By Takis Fotopoulos
Today, it is evident that no country which is fully integrated into the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization can establish parity relations with the Transnational Elite (TE) which runs it, or with the countries in which this elite is based-mainly the G7--even if it is a powerful country of Russia's size. This has been clearly shown by the fact that whenever the Russian government under Putin has objected to the TE's encirclement of Russia, first in Georgia and now in Ukraine, the country was promptly expelled from the G7+1 club! This is also the reason why the TE and its associates (the so-called 'world community') targeted the ex-USSR countries headed by Russia, when they declared their intention to establish a Eurasian Union of sovereign states that could potentially function as the basis for an alternative democratic world order of sovereign nations, in place of the present NWO that abolishes national and economic sovereignty.
Needless to add that the 'calamity Marxists', who have no clue about the seismic changes brought about by the new systemic phenomenon of the emergence, and then dominance, of Trans-National Corporations (TNCs) in the last thirty years or so and the consequent neoliberal globalization, still talk about intra-imperialist conflicts. This is in complete contrast to the pro-Eurasian Union stand aptly adopted by both the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Ukrainian Communist Party. Presumably, the two imperialisms to which these Paleolithic Marxists refer are, on the one hand, the imperialism of the TE and all its associates and protectorates (the so-called "world community') and, on the other, the Russian Federation, which has neither engaged in any imperialist war itself, nor does it control any major TNCs!
In fact, one could argue that in the globalization era there is no sovereignty in general. This is for instance the line adopted by Umberto Pascali:
This is the big secret that now cannot be covered anymore. The governments of the US and the European countries are NOT independent entities, they are not sovereign. They do not have the will or even the ability to act on behalf of their people. They are controlled by powerful banking interests.
However, although it is true that powerful economic interests--and not just banking interests--do control all the governments of countries integrated into the NWO and there is a close interconnection between economic, political, media and cultural elites and the corresponding aspects of the TE, we may still refer to sovereign countries. This is made clear if we take into account the fact that there are power centres (economic, political, military, academic, media, cultural) controlling, or at least strongly influencing, this transnational elite, and that these power centres are mostly geographically concentrated in the G7 countries (the US/Canada, the major EU countries and Japan).
Yet, sovereignty in the globalization era does not mean national sovereignty any more, as in the era of nation-states, but, instead, a transnational sovereignty. In other words, sovereignty within the NWO has to be re-defined to indicate the fact that its basis--as far as every country fully integrated into it is concerned--is no longer the national economy and the nation-state that is withering away within it, but, rather, the internationalized market economy and the globalized power centres I mentioned above. The elites controlling these power centres share various degrees of transnational sovereignty depending on the transnational economic, political, media etc. power concentrated in their hands. Correspondingly, the countries in which most members of these elites are found (the G7 countries) enjoy a significant degree of this transnational sovereignty.
All this implies that when a country is fully integrated into the NWO of neoliberal globalization and it does not exert any significant control over the major power centers above (and consequently it is not a member of the TE), its transnational and economic sovereignty is nil. It is therefore clear that in the NWO, the only kind of sovereignty that such a country can enjoy is national sovereignty, which however is dependent on the degree of economic self-reliance it still enjoys. Therefore, the less a country is integrated into the NWO, the higher the degree of self-reliance possible and, correspondingly, the degree of economic and national sovereignty attainable. The TE is of course fully aware of these considerations. As a Financial Times analyst put it in connection with the TE's sanctions against Russia, quoting a senior US administration official:
The Obama administration believes that even the modest sanctions announced so far have had a broader impact on the Russian economy, including capital flight and currency weakness, and that over time Mr Putin's actions will discourage investment in the country...The underlying approach of the Obama administration is that globalization gives the US leverage over a country such as Russia...This is not like the Cold War when the Soviets built industries that were designed to be isolated from the rest of the world," says the senior administration official. "Targeted sanctions will have a disproportionate effect because Russia is now more integrated into the global economy." 
It is on the basis of such considerations that the EU members of the TE effectively issued an ultimatum when, following a mythical Russian "invasion", they threatened Russia with even tougher sanctions within a week, unless, in effect, it surrendered to its full encirclement. Not coincidentally, this was also the week of the NATO biennial summit in Wales, during which it was expected that the creation of a new rapid deployment multilateral force to bolster Nato's power in response to Russia's "aggression" in Ukraine would be announced - something strongly reminiscent of Orwell's "1984" where the Ministry of Peace (today it is called NATO) was declaring that "War is Peace".
But it is not only at the economic level that the TE can ostracize Russia. Even on the political front, the TE managed to isolate Russia. When, for instance, the TE brought the Ukrainian issue to the UNSC, 13 countries (out of a total of 15, including Russia) took a negative stand against Russia, and even China did not side with the country, preferring to abstain instead. This is not unprecedented as China, whose economy is fully integrated into the NWO through the TNCs that have played a crucial role in its growth and development during the globalization era, also tipped off Washington when Putin proposed a joint Sino-Russian attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds in 2008, aiming to precipitate a dollar crash. Even in the UN General Assembly, when the TE proposed a motion condemning Russia for the Crimean 'annexation', it was only Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Armenia who lined up behind Russia-what the media of the TE called "a roll-call of the irrelevant". However, it is exactly those "irrelevant" countries and peoples, like the people of East Ukraine today, who could lead the world struggle for self-determination and national sovereignty.
It is therefore clear that, for a country to be sovereign today, either it must share transnational sovereignty (as defined above) in case it is fully integrated into the NWO or, in case it is not fully integrated, it must enjoy a degree of economic self-reliance that could secure its national sovereignty. On the basis of this crucial criterion, Russia is not yet fully integrated into the NWO, as shown by a series of indications:
It is obvious, then, that Russia is not a member of the TE and therefore it does not share any significant transnational power. Yet Russia could, potentially, be a self-reliant economy and could therefore restore its national sovereignty, if its elite under Putin decided to do so. Furthermore, it could create - if it so wished - an economic and political union of similar sovereign nations based on self-reliance. However, it seems the Russian elite is split on the matter, with part of it aiming for full integration into the NWO as an equal member of the TE (something the latter could never allow), and another part aiming to create a Eurasian Union of sovereign nations, necessarily outside the NWO.
Thus, some serious inconsistencies in Russia's policies may be explained in terms of such a split, first with respect to Libya and then with respect to Ukraine. As regards the former, the result of this split - which became public at the time - was that Russia in effect allowed the TE to destroy one of the two remaining Arab regimes (following the destruction of the Iraqi Ba'athist regime) based on national liberation movements, i.e. Syria and Libya. Similarly, one could assume that it was perhaps the same split that prevented Russia from refusing to recognize - either directly or indirectly - the illegal regime installed in Ukraine following the 'coup from below', organized and financed by the TE. This has led to the successful integration of Ukraine into the NWO and the subsequent "legal" massacre of the people of East Ukraine, who began a heroic struggle against the junta occupation and in favor of self-determination - which according to the Ministry of Peace is called "terrorism"!
It is well known that there is an informal popular patriotic Front in Russia ranging from communists to 'nationalists' and encompassing the popular strata of Russian society, who are going to be the victims of globalization in case the country is fully integrated into the NWO. It is clear that unless this Front manages to impose its will on the 'globalist' part of the Russian elite, the present Ukrainian crisis will determine not only the future of Russia either as a subordinate member of the TE or as leader of an alternative world order of sovereign states, but also the fate of the Eurasian Union (EEU) itself. It is the outcome of this struggle which will determine whether the EEU will just be a supplement of the NWO (as for example the German elite would wish it to be), or the basis for an alternative democratic world order of sovereign nations.
Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of North London.
*This is a prepublication from the forthcoming new book by Takis Fotopoulos, Ukraine: The attack on Russia and the Eurasian Union (to be published shortly by Progressive Press).
 Umberto Pascali, "The Ukraine Crisis and Vladimir Putin: A New Financial System Free from Wall Street and the City of London?" Global Research, 22/3/2014 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ukraine-crisis-and-vladimir-putin-a-new-financial-system-free-from-wall-street-and-the-city-of-london/5374785
 Geoff Dyer, "US revives cold war thinking on Russia", Financial Times, 23/4/2014
 Sam Jones, "Nato states create new multilateral force", Financial Times, 29/8/2014
 Ambrose Evans-Pritchard "US financial showdown with Russia is more dangerous than it looks, for both sides", The Telegraph, 16/4/2014
 see Takis Fotopoulos, "The Russian embargo and the Ukrainian 'coup from below'", Pravda.ru, 18/08/2014
 see e.g. Pepe Escobar, "From Minsk to Wales, Germany is the key", RT, 28/8/2014 http://rt.com/op-edge/183328-minsk-wales-germany-key/