I don't think there has always been specified a messy agitation and primitive propaganda in the electoral campaigns to the European Parliament as in fresh weeks.
The European Union has been presented as a wonderful panacea for all the problems of the modern world. She was delighted with her achievements, as if the European process was free of errors and failures. The propaganda of success has prevailed. No one's afraid of which way this bureaucratic device is headed. Similarly, no 1 indicated what harm might be caused by a push towards a transnational state.
The Manichean division of the planet into Good and Evil prevailed in political rhetoric. Due to the bombing of Putin and Lukashenko's minds, each recipient of this masquerade was to realize without hesitation which side of the division he was to sit on. In addition, words specified as fortifications, grids, buffer zones, restricted zones, heroism and self-sacrifice in defence of the border have returned to political rhetoric and the creation of a fresh highly costly sanitary cordon, or alleged Tusk line. Poland again “Winkelried of nations”, a missionary of the Western world, who sees the only chance of maintaining his state of possession in an armed confrontation with Russia, cynically supporting Ukraine to bleed out “to the last Ukrainian”.
With any of the arguments about the various risks that can only be addressed collectively, in an inclusive union of states, 1 can agree. But how can we accept the hypocrisy of the ruling and opposition who have put candidates for the positions of Euro-Parliamentarians among the blasphemed political players, politicians who are either compromised or inept, and what is even worse, those who care about well-paid sons, even though they have not achieved anything in peculiar in the erstwhile authoritative or sovereign positions.
The parties cheat voters...
because they issue the ‘best’ candidates in the opinion of ‘watermen’, but not necessarily due to their predispositions or qualifications. This is where political nepotism, protection and sybaritism are manifested. reasoning voters are well aware that many candidates for the European Parliament would not have taken any examination of the Union's functionality, organization and material rights, let alone language and communication qualifications.
The minds of Europarliamentary candidates are so formatted as not to contact hard and delicate matters. In fact, there was no serious debate about the traps and threats of the Green Deal, including the energy transition, no 1 raised the issue of conflict of interest between Poland and Ukraine seeking accession, no candidate wondered whether and erstwhile it would be possible to return Europe to normality and what Ukraine would be born after the end of the war. Who in the European Union is able to guarantee, despite demonstrated enthusiasm towards Ukrainian defenders, that from the war you will appear ready to normalize relations with your neighbours? Perhaps it will be a permanent point of inflammation and a bone of disagreement for long years. So what tasks are not only facing the EU's arms manufacture but besides Brussels diplomacy? Why is no 1 afraid about returning to peaceful settlement of disputes that are not missing in east Europe?
Against this background, a critical reflection is needed on the geopolitical strategy in which Poland is presently located, if rhetoric is constantly returning, defining our position as more threatened than always since planet War II. Is it not that Poland is against the belief of the political elite to regain its presence in a dangerous American sphere of influence, with the projection of their power in Europe in the form of the European Union? Have we not been entrenched in the chariot of Anglo-Saxon Western interests, completely damaging neighbourly relations with the largest player of the region, i.e. Russia? Who determines the scale of the hazard that Poland one more time in past due to its zeal to submit to abroad interests will not become a victim of confrontation between the West and Russia?
Hypocrisis made in USA
There is nothing different about creating spheres of influence. Looking for protection from the large power, weaker and weaker states fall almost automatically under the protection of another powers. The United States as a hegemon of the modern global strategy creates various dependency zones, but officially refrains from recognising spheres of influence. It's typical of American diplomacy hypocrisy. The U.S. does not want to recognise or respect the spheres of influence of another powers, specified as Chinese or Russian, but they claim the right to their own zone, never straight undeclared, extending to the full world.
The spheres of influence supply hegemonic powers with the right to supervise and control another states, which is mostly a consequence of inter-powerful rivalry. This phenomenon was born in America in the form of a declaration by the president James Monroe December 2, 1823, on the council of the Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. Both demanded respect for the independency of Western Hemisphere states, and all manifestations of European powers' intervention were regarded as "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States".
Such a expression in defining the interests of the Atlantic giant became the imperative of their dominance in the Western Hemispher. It is worth remembering that various Western imperialisms, especially the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain, led to the division of dominance on the African continent in the late 19th century, and it is from there that names are so selectively and unilaterally utilized today.
During planet War II president Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed the concept of "four police officers", each of whom was to be liable for maintaining peace in their sphere of influence and interests. According to his naive ideas, Britain was to be liable for its empire and Western Europe, the USSR for east Europe and Central Eurasia, China for east Asia and Western Pacific, and the United States for the Western Hemisphere. Churchill besides lobbied for France, which would be liable for his empire.
Stalin, possibly the most clever strategist and visionary, turned out to be the 1 who outsmarted Western allies at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 and, contrary to the Declaration of Liberated Europe, created a lasting division of geopolitical achievements for respective decades. It was then during the Cold War that it was believed that regulating hostile competition requires designation of equality of safety interests of the anti-essential blocks and superpowers. This was served by spheres of influence, ensuring the exclusiveness of each organization in organising economical dominance, ideological solidarity, elite clientelism, and the right of intervention to keep order and guarantee allied loyalty.
The spheres of influence played an crucial function in the strategy of balancing forces between rival groups. They favoured a unchangeable distribution of power and power in the global system, ensuring predictability and restraint in the implementation of common deterrence. A network of bilateral and multilateral alliances between the US and the USSR with its customers was a warrant of maintaining the position quo. It was not crucial that the allies of both superpowers were states of the character of civilian and military dictatorships. Loyalty and obedience to the Hegemons were the only guarantees of their patronage and durability of the power systems.
After the end of the “cold war”, together with the hegemonisation of global relations by the United States, the spheres of influence were considered immoral and unacceptable due to restrictions on political and economical freedom of states. However, attention was directed towards abroad spheres of influence – Russia, China, India, Iran, obfuscing the essence of American dominance in the geopolitical space of the West.
The Empire of Americanum
Under the cover of respecting the sovereignty of the alleged collective West states, hierarchical structures were actually created, based on collective control and loyalist submission. Only a fewer politicians see this trap. Most are absolutely convinced that the political, military and economical organisms of the West are altruistic and give unselfish relationship to anyone who wants to join them.
However, there is no absolute game of interest, an egotistic drive for “neocolonial” exploitation, in the atmosphere of fake partnership and protectionism. The Komprador political elites convince their citizens that they have autonomy in decision-making when, in fact, decision-making processes in the subordinate states are based on an external yet hidden and sophisticated instruction.
The elites of states loyal to Hegemon uncritically affirm and assimilate its economical and military standards, as well as cultural and legal practices. Subsequent generations are raised in the spirit of values taken over from the patron. Children of elite members are sent to survey to educational institutions, considered the best in the hegemonic power. On their return, they warrant not only loyalty but besides gratitude. They represent the perfect possible for voluntary submission. There is simply a uniformization of behaviour patterns, which promotes the failure of separate traits and identity.
The reflection of global relations leads to the conclusion that specified phenomena do not rise any peculiar objection. For example, many post-colonial states can see that, despite the limitations of their autonomy by the erstwhile empires, they have more or little respect for metropolises, hoping for assistance and various forms of support. After planet War II, only a fewer countries were incapable to penetrate and subdue the powers, maintaining neutrality position (Switzerland, Austria, Finland) or distancing themselves from Hegemon, specified as Romania in the Warsaw Agreement or France in NATO and the European Communities.
Shrewd restraint and conscious avoidance of offending more powerful neighbours is the privilege of fewer who can realistically measure their place in geopolitical power systems and counter the hazard of complete submission to 1 central power, by seeking flexible and pragmatic counterweight coalitions. Despite the rumbling around politics Viktor Orbán, it is today's Hungary that shows that the distance and behaviour of intrasteer vis-à-vis the hegemonic system, in which the logic of subordination applies, is possible.
After planet War II, the United States subdued Western Europe by institutionalizing ties on an unprecedented scale. Financial assistance in the reconstruction of Europe ( Marshall Plan), defence commitments against the expansion of communism and the USSR (the creation of NATO), yet the construction of a large marketplace by creating an economical community (EEC) gave emergence to the creation of a region that began to be called "free world" with America. This rhetorical grip gained worldwide applause. "Free" meant nothing but "unin subject" to the USSR or China. Paradoxically, this call is inactive up to date, although there is no USSR anymore, nor China sins communist orthodoxy. Together with Russia, they practice hybrid economy patterns and adhere to authoritarian forms of governance. This is what drives the Western crusade against them according to the assumptions of democratic internationalism.
The spheres of influence are not declared or discussed in inter-power negotiations. All observers are well aware of India's influences in Subhimalaic Asia, Iran in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, Australia in the South Pacific and South Africa in South Africa. Formalising this situation would mean opposing the allegedly most crucial rule of global law, i.e. sovereign equality of states.
However, everyone knows very well that spheres of influence are nothing but confirmation of economic, military, technological and political dominance in a given area. On the 1 hand, they reduce and stimulate strategical interactions between the large powers. On the another hand, they make the habits of permissive and asymmetric forces between weaker and stronger states. However, during periods of global imbalances, there may be extremist opposition to the erstwhile hegemony. Hence their crucial function in decomposing the old global order for fresh geopolitical arrangements. We witnessed specified a shuffle after the break-up of the east bloc and the dissolution of the USSR.
Russia as the enemy
The U.S. then utilized all its advantages to build a monocentric system, dictated not only its values and interests to others, but to undertake many unlawful interventions that led to the degradation of the UN Charter standards. Under the influence of Washington, the North Atlantic alliance, whose configuration mostly overlaps with the American military-political sphere of influence in Europe and the Mediterranean, again began to justify its existence with threats from Russia. This argument was uncritically joined by the European Union. As a result, Russia was denied, mostly due to the anti-Russian phobias of the Central European states, the right to defend its rations. Eventually Russia demonstrated its determination to defend the state of possession, blocking the armedly further expansion of the American sphere of influence in Europe.
Without knowing this background, it is hard to discuss the peaceful prospects for the improvement of European integration. For it will make in the shadow of the Soviet-Chinese rapprochement threatening to the West. West mistake is to classify Russia and China as ideological opponents and geopolitical enemies. The creation of an inclusive anti-American alliance by them can not only approximate the disaster of the global armed confrontation, but besides lead to the disintegration of Western structures as a consequence of the direct clash.
Eurasian region of Russian-Chinese influence is simply a fact. In terms of space and resources, it is able to counter the Euro-Atlantic zone. It does not seem realistic to destruct Russian cultural, political and military influences to settle western states there. Russia's dominant military-political influence through the Organization of the Collective safety Agreement makes it "regional intervention" and "first aid body". An example of specified a function was the intervention in Kazakhstan in January 2022.
China and Russia usage the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as a regional consolidation mechanism, a tool to neutralise extremist and separatist movements, and a way to defend authoritarian regimes by combating "colour revolutions". In the current situation, neither the United States nor the European Union can compete effectively with China and Russia in this area.
Poland political blindness
Polish geopolitical reasoning of the 3rd decade of the 21st century is highly poor, and the cognitive blindness of ruling elites and media structures makes it impossible to see that planet domination and the global region of influence of the United States is being challenged by their top opponents, as well as many smaller regional players. This is seen from the position of distant observers to intensify inter-power competition.
Latin America breaks the barriers of the Monroe doctrine curse and intensifys relations with China and Russia, as well as Iran and Turkey. In the Asia-Pacific region, China begins to dictate its rules of play, moving consistently towards removing Taiwan from the U.S. influence region and merging it with the continent. In east Europe, Russia does not quit its demands to neutralise Ukraine so that it does not become part of the American Eurozone. In the mediate and mediate East, American dominance, as well as the influences of another Western powers, are questioned by Islamism and nationalism. With the weakening function of America, Israel's safety strategy is at stake. Finally, we are witnessing large regroups among African countries that are determined to turn distant from the protectorate of Western powers.
In this light, does Poland have a chance to return to a sustainable policy and get out of blind view of the omnipotence of America and the European Union? In the context of concerns about the "right-nationalistic deviation" of the majority of the fresh European Parliament, it may be worth noting that there are people in Europe capable of exiting mass thoughtlessness, ready to defend their national identities and building a fresh "modus vivendi" between states representing civilizational pluralism and worldview, contrary to the hegemony of Atlanism.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Think Poland, No. 25-26 (16-23.06.2024)
![Rusza nowy system fotoradarów w całym kraju. Pierwsze już łapią kierowców [MAPA LOKALIZACJI]](https://bi.im-g.pl/im/75/b4/1e/z32195957IH,Zaczal-sie-montaz-70-nowych-fotoradarow--10-z-nich.jpg)
