What’s Going on in Ukraine? Part 4: The Corona Connection (2)

Introduction

The previous parts of this series have discussed the Western and Russian narratives surrounding the conflict in Ukraine. The Western narrative, as usual, is full of untruths about the situation in Ukraine, ignoring intervention by the West and pretending that the bombing of civilians in Donbass doesn’t exist. The Russian narrative is more in line with reality as it acknowledges Western aggression and the suffering of people in the Donbass. However, the Russian government’s promotion of the Official Covid Narrative, including lockdowns and forced ‘vaccinations’, mean scepticism of the Russian government is warranted. This situation has led people to speculate about the role of orchestration in the Ukraine conflict.

The Model Before the Official Covid Narrative

One of the key questions relating to the current situation in Ukraine is how we assess foreign policy – and particularly questions of international collusion – in the wake of the Covid 19 scam. Prior to Covid 19 it was accurate to frame foreign policy around Western imperialism and resistance to that imperialism as the model. Imperialist invasions took place in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, imperialist subversion in Syria, imperialist occupation in Palestine, and imperialist coups in Honduras and Bolivia. All of these events had significant economic and resource gains for Western elites. On the other hand, independent minded governments resisted this subversion. This included Islamic governments (like Iran), right wing governments (like Russia), secular Arab governments (like Iraq or Syria) and left wing governments (like Cuba, Venezuela, or Bolivia).

In particular, once Russia began to regain some economic and military strength after the disaster of the 1990s, they began to slowly push back against the West. It is worth noting, however, that Putin’s views have become more hostile to the West over time and he did not begin his tenure as implacably anti-Western. For example, in a New York Times interview in 2003, Putin expressed his desire for good relations with the US, while considering the war in Iraq as an error:

I have already mentioned strategic stability. The United States and Russia remain the strongest nuclear powers. Our interests in the sphere of fighting radicalism and terrorism coincide, and we are very much concerned about the radicalisation of certain countries and certain regions. Our common interest lies in counteracting one of the main threats of the 21st century – proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

[…]

You know our attitude toward the war in Iraq; I have made it public. I said from the very beginning and still believe that it was a mistake. This is why there is no surprise for us about the situation that has taken shape because we foresaw the development of the situation there just exactly as it is developing now. First of all, this has to do with the political aspect, the collapse of the statehood, as you correctly mentioned. How could one imagine a different course of events in case the Saddam Hussain regime is dismantled? Of course, statehood is destroyed. How can it be otherwise? But what do the special services have to do with it?

Vladimir Putin

Putin became more hostile as the lack of cooperation from the West and the disdain for Russian interests became more and more obvious with the expansion of NATO and the undermining of the government of Bashar Al Assad, a long time Russian ally. Russia militarily intervened in Syria (with the permission of the Syrian government) to fight the Western supported terrorist groups such as ISIS, Al Nusra and the White Helmets.

Collusion and Competition?

However, both sides complying with the Covid Narrative raises questions about this model of geopolitical competition. The fact is that almost all countries (excluding Belarus, Sweden, and some African countries whose leaders died in mysterious circumstances) went along with lockdowns and all Western countries, Russia and China supported the jabs. The question at issue here is the idea of global conspiracy in the creation of a fake pandemic in order to institute a global control grid of digital IDs, transhumanism, and full spectrum authoritarian control, broadly called ‘The Great Reset’.

The fact that the vast majority of countries complied with these anti -health directives in the name of health has to arouse suspicion. If a few countries had done lockdowns, or many countries had done them but for a short period, incompetence would seem a more plausible explanation, but the sheet length of the life destroying lockdowns combined with sinister legislation suggests the possibility of conspiracy.

In reality, there is evidence that both phenomena exist simultaneously: geopolitical maneuvering is real, but so is a push towards some sort of ‘great reset’ type scenario among certain elite groups. The best model to adopt to understand the current scenario is one in which countries are competing within themselves (largely the West, Russia and China) while all supporting some aspects of a digital control grid. Groups like the World Economic Forum have relevance within this matrix, as they drive an ideological agenda forward and facilitate liaison between different elites (Davos, etc.).

The best analogy I can think of is this: In the 19th century, all the major European states (France, Germany, Britain et al.) supported the concept of having colonies. However, they all competed over who had the most colonies and therefore the most access to natural resources, cheap labour etc. Sometimes these countries would come together and make agreements regulating colonialism (a form of collusion) but they would also try to undermine each other’s imperial power. In this analogy the belief in colonies and the collusion would equal agreeing on the great reset and colluding at meetings such as Davos, whereas the competition plays out in areas such as Ukraine and Syria for dominance by different powers.

Relevance of Imperialism

Only seeing one side of the coin as real leads to mistakes in analysis. Ultimately I don’t think all geopolitical competition has disappeared with the Covid narrative, regardless of the elements of bizarre international agreement on the issue. Different interests of different countries – such as economic or geostrategic – still function as a relevant mode of analysis.

The Western (that is, US and its lackey countries such as the UK, etc) imperialist drive inevitably brings it into conflict with other countries. The imperialist nature of the West – that is, their need and ability to exploit peripheral countries – is not something that can be arbitrarily abolished as it evolved out of the capitalist system and the dominance of these powers over that system. In fact, there is ample evidence of the continuation of imperialist warfare and exploitation despite ‘Covid-19’ (see my previous article on ‘Mass Murder ‘In The Middle of a Deadly Pandemic”).

One of the countries it must come into conflict with is Russia, despite the similarities in domestic policy between the two powers when it comes to Covid 19. Despite some claims to the contrary, Russia is not an imperialist power, and it is misleading to portray it as such just because it invaded Ukraine. Just because one country militarily intervenes in another does not automatically make that intervention ‘imperialist’ unless you want to argue absurdities such as Vietnam being an imperialist power (as they invaded Cambodia in the 1970s). Russia is not economically powerful enough to compete as an imperialist state and it does not have masses of finance capital it can use to exploit other countries through neocolonialism. Instead, it is a middling country that finds itself in conflict with the West because they constantly threaten Russia’s borders.

These conflicting interests remain real and cannot be ignored as a driver of Western and Russian actions. The fact that these conflicting interests exist means that theories of direct collusion (such as collusion to create a distraction in Ukraine, for example) are less plausible unless there is direct evidence. There is enough reason for the two powers to compete without having to use direct collusion as an explanation.

Relevance of Global Elites

While we should be careful in attributing every action during the ‘Covid-19 pandemic’ to conspiracy, there is some evidence for that position. The fact that the US government ran a pandemic exercise called Event 201 “which predicted a global pandemic caused by a novel Coronavirus just months before the Covid-19 outbreak” – is suspicious. (Interestingly, there was also a Monkeypox simulation exercise). Ultimately I find it difficult to explain the Covid-19 scam through opportunism alone, given the fact that a large number of states went along with it for such a long period of time. Particularly the clear transhumanist drive present within all aspects of the Covid agenda shows a unified elite ideology being driven by individuals like Klaus Schwab, leader of the World Economic Forum.

Organisations like The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum are using Covid-19 to push sinister global agendas. In fact, this barely qualifies as a ‘conspiracy’ since they are open about the fact that this is what they are doing (Schwab literally wrote a book called ‘The Great Reset’, how much more open do you want?). Bill Gates clearly wants to use the ‘pandemic’ to push vaccines, one of his most notable interests, and there is also evidence he has an interest in depopulation. Schwab argues for a transhumanist future under the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution‘, where human beings meld with technology and where genetic editing is normalised. Covid-19 is considered a method to bring about this future. Groups like the WEF and BMGF infiltrate and fund initiatives within states (for example, the WEF uses the Young Global Leaders program to groom people into its ideology, whereas the BMGF uses money to fund initiatives it supports).

The weaknesses of focusing mainly on these organisations is that they do not have direct methods of enforcement (militaries, police forces, etc.) that can force the population to obey. Only states have those. States have to have some interest in imposition of the policies also to ensure their implementation. So what we have, in my view, is a system based on mutual overlapping interests. This includes between governments, global institutions (WHO, WEF, BMGF etc) and big corporations such as Big Pharma, Big Tech and the arms companies. These mutual overlapping interests involve means by which to control the population (vaccine passports, Digital ID’s, lockdowns, smart cities, technocracy) as well as transhumanism (the US and UK governments are interested in ‘human augmentation’), and of course the big corporations benefit through increased profit and mandated markets for their products.

Conclusion

There are both circles of overlapping and competing interests when it comes to understanding the operations of the modern world and neither can be dismissed out of hand as an influence on the behaviour of states. Ultimately Russia’s behaviour in Ukraine can be explained via traditional geopolitical motives. However elites in most countries (including Russia) have an interest in the transhumanist digital control matrix being pushed by such elites. Contra to some claims in the independent media, I see no evidence that Russia is opposed to the fundamentals of transhumanist technocracy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s