Friday, December 13, 2013

Eso’s Chronicles 250/ 36
Addendum 11—A Case In Point
© Eso A.B.

I have argued on my previous blogspots  that both Russia and the U.S. have recently signed a Nonaggression pact, re a Kerry-Lavrov Pact, which imitates the signing of the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Though there is no proof that such a Pact was indeed signed, I believe such a pact was/is due to what appeared until very recently as an immanent war in which the West, supported by Israeli arms and Saudi Arabian money, would attack Syria and Iran. That such a war also threatened Russia and China was no secret to anyone who follows such events, especially involving the surrounding of Russia with missile bases under the excuse that these were targeting Iran and was indeed a European Defense Shield against Iran.

What appeared to be a seeming inevitability of war derived from the declaration of the U.S. government that America has an ‘exceptional’ role and mission in the world. This mission of presumption was willing to use the no less presumed ‘exceptionalism’ of Israel (said by some to have invented monotheism) as a device for entangling the two governments for mutual benefit and to speak as if with one voice. The U.S. government (claiming itself to be the sole voice on questions of urban ‘democracy’) seized the occasion of the foundation of the headquarters of the U.N. in New York City to capture for itself and the Zionists of Israel the sole power of a veto \ through which to bend the geopolitical curves and planes of planet Earth to their will. This presumption of power was demonstrated by U.S. vetoes at the UN Security Council whenever the government of Israel felt it necessary to reassert its ‘exceptionalism’ by denying the Palestinians any rights as a community except that of an individual ‘naked life’. As the presumptions on the part of David and Goliath have become increasingly questioned and challenged (because neither can deliver on what they implicitly claimed to guarantee: justice by Israel and material plenty by America), and which challenges could only be silenced by victory in a war, Russia joined with China and agreed to accept the role of implicit ‘enemies’ of Israel and the U.S. if these continued to persist in imposing their will on a part of our planet that has no desire to be burdened by their exceptionalism.

The implementation of the Nonaggression Pact is complicated by the fact that the ‘enemies’ (Israel and U.S.), having failed in their guarantees, are now promising to implement a New World Order (NWO) and include in it all who support and follow them. Yet the new U.S. and Israeli plan is met with disbelief among all those who believe themselves to be part of the Old World Order (OWO) and see no need for a new one. This means that the supporters of the NWO will enter into a war with the OWO as a disunited coalition and are unlikely to win the war, which means that they will lose their claim to ‘exceptionalism’. This is why the U.S. government (excepting the Israeli government) agreed to the extraordinary agreement that—if it works==will likely become known as the Kerry-Lavrov Nonaggression Pact.

While the Kerry-Lavrov Pact was negotiated in secret, the fact that it had been preceded by a similar Pact nearly 75 years before (1939)*, make it likely that many will make guesses over whether another such Pact has been signed or even verbally discussed. These doubts put the pact participants in a difficult situation: They must keep silent, give their Pact plenty of time to implement itself, and be prepared to be challenged at every step and turn.

In the latter case Russia and China need to be prepared to demonstrate their resolve not to let exceptionalism affect them, and do so in a most convincing manner. This was understood well before the Kerry-Lavrov meeting, and Lavrov no doubt told Kerry that this meant that if the unbelievers (Israel, U.S. Congress under the influence of AIPAC, France, Germany, England, Saudi Arabia, et al) continued to press for war against Iran (and by implication Russia and China) that the latter had to be prepared to deliver a ‘convincing demonstration’ of their unexceptionalism. Unfortunate as that may be the object of their demonstration would have to be from one (or several) among the belligerents which were as if innocently gazing into ‘the blue sky’**.

Given the above, this is a time for analyzing national pretentions and taking note of how these are being readjusted lest one, fool enough to question the existence of the Pact, becomes the victim of a military or economic demonstration.

*My maternal grandfather, Karlis Ozols , Latvia’s first ambassador to the Soviet Union, was arrested upon the Soviet occupation of Latvia and shot in 1941 in a Moscow prison. I suspect that the Pact was a ‘known’ unknown to him.

**The current Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks argues that those who are against him as the next Prime Minister must also be against NATO for which he is all for. One wonders if Pabriks believes that Latvia would serve as a fitting object for a demonstration against those who support NATO aggression.


No comments:

Post a Comment