Glenn Diesen - Greater Eurasia Podcast

I participated in a debate on “Inside Politics with Anastasiya Lavrina” to discuss Armania’s shift toward the West and its deteriorating relations with Russia. I argue that it is in Armenia’s to diversify its economic partnerships to avoid excessive reliance on only Russia. However, Armania’s objective to establish a balanced relationship between the West and Russia is not shared by the West. The continent is redivided and a new Cold War is being fought over where to draw the new dividing lines. The main interest and objective of the West is to drive a wedge between Armenia and Russia to weaken a strategic rival. This could be disastrous for Armenia as Russia is its most important economic partner, the Eurasian Economic Union serves its national interests, and the regional geopolitical balance would also shift to the advantage of Armenia’s adversaries.

Israel has been a leading advocate for America's forever wars in the Middle East

Audio of article

On BreakThrough News

I had a conversation with Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Alexander Mercouris about the possibility of Trump delivering peace in the Middle East and Ukraine. Trump recently posted a video of Professor Sachs criticising the presentation of international conflicts as a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. In the video, Professor Sachs also scolded Netanyahu and blamed Israel for America’s wars in the Middle East over the past 30 years (Netanyahu will reportedly not attend Trump’s inauguration). Trump has also recognised that NATO expansionism was the source of the proxy war in Ukraine, and has been vocal about his desire to end the proxy. These actions give some reason for cautious optimism that peace can be achieved at a time when the world appears to be heading toward major wars. The false narratives that conflict in the world derives from a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism create a dangerous Manichaean worldview. Peace then requires good defeating evil, while compromise and workable peace are derided as appeasement. Anyone contesting the Manichaean worldview can be accused of betraying liberal democratic values. Trump has many flaws, but his greatest strength is his ability to say what he wants and break away from the West’s ideological narratives and Manichaean worldview. By recognising the security interests of rival powers (a big taboo in the West), Trump can also mitigate these concerns as the foundation for any durable peace.

I had a conversation with Alexander Mercouris and Andrei Nekrasov - a renowned film director who made a documentary about the Magnitsky Act. Nekrasov is known for making documentaries that are very critical of the Kremlin, and he received funding in the West to make a documentary about the death of Sergey Magnitsky. The story about a ruthless Russian government that killed a whistle-blower was a perfect story for a Western audience that is consistently fed stories about international politics as a struggle between good and evil. The narrative of Magnitsky also laid the foundation for the Magnitsky Act in 2012, a set of anti-Russian sanctions that contributed to derailing relations between the West and Russia. However, when making the film, Nekrasov discovered that the story being pushed was full of lies. Nekrasov focused on the facts rather than the narrative, and the documentary was subsequently censored and banned across the West. The Magnitsky Act was a precursor to the Russiagate hoax and demonstrated how narrative control has become a key part of power politics.

Rachel Blevins can be followed on YouTube and her Substack: https://substack.com/@rachelblevins

Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University is interviewed by Dan Klein about being an economist and the economics profession today. The conversation turns to his own ideological outlook and whether it has changed over the decades. The second half of the conversation is about the Deep State and US foreign policy, particularly with respect to Russia. Sachs explains why the globalists’ aim to regime change Russia and break up the Russian Federation is unjust. And he explains what it is that animates that unjust aim.

I was invited by Massachusetts Peace Action to discuss the narratives used by the US and NATO to pursue a long war in Ukraine. I am very grateful to Massachusetts Peace Action for their initiatives to end the war, as the call for diplomacy has sadly been demonised as “controversial” or even treasonous over the past years.A key false narrative has been that Russia’s invasion was unprovoked, a lie that largely went unchallenged as any dissent could be portrayed as an effort to “legitimise” or even support the invasion. Once the premise of an unprovoked invasion was established, any diplomacy and negotiations could be presented as “rewarding Putin” and the only solution was a military victory. The obligatory Hitler analogy also meant that negotiations are appeasement and peace requires victory on the battlefield. The injustice and suffering of Ukrainians was weaponised as “helping Ukraine” is consistently translated into further fuelling the war and rejecting diplomacy. Much like in Afghanistan, the war enthusiasm was maintained by the media which presented NATO’s motivations as altruistic and reassured the public that Ukraine was winning. The narratives required for a long war became immune to facts, and the NATO Secretary General announced that weapons are the path to peace.The war started with the NATO-backed coup in 2014. When Western governments toppled the government in Kiev in 2014 to pull the country into NATO’s orbit, it was known that only 20% of Ukrainians desired NATO membership and NATO knew it would likely trigger a war. CIA Director William Burns had warned already in 2008 that attempting to pull Ukraine into NATO would trigger a civil war and a Russian invasion, while also recognising this is something the Russians would not want to do.The Minsk Peace Agreement of 2015 was supposed to end the war, yet the Germans, French and Ukrainians later admitted it was merely intended to buy time to arm Ukraine. Zelensky was elected with a landslide victory in 2019 based on a peace platform, yet he was pressured by American-financed “NGOs” and US-backed fascist groups to reverse his position. The peace platform was abandoned, while diplomacy with Donbas and implementing the Minsk agreement were portrayed as “capitulation”. When Russia demanded security guarantees in 2021 as Ukraine was becoming a de facto NATO member, the US and NATO refused to offer anything of value. Kurt Volker, the former US ambassador to NATO and US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, even argued in favour of no agreements as he wrote that “success is confrontation”.Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 to impose a political settlement, and contacted Zelensky on the first day to start the negotiations. The US responded by sabotaging the peace negotiations in Istanbul, and Zelensky also confirmed the US preferred a long war to weaken Russia even if this meant the destruction of Ukraine. As recognised by the Israeli and Turkish mediators, and other leading officials from NATO countries – the US saw an opportunity to weaken its strategic rival by fighting with Ukrainians.If propaganda fuels wars, then the truth can end wars. The media that lied about every important aspect of the war and the politicians who refused to even sit down with Russia as hundreds of thousands died have no moral credibility or right to lecture those who call for diplomacy.

Can the Global Majority Present an Optimistic Vision for a New World Order? - Glenn Diesen at Valdai