Today's edition, as promised, was supposed to be the end of the analysis on the new world order. At the same time, if you remember, today we had to focus exclusively on the so-called lurking side players in the current geostrategic competition, of those authoritarian states, which according to the model of liberal democracy are rich in resources and for which the partnership of a part of liberal democracies with them is not a problem, and with it the double standards that they do not want they do. The story with the balloons, however, could not but be part of the writing because of several things that we will associate with that competition, which for the time being, although the liberal world thinks it has things under control, under the matrix "to deal with the lesser evil", we will turn a blind eye as many times before to the irregularities and thus generate double standards, but we will pretend that we do not see the elephant in the room.
The title we "stole" from Nena, a German singer who launched a big hit in the eighties (sung by the German version "99 Luftballons") is symbolic. But the message is strong. The defiance is strong and is in the context of the debate on this very topic. According to the information that was leaked by the mainstream media, but also by the official Pentagon, a spy balloon from China (according to some information, there are more), was floating over the sky of the United States for several days. We will not debate the technicalities now, because the good Macedonian writers in the style of the Resava school, most likely in the absence of local expertise or, in the absence of incentive and support for real journalism, we assume they will already copy the finished texts (which often have an agenda – let's not lie like this or that) and they will explain the problem with the balloons.

We will, however, stick to the line which, although abstract, is at the given moment essential to the race to take positions in the new security architecture. To conclude – China, as we have previously elaborated, as one of the most serious challengers to the dominance and hegemony of the liberal world (at least according to their interpretation) is using asymmetric methods that they consider legitimate in their goal. It is the same with Russia. That both have given a geostrategic dimension or context to organized crime and exploit the lucrative side of the liberal world (read corruption) is what hurts and may be at the top of the hierarchy of threats to liberal hegemony (again let's remind you so as not to burn the pseudo-liberals - perception of the authoritarians) is another side that needs to be explored vis-a-vis authoritarian regimes, but the lateral ones we want to talk about. The countries of the Gulf, Iran, a good part of the Middle East, and even North Africa (if we left someone out, please forgive us), and in many cases more often due to defiance according to certain analysts and Turkey, are those side players who, together with those from the South America or from Asia have a significant role in the new geostrategic competition. They are important because they are largely not just a number, but often an inspiration for defiance, a place and actors for building new alliances, but also actors that can disrupt the flow in the creation of the new security architecture. Let's go in order.

To a large extent, asymmetry - the use of modern technologies as a "shortcut" - shortcut in the race with liberal hegemons on the international level is inspired by this world. The problem with the liberal world in its approach to these actors of the past is the superficiality that is stuck in greed and "consumerism" for exclusive access to cheap energy (which should provide the benefits of the "American dream" or "European", whatever), vagueness and generality in the so-called "win-win deals". One thing that liberalism and Western culture (though not completely) does not take into account is the cultural differences with these regimes. As much as you may dislike Huntington (although before him Bernard Lewis in 1990 merely built on Basil Mathew's thesis of 1926), now that things are going "fall-and-stand" the thesis is relevant even within the liberal camp itself ( but we won't talk about that now). To understand the point, just as an illustration, we will point out several documents that were once adopted in the heyday of liberalism (about which there were warnings, but were neglected under the "win-win" strategy) and which are now a serious problem. Although there are many such examples due to space, we will analyze the freedom of expression.

In the Declaration of Human Rights in Islam adopted in Cairo, from 1990 (the time of the rise of liberalism) it is underlined that the freedom of expression cannot be contrary to Sharia law, underlined in the Koran. Although the line itself (paraphrased of course) contradicts the UN Declaration, it hardly bothered anyone until al-Qaeda and ISIS came along. Turkey, on the other hand, which is severely criticized by European liberals, is a signatory to this declaration, as well as to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Without being hypocritical, we would say that it is their perception based on the culture they have. I know that many European liberals are furious that Erdogan is defying Sweden and Norway's membership in NATO, especially because of his arguments. I also know that previously many condemned him for authoritarianism and despotism. But Turkey, from that perspective (in the liberal spirit and context) has an attitude.

Without judging it, the point we have is that we also know that they (with respective exceptions) are somehow restrained in identical situations. We will not whine about us and Greece or Bulgaria now, God forbid that these new "Euro-Atlanticists" will immediately condemn us for being anti-segment. We will use the partnership with these regimes precisely in the context of the lucrative core segment of the ("American" and "European Dream"). Yes, my dears, you who follow this line know that we will talk about the diversification of energy dependence on Russia, which is stuck in another (according to the liberal concept) authoritarian pool. Here, for example, there is no debate because Ursula did not want to comment anything on one of the biggest corruption scandals rocking the Union related to Qatar and Vice President Margaritis Schinas. Beware Qatar is a serious option to secure the resource supply line. If you think this is just an incident, you are wrong. For example, think of the human rights abuses by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which are not all that different from those for which Iran is condemned. It's not to defend Iran, after all, it's just to point out the vacuum that these double standards generate in the liberal argument, and which these (alleged) outsiders in the battle for the throne are using. Not to mention how technology is used by them.

Take the case of ex-US NSA operatives in the case known as the Raven Case, in which ex-US operatives, as private actors, spied on, among others, American citizen-journalists who were critical of the authorities there. Yes, we will not talk about Assange here, because that debate is hot, but we will talk about how these authoritarian actors colluded with the tech giants for the crypto keys of Blackberry or Apple, for Samsung and not to mention. We will not talk about the scandals with the change of certificates for the delivery of weapons and their distribution in Yemen, in which the neighboring Serbia, Bulgaria and Croatia, as well as other EU countries, were involved. The point is that these players have been involved in a bunch of deals over the past fifteen years that have created a practice that most serious challengers are now exploiting. They are also upgrading it.

In that perspective, we would say that al-Qaeda's planes are now China's balloons. All of this is on account of the internal rift between Eastern Europeans and those from Western Europe, the old one, who if you call them that (meaning Eastern Europeans) for example those from Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary can beat you up, especially if they know you come from the Western Balkans! At the same time, there is a de-dollarization initiative, which according to some self-proclaimed experts is "loose", somehow, but has a serious capacity to shift the pillars of liberalism. In those endeavors those side players will be decisive. Until then, may the Swedes forgive me, but also all other Europeans who attack Erdogan, and were silent about the terror of Greece and now Bulgaria on us, let me tell them, in a liberal way, that maybe Erdogan is saving the world from the third world war by not irritates Putin into, right, "NATO expansion as a problem!"

(The author is a university professor, associate professor at Arizona State University, USA)