The Superpower and the Caliphate

BARcaliphate-extremist-isis-militants-have-declared-a-caliphate--heres-their-response-to-democracy

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

[D]on’t believe the hype that the CIA is behind ISIS’s declaration of an Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. “The Caliphate threatens, not only its immediate adversaries, but the potentates of the Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and the Mother of All Monarchist Corruption in the Arab Sunni heartland, the Saudi royal family.” It also signals the collapse of U.S. strategy in the region.

“The game plan that was hatched in 2011 for Libya, Syria, Iraq – for the whole region – is kaput.”

ISIS has proclaimed its caliphate, and the world will never be the same again. Although the territorial scope of the jihadist political entity will shift with the fortunes of battle, or maybe even vanish, the emergence of the “Islamic State” signals the final collapse of U.S. imperial strategy in the Muslim world – certainly, in the Arab regions of Islam.

“The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organizations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph’s authority and the arrival of its troops to their areas,” said Abu Mohamed al-Adnani, spokesman [5] for the fighters formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. “Listen to your caliph and obey him. Support your state, which grows every day.”

Think of it as a Salafist declaration of independence – not just from al Qaida, whose marginality in the region was confirmed when its designated affiliate in Syria, Al-Nusra, swore allegiance [6] to ISIS – but from the Arab monarchies and western intelligence agencies that have nurtured the international jihadist network for almost two generations. The Caliphate threatens, not only its immediate adversaries in the Shiite-dominated governments of Syria and Iraq, but the potentates of the Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and the Mother of All Monarchist Corruption in the Arab Sunni heartland, the Saudi royal family. The threat is not inferential, but literal, against “all emirates, groups, states and organizations” that do not recognize that ISIS in its new incarnation is the embodiment of Islam at war.

The jihadist die is cast, a point of no return for the U.S. strategy of projecting imperial power in the region through armed Islamic fundamentalist surrogates. The international jihadist network, which did not exist before the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan created it to undermine the leftist secular government of Afghanistan in mid-1979 [7], has become a movement that can no longer be controlled. The physical contours of the ISIS caliphate, the movement’s dynamic new focal point, may prove indefensible, especially if the Americans decide they cannot avoid an all-out assault on their former asset. But, whatever the U.S. military response, the game plan that was hatched in 2011 for Libya, Syria, Iraq – for the whole region – is kaput, based as it is on the reliable deployment of jihadists as surrogates for NATO and Arab royals. Worse, the Arab oil potentates understand full well that their own regimes are now in grave danger from the indigenous monstrosity they have created. The Saudis, in particular, justify their family’s monopolizing of the Arabian peninsula’s great wealth as reward for safeguarding the holy sites of Islam. No doubt the “Islamic State,” with its movable borders and swiftly expanding pan-Arab and even pan-Muslim constituency, would be glad to assume these responsibilities – over the dead bodies of those Saudi princes who did not escape to London, Paris and New York. The same goes for all the royal lineages aligned with the West and, de facto, Israel.

“U.S. policymakers have no idea how to reposition themselves in the region.”

It is true that the United States retains nearly limitless power to create chaos in the region. Chaos is useful in preventing conventional governments and civil societies from achieving national goals that are inimical to imperialism. But chaos is not empty; it is a cauldron in which contradictions can become explosively acute. The jihadists are, at root, anti-imperialists – inalterably opposed to domination by the “Crusaders” of the West and Zionists. As we have previously asserted, the fundamentalist jihad, although profoundly reactionary, inevitably behaves much like a kind of nationalism – for some, it fills a political void left by the demise of yesteryear’s secular pan-Arab nationalism. ISIS now claims to be the expression of that nationalist-like yearning, as the “Islamic State.”

If you think all this is the work of the CIA, then thank them profusely for accelerating the epic unraveling of U.S. imperial strategy in the Muslim world. As during the days when America’s Egyptian stooge Mubarak was pushed from power, threatening an “Arab Spring” that might depose the oil monarchies, U.S. policymakers have no idea how to reposition themselves in the region. The Americans cannot replace the jihadists as foot soldiers of imperialism. Thus, a period of ad-libbing begins, which will surely involve ostentatious displays of U.S. military prowess, as the Americans remind themselves and everyone else that a superpower outranks a caliphate.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com [8].

Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/content/superpower-and-caliphate

 



Cold War Renewed With A Vengeance While Washington Again Lies

The Editors say: Putin’s flaccid support for Ukrainian separatists has been a tactical and strategic mistake of major proportions.
The US elites will read (and exploit) such posture as “blinking”.

Taking a wrong tack with the West. Being sensitive to Washington;s pressures or propaganda increases chances of an attack.

Paul Craig Roberts
SOURCE: Author’s site

[T]he Cold War made a lot of money for the military/security complex for four decades dating from Churchill’s March 5, 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri declaring a Soviet “Iron Curtain” until Reagan and Gorbachev ended the Cold War in the late 1980s. During the Cold War Americans heard endlessly about “the Captive Nations.” The Captive Nations were the Baltics and the Soviet bloc, usually summarized as “Eastern Europe.”

Cold War Renewed With A Vengeance While Washington Again Lies

These nations were captive because their foreign policies were dictated by Moscow, just as these same Captive Nations, plus the UK, Western Europe, Canada, Mexico, Columbia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Georgia, and Ukraine, have their foreign policies dictated today by Washington. Washington intends to expand the Captive Nations to include Azerbaijan, former constituent parts of Soviet Central Asia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia.

During the Cold War Americans thought of Western Europe and Great Britain as independent sovereign countries. Whether they were or not, they most certainly are not today. We are now almost seven decades after WWII, and US troops still occupy Germany. No European government dares to take a stance different from that of the US Department of State.

Not long ago there was talk both in the UK and Germany about departing the European Union, and Washington told both countries that talk of that kind must stop as it was not in Washington’s interest for any country to exit the EU. The talk stopped. Great Britain and Germany are such complete vassals of Washington that neither country can publicly discuss its own future.

When Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish judge with prosecuting authority, attempted to indict members of the George W. Bush regime for violating international law by torturing detainees, he was slapped down.

In Modern Britain, Stephane Aderca writes that the UK is so proud of being Washington’s “junior partner” that the British government agreed to a one-sided extradition treaty under which Washington merely has to declare “reasonable suspicion” in order to obtain extradition from the UK, but the UK must prove “probable cause.” Being Washington’s “junior partner,” Aderca reports, is an ego-boost for British elites, giving them a feeling of self-importance.

Under the rule of the Soviet Union, a larger entity than present day Russia, the captive nations had poor economic performance. Under Washington’s rule, these same captives have poor economic performance due to their looting by Wall Street and the IMF.

As Giuseppe di Lampedusa said, “Things have to change in order to remain the same.”

The looting of Europe by Wall Street has gone beyond Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Ukraine, and is now focused on France and Great Britain. The American authorities are demanding $10 billion from France’s largest bank on a trumped-up charge of financing trade with Iran, as if it is any business whatsoever of Washington’s who French banks choose to finance. And despite Great Britain’s total subservience to Washington, Barclays bank has a civil fraud suit filed against it by the NY State Attorney General.

The charges against Barclays PLC are likely correct. But as no US banks were charged, most of which are similarly guilty, the US charge against Barclays means that big pension funds and mutual funds must flee Barclays as customers, because the pension funds and mutual funds would be subject to lawsuits for negligence if they stayed with a bank under charges.

The result, of course, of the US charges against foreign banks is that US banks like Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are given a competitive advantage and gain market share in their own dark pools.

So, what are we witnessing? Clearly and unequivocally, we are witnessing the use of US law to create financial hegemony for US financial institutions. The US Department of Justice (sic) has had evidence for five years of Citigroup’s participation in the fixing of the LIBOR interest rate, but no indictment has been forthcoming.

The bought and paid for governments of Washington’s European puppet states are so corrupt that the leaders permit Washington control over their countries in order to advance American financial, political, and economic hegemony.

Washington is organizing the world against Russia and China for Washington’s benefit. On June 27 Washington’s puppet states that comprise the EU issued an ultimatum to Russia.The absurdity of this ultimatum is obvious. Militarily, Washington’s EU puppets are harmless. Russia could wipe out Europe in a few minutes. Here we have the weak issuing an ultimatum to the strong.

The EU, ordered by Washington, told Russia to suppress the opposition in southern and eastern Ukraine to Washington’s stooge government in Kiev. But, as every educated person knows, including the White House, 10 Downing Street, Merkel, and Holland, Russia is not responsible for the separatist unrest in eastern and southern Ukraine. These territories are former constituent parts of Russia that were added to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Soviet Communist Party leaders when Ukraine and Russia were two parts of the same country.

These Russians want to return to Russia because they are threatened by the stooge government in Kiev that Washington has installed. Washington, determined to force Putin into military action that can be used to justify more sanctions, is intent on forcing the issue, not on resolving the issue.

What is Putin to do? He has been given 72 hours to submit to an ultimatum from a collection of puppet states that he can wipe out at a moment’s notice or seriously inconvenience by turning off the flow of Russian natural gas to Europe.

Historically, such a stupid challenge to power would result in consequences. But Putin is a humanist who favors peace. He will not willingly give up his strategy of demonstrating to Europe that the provocations are coming from Washington, not from Russia. Putin’s hope, and Russia’s, is that Europe will eventually realize that Europe is being badly used by Washington.

Washington has hundreds of Washington-financed NGOs in Russia hiding behind various guises such as “human rights,” and Washington can unleash these NGOs on Putin at will, as Washington did with the protests against Putin’s election. Washington’s fifth columns claimed that Putin stole the election even though polls showed that Putin was the clear and undisputed winner.

In 1991 Russians were, for the most part, delighted to be released from communism and looked to the West as an ally in the construction of a civil society based on good will. This was Russia’s mistake. As the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines make clear, Russia is the enemy whose rise to influence must be prevented at all cost.

Putin’s dilemma is that he is caught between his heart-felt desire to reach an accommodation with Europe and Washington’s desire to demonize and isolate Russia.

The risk for Putin is that his desire for accommodation is being exploited by Washington and explained to the EU as Putin’s weakness and lack of courage. Washington is telling its European vassals that Putin’s retreat under Europe’s pressure will undermine his status in Russia, and at the right time Washington will unleash its many hundreds of NGOs to bring Putin to ruin.

This was the Ukraine scenario. With Putin replaced with a compliant Russian, richly rewarded by Washington, only China would remain as an obstacle to American world hegemony.

About Dr. Paul Craig RobertsPaul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.


Real Goal of Iraq War in 2003: Oil and Inciting Terrorism to Create Permanent Conflict

US Wars From Viet Nam Onwards: Wins and Losses

iraq-war-horizontal-large-gallery

STEVEN JONAS, Senior Editor

[W]ere wars since Vietnam won or lost by the US? The answer to those questions may not appear to be the obvious ones. If the unspoken government objectives of the various wars are taken into account, indeed they aren’t. Let us start with Vietnam.

The standard interpretation of the US War on Vietnam is that the US lost it. The classic picture is of that last helicopter taking off from the roof of the soon-to-be former US Embassy in Saigon. But if one considers the original US objectives of the intervention-to-become-war in Southeast Asia, it was actually a win.

The French-Vietnamese War ended in 1954. The Geneva Conference of that year produced a treaty signed by the French and the Vietnamese and guaranteed by Great Britain and the Soviet Union. It brought hostilities to an end, temporarily divided the country in two, and provided for national elections to be held in 1956 — elections that everyone knew would be won by Ho Chi Minh and his people. Pointedly, the US refused to sign or recognize the treaty.

They knew that if the plan in it were allowed to proceed, the chances were very good that Vietnam would peacefully progress to socialism and could be an economic success. If that happened, the same thing might well peacefully occur in other Southeast Asian countries, were democracy to be given a chance. Even as certain US analysts attempt in hindsight to disavow it, the “domino theory” about the spread of “socialism with a national face,” distinguished from and not necessarily allied with the Soviet Union, and certainly not with the traditional enemy, China, communist or not, was quite correct.

And so, in the view of the US leadership of the time, the Dulles Brothers, John Foster at State and Allen at the CIA, everything had to be done that could be done to prevent the democratic process from introducing socialism to a country and then possibly succeeding in a peaceful setting. Once started, the process just continued on its own momentum, especially since any opponent of the war was labelled a “commie sympathizer” or worse by its supporters.

If looked at in this light, the Vietnam War was a US victory. The peaceful establishment of socialism was prevented. Its spread by example and peaceful means to neighbouring countries was prevented. Vietnam today has a sort of market socialist economy, becoming more “market” and less “socialist” by the year. But the country was ravaged by almost 20 years of war and two to three million of the best and the brightest of its people were killed. It is hardly the economic or social engine of the development of democratically-installed socialism that it might have become had it been left alone. In terms of the original American goals for the intervention, this was a win, a palpable win.

 

Next, let’s consider the various interventions in the former Yugoslavia. Certainly lives were saved and a good deal of stability was eventually established, in Bosnia and Kosovo. But they do not fall under the usual rubric of “victory.” In terms of the promotion of US imperialism around the world, however, “victory” was achieved. The US showed, for example, that it could bomb the capitol of another sovereign nation for 70 or so days straight, without UN sanction, and no one with any authority could say boo to a goose. In terms of international law, it was sort of like the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Italian invasions of Libya and Ethiopia, and the German-Austrian Anschluss. In terms of Kosovo, the US showed that a piece of a sovereign country, in this case Serbia, could be split off from it and made into an independent country, again without UN sanction. (Ukraine/Crimea, anyone?) And the US has a quite large permanent military base in Kosovo. Spoils of war?

And then we come to Iraq. It is now teetering on the brink of even more disaster than it has been subject to since the US invasion, and political figures like “Negative Ace” McCain are now shouting that the US should have stayed there, and it’s “all Obama’s fault.” As I said in a recent Tweet, “Blaming Obama for Iraq tragedy is like blaming the sweepers for the elephant droppings needing clean up after the circus parade has passed.” (Yes, and the “elephants” were purposely chosen.) This is so even though George Bush could not negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with his hand-picked Prime Minister, al-Maliki, to exempt US troops and civilian contractors from local law in the case of violations of it, and that Obama has just lost it by the pull-out. (That’s an excellent, in-depth column by Dexter Filkins, by the way.) If Iraq falls into civil war or is split up into three parts (which Joe Biden and I must say myself both suggested shortly after the beginning of hostilities), many voices will indeed be shouting “loss.” But once again, in terms of the original objectives, it was not.

First of all, one of its original major justifications, other than the non-existent WMD, was that the War on Iraq was a part of the “War on Terror” (which is still going on). One should note (and I must note that I have done so on a number of occasions) that, according to one retired Army General, to call a military action a “War on Terror” is akin to calling another action a “War on Flanking Manoeuvres.” “Terror,” however you want to define it, is a tactic used by an enemy. It is not itself an enemy. But it was very much in the interests of those forces which forced the US into war to cement the “terror/fear” environment in the minds of the US people. And they certainly have achieved that goal, within the GOP/TP “base,” at least.

Second of all, sometime after the Iraq invasion began, it started to become clear that the primary objective was not at the beginning what many of us on the Left thought it was: “oil and bases” – and it was to a degree. However, there was a goal that was probably more compelling to the neocons, although not mutually exclusive.

On the surface, the CheneyBush War Policy was becoming curiouser and curiouser. “Things are getting better in Iraq,” they said, when they were clearly getting worse. “We must fight on to ‘victory’ ” they said, without ever defining what they mean by “victory.” And “we must fight on to ‘victory'” when virtually every other military and political authority on the matter said that no matter how you would define it, “victory” was impossible. But that would be “victory” in military terms.

However, let’s connect the dots to see what was really happening. 1. As is very well known, Bush/Cheney lied the U.S. into war. 2. There was no post-war planning, as is also well known. The U.S. State Department had a plan, and all 2,200 pages of it were just ignored. 3. The museums looting that could easily have been prevented could have part of a plan (well a different kind of plan) to develop permanent chaos. That would also explain the staffing of Paul Bremer’s pro-consulate by totally unqualified, very young, Republican political operatives: not accidental or careless, but purposeful. In essence it was thinking what might be stated like this: “Let’s do whatever we can to gum up the infrastructure even further than it is already gummed up by Saddam and our invasion.” 4. In late 2006, the report of The Iraq Study Group, headed by no less than the man who coordinated the effort to steal the 2000 election for Bush, James Baker, had provided a perfect cover for withdrawal to begin then. CheneyBush disposed of it before the ink was dry, and [the famous/infamous “Surge” was begun. 5. At various times, the major Muslim countries offered to provide cover for an American departure, especially if it were attached to a real settlement of the Palestine/Israel problem. They were not taken up on those offers.

In the 2008 Presidential campaign, John McCain at one time rattled on about “staying in Iraq for 50 years.” (Gosh. Some things never change, changing conditions to the contrary notwithstanding). Indeed, the US eventually left Iraq, not with any kind of “victory” but because it was pushed out, by the very puppet government that Bush/Cheney set up. But the Permanent War Society, or at least the Permanent Preparation for Permanent War Society, is very much in play. In terms of its original objectives, regardless of what happens in the Middle East now, the War on Iraq can only be said to have resulted in a victory – for those who originally planned and prosecuted it

As for Afghanistan, that may be the one major war the US has fought since World War II that could not be said to be, in any sense of the term, a “victory.” But that one’s for another time.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Senior Editor Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor Emeritus of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 30 books. In addition to being a columnist for BuzzFlash@Truthout he is the Editorial Director of and a Contributing Author to The Political Junkies for Progressive Democracy. Dr. Jonas’ latest book is The 15% Solution: How the Republican Religious Right Took Control of the U.S., 1981-2022: A futuristic Novel, Brewster, NY, Trepper & Katz Impact Books, Punto Press Publishing, 2013, and available on Amazon.



The Lies That Lead to War

moyersLogo
.
Full Show: The Lies That Lead to War

June 27, 2014

As the exploding crisis in Iraq spotlights once again the tragic record of American policy in the Middle East, Bill speaks with investigative journalist Charles Lewis, whose new book, 935 Lies: The Future of Truth and the Decline of America’s Moral Integrity details the many government falsehoods that have led us into the current nightmare.

Lewis details the deceptions and illusions that have caused “most Americans and their elected representatives to completely ignore facts, logic and reason in the rush to war.” A complicit partner, he says, is a media intent on preserving the status quo and never offending the ruling elite.

Lewis tells Bill, “An outrageous thing happened. We lost $2 trillion. More than 100,000 people died. Folks are going to be maimed for life in the tens of thousands… And no one has ever acknowledged that this was a war on a lark. It was a complete war of choice, because a certain little faction wanted to do it and they orchestrated it… Did they make statements that weren’t true? The answer is yes.”

This week’s show begins with an essay by Bill on the foresight of the legendary Lawrence of Arabia, who, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, predicted the trap in which the West would fall attempting to interfere in the Middle East.

Producer: Gina Kim. Segment Producer: Lena Shemel.Editor: Donna Marino. Intro Producer: Lena Shemel.Intro Editor: Sikay Tang.

Featured image: New White House press secretary Josh Earnest speaks to the media during his first briefing as press secretary, Monday, June 23, 2014, in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

APPENDIX
Moyers on the Media
remnants) of American democracy and most of the most horrendous crimes of our age. 

On the media and class warfare[edit]

In a 2003 interview with BuzzFlash.com,[49] Moyers said, “The corporate right and the political right declared class warfare on working people a quarter of a century ago and they’ve won.” He noted, “The rich are getting richer, which arguably wouldn’t matter if the rising tide lifted all boats.” Instead, however, “[t]he inequality gap is the widest it’s been since 1929; the middle class is besieged and the working poor are barely keeping their heads above water.” He added that as “the corporate and governing elites are helping themselves to the spoils of victory,” access to political power has become “who gets what and who pays for it.”

Meanwhile, the public has failed to react because it is, in his words, “distracted by the media circus and news has been neutered or politicized for partisan purposes.” In support of this, he referred to “the paradox of Rush Limbaugh, ensconced in a Palm Beach mansion massaging the resentments across the country of white-knuckled wage earners, who are barely making ends meet in no small part because of the corporate and ideological forces for whom Rush has been a hero. … As Eric Alterman reports in his recent book—a book that I’m proud to have helped make happen—part of the red meat strategy is to attack mainstream media relentlessly, knowing that if the press is effectively intimidated, either by the accusation of liberal bias or by a reporter’s own mistaken belief in the charge’s validity, the institutions that conservatives revere—corporate America, the military, organized religion, and their own ideological bastions of influence—will be able to escape scrutiny and increase their influence over American public life with relatively no challenge.”[49]

On media bias[edit]

When he retired in December 2004, the AP News Service quoted Moyers as saying, “I’m going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee. We have an ideological press that’s interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that’s interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we don’t have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people.”[50]

 SOURCE: Wikipedia



Rethinking strategies: The Russian option


America’s courtship and guarantees of support have made Tokyo bolder in asserting its “rights” in old conflicts. US foreign policy is again stirring up the pot with inevitably bad consequences for all, except the arms merchants. 

kuril-islands-1

By Vladislav Sorokin

[T]o assert itself in Northeast Asia’s current turbulent situation and to develop a solid long-term policy regarding Japan’s ongoing provocations over Dokdo, Seoul should consider siding with Moscow – and finally support its stance in the Kuril Islands dispute.

In San Francisco in 1951, Japan renounced all rights and claims to the Kuril Islands, but it has since argued that Soviet-occupied Iturup (Etorofu), Kunashir (Kunashiri), Habomai and Shikotan cannot be – and have never been – considered part of a chain.

This claim is nothing but a blatant lie since all kinds of evidence, such as Japan’s Foreign Ministry maps of the time, newspaper reports and high-ranked officials’ statements, unambiguously prove that at least two of the four islands were definitely included among the abandoned territories.

However, Tokyo insists that the islands are occupied illegally and insists on provocations and aggressive rhetoric, showing a reluctance to accept any compromise, including a Russian proposal to return two of the four islands.

Korea, despite having its own row with Japan, has always preferred to stay neutral, emphasizing differences between Dokdo and the Kuril Islands “in terms of legal, historical and geographical factors,” which presumably means that Russian claims to the Kurils are somewhat weaker than Korean claims to Dokdo.

This allegation is rather controversial since Japan itself considers its chances in the Dokdo dispute much higher – for example, Tokyo never threatened to involve the International Court of Justice in the Kuril dispute, yet is pressing that idea in its dispute with Seoul.

But whatever the differences, the essence of recent developments around both disputes is obviously the same and goes far beyond the territorial issues: It is the former colonial empire’s desire to revise the results of World War II and gain more power and influence in the region, while siding with the United States against rising China.

This desire is backed up by the military, which is believed to be a major threat to Northeast Asian security – and an issue of Seoul’s deepest concern.

And yet this concern cannot even be expressed officially because of the so-called trilateral alliance against North Korea – the situation described by The Korea Times as the nation’s potentially dangerous “awkward” diplomatic standing among the three giants.

The U.S.-China confrontation does not make it any less complicated as Seoul depends on Washington for its security and on Beijing for business.

All in all, there seems to be only two nations in the region which both want to stay safe and neutral amid the confrontation – Korea and Russia. Hence improving bilateral relations would be a logical strategy for both.

It is also quite obvious that Korea does not manage to properly cope with Japan’s aggressive and provocative public relations campaign related to Dokdo.

While Tokyo keeps provoking, Koreans’ emotional and sometimes even hysterical reaction only contributes to the growing publicity of the dispute, which is exactly what Japan needs (it is the only chance for Tokyo to have the case submitted to the ICJ).

So, Korean policy regarding the dispute has every reason to be called lethargic and unreliable, lacking in both long-term strategy and calm, thoughtful and determined actions.

And one such action should definitely be joining Russia in countering Japanese attempts to undermine our countries’ sovereignty.

This cannot and does not have to be a military alliance, of course, but mutual recognition of dispute positions, cultural exchange between Dokdo and the Kurils, friendly visits of vessels, etc. would certainly strengthen the diplomatic positions of both countries.

The tense geopolitical situation still provides an opportunity for Korea to escape the destiny of being a shrimp among the whales, and it is high time the government starts making resolute decisions.

Vladislav Sorokin 

The writer is an exchange student from Russia currently studying Korean language at the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. In Russia, he is majoring in international relations and Korean studies at MGIMO University in Moscow. His email address is sorokin93@gmail.com.

Дмитрий Судаков