The desperate reactions to recent geopolitical defeats make it clear that the Zionist hegemon’s project of global domination is, in fact, falling apart.
There is a growing perception that the global financial architecture, forged by hegemonic power centers, is heading toward structural collapse. As in 1929, a depression of catastrophic proportions could sweep through Western societies, not as a natural phenomenon, but as a direct consequence of a corrupt and unsustainable system.
History shows that deepening poverty is fertile ground for escalating war. In the 1930s, the economic crisis was the fuel that fueled the Nazi-fascist war machine. Today, a similar scenario is being observed: the hopelessness and lack of direction of societies are instrumentalized to justify conflicts on a global scale, diverting attention from the true causes of the crisis. This is not merely a political strategy, but a playbook of domination that demonstrates a profound disregard for human life. Under this logic, genocides and the annihilation of millions are not accidental tragedies, but predictable tools of a power project that seeks to subdue humanity at any cost. The pattern repeats itself, and it is urgent to recognize it so that history does not continue to be written with the same blood spilled by millions of innocents.
As the ability to impose the old neoliberal financial order weakens globally, the hegemon, with its mechanisms of domination, resorts to increasingly explicit and brutal atrocities to maintain control. This pattern of escalating violence manifests itself in distinct yet complementary ways in different regions of the world.
In the United States, we witness the criminalization of migration, with people being detained en masse and confined in detention centers that operate outside of basic human standards, including in outsourced territories like El Salvador. In Ukraine, a generation is being sacrificed in a geopolitically unsustainable conflict. Young people are coercively recruited and, after insignificant training, are sent as cannon fodder into a war already lost.
In Gaza, however, brutality reaches its genocidal peak. The IDF, the military arm of a colonial power project, systematically targets defenseless civilians: children, pregnant women, health workers, and journalists. The extermination of the Palestinian people is being perpetrated in the open, broadcast live to a powerless world, demonstrating a total disregard for international law and human dignity.
These are not isolated events, but interconnected actions of a power system in crisis, which replaces economic and financial persuasion with outright annihilation when it no longer sees any chance of maintaining its hegemonic project.
The new multilateral architecture being constructed by the BRICS represents a growing counterpoint to the hegemonic financial system, historically characterized by mechanisms of unsustainable debt and unbacked monetary issuance. This emerging alternative threatens to gradually dismantle the “fiat money” model that, for decades, has allowed certain centers of international power to finance conflicts, support belligerent organizations, and orchestrate coercive government changes — practices whose trail of misery and instability is evident in the regions where they are applied. A clear example of this shift occurred in September 2023. Until then, the United States’ war-mongering focus had been on the Taiwan Strait, with incessant provocations that threatened to ignite a conflict between China and the island. On the 20th of that month, however, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Joe Biden at the White House. From that moment on, the empire’s military and media efforts, previously focused on Asia, suddenly redirected, demonstrating how geopolitical priorities shift according to the interests of hegemonic actors.
Benjamin Netanyahu had already been informed by the Egyptians about the operation that Hamas soldiers would carry out on October 7th. The order was then given to the American President to forget any action in Taiwan and fully support the attack that the Zionist State of Israel would launch against the BRICS through the genocide of the Palestinian people justified by the Hamas attack, but which, curiously, had most of the Israeli victims killed by the IDF.
For the first time in history, a unique geopolitical scenario is emerging: a global empire acts, in many respects, in accordance with the interests of a state significantly smaller in size and power, yet extremely influential in strategic arenas.
This alignment can be partially understood by analyzing networks of influence and coercion that infiltrate power structures. A notorious example is the Jeffrey Epstein case, whose web of abuse, allegedly connected to international intelligence services such as the Mossad, allegedly involved prominent figures in the empire’s political, economic, and media elites. Through the recording of illicit and compromising activities, a mechanism of large-scale blackmail and control was created.
As a result, key sectors of the Western establishment potentially find themselves under an unprecedented level of external influence, raising profound questions about sovereignty, governance, and the true nature of power in the contemporary world.
The Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip can be interpreted, in a broader strategic analysis, as an action that directly impacts the interests and cohesion of the BRICS. This move appears to be the consequence of a desperate calculation in the face of the progressive erosion of a unilateral hegemonic project, which finds itself threatened by the consolidation of a multipolar world order and the political rise of the Global South.
The turning point that intensified this crisis of perspective was the expansion of the BRICS, with the inclusion of key regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, and Iran. This expansion represented a tangible geopolitical and economic counterweight, reducing the unilateral influence of traditional actors over the Middle East.
Realizing the threat this new international architecture poses to their interests, hegemonic sectors understood it crucial to sabotage its consolidation. The chosen strategy is absolute dominance of the Middle East and control of its critical oil and gas reserves, resources that are the energy and economic levers of any global order.
Under this logic, the State of Israel’s offensive would not be limited to Palestine. Its medium and long-term strategic objective would be to advance throughout the region, securing undisputed control over hydrocarbons. The ultimate goal would be to strangle the new multipolar economic order at its birth, depriving it of the fuel that fuels the development of its constituent nations.
As Israeli military operations in Gaza intensify, a growing abysm separates the official positions of several European governments from the will of their citizens. The civilian population, horrified by the escalating violence, is increasingly speaking out against what it classifies as an ongoing genocide — a stark contrast to the often acquiescent stance of its political leaders. This shift in global public opinion, far from inhibiting Israeli actions, appears to be pressuring the Israeli government to accelerate its military actions with the aim of consummating its control over the countries in the region. The 12-day war with Iran cannot be ruled out, as that country is a regional powerhouse that poses crucial resistance to any threat of domination and control of this geopolitically important region.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a figure who openly advocates for military interventions against Venezuela and supports belligerent actions against the Palestinian people is, to say the least, contradictory. This act seems to reflect a perverse logic, in which hegemonic sectors of the West validate wars and human rights violations under the guise of peace. By awarding such a stance, this perverse system, which seeks hegemony at all costs, reveals an inversion of values that seeks to politically justify the unjustifiable.
At the same time, Western institutions have mobilized their instruments of power to contain the geopolitical influence of the BRICS. A clear demonstration of this occurred when Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary-General, publicly warned Brazil, China, and India about their trade relations with Russia. The episode is significant for transforming a military-defensive alliance into an actor of economic sanctions, blurring the dividing lines between the European Union and NATO and merging them into an axis of political and economic pressure.
The synchronicity between this diplomatic offensive and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not go unnoticed. For many observers, the Western reluctance to impose an effective ceasefire reflects a broader strategy: to weaken the cohesion of the BRICS and their allies, keeping them occupied with regional crises while consolidating an economic and diplomatic front against their expansion. The apparent indifference to Palestinian suffering would be, in this reading, not an oversight, but a conscious geopolitical calculation.
It is remarkable to observe how contemporary geopolitical strategies seem to revive 19th-century principles of containment, analogous to the Napoleonic Continental Blockade. The recent statement by a high-ranking NATO representative on July 15, 2025, symbolically declaring the “end of the BRICS,” appears to follow this logic of attempted isolation. However, such a stance tends to produce the opposite effect: instead of fragmenting the bloc, it should consolidate cohesion among its member nations, accelerating the construction of a multipolar order based on sovereign cooperation and the collective development of the Global South.
This is not an isolated move, but part of a historical pattern of intervention. The 2014 Euromaidan episode in Ukraine, which resulted in a change of government, can be understood within this context. The central objective, as illustrated by the statement by then U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, was to reconfigure the European geopolitical landscape, prioritizing the strategic interests of the hegemon over autonomous continental integration. The famous expression “Fuck the EU” crudely captures the realpolitik that often guides these actions, demonstrating a clear disdain for multilateral partnerships that do not subordinate themselves to a unipolar hegemony.
A strategic interpretation of the events leading up to the conflict in Ukraine suggests that Western powers, notably the United States, encouraged nationalist radicalization in the country to create continued pressure on Russia. The underlying geopolitical objective, from this perspective, was to create a casus belli that would justify, in the subsequent international scenario, the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines.
These infrastructures were of paramount importance, as they represented a linchpin of energy interdependence between Russia and Western Europe. By ensuring a stable natural gas supply and relatively free of the American sphere of influence, the pipelines paved the way for greater European strategic and economic autonomy. Their destruction, therefore, can be seen as a drastic action to realign Europe with the interests of the hegemonic power, preventing the continent from breaking free from a security and economic architecture shaped since the end of World War II.
The Nord Stream pipelines represented more than just energy infrastructure; they were a geoeconomic project with the potential to reorient Europe’s strategic axis. By securing a direct supply of natural gas from Russia, they offered the continent the possibility of greater autonomy from the North Atlantic-centered economic order. This energy route could have facilitated progressive integration with emerging alternative economic systems, spearheaded by blocs like the BRICS, which promote a development model focused on real production and multilateral financial arrangements, in contrast to a system still largely anchored in debt and dependency paradigms.
However, with the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine favorable to Russia, hegemonic power centers are implementing an alternative strategy. The plan, which some analysts associate with the vision of former Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland — summed up in the famous expression “Fuck the EU” — seems to be taking shape in a new context. Thus begins a process we might call the “Ukrainization” of Europe: the transformation of the continent into a geopolitical frontline.
In this scenario, the European Union and NATO, whose foreign and security policies appear increasingly aligned, are instrumentalized for a primary objective: to convert Europe into a disposable strategic asset, a “cannon fodder” in the confrontation with Russia and the axis of cooperation represented by the BRICS. The continent, once an autonomous center of power, thus finds itself in the position of a supporting actor in a geopolitical chess game whose rules it does not define, repeating the role that Ukraine played on a regional scale.
A profound process of transformation is underway in Western societies, characterized by three central goals: progressive deindustrialization, the systematic dissemination of anti-Russian rhetoric, and the cultivation of a sense of social hopelessness. This context facilitates the rise of aggressive nationalist policies and the militarization of the foreign policy of countries aligned with the hegemon. The return to a war economy, analogous in some respects to that of the 1930s, materializes with the imposition of defense investment targets, such as the allocation of 5% of GDP to the military sector. This movement consolidates the operational merger between the European Union and NATO, which now function as a single structure with a unified objective: the “Ukrainization” of Europe, which, as we already know, is underway.
At the same time, hegemonic foreign policy is relentless. It advances assertively in the Middle East, replicates the model of permanent tension in the major European economies, and exports internal instability to the United States itself. The strategic objective appears to be the conversion of the “American Empire” into a war asset of even greater magnitude than Europe, mobilizing its full potential to contain the advance of the BRICS and the new multipolar economic order.
The architecture of a new multilateral financial system, led by the BRICS countries, has provoked an assertive reaction from traditional power centers. This silent confrontation is clearly manifested in the United States’ recent trade measures against Brazil. The announcement of 50% tariffs on Brazilian exports, despite the US maintaining a trade surplus with the country, reveals that the motivations go beyond trade balance. Reports indicate that the suspension of the tariffs was conditioned on two strategic demands: privileged access to Brazil’s rare earth reserves and the dismantling of PIX, the Brazilian instant payment system.
The justification behind these demands is clear: PIX, with its zero cost and efficiency, poses a direct threat to the global dominance of companies like VISA and MasterCard, in addition to challenging the payment models of Big Tech. This is a coordinated effort to ensure the prevalence of a traditional financial system, based on fees and intermediation, over new sovereign economic and financial models emerging in the Global South.
The ultimate goal is clear: to prevent the consolidation of a “new economic world” free from dependence on hegemonic financial paradigms, ensuring the perpetuation of an order where control over transactions and natural resources remains centralized in the hegemon.
