The sad anniversaries of the new empire
The peoples of the world are tired of war. Pope Leo XIV's appeals for "humanity to advance towards a genuine and lasting peace" are multiplying, but these calls are heard in very different ways in the various regions of the world devastated by neo-imperial conflicts.
In the space of a month, anniversaries have followed one another celebrating the new imperial ideology of the contemporary world, of Russia and the United States.
20 January marked the first year of Donald Trump's new term as president of the United States of America, Venezuela, Greenland, and much more. 25 February marked 12 years since the Russian occupation of Crimea, when the conflict with Ukraine truly began in 2014 after the Euromaidan. And 24 February marked the start of the fifth year of the full-blown invasion of Ukraine, the "special" war that completed the previous, albeit already bloody, "hybrid" phase.
On 3 January, these imperial celebrations were preceded by the "impeccable" US special operation in Caracas and the abduction of Putin's friend, Nicolas Maduro. This action cannot, however, be considered the start of a new Cold War between the United States and Russia, but rather an episode of the new era of neo-imperialism, with no need for numerous ideologies and easy flag-waving around the world.
We are not, in fact, facing a new opposition between two world blocs, East versus West, Global North versus Global South. Notwithstanding the easy rhetoric, this is the birth of a new system, in which the great powers act in accordance with a “multipolar” logic of power and business.
For US leaders, Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela should not be considered a "war", just as the invasion of Ukraine cannot be called a “war”. The first is a "law enforcement action against international crime”, the second is the "defence of Russians in Donbass from neo-Nazi genocide”, with increasingly colourful and grotesque formulations depending on the region and local history.
In the latest Geneva talks between Russians, Ukrainians, and Americans, the head of the Russian delegation, Vladimir Medinsky, justified Moscow's claims by tracing them back to the Baptism of Kyiv in AD 988 , which, according to a certain historical review, should be given to the Kremlin as a "moral and spiritual" legacy, in an unresolved medieval dispute over the identity of Russia and Ukraine.
International law itself appears to be a relic of the past, completely ignored both in Crimea and Donbass, and in Caracas, with no consultation of the UN General Assembly, let alone the US Congress, or the psychedelic Duma in Moscow.
The latest UN General Assembly approved a generic resolution “support for lasting peace in Ukraine” by 107 votes in favour, 12 against, and 51 abstentions, while the prospects for peace and reconstruction in the Gaza Strip are being discussed in Trump's imaginative Board of Peace (BoP), with the US leader as its “chairman for life”.
The BoP’s purpose, according to its charter, is “to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” The membership fee to this "UN support structure" is one billion dollars, except for complimentary tickets given to spectators and “observers”, with 24 countries on board of the 60 invited to the show.
As several commentators have noted, these international events reflect the transformation of neocolonialism, typical of the second half of the 20th century, into the new form of neo-imperialism that embodies the globalist shift of the early 21st century.
No one speaks anymore of the “fight against communism” in the name of liberal values; if anything, the notion of "civilising mission" is flaunted by former Communists against "liberal degradation”, with increasingly nebulous and contradictory rhetorical variations.
Russian neo-imperialism differs primarily from US neo-imperialism not so much in content as in rhetorical language. The Americans cite universal values to justify their actions, such as security, the law, and the fight against crime, while Russia operates according to the logic of “historical spheres of influence”, denying its neighbouring ex-Soviet countries (and beyond) the right to exist as fully autonomous states.
Russia’s claims, born out of resentment over the end of the Soviet empire, exist long before the dates celebrated these days; for example, at the time of the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, then “interim” Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated without any qualms that Moscow had "privileged interests" in many regions of the world, starting with the post-Soviet space – a statement he made when he was still sober and moderate.
The 2008 scheme led to the creation of the "independent republics" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, "quasi-annexed" to Russia, while those of Crimea and Donbass were incorporated into the Russian Federation without being fully conquered; indeed, they are still in limbo thanks to the Ukrainian counteroffensive facilitated by the suspension of Russian connections to Elon Musk's Starlink satellites, perhaps the most symbolic figure of this time of total disorientation in the skies and on earth.
In July 2021, Vladimir Putin published an article, "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”, in which he explained that Ukraine was the product of a historical error, attributed to the insufficient civilisational vision of revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin, partially corrected by the “missionary” spirit of Georgian dictator Joseph Stalin.
It is no coincidence that Putin's proclamation appeared two months after the start of the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, the symbolic event that marked the end of neocolonialism in a place where the Cold War between the two great colonial blocs of East and West had ended.
The Russians interpreted this turning point as a "green light" for the start of neo-imperialism, deploying masses of soldiers on Ukraine's borders while the Americans were pulling theirs out Kabul airport, leaving their former allies at the mercy of the Taliban, who are now the Kremlin's new great friends.
Another symbolic date is worth mentioning. On 12 February 2016, exactly 10 years ago, the historic embrace between Moscow's Orthodox Patriarch Kirill and Rome's Pope Francis took place at Havana airport, uniting the pontiff's Latin American origins with the patriarch's pastoral jurisdiction over Cuba, a land of Latin-Soviet heritage.
That meeting did not resolve the millennium-old dispute between Catholics and Orthodox, but it did provide an excellent justification for blessing the Russian intervention in Syria, at the expense of US ambitions.
Syria has been an excellent training ground for Russia’s “hybrid wars”, fostering the creation of military companies ready for any "special" intervention, such as the Chechen Kadyrovites and Yevgeny Prigozhin's Wagner "musicians”, the main protagonists of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The anniversaries of the recent and distant past intertwine, overlap, and contradict each other, leaving no glimpse of the new historical turning points of the near and distant future.
The peoples of the world are tired of war, and Pope Leo XIV's appeals are multiplying for "humanity to advance towards authentic and lasting peace”. But these calls are being heard in very different ways in the various regions of the world devastated by neo-imperial conflicts.
The Ukrainians are confident in their strength to resist, hoping for the material and moral reconstruction of the country, without being swallowed up by Putin's monster, while the Palestinians dream of seeing the light from beneath the rubble again, perhaps to live in Trump's new Gaza tourist resort.
Americans are torn between supporting the new imperial-commercial ideology and defending the freedoms of all forms of moral and social expressions, while Europeans, historical experts in internecine warfare of all kinds, struggle to understand each other and express a position capable of influencing the neo-imperial demands coming from Moscow and Washington, while Beijing silently watches, seemingly complacent about the unfolding of world events.
The most disoriented of all, however, appear to be the Russians, despite the obsessive domestic patriotic propaganda that infiltrates families and schools, starting in kindergartens, even the nurseries for the children born to schoolgirls paid to get pregnant.
Russian society considers war an inevitable event, to be passively endured or economically exploited, depending on whether one lives in a poor region or a wealthy metropolis.
Sinking into the muddy trenches of Donbass is not much worse than working in the dark mines of Siberia; the pay is better, and death is a guarantee for the family.
The Russian people do not understand their destiny because they do not want to understand it, and, according to the Kremlin leaders, they should not understand it, but passively accept it, trusting in protection from above.
This protection appears highly unreliable and stifling, and there is no way out, for who knows how long, just hope that one may not have to commemorate more anniversaries of the universal war.
RUSSIAN WORLD IS THE ASIANEWS NEWSLETTER DEDICATED TO RUSSIA. WOULD YOU LIKE TO RECEIVE IT EVERY SATURDAY? TO SUBSCRIBE, CLICK HERE.
.png)
10/10/2025 11:44
10/05/2025 11:18
22/06/2025 16:55
