My friend Leonid Savin is one of the very best geopolitical observers alive. He, of course, didn’t get an invite to the big ARC clown show in London. And one can watch Western MSM “news” for a lifetime and never hear mention of thoughts like these:

Now we return to the problem of non-recognition, non-understanding and non-acceptance, characteristic of Western political thinking, and through its dissemination having an effect on the entire world system.

To explain this Western position, which claims universality through its institutions and the so-called “rule-based order”, and with a reference to the already mentioned antiquity, I propose to use the Greek term parallax (παράλλαξις – deviation), which is used in astronomy. In simple terms, this is a change in the apparent position of an object relative to a distant background depending on the position of the observer. In other words, one and the same object can be looked at in different ways and seen differently. A similar approach is used in political frame theory, when the same object or phenomenon can be presented and shown differently, depending on the focus, primary data and the task at hand. In the media industry, a similar effect, with appropriate direction, can be used to manipulate public opinion.

And this effect in international relations is proposed to be called geopolitical parallax. Since the current era is characterized by the transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar⁷ one, this transformation provides additional etymological justification (the Greek word παράλλαύις comes from παραλλαγή, which means “change, alternation”). Geopolitical parallax, in this case, is the observation of another actor in international relations through the prism of one’s own strategic culture, as well as indicators of economics, politics, demography and military power. Graham Allison assessed the rise of China from precisely this position, relying on the theory of the balance of power and the theory of realism in international relations. Therefore, its phobias tend to be transmitted to others who similarly assess the growth of their neighbors’ power or, conversely, reflect on their decline. This is not the Thucydides trap, it is the optical effect of geopolitical parallax, which Allison and similar scholars ignore.

However, if we approach the analysis of the international situation objectively and responsibly and try to adequately understand the motivation and actions of other actors, we must take into account the geopolitical parallax in order to make the necessary adjustments and correctly assess both our own and others’ positions and existing potential.

Read the whole thing. Unless you’re part of ARC or the clown MSM.