No Compromises, No Capitulation*

*Editor’s Note: On March 4, Russia enacted a law that criminalizes public opposition to, or independent news reporting about, the war in Ukraine. The law makes it a crime to call the war a “war” rather than a “special military operation” on social media or in a news article or broadcast. The law is understood to penalize any language that “discredits” Russia’s use of its military in Ukraine, calls for sanctions or protests Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It punishes anyone found to spread “false information” about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison.

Mikhail Delyagin, a member of the State Duma, on the impossibility and futility of concluding agreements with Western states.

The classic European strategy that ensured England’s lengthy domination in the world lay in preventing the continent from uniting around any type of power (since England dramatically lacked forces to dominate Europe just by itself). And when a shadow of such a union was appearing on the horizon, England put every effort into sabotaging it — by any means and at any cost.

The U.S., the geohistorical successor of the British Empire, adopted this strategy, and applied it to the whole continent. The strategic objective of the U.S. became — at any cost and by any means — destroying the unification of European (German, first and foremost) technology with Russian natural resources, and especially Chinese human and organizational resources. Such unification would give way to a qualitatively new subject of global competition, before which the U.S. would be powerless.

The current rulers of Ukraine were installed in power within the framework of practically implementing this strategy. That was the reason they were consistently urged to attack Russia, inciting a suicidal Russophobia.

The realization by the global ruling class of the true depth and fundamental nature of the current crisis is also playing out. When unified world markets disintegrate into macro-regions and crash together into a global depression during which many of the current key technologies are lost, only theorists and philosophers waste time contemplating eternal questions about who is to blame and what can be done.

Anglo-Saxons, being practical, are dealing with a much more prosaic matter: “Who are we going to eat today?”

We are their enemy, not their food: we don’t have much meat, and it would be too tough. A sated and relaxed Europe is more fitting fodder; it retains a significant human and resource capacity, which the West will have to destroyed and seize in part and then put to use.

Germany is the economic foundation of the European Union and the euro zone. It has a population that is 4 1/2 times smaller than the U.S., which is exporting a comparable and sometimes greater amount of goods, and which has its own guaranteed profit zones for the real economy (EU) and financial business (euro zone). Germany is a competitor that has to be destroyed by its political dependency. This is why the Germans were forced to say goodbye to Nord Stream 2; now they are forced to impose an increasing number of sanctions that are deadly for the German economy.

The fact that, with the world disintegrating into macro-regions, the U.S. dollar (and with it the U.S. itself as an organizational structure of the global ruling class) is losing its exceptional importance only spurs aggression. The demonstrative distancing of Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. from the U.S. with the beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine marked the collapse of the petrodollar, which served as the basis for their domination beginning in the 1970s.

This mechanism meant raising energy prices coupled with the obligation of their suppliers to store their funds in the U.S., within the American financial system. As such, America’s competitors suffered from high energy costs while the U.S. itself could counterbalance these costs with cash, sufficient for the acceleration of technological progress as well.

But tectonic shifts in the world’s agenda forced the Persian Gulf monarchies to choose — and they preferred to choose China, and even Iran in some aspects. Russia, meanwhile, got the chance to become the country that will ensure the safety of the energy supply from this region.

Given this situation, the demonstrative collapse of Europe becomes an imperative condition for the survival of the United States. Only by intimidating its usual satellites can the U.S. bring them back under its control and prolong the agony of its business and, in turn, sociopolitical models.

It is hopeful to find acknowledgment of the fundamentally destructive and disagreeable position of the U.S. manifested in the most unexpected places. For example, Chinese billionaire Che Jianxin harshly commented in the Global Times, “The U.S. is strangling Russia to control Europe.” Then he convincingly explains that “compromises and capitulation in the battle against the enemy (as he directly calls the U.S.) will only lead to its even greater avarice.”

Illusions aside, understanding the uncompromising nature of modern global competition, viewing the U.S. as an enemy (even by China, so economically intertwined with it) — all of these are the signs of the dawn of a new world.

For it to be acceptable, we will have to build it ourselves. “All ours are us,” says the poem written about Donbas in 2014.