Reality Strikes When Narratives Collapse: The Economist Admits There Is No Global Consensus Against Russia

by: Harley Schlanger

April 26 -- If one's view of present world politics is limited to the psychological warfare machine known as the "mainstream media", one would likely conclude that 1.) Putin is evil and Russia is isolated; 2.) That Russia is losing the "hybrid" or information war, as well as the military conflict; and 3.) That most of the world knows this and is supporting the unified western alliance against Russia. 

One holding this false representation of reality would therefore find the conclusions presented in an article, "What is at stake in Ukraine", published on April 22 in the {Economist} -- a magazine which has been a mouthpiece of the City of London and British intelligence insiders since its founding in 1843 -- to be either shocking or incomprehensible.  In spite of the usual Russophobic false axioms and outright fabrications embedded in the article, it reveals a deep sense of the panic gripping the Trans-Atlantic oligarchy, as its leading members fear the consequences of having committed themselves to go for broke to carry out a regime change in Moscow.  What emerges from this piece is a recognition that the majority of the world's population is open to a realignment, in an increasingly open rejection of the domination of financial and strategic policy by the London-Wall Street corporate cartels through their imposition of a failing neoliberal post-Cold War order.

The official line of the Trans-Atlantic war hawks is that the votes to sanction Russia, including the U.N. vote to expel Russia from the U.N. Human Rights Commission, demonstrate that a consensus has been consolidated against Russia which includes a majority of nations and people.  Among the false axioms presented is that support for Ukraine is support for the idea of sovereign nations, and confirms the preposterous illusion that the world's "democracies" are taking a stand against "authoritarian" regimes.  This conceit was reinforced in the December 2021 "Summit for Democracy", which pronounced the division of the world into two camps: one of the "democracies", which adhere to the "Rules-Based Order" (RBO) which defends western strategic and financial policy; and one which represents a smaller number of "authoritarian" states, headed by Russia and China.

After dutifully pushing this line, the {Economist} provides an analytical breakdown of the U.N. vote, done by their "Intelligence Unit", which contradicts the assumption that the majority favors the western narrative.  The investigation found that one-third of the world's population lives in nations which voted to expel Russia, most of which are western states and poor nations totally dependent on the west.  Another third lives in nations, such as India, Egypt and Indonesia, which are neutral, and abstained from the vote, unwilling to side with the West against Russia.  Another third lives in nations which, according to the article, "echo" Russia's rationale for the invasion.  This third group is described as part of the "emerging world", i.e., former colonies, whose citizens see the West as "decadent, self-serving and hypocritical."  Not only is this a realistic assessment of the popular view of citizens in those countries, but it is also a true statement, accurately describing the double standards of the war hawks, who condemn Russia for war crimes without any evidentiary proceeding, while turning a blind eye to U.S.-NATO war crimes in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.  

The {Economist} describes this actual alignment of forces as "a stunning rebuke", which reflects the decline of influence of the West and especially the U.S.  It concludes that given how the U.S.-led coalition treated Iraq and Saddam, "rulers of other countries worry that if the West is free to act as judge, jury and executioner, they will get summary judgment" -- in other words, will be stripped of their right to make sovereign decisions.  This reaction is decried as "a poisonous cocktail of legitimate grievances and exaggeration, all laced with lingering resentment of colonialism." 

Nonetheless, the {Economist} and the majority of western media promote the illusion that the West will ultimately succeed -- that is, that Russia will be weakened militarily, and its economy devastated -- as long as NATO remains "united", that the flow of weapons to Ukraine is uninterrupted, and that media psy-war deprives western citizens of awareness of the alternative which is unfolding.  Unstated in this formulation is that the economic and military power of the U.S. and NATO, and the "soft power" of "hybrid/information warfare", will keep the governments of most countries in line, out of fear that any assertion of sovereign rights will trigger regime change against them.

Realignment Is Real

But an alternative to this fraudulent RBO is emerging.  This was the subject of the April 9 Schiller Institute conference and subsequent events, which point to a "realignment" in the world, as a growing percent of non-western nations recognize that the war against Russia is in reality a war against their own future, a desperate attempt by the neoliberal war hawks to choke off any hope for a change in the collapsing security and economic architecture presently dominating the world, which benefits almost exclusively the City of London/Wall Street financial interests and their allied corporate cartels.  

A number of these nations are deepening their ties to Russia and China, as those two nations are moving toward an alternative to the collapsing western financial/economic system, driven in part by the economic warfare being waged against them.  The agreements reached by Presidents Putin and Xi during their February 4 summit are seen as a potentially viable counterpole to the endangered neoliberal system.  The concern that this is becoming a real threat was expressed by the new chief economist of the IMF, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, who felt compelled to announce at the IMF Spring meeting in Washington that he is confident, at the moment, that most countries will not "make the choice that their future lies in jumping to the other side", i.e. into an alliance with Russia and China.

Despite the arrogance of the Trans-Atlantic powers, that they can derail the realignment underway -- typified by Gourinchas' comment -- they are watching this process nervously.  This was clear from an article in {Politico}, "Lonely Anatoly: The Russian Ambassador is Washington's least popular man", published on April 18.  The article gloatingly portrays the isolation of Anatoly Antonov, the Russian Ambassador to the U.S., who is mocked as one of the loneliest men in Washington, with little or no access to U.S. officials, and a shrinking staff at the Embassy due to expulsions.  Yet, even in this obvious piece of psy-war, a glimpse of the emerging alternative reality was present, in a reference that Antonov addressed the April 9 Schiller Institute conference.  That the Russian ambassador had positive words about the Schiller Institute for convening a conference to discuss crafting a new strategic and financial architecture is noteworthy, both in that it occurred, and that {Politico} felt compelled to mention it.

Brits Escalate War Drive

As the {Economist} was putting out its warning that the Anglo-American information war narrative is collapsing, as it is less compelling for those nations with experience of a recent colonial past, the modern day Colonial Blimps of the British establishment are pressing ahead with provocations against Russia and calls for escalation.  A notable example was the statement from the U.K. Armed Forces Minister, James Heappey, who declared it is "completely legitimate" for Ukrainian forces to use weapons provided by the British to fire at targets inside Russia.  Heappey's comments followed Prime Minister Boris Johnson's visit to Kiev, where he promised to deliver armored vehicles and anti-ship missile systems to Ukraine.

A Member of Parliament from Johnson's Tory Party, Tobias Ellwood, who chairs the parliament's Defense Select Committee, called for the U.K. to "create a coalition of the willing", a tone-deaf reference to the slogan adopted by the Bush-Cheney administration for the alliance which engaged in a genocidal war against Iraq.  The UK should act as the "vanguard", he told participants at a private conference, to proactively take military action against Russia instead of waiting for the U.S., "to expose" how the U.S. under Biden has been "very, very hesitant to lead."  Specifically, Ellwood called for creating a "humanitarian sea corridor" in the Black Sea, setting up a naval intervention to prevent Russia from seizing the port of Odessa.  Ellwood's rants were covered by investigative reporter Michael Tracey, posted in an article he titled, "The UK is trying to drag the U.S. into World War III."

Topping off the British pro-war lunacy was the speech delivered by Foreign Secretary Liz Truss on April 27 to the London Lord Mayor's Easter Banquet.  Titled "The Return to Geopolitics".  Truss laid out the British intention to use the war in Ukraine -- which it intends to ramp up -- “to reboot, recast and remodel” the current international security and economic architecture along the lines of the British empire. This is to be accomplished through generalized sanctions and war, and enforced by a global military and economic NATO and associated ad hoc alliances, dubbed “a Network of Liberty.”

Truss was clear that the UK intends to expand the war against Russia to include China, not later, but now. Bragging that the UK, unlike others, armed and trained Ukrainian troops “long before the war started,” Truss argued that the same now must be done with Taiwan.  The UN and G20 have failed because they include Russia, she proclaimed.  "We now need a new approach, one that melds hard security and economic security… one that recognizes that geopolitics is back….

“The war in Ukraine is our war.” Ukraine’s victory, “a strategic imperative,” requires ramping up production of heavy weapons, tanks, airplanes.  But, “we need to go further… This has to be a catalyst for wider change. We must also apply this tough stance to the threats that are emerging beyond Ukraine."

These provocations coincided with the war council convened under U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany.  In his pep talk, delivered to representatives from forty nations, Austin praised the Ukrainian military for its "magnificent job defending its sovereignty against Russia's unprovoked invasion."  He said it is essential to strengthen Ukraine's "arsenal of democracy", especially now after Ukraine defeated Russian forces in the "battle of Kiev."  Not one challenge was raised to his false statement about "Russia's unprovoked invasion," nor his sophistical reference to the "battle of Kiev", knowing, as most obviously did, that Russia never intended to seize Kiev.  But the combination of self-congratulation and the need to deliver more arms had its desired effect, as the German government announced a complete change in its plans, deciding to deliver anti-aircraft Gepard tanks.

Perhaps instead of being pulled into the NATO Group Think, the Germans should have considered the implications of the {Economist} article, for as they are submitting to the demands of the Empire of the War Hawks -- as would be expected from an occupied nation -- that Empire is crumbling.  And before accepting the insane proposals put forward by the likes of Heappey, Ellwood and Truss, they should listen carefully to what Russian President Putin said in an April 27 address to the Council of Lawmakers:

"I would also like to note something I spoke about at the beginning of the special military operation. Let me emphasize once again: if anyone intends to intervene from the outside and create a strategic threat to Russia that is unacceptable to us, they should know that our retaliatory strikes will be lightning-fast. We have the tools we need for this, the likes of which no one else can claim at this point. We will not just brag; we will use them if necessary. And I want everyone to know this; we have made all the decisions on this matter."

Putin's stern talk must be taken seriously, for when the narratives pumped out by the Anglo-American war party crumble as the fabrications they are, reality will strike, not at some distant point, but as Putin implies, with "lightning-fast" speed.