Your search

This is the English-language version of the interview that I recently gave to Swiss-based French-language Alt-Media outlet Multipolarra.

It seems as though America’s grand strategic calculus was that it would be much easier to do the first at this moment in time than the second, since the relevant leverage had already been established in Europe—unlike in Asia, where the U.S. hasn’t been advancing this aim for the past three decades but only the past few years. Furthermore, the U.S. might have considered Russia to be weaker than China and thus more susceptible to pressure, not militarily, but economically and technologically. If that was the case like the author argues, containing Russia might have been thought to be a prerequisite towards ultimately containing China. To explain, the U.S. successful containment of the first and perhaps even its ultimate “Balkanization” upon placing it in a perpetual position of (likely WMD) blackmail would greatly impact on the national security of the People’s Republic, which is largely dependent on a stable and friendly Russia along its northern borders. Destabilizing, weakening, and possibly even breaking up Russia in the long term would instantly jeopardize China’s national security. Additionally, containing Russia entails less immediate economic, financial, supply chain, and technological blowback for the West than doing the same against China due to the complex economic interdependence that characterizes Western-Chinese relations. Russia was never really all that integrated into the global economy, apart from serving as Europe’s chief energy supplier so the U.S. might have wagered that it would be less costly to pressure its junior partners to “decouple” from it. Moreover, the economic consequences that this might trigger for Europe could be exploited by the U.S. With unexpected commitments to their people related to subsidizing skyrocketing energy costs and providing other forms of support in the midst of an intensified economic crisis caused by “decoupling” from their mutually beneficial energy relations with Russia, the U.S. could swiftly move to entrench its military-strategic influence over those countries since they couldn’t afford to pay out of pocket to “contain” Russia in response to the artificially manufactured “Russian threat”. Its companies could also buy out some of their competitors on the cheap in certain scenarios as well as sell more LNG too. All of this suggests that the U.S. prioritized containing Russia over China because: this scenario was already proceeding apace for the last three decades; the military-strategic infrastructure was largely in place; the costs of “decoupling” from Russia are much less than “decoupling” from China; the U.S. needed to galvanize transatlantic solidarity through NATO under an anti-Russian pretext; and comprehensively weakening Russia is regarded as the perquisite to successfully containing China sometime in the future. From these observations, the author hopes to inspire further research into the US’ grand strategic goals.

Here’s the full English version of the interview that I recently gave to Sputnik Brasil, excerpts of which were originally published in Portuguese on 11 January under the title “EUA tiveram papel decisivo na invasão de prédios públicos em Brasília, afirma Korybko”.

None of the insight shared in this analysis is to suggest that Lula is controlled by the US, but just that his prior imprisonment clearly changed him. He’s no longer the “multipolar revolutionary” that he once was or at least was considered to be, including by the US which deposed his successor and then sought to discredit them both on that perceived basis. Lula’s recalibrated vision of multipolarity makes him acceptable to the US, whose ruling Democrats also love his domestic ideological alignment with them and especially his crusade against the right-wing opposition.

Russia wouldn’t have promoted this former ambassador’s critical reaction to Lula’s proposal via one of its publicly financed international media flagships if it contradicted the Kremlin’s informal views towards this matter. Newly re-elected and now three-time Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, popularly known as Lula, suggested during a recent press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that a

The Lula Liberals are basically a Brazilian knockoff of QAnon, but for left-wing folks instead of right-wing ones like Trump’s supporters are. Just like that US movement weaponized conspiracy theories to cover up for every time that he went against his base’s policy expectations so that they don’t revolt against him, so too is that Brazilian one doing the same to cover up for Lula disappointing his leftist-multipolar base by condemning Russia so that they don’t revolt against him either.

The insight shared in this analysis shouldn’t be misinterpreted as implying that Lula is “controlled” by Soros, Biden, or Sanders-AOC, but just that he’s definitely their “fellow traveler” since the Brazilian leader indisputably shares their worldview nowadays to a large extent. Even though he still shouts socialist slogans, Lula’s priority during his third term is less about improving the living conditions of his country’s impoverished and more about geostrategically realigning Brazil with the US-led West’s Golden Billion.

The "Workers' Cause Party" cult functions as the perfect example of those disinformation agents that are waging the latest Hybrid War on Brazil to cover up for President Lula's US-aligned foreign policy due to its self-appointed role as his gatekeepers/inquisitors. Its official newspaper shamelessly flipped from condemning the then-proposal for Brazil to host hundreds of the US’ regime change agents that were expelled from Nicaragua as a CIA-backed imperialist plot to fiercely defending this policy after Lula promulgated it and condemning its critics as imperialist agents.

The views that Russian Senator Konstantin Kosachev concisely shared in his interview about Brazil’s January 8th incident are insightful and worth reflecting upon, especially him indirectly rubbishing speculation that the events were a failed military coup contrary to what some have imagined.

The precedent established by former President Rousseff upon her ordering Brazilian diplomats to abstain from voting in support of an anti-Russian UNGA Resolution in March 2014 was indisputably changed by Lula. Precisely because his recalibrated multipolar vision makes him amenable to the US’ grand strategic interests, he decided to do away with Rousseff’s pragmatic stance towards the Ukrainian Conflict in favor of showing the world that he now supports the US’ position.

The question therefore naturally arises of why so many people, especially in the non-mainstream media community, were misled about those two’s geostrategic calculations. The answer can arguably be found by paying attention to the powerful influence wielded by Armenia’s ultra-nationalist diaspora lobby, the most pernicious elements of which are based in France and the US, but some also reside in Lebanon too.

For the time being, the Kremlin is likely pleased with Tusk returning to power since it fondly remembers the era of Polish-Russian friendship from his first premiership, which sharply contrasted with the nadir in their relations that followed under PiS.

So much has happened in the two years since the special operation began that many folks either missed or forgot about what Zelensky told the World Economic Forum in Davos back in May 2022. Russian foreign spy (SVR) chief Sergey Naryshkin recently revealed