Geopolitics today: The global geopolitical scenario and the bad omens of the ongoing world war


The path that the ongoing world conflict is taking is probably not yet clear to everyone. In our previous articles we have tried to highlight the nature and methods of a world war which in terms of intensity and “proportions” has nothing to envy of the two world wars of the 20th century. In the same way we had the opportunity to highlight the causes of the conflict as well as its possible consequences. And we have come to terrible conclusions. Since we see no possibility of resolving the same except by military means. In fact, the interests at stake are too great. The West does not want to lose its privileges and its economic well-being (deriving from an economic system – the one established at Bretton Woods in 1944 – conceived for its exclusive advantage) and the world power that derive from these. The East wants to definitively burst onto the world scene and establish itself as a new global geopolitical player (in place of the Anglo-Saxon empire) and as a guide for all those geopolitical realities afflicted by centuries of “intensive” exploitation by Western nations. For this reason we believe that the ongoing war will continue and intensify until one of the two antagonists is completely reduced to size. The current comparison is not for a single region or for a particular geographical context. It is a global war for control of resources on a planetary level and for world power. This is a fundamental premise from which any in-depth geopolitical analysis cannot (and must not) ignore. The war in Ukraine is just one piece of a much larger mosaic. And, more than anything, the place of geostrategic confrontation between the NATO military industrial complex and the Russian one. Force against force. Military power against military power. These are the terms of the question. Beyond the propaganda and “lupus et agnus” style fabulae fed to us every day by mainstream information.


As we have already had the opportunity to highlight, the aim of the war is to separate, economically and geopolitically, Russia from Europe in order to prevent the latter from giving life to an autonomous geopolitical direction that places it outside of Anglo-Saxon sphere of influence. The control of Ukraine also has the aim of guaranteeing Brussels the exploitation of raw materials essential for its own processing industry as well as guaranteeing the availability of the country’s agricultural potential (in order to have influence on the food needs of a good part of the African and Southern hemisphere nations). For Washington and London, losing Ukraine would mean losing “key” economic and mineral resources. And it would mean losing influence both in the southern hemisphere (which would be almost entirely dependent on Moscow for its imports of agricultural raw materials) and in Europe itself which would be forced to re-establish economic relations with Moscow and Beijing. Which are actively creating “scorched earth” around the old continent’s mineral supply chain. This is demonstrated by the very recent coup in Gabon (which follows the also very recent one in Niger). The economic repercussions of these geopolitical developments on the black continent will soon impact the economic scenario of the West when the “cheap” mineral resources of the rebel African countries will be unavailable. All this will not only throw more fuel on the fire of inflation but will make the finished products of European industry even more expensive (and uncompetitive) on world markets with obvious consequences on the economic growth of the old continent. I don’t know if it’s clear. The West is heading for an unprecedented economic decline which, inevitably, will impact its geopolitical role. All this, together with the dedollarization actively favored by the Russian and Chinese establishments, will be a lethal mix for what remains of the West’s economic power in the world.


The comparison in Ukraine arises as a consequence of the analysis expressed above. It is the West’s desperate attempt to oppose the inexorable course of history. It was carefully and frantically prepared by the West with the aim of repeating an “Afghan scenario” fatal to Russian finances. Since 2014, NATO has, de facto, been preparing the Ukrainian army for elaborate guerrilla tactics in view of a direct confrontation with the Russian army. Such practices, notoriously deadly, bore fruit in the first phase of the Russian-Ukrainian war, leaving their mark on the ranks of the Russian army. But as soon as Moscow understood the preparation (and the level of infiltration of the NATO units into the Kiev army) there was a prompt adaptation to the circumstances and a strategic repositioning on defensive positions which reversed the role of the parties and imposed in Washington and London to wage a war of attack rather than defense with all the inevitable consequences in terms of human and material losses. This is demonstrated by the so-called ongoing counteroffensive. Which has swallowed up the last resources of Ukraine and which imposes on NATO an increasingly direct and expensive commitment and with practically certain outcomes of military defeat. The trap prepared for Moscow in the geostrategic confrontation of the century has turned into a deadly trap built by Moscow and Beijing to trap and sink “the great Western army” into quicksand. Certain. The Abrahams and F-16s are coming. But they will only serve, perhaps, to convince the last gullible people of the military and economic invincibility of the Anglo-Saxon empire. And to fully commit the latter to the (unsuccessful) confrontation with Moscow, leaving Beijing free to annihilate Taipei in the next military confrontation with the rebel island. At the same time, “the African question” has literally opened up (which requires greater military involvement in Africa too). And in the Middle East, the Russian army (together with the Iranian one) and the US army now openly face each other in the skies and on the soil of Syria and Iraq. All this while an unprecedented economic crisis is about to occur which (we already know) will put the “internal fronts” of all Western countries to the test.


The “geostrategic reversal” implemented by the Russians in Ukraine has literally shattered the possibility of creating an Afghan conflict scenario suited to the interests of Washington and London. By placing the latter in the fruitless role of attackers, Moscow has effectively reapplied the doctrine of war of attrition and attrition which is so congenial to it (and which has brought it so much fruit in the past). We do not know to what extent Anglo-Saxon strategists have realized the dynamics taking place. The Ukrainian army is in the same conditions in which it planned to put the Russian army. It is obvious that all this compromises, in its entirety, the geostrategic vision on which the Ukrainian conflict was decided and built. Let’s hope that someone in the West takes note of this before the irreparable happens. At the same time, the economic anaconda strategy ( of Moscow and Beijing is proving increasingly lethal (after Niger, now Gabon) and deprives Brussels of the fundamental resources it boasted exclusive privileges. This too should raise more than one alarm bell in Brussels. Where, they said, “they are studying the right strategy” to follow to deal with such developments. We hope so. But, unfortunately, we don’t believe it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *