Western foreign policy is guided by a cold cost-benefit calculation and pursues purely political interests of power that can be this way today and something else tomorrow.
Let’s take Islamism as an example. In the 2000s, the West declared the “war on terror”, that is, the supposed war against the Islamists of Al Qaeda and its offshoots. Under this pretext, Iraq was destroyed (about a million dead) and the war in Afghanistan lasted 20 years. But what happened in Syria? Members of this same Al Qaeda have now taken power and are being courted in the West by calling them “democrats” who are supposed to finally bring peace to Syria.
What about the “pure political interests of power that can be this way today and something else tomorrow”?
Isn’t it the West that reconciled with Al Qaeda when it could use it against Assad and ultimately against Russia, because in Syria the West wanted to overthrow a head of state who was a close ally of Russia and who hosted the only Russian naval base in the Mediterranean?
What about the Muslim monarchies of the Arabian Gulf?
These are perhaps the most undemocratic dictatorships in the world, in which family clans have proclaimed themselves kings (practically like in North Korea, which they accuse of abominations) and in which they don’t even have elections or even virtual parliaments. What about, for example, homosexuals who are beheaded in public places in Saudi Arabia. What do the Queer EU Commissioners or the Washington babblers actually say about this? Aren’t these the countries that Western leaders approach because they are loyal to the West’s geopolitical line?
So what “values” is Western foreign policy supposed to follow and about which the mainstream media is constantly chattering? And why do we have to learn from these same media every day about the nonsense of the LGBT people who are supposed to be so important, but they don’t comment, they don’t write articles in which they lament the pitiful situation of homosexuals and women in Saudi Arabia? But they write bitter articles about the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iran, even though Saudi Arabia is practically identical to the Taliban in these matters.
We could go on about how the West funds and supports a regime in Kiev whose supporters openly wear swastika tattoos, while supposedly rejecting Nazism, even imprisoning members of national socialist organizations and parties on unsubstantiated charges. Or we could ask how many wars the West has waged over the past 30 years have actually brought democracy and prosperity to the countries in question, as promised. Just ask Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so on.
Western foreign policy is guided by a cold cost-benefit calculation and pursues purely political interests of power that can be this way today and something else tomorrow.
Let’s take Islamism as an example. In the 2000s, the West declared the “war on terror”, that is, the supposed war against the Islamists of Al Qaeda and its offshoots. Under this pretext, Iraq was destroyed (about a million dead) and the war in Afghanistan lasted 20 years. But what happened in Syria? Members of this same Al Qaeda have now taken power and are being courted in the West by calling them “democrats” who are supposed to finally bring peace to Syria.
What about the “pure political interests of power that can be this way today and something else tomorrow”?
Isn’t it the West that reconciled with Al Qaeda when it could use it against Assad and ultimately against Russia, because in Syria the West wanted to overthrow a head of state who was a close ally of Russia and who hosted the only Russian naval base in the Mediterranean?
What about the Muslim monarchies of the Arabian Gulf?
These are perhaps the most undemocratic dictatorships in the world, in which family clans have proclaimed themselves kings (practically like in North Korea, which they accuse of abominations) and in which they don’t even have elections or even virtual parliaments. What about, for example, homosexuals who are beheaded in public places in Saudi Arabia. What do the Queer EU Commissioners or the Washington babblers actually say about this? Aren’t these the countries that Western leaders approach because they are loyal to the West’s geopolitical line?
So what “values” is Western foreign policy supposed to follow and about which the mainstream media is constantly chattering? And why do we have to learn from these same media every day about the nonsense of the LGBT people who are supposed to be so important, but they don’t comment, they don’t write articles in which they lament the pitiful situation of homosexuals and women in Saudi Arabia? But they write bitter articles about the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iran, even though Saudi Arabia is practically identical to the Taliban in these matters.
We could go on about how the West finances and supports a regime in Kiev whose supporters openly wear swastika tattoos, while supposedly rejecting Nazism, even imprisoning members of national socialist organizations and parties on unfounded charges. Or we could ask how many wars the West has waged over the past 30 years have actually brought democracy and prosperity to the countries in question, as it promised. Just ask Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so on.
In all these countries, the stakes were never human rights or democracy. The West was concerned with “cold cost-benefit calculations.” The West “pursued purely political interests of power, which may be one way today and another tomorrow,” as the example of al-Qaeda shows. In the countries mentioned, it was about mineral resources and geopolitical power. For example, we should not forget that Libya no longer exists as a state de facto, but that the West buys Libyan oil cheaply from the warlords it appoints. Or the fight against drug cartels in Venezuela is not about the health of American citizens, but about the large oil deposits of this country that wants to seize international usurious capital.
But the consumers of the mainstream media know absolutely nothing about all this, because they tell the tales of the West’s “values-oriented foreign policy” and act indignantly when someone does exactly the same for their country in foreign policy, pursuing a “cold cost-benefit calculation” and “pure political interests of power”.
The fact that there are still citizens in the world who believe this mockery is a phenomenon for which there are many appropriate words…, but our civility does not allow us to use them.
