The other side of the coin: the Axis of Evil, or, in other words, the Axis of Resistance against our Western Capitalist Empire of Evil.

In my recent post, I described our Western Capitalist Empire of Evil and the USD as the reserve currency, which makes America — the world’s biggest terrorist organization — holding a gun to the rest of the world, preventing it from functioning in a multipolar system.

This is the post I mentioned:

Nigeria — Why? Economy and The Grand Cheeseboard: Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria — what is really happening, in my opinion.

I don’t want to repeat myself, so if you want to understand the USD, the monetary system, and why America needs to be the biggest terrorist organization in the world, you can read it there.

In this post, I would like to touch on the other side of the coin — the Axis of Resistance against our Western Capitalist Empire of Evil: BRICS, China, Russia, India, Iran, etc. I will not discuss Brazil, since this is mostly about the Eurasian continent, Mackinder’s “world island.”

He defined Afro-Eurasia as the “world island” and its “heartland” as the area east of the Volga, south of the Arctic, west of the Yangtze, and north of the Himalayas. Due to its strategic location and natural resources, Mackinder argued that whoever controlled the “heartland” could control the world.

People who read my previous post know that I mentioned Mackinder’s concepts, which Józef Piłsudski — my hero and a great Pole — used to create the idea of the Intermarium.

In Mackinder’s Heartland Theory, Eastern Europe is the critical gateway to the Eurasian “Heartland,” which he described as the pivot point of global power. His famous postulate states: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World.” This makes control of Eastern Europe strategically vital for any power seeking global dominance, as it provides access to the resources and strategic position of the vast Heartland region.

“Intermarium” is the English term for a post–World War I geopolitical concept first proposed by Józef Piłsudski, to form a federation of Central and Eastern European countries. It refers to a region between the Baltic, Black, and Adriatic Seas, and has been revived as a modern security strategy for these nations to counterbalance the influence of Russia and Germany. The term is a Latinization of the Polish word Międzymorze, which also means “between the seas.”

Again, I went off topic, but understanding Mackinder is very important, and his work is still relevant in today’s world. I will omit Africa since it is a “dark continent” in the sense that we know too little about it for me to speak confidently. For example, how many of you know about former French colonies trying to escape French dominance, or about the war in Somalia, with Trump dropping record numbers of bombs there?

Under Trump, US strikes on Somalia have doubled since last year. Why?

As Trump hits the Horn of Africa, experts caution against drone strikes, saying the US needs to invest in peacebuilding.

Recently we heard about Nigeria, and of course some people know about Ibrahim Traoré and Burkina Faso, but otherwise we know very little. So while Africa is part of Mackinder’s “world island,” and although South Africa is part of BRICS, I will not discuss it due to my lack of knowledge and information.

I only wanted to point out how little we really know about Africa, quoting economic hitman John Perkins from a video I used in one of my posts.

John Perkins “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” Extended Interview 2008

And Africa is an amazing example because who’s ever heard of Africa? I mean we hear the name Africa but who knows anything about Africa? What do we know about coltan in the Congo, what do we really know about diamonds in some of these countries, what do we really know about oil in Sudan? We hear these things but we don’t really know much. What we’d like to say, the American people like to say, the American press likes to say: “O… is those corrupt leaders.”. We don’t ask who corrupted them? Leaders are not corrupt, they are corrupted, somebody does it. We say: “oh you know tribal warfare”, well who’s creating the tribal warfare? It’s been to the advantage of the British the French the Dutch the Germans whoever happened to be there now us. To foster this kind of instability, this antagonism, the antagonism between Muslims and Christians and Jews. This goes on and on and Africa is truly the canary in the mine and it’s it’s a dying canary. You know it’s terribly dying and we don’t even look, we don’t know and another problem with Africa is that the people in our own country whose heritage is African that the African Americans for the most part don’t even know where they were from. They don’t know what language their ancestors spoke so it’s hard for them to really relate. Unlike Latin America for example, we can’t really do something in Venezuela or Colombia or Bolivia without people in this country taking note. Because a lot of those people are from there we have a lot of people here in this country from Venezuela and Colombia Bolivia and so on and they’re interested. They know where they’re from and they can read the local papers they can read Spanish but in Africa our African heritage people don’t even know where they’re from and they don’t read those papers. So there’s been this huge mask that’s been thrown over Africa. It truly is a dark continent from the point of view of we don’t allow light in, the media doesn’t understand what’s going on, it doesn’t want to. The corporatocracy surely don’t want us to understand. I mean the corporation’s do everything they can to foment turmoil, mayhem, instability and chaos there and to keep the information from reaching the American public from even reaching the press because that serves their interests best.

The Other Side of the Coin

Now let’s get back to the subject. I keep getting sidetracked because so many things are interconnected, and to explain everything properly I would have to write around 100 pages — and even that wouldn’t be enough. That’s why it’s hard for me to stay on topic and limit myself to just a few pages.

I want to begin by quoting a friend of The Duran, Brian Berletic:

“The US has demonstrated the ability to compensate for certain military shortfalls. While the United States may have fewer arms and less ammunition, and while it may not be able to produce weapons as good as those produced by Russia and China, it can compensate through geopolitical agility—a factor the multipolar world is struggling to address.

Russia and China can outproduce the US in terms of arms and ammunition, but their ability to project military power beyond their borders is extremely limited. In contrast, the United States’ ability to project military power around the globe is almost limitless.

Yes, the US may have fewer arms and less ammunition, but what it does have is still powerful and extremely dangerous, and it can move these capabilities around the world in ways no other nation can. That is a fact.

Whether one wants to admit it or not, one must fairly assess both one’s own strengths and weaknesses, as well as those of the adversary. You must be clear-eyed about this; you cannot lie to yourself, or you set the stage for future failure.”

I am really disappointed by the childish analyses some people produce — often from commentators who are otherwise widely respected by geopolitical audiences. The analysts I agree with most are Brian Berletic and John Helmer. Who constantly say that people in power are not stupid (at least not the real decision-makers behind the scenes - I’m not talking about the puppets we see on TV, who may indeed be quite stupid). Likewise, Russia and China are not some overpowered, invincible entities.

I will skip discussing casualty rates in the Ukraine conflict, but they provide a perfect example of this overhyping and wishful thinking. We hear absurd claims on mainstream TV about Russia suffering catastrophic losses; I expect that from the propaganda machine. But then I hear geopolitical analysts online overhyping the other side and saying equally absurd things about Ukrainian casualties — and what surprises me most is that some of these analysts have military backgrounds and should know better. This wishful thinking and exaggeration is a real problem in my opinion. And this issue appears not only regarding casualty numbers in Ukraine, but also in general geopolitical analysis.

Now let’s look at Western strengths. I hear people saying America is cannibalizing its allies, and I agree with that. But what many don’t understand is that, in some ways, this is advantageous to the West. Having a hegemon to which all Western allies are subservient is an advantage — and the absence of such a thing on the other side is its biggest weakness.

All countries in the Axis of Resistance are nationalistic and prioritize their own interests. They are unwilling to sacrifice those interests for the benefit of the broader bloc, unlike in the West, where Japan or European states are willing to sacrifice national benefits to support their hegemon and strengthen their side.

Let’s look at the relations between the most important countries: Russia, China, India, and Iran.

Russia–China

Some people think Russia–China relations are hunky-dory, but that is not true. They have improved recently, but not long ago China reportedly had a special document and plan in case Russia collapsed — a plan outlining how China would annex parts of Eastern Russia. We need to remember that China views Russia as a leftover of Western colonialism, and vast areas of Eastern Russia are populated by people of Asian ethnicity. China does not like it that these regions are part of Russia.

In China’s eyes: why should “white men in Moscow” dominate and rule such a large Asian territory populated by people of Asian ethnic background? From China’s perspective, it is China that should control those areas.

We also need to remember that China remained neutral when the war in Ukraine started because it did not want to support what it feared might be the losing side. They were not sure Russia would win, so they created contingency plans in case Russia collapsed. On the other hand, they understood that Russia could help them oppose the West and be strategically useful. They also understood that the more it cost the West to fight Russia, the better it would be for China. Therefore, they neither sided with the West nor helped them.

The more the West bleeds fighting Russia, the better for China — but since China wasn’t sure Russia would win, it didn’t want to commit to a side that might lose. If I know that, do you think Russia doesn’t know it? Imagine how many Russian and Ukrainian lives could have been saved if China had sided with Russia or helped them from the beginning. Do you really think Russia is okay with China playing such double games?

I wrote before that China could have built the Siberia pipeline immediately after Nord Stream was blown up, which would have helped Russia tremendously. But China didn’t. Instead, they waited to see whether Russia would survive on its own, and waited for Russia to become more desperate so China could negotiate a better deal. Do you really think Russia is happy about being treated this way? Do you think Russia trusts China when China plays a double game like this?

India–China

There isn’t much to say here because the situation is simple. India wants to dominate Asia and is afraid of China becoming the dominant power. Both countries want to be the leading force in Asia and the broader Asian world.

This is why, for a long time, India cooperated with the United States: by acting as an American proxy or vassal, India could weaken China. Even if the U.S. remained dominant over India, India would tolerate it as long as it could maintain dominance in Asia — most importantly, dominance over China.

China, on the other hand, wants to dominate Asia itself, and it currently holds that dominant position. It does not want to share or lose this position to India. That is why India has closer relations with Russia than China does, and why India maintained strong ties with Russia even while working with the United States.

In short, both countries want to be the dominant power in Asia, which naturally creates conflict between them.

Russia–India

India has been close to Russia — much closer than China is to Russia. As I mentioned earlier, China plays a double game with Russia, which makes Russia distrust China to some extent. Both Russia and India are wary of China’s dominance, and by cooperating they can counter China’s rise and its dominant position. Because of this, India maintained cooperation with Russia even while cooperating with the United States.

India will work with either Russia or America — whichever helps weaken China and prevent China from dominating Asia, since India wants that dominant Asian role for itself. Russia, for its part, is also wary of China’s dominance, so it wants to cooperate with India. Together, Russia and India can push back against China’s growing power.

Iran’s Relations With the Rest of Them

I will explain all of Iran’s relationships in one section since Iran is a smaller player compared to the others. Iran is very close to China because it is the only significant part of the Middle East not controlled by the West. Iran gives China a foothold in the Middle East, which is otherwise almost entirely under Western influence, so Iran is extremely important for China.

On the other hand, Iran–Russia relations are not as close. First, Russia’s “ambiguous relationship with Israel,” as John Helmer emphatically calls it, is a major problem for Iran. Second, Iran competes with Russia in energy markets, since both are major energy exporters. Access to Iranian energy makes China less dependent on Russian resources and allows China to demand better prices. Without Iran, China would be more desperate to secure Russian energy, which would allow Russia to get much better prices from China.

The existence of Iran therefore creates competition for Russia’s energy resources, enabling China to negotiate cheaper deals with Russia. This even made me think for some time that Russia — and Putin personally — might be willing to sacrifice Iran to the West, because removing Iran would force China to rely almost entirely on Russia for energy, allowing Russia to secure significantly better prices.

Right now Russia is helping Iran at its own cost, since it is giving Iran military resources that Russia could otherwise use in Ukraine. The same is true regarding Venezuela: Russia provides military equipment to Venezuela at its own expense, equipment that could be used in Ukraine.

Regarding India–Iran relations, there isn’t much to say except that India has become increasingly Islamophobic, largely due to American influence, which complicates relations between India and Iran.

Summary

I am really surprised by the childish analyses of people who think BRICS and the other countries involved have no divisions among them and work together like one big family. I truly wish they would put their divisions aside, because these divisions can be exploited by our Western Capitalist Empire of Evil. Only time will tell whether they can overcome them.

The West, by contrast, does not have such divisions. For example, both Europe and Japan are willing to sacrifice their own interests for the benefit of their hegemon and for their side. India, however, will not sacrifice its own interests for the benefit of others — and neither will Iran or China. The only country that has shown a willingness to sacrifice its own interests for the benefit of its side is Russia, and we can only hope that the rest of them will eventually understand the need to work together and follow Russia’s example.

Ukraine Peace

Now I would like to touch on the peace deal in Ukraine, which honestly surprised me. Of course, all this nonsense about “evil Europeans” and “Americans being the good guys” is just one big narrative. We know very well that Europeans are vassals of America, and this supposed division between Europe and America is complete nonsense.

This narrative serves to convince Europeans to give up their welfare and justify redirecting money to the military. Since America is supposedly “abandoning Europe” and since “Russia is such a threat and wants to conquer Europe,” Europeans are told they must make sacrifices to protect themselves. As long as America is seen as protecting Europe, Europeans don’t feel scared enough to accept these sacrifices — which America has been demanding from them all this time.

So this theater — of warmongering Europeans and peaceful Americans — serves to scare Europeans into doing what America wants. You need a narrative and justification for Europe increasing its military spending, which America has been demanding. By putting on the show of America “leaving Europe” while “big bad evil Russia” supposedly wants to attack them, you create a narrative that justifies Europeans increasing their military budgets.

Russia is not a threat to Europe — anyone with a working brain knows this. Europe is not militarily threatened by anyone. Europe has nuclear weapons; even though the arsenal is small, it is enough to create deterrence. No one is going to invade Europe. Russia won’t, nor will any African country. Europe simply does not need to increase military spending. But America wants Europe to increase it and demands it.

So America pretending to be peaceful and not wanting war, while simultaneously demanding higher European military spending, is pure nonsense. They are acting this way to create a narrative that convinces the European population to go along with what America actually wants.

I can’t stand people who say Trump is playing “5D chess” trying to stop war but “those evil Europeans” won’t allow him. People who repeat this nonsense are either painfully stupid or paid to spread this propaganda.

Anyway, I wrote before about this peace plan, and one important detail is the G8 membership proposal, which everyone is laughing at. But in my opinion, it symbolizes something very important. Yes, Trump is willing to make real peace with Russia — but only if Russia switches sides and leaves the Global South and BRICS.

Our Western Capitalist Empire of Evil was only able to destroy Syria and get rid of Assad to replace him with our head-chopper Al-Qaida “McJihadists” because Russia was too busy in Ukraine. Russia helped Syria for years, and only when Russian resources were tied up in Ukraine were we able to make progress.

I’ve used this video before, and I was surprised Brian Berletic referenced it recently:

Here you can see our McJihadists in Syria, whom we plan to use against China to create a Chechen-style scenario in Xinjiang using Uyghurs. This is why Russia supported Assad — they feared our McJihadists.

The only way the Ukraine war would end and peace between Russia and the West would become possible is if Russia — and Putin — promise not to support Venezuela, Iran, or any other of our targets. I do not believe, and strongly hope, that Putin will not do that. If Putin refuses to betray the Global South, then we cannot have peace with him. Because if the Ukraine war ends, Russia’s resources will no longer be tied up, and he will be able to help Venezuela and Iran even more, which would make it harder for us to achieve what we want.

So I do not expect real peace between the West and Russia unless Putin goes to the dark side and joins our Western Capitalist Empire of Evil.

Thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always… 

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

"I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hallowness,

the futility of the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd --- seemingly the leading actor of the piece ;

but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.

I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.

He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of sahib.

For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the "natives", and so in every crises he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him."

— George Orwell (A Collection Of Essays: (Authorized Orwell Edition): A Mariner Books Classic)

“That is the attitude of the typical left-winger towards imperialism, and a thoroughly flabby, boneless attitude it is. For in the last resort, the only important question is. Do you want the British Empire to hold together or do you want it to disintegrate? And at the bottom of his heart no Englishman, least of all the kind of person who is witty about Anglo-Indian colonels, does want it to disintegrate. For, apart from any other consideration, the high standard of life we enjoy in England depends upon our keeping a tight hold on the Empire, particularly the tropical portions of it such as India and Africa. Under the capitalist system, in order that England may live in comparative comfort, a hundred million Indians must live on the verge of starvation--an evil state of affairs, but you acquiesce in it every time you step into a taxi or eat a plate of strawberries and cream. The alternative is to throw the Empire overboard

and reduce England to a cold and unimportant little island where we should all have to work very hard and live mainly on herrings and potatoes. That is the very last thing that any left-winger wants. Yet the left-winger continues to feel that he has no moral responsibility for imperialism. He is perfectly ready to accept the products of Empire and to save his soul by sneering at the people who hold the Empire together.”

― George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier

"Empire– in essence nothing but mechanisms for exploiting coloured labor."

— George Orwell