Trump lasted only three days before violating the memorandum with Iran. Israel did not even attempt to comply with it. Against the backdrop of revelations that the United States made no promises in Anchorage, I consider this one of the biggest stories of the year—an official admission, exposure, and demonstration of what I see as […]
5
min.
Trump lasted only three days before violating the memorandum with Iran. Israel did not even attempt to comply with it. Against the backdrop of revelations that the United States made no promises in Anchorage, I consider this one of the biggest stories of the year—an official admission, exposure, and demonstration of what I see as the West‘s distorted and lawless moral standard, one that amounts to the absence of any morality, integrity, or humanity.
What kind of person lies and does not keep their word? A dishonorable one. Therefore, the world should know what kinds of moral standards are being offered and decide where it wants to stand. Every individual should determine what kind of morality they possess and wish to see in their own life. If the West officially presents itself as a dishonest and deceitful partner, I believe this fundamentally changes the meaning of politics.
The West is committing what I view as a genocide against morality itself, against international law and order, and against the global geopolitical order, just as Netanyahu is committing genocide in Gaza. How the world will move forward under these circumstances is, in my opinion, the question of the year. The United States could not even uphold Trump‘s own signature for a single week. What kind of person signs an official document while knowing full well they have no intention of honoring it, all the while mocking others in their own mind and knowing they are deceiving them?
The EU and NATO have completely destroyed Donald Trump‘s impulses toward improving relations with Russia. Unlike Europe, for the United States this is a catastrophic mistake—another one by Trump—because Europe is not a decisive factor in global geopolitics, whereas the United States is. Mark Rutte has become the face of a NATO that, in my view, has turned into a vulgar caricature, a backyard performance, a show put on by servants. Compared to him, Stoltenberg appears almost like a scholar, while Rasmussen, and especially Manfred Wörner, look like true statesmen and leaders. Rutte, in my opinion, is a clown, and his latest visit to the White House resembled a poor comedy staged merely to secure American funding for salaries and for their figurehead, Zelensky.
The war in Ukraine has now become the one condition that justifies NATO‘s continued existence. Therefore, it must continue for as long as possible, and if that cannot be achieved through Ukraine alone, then other countries must be drawn into it. That, I believe, is the objective.
This is why the conflict between Trump and the EU was subdued and overcome. Claims that Trump is withdrawing from Europe‘s security architecture or distancing himself from NATO do not correspond to his actual actions. In recent weeks, it has become evident that the United States is officially escalating the conflict with Russia, including by demonstratively declaring that the Anchorage understandings are of no interest to it. At the G7 summit in Evian, Trump reportedly declared support for Ukraine and Zelensky—although the value of Trump‘s declarations remains an open question. His dispute over the photo with Meloni stemmed from a group chat among European leaders and Zelensky in which they mocked Trump. So they mock and deceive him, and he mocks and deceives them. Is this what they call the democratic political model that everyone is expected to embrace?
We are once again at a critical moment. In my view, the West cannot allow peace in Ukraine. To prevent it, it must continue confronting Russia. If Ukraine alone is insufficient, then other nations will be drawn into the war. I believe this is the objective of the current form of the EU and NATO. Conversely, I believe the objective of all reasonable people within the EU and NATO should be to prevent this by doing everything possible to stop what I regard as a reckless, extremist, and lawless elite from achieving that goal. We have no right to remain passive.
A NATO meeting is scheduled to take place in Turkey on July 8–9. I believe this will be a meeting of great significance because it is evident to me that the West is determined to preserve its current model and will do everything possible to prevent peace in Ukraine and the loss of its dominant position. Turkey‘s role as host appears symbolic. It is not a member of the EU, but it is a NATO member. At the same time, Turkey is a major Eurasian power participating in several geopolitical vectors. Its interests both align with and conflict with those of NATO, placing it between a rock and a hard place—it inevitably loses something while gaining something else.
Meanwhile, the first official cracks within both the EU and NATO are becoming visible: Poland’s conflict with Ukraine, Turkey’s disputes with Greece, and Turkey’s tensions with the United States over Israel and Syria. Turkey finds itself in an exceptionally difficult geopolitical position. It is acting boldly and knows what it wants, but the reality is that it has so many competing priorities that it may not be able to pursue them all. No country can sit on two, three, four, or five chairs at once.
Within the EU, dissatisfaction with Ukraine remains persistent. Hungary continues its opposition, Slovakia—although under pressure—does as well, Bulgaria maintains what I consider a two-faced position, while Romania is officially reaching toward Russia while expressing a desire to incorporate Moldova. The decision to admit new member states into the EU, combined with ongoing economic crises, the possible collapse of member states, and difficulties even in non-EU countries such as the United Kingdom, are, in my view, driving the final nails into the EU‘s coffin and leaving it with a stark choice: either go to war with Putin or face hunger and poverty. Yet even if war comes, there will still be hunger and poverty. I believe the necessary objective is the removal of what I regard as the dangerous and harmful political establishment governing the West and the normalization of relations with the East.
📌 Subscribe to Think BRICS for weekly geopolitical video analysis beyond Western narratives. Follow also our new channels BRICS Business and Think BRICS Chronicles.
