The string of unfounded accusations against Russia for its alleged interference in various elections across the world has been voiced by Western political and media figures for over a year now. In fact, we’re witnessing an unprecedented propaganda campaign aimed at discrediting a single country. Yet, with the next presidential election nearing in Russia, the West doesn’t seem to be ashamed to make an attempt to rig the election process in Russia. First of all, it has started publishing a series of publications aimed at discrediting the candidates that are not pedaling Western agenda. Then, there a string of Russian-language sites that are living off the money of American taxpayers provided by Washington speading anti-Putin propaganda, so it’s no wonder that those sites are officially recognized as foreign agents in Russia. It’s been reported that every second article on those websites is aimed at discrediting  Russia’s President Vladimir Putin or urges Russian citizens to boycott the election. What is especially striking to any objective pro-democracy observer is that no other opinion is being allowed to be featured in those peaces, even though those sites are owned by the self-proclaimed champion of democracy – Washington. The days when Western media sources even tried to pretend that they were aware that journalism as a profession is an art of various opinions are long gone now, alas.

As for English-speaking media platforms, those couldn’t care less about covering the upcoming election objectively, as they are just ignoring the statements made by Russian authorities, while claiming to be innocent in spites of their repeated violations of the fundamental principle of impartiality.

The all-out propaganda assault against Russia is led by the well-known CIA mouthpieces – the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Those are trying to show the White House that they can still be viable in its face-off with Russia by accusing various officials in of various abuses aimed at  illegally obtaining signatures in Putin’s support. At the same time, even the most die-hard Putin bashers recognize that he leads the presidential race in Russia, with more than 70% of Russia’s population being willing to vote for him, as polls show. This fact by itself excludes any need for any of Putin’s supporters to try to cut corners in assisting Putin in obtaining enough signatures to become a nominated candidate. However, those Western journalists prefer to ignore such facts all together, as they’ve been paid in advance to jump on the anti-Russian bandwagon early.

In order to explain to the American reader the differences between the Russian “undemocratic” election process and the American “ultra-democratic” one, The National Interest chose to publish a comparison in a bid to glorify the “US-style democracy.” However, this attempt was clearly not in favor of the US, showing that in the last year’s parliamentary election in Russia a total of fourteen parties was allowed to compete.

Against this backdrop things don’t look all that grand in the US, as only two parties are allowed to compete for power in the US. It’s true that in recent years certain representatives of libertarians and greens have been allowed to take part in televised debates in the US. However, those parties present no competition to the leading contenders whatsoever as they’ve been under harsh control of US intelligence agencies for decades, avoiding every chance to ask uncomfortable questions, choosing to advance such ideas as weapons bans and abortion rights.

There’s yet another joke that Western media sources are trying to present to their readers with a serious face that can be summed up in the notion that the all-powerful Kremlin is somehow afraid of a single pro-Western candidate – Alexei Navalny. However, Western states do not allow convicted criminals to contend in any officially recognized elections, but they still insist that Russia should try doing it for a change. Why not? Maybe then we will see all sorts of felons winning elections in the US, UK and other Western states.

Even a person that hasn’t been following Russia’s politics for a considerable period of time is able to spot that Western media sources have abandoned any attempts to analyze Navalny’s political views. Every single media source one can come across tells his about his allegedly brilliant idea of boycotting the presidential election, but that’s pretty much it. Yet, last year some Western media sources would be bold enough to criticize him for his racist views. As it’s been noted by the Salon magazine, any mention of Navalny’s links with neo-Nazi groups, xenophobic comments and extreme anti-immigrant views have miraculously disappeared from the Western media.

So, in spite of the media support Navalny receives in the West, the reasoning behind the decision of the Russian Constitutional Court to put an end to his attempts to compete in the presidential election is pretty much self-explanatory. So any further attempts to make Navalny look as the ultimate victim of the “repressive regime in Moscow” fail to hide the fact that he has been transformed into a “political tool” of the Western elites a long while ago. As it’s been noted, we should always be asking ourselves: what kind of freedom is absolute? Which right is inherent?

That is why one can’t help but agree with the Italian Secolo d’Italia that underlines the fact that the Western propaganda campaign against Putin is devoid of any sense, as it tries to support two liberal pseudo-candidates sponsored by the West: Ksenia Sobchak, known as the “Russian Paris Hilton”, and Alexei Navalny, known for a long list of crimes he committed in Russia. Those two are no match to Putin, a seasoned politician that is well-respected across the world. Both Sobchak and Navalny criticize Russia’s reunification of Crimea with Russia, that was supported by 97% of Crimeans back in 2014. They also criticize Russia’s participation in the Syrian conflict, while ignoring the fact that it was started after an official invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, while all of the Western states are still operating in Syria illegally. If one wants to know who are Putin’s competitors for real he should take a look at the Social Party leader Gennady Zyuganov and the charismatic ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

Grete Mautner is an independent researcher and journalist from Germany, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Over 40 countries joined the Islamic Military Alliance, the creation of which was announced with fanfare by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman. This military alliance will become a ‘strong signal’ to terror organisations, which in recent years maintained activity on the territory of ‘our countries’, as the prince assured in Riyadh at the first meeting of defence ministers and experts on security of the alliance countries. According to the prince’s opinion, the most threat that is posed by the terrorists, is not only the death of innocent people, however damaging the reputation of the Islamic religion as well.

41 member countries of the newly created alliance are planning to unite their ‘military, political and financial’ efforts for the joint counter-stand to international terrorism. They are mainly Sunni Muslim countries which surround Saudi Arabia, and they will be part of the anti-terror coalition. There are some notable absentees, as Iran, Iraq, Syria and Qatar did not become part of the alliance.

We should remember that this is not the first attempt of Riyadh to knock a military bloc together out of several countries that would execute orders of the King of Saudi Arabia in full obedience. In the early 2010s, Saudi Arabia, with the active support of Washington, tried to unite the armies of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC). The Americans called the combined military units of the Arab states as ‘Arab NATO’. The armies of other countries, such as Jordan and North Africa countries were to join this alliance of ‘regional security’ pushing back against Iran. The military source in Tehran reported at the time that they set about entering this plan since the military intervention in Libya, where several countries of the said region were in the war, notably Qatar. The crisis in Bahrain increased the anxiety, which threatened the existence of ‘American Salafism’ in the Gulf region.

Washington believed that a window of opportunity emerged to kill two birds with one stone, with the larger command in the GCC armies; firstly, their military demands would increase, and the USA would be able to sell them even more of their expensive armaments. Secondly, an army against Iran would be created, which would instigate a war between the Shias and the Sunnis and at the same time would dispense the military units of the Western countries of the necessity to deal with Iran directly. Thirdly, the Americans were intending, simultaneously with the withdrawal of troops from Iran and Afghanistan, to create new forms of their presence in the region. The fourth reason, the problem of ‘Arab Spring’ influence spreading to Arab countries in the Gulf which have strategical importance for the USA, would be solved. However, the plan of creation of ‘Arab NATO’ failed as fast as it appeared. Not everything is that good as in Europe and might not fit the turbulent Middle East.

However, in Riyadh, they continued to behave like a child with a new toy. In December 2015, it was announced about the creation of the so-called Arab Coalition when Saudi Arabia began the combatting of the rebels-Houthis in Yemen, and at the time 31 countries joined, including Qatar. However, this notorious coalition came to ought, as most of the countries knew on their participation in the coalition only when the list of its participants was published. The participation of Qatar Air Force and United Arab Emirates Air Force was negligible. That is where it all stopped.

And now, one can see the third attempt of creating this military alliance, this time combatting the international terrorism. One should note that this topic, started in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, when the American elite blew up the three buildings in New York in the attempt to justify their plans in the achievement of world supremacy, is quite tempting and topical. It is most appealing exactly for Saudi Arabia, at the time when the ISIS bandits and terrorists battered by the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria are faced with an urgent issue; where will they flee from Syria and where to lay another stepping stone? In the world press, there were reports that the American special forces soldiers, who were illegally deployed on the Syrian territory, have already saved and evacuated part of the ISIS leadership.

Now the terrorists are confronted with two short paths. The first one is through the desert region at the Iraq-Syria border to get across to Iraq and remain in the south, where one can easily get lost and where there is very scarce population, mainly Bedouins. The other option is to continue and move along the corridor of sandy terrains in the north of Saudi Arabia, when they can regroup, recuperate and with the aid of the USA, who repeatedly allegedly dropped the armaments for the terrorists from the war-craft, to replenish their supplies.

In Iraq, where the Shia are in power headed by Haider al-Abadi and the Iranian armed forces, terrorists are unlikely to feel secure. Neither the government of Iraq, nor Iran will tolerate the presence of the Sunnis from ISIS in the country. It is more realistic that the terrorists might leave for the deserts of Saudi Arabia, which is ultimately critical for Riyadh and quite attractive for Washington. Firstly, ‘The Merchant’, – the American President Donald Trump, will sell a vast amount of special armaments for the military engagement in the desert. Secondly, he will be able to press down the Crown Prince, who is constantly evading the American trap, and is trying to arrange friendly relations and contacts with the bitter enemy of the USA, namely Russia. At present, the Washington elite is screwing a face into a smile upon remembering the visit of the King of Saudi Arabia into Moscow and the agreements reached there. Thirdly, the Americans have not given up their plans yet to develop the production of light tight oil, in the way of which are included in the agreements between Mohammed bin Salman, whilst presiding in OPEC and Russia.

One can wonder whether the prince of Saudi Arabia will stay lucky for the third time in the creation of and most importantly in the functioning of the new coalition. As of now, he was out of luck on several occasions and is being characterised by failures, this can be specifically seen at the example of the Yemen crisis unleashed by the Prince himself. The representative of the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) in the Middle East and North Africa region, Gert Kappeler announced that about 11 million children in Yemen “are in need of emergency humanitarian assistance” and “one child, every 10 minutes in Yemen dies from diseases that can be prevented”. According to Kappeler, “since the beginning of operation, led by Saudi Arabia, of the international coalition against the Yemeni rebels, the Houthis, about 5 thousand children have been killed or seriously injured”.

And even the widely advertised campaign on the bribery control, during which from 200 princes and officials, approximately 100 billion dollars were wheedled out, did not lend éclat to them. In the society of Saudi Arabia, despondency and fear prevails – who will be arrested next? We should not forget that Saudi Arabia is a Middle Eastern country, where bribery, nepotism and the principle “you scratch my back, and I will scratch yours” exist for centuries. It would be enough to say that any foreign country, operating in the kingdom, is to give 50% of its equity capital to a Saudi Arabian, who, then, without working, will make quite a good money ‘harvest’. Is this a bribe as well? In this case, up to 60% of the adult population of the country are to be arrested.

By the way, as the world mass media report, the money ‘wheedled’ out of certain Saudi Arabians are unlikely to be diverted to the modernisation of the kingdom, and will rather be spent, by recruiting foreign troops, to provide the security of the country. Hence is the ambition of the Saudi Prince, who will any day now become the King, to form the new coalition and saturate it with the received ‘gratuitous’ money.

Victor Mikhin, a corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Among the most noticeable events that took place on the sidelines of the latest APEC summit (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation), held on November 10-11 of this year in the Vietnamese city of Da Nang, activities that attracted the greatest interest were at the Ministerial level, and later at the highest level of the TPP participating countries. That is because TPP’s subsequent fate is on the list of most important factors that are determining the character of the current, ongoing reshuffling of global political cards.

This list can be narrowed down to a few main trends among the few leading world players, as well as political geometric configurations of those same players, who wield decisive participation.

TPP enters the picture as such a configuration. That, in general, was not raising any doubts when the world’s leader, the USA, was a participant (and the main driving force) of the project, if for no other reason than that TPP, with America’s participation, accounted for about 40% of global GDP.

But even after the current American President withdrew the USA from the project, the remaining 11 participants produce a very impressive 27% of global GDP. This is almost equal to the productivity of the configuration “EU-Japan,” which is quite remarkable in all aspects (and not just economic). That configuration took shape in the middle of this year’s summer, when Tokyo and Brussels agreed upon the creation of a joint FTZ (free trade zone).

Now the corpse of the TPP, which is growing cold, is trying to energize Japan. Japanese Ministers in particular, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe himself, acted as project resuscitators in Da Nang. And the “resuscitation” as described might have occurred, had it not been for the “weak spot” that Canada showed.

During a few rounds of preliminary negotiations at the level of ranking representatives, and Ministers of the TPP’s 11 participants, it was decided not to make any revisions to the documents, which had been approved conclusively in February 2016 (meaning, still with Washington’s participation), but the validity of a few dozen points was “put on ice” “up to the return” of the USA to the project.

Canada refused to sign even this document which, as best that can be understood, came at the very last moment, and completely unexpected by all the other 10 participants of the meeting in Da Nang.

On the morning of November 10, Vietnam’s Minister of Trade (having host country authority of the meeting) announced the achievement of a “fundamental agreement” for the TPP project, the English abbreviation for which acquired 2 additional letters “C” (Comprehensive), and also “P” (Progressive), and now looks like CPTPP. An hour earlier, Canada’s Minister of Trade, François-Philippe Champagne spoke out in similar fashion.

However, just a few hours later, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared that some more work was required to achieve a “final agreement”. Consequently, at this time no TPP – neither “comprehensive,” nor “progressive – has arisen on the world’s political arena.

Commentators of the unexpected Canadian “slowdown” pretty definitively tie it to difficult, ongoing negotiations regarding the restructuring of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), which includes Canada, together with Mexico and the USA. At the insistence of Donald Trump, this process was set in motion in the summer of this year, and its progress has been discussed in NEO.

We’ll remind our readers that the American President was also present in Da Nang. Quite possibly, Justin Trudeau could have heard from him some “friendly advice” concerning TPP.

Right now it’s difficult to give a more or less exact description of the document not signed by Canada, as well as the current state of TPP overall. As always, artistic forms come to our aid.

The cartoon in the Chinese newspaper, “Global Times”, depicts a portico, supported on one side by three stone columns with letters that form the English abbreviation TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership). The other side of the portico is held up by two flimsy sticks (seemingly put there in haste), which are marked by the same new letters “C” and “P.” With a lively step, an American eagle takes away the mighty column that stood before in their spot.

It’s hard to take issue with the cartoon’s artist, who seems to have wanted to say that TPP’s prospects remain unclear, even doubtful, and expectations for the return of the USA to the project should be abandoned.

At the same time, attention was raised by an unexpectedly cordial meeting on the sidelines of the APEC meeting between Shinzo Abe and the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping.

The word “unexpected” means that, despite the resumption recently of bilateral contacts with the participation of eminent, retired politicians, parliamentarians, and businessmen, the persistent, overall atmosphere of mutual suspicion would not incline one to expect to hear from Chairman Xi words “about success over the last months” in bilateral relations or even attribute to them “a new start”. With those words, Shinzo Abe was in complete agreement.

If concrete actions will follow the words, this will then become one of the few extremely important, positive trends of the current situation in the Asia-Pacific Region (APR).

Its development may be hindered by, in particular, the ongoing differences in viewpoints regarding future, regional economic cooperation. As noted above, Japan is now the main “promoter” of TPP, which, though being implemented in the form of “without the USA”, for now maintains an anti-Chinese political orientation put there earlier by Barack Obama.

With just this circumstance in mind, the Chinese leader in his address at the APEC summit in Da Nang spoke out against “closed” economic configurations in the region, and for closer cooperation among countries included in the very same APEC and ASEAN. We should note that both of these organizations include almost all (besides Canada) TPP participants, and also the USA.

So, the mere fact, progress, as well as results of the latest activities conducted in Da Nang as part of the TPP project of the new configuration, directly affect the various aspects of the political game, which has been unfolding in the APR. By the same token, the character of its development will fundamentally determine TPP’s fate.

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”