empire watch, Iraq, latest, multipolar world, Russia, Syria, United States
Comments 13

Western Hegemony Versus Russian Sanity

by Mark Taliano

One of the unstated goals of imperial warfare is to make hapless civilians pay a price for having the temerity to be born in a targeted nation.

Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq, for example, the Western oligarchies imposed sanctions which destroyed water treatment infrastructures and killed about 700,000 children, and about 1 million other innocent Iraqis. These consequences were all planned and projected.  There was nothing accidental about the mass killings. It was simply imperial punishment for living in Iraq. Part of the calculus for such barbarity is that Imperialists hope that such punishments will demoralize local populations, and possibly make them reject their leaders.  It falls under the euphemistic categories of “destabilization” and “collateral damage”.  More accurately, it is targeted mass murder.

Why did the Western oligarchies choose to destroy Iraq and its people?  It had nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction, or terrorism, or any other of the creative lies perpetrated by cooked intelligence reports and public relations agencies.  More accurately, CIA asset Saddam Hussein had decided to stop using the US dollar for foreign trade.  Once Iraqi oil fields were under U.S control, oil sales were switched back to the dollar. Multitudes of innocent people were slaughtered – and continue to be slaughtered– for the US dollar, oil, and oligarch profits.  Whereas Iraq under Hussein was free of Wahhabism, and other assorted Western-supported terrorists, now it is a hotbed for terrorism, and innocent Iraqis are still paying for their temerity.

Libya, like Iraq, was also a well-developed nation.  Under Gaddafi, it had become the most prosperous nation in Africa, but innocent Libyans are still paying the price for having been born there. Hillary Clinton’s recently-disclosed e-mail records  demonstrate that Libya had decided to create an international reserve currency based on Libya’s gold dinar. Consequently, NATO planes provided air-cover for its al Qaeda proxies, Muammar Gaddafi was murdered, and now Libya too is a hotbed for terrorists, including the liver-eating ISIS variety.  The country has been successfully “destabilized”.

These are common imperial tactics, all masked by the duplicitous oligarchies. Ukraine is being destroyed and destabilized in a similar fashion, and to serve hidden imperial agendas, as is Syria.

Syrians are lucky though.  The Syrian army, Russia, Iran, and affiliated forces such as Hezbollah are successfully defeating the Western terrorist proxies, including al-Nusra Front and ISIS.

All of this mass death and destruction points to huge geo-political shifts, as it shines a light on the forces of justice and freedom and opposing forces of death and destruction.

Russia and its allies represent stability, international justice and freedom, while the Western oligarchies represent the opposite.

The “Saker”, a self-described military analyst, decodes the differences in the following chart: Unipolar vs multipolar modelMSM would have us believe an inverted version of this interpretation, but Western claims are not sustainable.

The destruction of each country that opposes its largely unstated agenda demonstrates that the “AngoZionist Unipolar Imperial Model” seeks global dominance, and that the rule of international law does not apply to it when international law contradicts its illegal hegemony.  The unipolar model does not tolerate alternate societal or economic models, it entrenches the rule and prosperity of the predatory 1% oligarch class, and it is based upon tacit notions of white supremacism.  The innocent “other” is disposable.

Internationally, Russia and its allies, described as the “Russian Multipolar Model” offer the opposite, within a framework of international law and order.

But Western populations are exposed to a constant diet of sophisticated corporate propaganda, so they are largely immune to the truth.  Currently, the Orwellian notion that “white is black, and black is white” describes the degenerate Western mind-set. These dangerous delusions may well lead us to an unthinkable nuclear war between the “Anglo-Zionist” coalitions, and the forces supporting the “Russian Multipolar Model”.

Historical memory informs us that we are following the wrong path.



    • Extremely interesting interview. Might it be possible to get this journalist to make regular contributions to offGuardian?
      I would just raise one point which I do not believe came out fully in the interview and that is the fat that French President Hollande declared a state of emergency without firstly gaining approval from the National Assembly.
      He has effectively granted himself dictatorial powers with hardly any French legislators voicing concern.
      This is amazing. Even the great Roman dictator Julius Caesar encountered more resistance than that!
      French human rights have effectively been binned, trashed and burned – and not one public protest as far as I know.
      What is happening in France now could easily be brought over here too if we are not careful.


  1. Martin says

    “The “AngoZionist”, what a racist term. Every time this writer, the ‘Saker’, others and some peoples commentary write these kind of terms I get disappointed. I have never heard Putin, Lavrov, Xi Jinping, Merkel and others use these kind of terms.
    Why, because these don’t help, these expressions are just escalating the mind and feelings of people and diverging these. It doesn’t help at all to use these kind of terms to solve the situation.

    So I can only conclude that people who use these terms are either stupid or agitators or selfish expressing their unbalanced feelings to the public.


    • I personally have a similar resistance to that phrase. However, I think we need to distinguish racism as an unfounded and hostile prejudice against an ethnic group from factually-grounded criticism of an ethnic group. There can be no denying the fact that the Anglo-Saxon group of nations/peoples have been responsible for a series of the most heinous genocides of the last 500 years (the nearly complete annihilation of North American natives, the genocide against the Australian natives, the appalling series of wars of religion in Continental Europe, the annihilation of almost all of European Jews and the genocidal war against Russians in the 20th century) and for the colonial exploitation of much of the rest of the world during the same period. Nor can there be any controversy over the nature of Zionism and its role in influencing the imperial policies of the USA, the world’s hegemon and only empire at this time.

      No fair solution to the problems the world faces today can be found on the basis of concealing or denying either of these facts.


      • I am English. While I accept that there was a zionist-supporting movement in Britain from Disraeli onwards – if not before – the fact is that Britain is no longer the force it was 100 years ago. I have had to explain to friends in Palestine just how enfeebled Britain now is that it no longer has an empire. Not even the US is able to exercise any control over the rabid zionists in the illegal state of “israel”. I also do not think you can blame the English-speaking world for religious wars in Europe, nor for the annihilation of European Jews (if it actually took place?). The wars against Russia/Soviet Union involved very little input from Britain and the US prior to 1940.


        • I see what the problem is: you take Anglo-Saxon to mean the English only. I take it as synonymous for the Germanic family of nations. There is an argument for doing so, but it could be a confusing usage for many.

          That said, I’d argue that it’s far more realistic to say the USA can but doesn’t wish to “exert control” over the Zionists it’s been supporting for decades now — as it certainly has the means and the capacity to do so. Given UK’s role in the MENA wars of the past quarter of a century, as well as its unflagging support of an unabashedly imperial US foreign policy, its own loss of an empire is of secondary if any importance, I think. Consider the recent allegations that it was Britain that engineered the acceptance of Saudi Arabia on the UN’s human rights panel; or the role the UK played in the invasion of Iraq.

          Your point about a language that divides and alienates, however, is well made. Terms such as Anglo-Saxon or Zionist might not be such an issue if we hadn’t got into the politically correct habit of speaking as if it’s only or even predominantly the West that’s guilty of genocides, aggression, exploitation, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, but pointing to facts such as the role of the Arabs in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, for example, or the horrible oppressiveness of the Ottoman Empire, which fell apart only a hundred years ago, or the horrific violence of the Mongol invasions of Europe, or the equally horrific violence and exploitativeness of the pre-Columbian Central and South American civilizations, also gets one accused of racism. The illogical end point is that to speak of historical facts forthrightly, without censoring oneself so as to spare the tender feelings of the ethnic and/or religious groups involved, is to run the risk of being accused of pan-racism, an argument that obviously cancels itself.


      • Vaska. You don’t have to feel resistance by using the word Anglo Zionists. It tells the truth and in reality its a better term. Thank you.


    • Harry Shade says

      I beg to disagree. World leaders tend to use diplomatic terminology and to remain politically correct. This fact does not preclude the existence of what can accurately be called Anglo-Zionist cabal.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Martin. There is nothing wrong with the term Anglo-Zionnists, its a better word than any other and tells the truth. All these wars in the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa are JUDAIC in nature. Its the Criminal Judaic Mafia who are pulling the strings with the neo-conservatives, “Chriatian” Evangelicals, Zionist Christians and all the laundry list of predators against humanity.
      Thank you Vaska. Your work and research is absolutely marvelous.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. John says

    I am not sure that Syria and Russia oppose secular values. Religious cults are permitted in their countries but – hopefully, at least – are not allowed any special privileges or status over any other beliefs or legal values.
    Indeed, is it not absolutely apparent that religion is THE major problem for south west Asia?
    If people like Putin and Assad want to maintain decent regimes, they should learn to keep religious cult leaders very definitely at distant arms lengths.
    Why reward wahhabist/salafist/zionist ideologies or any other form of imperialist extremism?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Excellent & factual article that should be debated World-wide on BBC/CNN etc etc in front of the sheeple to see which truth stands up to real scrutiny.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s