigenous resistance in multiple countries in West Asia.
Israel is also bombing Syria and Lebanon. The US just bombed Syria too. Resistance forces are attacking the US military occupiers in Syria and Iraq. Yemen’s real government (in Sana’a, not the US puppets in Aden) has vowed military support for Palestine. Iran and the Lebanese resistance will defend their sovereignty and the Palestinian people against Western neocolonial aggression. Times have changed. The days of imperialism’s chokehold on the region are numbered.
Israel's US-sponsored massacre in Gaza is much bigger than a mere "war between Israel and Hamas".
Apartheid Israel's genocidal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is part of a larger US-led Western neocolonialist war against the indigenous resistance in multiple countries in West…
After the military coup in Niger took place, new authorities refused to cooperate with France. At the same time, since August, active fighting has resumed in the north of Mali, where separatist organizations of Tuaregs, widely known as the Coordination of Azawad Movements (CMA), entered into open conflict with the government forces of Mali (FAMA).
These events are taking place against the background of intensified attacks carried out by the third force – terrorist organizations in the Sahel region, in the area of three borders (Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso). All this raises the question, what is happening in the Sahel? And where will it all lead?
Background of the Mali crisis
Since 2015, the Algiers peace agreement, brokered by Algeria, the UN Multidisciplinary Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the African Union and the European Union, as well as the United States and France, have been in force in Mali. The agreements were supposed to end the military conflict that began in Mali in 2012 when movements largely composed of Tuaregs joined forces with Islamists to declare independence for Azawad, a historic region in northern Mali.
But the accords, essentially pushed by international mediators, have not been implemented by both sides. The rebel groups in the north were never disarmed, and of the 80,000 fighters who were part of the groups that signed the accords and were supposed to enter Mali’s armed forces, no more than 3,000 were integrated.
Moreover, the Algiers agreement actually divided the country into zones of influence. All this time, the northeastern Kidal region, part of the Timbuktu and Gao regions, remained under the control of the Tuareg movements. Government forces were not actively present in the area, entering it mainly for joint anti-terrorist operations with French forces.
French troops have been in Mali at the request of the Malian government since 2013 and led the anti-terrorist Operation Barkhane. A contingent of UN peacekeepers (MINUSMA) was also deployed in Mali, as was the Takuba multilateral initiative. Despite the international character of these missions, they were based mainly on the French perspective on security threats and thus also promoted French interests.
Over time, France’s intervention met with increasing criticism from both Malians and independent observers, as the French Army failed to address the issue of security in the country and terrorist attacks increased. In recent years, Mali has accused France of supporting the separatists, emphasizing that Paris has refused to provide active military assistance to Bamako to fight them.
Interestingly, the falsity of the French approach to the Sahel was also stated by former French ambassador to Mali (2002-2006) Nicolas Norman, who in 2019 stated: “The problem was that France then thought it could distinguish between good and bad armed groups. Some were perceived as political, and others as terrorists. And the French army went looking for this group – it was the Tuareg separatists from a particular tribe that was a minority among the Tuaregs themselves, the Ifoghas. We went after this group and gave them the town of Kidal. Then came the Algiers agreements, which put these separatists on a kind of pedestal, on an equal footing with the state. This is a major mistake.” All this kept the risk of further destabilizing Mali.
New conflict with Tuaregs
The military coup in Mali in May 2021, led by Colonel Assimi Goita, changed the balance of power in the country and the region. The new leadership, dissatisfied with the quality of French military assistance, shifted its focus to military cooperation with Russia the same year. French troops were forced to leave Mali.
Since the withdrawal of the French contingent from Mali in August 2022 and the launch of the MINUSMA withdrawal process (following a demand for the end of the mission from the authorities in Bamako), due to be completed in December 2023, old conflict lines have reopened in Mali. Mali’s central authorities are no longer willing to make any concessions and are seeking to regain complete control of the entire country, while the CMA wants to maintain its power in the north.
An intense stage of the conflict has arisen over the control of military bases left by MINUSMA. The contradictions are rooted in the 2014 ceasefire agreement, concluded on the condition that the forces remain in their current positions. Therefore, attempts by the Malian Armed Forces to occupy bases left by UN peacekeepers in areas controlled by Tuaregs are interpreted by CMA as a violation of the ceasefire. On the contrary, the Malian side believes that MINUSMA’s attempts to leave bases in the north of Mali before the deadline (the Malian armed forces’ ability to occupy them) are dictated by French interests and indicate a desire to transfer arms to local rebels to preserve a destabilizing influence.
Therefore, when the Malian army occupied a military base near the village of Ber in early August, it provoked fights with CMA. Armed clashes between the sides became increasingly frequent, and the central authorities occupied the Ber.
In early September, intense fighting took place near the town of Burem, and the Tuaregs declared that they were in a ‘time of war’ with the government of Bamako. During the Autumn, Tuareg forces attacked several Malian Army bases (Bourem, Lere, Diuri, Bamba) but never gained complete control of them. Government forces, in turn, almost without a fight, took control of the important town of Anefif, opening the way to the Tuareg rebel strongholds of Kidal, Aguelhok, and Tessalit. In late October, despite the rapid withdrawal of MINUSMA, the FAMA took control of the military base in Tessalit. On October 31, ahead of plan, MINUSMA left the military base in Kidal, occupied by Tuareg forces.
French Armed Forces Minister Sebastien Lecornu spoke about the current escalation in Mali: “The real news from now on in the Sahel will be the massive resurgence of the terrorist risk. Massive. This means potentially finding ourselves in a situation where Mali could be partitioned in the coming weeks or months.” Obviously, such statements are perceived extremely negatively in Bamako, which considers them as evidence of direct influence on events from Paris.
Terrorist threat growing
In recent years, the Sahel has witnessed a series of military coups (Mali in 2020 and 2021, 2 coups in Burkina Faso in 2022, and Niger in 2023) that brought to power the military leaders who were dissatisfied with security problems and had anti-French views. Thus, in early 2023, the authorities of Burkina Faso, following Mali, demanded that Paris withdraw its troops from their territory. All this undermined France’s regional interests, gradually undermining its traditional dominant position.
The latest example of this trend was Niger, where the authorities, who came to power as a result of a military coup that Paris condemned, demanded the withdrawal of the French contingent from the country and declared the French ambassador as persona non grata. Despite the threat of an ECOWAS invasion into Niger and a two-month political standoff, France launched the process of withdrawing its troops from Niger in early October.
Notably, the events in Niger and the French loss of influence did not affect American interests. Since Washington took a neutral position by taking diplomatic initiatives and did not condemn the military coup, it was able to maintain its military presence in the country.
Other institutions built around France continue to disintegrate in the region. The Paris-backed Group of Five (G-5), consisting of Chad, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mauritania, operated in the Sahel since 2014. The format aimed to coordinate efforts to combat the terrorist threat but never became an influential regional institution.
Mali, in May 2022, became the first state to announce its withdrawal from the G-5, in effect cutting the group’s territorial connectivity. The ensuing end of military cooperation with France by Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, and the withdrawal of French forces from these countries, finally put an end to the G-5’s activities, as only two states (Mauritania and Chad), located at the eastern and western “poles” of the region, remained ready to engage with France.
Despite the withdrawal from French control, security threats in these countries continue to grow. In Niger, a group of Tuareg who disagreed with the military coup announced the creation of a Council of Resistance for the Republic to restore the overthrown president to power. Still, no concrete action has yet been taken. The Mali central government’s conflict with the Tuaregs has diverted Mali’s forces from fighting the terrorist threat, while attacks by jihadist organizations continue in Mali: JNIM (Jamaat Nasrat al-Islam wal Muslimin, the local branch of al-Qaeda) is besieging Timbuktu, the most important city in central Mali, and attacking both Malian army military bases and civilian targets. “Wilayat Sahel” (the local branch of the Islamic State) took over vast territories in the Menaka region in eastern Mali (the Three Borders area) as early as April 2023, triggering a large-scale exodus of refugees from the region, and continues to carry out attacks in the country.
The activity of radical terrorist organizations has also increased in other Sahel states. In recent months, major deadly attacks have occurred in Niger near the border with Mali, and attacks on the army have occurred in northwestern Burkina Faso, where the local IS branch still controls much of the northern region of that country.
This situation, as well as the threat to the military regimes, forces the authorities to seek new cooperation formats. On September 16 of this year, the leaders of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger signed the Liptako-Gourma Charter (the name of the Three Borders area), creating the Alliance des Etats du Sahel (Alliance of States of the Sahel).
Since the creation of the alliance took place amid the Malian government’s conflict with rebels and the threat of an ECOWAS invasion in Niger, it was particularly important in the agreement to include a collective defense mechanism in the event of an attack on one of its members, which strengthened the power of the military regimes.
It is also worth noting that the agreement was signed the day after a delegation from the Russian Defense Ministry visited Bamako, which might suggest that preliminary consultations with Moscow were held. In the short period after the alliance was established, its members have already announced joint operations against terrorist groups along the three borders.
What to expect
The regional security structure in the Sahel is changing significantly. France’s traditional dominance, backed by a broad military presence and collective international initiatives, although declining, still retains opportunities for Paris to influence local governments. The breakdown of previous cooperation formats does not yet solve regional problems. The Sahel continues to face critical challenges, including the jihadist threat, internal fragmentation, and conflict, leaving states in the region extremely fragile and interested in finding international partners willing to help manage these challenges.
A new security structure that is beginning to emerge in the Sahel provides competitive opportunities for external involvement by both regional powers (e.g., Algeria) and non-regional powers (Russia, Turkey). The effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the new regional alliance, which already demonstrates the more subjective nature of the states in the region, will also play a central role in shaping the new security structure.
The central authorities in the Sahel countries still lack a monopoly on the use of force. Therefore, legitimacy crises and transfer of power problems are intensifying, resulting in violent struggles to retain influence and access to resources (as clearly seen in the renewed Tuareg crisis in northern Mali). The transition period will continue to be accompanied by growing security threats and expansion of conflict zones, and the Sahel states must figure out how to overcome it.
Therefore, the current conflict in Mali becomes particularly crucial. It is expected that the Bamako authorities will keep trying to break the armed resistance of the Tuaregs and will continue their campaign in the north, using their air advantage. However, the battle for control of military bases and towns under Tuareg rule since 2013 will be tougher. It may appeal to regional allies of both sides, as it will prove decisive in the distribution of power within Mali and the region for the coming years.
By Andrei Shelkovnikov, expert of the Center for African Studies, HSE University
PUTIN (2022): “Western countries have been saying for centuries that they bring freedom and democracy to other nations.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of bringing democracy they suppressed and exploited, and instead of giving freedom, they enslaved and oppressed. The unipolar world is inherently anti-democratic and unfree; it is false and hypocritical through and through.
The United States is the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons twice, destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. And they created a precedent.
Recall that during WWII the United States and Britain reduced Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne and many other German cities to rubble, without the least military necessity. It was done ostentatiously and, to repeat, without any military necessity. They had only one goal, as with the nuclear bombing of Japanese cities: to intimidate our country and the rest of the world.”
Western rulers are seeking to suppress sovereign independent centers of development, which don’t let them impose their ‘rules’ and ‘pseudo-values’ on other countries and peoples.
“Today, the Anglo-Saxons are trying to keep in place the neoliberal model of globalization, which is based on unequal economic and political relations and denying the interests of others,” Nikolay Patrushev stressed
TOMSK, October 31. /TASS/. Washington continues to brazenly exploit and rob other countries under the guise of fighting against terrorism and defending democratic values, Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolay Patrushev said on Tuesday.
“Under the pretext of defending supposedly ‘democratic values’ and fighting against international terrorism, the United States continues to unabashedly exploit other world countries. The plunderous policy in African states and the destabilization of the situation in Libya and Syria are a vivid example of this. They used the same scheme in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said.
“The ideals of Western colonial capitalism have changed little over the past centuries,” he said. “Today, the Anglo-Saxons are trying to keep in place the neoliberal model of globalization, which is based on unequal economic and political relations and denying the interests of others. Moreover, Western rulers are seeking to suppress sovereign independent centers of development, which don’t let them impose their ‘rules’ and ‘pseudo-values’ on other countries and peoples.”
The concept is just a front for bypassing international law, the Russian president has insisted
“Have you ever seen these rules? No, because no one has ever written them, and no one has ever agreed to them with anyone. How can we talk about order based on rules that no one has seen?” Putin stated.
The Western-promoted “rules-based order” is merely a cover for colonialism, as the presumed rules have never been agreed on by anyone and are ever-shifting from one case to another, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.
The president made the remarks in an exclusive interview with state-run broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) that was aired on Monday.
“Have you ever seen these rules? No, because no one has ever written them, and no one has ever agreed to them with anyone. How can we talk about order based on rules that no one has seen?” Putin stated.
While such a situation definitely looks “from the point of common sense” as “nonsense,” it’s extremely beneficial for the proponents of the said “rules-based order,” the president explained.
“If no one has ever seen these rules, it means that those who talk about this themselves come up with these rules from case to case in a way that suits their own interests. This is the essence of the colonial approach,” Putin noted.
Colonialism has always been based on supremacist ideas, segregating people into different “classes.”
“Colonial countries have always believed themselves to be first-class people. After all, they always said that they bring enlightenment to their colonies, that they are civilized people and bring the benefits of civilization to other peoples, who are considered to be second-class,” Putin stressed.
The colonial mindset remains strong, he noted, with all the US talk of its “exceptionalism,” for instance, stemming precisely from it. “That is, when they say that they are exceptional in the United States, it means that there are other people, people of some other second class. How else can we perceive this? These are the rudiments of the colonial mindset, nothing else,” he added.
The approach exhibited by Russia and China is entirely different from that shown by the West, with Moscow and Beijing both believing that treating all nations equally is the cornerstone of the emerging multipolar world and the basis of cooperation between the two nations themselves, Putin stressed.
“We proceed from the fact that all people are equal, everyone has the same rights, the rights and freedoms of one country and one people end where the rights and freedoms of another person or of an entire state start. This is how a multipolar world should gradually be born,” the president explained.
“The West is ready to cross every line to preserve the neo-colonial system. They do not give a damn about the rights of billions of people. We are fighting for a just and free path. The collapse of Western hegemony is irreversible.” — Putin #Gaza
“The West is ready to cross every line to preserve the neo-colonial system. They do not give a damn about the rights of billions of people. We are fighting for a just and free path. The collapse of Western hegemony is irreversible.” — Putin #Gazapic.twitter.com/LYBrhhAFbR
— 🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉 (@apocalypseos) October 16, 2023
It is therefore deeply sinister that the European Commission is actively working to shut down pro-Palestinian information and comments on social media. The European Commission has written to all major social media organisations and is able to threaten them with massive fines if they do not remove information of which the European Union disapproves.
The UK and the US are both sending military assistance to Israel to commit a calculated and deliberate act of genocide, which is already underway.
Over 500 children have been killed in Gaza in the last week and over 2,000 maimed, many with life-changing injuries. Nobody can claim they do not know what is already happening or what is about to unfold. The cutting off of food and water to Gaza is a major international crime, which the Western proponents of the “rules-based order” universally refuse to condemn.
In both the UK and the US there can be no more stark illustration of the lack of any kind of meaningful democracy, than the fact that there is no major political party that opposes the genocide – despite massive public opposition.
The bought and paid-for media and political class in the West are extremely nervous, throughout the Western world. Now they have come to the final genocide for which Zionism has always aimed, they face a good deal of popular resistance.
Throughout Europe, there is a massive gap between the zionist unanimity of the politicians and the much greater understanding of the Palestinian situation among the general public. Tellingly the response by the zionist political class has been a wave of outright fascist suppression.
In France, Macron has made all pro-Palestinian demonstrations illegal, but as so often the French people are not standing for that kind of authoritarianism.
In the UK, the police have adopted the cowardly tactic of arresting a couple of individuals, one in Brighton and one in Manchester, for a pro-Palestinian demonstration. Under Tony Blair’s notorious draconian “anti-terror” legislation, they could face up to 14 years in prison.
The young man in Manchester was arrested on the precise site of the famous “Peterloo massacre”, which generations of British people were taught at school was a terrible crime in breach of the rights to freedom of speech and assembly. Let the irony of that set in.
You can go out in the streets of the UK with an Israeli flag and yell that you want every Palestinian to be cleansed from Gaza. That is not illegal. If you say the Palestinians have a right to resist their genocide, that is illegal.
That appears to be a genuine analysis of the law in the UK, France and many other Western countries.
That is intended to terrify all of us. It will not work.
The European Commission has been ferociously zionist and gung-ho for this Palestinian genocide. It displayed the Israeli flag on its Berlaymont headquarters. It has taken a side in the most ferocious way.
It is therefore deeply sinister that the European Commission is actively working to shut down pro-Palestinian information and comments on social media. The European Commission has written to all major social media organisations and is able to threaten them with massive fines if they do not remove information of which the European Union disapproves.
The notion is plainly nonsense that through the fog of war the European Commission – which is 100% parti pris – is qualified to say what information is true and what information is false, and what comment is legitimate.
Thierry Breton, the European Commissioner in charge of this operation, is a former chief executive of electronic companies – and defence contractors – Atos and Thomson. He has no genuine interest in freedom of speech and is engaged in a process of silencing dissent for military aims, which is quite simply fascist.
We are witnessing almost all Western governments deliberately facilitating massacre, ethnic cleansing and genocide. We are witnessing almost all Western governments turning on their own people to crush dissent at that complicity in genocide.
This feels not so much like the week that Western democracy died, as the week it was impossible any longer to deny that Western democracy died some time ago.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully re
Russian President Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 20th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi.
In his keynote speech, Putin addressed a number of key issues, including the Ukraine conflict, the Western sanctions on Russia, nuclear weapons, and Moscow’s role on the international stage.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Participants in the plenary session, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,
I am glad to welcome you all in Sochi at the anniversary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. The moderator has already mentioned that this is the 20th annual meeting.
In keeping with its traditions, our, or should I say your forum, has brought together political leaders and researchers, experts and civil society activists from many countries around the world, once again reaffirming its high status as a relevant intellectual platform. The Valdai discussions invariably reflect the most important global political processes in the 21st century in their entirety and complexity. I am certain that this will also be the case today, as it probably was in the preceding days when you debated with each other. It will also stay this way moving forward because our objective is basically to build a new world. And it is at these decisive stages that you, my colleagues, have an extremely important role to play and bear special responsibility as intellectuals.
Over the years of the club’s work, both Russia and the world have seen drastic, and even dramatic, colossal changes. Twenty years is not a long period by historical standards, but during eras when the entire world order is crumbling, time seems to shrink.
I think you will agree that more events have taken place in the past 20 years than over decades in some historical periods before, and it was major changes that dictated the fundamental transformation of the very principles of international relations.
In the early 21st century, everybody hoped that states and peoples had learned the lessons of the expensive and destructive military and ideological confrontations of the previous century, saw their harmfulness and the fragility and interconnectedness of our planet, and understood that the global problems of humanity call for joint action and the search for collective solutions, while egotism, arrogance and disregard for real challenges would inevitably lead to a dead-end, just like the attempts by more powerful countries to force their opinions and interests onto everyone else. This should have become obvious to everyone. It should have, but it has not. It has not.
When we met for the first time at the club’s meeting nearly 20 years ago, our country was entering a new stage in its development. Russia was emerging from an extremely difficult period of convalescence after the Soviet Union’s dissolution. We launched the process of building a new and what we saw as a more just world order energetically and with good will. It is a boon that our country can make a huge contribution because we have things to offer to our friends, partners and the world as a whole.
Regrettably, our interest in constructive interaction was misunderstood, was seen as obedience, as an agreement that the new world order would be created by those who declared themselves the winners in the Cold War. It was seen as an admission that Russia was ready to follow in others’ wake and not to be guided by our own national interests but by somebody else’s interests.
Over these years, we warned more than once that this approach would not only lead to a dead-end but that it was fraught with the increasing threat of a military conflict. But nobody listened to us or wanted to listen to us. The arrogance of our so-called partners in the West went through the roof. This is the only way I can put it.
The United States and its satellites have taken a steady course towards hegemony in military affairs, politics, the economy, culture and even morals and values. Since the very beginning, it has been clear to us that attempts to establish a monopoly were doomed to fail. The world is too complicated and diverse to be subjected to one system, even if it is backed by the enormous power of the West accumulated over centuries of its colonial policy. Your colleagues as well – many of them are absent today, but they do not deny that to a significant degree, the prosperity of the West has been achieved by robbing colonies for several centuries. This is a fact. Essentially, this level of development has been achieved by robbing the entire planet.
The history of the West is essentially the chronicle of endless expansion. Western influence in the world is an immense military and financial pyramid scheme that constantly needs more “fuel” to support itself, with natural, technological and human resources that belong to others. This is why the West simply cannot and is not going to stop. Our arguments, reasoning, calls for common sense or proposals have simply been ignored.
I have said this publicly to both our allies and partners. There was a moment when I simply suggested: perhaps we should also join NATO? But no, NATO does not need a country like ours. No. I want to know, what else do they need? We thought we became part of the crowd, got a foot in the door. What else were we supposed to do? There was no more ideological confrontation. What was the problem? I guess the problem was their geopolitical interests and arrogance towards others. Their self-aggrandisement was and is the problem.
We are compelled to respond to ever-increasing military and political pressure. I have said many times that it was not us who started the so-called “war in Ukraine.” On the contrary, we are trying to end it. It was not us who orchestrated a coup in Kiev in 2014 – a bloody and anti-constitutional coup. When [similar events] happen in other places, we immediately hear all the international media – mainly those subordinate to the Anglo-Saxon world, of course – this is unacceptable, this is impossible, this is anti-democratic. But the coup in Kiev was acceptable. They even cited the amount of money spent on this coup. Anything was suddenly acceptable.
At that time, Russia tried its best to support the people of Crimea and Sevastopol. We did not try to overthrow the government or intimidate the people in Crimea and Sevastopol, threatening them with ethnic cleansing in the Nazi spirit. It was not us who tried to force Donbass to obey by shelling and bombing. We did not threaten to kill anyone who wanted to speak their native language. Look, everyone here is an informed and educated person. It might be possible – excuse my ‘mauvais ton’ – to brainwash millions of people who perceive reality through the media. But you must know what was really going on: they have been bombing the place for nine years, shooting and using tanks. That was a war, a real war unleashed against Donbass. And no one counted the dead children in Donbass. No one cried for the dead in other countries, especially in the West.
This war, the one that the regime sitting in Kiev started with the vigorous and direct support from the West, has been going on for more than nine years, and Russia’s special military operation is aimed at stopping it. And it reminds us that unilateral steps, no matter who takes them, will inevitably prompt retaliation. As we know, every action has an equal opposite reaction. That is what any responsible state, every sovereign, independent and self-respecting country does.
Everyone realises that in an international system where arbitrariness reigns, where all decision-making is up to those who think they are exceptional, sinless and right, any country can be attacked simply because it is disliked by a hegemon, who has lost any sense of proportion – and I would add, any sense of reality.
Unfortunately, we have to admit that our counterparties in the West have lost their sense of reality and have crossed every line. They really should not have done this.
The Ukraine crisis is not a territorial conflict, and I want to make that clear. Russia is the world’s largest country in terms of land area, and we have no interest in conquering additional territory. We still have much to do to properly develop Siberia, Eastern Siberia, and the Russian Far East. This is not a territorial conflict and not an attempt to establish regional geopolitical balance. The issue is much broader and more fundamental and is about the principles underlying the new international order.
Lasting peace will only be possible when everyone feels safe and secure, understands that their opinions are respected, and that there is a balance in the world where no one can unilaterally force or compel others to live or behave as a hegemon pleases even when it contradicts the sovereignty, genuine interests, traditions, or customs of peoples and countries. In such an arrangement, the very concept of sovereignty is simply denied and, sorry, is thrown in the garbage.
Clearly, commitment to bloc-based approaches and the push to drive the world into a situation of ongoing “us versus them” confrontation is a bad legacy of the 20th century. It is a product of Western political culture, at least of its most aggressive manifestations. To reiterate, the West – at least a certain part of the West, the elite – always need an enemy. They need an enemy to justify the need for military action and expansion. But they also need an enemy to maintain internal control within a certain system of this very hegemon and within blocs like NATO or other military-political blocs. There must be an enemy so everyone can rally around the “leader.”
The way other states run their lives is none of our business. However, we see how the ruling elite in many of them are forcing societies to accept norms and rules that the people – or at least a significant number of people and even the majority in some countries – are unwilling to embrace. But they are still urged to do so, with the authorities continually inventing justifications for their actions, attributing growing internal problems to external causes, and fabricating or exaggerating non-existent threats.
Russia is a favourite subject for these politickers. We have grown used to this over the course of history, of course. But they try to portray those who are not willing to blindly follow these Western elite groups as enemies. They have used this approach with various countries, including the People’s Republic of China, and they tried to do this to India in certain situations. They are flirting with it now, as we can see very clearly. We are aware of and see the scenarios they are using in Asia. I would like to say that the Indian leadership is independent and strongly nationally oriented. I think these attempts are pointless, yet they continue with them. They try to portray the Arab world as an enemy; they do it selectively and try to act accurately, but this is what it comes down to. They even try to present Muslims as a hostile environment, and so on and so forth. In fact, anyone who acts independently and in its own interests is immediately seen by the Western elite as a hindrance that must be removed.
Artificial geopolitical associations are being forced onto the world, and restricted-access blocs are being created. We see this happening in Europe, where an aggressive policy of NATO expansion has been pursued for decades, in the Asia-Pacific region and in South Asia, where they are trying to destroy an open and inclusive cooperation architecture. A bloc-based approach, if we call a spade a spade, limits individual states’ rights and restricts their freedom to develop along their own path, attempting to drive them into a “cage” of obligations. In a way, this obviously amounts to the dispossession of part of their sovereignty, often followed by the enforcement of their own solutions not only in the area of security but also in other areas, primarily the economy, which is happening now in relations between the United States and Europe. There is no need to explain this now. If necessary, we can talk about it in detail during the discussion after my opening remarks.
To attain these goals, they try to replace international law with a “rules-based order,” whatever that means. It is not clear what rules these are and who invented them. It is just rubbish, but they are trying to plant this idea in the minds of millions of people. “You must live according to the rules.” What rules?
And actually, if I may, our Western “colleagues,” especially those from the United States, don’t just arbitrarily set these rules, they teach others how to follow them, and how others should behave overall. All of this is done and expressed in a blatantly ill-mannered and pushy way. This is another manifestation of colonial mentality. All the time we hear, “you must,” “you are obligated,” “we are seriously warning you.”
Who are you to do that? What right do you have to warn others? This is just amazing. Maybe those who say all this should get rid of their arrogance and stop behaving in such a way towards the global community that perfectly knows its objectives and interests, and should drop this colonial-era thinking? I want to tell them sometimes: wake up, this era has long gone and will never return.
I will say more: for centuries, such behavior led to the replication of one thing – big wars, with various ideological and quasi-moral justifications invented to justify these wars. Today this is especially dangerous. As you know, humankind has the means to easily destroy the whole planet, and ongoing mind manipulation, unbelievable in terms of scale, leads to losing a sense of reality. Clearly, a way out should be sought from this vicious circle. As I understand it, friends and colleagues, this is why you come here to address these vital issues at the Valdai Club venue.
In Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept, our country is characterised as an original civilisation-state. This wording clearly and concisely reflects how we understand not only our own development, but also the main principles of international order, which we hope will prevail.
From our perspective, civilisation is a multifaceted concept subject to various interpretations. There was once an outwardly colonial interpretation whereby there was a “civilised world” serving as a model for the rest, and everyone was supposed to conform to those standards. Those who disagreed were to be coerced into this “civilisation” by the truncheon of the “enlightened” master. These times, as I said, are now in the past, and our understanding of civilisation is quite different.
First, there are many civilisations, and none is superior or inferior to another. They are equal since each civilisation represents a unique expression of its own culture, traditions, and the aspirations of its people. For instance, in my case, it embodies the aspirations of my people, of which I am fortunate to be a part.
Outstanding thinkers from around the world who endorse the concept of a civilisation-based approach have engaged in profound contemplation of the meaning of “civilisation” as a concept. It is a complex phenomenon comprised of many components. Without delving too deeply into philosophy, which may not be appropriate here, let’s try to describe it pragmatically as it applies to current developments.
The essential characteristics of a civilisation-state encompass diversity and self-sufficiency, which, I believe, are two key components. Today’s world rejects uniformity, and each state and society strives to develop its own path of development which is rooted in culture and traditions, and is steeped in geography and historical experiences, both ancient and modern, as well as the values held by its people. This is an intricate synthesis that gives rise to a distinct civilisational community. Its strength and progress depend on its diversity and multifaceted nature.
Russia has been shaped over centuries as a nation of diverse cultures, religions, and ethnicities. The Russian civilisation cannot be reduced to a single common denominator, but it cannot be divided, either, because it thrives as a single spiritually and culturally rich entity. Maintaining the cohesive unity of such a nation is a formidable challenge.
We have faced severe challenges throughout the centuries; we have always pulled through, sometimes at great cost, but each time we learned our lessons for the future, strengthening our national unity and the integrity of the Russian state.
This experience we have gained is truly invaluable today. The world is becoming increasingly diverse, and its complex processes can no longer be handled with simple governance methods, painting everyone with the same brush, as we say, which is something certain states are still trying to do.
There is something important to add to this. A truly effective and strong state system cannot be imposed from the outside. It grows naturally from the civilisational roots of countries and peoples, and in this regard, Russia is an example of how it really happens in life, in practice.
Relying on your civilisation is a necessary condition for success in the modern world, unfortunately a disorderly and dangerous world that has lost its bearings. More and more states are coming to this conclusion, becoming aware of their own interests and needs, opportunities and limitations, their own identity and degree of interconnectedness with the world around them.
I am confident that humanity is not moving towards fragmentation into rivaling segments, a new confrontation of blocs, whatever their motives, or a soulless universalism of a new globalisation. On the contrary, the world is on its way to a synergy of civilisation-states, large spaces, communities identifying as such.
At the same time, civilisation is not a universal construct, one for all – there is no such thing. Each civilisation is different, each is culturally self-sufficient, drawing on its own history and traditions for ideological principles and values. Respecting oneself naturally comes from respecting others, but it also implies respect from others. That is why a civilisation does not impose anything on anyone, but does not allow anything to be imposed on itself either. If everyone lives by this rule, we can live in harmonious coexistence and in creative interaction between everyone in international relations.
Of course, protecting your civilisational choice is a huge responsibility. It’s a response to external infringements, the development of close and constructive relationships with other civilisations and, most importantly, the maintenance of internal stability and harmony. All of us can see that today the international environment is, regrettably, unstable and quite aggressive, as I pointed out.
Here is one more essential thing: nobody should betray their civilisation. This is the path towards universal chaos; it is unnatural and, I would say, disgusting. For our part, we have always tried and continue to try to offer solutions that consider the interests of all sides. But our counterparts in the West seem to have forgotten the notions of reasonable self-restraint, compromise and a willingness to make concessions in the name of attaining a result that will suit all sides. No, they are literally fixated on only one goal: to push through their interests, here and now, and do it at any cost. If this is their choice, we will see what comes of it.
It sounds like a paradox, but the situation could change tomorrow, which is a problem. For example, regular elections can lead to changes on the domestic political stage. Today a country can insist on doing something at any cost, but its domestic political situation could change tomorrow, and they will start pushing through a different and sometimes even the opposite idea.
A standout example is Iran’s nuclear programme. A US administration pushed through a solution, but the succeeding administration turned the matter the other way around. How can one work in these conditions? What are the guidelines? What can we rely on? Where are the guarantees? Are these the “rules” they are telling us about? This is nonsense and absurd.
Why is this happening, and why does everybody seem comfortable with it? The answer is that strategic thinking has been replaced with the short-term mercenary interests of not even countries or nations, but the succeeding groups of influence. This explains the unbelievable, if judged in Cold War terms, irresponsibility of the political elite groups, which have shed all fear and shame and think of themselves as guiltless.
The civilisational approach confronts these trends because it is based on the fundamental, long-term interests of states and peoples, interests that are dictated not by the current ideological situation, but by the entire historical experience and legacy of the past, on which the idea of a harmonious future rests.
If everyone were guided by this, there would be far fewer conflicts in the world, I believe, and the approaches to resolving them would become much more rational, because all civilisations would respect each other, as I said, and would not try to change anyone based on their own notions.
Friends, I read with interest the report prepared by the Valdai Club for today’s meeting. It says that everyone is currently striving to understand and imagine a vision of the future. This is natural and understandable, especially for intellectual circles. In an era of radical change, when the world we’re used to is crumbling, it is very important to understand where we are heading and where we want to be. And, of course, the future is being created now, not only before our eyes, but by our own hands.
Naturally, when such massive, extremely complex processes are underway, it is hard or even impossible to predict the result. Regardless of what we do, life will make adjustments. But, at any rate, we need to realise what we are striving for, what we want to achieve. In Russia, there is such an understanding.
First. We want to live in an open, interconnected world, where no one will ever try to put artificial barriers in the way of people’s communication, their creative fulfilment and prosperity. We need to strive to create an obstacle-free environment.
Second. We want the world’s diversity to be preserved and serve as the foundation for universal development. It should be prohibited to impose on any country or people how they should live and how they should feel. Only true cultural and civilisational diversity will ensure peoples’ wellbeing and a balance of interests.
Third, Russia stands for maximum representation. No one has the right or ability to rule the world for others and on behalf of others. The world of the future is a world of collective decisions made at the levels where they are most effective, and by those who are truly capable of making a significant contribution to resolving a specific problem. It is not that one person decides for everyone, and not even everyone decides everything, but those who are directly affected by this or that issue must agree on what to do and how to do it.
Fourth, Russia stands for universal security and lasting peace built on respect for the interests of everyone: from large countries to small ones. The main thing is to free international relations from the bloc approach and the legacy of the colonial era and the Cold War. We have been saying for decades that security is indivisible, and that it is impossible to ensure the security of some at the expense of the security of others. Indeed, harmony in this area can be achieved. You just need to put aside haughtiness and arrogance and stop looking at others as second-class partners or outcasts or savages.
Fifth, we stand for justice for all. The era of exploitation, as I said twice, is in the past. Countries and peoples are clearly aware of their interests and capabilities and are ready to rely on themselves; and this increases their strength. Everyone should be given access to the benefits of today’s world, and attempts to limit it for any country or people should be considered an act of aggression.
Sixth, we stand for equality, for the diverse potential of all countries. This is a completely objective factor. But no less objective is the fact that no one is ready to take orders anymore or make their interests and needs dependent on anyone, above all on the rich and more powerful.
This is not just the natural state of the international community, but the quintessence of all of humankind’s historical experience.
These are the principles that we would like to follow and that we invite all of our friends and colleagues to join.
Colleagues!
Russia was, is and will be one of the foundations of this new world system, ready for constructive interaction with everyone who strives for peace and prosperity, but ready for tough opposition against those who profess the principles of dictatorship and violence. We believe that pragmatism and common sense will prevail, and a multipolar world will be established.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the forum’s organisers for your fundamental and qualified preparations, as always, as well as thank everyone at this anniversary meeting for your attention. Thank you very much.
The entire history of the collective West is about “endless expansion,” the Russian president has said
The prosperity of the collective West is largely based upon the “pillage” of its colonies all around the globe, Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed.
The prosperity of the collective West is largely based upon the “pillage” of its colonies all around the globe, Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed.
The president made the remarks on Thursday as he spoke during the plenary session of the 20th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi.
The entirety of Western history has been about “endless expansion,” and it still pursues such an approach with the whole world to keep its prosperity, he asserted.
“Western influence in the world is a massive military-financial pyramid. It constantly needs new fuel to support itself: natural, technological, human resources belonging to others,” Putin told the plenary session.
After the end of the Cold War, the collective West, led by the US, has been striving to establish and maintain its global hegemony, Putin noted, adding that such efforts were bound to fail from the beginning.
“The world is too complex and too diverse to be shaped under a single scheme, even if behind it lies the power, the enormous power of the West, accumulated over centuries of colonialism,” he said.
The ongoing global crisis is primarily a result of the “self-confidence” exhibited by the collective West and its refusal to take into account and even to hear the position of other international actors, Putin stated. At the beginning of the 21st century, there was hope that “states and peoples had learned lessons from the costly, destructive military-ideological confrontation of the last century,” but it proved not to be the case, Putin noted.
“Selfishness, conceit, and disregard for real challenges will inevitably lead us into a dead end, as well as the attempt of the stronger to impose their own ideas and interests on others. This should have become obvious to everyone – it should have, but it turned out that it was not the case,” the president stressed.
In a wide-ranging interview last weekend that aired as much of France was conveniently glued to the Paris Saint Germain vs. Olympique Marseille football match, President Emmanuel Macron was asked about his recent bad breakup. He was only too happy to spill all his feelings about the relationship like he was talking with Oprah Winfrey rather than TV news anchors.
He said that France was ending its military cooperation with Niger and repatriating France’s ambassador to Niamey and around 1,500 troops. It’s about time since he was already dumped a month ago and Niger has been threatening to get France’s tent off its lawn.
France’s military presence in some of its former African colonies, including Niger, was to combat terrorism, he said, adding that without France’s presence, “most of these countries would have already fallen prey to territorial caliphates and jihadists.”
Indeed, thank goodness for France, whose anti-terrorist mission was such a resounding success that the UN’s own peace operations advised the Security Council in May 2023 that “insecurity in the tri-border area of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger continues to grow.” ‘Rampant jihadists are spreading chaos and misery in the Sahel’, a headline in The Economist read in April, while the Wilson Center reported that same month that “The Sahel Now Accounts for 43% of Global Terrorism Deaths.” All of that was going on right under France’s nose.
Rather than Macron’s suggestion that France has helped prevent these nations from becoming caliphates, there’s actually stronger evidence to suggest that’s precisely the direction they were heading under French oversight. If Macron is talking about Boko Haram, then the solution was not to invade and destabilize Libya, because Boko Haram has since benefited from looted Libyan weapons and, in 2016, Washington officials were warning of Boko Haram fighters joining up with ISIS in Libya. That’s two years after France started Operation Barkhane, its effort to combat Islamist insurgents in the Sahel. A lot of good that was doing. The French must have been imposing the same brand of modern-day French discipline that results in kids across France periodically acting out over some issue du jour and smashing up cities.
Either Macron is caught in an illusion or he thinks that the French and African people are – or that they are at least clueless enough to think that things were looking up for these countries right up until Paris was sent packing. If that was the case – if the lives of the locals were truly improving – then where are the masses in the streets protesting in opposition to France’s withdrawal?
Macron was also careful to stress that France was only there at the behest of these countries. But what if they had dared to say ‘non’, particularly in the wake of the chilling effect of the French-led NATO intervention and coup d’état in Libya that led to the death of its leader, Muammar Gaddafi, in 2011? With these Francophone African nations serving as Paris’ stockrooms for everything from critical uranium that powers its nuclear plants to black gold that fuels French industry, is it any wonder that the leaders of these countries, until now, just happen to be excessively accommodating to these French interests – lest they find themselves ‘Gaddafi’d’.
But already, with the changes in management of these countries, the French press and industry representatives have been actively wondering about the fate of French companies in the Sahel. Paris has long maintained enough control to at least keep the resources flowing. But if France ever had any concern for the locals beyond that, it would have shown it by now.
But Macron didn’t stop there with the spin. “We are not responsible for the political life of these countries,” he said. In that case, why is France constantly trying to dictate to African nations who they should or shouldn’t be partners with, most recently pressuring them to ditch Russia and China?
And why did Macron push for African countries, uninterested in playing the West’s anti-Russian sanctions game, to take a side in the Ukraine conflict during a visit to Cameroon over the summer, if he believed in staying out of African political life? And if France is so hands-off with Africa’s internal affairs, why did Burkina Faso just a few days ago accuse Paris of blocking military supplies to the landlocked country when it’s supposed to be fighting the same insurgencies that Paris claims it had been there to help quash?
Or why did Macron attempt to revamp his African strategy in February by rebranding French military bases as ‘academies’, and having a European team collaborate with ‘civil society’ players in Africa? Nothing says non-interference like funding NGOs inside foreign countries.
“We’re not there to participate in coup d’états or to interfere,” Macron said. That may be true when Paris likes the guy in charge and wants him to stay there to protect French interests. Otherwise, it’s pressure on France’s ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) pals to do a counter-coup, as Macron appeared to suggest during a speech to French ambassadors. “If ECOWAS abandons [Nigerien] President Bazoum, I think that all the presidents of the region are more or less aware of the fate that will be reserved for them,” Macron declared, as president of the country that has literally overthrown African leaders in the past.
Macron didn’t have anything to say about the role of Paris’ Washington allies, who trained the Nigerien coup leaders both in-country and in the US, and whose troops not only remain in Niger but have resumed intelligence and reconnaissance missions, according to the Pentagon earlier this month.
While Macron seethes at Russia for replacing France, how does he reconcile the fact that Moscow hasn’t also ‘replaced’ Washington? Is he going to accuse Moscow and Washington of colluding now, too? Maybe these African countries haven’t yet figured out exactly what they want, and with whom, although Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger have already teamed up for their own anti-terrorism missions in a mutual defense pact. That, too, is being ‘blamed’ on Russia. In any case, sticking to the same broken relationship with Paris clearly wasn’t working.
And it looks like Macron, having been dumped, is caught somewhere between the denial and acceptance stages of grief.
France has shown how easy it is to control resources via control of monetary policy and setting up monopolies in these resource-rich nations to extract and export, using virtual slave labor with zero environmental or health regulations.
It’s also essential for exploitative neocolonialism to keep those resource-rich nations from using their own resources to grow their own economies. But now the African dominoes are finally saying, “The game is over.” Is true decolonization finally on the horizon?
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone
Tales from the Conspiratum 