Belarusians have taken to the streets to protest what many claim was a rigged election. Yet the US election - with its hyper-partisan media, nonsense polls, and both parties determined to contest a loss - makes Minsk's look legit.

The US is one of many countries to condemn Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko over his supposedly rigged reelection and his government's brutal crackdown on the protests that followed. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo promised to "deliver freedom" to Minsk, and even Hollywood star Chuck Norris made a bizarre video threatening to make the president "cry."

But if the Belarusian election was corrupt and illegitimate, what does that make the US' own electoral contest, which looms less than three months in the future? Many American political tactics that have become routine would elicit cries of outrage from the West if another country's politicians used them.

From the closing of polling places in poor and minority neighborhoods to gerrymandering to superPACs and dark money, US "democracy" is profoundly un-democratic - and getting worse. The amount of money spent on American elections alone would be denounced as corruption, even outright bribery, if it happened anywhere else, but US races routinely break spending records with little fanfare. The 2016 contest cost $6.8 billion, a sum that exceeds the GDPs of Guyana or the Maldives.

Former President Barack Obama criticized President Donald Trump during his Wednesday address at the Democratic National Convention, saying Trump has "no interest" in living up to the expectations of American citizens.

Obama came as the penultimate address of the DNC's third night, just before Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris. Obama argued Trump has failed to lead the U.S. amid the coronavirus, has threatened the right to vote ahead of the November election, and has failed to live up to the decency of the office of president.

"Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job because he can't," Obama said. "This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that's what it takes to win, so we've got to get busy."

US Democrats have rained abuse on Russia for the entire Trump presidency. Now they claim they want to restore and preserve the treaties he ditched. It's politically expedient, but not a sign of any real change towards Russia.

President Trump's confusing message on the subject of Russia has predictably gotten him into trouble. The Democrats, having spent the better part of the last four years accusing Trump of working for the Kremlin, may now be poised to present themselves to the public as the party best able to secure a stable, working relationship with Russia.

Trump has only himself to blame for his predicament. Back in 2016, he had promised improved relations with Russia. He failed to deliver on that, boasting instead that as president he has been "tougher on Russia" than anyone else. Yet, in an echo of 2016, he continues to insist that, at some point in the future, he will secure some unspecified wonderful deal with Russia.

"There's a very good chance we'll make a new agreement or do something to put that agreement back together," Trump declared upon announcing withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty. "I think what's going to happen is we're going to pull out and they're going to come back and want to make a deal."

Trump has cultivated cordial personal relations with President Putin while pursuing policies adverse to Russia's national interests. Trump imposed sanctions on Russia, expelled Russian diplomats and closed diplomatic compounds, sent lethal weapons to Ukraine, launched missiles against Russian ally Syria and seized the country's oil fields. He also withdrew from the Intermediate Nuclear-Forces and Open Skies treaties.

Many voices have been quick to enter the chorus of commentators hypothesizing the manifold possible causes of the devastating explosions which occurred on the afternoon of August 4 in Beirut which has led to mass anarchy and the surprising resignation of the government on August 11th.

While I have no great novel contribution to offer in that growing array of hypotheses (which are slowly turning into noise), I would like to share an insight which addresses a too-often-overlooked aspect of the role of Lebanon in the Great Game. Before proceeding, it is useful to hold in the mind several points of certainty:

1) The official narrative of a chance mishap of Turkish fireworks instigating the detonation of the 2700 tons of ammonium nitrate which had been sitting at the Port of Beirut for six years is entirely unbelievable.

2) This event should not considered in any way separated from the anomalously large pattern of explosions and arson which have spread across the Arab and African worlds in recent weeks.

3) This pattern of chaos must itself be seen in the context of the clash between two systems: The collapsing NATO unipolar alliance on the one side and the New Silk Road-led multipolar alliance on the other.

The situation in Belarus is evolving very rapidly, and not for the better, to say the least. A lot has been going on, but here is a summary of what are the most crucial developments in my opinion:

• Last Sunday was a major success for the Belarusian opposition: huge crowds took to the streets of several Belarusian cities and, in most cases, the demonstrations were peaceful.
• Belarus now has its own "Juan Guaido" in the person of Svetlana Tikhanovskaia - whose only "qualification" to lead the opposition is that is that her husband is in jail. Tikhanovskaia has already declared herself the "national leader" of Belarus.
• The Belarusian opposition formed a coordinating committee which is staffed by well-known and long-time rabid russophobes.
• The program of the opposition (they call it "Reanimation package of reforms for Belarus") is simple: new "fair" elections followed by the following goals: Belarus must withdrawn from all the collective agreements she has with Russia (including the union state, the SCO, etc.). Instead, the national goal ought to be, what else, to join NATO and the EU. All the Russian military forces in Belarus must be expelled. The Belarusian language must be reimposed, Ukie-style, on the Belarusian society (including, apparently, the military - good luck with that!). Russian organizations will be banned in Belarus, and Russian TV channels forbidden. The border with Russia must be closed. Next, a new, independent "Belarusian Orthodox Church" must be created. Finally, the Belarusian economy will "reformed" - meaning that whatever can be sold will be sold, then the country will be deindustrialized (like the Ukraine or the Baltic states).
• At this point, it is pretty clear that the Western-controlled "opposition" has successfully taken over the control of the events from the very REAL local popular opposition. This mechanism (the hijacking of a truly popular and legitimate opposition by western controlled agents of influence) is exactly what happened in the Ukraine, in Syria and in many other places (I would even argue that this is what is happening to the US right now). Some Belarusian ambassadors (Slovakia, Switzerland, Sweden) have now sided with the opposition just like what happened with Venezuela, Syria and other countries.

To be honest, there are more similarities between the recent events in Venezuela and what is now taking place in Belarus, it's not just Tikhanovskaia as the Belarusian Guaido. For example, Lukashenko made at least as many, if not more, crucial mistakes than Maduro and now there is hell to pay for it.

Afghanistan's controversial pledge to free the last of some 400 Taliban prisoners was supposed to be the final hurdle before the launch of long-delayed peace talks between the two warring sides.

But those talks have been postponed indefinitely after Kabul abruptly halted the release of the remaining inmates, some of whom have been accused or convicted of deadly attacks on Afghans and foreigners since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

At the same time, the Afghan government has accused the Taliban of failing to free all government soldiers in its custody, a claim rejected by the insurgents.

The prisoner swap is supposed to involve a total of 5,000 Taliban militants and some 1,000 Afghan soldiers.

Meanwhile, some foreign governments are strongly urging Kabul not to release specific Taliban inmates because they were involved in killing their citizens on Afghan soil.

A senior Afghan official has also blamed the Taliban for an assassination attempt on a member of the government's peace-negotiating team.

Some Afghan and foreign observers say President Ashraf Ghani could be deliberately delaying a process that has undermined his administration and boosted the legitimacy of the Taliban. "The Afghan government has cited several justifications in order to stall this prisoner release in the past week alone," said Andrew Watkins, a senior analyst for Afghanistan at the International Crisis Group.

Whenever there is a mass protest against a government somewhere in the world, one of the first questions from skeptics will be whether it's a 'color revolution,' a technique of turning legitimate grievances into a coup d'etat.

The recent events in Belarus are a perfect example. It's not a color revolution, but President Alexander Lukashenko "repeating Soviet mistakes," argues Bradley Blankenship. While he is looking at the behavior of the protesters on the ground, however, Caitlin Johnstone is looking at the State Department. Foggy Bottom's actions and "imperial narrative management" by official US propaganda outlets have her convinced it is a color revolution. She's not the only one.

That's precisely the problem, however: in a world where "color revolutions" have become normalized, it's nearly impossible to tell if a mass protest is a spontaneous, grassroots event or an astroturfed regime-change operation. To the creators of color revolutions, this is a feature, not a bug.

The tactic has been around for two decades now, first tested following the September 2000 elections in Serbia. It involves activists trained by US-backed "NGOs," copious amounts of cash, strategies and tactics outlined in a manual written by the late Gene Sharp. The key element is narrative management, through which the revolutionaries usurp the initial protests and direct them towards their own ends.

Belarus' opposition wants to build good relations with all countries and has no plans to cancel existing treaties with Russia. That's according to Maria Kolesnikova, the most prominent leader still active inside the state.

Her comments came after Russian President Vladimir Putin warned his German and French counterparts that interference in Belarus' internal affairs was "unacceptable." Kolesnikova confirmed that other countries have been seeking to establish contact with the opposition in Belarus.

Along with Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, she has become the 'face' of the movement seeking to replace long-time incumbent Alexander Lukashenko, and told broadcaster Echo of Moscow that she distrusts the current president's apparent willingness to enter serious negotiations on a new government. She also emphasized that she considers Russia to be a vital ally to her country.

Vladimir Putin's spokesman has rubbished speculation that Moscow is either conducting or is preparing to carry out some sort of military intervention in neighboring Belarus, with which it has mutual-assistance agreements.

Dmitry Peskov said that while Russia is treaty-bound to assist Minsk, the conditions for such support don't currently exist.

Both countries form a Union State, under a 1999 agreement, and are also members of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), a Moscow-led security alliance that serves as an alternative to NATO. Peskov explained that these treaties "indeed, stipulate a number of commitments of the sides on mutual assistance." He was answering a reporter's question on the circumstances in which such assistance would be possible.

In an interview that seems to signal that France will not be returning to lockdown, president Emmanuel Macron says that the country 'cannot be put on hold' by coronavirus.

While at the presidential holiday home in Brégançon on the French Riviera, Macron gave an interview to magazine Paris Match - complete with traditional 'at home' style photos of himself and his wife Brigitte in their holiday attire.

And he told the Paris Match journalist: "We can't shut the country down because the collateral damage of lockdown is considerable.

"Zero risk never exists in any society. We must respond to this anxiety without falling into the doctrine of zero risk."