What follows is my English translation of an interesting article by Franco Ferre, originally in Italian, published on ComeDonChisciotte.org on Saturday 7th December 2024, thus please mind the article was written just before the fall of Damascus (Syria) at the hands of terrorists. (All formatting original).
END-OF-YEAR CHAOS: THERE IS METHOD IN THIS MADNESS
What do the chaotic events of recent times have in common? Why do new outbreaks of conflict, both armed and social, seem to break out every day, with attempted coups, annulled elections and squares in turmoil in various parts of the globe? Has some wave of collective madness begun or, more prosaically, is there - as the Bard of Stratford Upon Avon said - method in all this?
William Shakespeare.
We have come from years in which the war on the ground has returned alongside the hybrid war, which in previous years had probably never begun or ended, but had simply gone through different phases. It is not that before 2022 there were no wars around the world, but since the day Putin sent the first troops into the Donbass, images of bombs, fires and rubble have returned to populate our daily lives, reporting on events that were happening in places very close to us and that, above all, had (and have) direct and visible repercussions on our everyday lives. From the grotesque statement by UPSI (Italy's Most Overvalued Man) Draghi “do you want peace or air conditioners?” onwards, the “war in Ukraine” became a pretext for any kind of increase (in prices, rates) or reduction (in services, jobs) that was being implemented in our country [Italy]. Then came Gaza, which led to Lebanon and the alternating bombs between Iran and Israel. And meanwhile, in and around the Caucasus, there was the proxy-war between Azerbaijan and Armenia and then the elections in Georgia with the masses in revolt, led even by the incumbent President of the Republic who did not recognise the result of the polls. Up to the present day, with the resumption of fighting in Syria, where forces of various kinds have found men and means to organise a military action capable even of taking control of entire cities in Syrian territory and may in these hours reach nerve centres such as Homs. And all the way to the seemingly insane parable of the (soon-to-be former) Korean President Yoon who, in cahoots with the Defence Minister, is staging a martial law based on nothing in an attempt to put his adversaries out of action and, by taking an entire country hostage, save himself and his wife from mounting accusations of corruption (more on this HERE).
Korean opposition MPs calling for President Yook's resignation in front of parliament.
Is this madness? Is this the result of a growing and uncontrollable irrationality? Are we hostage, as Andrea Zhok puts it in one of her very lucid posts (of which we quote a large excerpt below), to an “empire of acephalous cynicism”, which functions as “a huge, immensely complex and destructive killing machine, [in whose] cockpit we have put a gang of monkeys pawing the controls”?
Partly yes and partly no, probably.
Partly yes, because almost all the choices underlying all the events of recent years, including those that have not directly led to acts of war, seem to be dictated by one-dimensional visions of reality, where someone with some kind of power tries to impose on everyone else choices that are destructive of something. Destructive of material goods or ways of life, destructive of prospects, destructive of the future, but also destructive of the past, perhaps made up of traditions and also of savings; destructive of freedoms won in previous decades through even bloody struggles. All this does not seem in any way linked to better futures or to some kind of “sun of the future”; we are not in the Schumpeterian “creative destruction”: these do not seem, as Andrea Zhok always says, “Machiavellian, amoral choices, but defensible in terms of a long-term collective rationality, typical of complex organisms, such as states and empires”.
But a “partly not” also applies: it is not true that there is no rationality; it is not true that there is no method, in this apparent madness. There is method, but it is not everywhere. The answer is that the general impression of chaos and irrationality is partly incidental and partly intentional. Incidental because the method of certain follies does not derive from general or systemic logic, but from the narrow, limited visions of groups of individuals who pursue their own short-term goals (mostly referring to the usual things, such as wealth, power, security, etc., variously combined) in a more devastating and unscrupulous manner than others. This creates chaos and, since these follies are not coordinated with each other, often generates conflicting, contradictory, apparently inexplicable events, where the logic of one event contradicts that of another, perhaps contemporaneous event. The most obvious example of this is undoubtedly what Israel is doing in the Middle East, engaged for often irrational and short-lived reasons in a systematic destruction of whole chunks of territory around it, light years beyond any reasonable need for defence and far beyond any strategic need of itself or its allies.
There is, however, a part of events that is deliberate, has its own logic, and is referable to the strategy of one of the most powerful players in the current field of forces, namely the United States, which - contrary to what Zhok says - rationally, cynically, stubbornly, consistently, pursues a well-defined strategy, which, however, is precisely the chaos it wants, in all parts of the world that are not in its territory. It is always the old Mackinder who inspires the minds of the “monkeys” in the overseas control room, and suggests to them that, in order to keep the Heartland, i.e. Eurasia, divided, chaos must be sown everywhere possible and in every possible way.
Halford J. Mackinder – “The Geographical Pivot of History”, Geographical Journal 23, no. 4 (April 1904): 435.
Russia and China are learning to cooperate, while the most influential country in Europe, Germany, bases all its industrial development on Putin's cheap gas and is tying itself hand and foot to him? Too much cohesion in the Heartland! And here it is that since 2014 the US has been starting a strategy of systematic destabilisation of Russia through a widespread lighting (or re-lighting) of fires all around it, touching all its “raw nerves”, starting with that Ukraine that Hitler passed through eighty years ago and that under no circumstances will Moscow want to leave in the hands of any less than friendly country or even join NATO. And then, to top it all off, there are the more or less colourful, more or less successful “revolutions” unleashed all around, from Moldova to Armenia to the current attempt in Georgia and the annulment of the elections in Romania, with the common thread of getting rid of any kind of political force that was in any way even vaguely “non-enemy” of Russia. And the same is happening with Serbia, with Kosovo turned into a sort of US protectorate, always ready to create chaos by putting pressure on the Serbian minority in order to push Belgrade to abandon its centuries-old friendship with Moscow. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Heartland, the Taiwan issue reappears, a potential thorn in the side of that Beijing which, perhaps, is the real obstacle to be knocked down on the road to maintaining American hegemony. And on the southern side of the Heartland, in the Middle East, Syria had been the scene of a checkmate for the Americans, when Putin and Iran had intervened to save President Assad and give him back - after a long and bloody war - control of his own country, which did not want to join America; but now the time seems to have come for a counter-offensive by forces of various kinds, but all supported and armed also by Washington, which, seen in this light, clearly appears to be an attempt to “distract” both the Russians and Iran, opening up a new front of conflict after, respectively, the Ukrainian one (perhaps too close to a victory) and the Lebanese one. In fact, an attack in Syria involves both Putin and Assad's other ally, i.e. Iran, another Eurasian power to be destabilised as an enemy of the beloved Israel (en passant, the main creator of chaos in the area, but probably out of control) and a friend of Russia and China, a potential catalyst of relations in the regional chessboard, and which is a candidate to be - together with China itself - the real “babau” [sic] of the new Trump administration. Also on the southern front, in Tbilisi, the games seem all too clear: the similarities with the Ukrainian Maidan of 2014 are too obvious to doubt that some kind of apparatus in the service of the Americans is behind it. Even the Korean president's failed attempt at “self-doubt” could fit into this picture, if one assumes that Yook and his defence minister believed (or someone made him believe) that a forcing in an authoritarian direction at home, but strongly anti-North Korea in foreign policy, hence anti-Chinese and anti-Russian, would have been welcomed (and thus not opposed) by Washington. They probably miscalculated and the internal opposition had sufficient support (also abroad) to take the situation in hand: in this case the madness was too much even for the US “Deep State”, which on South Korea, as in many other countries, has the last word.
In general, in conclusion, one might wonder why the United States is accelerating its strategy of sowing chaos in Eurasia now that there is no president in possession of full powers and who, one might even say, has not been in possession of his mental faculties for quite some time. In fact, it is precisely this “vacuum” that has favoured and favours the forces that we simplistically call the “Deep State” and that now no longer even have to reckon with that simulacrum of institutional power that could somehow interfere with their objectives. Moreover, if we consider that from January there will be a new President who does not seem to be completely aligned with them and who seems intent - yes, he is - on interfering, especially in some of the chaos scenarios that are now open, we can understand how, reasoning from their point of view, it is necessary to push on the accelerator of chaos and open new fronts of war and conflict in the Heartland before it is too late. The more fronts are opened today, the less the new president will be able to pursue any kind of “disengagement” from the current strategy, this is the reasoning of those who have so far determined and decided US foreign policy of hegemony.
Even if it doesn't govern everything, the method is there and indeed it has also been the same for about 120 years, i.e. since the presentation to the Royal Geographical Society of the article “The Geographical Pivot of History” with which Mr Mackinder, codifying the principle that a power outside Eurasia - he was talking about Great Britain at the time - would only dominate the world if it kept the “Heartland”, i.e. Eurasia itself, divided, effectively founded Geopolitics. The method is always the same, like the madness that inspires the minds of almost all those who think they can, in some cruel and cynical way, rule the world by bending it to their will.
“(...) In practice, once again, the Western ruling classes prove to have only the flaws of Realpolitik, but not its merits. Indeed, it is possible to imagine Realpolitik choices made with cold cynicism, knowing that they will cost many lives, and yet make them with the knowledge that they can achieve long-term strategic goals (certainly such a choice was the one made by Putin with the crossing of the Ukrainian border in February 2022). These are Machiavellian, amoral choices, but defensible in terms of a long-term collective rationality, typical of complex organisms such as states and empires.
Today's Western choices, on the other hand, of Realpolitik have only the cynicism, but no contact with reality. They are willing to manoeuvre human beings on the chessboard of history as freely expendable pawns, only they are not chess masters but stage monkeys, modern Zampanòs in glossy version.
But, it will be said, behind the stage clowns, the butchers who serve to gather votes on talk shows, there may well be a Dark Power, perhaps a Dark Agenda, but in its own rational way, no? Of course, it is not the Biden or the Scholtz who are steering the boat, but behind it there may be the manoeuvring men, the famous ‘Deep State’.
And unfortunately, those who think in these terms are still too optimistic, because they humanise and rationalise the oligarchy of manipulators, making it a new Sauron: darkly evil, but in its own way rational. Only no, the situation is much worse. The oligarchy of the manipulators behind the scenes does of course exist, but it is not a party, nor a secret association, nor a sect, but a mobile congerie of parties, secret associations, sects, lobbies of various kinds, totally incapable of planning even long-term evil; capable, however, of keeping the bar straight for their own economic interest in the short and medium term. And this is THE ONLY ELEMENT THAT CONNECTS THEM in depth.
That which facilitates the realisation of that interest is permitted and promoted by some. That which hinders that interest is hindered, censured, defined. In a ‘Darwinian’ mechanism, the ideas, ideologies, cultural initiatives, newspapers, personalities that are in favour are allowed, favoured, reproduce. The others languish in hardship. Thus a kind of ‘ideology’ of the ‘Deep State’ takes shape, which, however, no one has designed and which is purely superstructural in nature.
The overall result is what we can call the empire of headless cynicism. We have built a huge, immensely complex and destructive killing machine, and in the cockpit we have put a gang of monkeys pawing the controls.”
Thanks for reading GeoPolitiQ! This post is public so feel free to share it.
And here is a shorter post (originally in two parts: 1 and 2) published by Pino Cabras on his Telegram channel this afternoon (all emphasis mine):
AS THEY PLUNDER SYRIA
Bibi the Genocidal [i.e. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] exults as he spreads out over the Golan, stealing yet more land in defiance of international law, as he finishes destroying all military infrastructure and undermines any future emergence of a sovereign country, thus consigning a torn and divided Syria to foreign incursions and decisions.
Columns of Turkish heavy vehicles are brought in ahead of fierce clashes in Kurdish areas: the war has just begun.
And it is war also on the US side, which protects the Kurds a little, but protects much more the oil, which it has considered its own stuff, for years, inside a sovereign country (eh, yes, there is an invader and an invaded, but don't tell that to the big media!).
And it doesn't end there, it's not that simple. Bibi the genocidal has just started bombing the jihadists he had long smoothed over. Bibi has finally opened the Pandora's box of the great regional war he wanted. Yes, I repeat, we are just beginning. Will there be anything left of Syria?
The future of Syria, like that of any historically stratified reality, is not limited to the summation of present variables. It is rooted in the historical texture of the territory, which weaves together geography as it is [sic] and the long cultural and social stratifications that define the ever-fragile boundaries between domination and autonomy.
A YOUNG COUNTRY WITH ANCIENT ROOTS
Syria as a national entity is a direct product of the colonial partitions of the 20th century. Before the Sykes-Picot Agreement that handed it over to late French colonialism, it was a region of Muslim empires, governed through balances that balanced ethnic and religious differences. This complexity, rather than fragility, was the key to its imperial stability. The current fragmentation is, therefore, a recent construction, the result of colonial impositions and the subsequent adoption of imported state models.
MILITARY CENTRALITY: A MATERIAL CONSEQUENCE
The importance of the military apparatus in contemporary Syria is neither accidental nor merely “authoritarian”. In a region without an articulated capitalist economy, the military has historically represented the only route of social mobility for the subaltern classes. It became the vector through which the local bourgeoisie built its power, first as the servant of colonial mandates, then as the promoter of a post-colonial sovereignty imbued with militant nationalism.
THE FAULT LINES OF DIVERSITY
Syria today is a mosaic of religious and ethnic communities: Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, Kurds, Druze, Armenians, Palestinians, Jews. In a context in which Arab nationalism had attempted to impose itself as the universal glue, centrifugal drives were not eliminated but contained. The Baa'th ideology, from Hafez al-Assad onwards, represented an attempt to secularise authority, creating a state that stood above divisions. However, the crisis of the Baa'th state has reactivated those same divisions, now manipulated by external actors.
AL-JOLANI: THE REINVENTION OF A CALIPHATE POWER
The figure of al-Jolani represents an attempt to update - almost like certain Artificial Intelligence chimeras - traditional authority through an impossible synthesis: a “defused” caliphate, promising order without terror, cohabitation without secularism. However, this proposal breaks against the internal contradictions of contemporary Salafism and the historical memory of a cohabitation that was the result of imperial force, not spontaneity.
ECONOMY AND SURVIVAL
Syria today is a failed state. The economy relies on narco-trafficking and the remnants of international aid. The inequality between Damascus, a still relatively modern enclave, and the impoverished peripheral areas is one of the most complex knots. Reconstruction, estimated in billions of dollars, seems far off, all the more so since regional actors - Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia - have no interest in a unified and sovereign Syria. That is why they sharpen their knives at the prize butcher's shop. Whose thigh? To whom the fillet?
A FUTURE LOST BETWEEN GEOPOLITICS AND UTOPIA
The idea of a “moderate caliphate” supported by the Doha-Ankara axis seems a reckless conjecture. Not only because of internal resistance and external rivalries (Qatar and Saudi Arabia, first and foremost), but because of the political and economic cost of any united project. Syria, as a crossroads of world contradictions, will remain a testing ground for fragmented, delegated, and never authentically autonomous powers. And many of these contradictions will trigger a domino in the bordering tinderboxes. They are borders that can affect us heavily in the land of Europe as well.
Only, we are governed by butlers who are at the mercy of those who aspire to reshape the world through a beautiful all-encompassing war.
Thanks for reading GeoPolitiQ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
I Ismaele - I liked the first one - was easy to read....the second one, which you said was shorter I finally just sped-read. Nice graphic art though Thank you For me, reading about the hidden figures our power is always interesting.
I Ismaele - I liked the first one - was easy to read....the second one, which you said was shorter I finally just sped-read. Nice graphic art though Thank you For me, reading about the hidden figures our power is always interesting.