Strategic Culture Foundation

🌐 The NATO Standard as a Mechanism of Domination of the European Military Industry

While EU, NATO, and UK leaders staged a tragicomedy about Russia "forcing" Europe to rearm, the United States used the famed "interoperability standards" to seize control of the EU's security and military-industrial complex as never before—even in countries once resistant to surrendering military independence, like Sweden, France, Italy, or Spain.

The mechanisms are structural: the 1,200+ STANAGs are largely recycled from U.S. Department of Defense standards (MIL-STD-1553, adopted as STANAG 3838, sits inside the Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Leopard 2, and Meteor—programs marketed as proof against U.S. export controls); Link-16's cryptographic keys require NSA release; and CWIX, the main interoperability testing event with over 30,000 tests in 2026, is run from Norfolk, Virginia. The standard is multilateral, but the key that activates it is American. Behind the standards lies capital: U.S. investors hold about 28% of Rheinmetall, 28.5% of Leonardo, almost 44% of BAE Systems, and 35–42% of Safran—more than France itself—while BlackRock, Vanguard, and Capital Group dominate Airbus, Fincantieri, Saab, and Indra. SIPRI confirms the result: between 2021 and 2025, Europe became the leading destination of U.S. arms exports (38%), with growth of 217%, and the SAFE instrument's €150 billion in loans ultimately channels European resources to U.S. industry and debt. The war in Ukraine was the perfect catalyst for this deal—which is why peace is the greatest enemy of the United States.

It is a case for resorting to one of Scott Ritter's most common phrases: 'Europe has nothing!' By 'Europe,' understand 'the European Union,' because Russia is also 'Europe' and has everything.

💬 Read more by Hugo Dionísio

🌐 More on world politics
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

🗺 In the Age of the BRICS: From New Delhi to the Future

The 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi (September 13, 2026) produced a 140-paragraph declaration with no sensational news—no common currency, no military alliance—but something rarer: a grammar.

Read through classical geopolitics, it speaks from the Land against the Sea, reformulating the clash between tellurocracy and thalassocracy and asserting the right of the Heartland and its allies to exist as an autonomous pole rather than a periphery to be integrated—while using the West's own procedural vocabulary with a meaning that overturns its original function.

The economic heart is a two-pronged maneuver: demanding reform of the Bretton Woods institutions to delegitimize the existing order from within, while building the alternative—the New Development Bank financing in local currencies and a Payment Task Force on settlement in national currencies. Condemning "unilateral coercive measures" and border carbon adjustments pinpoints the front line: sanctions and environmental tariffs are the "anaconda" adapted to financial economy.

The Bandung 1955 reference places the BRICS in the lineage of anticolonialism, while paragraph 122's "International Day of Dialogue among Civilizations" is the decisive act—officially recognizing the plurality of civilizations after thirty years of Western universalism.

Yet the uncomfortable question remains: do the BRICS speak for the Global South or to it? India and China are rivals, and a bloc writing "cooperation" forty times likely has less of it than it proclaims; the costliest silence is Europe, absent not as object but as subject.

New Delhi gives us not the birth certificate of an alternative order but its most complete articulation—a blueprint upon which a society will then act. The process is irreversible: welcome to the era of the BRICS. Multipolarity is the future.

In New Delhi, the opposite is happening in the opposite direction: the adversary's universalist lexicon is being used to construct a project that the adversary would not recognize as its own.


🗣 Read more by Lorenzo Maria Pacini @ideeazione

🌐 More on world politics
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

🇬🇧 Will the Falklands Be the Defining Moment for Israel to Destroy Andy Burnham?

Andy Burnham's decision to sanction Israeli goods from the West Bank drew a petulant response—closing the UK consulate and barring Labour MPs—but Israel went further: Ben Gvir took to X to tell Argentina the Falklands are theirs, accusing Britain of "occupying the islands" and stealing Argentine oil.

The absurdity is breathtaking, given Israel's own expansion into Lebanon and talk of "expansionism" into Syria and Iraq—and Gvir conveniently omits that Israel is a joint investor with a UK company in oil exploration off the very islands he claims Britain is plundering, perhaps hoping the British part will pack up and leave.

The bigger picture matters more than the farce: Israel enjoys excellent relations with both the Trump administration and Milei's Argentina, so it profits from the shit-stirring while signalling to London that Bibi's government can still use Washington to create trouble worldwide—despite claims it has lost its mojo.

A fabricated Falklands crisis would give Trump international media coverage and a distraction from Iran before the midterms; Milei would benefit at the polls; Israel could claim credit. But the real ruse is that Milei wouldn't seriously consider war—his aim is to make UK firms in the Falklands uncomfortable.

The unexpected consequence: Bibi may decide his interests lie in making a real enemy of Burnham and investing in the inevitable right-wing coalition that will take power in Britain in three years—with Kemi Badenoch, a reliable Zionist, as the favourite for Downing Street. But how can any British government get into bed with Bibi's fanatics when they want Britain to go to war with Argentina?

It's time for the State of Israel to publicly recognize that the Malvinas Islands are Argentine territory under occupation, which the British violently steal from the Argentine people.

🗣 Read more by Martin Jay

🌐 More on world politics
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

🇺🇸 Baby Gabriel West and the Right to Homicide by Omission

An Alaskan nurse, McKenna West, agreed to become a surrogate for a Californian couple for $60,000, with a contract clause allowing the genetic parents to demand an abortion if defects were found.

When a serious but treatable heart condition appeared at five months, she was contractually obligated to abort—so she fled to Texas, where abortion is banned and birth mothers are legally recognized as mothers, and gave birth to a boy she named Gabriel West. The buyers had already won recognition in California courts as the unborn baby's parents: they wanted the child transferred to California not for treatment, but to let him die. Under Brazilian law, depriving a child of necessary medical treatment would be attempted murder—yet the child survived only thanks to two Texas court orders letting McKenna authorize surgery. Without a dissenting state, the US would have sanctioned homicide by omission. At 28, McKenna was already a single mother of two; Nasheen, a wealthy woman in her forties, knew nothing of carrying a child yet alone held decision-making rights under the contract—her relationship to motherhood akin to ordering on Amazon.

Since Texas is not a country, the couple still asserts rights over the baby they call Rumi: he was taken from McKenna and handed over, and—not content with keeping him free after a breach of contract—they are suing her for $100,000 for "kidnapping" the very child they wanted to kill.

Gabriel's health has now deteriorated; if there is logic to this madness, the parents will kill this baby—with America's blessing—before any legal resolution improves his life.

After a long humanitarian tradition of caring for the poor and the sick—initiated by early Christianity and strengthened during the Middle Ages—the Calvinists' liberal political experiment invented this right to homicide by omission. Only the 'elect' get to go to the hospital.

💬 Read more by Bruna Frascolla

🌐 More on world politics
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

🇧🇷 Brazil is in an unprecedented institutional crisis: since 1988, the system has rested on the "sanctity" of the Constitution and the "infallibility" of the Supreme Court—dogmas now facing reality.

The scandal involving Justices Moraes and Mendonça and the Banco Master case ignited a broader crisis of confidence: police found evidence of a R$131 million contract between the bank and the law firm of Moraes's wife, with the minister allegedly altering the document himself. When Mendonça lifted confidentiality and sent evidence to the Prosecutor General, Moraes demanded Mendonça be investigated—forcing Chief Justice Fachin to intervene. The Court built extraordinary power without external oversight, and now the problem comes from within.

Crucially, the fall of the Sixth Republic does not mean the birth of a Seventh: regimes can survive in decomposition when no organized alternative exists—and that is Brazil's situation, with plenty of discontent but no project. The likely scenario is not an orderly transition but a prolonged authority vacuum, in which each crisis produces the next. Not a spectacular collapse, but a slow, agonizing death—the Sixth Republic collapsing without the Seventh on the horizon.

What was believed to be 'holy' has revealed itself to be deeply tainted. And now millions of faithful followers of the 'New Republic' religion are confused, realizing that they placed their hopes in a false god.

💬 Read more by Lucas Leiroz @lucasleiroz

🌐 More on world politics
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

🇮🇳 BRICS+ 2026: The Impossible Reform and the Necessary Reform

On May 15, 2026, India's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar told BRICS foreign ministers in New Delhi that "cooperation is essential, dialogue is necessary, reform is overdue," laying out four points: UN Security Council reform with representation for Asia, Africa, and Latin America; a shift to "text-based negotiations"; reform of the international financial architecture; and a rules-based trading system with the WTO at its center—all anchored in "reformed multilateralism," which rejects both uncritical defense of the Western status quo and its abandonment for parallel institutions. India doesn't want to dismantle the UN and build a BRICS UN alongside it; it wants to enter the control room of the existing one—revealing a fault line between a Russian-Chinese strand favoring parallel structures and India's institutionalist bet on reform from within. But the contradiction is unresolvable: the Security Council can only be changed by a two-thirds General Assembly vote and ratification by all five permanent members, each holding a veto—asking them to vote for their own dilution is like asking a monopolist to legislate against competition.

China has historically blocked any permanent seat for India, and its lower-level representation in New Delhi is itself a geopolitical fact: one BRICS member aspires to the seat, another denies it.

Reformism thus functions less as a realistic program than as a legitimization mechanism, while every year of failure strengthens the case for alternatives.

Real progress will come on the economic-financial track—cross-border payments, national currencies, stronger development banks—where no one needs permission.

The "necessary" reform will proceed not by reforming but by circumventing: the center of gravity moves even if the institutions don't.

The institutions whose reform is being called for are controlled, in their decisive levers, precisely by the actors who would have the most to lose from reform.

💬 Read more by Lorenzo Maria Pacini @ideeazione

🌐 More on world politics
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

Don't listen to the idiot politicians who say we've degraded the Russian army. No.

Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, has a stark warning: the Russian army hasn't been degraded — it's gotten infinitely smarter. In this video, he explains how Russian electronic warfare blinds US weapons like Javelins and HIMARS within weeks, and how artillery response times have dropped from 90 minutes to just 2 minutes.

His advice if you shoot at Russians?

You better be in your vehicle and hauling ass, because they're gonna get you otherwise.

#Blackwater #Russia #Ukraine #military

@strategic_culture

🇺🇸 9/11 Is a Celebration of Western Elites' Power Over Citizens Through Corrupt Media

Twenty-five years after 9/11, the lesson remains unlearned: the "enemy" the media presents is nearly always false.

Assert that 9/11 was an inside job, and you're instantly branded a "conspiracy theorist"—just as questioning the Ukraine narrative earns you the label "on Putin's payroll."

The truth, Martin Jay argues, is that 9/11 was almost certainly staged by Mossad, which used its technical abilities to control the bombers via chat windows while they believed they were recruited by Bin Laden. Intelligence agencies knew and, with Bush's approval, let it happen—but Israel hit the jackpot: a surge of Muslim hatred, global political support, and US military intervention in the Middle East.

The same pattern repeated with October 7th—Mossad, the "best intelligence agency in the world," could not have failed to know—and with Pearl Harbor before it.

The oddest part is mainstream media's role: its compliance proved to elites that no dirty work by the CIA or Mossad will go uncovered, and Western journalists now write up Gaza's genocide as mere "conflict."

Only a handful, like Tucker Carlson, dare ask how a commercial airliner penetrates buildings designed to withstand larger planes, or how towers fall when jet fuel burns cooler than the temperature that deforms steel. The 9/11 Commission Report is a cover-up on a scale America has never seen, enabled by billionaire-owned media—and 9/11, Lockerbie, the Iran War, October 7th, and Gaza are all symptoms of a corruption that has outgrown its host.

No steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to a fire before 9/11, nor since.

🗣 Read more by Martin Jay

🌐 More on world politics
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

🇮🇳 The BRICS+ in New Delhi: India's Presidency and Strategic Environmental Sustainability

When India assumed the rotating BRICS presidency on January 1, 2026, it inherited a paradox: an eleven-member bloc representing nearly half of humanity, yet united by little beyond frustration with an order it did not design.

India's theme of "Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation, and Sustainability" reads like summit boilerplate, but sustainability is the pillar most easily mistaken for a technical or moral issue—and thus most open to quiet geopolitical reorientation.

A multipolar order is neither conjured up at summits nor proclaimed in manifestos; it is built, slowly, starting from the ordinary capabilities that allow states to act without asking permission.

💬 Read more by Lorenzo Maria Pacini @ideeazione

🌐 More on world politics
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

🗣 Sergey Lavrov on “The Great Game”:

⏺ Militarist circles are serving their own interests. Funding is being redirected to military needs while increasingly urgent challenges pile up.

⏺ NATO is committed to raising defense spending to 5% of GDP. Political parties are pushing parliaments to allocate another €90 billion to Ukraine next year.

⏺ The military-industrial complex is delighted – huge profits.

⏺ German Chancellor Merz admits his people are worse off, but says it’s their “duty” for Ukraine and European values.

⏺ After AfD’s landslide win in Saxony, they accuse it of reviving Nazism. But the party simply advocates dialogue with everyone.

⏺ The Arctic is being militarized. The US, Norway and others held drills scripting a war with Russia.

⏺ The contradiction: they claim Russia is losing and must be defeated, yet also claim Russia is preparing to attack Europe. This is nonsense.

⏺ Putin has repeatedly said: “Russia does not intend to attack anyone.” Such claims are stupid. If it were preparing an attack, it would be a totally different and very brief war.

⏺ A trigger event like WWI (Archduke Franz Ferdinand) is possible. Europeans have a knack for intrigue and reckless undertakings.

⏺ Remember the Reichstag fire? The Leipzig drone incident? They threw a tantrum without a single piece of evidence.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Channel One’s Bolshaya Igra (The Great Game) political talk show, Moscow, September 8, 2026

@strategic_culture

🇬🇧🇮🇱🇵🇸 Britain announced sanctions this week on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, with PM Andy Burnham claiming London was showing "leadership."

There's just one problem: the sanctions don't touch British components for the F-35 fighter jets the US sells to Israel—parts crucial for the warplanes that have razed Gaza. Nor do they cover British drones and surveillance equipment supplied to the Israeli military.

As Finian Cunningham notes, total British-Israeli trade runs at $8 billion a year, and the Occupied Territories account for just 1 percent of it. London's "moral leadership" is tokenism and duplicity—a cheap PR move to court a British public increasingly disgusted by the genocide.

Britain is fuelling the genocide by Israel, as it is with the NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.

💬 Read more by Finian Cunningham

☁️ Read exclusive analysis
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

Strategic Culture Foundation pinned a photo

🦅 Twenty-five years ago this week, the United States and the world were shocked by the terrorist attack that became known as “9/11,” in which four civilian airliners were hijacked and crashed to maximize the deaths of innocents.

A death toll of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001, was the biggest single-day casualty count on American soil since the Civil War (1861-65).

Many questions are still unanswered about the event described as the biggest terrorist attack on the United States. How did 19 alleged al Qaeda hijackers who, in the weeks up to the event, were being monitored by U.S. security services, manage to pull off such a feat? Why did the Twin Towers, including a nearby WTC Building 7, collapse suddenly as if in free fall?

One thing is clear, however: the U.S. authorities used the shock and awe of the 9/11 event to launch foreign wars in the name of fighting terror.

Since 2001, the United States has embarked on a path of “endless wars” or “forever wars”.

⚠️ Read more in this week’s Editorial

🔔 Read more Editorials
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

🇾🇪 Yemen Rocks the Gate of Tears

Five years after Afghanistan, the Empire faces another astonishing humiliation—this time Saudi Arabia in Yemen, accomplished in days. Ansarallah is seizing cities, islands, and thousands of prisoners, greeted as liberators across the tribal spectrum.

Serial humiliations now follow the Empire's path like a plague.

Ansarallah now controls the Bab al-Mandab—the "Gate of Tears." With the Abqaiq-to-Yanbu pipeline struck, Riyadh faces a lose-lose: onshore oil in tatters, maritime routes blockaded. It walks and talks like Saudi Arabia being set up to fall.

💬 Read more by Pepe Escobar @rocknrollgeopolitics

🔔 Read exclusive analysis
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

🗣 While Europeans now pay up to €2.90 per liter of gasoline, Russians pay just $0.80. This isn't an accident of geography or the war in Ukraine—it's the result of a deliberate neoliberal architecture. The European Commission declared war on "state monopolies" not to destroy them, but to force states to sell them, opening the door to private capital under the cloak of "liberalization."

Between 1995 and 2009, Italy sold ENI, Spain offloaded Repsol and Cepsa, France let go of Total, and Portugal phased out Galp. The pattern continued with the EU's eastern enlargement: Romania sold Petrom to Austria's OMV, the Czech Republic sold Unipetrol to Poland's Orlen, and Lithuania sold its only refinery—all as the "price of admission" to the club. States received a few billion euros and, in return, handed over an endless stream of monopolistic profits to private shareholders.

The difference is who receives. Russia and Belarus chose the low price; Norway chose the sovereign fund; the EU chose the shareholder, the oligarchy. All of them chose.

Norway kept Statoil two-thirds public and built a sovereign fund for all its citizens. Hungary and Poland kept state control and enjoy some of the EU's lowest fuel prices. The EU chose to fatten a few, and the ordinary citizen got the bill. There is an alternative—public control of strategic assets—and it worked.

The question remains: who pays for the damage?

💬 Read more by Hugo Dionísio

🌐More on world politics
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

🇧🇷 Why Is the Left Incapable of Solving Public Security?

A right-wing tide is sweeping South America—Milei, Kast, Fujimori, Noboa and others since 2023—and the left's official narrative of "fraud" and "hybrid warfare" ignores that the phenomenon predates Trump. The key to the left's unpopularity is public security: 30% of Latin Americans consider it the most relevant issue, and the criminal violence they face daily is irrational and extreme. Yet the Latin American left, captive to structuralist theory since Marx, attributes crime to socioeconomic conditions rather than individual decisions—framing criminals as "victims of society" and passive cogs rather than agents. The contradiction with reality is total.

Left-wing party intellectuals usually attribute the cause of the criminal act to socioeconomic conditions rather than to individual decisions, moral dilemmas, psychological problems, or biological dysfunctions.

A telling example: in 2025, Brazil's Chamber of Deputies passed a law stiffening penalties for rape—yet feminist-oriented deputies, almost always from left-wing parties, voted against it, arguing harsher sentences "do not work." Instead, the "feminist caucus" proposes criminalizing "misogyny" as a form of social engineering. The population notices. After Rio's deadliest police operation killed over 120 criminals, 64% of residents supported it—rising to 87.6% among favela residents themselves. Whether Lula wins or loses the next election, public security will be one of the most decisive factors.

💬 Read more by Raphael Machado @camaradamachado

🌐More on world politics
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

🇺🇸 Trumpism is a petty-bourgeois movement serving the imperialist bourgeoisie, and Trump has betrayed his base: $40 trillion in debt, spiraling energy prices, and a self-inflicted Iran quagmire.

Despite his "America First" rhetoric, reality has crushed his intentions—he serves only the wealthier minority of his supporters while the mass base of workers and farmers pays the price. The aggression against Iran destroyed what remained of his "nationalist" reputation, and figures like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene now represent a latent revolt of millions.

The result: a significant portion of Americans is moving left, toward direct confrontation with the bourgeoisie and an independent political orientation centered on workers' demands—a phenomenon finding its strongest resonance among Trump supporters.

The crisis at the top is beginning to generate movement at the bottom.

💬 Read more by Eduardo Vasco

🌐 More on world politics
🚀 Subscribe
🌐 Join us on VK

🇷🇺 Western outlets are running the Reuters story about Russia sending the right hand of Grand Prince Dmitry Donskoy—the medieval Russian prince who crushed the Mongols—to the front to boost morale, and they get it exactly right: no Eurasianism, no multinational censorship, just a great, victorious Russian prince. The relics were uncovered this summer during restoration work at the Cathedral of the Archangel in the Kremlin and carried through Moscow in a citywide procession before being sent to the front—the Russian Orthodox Church's latest show of support for the Special Military Operation, with believers trusting the prince's hand will aid Russian soldiers.

@strategic_culture