Discover more from Fisted by Foucault
The US Government's Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) holds a briefing on the "moral and strategic" necessity of partitioning Russia
(Note: check your spam box or promotions tabs for emails from this Substack that you might have missed recently, as they seem to not be landing in inboxes lately. Thanks.)
A common thread in postwar histories of WW2 was one that liked to paint Adolf Hitler as increasingly unhinged and detached from reality towards the end of the Third Reich. We were told stories of how he liked to indulge himself in flights of fancy, surveying architectural models of a new Berlin, one that was to be built after Germany won the war, despite the Allies already closing in on both sides. Delusions of future grandeur, while everything was collapsing all around him. A case of “cope”?
The feel of omnipotence after a string of great successes can often lead one to think of themselves as permanent victors, incapable of defeat. This enters the realm of delusion when the facts on the ground run counter to the perception of victory. This is the real estate currently occupied by a large segment of the US foreign policy community.
Yesterday, I was alerted to this “online briefing” that is taking place tomorrow:
Yes, you read that right: a discussion on the “need” to partition Russia for “moral and strategic” reasons.
Who is the Committee on Security and Cooperation in Europe, you ask?
The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission, is an independent commission of the U.S. Federal Government. For over 45 years, the Commission has monitored compliance with the Helsinki Accords and advanced comprehensive security through promotion of human rights, democracy, and economic, environmental, and military cooperation in the 57-nation OSCE region.
In short: it’s another of the zillions of committees run and financed by the US Government. The US Government held a panel earlier today on the “need” to partition Russia. Let that sink in for a bit.
This panel is being led by four women and one man, all of whom have cycled through the NGO Regime Change Complex, whether it be the International Crisis Group, Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe, the German Marshall Fund, the Soros Octopus, and so on. There are too many groups in total that they have collectively worked for to list, so we won’t do that. Instead, here are their names and bios:
Fatima Tlis(ova) - Fellow at National Endowment for Democracy (regime change central)
Botakoz Kassymbekova - Oxus Society, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Institute of History and Social Sciences at the John Moores Liverpool University
Erica Marat - National Defense University (USA)
Hanna Hopko - Chair, Democracy in Action Conference
Casey Michel - Hudson Institute
These are your typical “swamp creatures” who profit off of the misery of those targeted by the USA for regime change. Their views always match up with the policies of the US State Department, regardless of how they couch their words. Pure coincidence, of course.
The Shift in Terms
What is notable about this panel is the shift from “spreading freedom and democracy” to the need to “decolonize” Russia.
Exporting democracy was one of the main concepts used to justify US expansionism and interventionism after 9/11. It was a product of the neo-conservatives who had their hands on the steering wheel of US foreign policy under George W. Bush. The failures of the USA in spreading democracy in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc., tainted these neo-conservatives, resulting in reputational harm. But because accountability for failure has been for some time now in the USA a foreign concept, these neo-conservatives took time out to lick their wounds and then rehabilitate their image by latching themselves onto the opposition to Trump, branding themselves as “defenders of democracy”, be it at home or abroad. They managed to successfully weasel their way back into the corridors of power.
These neo-conservatives have managed to once again grasp the steering wheel of policy, and in tandem with liberal interventionists are happily driving the West into open conflict with Russia by escalating their support for Ukraine and by trying to bait Russia into an overreaction, such as pushing Lithuania to to stop the passage of goods from Russia Proper into the Kaliningrad Oblast. Their matron is Vicki “Fuck the EU” Nuland, the woman in charge of Russia policy who has effortlessly glided through White House Administrations whether they be D or R.
At the beginning of this war, the stated US objective was to degrade Russian forces as much as possible in the theatre of conflict. High on their own propaganda supply after the first few weeks of the war, the tone shifted to regime change in Moscow (the most sought-after goal in the US State Department). After all, Russia needs democracy, and Russians need to be freed of Dictator Putin so that they can enjoy its fruits like the rest of the Free World aka countries that the USA likes.
Tomorrow’s panel is a further step forward in that it tells ordinary Russians that even regime change and democracy is not good enough for them. They require the partition of their country into smaller (more easily controlled) polities, so that they can be free. Needless to say, this is a propaganda coup for Putin and the Kremlin as it allows them to paint the conflict in Ukraine as an existential fight.
I am fond of saying that the genius of the United States of America is its ability to absorb, co-opt, and then monetize any trend that comes its way. “Decolonizing Russia” is simply woke terminology for its partition. This symbolizes how the USA has managed to co-opt “Wokeness” for its own foreign policy objectives.
Russia’s barbaric war on Ukraine—and before that on Syria, Libya, Georgia, and Chechnya—has exposed the Russian Federation’s viciously imperial character to the entire world. Its aggression also is catalyzing a long-overdue conversation about Russia’s interior empire, given Moscow’s dominion over many indigenous non-Russian nations, and the brutal extent to which the Kremlin has taken to suppress their national self-expression and self-determination.
Please note the bolded portions. Yes, it is hilarious that these fucking assholes have the temerity to ignore what the USA did to Syria and Libya and instead blame it on the Russians. It is also hilarious that they attack Russia for extinguishing an al-Qaida-led insurgency in Chechnya. However, this takes us away from the main point: the use of woke terminology in the service of US Empire.
I have been predicting this to happen for well over a decade, and other people have noticed this:
In fact, I wrote two pieces about this:
The Desquamation of America - the USA shifting from a mercantilist empire to an ideological one that incorporates wokeness
Turbo-America - the USA going for gold i.e. global hegemony in a world where multipolarism is taking shape
I am certain that many of you will take the position that I formerly had; that the adoption of woke terminology in service of empire is a cynical ploy. I no longer believe that. I think that these are true believers. Chechens, Volga Tatars, the Komi, the Yakuts, all “indigenous” peoples suffering under Russian colonization, all yearning to be free, all seeking to release the American that is inside of them, screaming to get out. They are US Blacks who still suffer from the legacy of slavery and segregation, they are the Sioux on the reserve, they are the bullied Transgendered, they are the oppressed WaPo journalist from a rich family who went to Swiss boarding school.
My readers know full well that western reporting on the war in Ukraine was so propagandistic as to render it useless, until very recently. The actual situation on the ground simply became too obvious to continue the push to claim that the Ukrainians were on the verge of victory over Russia. This is what makes a USGov panel on partitioning Russia delusional. Who exactly is this for, other than to convince themselves and to justify their own employment?
In my recent piece “Hubris”, I explained just how dangerous a course has been set by the USA in choosing to take on Russia AND China at the same time, pushing these two states together in an existential alliance.
In “Incompetence”, we took a look at how the sanctions regime against Russia has boomeranged against the USA and EU (and is damaging other places such as Africa), without snuffing out the Russian economy, the actual objective of these sanctions.
We can now safely add delusion to hubris and incompetence when describing US foreign policy today. If you think that this is bad enough, US officials are reportedly happy to plunge the world into a global recession and mounting hunger (starvation) to ensure that Russia doesn’t win in Ukraine:
Europeans and North Americans need to sacrifice their standard of living so that the USA can triumph in Ukraine. Africans might need to starve as well. It’s for a good cause, the decolonization of Russia. How can you say no?