Sobre el lento desenmascaramiento del orden liberal y el descubrimiento, bastante incómodo, de que el emperador lo sabía desde el principio
Marcos Paulo CANDELORO
Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter y VK .
Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su
Hay algo casi infantil en la fascinación que parte de Occidente ha desarrollado por el lema de la alianza de naciones europeas. Sin embargo, la realidad revela que se trata más bien de un consorcio militar-financiero que intenta preservar una hegemonía que ya empieza a escapársele de las manos.
La guerra de Ucrania, en términos generales, no hizo sino acelerar un proceso que llevaba décadas en marcha. Europa se percató, algo tarde, de que el monopolio político, económico y cultural construido después de 1945 comenzaba a mostrar fisuras irreversibles. China, Rusia, India, Irán e incluso las potencias medianas comprendieron algo que Bruselas y Davos nunca han llegado a admitir del todo: que el orden internacional liberal nunca fue universal. Se trataba, más bien, de la universalización forzada de los intereses de Washington, disfrazada con el sentimental lenguaje del humanitarismo.
Aquí reside la ironía central de nuestra época. Los mismos países que pasaron décadas predicando la soberanía relativa, la gobernanza global y la responsabilidad internacional ahora redescubren frenéticamente el valor de las fronteras, del patriotismo industrial y de la autonomía estratégica. La globalización cumplió su propósito mientras consolidó su supremacía. En el momento en que comenzó a beneficiar a rivales civilizacionales, se convirtió en una amenaza existencial, y he aquí que el viejo instinto territorial resurgió rápidamente, ese mismo instinto que durante años se había tratado como un síntoma de atraso provinciano y, en casos más graves, como evidencia de algún tipo de psicopatología colectiva.
El conflicto actual, por consiguiente, trasciende con creces la dimensión militar y se adentra en el terreno antropológico, ese terreno sobre el que la hoja de cálculo del consultor de Davos no explica absolutamente nada. Por un lado, Occidente posmoderno se transformó en una máquina burocrática de disolución cultural, un bloque político incapaz de defender su propia memoria histórica y, sin embargo, deseoso de exportar compulsivamente la política de identidad al resto del planeta. Por otro lado, los países que han comprendido algo bastante elemental que Aristóteles ya había descrito siglos antes de que existieran los consultores de ESG, (Environmental, Social and Governance (Ambiental, Social y Gobernanza evalúan el desempeño ambiental, social y de gobernanza de una empresa, determinando su sostenibilidad y capacidad de generar valor a largo plazo) a saber, que los pueblos sobreviven gracias a la preservación de la identidad, la continuidad histórica y la cohesión simbólica
Rusia lo comprendió pronto, China aún antes, y ambas percibieron que el liberalismo occidental había dejado de funcionar como modelo económico para convertirse en una especie de religión negativa, fundada en la deconstrucción permanente de los lazos orgánicos. La familia se convierte en opresión, la nación en prejuicio, la religión en atraso, la masculinidad en peligro, la frontera en violencia moral, en una lista cada vez más extensa de aquello que debe ser pulverizado en nombre de un progreso que nadie es capaz de definir con precisión. No es casualidad que Occidente contemporáneo produzca riqueza material y depresión espiritual con igual eficiencia industrial.
Y, sin embargo, lo más curioso de todo es observar cómo la prensa internacional insiste en narrarlo todo a través de la vieja lente moral de la Guerra Fría. Democracia contra autoritarismo, libertad contra tiranía, civilización contra barbarie: he aquí la caricatura que ya no convence ni siquiera al ciudadano europeo o estadounidense medio, a ese ciudadano común que mira Londres, París o Los Ángeles y se da cuenta, sin necesidad de un diploma de Harvard, de que quizás el colapso viene desde dentro. La crisis migratoria europea es solo el síntoma visible, amigos. El verdadero problema es mucho más profundo y, además, resulta considerablemente más embarazoso, pues Europa se ha cansado de sí misma, ha perdido el instinto civilizatorio básico de la supervivencia, ha transformado la culpa histórica en política de Estado, ha sustituido la identidad por la administración tecnocrática y ha cambiado la pertenencia por el consumo
Mientras tanto, el establishment occidental responde de la única manera que conoce: con censura, vigilancia y propaganda moralizante. Toda disidencia se convierte en una amenaza para la democracia, toda crítica al globalismo en extremismo, toda resistencia cultural en radicalización, y los regímenes supuestamente liberales han llegado a depender abiertamente de mecanismos antiliberales para su supervivencia política, en un espectáculo que avergonzaría incluso a Carl Schmitt.
La máscara se cayó durante la pandemia, se cayó de nuevo con la guerra y se cayó definitivamente en medio de la creciente desesperación de las élites globalistas enfrentadas al surgimiento de cualquier fuerza mínimamente soberanista.
El ciudadano medio, el de a pie, por consiguiente, ha comenzado a considerar una hipótesis bastante herética: que la mayor amenaza a la libertad contemporánea quizás no provenga de Moscú ni de Pekín, sino del propio aparato burocrático-financiero que gobierna Occidente en nombre de la democracia, neutralizando elecciones, censurando opiniones y redefiniendo los conceptos básicos de la realidad mediante una ingeniería semántica permanente. El nuevo orden mundial, por lo tanto, prescinde del modelo del imperio formal. Bastará con algo mucho más sofisticado: un régimen administrado por conglomerados financieros, plataformas digitales, organismos transnacionales y estructuras de inteligencia capaces de moldear el comportamiento humano a escala industrial, preservando al mismo tiempo la estética de la libertad.
Y quizás sea precisamente esto lo que explique el creciente pánico en Occidente. Por primera vez en décadas, el resto del mundo ha comenzado a darse cuenta de que el emperador está desnudo. Lo más triste de todo, sin embargo, es que el emperador siempre lo supo. Simplemente contaba con que nadie lo mirara, y así no se den cuenta.
Publicado originalmente por The Elegant Ruin
Traducción: InfoPosta
By Hélène de LAUNZUN
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Franco-German combat aircraft programme collapses after years of disputes, showcasing the difficulty with military cooperation within the EU.
Rumours had been circulating for many months, but it was confirmed on Monday, June 8th: France and Germany have decided to abandon the core joint fighter plane component of their joint Future Combat Aircraft System (FCAS) project. With it goes a project that symbolised ambitions for deeper military cooperation between the two countries.
The project was launched in 2017 on the initiative of French President Emmanuel Macron and then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Its aim was to replace, by 2040, the French Rafale and the German-Spanish Eurofighter. After months of stalled progress, Chancellor Friedrich Merz and President Macron agreed that the main industrial partners involved in the project—Dassault Aviation on the French side and Airbus Defence and Space on the German-Spanish side—were clearly unable to work together because of diverging interests.
It was one of Europe’s largest military programmes, with an estimated total cost of €100 billion. The technological ambition was highly advanced: more than just a fighter jet, the system was to integrate combat drones, connected sensors and a next-generation digital network, thereby forming what was described as a ‘combat cloud.’
Disagreements between the industrial parties have multiplied in recent months, centring on the sharing of industrial responsibilities, intellectual property, and the governance of the project. In the spring, Macron was still insisting he believed in it, but progress remained elusive.
For defence expert Jean-Dominique Merchet, the programme had in fact been “on life support” for several months, and the German decision to formalise the end merely confirmed a shared recognition of irreconcilable industry positions rather than a unilateral move. The fact that the announcement came from Berlin—without a joint statement from partner countries France and Spain—confirms the major political setback for Macron, who has been the project’s main champion since its launch in 2017. According to Merchet, the announcement definitively confirms the now insurmountable disagreements between Dassault Aviation and Airbus over the development of the fighter plane intended to form the core of the programme. The analyst is now questioning the future of the other components of the FCAS, notably the combat cloud, the engines, and the support drones. This failure could undermine another major Franco-German project, the future European battle tank, which is itself already facing numerous difficulties.
Similar frictions have affected other joint efforts in recent years. In some cases, one side has withdrawn or scaled back its commitment—as in the case of the Tiger helicopter, where Germany backed out, or the Eurodrone, where France is currently discussing exit terms; in others, like the MAWS maritime patrol programme and the CIFS future artillery system, it’s due to delays, differing priorities, and mutual strain.
For both countries, the failure tests their ability to advance next-generation capabilities.
For France, the failure of the FCAS will test the national defence industry’s ability to bounce back. France must now consider the possibility of a new-generation programme that it would lead alone or in cooperation with other potential partners such as Sweden, Italy, India or the United Arab Emirates. Germany is expected to consider options including additional F-35 acquisitions or interest in alternative collaborative frameworks.
The failure of the FCAS is highly symbolic at a time when, under American pressure, Europe was seeking to assert its strategic autonomy. The programme, which symbolised Europe’s ability to carry out its major armaments projects autonomously in the face of the United States and China, illustrates above all the persistent difficulties European states face in effectively coordinating their industrial, strategic, and national interests.
Original article: europeanconservative.com
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
The recent developments in the Middle East indicate that the dynamics of the regional conflict are entering a new phase. Although the ceasefire reached in recent months has reduced the intensity of direct confrontations, recent events demonstrate that the structural factors fueling the war remain in place. The exchange of attacks between Iran and Israel reveals not only the fragility of existing agreements but also an important shift in Tehran’s strategic posture.
For years, Iranian military policy was characterized primarily by responses to actions it considered hostile. Since 2024, every case of direct confrontation between Iran and Israel occurred with an Iranian response to a previous Israeli attack. However, the events of the past weekend suggest a significant change in this behavior. By launching an offensive against Israeli targets following military operations conducted in Lebanon, Iran demonstrated a willingness to act before additional threats materialize, presenting its actions as part of the right to collective self-defense, expressed through the protection of regional partners.
The Iranian justification is based on the interpretation that Israeli attacks on Lebanese territory constitute violations of previously established understandings. According to this view, the continuation of military operations in urban areas and the expansion of actions against different regions of Lebanon create a scenario that legitimizes a proportional response. In addition, Tehran also links its reaction to incidents involving what it describes as American piracy on strategic maritime routes.
The most significant aspect of this escalation lies not merely in the launching of missiles or drones, but in the political message it conveys. Iran appears to be signaling that it no longer intends to limit its actions to the direct defense of its own territory. Instead, it is showing a willingness to respond to military operations targeting actors considered part of its regional alliance network. This represents a shift with the potential to profoundly alter the strategic calculations of all parties involved.
At the same time, the international response highlights the difficulties faced by powers attempting to manage the crisis. Fears of an uncontrolled expansion of the conflict come at a particularly sensitive moment for the global economy. Military tensions in one of the world’s most important regions for energy production and transportation tend to generate immediate impacts on financial markets, logistics chains, and investor expectations.
Israel’s response to the Iranian attacks, followed by further military actions by Tehran and the involvement of regional allies, demonstrates that the cycle of retaliation remains active. The involvement of Yemen, which has moved to restrict access to the Red Sea for vessels linked to Israel, adds an additional factor of insecurity for the Zionist regime, creating a supporting front for Iran.
In light of this scenario, it becomes evident that the current ceasefire has significant limitations. Although it has temporarily reduced the level of violence, it has not resolved the principal elements sustaining regional rivalry. Issues related to the American military presence and Israeli territorial expansionism remain unresolved, prolonging the atmosphere of tension.
However, perhaps the main consequence of recent events is the emergence of a new strategic precedent. By demonstrating a willingness to respond to actions carried out against third parties, Iran is establishing a broader deterrence logic than previously observed. This means that future military operations conducted by Israel or the United States against Tehran’s partners could trigger direct responses, even when Iranian territory itself is not the immediate target.
Just as Iran is now responding to Israeli attacks against Lebanon, in the future such retaliatory measures could be launched to punish Tel Aviv for its actions in Gaza, Iraq, Yemen, and other countries in the region. In practical terms, this means that the regional balance of power has changed substantially: Iran is now making it clear to Israel that its actions will not go unanswered.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Russia’s flagship international business summit in St Petersburg was targeted with Ukrainian drones that used Estonian territorial waters to evade Russian air defenses. Other Baltic states are also implicated in carrying out the large-scale attack last week.
According to the well-informed Borzikkman channel, scores of kamikaze drones were launched from ships in the Baltic Sea. They flew at low altitude over Estonian territorial waters before striking St Petersburg. The flight path was designed to take Russian defenses by surprise.
Most of the drones were shot down by Russian defenses, but a few managed to hit their targets. The biggest hit was on the St Petersburg oil terminal. That had the desired propaganda effect of creating a pall of black smoke visible to delegates on the opening day, June 3, of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF).
Western media outlets like the BBC were delighted to report on the embarrassing vista in the skies over Russia’s second city and a forum that President Putin would address.
The BBC’s Steve Rosenberg was positively gleeful, writing: “The abiding image of SPIEF 2026 will be the huge plume of thick black smoke which dominated the St Petersburg skyline on Wednesday… All the delegates saw the smoke as they arrived at the expo centre on the edge of the city.”
Drones from ships in the Baltic Sea with flights through Estonian territorial waters means that NATO states were involved in the execution of the air strikes. On the same day, NATO chief Mark Rutte was in Kiev on an unannounced visit to meet the Ukrainian leader, Vladimir Zelensky.
The level of NATO participation in waging war on Russia with its Ukrainian proxy has become absurdly obvious. In recent weeks, hundreds of Ukrainian drones have crashed in Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Romania. The Kiev regime has repeatedly apologized to European capitals for the infringements that have resulted in injuries to civilians. Still, the European Union and NATO take no action to sanction or reprimand Kiev. They indulge in the claims that the drones are being redirected by Russian electronic jamming. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has even urged that NATO states should help Ukraine in targeting Russia to avoid “misakes”.
The duplicity is contemptible. Russian military intelligence has pinpointed drone manufacturing sites in the Baltic states and other NATO nations that are participating in Ukrainian attacks.
Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s National Security Council, commented: “The Russian Defence Ministry’s statement should be understood extremely literally: the publication of production sites for drones and other military equipment in Europe is a register of potential legitimate targets for the Russian armed forces.”
Evidently, the NATO states are providing targeting data and permitting the use of their territory to maximize the attacks on Russia. Hundreds of Russian civilians have been killed in these NATO-assisted drone operations, the most dreadful being the murder of 21 students at a college dormitory in Starobelsk, Lugansk, on May 22. Last week, on the same day as the drone attack on St Petersburg, eight civilians were killed, and 10 were injured when their bus was blown up in an air strike while traveling through the Donetsk region towards Crimea.
Anger across Russia is growing, analyst Stas Krapivnik told Danny Haiphong’s channel. Russia has retaliated with heavy strikes on military sites and decision-making centers across Ukraine. But, as Krapivnik points out, Moscow is under pressure to take action against NATO culprits from where the Ukrainian offensives are stemming. He says that Russia should do like Iran is doing, hitting back hard where it hurts.
Since the U.S. and Israel launched their aggression against Iran 100 days ago, on February 28, the Iranians have destroyed dozens of American installations across the Persian Gulf and Israeli bases with their formidable arsenal of hypersonic and ballistic missiles, as well as drones.
When Israel violated a shaky truce by bombing Beirut’s southern district of Dahiyeh at the weekend, Iran struck back immediately, as it had warned it would do, to hit airbases in Israel and a U.S. base in Saudi Arabia.
Iran’s defiance has put manners on Washington. Israel is a slow learner, but it will come round to realizing that Iran is not going to take any aggression lying down. It’s hitting back hard and fast in the places that hurt. The days of U.S. and Israeli aggression with impunity are over.
The other thing is that Tehran has called Trump’s bluff about his “madman threats” to escalate the war and obliterate Iran. The Iranians have demonstrated to Washington and the Israelis that the aggressors have much more to lose if they persist in their belligerence.
Russia might want to take note, as Krapivnik, Borzikkman, Sergey Karaganov, and other analysts have advised. The EU and NATO are acting with impunity and a delusional sense that they can escalate attacks on Russia, killing civilians and damaging Russia’s economy, all because of some cynical charade that Ukraine is alone in carrying out the attacks.
Of course, the risk is that if Russian hypersonics were to take out a NATO drone-launching ship in the Baltic Sea, then that would trigger the U.S.-led military alliance’s joint defense commitments. In that case, we are potentially in a situation of World War Three.
But hold on a moment. Are we not already in that situation, given that, despite the charade, NATO states are directly involved in attacking Russia, its capital, Moscow, and St Petersburg, and killing hundreds of civilians?
The NATO and EU leaders are so imbued with Russophobia and arrogance that they are beyond rational thinking. The only language they understand is direct threat and force. Unless they pay a price, the deranged Russophobic leaders will keep escalating as they are doing.
Iran has shown a viable self-defense policy. The enemy is hit hard for daring to aggress against the Iranian people.
A kick in the Baltics might be what it takes to concentrate Russophobic minds. Before it’s too late.
© Daniel Berehulak/The New York Times
Login
