moscow-cathedral-mosque-prospekt-mira-ramadan-sky-161276

FOREIGN MINISTER SERGEI LAVROV: WESTPHALIA, SOFT POWER, AND NEW ...

Yesterday I began this two part blog on the following important article that many here sent me: the speech of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the military academy of the Russian General Staff:

Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

 As I noted yesterday, Mr. Lavrov placed his remarks about the Peace of Westphalia  'front and center ', toward the very beginning of his speech to the academy, and this, I argued, was a strong clue about Russia 's  long term  agenda. One might summarize that agenda in the form of two propositions: (1) if there is to be a  'global world order' then to ensure it does not become a tyranny, it must be based on some  'congress ' system or mutual recognition of the sovereignty of states, coupled with (2) the notion that such states are to be wholly secular, with no one religion dominating, or conversely, excluded. From the standpoint of domestic policy, this is a logical road for Russia to pursue, for though its religious-cultural heritage is Eastern Orthodox, it has significant populations of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and so on. And this  'Westphalian' approach has been stressed by Mr. Putin repeatedly in his remarks. But Mr. Lavrov goes on to mention, in this context, something else quite important: the  'soft power ' or  'culture power ' card, and he does so, notably, immediately  after  mentioning the Peace of Westphalia: Of course, it takes more than just the size of a country’s territory for it to be considered “big and strong” in today’s world.  There is also the economy, culture, traditions, public ethics and, of course, the ability to ensure one’s own security and the security of the citizens under any circumstances. Recently, the term “soft power” has gained currency.  However, this is power as well. In other words, the power factor in its broad sense is still important in international relations. Its role has even increased amid aggravated political, social, and economic contradictions and greater instability in the international political and economic system.  We take full account of this fact in our foreign policy planning. (Emphasis added) What does this mean, or rather, how does this translate into action and policy? A couple of years ago I had a private discussion with a friend who is in the  'financial and investment counseling ' profession. I told him that one would have to watch future Russian foreign policy statements very carefully, because all the signals I was seeing at that time pointed to a massive increase of Russian use of the  'soft power/culture power ' card. At the time, I was basing this observation on the way Russia was handling the GMO issue by calling (and later implementing) a complete ban, while calling for genuine l0ng-term studies on its cost-to-benefit aspects, environmental and human health risks and benefits, and so on. At the same time, Mr. Putin was openly speaking against the GMO issue, and from time to time was commenting on the health risks of western vaccine products. In other words,  he was not responding to the issues but rather, aligning Russia with the domestic opposition within the West . Or, to be even more blunt about it: he was playing to the growing sense of many in the West that their concerns were simply not being allowed in the media, in the halls of power, or even being allowed a level playing field and representation. That was just a a few years ago.  Now  that program has expanded to represent the cultural concerns across the board: the collapse of morality, the assaults on the Christian basis of western culture, the so-called  'war on terrorism ' and the covert support by western intelligence agencies of terrorist groups... all of it has come under review by Mr. Putin in recent remarks; consider only his Christmas Eve message. In a certain sense, he was speaking for what many in the west have been calling  'populism ', but I believe a more accurate term or phrase might be  'traditional culturism '.  And he  does  raise a valid point: many in the west, this author among them, have grown tired of the shell game being played out in the so-called political parties: there are parties of the  'hard ' left, the Dummycrooks, Labour, the Social Democrats, and there are parties of the  'right ' - the  'fake opposition ' parties - that are really  'soft ' left: the Republithugs, the Tories, the Christian Democrats, and so on. Both  'sides ' are infested with globalists, that is to say, with crony crapitalism and with corporate socialists. And that has produced the frustration that, if one pays close attention, Mr. Putin has been addressing in some of his recent remarks. To put this as plainly as possible: in playing the soft power/culture power card, Mr. Putin has been positioning Russia as  'the voice of the opposition ', unique among the powers that can be considered  'western '. It 's a decidedly clever strategy, for it accounts for the growing popularity of Russian media among the West, particularly from the disenfranchised  'populists ' or  'traditional culturists ', and the response of the oligarchs of the West is very  'non-western ': to attempt to shut down that media and continue to demonize Russia and anyone paying attention to it or its media. And this too has occasionally brought forth a comment or two from Mr. Putin. It is this strategy of becoming  'the voice of the opposition ' that I submit might be the  real  motivation for all the  'Russian interference in the election ' stories one sees in the USA, and even a few trial balloons on that score in Germany. It 's an attempt, and a very weak one at that, to break and combat this Russian strategy. Inevitably, matters in the article turn towards defense and security matters, as Russia is, of course, with the USA, one of the world 's two premier thermonuclear powers, and by some lights, the premier one, with modern updated delivery systems and by some counts, just slightly more deliverable warheads. But that will have to wait part three, tomorrow...

See you on the flip side...

24 thoughts on “ FOREIGN MINISTER SERGEI LAVROV: WESTPHALIA, SOFT POWER, AND NEW ...”

  1. Russia is pretty thick with crony capitalists. Not like it excuses the US, or Germany.

    Just saying though.

  2. I couldn’t help in your “shell game being played out” analysis adopting a “Star Trek” perspective: The Russians have chosen to take on a ‘Vulcan’ persona. The banksters are obviously the ‘Ferengi’. The US deep state is playing ‘Klingon’ quite well. So, when does the ‘Federation’ show up?

    1. The problem I have with Star Trek is that its Federation has no definitive culture, and no spiritual teachings. Admittedly it’s a federation of planets, where each planet owns its own culture and spirituality, but unfortunately the general message that the production sends to its audience, is that scientific progress trumps everything else. Generally, if the civilisation encountered is not ‘warp capable’, then the Federation will not engage in contact. My question would then be why? and my answer, especially now that I’ve read so much of Dr Farrell’s work, is that Rodenberry’s idea, though seemingly lofty, is purely cultural Marxist, where only the material advancement (in this case science) is of any value. True spirituality is constantly attempted to be refuted with a scientific explanation. Unfortunately, my conclusion has marred my Star Trek experience and I actually cringe when I watch an episode, seeing clearly the subtle innuendos aimed at ‘indoctrinating’ the audience.

      As far as Vulcan is concerned, I also thought of them as a very noble, advanced species – our own beacon in the darkness of humanity. I actually learnt to hate our species by not measuring up to the ‘Vulcan standard’. But my aha! moment came when I realised that the message Spock once stated, and was repeated various times throughout the series as a noble thought, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” was a reflection of the cold, calculating mind that thinks this is acceptable.

      This idea, is to me, today, repugnant and spiritually destitute, because logic has now replaced compassion. Unfortunately, this is the present state of affairs in the minds of many (military, new age, ufology, education, politics etc), and this is in turn reflected in our artwork. As an example, the creation of this puppet, that many do believe is real, is a sample of how we are being taught to think: When this creature is finally asked “how do you base your morality on?” his answer is indeed chilling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0fbI-JaKMQ

      1. Very provocative thoughts! Thanks for sharing them. I too have always had profound misgivings about Rodenberry’s “Federation” for similar reasons. Notably, in Babylon Five, this is NOT the case, as spirituality of various races is definitely explored.

        1. Agreed, and the same with the new Battlestar Galactica. I’m on the third run, and what I’m seeing is astounding! It’s not so much a war between AI and humans, but very deep argument about synchronicity, prayer, the gods, God, AI & human factions, politics etc. BUT the underlying meme is that both humans and AI are fighting about their spirituality and faith, and its vicious. The glossy, smooth ideals we think the future holds is completely wiped in this series. There is no levelling, unless you make mistakes and that’s where the spirituality comes into effect: prayer = survival, for both parties. Amazing!

          I’ve watched B5, but that was many many years ago. It’s now on our list to watch right after Battlestar and I can’t wait to see what I didn’t get the first time around.

        2. With Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry I always have the unsettling feeling that his Star Trek Federation has come ready-made and ready-for-wear from the Nine.

          1. Bingo! as Dr Farrell would say. He went to ‘their’ meetings/channelings and came away with ideas for a TV show. I remember reading about it in the Nexus Magazine days – when I believed anything ‘channeled’ was good…

      2. Robert Barricklow

        Interesting Hollywooded dogma.
        Well done propaganda.
        Of course, I’ve been wrong to many times to count.

        Man created God
        so that God could be created by man.

        It’s not the discovery of answers that will propel into unknown dimensions. It is the ability to imagine the ?’s in the 1st place. To dream of things beyond the mind of us poor mortals.

      3. iZeta:

        It doesn’t read like you’ve watched much of Star Trek.

        Though I guess no, there is no supreme being telling Kirk, or Picard, what to think. There is a moral center to the various series, including the more violent ones.

        BSG redux is something very different and humans are something like an engineered property, which is an ersatz form of “spirituality”.

        1. Lost:

          I own the entire Star Trek collection, and I’ve watched them many times over. In its narrative, Rodenberry replaced God’s teachings with “prime directives”. Their ‘moral centre’ ignores universal compassion for all creatures, instead characters are encouraged to follow the these man-made directives. When faced with dilemmas concerning non-warp-capable societies, these societies are ignored, even when they require humanitarian assistance or face destruction. They create AIs as humans with human rights. And, in response to LGL’s post above, they give new meaning to Biblical events such as The Transfiguration of Christ, by providing biological explanations for the ‘energy’ changes that the series characters experience. I think these last two concepts combined, point the way for a transhumanism agenda to begin to take root, by appealing to our desire to be eternal, and, by explaining away a profound Biblical event in terms of ‘new age spiritualism’ and materialistic cause and effect.

          In Battlestar Galactica, the humans are us and they are not engineered. The cylons are the human looking robots created by us. The cylons basically believe they are better than us and have adopted God as their own. They believe they can do a better job following God’s instructions and that is how they justify their agenda to annihilate humanity. The story is basically an exploration of God, faith, synchronicity, prayer and divine intervention. The battles and personal issues are fleshed out as precursors and responses to these themes.

          1. iZeta:

            “Rodenberry replaced God’s teachings with “prime directives””; the prime directive doesn’t show up until later in the original series. As I said, you don’t seem real familiar with Star Trek.

            “Their ‘moral centre’ ignores universal compassion for all creatures, instead characters are encouraged to follow the these man-made directives.”
            That’s odd, they, as in the Federation, are pretty much live and let live, and explore: Further evidence you’re not familiar with the series.

            “They [humans] create AIs as humans with human rights. And, in response to LGL’s post above, they give new meaning to Biblical events such as The Transfiguration of Christ, ” Who is to say creations, of man, don’t have rights?

            “Biblical events”?

            “In Battlestar Galactica, the humans are us and they are not engineered. ” You may want to watch that series again, you don’t seem very familiar with it.

            Case in point about BSG redux: “The cylons basically believe they are better than us and have adopted God as their own.”

            “They [Cylons] believe they can do a better job following God’s instructions and that is how they justify their agenda to annihilate humanity. ”

            You seem totally unfamiliar with anything but the first two seasons of BSG redux. It does not cleave to the plot of the 1978 series.

            “The story is basically an exploration of God, faith, synchronicity, prayer and divine intervention.” Only parts of it. I suggest you watch it.

      4. Spirituality, the “Star Trek TOS” way:

        memory-alpha.wikia dot com/wiki/Errand_of_Mercy_(episode)

        [Organia natives] Ayelborne and Claymare enter [Klingon] Kor’s office, apologize for being forced to intervene, but announce that they have put a stop to the violence.

        Ayelborne states that, as he stands before Kirk and Kor, he also stands on their respective homeworlds, Earth and Qo’noS. Both sides must agree to cease hostilities, or their armed forces will be immobilized. While insisting that nobody wants war, Kirk seems equally annoyed at its interruption as is Kor. He states they have legitimate grievances and that they have a right to handle it as they see fit. Ayelborne tells them that in the future, their races will eventually become fast friends and will work together, which Kor finds unbelievable.

        Ayelborne discloses that the Organians are millions of years beyond the need for physical bodies. They have evolved into advanced and powerful energy beings, and the outward appearance of Organia was solely to provide points of reference for visitors. Ayelborne and Claymare disappear, turning into very bright pure energy.

        Kirk turns to Kor and tells him it looks like they will not be going to war after all. “A shame, captain. It would have been glorious,” the Klingon commander states.

        Back on board the Enterprise, Kirk admits to Spock at being embarrassed that he was furious with the Organians from preventing a war with the Klingons – a war he did not want. Kirk tells Spock that they often think of themselves as the most powerful force in the universe, it’s unsettling to find out they are ultimately not.

        Spock tells Kirk that he and himself have no reason to be embarrassed; it took millions of years for the Organians to evolve into what they are now. Spock points out that even the gods did not come into being overnight.

        Spock also says that at least they beat the odds in not dying on the planet. Kirk tells Spock he is wrong; they didn’t have a chance at beating the odds. “The Organians raided the game.”

  3. Robert Barricklow

    The distinction should be apparent between public power[sovereignty/nation state/culture/rights/accountability]
    and private power[no sovereignty/corporations/profit above and beyond humanity/no accountability/proprietary]
    That is why the public has become and is enemy #1; it is the only power that stands with the people against the tyranny of private power.
    The Russians and other know it and are expressing it in terms manifested by policy differences that are easily seen; yet easily obfuscated by a corporate press.

    http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2017/03/sergey-lavrovs-geopolitical-worldview.html

    1. Robert Barricklow

      This private power is moving towards a feudalism model; where all public ownership is being transferred “legally” to private hands by bought and paid for democracies. The economy will be a toll-booth economy; where nothing is owned[by the public] and is rented and/or taxed[like a breathing carbon tax].

      1. The problem Robert is what you mean when you use the word feudalism. I think you really mean tribalism it’s like the misuse of the words slavery and serfdom in slavery the master owes the slave nothing since they are property were as in serfdom the lord and serf have certain has obligations in that relationship. It is that deliberate confusion that been cultivated to obscure these differences to hide our elites true intensions.

        1. Robert Barricklow

          Marcos,
          Totally agree that slavery is alive and well; never died and is bigger and badder than it’s ugly past. You probably know how serendipity & I roll; so today I was catching up on my Max Keiser episode and low & behold – Stacy & Max are dedicating the 2nd half of the show to answering this question poised to the audience: Are we headed to a slave economy or a fascist economy?
          As you know the most wicked form of slavery is where the slave believes himself or herself to be free. Today, even the social media is developing their own slaves to continue to affirm their own reflection of their selves; continually updating/looking into their mirrored social image replies/reflections.

          Max Keiser Episode 1049
          go 10:42 clicks in
          https://youtube.com/watch?v=VVG0dDkcTyA

          1. Robert Barricklow

            sdba
            Very true; even down to the extensive use of drugs in the Weimar Nazi Republic of the early 1930′ onward to [that Max & Stacy talk to of today’s societies].

Comments are closed.