Datasets:

Vctr-dev

/

geopol_news_combined_cat

like 0

Write an article about: Colonialism or sovereignty? How the global financial system traps countries in debt. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Ann Pettifor, colonialism, debt, Geopolitical Economy Hour, IMF, International Monetary Fund, Michael Hudson, neocolonialism, Ukraine, World Bank

Political economists Radhika Desai, Michael Hudson, and Ann Pettifor discuss how the international financial system traps Global South countries in debt, reinforcing a neocolonial order. Political economists Radhika Desai, Michael Hudson, and Ann Pettifor discuss how the international financial system traps Global South countries in debt, reinforcing a neocolonial order. You can find more episodes of Geopolitical Economy Hour here. RADHIKA DESAI: Hi, everyone, and welcome to this 13th Geopolitical Economy Hour, the fortnightly show on the political and geopolitical economy of our times. I’m Radhika Desai. MICHAEL HUDSON: And I’m Michael Hudson. RADHIKA DESAI: And today, as last time, we are joined by Ann Pettifor to discuss the urgent issue of our time, the Third World debt crisis. And as I said last time, we couldn’t find a more authoritative guest for this show. Ann hardly needs any introduction, but I do feel I should remind everyone of what she’s done, particularly in relation to the debt and also the fuller range of her contributions. Ann is a prolific writer on issues of debt, finance and development. And she has also been one of the most important activists on the issue of Third World debt in particular, and has had a great effect on the area. In particular, she launched the Jubilee campaign at the end of the last century to a campaign for debt forgiveness for the poorest countries. She has served as an advisor to the British Labour Party, important figures such as Margaret Beckett. And more recently, she was on Jeremy Corbyn’s Economic Advisory Council. She is the author of many books and articles on these subjects, including Debt, the Most Potent Form of Slavery. I’m sure that has a lot in common with what Michael’s been writing about debt. Another of her books is The Production of Money: How to Break the Power of Bankers. Welcome, Ann. ANN PETTIFOR: Hi, thank you so much, Radhika, lovely to be here again. RADHIKA DESAI: Yeah, exactly. And so let’s get on with our raging conversation that we were having last time. So what we were going to talk about is really the Third World debt crisis, the new Third World debt crisis. How similar and how different is it from the one that hit the Third World back in the 1980s? What has been the specific contribution, if any, of the pandemic and the war? And what is the future of the Third World, given that in addition to all the other calamities, it is now hit with this debt crisis? Now, last time we started with a list of seven questions and we only got through the first two. So let me just go through the seven questions and then we will begin with the third question. So the first question was, what was the genesis of the 1980s debt crisis? Number two, what are the causes of the crisis today? Number three, are Third World countries responsible for their own plight? Number four, how has debt been an instrument of world power and imperialism? Number five, is China putting Third World countries in a debt trap? Number six, what does the debt crisis have to do with the dollar system? And finally, number seven, is there a way out? So last time we said many things about the specific causes that we recalled the first Third World debt crisis, and then we talked about the second one. And just some of the ideas that we had about the differences between the two is, of course, there’s a greater extent of financialization today. And also there are many similarities, of course, the vast availability of money in the First World countries, the inability to invest it in First World countries, the essentially touting of loans to Third World countries, all these are common. But we are looking, of course, at a much greater degree of financialization. So that’s one of the main differences. But let’s launch into the third question, are Third World countries responsible for their own plight? And Ann, I thought we’d start with you because, you started the Jubilee campaign, you had a very clear understanding of the causes of that crisis and why Third World countries should be forgiven. So what was your understanding then? And how does it relate to what’s going on now? ANN PETTIFOR: So first of all, can I just say this, that we fought a long battle and a losing battle during the Jubilee 2000 campaign to remove the word Third World and First World and to instead talk about low income countries. And I just want to stress that. And the second thing is that, during that campaign, one of the reasons that it latched on, if you like, and we were able to form a North-South coalition was that we talked about co-responsibility for the crisis. That, yes, there were dictators in the South who were wicked and who’d borrowed hard currency from rich countries for the purposes of buying jets and posh houses in the south of France, or used a fair amount of that for those purposes because hard currency is so scarce in those countries. So, yes, there is an element of co-responsibility because, of course, those loans were pushed by the rich countries for reasons to do with the imbalances in trade between North and South. So, Britain, for example, has a massive trade deficit. So one of the ways to correct those deficits, back in the day, in the 80s, was to lend money to Nigerian dictators so that they would buy British armored cars and other weaponry and create jobs, help create jobs back home and generate income from exports here, but at the same time to help the dictator repress his own people. So we argued that there was co-responsibility. But I want to take it a step further and say that whatever country it is, whether it’s a rich country or poor country, it is victim to a system. And the system is one based, of course, on the dollar, but above all, based on the deregulation of capital across the world. Now, we saw that the first world debt crisis, the first global debt crisis was caused by the collapse of Bretton Woods in 1971, but it’s actually been triggered even earlier with the establishment of the euro dollar market here in the UK. And that was a way of evading financial regulation by governments. And the point is that what that did was to undermine the economic autonomy of governments in the north as well as the south, right? So if money is able to flow across borders, the capital is able to flow across borders, it can do so. By doing so, it can undermine policymaking at home. For example, if the central bank and the government want to set interest rates quite low to suit local conditions at home, and if those who own capital feel that they’re not getting enough money, earning enough rent or interest on their loan, on their money, they can take their money to another country like Brazil, where interest rates are much higher. And so that undermines the willingness of a government to lower interest rates, to stimulate investment at home. And there are other ways in which capital mobility undermines policy autonomy at home. But of course, the most disastrous is for poor countries. But there’s another element to this, is that at least Western governments have a degree of policy autonomy. They have central banks. They have the institutions which underpin the nature of credit and the management and the regulation of credit. Poor countries are discouraged from investing and building those public institutions, an independent, fairly independent central bank run by competent technocrats, a system of taxation, which is absolutely vital to the monetary system, a system of accounting, which enables countries to balance surpluses and deficits and so on, a system of regulation and management of credit creation. I’ve worked in countries like Malawi where those institutions do not exist, a criminal justice system for enforcing contracts. We have criminal justice systems here and the World Bank advocates for criminal justice systems precisely to enforce contracts precisely because they’re afraid that if there’s a contract to provide, I don’t have military gear to a poor country that won’t be honored ultimately. And so the World Bank is dead keen on a criminal justice system. But a criminal justice system has to be publicly financed and publicly created. And at the same time, the international institutions prohibit, if you like, the spending on and investment in these public institutions and the employment. You know, I’ve worked in Nigeria and Nigeria could really do with a well-trained, well-resourced, well-paid police system, a policing system and criminal justice system because they have an awful lot of crime, an awful lot of really clever people who can dodge the regulations. But it’s very hard to build a proper criminal justice system with very little money. And when your policemen are low paid, it’s easy as pie to take a bribe from the local driver in order to avoid penalizing him for speeding or running over a poor child or some such thing. Same is happening in South Africa, the country of my birth. I see that happening where, but here in Britain, we pay our police fairly well. They can still be pretty corrupt, but we give them status and money and we give them resources. And we understand that in order to enforce contracts on the one hand, but also to maintain economic stability, we need public stability. So poor countries are deprived of the sort of autonomy that would enable them to raise finance at home instead of having to go abroad and to raise finance in somebody else’s currency. And even when they do have a degree of autonomy, which is what South Africa has, it’s an incredibly rich country. It has its own central bank. It has relatively sophisticated taxation institutions. It has quite a lot of those. And it still chooses to withhold borrowing, to refrain from borrowing to finance employment, the creation of employment at home. And it still prefers to borrow from abroad because that imposes apparently a form of discipline on capital. So even where the low income country will have these institutions, they’re discouraged from using them because of the export orientation of their economy. So that’s quite a long intro to saying why, there is co-responsibility. Both rich and poor countries are penalized by an international financial system designed effectively to serve the interests of the one percent, nobody else, whether those one percent live in Kenya, whether they live in China, whether they live in Dubai or whether they live in New York, they all benefit from it. The rest of us suffer. RADHIKA DESAI: Great, thanks. And Michael, do you want to add? MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, you’ve described the kind of economic and ideological interference from the IMF and World Bank. Most other countries have suffered from US political interference in their domestic affairs. A whole century of Latin American dictators have been installed, leaving a residue of client oligarchies that are responsible for actually much of the death. But on a broader level, US diplomats, as you’ve just pointed out, weaponized the IMF and the World Bank to confront other countries with a take it or leave it offer. Either you play by the US rules, the neoliberal rules, or you’re going to be treated like Venezuela and Iran and Russia. So there’s force behind what you’ve described. And the debtor countries have been obliged since 1945 to follow these demands of the IMF and not just advice, but demands, because neocolonialism really has taken a financial turn, much more than armed force. Well, except in Chile and Guatemala, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, the color revolution countries, Ukraine, Indonesia with the CIA. I guess it has been imposed by force, as finance is just the gentle gloved hand of colonialism. And I think one can talk of financial colonialism. And if you think of the debtor countries of having, after World War Two, thrown off the colonial powers and nominally got their economic liberty, they didn’t get their financial liberty. They were forced into a financial dependence. And countries that did not enact these neoliberal laws suffered currency raids and the IMF simply wouldn’t lend to them. And there could be basically the U.S. and NATO countries would raid Chile’s currency or Argentina’s. And the IMF will only help countries that actually follow the U.S. Like today, it’s found the most creditworthy country in the world is now Ukraine, judging from the IMF’s statement that it only lends to countries that are at peace, like Ukraine, that are not in war and that have every ability to repay the foreign debt like Ukraine. ANN PETTIFOR: Iraq was another one. MICHAEL HUDSON: Yeah. But Ann, you used the word borrowed. Most of these Global South debts were not borrowed. They’re simply in accrual of interest all through the 1970s and onward. The banks and bondholders simply added the interest on to the debt. And the U.S. statistics show America’s foreign aid will lend Latin American countries enough to pay the banks and the bondholders. I was at meetings with the Federal Reserve where they made this very clear. They’ll always lend friendly countries, meaning right wing dictatorships, the client oligarchies, the money to pay the debt. So they actually borrowed it 50 years ago. All the rest is just added on. ANN PETTIFOR: And currency and also exchange rate instability as well. MICHAEL HUDSON: Right. So to me, I think these debts should be treated as bad loans. You talked about, Gee, the debtors can’t pay. If a creditor makes a loan that can’t be paid, it’s a bad loan and bad loans should be wiped off. But uniquely for the Global South countries, instead of saying we’re at a market for finance to take responsibility, it says it’s going to make sure the loans are for credit worthy purposes. That whole principle is suspended for post-colonial countries, the Global South countries. So, yes, of course, you can’t hold them responsible if their policy has been dictated by the creditor countries themselves, which to me makes them bad loans as well as odious debts. RADHIKA DESAI: Yeah. I mean, I just wanted to add a couple of points to some of the points you raised quite rightly. So both of you mentioned the analogy with colonialism. And I just like to remind you of a couple of things. Number one, if you think about, for example, anything colonialism does is really for the purposes of extraction, right? So, for example, colonial powers built railways in colonial countries. The purpose of these railways was not to integrate the economies of those countries to help make them more productive. It was to extract what the colonial countries wanted to extract out of those countries, bring it from the hinterland up to the coast and export it. So that’s how you got situations in which countries that were suffering famines were still having food exported during colonial times, even in the midst of famines. So similarly, Rosa Luxemburg in her book, The Accumulation of Capital on a World Scale, has a special chapter on how exactly, as Michael says, indebtedness is made into an instrument of colonialism, whether it is the velvet glove or the iron fist or it doesn’t matter, but it is an instrument of colonialism. And she even points out, and this relates to the point you were making about government laws and infrastructure and institutions. She said that there is a tendency to insist on a certain type of constitutionalism so that the indebted country, by its own laws, becomes obliged to prioritize the repayment of debt. And this is and this, of course, we see today in the form of good governance and so on and so forth in the IMF and the World Bank. So in that sense, I would say that. And there’s a third thing that is very critical. And indebtedness also essentially empowers those people, a sort of comprador class that has an interest in keeping the country indebted, that has an interest in actually borrowing, as you said, in international currency. And although in many countries the borrowing has been used for developmental purposes, there are also many other countries in which it was not used for developmental purposes. And so, for example, today, the greater freedom of capital flows allows big Indian companies to raise foreign capital for completely vanity purchases of foreign corporations and so on. This is not something that the Indian people should be responsible for. But in the end, they will be made responsible for it. So that’s one set of points. That is to say that in Third World countries, all the things that used to happen through formal colonial control or nearly all of them today happen through the mechanisms of indebtedness. And that’s all the more reason why, as Michael says, since these are bad debts, they should be repudiated because they are the denial, they are at the core of the denial of development. So the second set of points I wanted to make is also connected with what both of you are saying, that it has to do with the international financial system and the way it’s created. And as we’ve talked, Michael, in the past, in many of our shows, and I think we also talked in the first episode of this set of shows on the Third World debt crisis, the international financial system is the accompaniment of the dollar system. And the fact of the matter is that if Keynes’s original proposals for bancor and an international clearing union had been accepted or if a new such system is created as elements, elements of which are being put up as we speak by various Third World countries or developing countries, I’ll go into Third World countries later, because I’ve always argued that people object to Third World because they think Third World means third class. But it doesn’t. Third world is the self-designation of the Bandung countries, the non-aligned movement, they said that they represented a third way, not communist and not capitalist, but a third way. And of course, this third way always leaned distinctly to the left, but anyway, we’ll leave that aside. So I don’t have a problem calling them Third World countries. But anyway, the thing is that Third World countries or developing countries, they essentially would never have these problems of chronic indebtedness, debt crisis, et cetera, if we had had that kind of system, but we didn’t have that kind of system because the United States insisted on imposing the dollar on the rest of the world, leaving them with no other option. And it sort of, it has succeeded. And after 1971, of course, the dollar system has required financialization. So it requires the creation of vast quantities of monies chiefly for financial transactions. And then as both of you have pointed out, and I think, Ann, you said, there’s so much money sloshing around in the First World, which cannot be invested in First World countries because First World countries are themselves undergoing their own growth slowdown. So then all these banks are going around touting loans to the rest of the world. The IMF and the World Bank have acted as cheerleaders to this increase of indebtedness of Third World countries, saying, isn’t it wonderful that now the private sector is able to lend to Third World countries? And so all this lending has taken place. And today, for reasons entirely having to do with the preservation of capitalism in First World countries, interest rates are being jacked up, which is why we have the creation of this debt crisis, which is coming on top of the pandemic, on top of the problems created for the Third World in terms of supply constraints and so on through the conflict in Ukraine, et cetera. Interest rates are being jacked up in First World countries entirely because to tackle inflation in any other way would be to question the existence of capitalism because the other and more sensible way of tackling inflation is to increase supply. And you can increase supply by making public investments. If the private sector will not increase supply, you can increase supply by making investments and expanding supply. And of course, as many people have pointed out, another way to tackle inflation would be to stop what’s called the greedflation, the ability of big multinational corporations to jack up prices because they are monopoly suppliers of what they are saying. So all these ways of tackling inflation would be to put capitalism in question. This is what First World countries are refusing to do. And that is why, one of the key reasons why, we have this Third World debt crisis. In addition to the creation of the debt in the first place. But the fact of the matter is as in the 1970s and 80s, so today, the debt was incurred in much easier credit conditions. But now we have a debt crisis because suddenly credit conditions have tightened. So yeah, and I would say that, and therefore Third World countries are essentially, I mean, in some nominal sense, they may be responsible for the debt crisis, but they are the victims, as you say, of essentially this international financial system whose existence is again guaranteed only by the United States. And I think the rest of the world has to go back, essentially create a different financial system. So in closing, I just like to say that, to say the Third World countries are responsible for their own plight, forgets the principle of creditor responsibility, which you reminded us of. And essentially what happens is that the principle of creditor responsibility is officially denied in general, but of course it naturally crops up. It cannot be completely erased and it crops up in the form of debt reschedulings and moratoria and so on and so forth. ANN PETTIFOR: So I wanted to make several points. First of all, the IMF and the World Bank are important and they are, there’s no question, Michael, they are the levers used by the United States Treasury to influence and to impose pressure on countries. But actually capital flows from the IMF and the World Bank are tiny relative to capital flows from the shadow banking system. So in a sense, from the 1970s and 80s, the system has evolved even more into this new form of hyper capitalism where shadow banks, which operate beyond even the regulatory frameworks of the United States, the powerful United States of America, and is what caused the 2007-8 crisis. The 2007-8 crisis began in a shadow bank as a result of the activities of a shadow bank, right? The IE, one that the treasury doesn’t, the Americans do not regulate. The flows from those to low income countries are enormous. And as Brett Christophers has shown in his latest book about asset managers, in the shadow banking sector, a small number of powerful capitalists are using our savings, our pensions, our insurance, our money we’ve set aside as a result of our economic activity and using that to lend to low income countries. And for example, the worst example is the proposal by these rich institutions to create a green boundary across the North of Africa, below the Saharan desert. And, but they won’t do that without one, guarantees from the United States taxpayer, the British taxpayer and European taxpayers, that they will never make any losses on those investments in a green belt across Africa, number one. And number two, that they should be free to do as they please essentially, regardless of what local governments think and so on. But it’s the risk free nature of that lending, which I find extraordinary. We’re now in a form of capitalism, which Rosa Luxemburg fortunately was one of the few to foresee. And I’m always despairing at the left for failing to understand the scale of what’s happened to capitalism today. But the lending by those institutions, and I just summarize them by calling them Wall Street, makes the lending by the IMF and the World Bank look puny. So that’s my one point. But that’s not to say that I don’t completely agree with you, the IMF, World Bank are there as enforcers. They’re there as the enforcers. And they are the gatekeepers to all capital essentially. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, many of these private lenders will not make a loan unless the World Bank is part of it. So it may be only 1% or 2%, but it says we set the rules for all of the 98% of the private loans. They’re in cahoots. I think it’s worse than that, Michael. I think they will not make any loan, even in combination with the World Bank, unless they’re guaranteed against losses. This is not capitalism. For me, this is Soviet style economics. And I hope people aren’t too insulted by that. But under Soviet style economics, the capitalists of those days were protected wholly by the state, by ordinary Russians. They were not allowed to make losses. So we’re back in that. So I call this Soviet style capitalism really, to mock it really, because it’s a pretense at so-called free market capitalism. So that was one point I wanted to make. And, the thing is that, I just don’t know, until we have a level of awareness about that, we’re not going to be able to tackle them because they are invisible. You can’t see them. You know, you can see, you can go to Washington and bang on the door of the IMF and the World Bank. You can throw bricks at the IMF and the World Bank. You can’t throw bricks at the asset management sector and what it’s doing, because it’s utterly invisible. So that poses the left with an enormous problem. And secondly, I just wanted to say one of my great passions, as you know, we began the Jubilee 2000 campaign. We’re backed by the churches and by the NGOs. And they said to us, look, cancel the debts because these countries can’t pay. So we began a cancel the debt campaign, but no sooner had we got going on, then it became clear to me that we could write off the debt. And we did write off about $100 billion of debt. And then in 2005, I worked with Ngozi Okonjo-Wala and we cleared $30 billion of debt for Nigeria. But that wasn’t going to prevent the buildup of future debts, really. So we needed what we have in private capitalism, which is a form of bankruptcy for countries. Now that is opposed by countries. The last thing they want anyone to think is that they’re bankrupt. And I understand that completely. But there comes a point at which they’re not solvent. They’re not able to mobilize the hard currency needed to repay the debt. And in those circumstances, we need an independent arbitration process between creditor and debtor. And that, Radhika, is where we say, sorry, the creditor made the mistake here. I always think of Charles Dickens’ novels, right? Charles Dickens’ father went to Marshallsea Prison because he failed to pay his debts. And Charles Dickens, as a child, had to visit his father in this ghastly prison, which is still there, actually, in South London, just across the Thames, the bridge across the Thames. It was the most cruel thing. And in the 19th century, capitalists realized that it really wasn’t, didn’t make economic sense. Because if you locked up a man behind prison bars, that meant, or a woman, that meant they weren’t any longer economically active and they couldn’t undertake new loans. So the best thing to do was to clear their debt under something called bankruptcy. And that was invented in the 18th and 19th century by old-fashioned capitalists. You cleared their debts and you pulled them back into the market so that they could participate, and again, and perhaps take out a new loan. So they saw the logic of having a framework of dissolving and dealing with debt, which we cannot see in the world economy, because creditors, the shadow banking system, the IMF, the World Bank, but also governments are too blind with their own power to understand that actually they would benefit the whole of the world economy. If they had a system of arbitration where there was a decision made, sorry, you lent money to build a nuclear power station on a volcanic fault, you will lose that money. You know, it’s not rocket science. I think I may have said this in the first session, so forgive me if I’m repeating myself, but we failed in the campaign to call for this independent arbitration process and we’ve watched the dramas of Argentina, because you’re quite right, Radhika, Argentina is the IMF’s oldest client. When I last looked, and that was some time ago, 2001, Argentina had been an IMF client for 50 years. So for 50 years, Argentina’s economic policies were dictated by the IMF, and it only led to one succession of debt crises after another. So, I mean, Argentina is the case, is our case, the case to be made. And after the 2001 crisis, there was an examination by the independent, whatever they are called at the IMF, into the way in which the institution had conducted itself in Argentina in 2001. And they found it should have failed dismally, but then, and for a while, so interesting, because in 2003, Nigeria wrote off or wrote down $30 billion of debt. There was a period between 2003-7 where all the higher income, low income countries, Brazil, Nigeria, all of those countries pulled their money out of the IMF. The IMF and the World Bank were almost going bust, right? The guys employed by the IMF and the World Bank, all of whom have got two PhDs, not one, each one of them has two PhDs, had no work. And then thank God came the financial crisis and Greece, and suddenly they were back in business. So, there was a period in which low income, I call them low income, Third World countries, whatever you want to call them, understood they had the power to withdraw from and get out from underneath the IMF. And they did for a while. RADHIKA DESAI: Yeah, exactly. And this is a great segue into our next question, because, what you’re saying, by the way, about Argentina is really important and interesting. Argentina, at the end of the Second World War was one of the richer countries of the world. Everyone expected that it would essentially become a First World country. So the role of the IMF in ensuring that it has remained one of the poorer countries of the world, or not much more than a sort of middling income country, but the IMF has played a central role in it. So our next question is really, how has debt been an instrument of world power and imperialism? And again, essentially what we are saying is that, you were talking about the emergence of a bankruptcy law in Britain, after putting people in debtors’ prison and so on. What you’re talking about is a sensible financial system. A sensible financial system is what every country needs. And a sensible financial system would be one which is focused on giving long-term patient, productive credit for creating productive enterprises and not engaging in speculation and not being a loan shark, et cetera. But such a sensible financial system is precisely what is denied to the world by the US system, by the insistence on imposing the dollar, by the choices made by the First World countries in terms of expanding the financial sector in the way that they have and so on, in opposition to the productive sector. So this denial lies at the core of the denial of development, which is the core of imperialism today. And it is not surprising, therefore, that the elements of a response to this, which are now emerging in the form of China-centered finance, in the form of agreements between countries to pay each other in one another’s currencies, in the form of initiatives like the Chiang Mai Initiative or the New Development Bank or the Contingency Reserve. These are all small initiatives, but they embody the beginnings of an alternative set of principles, which will be based, I think, Ann, again, you rightly recall, based on the kind of consciousness that has now emerged in the Third World, which came in the aftermath of the series of financial crises in the Third World, which culminated in the East Asian financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. And when the world saw the way in which the IMF and the World Bank acted as bailiffs for private creditors, in the case even of a country as advanced as South Korea, people said, okay, if they can do this to South Korea, God knows what they’ll do to us. And that was the beginning of the shrinkage of the World Bank IMF loan portfolio. So we are really at the cusp of the financial structure being an instrument of world power and imperialism and the beginnings of the creation of a totally different type of financial structure. MICHAEL HUDSON: Yeah, the big feature of the [Argentine] debt is that the debt is not to be settled under Argentine courts. Any dispute over debt in Argentina has to be subject to U.S. courts. Argentina waived its rights to be a sovereign country. So what you’re really talking about is, yes, the financial system has been weaponized as a tool of U.S. political control, but it’s also directly, the U.S. is the creditors or the judge, not the debtors. The government of Argentina has no voice at all in the terms of this debt, as you saw from Judge Grisa in the United States, turning over Argentina’s debt that was bought for 15 cents on the dollar, saying that Paul Singer gets to collect all of this debt in full. So you can buy Argentine debt for $15 million and immediately seize its assets abroad, its naval assets they tried to seize, for $100 million. And that’s why the IMF promised in 2001, no more Argentinians. Many of their people resigned from the IMF. They said, we’re supposed to judge the credit worthiness. It can’t pay. And it’s all overwritten by the U.S. thugs that are telling us what to do and overrule what we want. And they said directly, the IMF is a tool of the U.S. State Department. And what you’ve seen is that financial control has been just as powerful as military control under the old colonialism. And you can think of it, maybe we should use the word financial colonialism, because one of the conditions of the IMF and the World Bank is, well, you have to sell off your mineral rights to pay your debt. So you have plenty of ability to pay your debt. Look at all the land that the government has. Sell your government to the foreign countries. This goes against the 1648 principle that every country should be in charge of its own internal affairs. If you could reestablish that 1648 principle at the end of Europe’s 30-year wars, any country is a sovereign country in charge of its own affairs, then you would have the legal ground saying these debts were not taken over under conditions that we agreed to. Argentina not only was an occupied country by the mass assassinations that the United States held in Argentina out of Chile, but basically a whole political oligarchy there. It’s not only the debtor countries of the Global South today. The IMF and the World Bank began this way in 1944 and 45 at Bretton Woods when the main debtor country in the world that had to be crushed was England. And my [book] Super Imperialism goes over all of the discussions there that England was told, you have to essentially give up your empire to the United States. And if you look at England, there were many debates in the House of Commons and the much more intelligent House of Lords that saw that, wait a minute, all of our assets are being stripped by the country we thought was our ally, but there’s nothing we can do because we’re broke. And so the IMF had to promise, instead of the IMF telling England, you have to devalue your currency to pay, the United States under the British Act said, you cannot devalue your currency, you have to leave your pound so overpriced that nobody can afford to buy from you, and the sterling area countries, especially India, will have to buy from the United States. So if you look at how the United States did a dress rehearsal for the Global South debt and breaking up the British Empire, it’s a wonderful way of seeing what happened. The real problem is behind all of this political control, there’s a way of thinking, and the real thing, what we’re all really talking about is the kind of neoliberal thinking that the IMF and the World Bank and the universities all over the world are teaching, that somehow the debts must be paid without any consideration of the effect of paying the debt on overall domestic growth and overall economic independence. That’s really the key. We have to change the way of thinking, which is what we’re trying to do today, before we can actually mobilize enough support to change the law. ANN PETTIFOR: So I would go further and I’d say we’ve got to change the system, Michael, and I mean by that not just we in the West, I also mean countries of the Global South, as you say. So I wanted to make two points. One was, the system is export-oriented, and I think I explained that before. I mean, very deliberately, everybody thinks the only way to survive, and it is the only way to survive, if you want to buy an Apple computer and you want dollar bills to pay for it, you’ve got to flog your oil or whatever assets you have to those rich countries. We’ve got to persuade countries of the Global South that there must be a reorientation back onto the domestic economy, and that applies most particularly to China. China is neglecting its home base. It’s neglecting social benefits for its people. It’s neglecting the kind of welfare state necessary to China in favor of the export orientation of the economy in order to make China more powerful in the world and to build up the dollar reserve it needs to maintain that power. Now, I understand that, but I think there’s something deeply wrong, and I think President Xi, and you will be able to tell us more, Radhika, has begun the process of looking away from the world and back onto the domestic economy, which after all is a huge economy. The Chinese people find it hard to move from the rural areas to the cities because there isn’t welfare support in making that transfer and so on and so forth. And incomes are too low. Incomes are low in China. They’re low in South Africa. They’re incredibly low in South Africa. They’re low in the United States. They’re low in Britain. They’re low in Europe. And that’s very deliberate policy because markets can’t stand to spend too much on labor costs. So, that orientation has to shift, number one. Number two, we need new financial institutions. And I just wanted to get on to this talk about replacing the dollar. And I think replacing the dollar is to take us down a blind alley, essentially. It’s not the dollar that’s the problem. You’re not going to fix the dollar by having the Chinese currency or European currency or the Sudanese currency or whatever. And the way to fix the dollar is to change the system. And I was so excited when the President of Kenya spoke to Macron’s meeting recently. What was it called? It was on the Internet in the new institutional architecture he called for at this conference convened by Macron on the 23rd of June. And he said this. We need to hammer out in this Paris agreement and need a new financial mechanism to deal with climate change that is not controlled by a shareholder or is not subjected to the interest of any one country. This new mechanism, he said, would be akin to a global green bank and should be funded by green taxes and levies applied globally. And this could include, he argues, taxes on financial transactions, which is the Tobin tax, fossil fuels and levies on shipping and aviation, which would generate, according to the World Bank, something like 60 billion dollars in revenues every year. Now, this is a radical proposal. And I think he’s on to the right case because he’s arguing for an institution independent of China and independent of the United States, because ultimately China will also use that power of her currency to enforce, to serve her own interests naturally. And this brings us back to what Radhika mentioned earlier, which was Keynes’s proposal. We need to remember that Keynes was defeated heavily at Bretton Woods. The Bretton Woods agreement that emerged was not Keynes’s. It was Harry Dexter White’s agreement. And he knew, he understood that by making the dollar the key currency that actually he’d been, that killed him, actually. He came home and died soon after. So, but what President Ruto is talking about is something independent of the interests of any country that would serve just like a commercial bank and the central bank, just as the central bank operates relative to the commercial banks. They clear transactions overnight. So if you’ve built up, if you’ve lent out a mortgage of 300,000 pounds in this bank and that bank has had 300,000 pounds deposited in the bank, this is going to cause imbalances between banks. And the role of the central bank is to clear those imbalances overnight and to enable the banking system to thrive. Keynes went further and argued that there should be penalties for countries that build up surpluses and there should be penalties for countries that build up deficits. The United States has the biggest trade and capital account deficit of all the countries of the world. It should be penalized for that, right? China has the biggest surplus. It should be penalized for that. And it has a surplus because it’s oriented its economy and hasn’t invested enough in its own people. And I know that’s changing. And Radhika, please help us on that. RADHIKA DESAI: Well, yeah, no, I’d love to come in exactly here. So you raise a number of really key points. There’s a substantial agreement among us, but probably a couple of points of disagreement as well. So first of all, I mean, I agree with you that at the end of the day, that it’s not the issue of the dollar. I mean, if the dollar was the United States’ currency, just as the rupee’s India’s currency, nobody would have a problem. The problem is that the dollar is not that and therefore it’s imposed on the rest of the world. And this is done precisely by the very financial system to which you two object. So I think that’s our agreement on that. Now, I also wanted to clarify that, yes, Keynes was defeated, but the defeat was a political defeat, not an intellectual defeat. And the principles of the new system that we will have to have, for example, you just mentioned that the United States is the biggest deficit country. It has the biggest current account deficit. The system that the U.S. has created relies on the systematic generation of imbalances. Keynes’ system relied on precisely discouraging imbalances and encouraging a balanced system of trade, financial flows, etc. And of course, the other big difference is that the U.S. system relies completely on the most unproductive types of financial flows, whereas Keynes was determined to focus the financial system both at the national level and such as it was at the international level in the form of the International Clearing Union to focus on increasing productive capacity in every country. So in that sense, I think those are the principles to which we need to go back to. Now, I think this is a good segue. The points you made about China are a good segue into our next question, which is about China. So let me just say that, I think you’re absolutely right that, it may have been that between about the middle of the 1990s and the middle of the 2000s, there was a certain extent to which we heard a lot about China’s exports. But you have to remember, China is a huge economy and the proportional reliance on exports of the Chinese economy has always been exaggerated, even for that period. And then what you got was, you saw after the 2008 crisis in particular, you saw the ability of the Chinese authorities to turn this massive economy on a dime. So immediately, they realized that even their relatively limited reliance on exports was now in danger with the crisis in the United States. They immediately engaged in a massive investment boom. And that really has helped the Chinese economy. And as that boom petered out, because you can have only so much investment in one big boom, they have since then followed the policy of allowing wages to rise so that, you are right that, of course, Chinese wages could be higher, but they have risen quite substantially over the last decade or 12, 14 years. And so much so that there are now industries that can no longer thrive in China, they are now in the old sort of the wild geese pattern, they are moving down to other lower income countries, Vietnam, we are being told is one of the major beneficiaries of this, and there will be other countries that will also benefit. And now, that increased focus on domestic consumption, which I agree with you is important, has been formalized in the so-called dual circulation model. And the dual circulation model involves an understanding that domestic demand has to be a much bigger stimulus to growth in China. But at the same time, not neglecting foreign engagement, whether it is in the form of exports or investment. And the reason is, I think the Chinese use foreign investment and export strategically. They want their companies to produce at world market levels of quality, and so on. That little exposure ensures that the production remains effective. But at the end, they also take investment as a way of expanding the capacities of the Chinese economy. So this strategic external orientation is also very good. So China is actually already on that path. And I would say with President Xi’s declared ambition to create a moderately prosperous society, the focus will be on Chinese internal demand. But I totally agree with you that in the rest of the world, wages, incomes of ordinary productive workers, whether they are employees, informal sector workers, or petty producers, or peasants, and so on, incomes are a problem. And the overall financial system, which we have today internationally, which is supported too much by internal, by the internal laws and economic policies of too many countries are the problem. Today, if countries want to develop, they will have to not just partner with China, they will have to learn from China, that you need to have something like the sort of socialist economy China has, otherwise, going down the capitalist road is not going to work. And just one final point before we go, relating to our last question, the whole point of the IMF and the World Bank and the current financial system, the reason why it operates as a instrument of imperialism, colonialism, whatever you want to call it, is because it functions to pry open non-Western economies to service the need of First World economies and particularly First World corporations to supply them with cheap, to serve as markets and investment outlets, safe markets and investment outlets, which means they must always not have capital controls. So that means they are giving up their one major way of controlling, having policy autonomy. China has very substantial capital controls, that’s right. And in fact, the importance of capital controls was underlined, the importance of capital controls was underlined when in the 2000, in the 1997-98 financial crisis, because the countries that suffered the most were the ones that had recently lifted capital controls. Meanwhile, Taiwan, India, Vietnam, China, all the [places] that had capital controls. So anyway, the point I’m just trying to make is that they pry open these economies, supply cheap labor, supply cheap goods and accept commodities and accept capital, but on the terms of the First World. So essentially, it means that Third World countries cannot develop. This is not the way to develop. The way to develop is precisely to control flows of capital and flows of trade and to invest in your own country’s capacity to produce. So with that, maybe I can just pose the next question, is China putting Third World countries in a debt trap? Michael, do you want to go first? MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the only comment that I have on that is that China has not insisted that other countries impose austerity on their economy. It doesn’t have conditionality for its loans. China has been developing the infrastructure of these countries in a way that helps their own countries develop and their mutual trade with each other, not dependency on the United States. So the whole purpose and the aim, as you just pointed out, of China’s loans is different from the IMF loans. And if you look at what is the purpose of these loans, what’s the difference? Well, you see that the system of Chinese lending is different from the US dollarized system. And the United States is trying to say, well, we want China as a creditor too. We want other countries for the debt breakdown to put China on the same page as the dollar bondholders. And it’s a completely different system, not the same thing. RADHIKA DESAI: Thanks, Michael. Ann, did you want to add anything? ANN PETTIFOR: I mean, I don’t think that they’re setting a debt trap, but I do think there are big dangers with China’s lending. And that’s because China is desperate to get its hands on scarce commodities, essentially, but also land. Africa is the site of immense competition between the countries of the Middle East and China for this huge, vast quantities of land there are in Africa. And buying it up cheaply, cheating local chieftains and ordinary peasants of the value of their land, essentially, because of this urge to have these resources. So you saw, for example, and I think there’s a risk of corruption also associated with that. So if you look at Ghana, when there was even the rumor of oil, offshore oil supplies for Ghana, money from China rushed into Ghana. I remember visiting Accra at the beginning of that boom, and house prices in Accra were as high as they were in London. It was quite extraordinary. So my friends, Ghanaian friends, were finding it impossible to put a roof over their heads. Now, that’s a function of the global flow of capital. I mean, globally, residential housing is now a global market. It’s not a national market or a local market. It’s a global market. Any money from anywhere can land on or could be aimed at a finite resource like land or property. And that happened. But that happened most particularly to Ghana at the beginning of what was seen to be an oil rush. So I think there isn’t a conditionality, but there is such a desperation for China to get her hands on these resources and, of course, global competition for those resources that there is a risk of being able to buy off local elites in order to have access to those. That’s my only concern. But on the whole, I’ve seen that China doesn’t impose the kind of imperialist conditions that we’ve seen from the IMF and the World Bank. The deeply, deeply reactionary and old-fashioned and out-of-date economics imposed by the IMF and the World Bank. And indeed, countries of the North. RADHIKA DESAI: Yeah, and I just like to say, well, thanks for that. And on China and whether China sets a debt trap, I mean, basically, I think one has to understand that this whole discourse of debt trap diplomacy is actually emerging as a way of muddying the waters of the discourse on the Third World debt crisis, because the Western countries themselves essentially want to be repaid the full amount and essentially want the Chinese to take whatever haircuts that they have to take. And I think in return, the Chinese are saying that, folks, that’s not going to work. We are willing to participate in any kind of debt restructuring you like, but everyone has to take a haircut. Bondholders cannot be excepted. The IMF and the World Bank cannot be excepted. So that’s the first thing. Secondly, I think China actually invests in long-term investment, provides long-term patient infrastructure capital. It’s actually not true that they only invest in resources. They are investing in manufacturing in Third World countries as well. And I would say, by the way, Ann, that you should look at the figures more closely. But the last time I looked at the figures, the countries and agencies that were buying land and resources, the pension funds of First World countries and certain agencies, for example, Indian capital going out and buying land were proportionately much greater. And I think that this issue has to be examined more closely. I think even if China wanted resources, I think China has the ability to get resources from mutually beneficial deals with Third World countries that are far superior to anything the West has ever done. So I just like to point this out. And I think we should probably be closing because we are nearly at one hour. I think we’ve talked a lot about what the relationship is between the debt crisis and the dollar system. So I think we should skip quickly to the final question, which is what is the way out? And as a segue into what is the way out, I’d simply say that, Ann you were talking about the imposition of austerity via the mechanisms of debt and so on. And the fact of the matter is that, sometimes I like to put it to my students, explain it to my students like this. You know, if you owe money, there are two ways of repaying. Number one, restrict your consumption, which is essentially a punishment to yourself, or increase your capacity to earn. That is an investment in yourself. The second one would be far better for everyone. The creditors would be repaid and the debtors would not suffer. But the fact of the matter is not only does the current world financial system dominated by Western financial institutions, particularly US financial institutions, not only does it lend for unproductive purposes, but it actually in the process denies by imposing austerity, by restricting and putting policy conditions and so on. It denies these countries the capacity to make money, to expand their productive capacity, thereby lightening their debt load, because that will be the result of the expansion of productive capacity. So this is the miserable, punitive, miserly, and financial system that we have. And that is essentially denying the possibility of development and essentially killing off people, killing off economies. So the question then is what is the way out? And Michael, I think you wanted to go on this one first. So please. MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, I wanted to sort of set the scope of what we’re talking about. The advocates of today’s financial colonialism say there is no alternative. And their whole philosophy of development is to say that we’re all for central planning. American neoliberals are for central planning by Wall Street and by the financial sector. Financial imperialism wants to take planning out of the hands of government and put it in the hands of the financiers. And obviously, this is what the whole fight of the British countries is about. And we’re in a position today, much like 1944 and ‘45, which is why we’ve all been talking about that for the last hour. We’re really creating a new system, the system that was not created in 1944 and ‘45. This is the first time, and it’s taken over 75 years to actually develop. How should an international financial system be structured if it’s going to help everybody? We’re asking that question. That is not the question that the World Bank and the IMF and the US Diplomacy and the European Guard talk about. They really don’t believe there’s an alternative. So we’re watching a new alternative being created right now. And the whole idea is to free the global majority from the debts that would hold them and lock them into colonialism, just like Haiti got its nominal political independence, but owed France so much debt that it never could get out of it, or Greece owed so much debt after 2015 that it couldn’t get out of it. So we’re really dealing almost with ideological imperialism and it’s the intellectual control over how to think about what an ideal or workable alternative structure become. And China has pointed out, well, if we’re going to have this discussion, we have to realize that all these countries have different political systems. Obviously, there has to be some new means of settlement. A new system won’t work until they get rid of the existing debt overhead. You can’t have a new system and still have governments having to pay the accumulation of debts, mainly compound interest, that’s been in the past. There really has to be a break. And the break of an intellectual system and the policy is a break from having to pay these debts. That’s why we’re focusing on who to pay the debts. And obviously, as long as the foreign debts are handled along the current relations, then the countries are going to have to impose austerity, just like Germany imposed austerity in the 1920s to try to pay its foreign debts. It doesn’t work. If a country’s told to destroy its economy and make itself less able to pay its foreign debts in the future in order to pay debts now, there has to be, in principle, a way of wiping these out. So what we’re really talking about is a kind of constitution of principle, the Bill of Rights for debtor countries that would shape the new system as really their kind of America’s Revolutionary War. So the problem then is to outline, we’re talking about a remedy. So the remedy of the current problem is you begin with a debt cancellation that needs to clean the slate for any kind of a new system. You need to renationalize basic utilities that have been forfeited to foreigners. And you can do this under local law. What foreigners wanted, as Radhika pointed out in the very first statement today, they wanted the resources of the colonies. They wanted the raw materials and the mines and the land. All of this can simply be fixed with a rent tax. You can tax away the raw materials rent and the land rent, and that’s all under domestic national rights. So that would not only free the country from foreign debt, it would free them from the foreign ownership that has carved out the control of basic infrastructure away from government control, away from the government’s ability to provide basic services on a subsidized basis like the United States and Europe did. So the tax system has to be part of the reform of the debt system. And that requires a whole economic analysis of what is a country’s ability to create an economic surplus. And that’s really, you need a national accounting system to reflect these ideals. So we’re talking about something much more than settling the debt problem. We’re talking about settling the whole financialized economic structure that debts have put in place. ANN PETTIFOR: So sure, I mean, I have to agree with Michael that actually it is cheering and it is optimistic that we are talking about new systems and that hasn’t been the case for a while. It’s exciting to hear of the alliances building up around China and so on to discuss replacing the dollar. However, there is another way in which we can deal with this American imperialism and that is protectionism, authoritarianism and the rise of fascism. And here I am with Polanyi. Polanyi was right that the whole notion which we have today of a global market in capital, the shadow banking system, governing the world is a utopian notion, right? And it would lead to so much annihilation of human civilization, the ecosystem that society would react and demand protection. And that gives the rise to authoritarianism. And I’m afraid it’s very exciting to see Lula elected as president of Brazil but he cannot get a thing through his Congress. He got a single item of policy through his Congress because of the far right domination of the Congress. We look around the world and we see authoritarian dictators pulling up the protectionist walls. Now, I’m not against all forms of protection but from a capitalist point of view, from the point of view of this Soviet style capitalism, it is disastrous because that will bring down the dollar. That will defeat the system. That will, fascism will deal with this form of utopian capitalism. So, I think while we must be encouraged by the discussions that are happening, we must also be very alive to the, I mean, I’m watching my own country, Britain, so-called home of liberalism and parliamentary democracy. We’re being read now by a very far right government which is overtaking our institutions, our broadcasting institutions, our health services, doing everything it possibly can to break down, if you like, the liberal democracy on which Britain is based. And it’s terrifying to watch because it is, you can see the rise of fascism in some of our political leaders. So I don’t wanna, I know this is not a cheerful way to end this podcast but I just want to warn us that, and I want to warn if you like, hyper-capitalism, that if you go along that road of actually treating countries in this way, you are going to get fascism as you did in the 1930s. RADHIKA DESAI: Yeah, I think, Ann, you’re absolutely right to remind us of Polanyi and I think you’re absolutely right that he exactly, he said that when you have this kind of hyper-liberal system and of course, as you rightly pointed out, it’s no longer even liberal, it’s some kind of risk-free government guaranteed capitalism but let’s leave that aside. But what it does is it imposes these relations, liberal relations on the rest of us. And in that situation, you do face, humanity faces a choice between fascism and socialism. And I think that the point is that yes, fascism is, I completely agree with you, it’s a danger. I mean, look at India, for example, right now. I mean, there we have, just kind of full-blown fascistic type of government, fascist type of government, whatever you want to say. So, and of course we had Bolsonaro in Brazil and you still like, as you say, the Congress is packed with right-wing people in Brazil today and so on. And I would say that the fascism is rising across Europe. The West is allying with fascist forces in Ukraine. I mean, the things, the contradictions are multiplying and that’s really why we need to raise the whole issue of socialism today. Because I think the only sensible way out of this is actually, because once liberalism fails and it’s bound to fail, it’s too contradictory, then you’re faced with the two forms of non-liberal societies or anti-liberal societies. One is fascism, the other is socialism. And you have to say that socialism is the way forward. You cannot have authoritarian fascism. So I thought, I mean, first of all, let me say, I think this has been a wonderful discussion. Again, thank you very much to everyone, to Paul and of course to our audience. I thought I would just end by making the following remark. You know, somebody mentioned planning just now. I forget which one of the two of you it was, but you know, one way of thinking about the system today is that, all financial systems are a form of planning. There’s no doubt about it. So the real issue is, do we have planning for broad-based prosperity and the development of productive forces for equal societies, for ecological societies, for prosperous societies? ANN PETTIFOR: And for managing the climate crisis. And exactly, for ecological and attacking the climate crisis and dealing with the other two ecological emergencies as well, the loss of biodiversity, pollution, all these things. So do we have that kind of planning or do we have the kind of planning we have right now, which is essentially financial planning to subordinate the whole world to the big corporations of a small number of rich countries, not even the rich countries as a whole, just the big corporations of these rich countries. This is the choice before humanity. This is the choice that we confront when we are trying to face, when we are trying to answer the question, what kind of financial system do we have? Because if there’s one question that the current debt crisis is raising, current debt crisis of the developing world, the Third World is raising, it is this question. And so I think we thought we would leave you with that question. Thank you very much for joining us. Thanks to Ann for joining us. Hopefully we’ll have you back soon on another exciting set of discussions like this. And so yes, goodbye until another fortnight. Bye-bye. Goodbye. Cheers.

Write an article about: IMF admits US dollar hegemony declining, due to rise of Chinese yuan, sanctions on Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

dollar, economics, IMF, International Monetary Fund

The US-dominated International Monetary Fund warns of an “erosion of dollar dominance,” noting use of Chinese yuan in global central bank reserves is increasing, while Western sanctions on Russia could strengthen other currencies. The US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) has acknowledged that the hegemony of the dollar is in noticeable decline. At the same time, the Chinese currency, the yuan or renminbi, is slowly growing in influence, along with other currencies, according to the IMF. In 2000, roughly 70% of global foreign exchange reserves were held in US dollars. As of 2021, that figure had fallen to just under 60%. Meanwhile, the IMF noted that there is a rise in “nontraditional currencies” from smaller countries being held in international reserves. The United States has veto power over IMF decisions, and the institution is notorious for acting as an instrument of US political influence. Economist Michael Hudson has explained that “the IMF was created as an arm of US foreign policy,” and that Washington has historically weaponized the fund “to use debt leverage to force other countries to impose austerity on their populations, and to essentially say we will control what government you have, because if your government does something that the United States officials don’t like, we’re just going to raid your currency, force of austerity on you, and you’ll be voted out of power.” The IMF has helped maintain the US dollar as the de facto global reserve currency since the fund was created in the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement. Hudson showed in his book “Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire” that Washington has used the power of this global reserve currency status to essentially make other countries pay for its wars. But the dollar’s power is eroding, and even the IMF has begun to publicly acknowledge this fact. The International Monetary Fund published a working paper on March 24 titled “The Stealth Erosion of Dollar Dominance: Active Diversifiers and the Rise of Nontraditional Reserve Currencies.” The report documents “a decline in the dollar share of international reserves since the turn of the century,” with central banks around the world increasingly diversifying their holdings. The study notes that this “decline in the dollar’s share has not been accompanied by an increase in the shares of the pound sterling, yen and euro, other long-standing reserve currencies and units that, along with the dollar, have historically comprised the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights.” Instead, “the shift out of dollars has been in two directions: a quarter into the Chinese renminbi, and three quarters into the currencies of smaller countries that have played a more limited role as reserve currencies.” The researchers describe this “evolution of the international reserve system in the last 20 years” as a “gradual movement away from the dollar.” The IMF working paper explained that “the decline in the dollar’s share has been matched by a rise in the share of what we refer to as nontraditional reserve currencies, defined as currencies other than the US dollar, euro, Japanese yen and British pound sterling.” In addition to the Chinese yuan, some of these “nontraditional currencies” that are becoming more prominent include the Canadian dollar, Australian dollar, Korean won, Singapore dollar, and Swedish krona. In 2000, more than 98% of international foreign exchange reserves were held in the “big four” hegemonic currencies: the US dollar, euro, Japanese yen, and British pound. Less than 2% of reserves were held in what the IMF calls “nontraditional currencies.” But as of 2021, the share of nontraditional currencies had shot up to 10% – and there is every indication that this figure will only keep growing. The IMF report noted that this “shift is broad based,” identifying 46 central banks that have been diversifying their holdings with nontraditional currencies. The euro is unlikely to challenge US dollar hegemony. The article pointed out that the “euro has gained little ground as a reserve currency since its creation in 1999,” remaining relatively static at around 20% of global reserves. Yet “while the renminbi has gained some ground, it remains leagues behind the dollar as a form of international reserves,” the researchers added, on a cautious note. The working paper was authored by Barry Eichengreen, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, along with IMF economists Chima Simpson-Bell and Serkan Arslanalp. Their study concludes that, while the dominance of the US dollar is far from over, and certainly will not end overnight, its power is waning. A top official at the International Monetary Fund made remarks reflecting this historic shift, in a report by the Financial Times, titled “Russia sanctions threaten to chip away at dominance of US dollar, says IMF.” The mainstream British newspaper interviewed the IMF’s first deputy managing director, Gita Gopinath, and wrote that the crushing Western sanctions imposed on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, “including restrictions on its central bank, could encourage the emergence of small currency blocs based on trade between separate groups of countries.” The senior IMF official conceded that “fragmentation at a smaller level is certainly quite possible,” although she added that the US “dollar would remain the major global currency even in that landscape.” Russia sanctions threaten to chip away at dominance of US dollar, says IMF https://t.co/D0qtv9rlrr — FT Economics (@fteconomics) March 31, 2022 The IMF executive acknowledged that the world “might see some slow-moving trends towards other currencies playing a bigger role [in reserve assets]” held by countries’ central banks. “We are already seeing that with some countries renegotiating the currency in which they get paid for trade,” Gopinath added. Western sanctions on Russia – one of the world’s largest exporters of oil, gas, wheat, and fertilizers – have forced Moscow’s trading partners to seek alternative payment mechanisms. Despite the sanctions, the European Union still gets 40% of its natural gas from Russia. And the Kremlin has demanded that Europe pay for this gas in Russian rubles. Russia’s demand that the European Union pay for its gas exports in rubles could shake up the global economy, undermining Western sanctions and forcing Europe to decide if it truly wants to be independent from the US. Important analysis by @bidetmarxmanhttps://t.co/pIvWWXkXXp — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 25, 2022 China and Russia have also moved toward boosting their bilateral trade in each other’s currencies. Western sanctions pushed Russian financial institutions, including both state-owned and private banks, to encourage clients to open accounts in Chinese yuan. Bangladesh has said it is considering using yuan to evade sanctions and continue trading with Russia. Even India, which has a right-wing, pro-US government, has created an alternative payment mechanism using rupees and rubles, to get around Washington’s sanctions. The IMF has been careful, however, not to overstate the drop in US dollar holdings in international reserves. Gopinath, the IMF official, predicted that “the dollar’s dominance will stay for a while.” While US dollar hegemony is not going to suddenly disappear, it is facing more and more challengers.

Write an article about: US troops are occupying Syria’s oil fields. Congress refuses to withdraw them. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Bernie Sanders, Congress, Elizabeth Warren, Rand Paul, Senate, Syria

The US military has illegally occupied Syrian sovereign territory since 2014, preventing Damascus from accessing its own oil and wheat fields. The Senate voted 13-84, rejecting a resolution to withdraw US troops. The US military has occupied Syrian sovereign territory since 2014, preventing Damascus from accessing its own oil and wheat fields. A top Pentagon official has acknowledged that Washington’s strategy is to starve Syria’s central government of revenue it needs to rebuild, after a decade of war fueled by foreign powers devastated the country. Former US President Donald Trump boasted in 2020: “They say, ‘He left troops in Syria’. You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They’re protecting the oil. I took over the oil”. The United States has at least 900 troops in Syria. Syria’s internationally recognized government has repeatedly called for them to leave, meaning the US military presence is illegal according to international law. This issue has come up in Congress several times in recent years. On December 7, the Senate voted 13-84, rejecting a resolution to withdraw the US troops. The joint resolution, S.J.Res.51, “direct[ed] the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Syria that have not been authorized by Congress”. Of the 100 members of the Senate, which is roughly evenly split between both parties, seven Democrats voted for the resolution, along with one left-wing independent who caucuses with the Democrats (Bernie Sanders) and five Republicans. The senators who voted to withdraw US troops from Syria were the following: Democrats (7) Independent (1) Republicans (5) The US Senate vote on whether or not to withdraw troops from Syria, on December 7, 2023 The resolution had been introduced by Rand Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican senator from Kentucky. The proposed legislation noted that US military forces have been active in Syria since September 22, 2014. Since 2016, the resolution disclosed, US troops in Syria have attacked the Syrian government and its allies, including Iranian and Russian fighters, at least 11 times. Both the Donald Trump and Joe Biden administrations repeatedly launched airstrikes in Syria against government and allied forces. In March 2023, a senior United Nations official, Farhan Haq, inspired controversy when he falsely claimed “there’s no US armed forces inside of Syria”. (Chinese reporter Edward Xu corrected Haq’s lie, while calling out the UN’s hypocrisy on Ukraine.) UN lies about US military occupation of Syria, reporter calls out Ukraine hypocrisy The US corporate media was once quite open about this fact. Back in 2018, neoconservative Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin bragged, “In Syria, we ‘took the oil’”. He emphasized that “the United States and its partners control almost all of the oil” in the country. Then President Trump had claimed at the time that he wanted to withdraw US troops from Syria, but Rogin complained that, “if the United States leaves, that oil will likely fall into the hands of Iran”. Trump listened to hawkish critics like Rogin and decided to backtrack, instead leaving the US troops – who remain there today. NPR stated clearly in 2020, “U.S. forces in northeastern Syria have a relatively new mission: securing oil fields not only from ISIS, but also from Syrian government and Russian forces”. Trump sat down for an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham that same year. The US president explained: TRUMP: They say, ‘He left troops in Syria’. You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They’re protecting the oil. I took over the oil. INGRAHAM: We’re taking, we’re not taking– TRUMP: Maybe we will, maybe we won’t. INGRAHAM: They’re protecting their facility. TRUMP: I don’t know, maybe we should take it. But we have the oil. Right now, the United States has the oil. So, they say, ‘He left troops in Syria’. No, I got rid of all of them, other than we’re protecting the oil. We have the oil. In 2019, a neoconservative US government official overseeing Syria policy, Dana Stroul, boasted that “one-third of Syrian territory was owned via the US military, with its local partner the Syrian Democratic Forces”, or SDF. The Kurdish-majority SDF have acted as a US proxy, using oil revenue to fund their separatist operations, destabilizing Syria’s central government. As Geopolitical Economy Report editor Ben Norton wrote at the time, Stroul emphasized that this Syrian land “owned” by Washington was “resource-rich” and constituted the “economic powerhouse of Syria, so where the hydrocarbons are… as well as the agricultural powerhouse”, with many wheat fields. When Biden entered office in 2021, his administration appointed Stroul as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, the top Pentagon official crafting US policy for West Asia. The top Pentagon Middle East policy official, neocon Dana Stroul, confirmed Biden is keeping troops to illegally occupy sovereign Syrian territory Stroul once boasted that the US military "owns" 1/3rd of Syria, including its oil-rich "economic powerhouse"pic.twitter.com/NIEJ9elxhs https://t.co/01kZ22dhJ4 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) August 15, 2021 The United States had roughly 40,000 troops stationed in West Asia (known popularly as the Middle East), as of October 2023. In addition to the 900 in Syria, the US has 2500 troops deployed to Iraq, where their presence also violates the country’s sovereignty and international law. U.S. troops and military contractors have been targeted in attacks by Iranian-backed militia groups since Hamas' attack against Israeli civilians and soldiers. The attacks could reverse efforts in recent years to reduce U.S. presence in the Middle East. https://t.co/a7nOI8fOmL pic.twitter.com/rEMyumnOa9 — Axios (@axios) October 31, 2023 On January 3, 2020, US President Trump ordered a drone strike that assassinated top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, along with a major Iraqi commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. In response to Trump’s blatant act of war on its soil, Iraq’s democratically elected parliament voted in January 2020 to expel the US troops occupying the country. Trump ignored the Iraqi parliament’s vote, instead threatening to impose sanctions on Baghdad. Biden, a Democrat, has continued his Republican predecessor’s policy, prolonging the military occupation of both Iraq and Syria, in flagrant violation of the nations’ sovereignty. NEW: U.S. forces have been attacked 4 times by Iranian-proxy forces since yesterday's air strikes, 3 times last night and once this morning- all in Syria. No injuries or damage to bases have been reported. This marks 52 attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria since Oct 17. pic.twitter.com/zDJ7Z8VapK — Liz Friden (@Liz_Friden) November 13, 2023 The war in Gaza that broke out in October has also spilled over to other countries in the region. In addition to indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians, including thousands of children, in one of the most brutal bombing campaigns in history, Israel has also attacked Lebanon, and even bombed infrastructure in Syria, such as airports in Damascus and Aleppo. This has led resistance forces in Syria and Iraq to launch attacks on the US troops illegally occupying their countries. The Biden administration responded with air strikes against these fighters. According to the Pentagon, US troops in the region were attacked at least 52 times from October 17 to November 13.

Write an article about: US opposes peace as Israel ethnically cleanses Palestinians, waging war on ‘entire nation’ of Gaza. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Antony Blinken, BJP, colonialism, ethnic cleansing, Gaza, India, Narendra Modi, Ursula von der Leyen

Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians, trying to force them out of Gaza into Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. The US and EU support Netanyahu’s scorched-earth war on the “entire nation”, and the State Department ordered diplomats not to call for peace, de-escalation, or a ceasefire. The Israeli government is in the process of ethnically cleansing more than 1 million Palestinians, pushing them out of their homes in Gaza. According to senior Israeli officials, the plan of the far-right Benjamin Netanyahu government is to force Palestinians into the desert of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, where they will live in so-called “tent cities”. At the same time, Israel is brutally bombing the besieged Gaza strip – one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. There are even reports that Israel has attacked convoys of Palestinian civilians who were abiding by its evacuation order and fleeing from the north to the south of the 40-kilometer strip. Meanwhile, the United States has adamantly refused to support calls for peace. Instead, the State Department told US diplomats not to mention the phrases “de-escalation/ceasefire”, “end to violence/bloodshed”, and “restoring calm” when discussing Gaza, according to a memo obtained by HuffPost. Leaked Emails Warn U.S. Diplomats Against Calling For ‘De-Escalation’ In Gaza https://t.co/U9GFqJYvIp — HuffPost (@HuffPost) October 13, 2023 On 12 October, Israel ordered the roughly 1.1 million Palestinians living in the northern half of Gaza to evacuate to the south. The United Nations warned that it would be “impossible for such a movement to take place without devastating humanitarian consequences”. The UN “strongly appealed” for the Israeli evacuation order “to be rescinded”, noting it “could transform what is already a tragedy into a calamitous situation”. Israel ignored the UN and instead cracked down even harder, bombing Palestinian civilians as they evacuated. I made a video showing how Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians The Israeli military ordered a million people to leave northern Gaza, and plans to flatten it. Israel has bombed fleeing civilians Meanwhile, the US State Department opposes calls for peace Full video below pic.twitter.com/uezBYUVpk9 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 15, 2023 The BBC acknowledged that the Israeli military attacked a Palestinian convoy, writing, “These vehicles were carrying civilians, who were fleeing northern Gaza after the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued an evacuation order”. The BBC verified a video of the attack, describing it as “a scene of total carnage”, which “is too graphic for us to show”. “Bodies, twisted and mangled, are scattered everywhere”, the BBC described, adding that many of the victims of the Israeli attack were women and children, including infants aged 2 to 5 years old. The Associated Press confirmed the same, writing: Two witnesses reported a strike on fleeing cars near the town of Deir el-Balah, south of the evacuation zone and in the area Israel told people to flee to. Fayza Hamoudi said she and her family were driving from their home in the north when the strike hit some distance ahead on the road and two vehicles burst into flames. A witness from another car on the road gave a similar account. As of 14 October, Israel had killed at least 2,215 Palestinians, including 724 children and 458 women, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. Another 8,714 Palestinians have been wounded in a week of Israeli attacks, among them 2,450 children and 1,536 women. Meanwhile, top Israeli officials have engaged in borderline genocidal rhetoric. Israel’s President Isaac Herzog declared at a press conference that the country is at war with the “entire nation” of Gaza. “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible” Herzog said, in reference to Palestinians. “It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up [against Hamas]”, he argued, in comments reported by HuffPost. Israeli President Says There Are No Innocent Civilians In Gaza https://t.co/nCl1Bw5q8N — HuffPost (@HuffPost) October 14, 2023 According to Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, Israel’s plan is to ethnically cleanse Palestinians and force them into Egypt. Citing an anonymous high level source, Hersh wrote, “I have been told by an Israeli insider that Israel has been trying to convince Qatar, which at the urging of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a long-time financial supporter of Hamas, to join with Egypt in funding a tent city for the million or more refugees awaiting across the border”. This plan was in fact confirmed by Israel’s former deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, who previously served as the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a foreign policy adviser for far-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In an interview with Al Jazeera reporter Marc Lamont Hill on 12 October, Ayalon stated: DANNY AYALON: This was, this is thought out. It’s not something that we tell them, go to the beaches, go drown yourselves, God forbid, not at all. There is a huge expanse, almost endless space in the Sinai desert, just on the other side of Gaza. The idea is – and this is not the first time it will be done – the idea is for them to leave over to the open areas where we and the international community will prepare the infrastructure, you know, tent cities, with food and with water – you know, just like for the refugees of Syria that fled the butchering of Assad a few years ago to Turkey; Turkey received 2 million of them. This is the idea. Now Egypt will have to play ball here, because once the the population is out of sight, then we can go… … I’ll tell you in a practical manner what we should do, and what we can do: create, like in the past, in history, a humanitarian corridor. When there is a humanitarian corridor – and we have been discussing this with the United States – then we can guarantee in this corridor that nobody will get hurt. Now, again, I say, there is a way to receive them all on the other side for temporary time, on the Sinai, because what did Hamas turn – MARC LAMONT HILL: On the other side? Are we talking about Rafah? Are you saying the other side, they go to Egypt? DANNY AYALON: Yes, absolutely, absolutely. And Egypt will have to play ball. While Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians and killing large numbers of civilians, Western governments have showed unflinching support. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen both traveled to Tel Aviv to symbolically back the far-right Netanyahu government. The Financial Times reported that some EU officials are concerned “that the European Commission president could look as if she is endorsing military actions that will cause mass civilian casualties — and that will swiftly be labelled as war crimes”. An unnamed EU diplomat told the Times, “We may be about to see massive ethnic cleansing” – a clear indication that Western capitals know exactly what Israel is doing. “Our fear is that we’ll pay a heavy price in the global south because of this conflict”, an anonymous EU official confessed to the newspaper. The vast majority of countries in the Global South support the Palestinian people in their struggle against Israeli colonialism. A rare exception is the far-right government in India, whose Prime Minister Narendra Modi represents a vehemently anti-Muslim Hindu-nationalist party, the BJP, which sees Israel’s religious ethnostate as an inspiration and potential model for its own plans for a so-called “Hindu rashtra”. The @FT quotes EU officials saying “we may be about to see massive ethnic cleansing” and "we’ll pay a heavy price in the global south [for supporting it]". Europe knows it, but continues to supports #GazaGenocide. https://t.co/0raewpJ6x5https://t.co/0raewpJ6x5 — Sharmine Narwani (@snarwani) October 14, 2023 Meanwhile, Netanyahu has suggested that Israel plans to further escalate its extreme violence. He told soldiers near the border of Gaza that the “next stage is coming”. The Israeli military has also been attacking neighbors Lebanon and Syria. Human Rights Watch confirmed that Israel used white phosphorous in strikes on both Gaza and Lebanon. The human rights organization made it clear that this “puts civilians at risk of serious and long-term injuries” and “violates the international humanitarian law prohibition on putting civilians at unnecessary risk”. Israel has likewise bombed Syria multiple times, even targeting the international airport in Aleppo. For the roughly 2.3 million Palestinians trapped in the besieged Gaza strip, conditions are virtually unlivable. Israel has cut off Gaza’s access to electricity, water, food, and fuel. The Associated Press reported, “When water does trickle from pipes, the meager flow lasts no more than 30 minutes each day and is so contaminated with sewage and seawater that it’s undrinkable, residents said”. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) cautioned, “Mass casualties are unlike anything seen in past years”. “The medical system is on its knees. As Gaza loses power, hospitals lose power. Water cannot be pumped. Sewage systems will likely flood. People have nowhere else to go”, the humanitarian organization stated. Thousands of buildings have been destroyed. Mass casualties are unlike anything seen in past years. The medical system is on its knees. ???? As Gaza loses power, hospitals lose power???? Water cannot be pumped❌Sewage systems will likely flood People have nowhere else to go. pic.twitter.com/xb1H8nRKHc — ICRC (@ICRC) October 14, 2023

Write an article about: Western sanctions failing: EU imports more Russian gas, China beats US tech war. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, gas, Huawei, LNG, oil, Russia, sanctions, SMIC

Western sanctions are backfiring: The EU is importing Russian liquified natural gas at record levels, and China is making high-tech chips despite US export restrictions. Western sanctions are backfiring: The European Union is now importing Russian liquified natural gas at record levels, and China has made high-tech breakthroughs despite US export restrictions. Washington’s and Brussels’ economic warfare is, ironically, strengthening the economic sovereignty of Beijing and Moscow while blowing back on Europe. The world is living through a new cold war: Cold War Two. And one of the main ways in which this war has been waged is through economic means. Sanctions are the principal instrument of economic warfare. When they are imposed unilaterally by a country, without the support of the United Nations, they are referred to as “unilateral coercive measures” and are illegal according to international law. One-quarter of the global population lives in countries that have been unilaterally sanctioned by the United States. The nations sanctioned by the US and Europe represent nearly one-third of global GDP. The application of sanctions by the United States and its European allies has skyrocketed in recent years. Among the countries sanctioned by the United States are two of the most powerful nations on Earth: China and Russia. China has the world’s largest economy, when you measure its GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP). Russia has the sixth-biggest economy on Earth. The biggest economies in the world by GDP (PPP), according to 2023 IMF data The US government has made it clear that its goal is to sabotage the economies of these Eurasian giants. But Washington has failed. China continues developing state-of-the-art technology, while Russia has only further solidified its role as a global commodities powerhouse, strengthening its own manufacturing sector. The failure, and even blowback, of this Western economic warfare shows that, while unilateral sanctions can do, and often do, significant damage to smaller countries with less developed economies, like Venezuela, Cuba, or Syria; for big nations with a massive industrial base, like China and Russia, their economies may effectively be “too big to sanction”. In these cases, Western sanctions do economic damage in the short term, but in the medium to the long term, the unilateral coercive measures actually help the targets by making them more economically and technologically sovereign. These huge Eurasian economies find alternatives and are no longer dependent on Western corporations; they develop their own high-tech manufacturing sectors, with more value added in the production process. In 2021, US President Joe Biden insisted he must prevent China from becoming “the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world; that’s not gonna happen on my watch”. Similarly, US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said that Washington’s goal is to “slow down China’s rate of innovation”. In order to damage China’s economy, and particularly its tech sector, the United States has imposed many rounds of aggressive sanctions, starting first under President Donald Trump and very much continuing under Joe Biden, in a thoroughly bipartisan campaign. However, these sanctions have failed to prevent China from technologically developing; Beijing has continued taking huge strides. The Chinese firm Huawei has developed phones with advanced chip technology. The company’s Mate 60 Pro model entered the market this September, and took the world by storm. Bloomberg revealed that the Mate 60 Pro is Huawei’s first phone to use the most advanced technology produced by Beijing’s state-owned Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC), a Kirin 9000s chip with a 7 nanometer processor. “Beijing is making early progress in a nationwide push to circumvent US efforts to contain its ascent”, the media outlet stated. Both SMIC and Huawei have been sanctioned by the US government. The Washington Post similarly acknowledged that “the Mate 60 Pro represents a new high-water mark in China’s technological capabilities, with an advanced chip inside that was both designed and manufactured in China despite onerous U.S. export controls intended to prevent China from making this technical jump”. The newspaper added that the phone’s “launch has sparked hushed concern in Washington that U.S. sanctions have failed to prevent China from making a key technological advance. Such a development would seem to fulfill warnings from U.S. chipmakers that sanctions wouldn’t stop China, but would spur it to redouble efforts to build alternatives to U.S. technology”. Huawei revealed the new phone when US Commerce Secretary Raimondo was visiting – a clear message of defiance against her office’s campaign of economic warfare. Russia is one of the most sanctioned countries on Earth. The United States and European Union have imposed many rounds of sanctions on the Eurasian nation over the NATO proxy war in Ukraine. President Biden made it clear that Washington’s goal with this economic warfare was to turn Russia’s currency, the ruble, into “rubble”. Biden boasted in March 2022 that one ruble was, at least briefly, worth less than one US penny. The US president declared: We are enforcing the most significant package of economic sanctions in history, and it’s causing significant damage to Russia’s economy. It has caused the Russian economy to, quite frankly, crater. The Russian ruble is now down by 50 percent since Putin announced his war. One ruble is now worth less than one American penny. One ruble is less than one American penny. And [we are] preventing Russia’s central bank from propping up the ruble and to keep its value up. They’re not going to be able to do that now. We cut Russia’s largest banks from the international financial system, and it’s crippled their ability to do business with the rest of the world. Biden did not mention that there are more than 140 million Russians living in Russia, and they use the ruble in their everyday life; they get paid their wages in rubles. By trying to destroy their currency, this Western economic warfare has not only harmed the Russian government and Vladimir Putin; it has been hurting the entire country, including more than 140 million civilians. But sanctions are not a precise instrument – despite the fact that Western governments constantly, and misleadingly, claim they are “targeted” against individuals and have supposed “humanitarian exemptions”. Sanctions are a brutal instrument of economic warfare, of collective punishment; they often do serious damage, and have major consequences for civilians living in targeted countries. In Venezuela, for instance, mainstream experts found that at least tens of thousands, and perhaps more than 100,000, civilians have died because of the illegal, unilateral sanctions imposed on the South American nation by the United States, as part of the Donald Trump administration’s coup attempt with Juan Guaidó. In the case of Russia, however, the economic sanctions have not done as much damage as the West would have hoped. Initially, the ruble did significantly depreciate against other currencies, but it soon rebounded, largely because of the rise in the price of oil and other commodities. Russia is one of the world’s biggest producers of oil, gas, fertilizers, and wheat. In fact, not only have the sanctions failed to turn the ruble into rubble and devastate the Russian economy; they have backfired on Europe, unleashing an energy crisis and contributing to high levels of inflation. In the meantime, the European Union is importing record levels of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Financial Times reported that, in the first seven months of 2023, EU members Belgium and Spain were the second- and third-largest purchasers of Russian LNG. The only other country that bought more was Russia’s closest ally: China. France and the Netherlands have also been importing significant quantities of Russian LNG. “EU imports of the super-chilled gas were up 40 per cent between January and July this year compared with the same period in 2021”, the Financial Times wrote. The newspaper added that “the EU did not import significant amounts of LNG before the war in Ukraine due to its reliance on piped gas from Russia”. What happened to that pipeline gas? Well, Europe pledged to boycott it. But furthermore, some of the most important pipelines connecting Russia to Germany, Nord Stream, were blown up in an international act of terrorism in September 2022. Who exactly sabotaged this crucial energy infrastructure is not known. But Pulitzer Pitzer-winning journalist Seymour Hersh reported that it was the US government. So now EU member states are importing Russian LNG at record levels. And ironically, they are paying even more than they had before for the cheap pipeline gas. The Financial Times reported that Europe has spent roughly €5.29 billion buying Russian LNG on the spot market from January to July 2023. The newspaper noted, “EU officials have pointed to an overall effort to phase out Russian fossil fuels by 2027, but warned that an outright ban on LNG imports risked prompting an energy crisis akin to last year when EU gas prices hit record highs of more than €300 per megawatt hour”. Russia is now the second-largest exporter of LNG to the Eurozone. The only country that sells more is the United States. In fact, due to the energy crisis in Europe and sanctions on Russia, in 2022, the United States became the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas in the world (tied with Qatar). So while Europe’s economies suffer, US corporations are benefiting. At the same time, Western ally India has been buying record amounts of Russian oil, below market value, at a neat discount, then refining that crude and selling it to Europe with a fat markup. So India is handsomely profiting from selling Russian oil to Europe, because Europe refuses to buy the Russian crude directly due to its sanctions. This suicidal sanctions policy has fueled an energy crisis in Europe, pushing economies into recession and causing de-industrialization at breakneck speed. Average working people have shouldered the burden of this economic pain. The real wages of workers in the Eurozone fell by 6.5% from 2020 until 2022.

Write an article about: China report excoriates ‘US hegemony’, war crimes, CIA coups, 400 foreign interventions. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, CIA, coup, regime change

China’s Foreign Ministry published a lengthy report condemning “US hegemony” and its crimes around the world, including wars with millions of victims, coups and “regime change” against elected leaders, and 400 foreign military interventions. The Chinese government has published a lengthy report condemning “US hegemony” and its destructive effects on the world. The document analyzed the ways in which the United States has “abused” its hegemony politically, militarily, economically, financially, technologically, and culturally. China’s Foreign Ministry noted that Washington has roughly 800 foreign military bases all around the world and has launched 400 foreign military interventions. The United States committed genocide against Indigenous nations, imposed its colonialist “Monroe Doctrine” in Latin America, and annexed independent territories like Hawaii, Beijing pointed out. China denounced the US for sponsoring coups, regime-change operations, and “color revolutions” in dozens of countries, while constantly spreading “misinformation” and propaganda to destabilize foreign adversaries. Just since 2001, US wars have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, wounded millions, and created tens of millions of refugees, Beijing recalled. These devastating facts were laid out in the report “US Hegemony and Its Perils“, which China’s Foreign Ministry released on February 20. It was subsequently republished by major Chinese media outlets. Beijing said the goal of the report was to “draw greater international attention to the perils of the U.S. practices to world peace and stability and the well-being of all peoples”. The Foreign Ministry wrote: Since becoming the world’s most powerful country after the two world wars and the Cold War, the United States has acted more boldly to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, pursue, maintain and abuse hegemony, advance subversion and infiltration, and willfully wage wars, bringing harm to the international community. The United States has developed a hegemonic playbook to stage “color revolutions,” instigate regional disputes, and even directly launch wars under the guise of promoting democracy, freedom and human rights. Clinging to the Cold War mentality, the United States has ramped up bloc politics and stoked conflict and confrontation. It has overstretched the concept of national security, abused export controls and forced unilateral sanctions upon others. It has taken a selective approach to international law and rules, utilizing or discarding them as it sees fit, and has sought to impose rules that serve its own interests in the name of upholding a “rules-based international order.” The US is the No.1 saboteur of international rules & order. Hegemony is the hallmark of its approach to international rules & international affairs. pic.twitter.com/mcjF3Cg1YK — Spokesperson发言人办公室 (@MFA_China) February 21, 2023 China condemned the countless examples of “U.S. interference in other countries’ internal affairs”. It noted that the US has treated Latin America as its colonial territory with the so-called “Monroe Doctrine”. Beijing denounced Washington’s illegal, 61-year blockade of Cuba; the 1973 CIA coup against Chile’s democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allende; and the Donald Trump administration’s attempt to overthrow Venezuela’s democratically elected government. China likewise blasted the “color revolutions” and “regime change” operations that the United States supported in George, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, and beyond. “The U.S. exercises double standards on international rules. Placing its self-interest first, the United States has walked away from international treaties and organizations, and put its domestic law above international law”, Beijing wrote. “The U.S. arbitrarily passes judgment on democracy in other countries, and fabricates a false narrative of “democracy versus authoritarianism” to incite estrangement, division, rivalry and confrontation”, it added. “The history of the United States is characterized by violence and expansion”, the Chinese Foreign Ministry wrote, explaining: Since it gained independence in 1776, the United States has constantly sought expansion by force: it slaughtered Indians, invaded Canada, waged a war against Mexico, instigated the American-Spanish War, and annexed Hawaii. After World War II, the wars either provoked or launched by the United States included the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, the War in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the Libyan War and the Syrian War, abusing its military hegemony to pave the way for expansionist objectives. In recent years, the U.S. average annual military budget has exceeded 700 billion U.S. dollars, accounting for 40 percent of the world’s total, more than the 15 countries behind it combined. The United States has about 800 overseas military bases, with 173,000 troops deployed in 159 countries. “As former U.S. President Jimmy Carter put it, the United States is undoubtedly the most warlike nation in the history of the world”, Beijing added. It cited a Tufts University report that found that the United States carried out almost 400 military interventions from 1776 to 2019. Since 2001, US wars have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, injured millions, and created tens of millions of refugees, China pointed out. “By taking advantage of the dollar’s status as the major international reserve currency, the United States is basically collecting ‘seigniorage’ from around the world; and using its control over international organizations, it coerces other countries into serving America’s political and economic strategy”, the Chinese Foreign Ministry wrote. It identified the “hegemony of U.S. dollar” as “the main source of instability and uncertainty in the world economy”. Through the use of sanctions and other measures, “The United States willfully suppresses its opponents with economic coercion”, and “America’s economic and financial hegemony has become a geopolitical weapon”, Beijing warned. “The United States seeks to deter other countries’ scientific, technological and economic development by wielding monopoly power, suppression measures and technology restrictions in high-tech fields”, China said. Beijing condemned Washington’s global use of cyber attacks and surveillance. “The United States monopolizes intellectual property in the name of protection”, it wrote. “The United States politicizes, weaponizes technological issues and uses them as ideological tools”, it added. “The United States has often used cultural tools to strengthen and maintain its hegemony in the world”, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said. Washington uses movies, TV shows, and media outlets as weapons of soft power, Beijing pointed out. “U.S.-dominated Western media has a particularly important role in shaping global public opinion in favor of U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of other countries”, it wrote. Citing a report from The Intercept, the Chinese Foreign Minister noted how the “U.S. Department of Defense manipulates social media”, spreading war propaganda on Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms. “The United States uses misinformation as a spear to attack other countries, and has built an industrial chain around it”, Beijing warned. US propaganda is “targeting socialist countries” in particular, it noted, stressing that Washington “pours staggering amounts of public funds into radio and TV networks to support their ideological infiltration, and these mouthpieces bombard socialist countries in dozens of languages with inflammatory propaganda day and night”.

Write an article about: China ‘counters US dollar hegemony’ with gold reserves, Argentina yuan currency swap deal. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Alberto Fernández, Argentina, Brazil, China, currency swap, de-dollarization, gold, Lula da Silva

Advancing global de-dollarization, China’s central bank is boosting its gold reserves while signing currency swap deals in yuan with countries like Argentina, encouraging the use of renminbi instead of US dollars. China’s central bank has taken a series of steps to accelerate the global drive toward de-dollarization, challenging the hegemony of the greenback. The People’s Bank of China is increasing the share of gold in its foreign-exchange reserves, bucking the US dollar, which has for decades been dominant in international central bank holdings. This January, China also signed an agreement with Argentina’s central bank for a currency swap deal, in which Beijing will provide 130 billion Chinese yuan (roughly $19 billion USD) to help Buenos Aires stabilize its currency and economy. The South American nation said it is “committed to deepen the use of the RMB [renminbi] in the Argentine market for bilateral exchange”. (Renminbi is the official name of the Chinese currency, and is often used interchangeably with yuan, which is the unit of account of that currency.) China’s semi-official newspaper Global Times commented that the deal makes it “likely that more Latin American countries will increase the use of Chinese yuan in order to counter the US dollar’s hegemony, and strengthen economic ties with China”. These moves show how China is responding to the new cold war that the United States is waging against it. Concerned that the aggressive sanctions that Washington has already imposed could expand into an all-out economic war, Beijing is decreasing its holdings of dollars in reserves and encouraging the use of its currency in trade with other nations – thereby chipping away at the global reserve currency. Meanwhile, Russia’s central bank has pledged to buy yuan in the foreign-exchange market to hold in its reserves. And Beijing is already purchasing oil from Moscow in its national currency. In December 2022, the People’s Bank of China publicly disclosed for the first time in three years that it was increasing the share of gold in its foreign-exchange reserves. Bloomberg noted at the time that “China’s purchases may be part of a plan to diversify its reserves away from the dollar“. In January 2023, Bloomberg followed up indicating that the People’s Bank of China had again boosted its gold reserves. The media outlet speculated that Russia is filling its reserves with gold as well. China and Russia are not alone. Bloomberg reported that central banks around the world are buying gold, reaching a record of close to 400 tons in the third fiscal quarter of 2022, compared to 241 tons in the same period in 2018. Central banks in many countries are increasingly worried that they could be targeted by unilateral Western sanctions. The United States and European Union have frozen or seized hundreds of billions of dollars and euros from the foreign reserves belonging to the central banks of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and Afghanistan. This has pushed many nations to look into diversifying their foreign reserves – not only governments targeted by the West for regime change, but even long-time allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Türkiye. Central banks look to China’s renminbi to diversify foreign currency reserves https://t.co/skJm1aKmmW — FT Economics (@fteconomics) July 1, 2022 The Financial Times reported in June 2022 that central banks across the planet “are looking towards the renminbi to diversify their foreign currency holdings, in a sign that geopolitical flare-ups could chip away at the dollar’s dominance”. A staggering 85% of central bank reserve managers have expressed interest in investing or already are invested in renminbi, the newspaper noted. It quoted the head of strategy for global sovereign markets at top Swiss bank UBS, Massimiliano Castelli, who said: “We’re seeing a gradual erosion of the dollar… The picture that emerges is one of a multipolar currency system”. The newspaper added, “Four-fifths of the central bankers surveyed said they believed that a move towards a multipolar world — away from a US-centric system — would benefit the renminbi”. The US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) has made similar warnings. In March 2022, it published a research paper on the “stealth erosion of dollar dominance“. The US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned of an “erosion of dollar dominance” Use of Chinese yuan in global central bank reserves is increasing And Western sanctions on Russia could weaken the dollar, strengthening other currencieshttps://t.co/weF255asil — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 31, 2022 The financial institution observed a marked rise in the use of “nontraditional currencies” in global central bank reserves. The Chinese yuan has driven this increase. From 2000 to 2021, the percentage of foreign reserves held in US dollars dropped from a bit over 70% to just under 60%. Thus far, the shift has been slow. But as the United States escalates its new cold war on China, the ensuing geopolitical conflict is likely to accelerate the move toward de-dollarization. Argentina has struggled for centuries with odious debt owed to colonial and neo-colonial powers. Today, the South American nation is trapped in $44 billion in dollar-denominated debt with the IMF. Seeking to fortify its sovereignty and weaken US control, Argentina has strengthened its relations with China and Russia. China is already Argentina’s second-biggest trade partner, after Brazil, and the ties between the countries are growing. In February 2022, Buenos Aires joined Beijing’s massive global infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative. Argentina has also applied to join the expanded BRICS+ bloc, alongside Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. This January 8, the president of Argentina’s central bank met with his counterpart from China. The Argentine central bank reported that the two countries “committed to deepen the use of the RMB [renminbi] in the Argentine market for bilateral exchange”. The swap offers 130 billion in Chinese yuan (roughly $19 billion USD), with an additional “special activation” of 35 billion yuan (approximately $5 billion USD) for interventions in the foreign-exchange market. The president of Argentina’s central bank, Miguel Pesce, meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Yi Gang Argentine President Alberto Fernández had met with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in November 2022, where they discussed the currency swap. The Argentine central bank has an account in its own currency, the peso, at the People’s Bank of China. China’s central bank has an account in yuan at Argentina’s central bank. Buenos Aires must pay Beijing back the 130 billion yuan, with interest. But the advantage is that dollars are not involved. According to the Argentine central bank’s most recent report, from November 2022, its total reserves sum to $38 billion USD. This means that the yuan currency swap represents roughly half of Argentina’s reserves. This will have a massive macroeconomic impact. The newspaper Global Times, which is linked to the Communist Party of China and has a nationalist perspective, explained the thinking of some officials in Beijing, arguing that the currency swap deal “help the Latin American country hedge against shocks brought about by the US’ financial policy tightening while promoting its own industrial development”. “It is likely that more Latin American countries will increase the use of Chinese yuan in order to counter the US dollar’s hegemony, and strengthen economic ties with China”, the semi-official media outlet added. #China-Argentina currency swap expansion reflects Latin American country's determination to seek closer cooperation with China: experts say.https://t.co/gz1YAp9sn0 pic.twitter.com/g0Ra0XA1dn — Global Times (@globaltimesnews) January 9, 2023 Argentina is a significant agricultural producer, and its top exports include corn, soy products, and wheat. Two-thirds of Argentina’s exports to China consist of soy beans, with an additional 7% of soy oil. Argentina also exports to China smaller amounts of beef, crude petroleum, and shrimp and prawn. Most of what China exports to Argentina is various forms of advanced technologies, including phones, TVs, and machines. Exports, especially from the agricultural sector, are one of the only ways Argentina can get access to foreign currencies – or more specifically dollars, which it needs to service its dollar-denominated debt with the IMF. Normally, if a company in a country like Argentina needs dollars, or if a bank needs foreign currency for a loan, these firms would buy it on the foreign-exchange market. In contrast, swap lines cut out the middleman and create direct relationships between the central banks of countries. The Chinese swap line deal could help Argentina hold on to dollars to service its debt, while using yuan to buy products from China. Perhaps even more importantly for Buenos Aires, which suffers with high rates of inflation, it could also use yuan instead of dollars to stabilize the ever-weakening Argentine peso by intervening in the foreign-exchange market. China began conducted currency swaps with Argentina back in 2009, under left-wing President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Deals have been repeatedly renewed since then. But the South American nation is not the only country that has worked out a system like this with the East Asian giant. In December, the Wall Street Journal reported that Beijing’s central bank is using an “unusual channel”: “currency-swap lines to support governments that borrowed heavily from Chinese banks”. The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) has given hundreds of billions of dollars worth of yuan to dozens of countries in exchange for their domestic currencies, the newspaper reported. Among these recipients are Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Argentina, and Laos — all nations that struggle with external debt, much of it denominated in US dollars. Hungry for foreign currency to shore up their dwindling reserves, some countries have turned to an unusual source of funds: The People's Bank of China https://t.co/QgmRnRdewt — WSJ China Real Time (@ChinaRealTime) December 12, 2022 The Wall Street Journal explained, “By replenishing other countries’ reserves, the PBOC may be helping some of the world’s most indebted countries avoid rising borrowing costs”. While the newspaper portrayed this as a cynical effort by China to “prop up” members of its Belt and Road Initiative, the media outlet acknowledged that Beijing is also using the currency swaps to accelerate the de-dollarization of the international financial system. “The PBOC says the swap lines are there to help grease the wheels of international trade, ensure financial stability and further the adoption of the yuan in a world where trade and finance are dominated by the U.S. dollar”, the Wall Street Journal wrote. It added: “The PBOC’s swap network is the largest of its kind, according to the World Bank. The PBOC said in a 2021 report that it has swap facilities with 40 countries with a combined capacity of almost 4 trillion yuan, or about $570 billion”. While Buenos Aires is collaborating more closely with Beijing (its second-largest trading partner), Argentina has simultaneously pushed for stronger ties with Brazil (its largest trading partner) and economic integration of Latin America. Brazil’s left-wing President Lula da Silva returned to power on January 1. Two days later, Argentina’s Ambassador Daniel Scioli met with Brazil’s Economic Minister Fernando Haddad. Scioli said his government’s top priority was “the agreement on deep Argentina-Brazil integration” that the countries’ Presidents Alberto Fernández and Lula da Silva are due to sign at the summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in Buenos Aires on January 24. ???? | Avanzamos con el nuevo ministro de Economía de Brasil, @Haddad_Fernando, en 3 temas prioritarios de la agenda bilateral: 1⃣ El acuerdo de integración profunda Argentina-Brasil que firmarán @alferdez y @LulaOficial en la próxima reunión de la CELAC en Buenos Aires. pic.twitter.com/T0ZbawtCnJ — Daniel Scioli ?? (@danielscioli) January 3, 2023 The Argentine ambassador likewise revealed that his government is in talks with the state-owned Brazilian Development Bank to receive financing to advance construction of a pipeline, named after former President Néstor Kirchner, which will provide a steady supply of gas to Brazil. Argentina has the world’s second-biggest reserves of shale gas and the forth-biggest of shale oil. Scioli added that Argentina and Brazil look to increase their exports and trade with each other, “conserving the reserves of both countries in the framework of the system of local currencies”. 3⃣ El financiamiento del BNDES a las próximas etapas del gasoducto Néstor Kirchner, que permitirá el abastecimiento sustentable de gas a Brasil y equilibrar nuestra balanza comercial. Más integración con Brasil es más crecimiento, trabajo y divisas para la Argentina. — Daniel Scioli ?? (@danielscioli) January 3, 2023 Scioli’s hint that Argentine-Brazilian trade will be done with local currencies led to international speculation that the countries are moving forward with Lula’s proposed plan to create a sovereign Latin American currency for regional trade. This frightened some foreign investors, and was reported in the financial press with a heavy dose of concern – and condescension. Haddad downplayed the reports, saying, “There is no proposal for one currency for Mercosur”. But his words were careful: The Brazilian economic minister said there was not yet a proposal; he didn’t deny that the potential currency was discussed. It was likely that Haddad was merely trying to reassure foreign investors. In his inauguration speech, Lula pledged more robust social spending to fight poverty and hunger and vowed to reverse the privatizations carried out by previous far-right President Jair Bolsonaro. These policies are overwhelmingly popular among the Brazilian people, but they scared some investors in Brazilian stocks, who sold off shares, leading to market instability and a slight drop in the value of the country’s currency, the real, against the dollar. Recebi do vice-presidente China, Wang Qishan, uma carta do presidente Xi Jinping com seus cumprimentos e vontade de ampliarmos a cooperação. A China é nosso maior parceiro comercial e podemos ampliar ainda mais as relações entre nossos países ???? ?: @ricardostuckert pic.twitter.com/Z8FAmn4yyW — Lula (@LulaOficial) January 2, 2023 In the mean time, Brazil’s new government, like that of Argentina, has vowed to deepen its alliance with China. On the day after his inauguration, Lula met with China’s Vice President Wang Qishan. The statesman gave the Brazilian leader a letter from President Xi Jinping, which called to boost Chinese-Brazilian ties. Lula tweeted, “China is our biggest trading partner, and we can even further expand the relations between our countries”.

Write an article about: US gov’t knew NATO expansion to Ukraine would force Russia to intervene. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

CIA, Georgia, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, WikiLeaks, William Burns

Former US Ambassador to Russia William J. Burns, who is now CIA director, admitted in a classified 2008 embassy cable that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow’s security “redlines” and “could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) Senior US government officials knew as far back as 2008 that the possibility of adding Ukraine to NATO was seen as a serious “military threat” by Russia, one that crosses Moscow’s security “redlines” and could force it to intervene. Yet Western leaders continued insisting that Ukraine would join the US-led military alliance, right up until Russia did indeed intervene in February 2022. At the annual NATO summit back in 2008, the George W. Bush administration publicly called for adding Russia’s neighbors Ukraine and Georgia to the military alliance. NATO’s secretary-general declared that the two countries would eventually become members. But privately, US diplomats knew that this move would be seen as an existential threat by Moscow, and could provoke Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The former US ambassador to Russia, William J. Burns, who is now director of the CIA, warned in a February 2008 embassy cable that Ukraine constituted a security “redline” for Moscow. The confidential State Department cable was titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines” (“nyet” is Russian for “no”). Burns cautioned that the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine “could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” Burns wrote that Foreign Minister Sergey “Lavrov emphasized that Russia was convinced that [NATO] enlargement was not based on security reasons, but was a legacy of the Cold War.” The former US ambassador to Russia, and current CIA director, published a prescient analysis that would foreshadow Moscow’s actions in 2022: Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face. Burns’ warnings came true just a few years later. This kind of internal violence did indeed break out in Ukraine, after a US-sponsored coup d’etat in 2014 overthrew a democratically elected government that had maintained a relatively neutral foreign policy, balanced between Russia and the West, and instead installed a staunchly pro-Western and anti-Russian regime. In response to the 2014 putsch, Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the eastern Donbas region rose up against the coup government in Kiev, which they denounced as an illegitimate Western puppet regime. Independence activists declared the creation of two new autonomous states, the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. The Ukrainian government, with Western military support and weapons, has waged a brutal war against these breakaway republics in the Donbas ever since. Thousands of Ukrainians have been killed, and hundreds of thousands more have been displaced. Ukraine, which shares a massive 2,300-kilometer border with Russia, has been rocked by violence and instability since the 2014 US-backed coup – and this constant turmoil has had significant effects inside Russia, especially economically. This was precisely the civil war scenario that Burns had warned about in 2008. On February 21, 2022, Russia officially recognized Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states. Then on February 24, Moscow launched an invasion of Ukraine, which it said aimed to “demilitarize” and “denazify” the country. Russia’s goal is to force Ukraine to maintain political neutrality, preventing it from being a Western military outpost that could threaten Russia on its borders, potentially with nuclear weapons. While Western governments and media outlets portrayed the Russian invasion as the crazy decision of a supposed madman, internal US embassy cables showed that Washington knew as far back as 2008 that its push to expand NATO to Ukraine would result in this exactly this outcome: forcing Russia to intervene. The world only knows this thanks to the whistleblowing journalist outlet Wikileaks, which published the formerly classified State Department cable by William Burns, and publicized his prophetic warning on Twitter. 'Nyet Means Nyet: Russia's #NATO Enlargement Redlines' – #Ukraine Cable from 2008 written by #CIA director William J. Burns, then US ambassador to Moscow https://t.co/rOoxmuwIul pic.twitter.com/KGy0PU4Igg — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 25, 2022 At every stage leading up the Russian military intervention in Ukraine in February 2022, the United States and its NATO alliance refused to give substantial concessions to Moscow, sabotaging all serious attempts at a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Since it signed the Minsk II agreement in 2015, under the supervision of Germany and France, the Ukrainian government has been legally obligated to cease hostilities against the Donbas and create a decentralized system that ensures autonomy for Donetsk and Lugansk. But Ukraine adamantly refused to abide by Minsk II, and its Western sponsors did nothing to save the diplomatic agreement. So in December 2021, the Russian Federation sent the US and NATO a series of requests for security guarantees. Principal among these was the demand that the military alliance must not admit Ukraine and Georgia. Moscow said that NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia constituted a security “red line” – recalling the language Ambassador William Burns had used in his 2008 embassy cable. For Russia as a country, regardless of who is president and regardless of the political ideology of the Kremlin, the prospect of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO poses an existential security threat, given that both nations, which were former republics of the Soviet Union, directly border Russia at geostrategic points. When Nazi Germany invaded the USSR in its 1941 Operation Barbarossa, it tore through and occupied Soviet Ukraine, to try to cut off Moscow’s access to the Black Sea and Caucasus, break off southern cities like Stalingrad, and ultimately surround the Russian heartland. In its December 2021 request, the Russian Federation insisted that the United States and NATO must respond to its demand for security guarantees with legally binding written statements. Moscow emphasized that any agreements had to be in writing precisely because NATO has a history of lying to it. Notes from a 1991 meeting prove that the US, UK, France, and Germany assured the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand east. It’s part of a growing body of evidence that the West broke its promise to Russia.https://t.co/JY3fcuOVPa — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 21, 2022 In 1990, the US, Britain, and France repeatedly promised the Soviet Union that they would not expand NATO “one inch eastward” after the reunification of Germany. This is an undeniable historical fact, a matter of public record confirmed by numerous internal documents from Western governments. But NATO later broke that promise, and not once or twice but 14 times. All 14 new member states that it admitted were east of Germany, and many had previously been Soviet allies in Moscow’s former security alliance, the Warsaw Pact. A map of NATO expansion NATO has militarily encircled Russia more and more by the year. Estonia and Latvia, former republics of the Soviet Union, are already NATO member states directly on Russia’s borders. In fact Western militaries, including those of the United Kingdom and France, were using Estonia to run NATO military exercises just 100 kilometers from Russia’s border in late 2021 and early 2022, at the peak of the crisis in Ukraine. NATO troops have launched a series of war-games in Estonia, less than 2 hours drive from the Russian border. The “Winter camp” exercise includes troops from Britain and France, and involves armoured vehicles and live-fire drills pic.twitter.com/pEHCPYHNfV — Murad Gazdiev (@MuradGazdiev) January 29, 2022 The United States and NATO ultimately ignored Russia’s December 2021 request for security guarantees. Leaked copies of their written responses, which they had asked to keep private, show that they refused to grant Moscow any significant concessions, and both insisted that Ukraine could and even should one day join NATO. (NATO’s response was particularly aggressive and disrespectful.) In a speech at the Munich Security Conference on February 19, 2022, the Western military alliance’s hawkish secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, threatened that “if Kremlin’s aim is to have less NATO on Russia’s borders, it will only get more NATO.” The US-led NATO imperialist alliance provoked Russia right up til the end: On February 19, a few days before its intervention in Ukraine, warmongering NATO leader Jens Stoltenberg threatened, "if Kremlin’s aim is to have less NATO on Russia’s borders, it will only get more NATO" https://t.co/tiKDynhYqY pic.twitter.com/kd2n6kZmnL — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 25, 2022 Instead of respecting Russia’s security red lines, the United States and several European countries escalated the situation further by sending billions of dollars worth of more weapons to Ukraine. Pointing to a Russian troop deployment inside its own territory, near its border with Ukraine, Western governments deployed more soldiers to the region as well, driving up the tensions. Throughout the entire time, NATO depicted itself as an angelic, innocent “defensive” alliance. But Russia understands how high the stakes are, clearly seeing the consequences of NATO’s destructive wars on Yugoslavia – which destroyed and balkanized the country – Afghanistan, and Libya – which turned what had been the most prosperous country in Africa into a failed state with open-air slave markets. The 2022 crisis in Ukraine traces its roots back to the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania in 2008, when the George W. Bush administration publicly called for adding Ukraine and Georgia to the US-led military alliance. There were internal divisions within NATO, and some members, namely Germany and France, were uncomfortable with the possibility. But NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared that Ukraine and Georgia eventually “will become member nations.” Ukraine’s president at the time was Viktor Yushchenko, a US-backed, pro-Western politician who supported NATO membership. But in the 2010 presidential election, the Ukrainian people voted for a new leader who promised a more balanced foreign policy, Viktor Yanukovych. Western media outlets often refer to Yanukovych as “pro-Russian,” but in reality he tried to keep Ukraine neutral, sometimes allying with the West and sometimes allying with Moscow. For Washington and Brussels, however, Yanukovych was too independent. So in 2014, the United States sponsored a coup d’etat to overthrow the democratically elected president. Far-right extremists and neo-Nazis played a key role as the violent muscle behind this putsch. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, senior US diplomats like hardline anti-Russian hawk Victoria Nuland were conspiring with friendly Ukrainian politicians to create a pro-Western puppet regime right on Russia’s borders. A leaked 2014 phone recording shows that Nuland and other US officials had handpicked the top officials who would run Ukraine’s government after the Washington-backed coup. The Joe Biden administration brought Nuland back in 2021, appointing her third-in-command of the State Department, where she helped to shape US policy toward Russia, pushing for an extremely aggressive strategy. Nuland is a key figure in Washington’s neoconservative foreign-policy circles. Before she helped run the Obama and Biden State Departments, Nuland was Vice President Dick Cheney’s principal deputy foreign policy adviser from 2003 to 2005, during the Iraq War. Nuland’s mentor Cheney has himself made it clear that the United States will never tolerate a strong and independent government in Moscow. Cheney sought to break up Russia itself after the overthrow of the Soviet Union. Back in 1992, the Pentagon drafted a new belligerent US defense strategy, overseen by a neoconservative ally of Nuland and Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz. It clearly stated that Washington’s “first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival… deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” The zero-sum game mentality behind this Wolfowitz Doctrine, which insists that the US empire must run the world without any opposition, and which refuses to countenance the possibility of Russia having its own security interests, still undergirds Washington’s foreign policy to this day. The US “maximum-pressure” strategy against Moscow that this imperial doctrine has inspired, under the watch of anti-Russia hawks like Nuland, helped provoke exactly what Ambassador William Burns warned about in 2008: a Russian military intervention in Ukraine.

Write an article about: China deepens ties with Venezuela, challenging US ‘hegemonic mindset’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

BRICS, China, gas, Iran, Nicolás Maduro, oil, sanctions, Venezuela, Xi Jinping

Condemning Washington’s “hegemonic mindset” and sanctions, China strengthened its strategic partnership with Venezuela. The oil-rich South American nation’s President Nicolás Maduro took a historic trip to Beijing, and applied to join BRICS. Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro took a historic trip to China this September. There, the two nations signed 31 comprehensive agreements and formally “upgraded” their relations to an “all-weather strategic partnership”, one of Beijing’s highest designations. China and Venezuela jointly blasted the “hegemonism” of the Western powers. Beijing formally condemned the illegal sanctions that Washington has imposed on Caracas. Chinese President Xi Jinping emphasized this his government will “firmly support” Venezuela’s “just cause against external interference”. The global political and economic order is changing rapidly. One of the biggest shifts the world has seen in the past 20 years is in relations between China and Latin America. At the beginning of the 21st century, there was not much trade between China and Latin America. But in the past two decades, their economic relations have skyrocketed. Today, China is the second-largest trading partner of the region, after the United States. There are nine countries in Latin America that trade more with China than any other nation. (The United States is Mexico’s biggest trading partner, and Mexico has the second-biggest economy in Latin America. But if Mexico is excluded from the data, China becomes Latin America’s top trading partner.) Among the Latin American nations that already trade more with China than the United States are the largest economy in the region, Brazil; as well as the third biggest, Argentina; along with one of the world’s top lithium producers, Bolivia; the second-largest copper producer, Peru; and the country with the biggest known oil reserves: Venezuela. Venezuela has a lot of economic potential, but has suffered for years under a brutal economic war waged by the United States. In 2019, the Donald Trump administration launched a coup attempt. Washington claimed a little-known right-wing opposition politician, Juan Guaidó, was the supposed “interim president” of the country, despite the fact that he had never participated in a presidential election. The United States pressured countries around the world to recognize Guaidó as the supposed leader of Venezuela. At the same time, the United States imposed upon Venezuela one of the most grueling sanctions regimes in history. Washington’s goal was clear: to destroy Venezuela’s oil sector, thus starving the leftist government of revenue and leading to its overthrow. For a century, ever since oil was discovered in Venezuela, the South American nation’s economy has been extremely reliant on one industry: oil. This over-dependency is a problem that predates the Bolivarian Revolution declared by revolutionary socialist President Hugo Chávez at the turn of the 21st century. Long before Chávez was born, Venezuela has been a petrostate. The government has historically relied on exporting oil to get revenue to fund social programs. This was the case even when the state was controlled by right-wing political parties. The US sanctions on Venezuela began in 2015, when the Barack Obama White House issued a bizarre executive order “declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela”. When Trump entered office in 2017, he drastically escalated the economic war on Venezuela that Obama had started into a full-on embargo (like the blockade Washington has illegally imposed on Cuba for more than six decades). US sanctions have devastated the Venezuelan economy. According to the top United Nations expert on the issue, special rapporteur Alena Douhan, Washington’s unilateral coercive measures, which are illegal under international law, resulted in the Venezuelan government losing 99% of its revenue. Independent experts have reported that US sanctions have caused at least tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Venezuela, perhaps more than 100,000. While it is widely known that Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, what is much less known is that the South American nation’s crude is very heavy. Venezuela’s oil needs a lot more processing than the lighter crude of other countries. It must be diluted, blended with lighter crude or liquids like naphtha. US sanctions have aimed expressly at trying to prevent Venezuela from importing the diluents it needs to process its oil. This was yet another part of Washington’s strategy to destroy Venezuelan oil production, to starve the government of revenue. However, the numerous US coup attempts have failed. Still today, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is firmly in power. He continues the legacy of the Bolivarian Revolution that was initiated by his predecessor, Chávez. Maduro is also deepening Caracas’ alliance with Beijing. This September, the Venezuelan leader took a seven-day trip to China, which both Beijing and Caracas described as “historic”. Maduro met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and signed 31 comprehensive agreements, involving collaboration in a wide array of areas, including economic integration and trade, geology and mining, health, technology transfer, construction of public housing, energy, infrastructure, telecommunications, and even outer space. During Maduro’s trip, Xi also announced that China had “elevated” its diplomatic relationship with Venezuela. Beijing previously considered its ties with Caracas to be part of a “comprehensive strategic partnership”. Now, China calls it an “all-weather strategic partnership”. This means that Venezuela is among China’s closest allies, at the same level as Pakistan, which is one of China’s neighbors and plays an important role in the Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing’s global infrastructure project. In his remarks upon meeting with Maduro, President Xi said that “China will continue to firmly support Venezuela’s efforts to safeguard national sovereignty, dignity and social stability, as well as its just cause against external interference”. China and Venezuela released a joint statement calling to “oppose all forms of hegemonism and power politics, oppose all forms of unilateralism”. Beijing-based newspaper the Global Times, which is close to the government, described Maduro’s trip writing: “The further consolidation and elevation of bilateral relations also suggests the irreversible momentum of South-South cooperation, which leads to win-win results and unity among the developing world rather than certain Western countries wrestling for power out of a hegemonic mindset”. For his part, Maduro said the two nations’ growing relations are part of a “new era”. He added, “We have a relation of deep friendship, of successful cooperation. Our relations have been a model for the Global South”. The Venezuelan president added that China has been the “great motor of development in a new era of a multipolar and pluricentric world”. Maduro emphasized that the partnership between Venezuela and China is “not about dominating countries, much less taking their resources or wealth. On the contrary, we are working for the development of industry, agriculture, technology, the capacity to make jobs and satisfy the needs of the peoples. It is the century of a different world, pluripolar and pluricentric”. La asociación estratégica entre Venezuela y China no es para ir contra nadie, ni dominar países, ni mucho menos para quitarle los recursos o riquezas a las naciones. ¡Al contrario! Trabajamos para desarrollar la industria, la agricultura, la tecnología, la capacidad de generación… pic.twitter.com/hduaDl9IBa — Nicolás Maduro (@NicolasMaduro) September 14, 2023 China has the world’s largest economy, when its GDP is measured at purchasing power parity. China is also the world’s biggest importer of both oil and gas. It needs stable, reliable energy partners, particularly as Washington pressures countries to minimize their relations with Beijing. Venezuela not only has massive oil reserves, but also very significant gas deposits. BP reported in 2021 that Venezuela has proven gas reserves amounting to a staggering 6.3 trillion cubic meters, larger than those in Saudi Arabia (6 trillion), the United Arab Emirates (5.9 trillion), and Iraq (3.5 trillion). In recent years, the Venezuelan government has slowly expanded exploration, looking for more gas fields. China is slowly trying to end its reliance on fossil fuels. Beijing recognizes that climate change is a very serious threat, not only to the planet, but to its own national security. In fact, China is the world’s leader in renewable energy, representing more than 80% of global clean energy manufacturing investment. Beijing is on the path to install more solar panels in 2023 than the United States has installed in the history of the technology. But, in the short- to medium-term, China still needs a lot of oil and gas, and Venezuela is a natural energy partner, with a government that Beijing can rely on not to betray it and ally with Washington. China installed 96.6 GW of solar power capacity in 2022: 42% of the entire planet (231 GW) China had a total of 462 GW of solar photovoltaic (PV) power installed as of 2022: 37.5% of the global total of 1233 GW China has more solar power installed than these countries COMBINED:… pic.twitter.com/tL81uR0nOZ — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 18, 2023 Maduro’s trip to China came just a few weeks after a historic summit of the BRICS, in which the bloc founded by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa formally invited six countries to become new members: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Venezuela has formally applied to join the extended BRICS+ bloc as well. China has publicly endorsed Venezuela for membership. Brazil, under President Lula da Silva, has also made it clear that it supports Venezuela joining BRICS. The fact that Iran is now integrating into the bloc shows that countries in the Global South are increasingly willing to challenge the illegal unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States. In fact, in July, Iran also became a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an important institution for security policy in Eurasia. Other members include China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and numerous Central Asian nations. China has deepened its alliance with Venezuela mere months after helping to broker a historic peace breakthrough between Iran and Saudi Arabia. For decades, the United States pressured Riyadh to wage a proxy war against Tehran, in hopes of weakening and eventually toppling Iran’s post-revolutionary government. Today, Iran and Saudi Arabia certainly are not allies, but they have normal diplomatic relations and will work alongside each other members of BRICS. Developments like these show that, while the United States wages wars and seeks to overthrow governments across the planet, China encourages peace, diplomacy, and stability, in the name of “win-win cooperation” and mutually beneficial economic development.

Write an article about: Ukraine says Russia doesn’t plan to invade, while US/UK threaten war and Germany/France want peace. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Britain, Estonia, EU, European Union, France, gas, oil, Russia, UK, Ukraine, United Kingdom

Ukraine’s president urged calm, and its defense minister argued “there are no grounds to believe” Russia is planning an invasion, while the US and Britain send weapons and troops. UPDATE (February 27, 2022): Despite these previous claims by top Ukrainian government officials, Russia launched a military invasion of Ukraine on February 24. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) Ukraine’s defense minister, Oleksii Reznikov, has argued that Russia does not have plans to invade, telling his country’s parliament that “as of today, there are no grounds to believe” Moscow will soon attack. While top leaders inside Ukraine are stating this clearly, and calling for calm, the United States, Britain, and some European Union member states are threatening war over claims that Russia is preparing an invasion. Top corporate media outlets have helped fan the flames of war. Citing anonymous US intelligence officials, CNN published an elaborate conspiracy theory, claiming Moscow is planning to attack Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine in a “false-flag operation” to justify an invasion. The network did not provide a shred of evidence to bolster this extraordinary accusation. The British government has, likewise without any proof, accused Russia of planning to invade Ukraine to install a “puppet” regime. But decision-makers actually in Ukraine think that this is mostly just propaganda, and argue Moscow is not planning on an offensive operation. The Associated Press acknowledged this in a largely overlooked January 25 article, titled “Ukrainian leaders: Stay calm, Russian invasion not imminent.” “Ukraine’s leaders sought Tuesday [January 25] to reassure the nation that an invasion from neighboring Russia was not imminent,” the AP wrote. President Volodymyr Zelensky told the Ukrainian public to remain calm. The withdrawal of some Western diplomats from Ukraine was simply “part of a complex diplomatic game” they are playing, Zelensky said. The AP quoted Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov, who told parliament “there are no grounds to believe” Russia will soon invade. “Don’t worry, sleep well,” Reznikov said. “No need to have your bags packed.” The Ukrainian defense minister told the TV network ICTV, “As of today, the armed forces of Russia created no strike groups, indicating they were ready to launch an offensive tomorrow.” He added that the chance of a Russian invasion during the Winter Olympics in Beijing was “low.” While Ukrainian leaders are urging calm, some Western governments appear to be pushing for war. The United States sent 200,000 pounds of so-called “lethal aid, including ammunition” to Ukraine, bolstering $2.7 billion in support Washington has delivered since 2014. 2014 was the year Washington and Brussels backed a violent coup d’etat in Ukraine and installed a pro-Western government – ironically the same kind of thing London is now accusing Moscow of. The UK also delivered some 2000 short-range anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, and dispatched dozens of elite troops. The shipment – and $2.7 billion USD since 2014 – demonstrates U.S. commitment to helping Ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of growing Russian aggression. ???? #partnershipstrong [2/2] pic.twitter.com/scPFWM3we7 — U.S. Embassy Kyiv (@USEmbassyKyiv) January 22, 2022 Not everyone in Europe is saber-rattling, however. Germany and France have proven to be rare voices of reason, cautioning against the threat of war. Germany has even gone so far as to block EU and NATO member Estonia from sending weapons to Ukraine. And in an implicit acknowledgement that Berlin is not on board with its war drive, Britain sent weapons to Ukraine on a circuitous route avoiding Germany. French President Macron, for his part, has called for de-escalating the situation. Paris wants dialogue with Russia over Ukraine, and has offered to host talks to discuss it. Macron was just inaugurated as president of the Council of the European Union, giving his words extra import. Berlin and Paris are concerned about the serious damage such a conflict could do to European economies, which are very much integrated with Russia. Europe still heavily relies on Russian gas and oil imports. Moscow remains the single biggest energy exporter to the EU. Editor’s note: This article was updated on February 27 to reflect the Russian invasion of Ukraine that began on February 24.

Write an article about: Ukraine war is frozen, no territorial changes expected, says Council on Foreign Relations chief, while dismissing peace talks. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, Crimea, Munich Security Conference, Richard Haass, Russia, Ukraine

The president of the US government-linked Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, said the proxy war in Ukraine is frozen and he expects no territorial changes in the next year of fighting. At the same time, he dismissed the possibility of peace negotations. The president of the powerful US government-linked Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, has argued that the proxy war in Ukraine is frozen. He said he expects no territorial changes in the next year of fighting between Russia and NATO-backed Ukrainian forces. At the same time, he dismissed the possibility of peace negotiations to end the frozen conflict, insisting, “There is no desire in Ukraine to compromise. If anything, they’re escalating their demands”. Haass is a former US diplomat who served as director of policy planning for the State Department in the George W. Bush administration, during the lead-up to its illegal invasion of Iraq. The president of the powerful US Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, admitted the proxy war in Ukraine is frozen. He expects no territorial changes in the next year of fighting. So why doesn't the West support peace talks? They want to bleed Russia (as Ukrainians die) pic.twitter.com/JnNPE8PXPM — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 19, 2023 “If you ask me a year from now, if we were to meet again, I think we’re going to see something pretty similar to where we are. I don’t expect the next year to bring fundamental changes in who controls what amount of territory [in Ukraine]”, Haass confessed. The Council on Foreign Relations chief made these remarks on February 19 in Germany, in an interview at the Munich Security Conference. The mediator of the interview, Jack Kelly, asked Haass about the potential for peace talks, and if it would be possible to return to the kind of negotiations that Türkiye held in March 2022. These previous peace talks had been sabotaged by Western governments. Haass totally dismissed the idea, stating, “Look, I’m not confident… Neither side right now has any desire to negotiate”. “There is no desire in Ukraine to compromise. If anything, they’re escalating their demands. It’s not just all the territory, every square inch of it, going back to what they had when they became independent; [it’s also] economic reparations and war crimes accountability”, Haass said. “So the gap between the sides is enormous, and I simply don’t see that changing for some time to come”. While arguing the proxy war is frozen, Council on Foreign Relations chief Richard Haass (former top State Department official under George W Bush) dismissed the possibility of peace talks: "There's no desire in Ukraine to compromise. If anything they're escalating their demands" pic.twitter.com/r75jILWrcZ — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 19, 2023 Haass emphasized that the proxy war in Ukraine “has been going on since 2014”, and did not start with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which he called “just this latest chapter, this more intense chapter”. Haass implied that the war began with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, after a democratic referendum in which more than 90% of Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation. (Western governments denounced this referendum as illegitimate, but a Pew poll found that a staggering 88% of people in Crimea supported it.) What Haass did not mention is the US-sponsored coup d’etat that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral government in February 2014, which set off a civil war and led to Russia’s intervention – precisely what US Ambassador to Russia William Burns (who now serves as CIA director) had warned of in a 2008 embassy cable. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is closely linked to the US government, and has a revolving door with the State Department. The influential New York-based think tank acts as a kind of privatized arm for US policy-making, with funding from the billionaire Rockefeller oligarchs and their family foundation. During World War Two, the CFR’s War and Peace Studies project helped formulate the strategy for the creation of the US empire and the subsequent Cold War.

Write an article about: Belarus at UN: Nazi-esque US/EU waging ‘economic terrorism’ and hybrid war for ‘color revolution’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Belarus, imperialism, Nazis, Russia, sanctions, Soviet Union

At the United Nations, Belarus compared Western imperialists to the Nazis it fought in WWII, condemning US/EU sanctions as “economic terrorism,” denouncing the “large-scale hybrid war” against it Belarus spoke out forcefully against US and European imperialism, unilateralism, and meddling in its internal affairs, in the country’s address at the United Nations General Assembly on September 27. What Belarusian government officials say is almost never reported on in Western corporate media, so this is a rare opportunity to get the perspective of a country that is uniformly demonized and maligned in the press. Foreign Affairs Minister Vladimir Makei compared Western imperialists today to the Nazis that his nation nobly fought in World War II, noting one-third of Belarus’ population was killed by the fascist invaders. Makei condemned US and EU sanctions on Belarus, Cuba, and other countries as an illegal form of “economic terrorism.” “Belarus is subjected to a large-scale hybrid war from all sides,” he said, noting that Washington and Brussel attempted a “color revolution” and regime-change “blitzkrieg” — but they ultimately failed to overthrow its government. Stressing that Western interventionism has only “created chaos and instability,” Makei stated that the US and EU have distorted the concept of “human rights” and turned it into a “weapon,” while using fake news and communications technologies as tools of hybrid warfare to destabilize and topple independent governments. The top Belarusian diplomat also criticized the increasing influence of corporations and Western state-funded non-government organizations (NGOs) at the UN, warning that this is undermining multilateralism and state sovereignty. Highlights of some of the main points of Makei’s speech appear below. They will not be reported on in the Western media, and it is important to hear what targets of Western imperialism actually say, in their own words. “Belarus has also been drawn against its will into the vortex of this geopolitical war,” Makei lamented. “Our country for more than a year has been a target for belligerent pressure from the West, and only because Belarus did not manage to act out the highly polished script of yet another color revolution.” “Today, Belarus is subjected to a large-scale hybrid war from all sides. We are surprised by the creativity of the authors, who are using beautiful but hypocritical adjectives to justify their destructive actions.” But the Western “blitzkrieg to change the government in Belarus did not work,” Makei continued. “Moreover, the West quickly lost the support of the people, with their protests organized from outside. It was a miscalculation. Belarus continues to develop successfully and carve its own path.” The Belarusian foreign minister used his platform at the UN to condemn the US-EU strategy of imposing unilateral sanctions to try to destroy foreign nations and force them to bend to its will. The “barbarous policy of sanctions” is a form of “economic terrorism,” Makei said. “Unilateral measures violate clearly international law and carry out serious damage to the whole system of international relations,” and “it is clear that the main victims of unilateral sanctions are normal people.” “We express our solidarity with other countries who are suffering from sanctions, particularly brotherly people of Cuba, who for so many years have been suffering from unjust economic blockade,” Makei emphasized. “Today, the world is being governed by economic egotism, political ambition, blackmail, imperial habits, crisis, conflicts, and, orchestrated chaos,” Belarus’ top diplomat lamented. Makei condemned Western “hybrid wars and malicious and criminal use of modern information technologies,” as well as “blatant interference by self-styled oracles in internal affairs of other sovereign states.” Fake news has become a new regime-change weapon, he said: “Today, with the help of electronic gadgets, you can undermine the domestic peace and harmony in any state, and also remove its leadership from power.” The Belarusian foreign minister warned that Western interventionism has only “created chaos and instability.” Makei cited the 20-year US-NATO war on Afghanistan as “a recent example of this senseless policy from some so-called champions or citadels of democracy. However the consequence of this policy today is on the shoulders of the whole international community.” Western imperialist countries have refined “human rights,” and it “is not only a dangerous toy in the hands of blundering and short-sighted politicians, but a real weapon against undesirable and disobedient countries,” he continued. This weapon is used by “so-called developed countries to monopolize the copyright on ‘democracy,’ and arbitrarily define the level of democracy in other countries, and depending on that, stick offensive labels on sovereign states.” Makei said this cynical tactic “clearly reminds us of methods of the Nazis, who also divided the world into those who should rule and those who should be a slave.” The foreign minister also commemorated the anniversary of World War II, or what Belarus calls the Great Patriotic War. “The atrocities of the Nazis led to cost millions of lives around the world during the military ordeal. A third of Belarus’ population died in the fight against the fascist invaders and their allies, who waged genocide against our people,” Makei said. “It is deeply regrettable that today we can see dangerous trends of skewing the moral and legal assessments of the outcomes of the Second World War, equating the rights of the victims and the slaughterers, of the liberators and the aggressors, and casting doubt on the outcomes of the Nuremberg Trials.” These comments were a clear reference to attempts by NATO/EU-backed far-right governments in Eastern and Central Europe — such as Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland — to rewrite the history of World War II to portray the Soviet Union as the villain, whitewashing or even praising fascists and Nazi collaborators in the process. Holocaust experts describe this dangerous trend as the “double genocide” conspiracy theory, and warn it is becoming increasingly common, with help from NATO and the EU. Belarus likewise criticized the extreme hypocrisy of the European Union, which has accused the country of violating the rights of immigrants and refugees. Foreign Minister Makei noted that many of these people are fleeing wars fueled by the EU, and Brussels’ own “response is a iron curtain made of barbed wire.” “The West has fabricated a conflict with refugees on the western border of Belarus, forgetting about their own international obligations, both as regards our country and as regards the countries of origin of these refugees,” Makei said. “Today millions of refugees are trying to reach a full Europe from all over the world, to escape from the hunger and disaster created by this same Europe and West as a whole.” “But as it has turned out, no one wants them in Europe, and it has even gone as far as in Poland, a neighbor of Belarus, as well as in Baltic states, refugees are not only deliberately beaten up, but are being killed, and their corpses are secretly at night being dragged across the border into Belarusian territory. And these are not isolated cases; it has become a norm of conduct of our western neighbors.” “Is this not the height of cynicism and heresy from those who champion human rights, who boast of the highest level of civilization and who try to teach others how to live?” Belarus’ top diplomat also used his speech at the General Assembly to criticize the United Nations itself. “The UN is commercializing its agenda, and becoming more and more a mimic of Western policy,” Makei warned. “The UN is thinking more and more like the West, trampling on important principles of solidarity and multilateralism.” Makei noted that Western governments fund so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and use them to weaken state sovereignty. We see “an attempt to give NGOs, who are often created and supported with the support of some interested states, to give these NGOs a status that is identical to sovereign member states of the UN. This is categorically unacceptable,” the Belarusian foreign minister said. “I would like to also recall the existence of a key principle of the UN: one state, one vote. We are also against the degradation of sovereignty of UN member states, and creating puppets dressed up as NGOs who would be able to drown out the views of independent states.”

Write an article about: West opposes rest of world in UN votes for fairer economic system, equality, sustainable development. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

economics, Israel, Palestine, Turkey, Türkiye, United Nations

The West opposed the rest of the planet in United Nations General Assembly votes that called for a new international economic order based on sovereign equality, sustainable development, and biological diversity. Most countries on Earth voted at the United Nations General Assembly to support a call for a new international economic order that is based on sovereign equality and cooperation, that rejects unilateral sanctions and advocates for debt relief for the Global South. The only countries that opposed this widely popular proposal were the West and its allies. The United States and its proxies were also the lone votes against common-sensical resolutions promoting sustainable development, biological diversity, and basic civil rights for Palestinians. Almost the entire world supported these proposals. Washington showed itself to be a rogue state on the international stage, voting against practically every resolution, even on uncontroversial issues where the rest of the planet is in agreement. Most of these resolutions were commonplace, are introduced every year, and have been voted on many times before, with similar results: the West vs. the rest. In 1974, formerly colonized nations in the Global South proposed a plan to dismantle the remaining economic structures of colonialism. They called it the New International Economic Order (NIEO), and said that it should be “based on the principles of equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest, cooperation and solidarity among all States.” The NIEO has been consistently voted on at the United Nations in the five decades since. And the West has persistently opposed it. On December 14, 2022, 123 countries voted in favor of the NIEO – 64% of the UN’s 193 member states. (The number would have been even higher, but several nations that have been illegally sanctioned by the US, such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe, had their UN voting rights temporarily suspended because they have been unable to pay their membership fees in dollars.) Just 50 nations voted against it, with one abstention, from NATO member Türkiye. The 50 countries opposed to the call for a fairer, more equitable economic system consisted of the United States, members of the European Union, Britain, Israel, Canada, Australia, South Korea, and Japan. This grouping has been referred to as the “Collective West.” The West is not a geographic construct; it is a political one. This is why Australia, which was created as a British settler colony, is located in the eastern hemisphere but is politically and culturally part of the West. The same is true for apartheid Israel, which like Australia was created as a British settler-colonial project and has since become a US proxy with a key geostrategic location in West Asia. Similarly, the two East Asian nations that are part of this Western bloc are military occupied by the United States, which has stationed tens of thousands of troops in Japan since the mid-1940s and in South Korea since the early 1950s. Reflecting on the December 14 vote, Chinese journalist Chen Weihua observed, “It’s US and EU against the rest of the world. Basically 900 million against the more than 7 billion from Asia, Africa to Latin America.” It’s US and EU against the rest of the world. Basically 900 million against the more than 7 billion from Asia, Africa to Latin America. — Chen Weihua （陈卫华） (@chenweihua) December 15, 2022 The UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution “reaffirms the need to continue working towards a new international economic order based on the principles of equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest, cooperation and solidarity among all States.” It also “reiterates that States are strongly urged to refrain from promulgating and applying any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impede the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly in developing countries.” The resolution calls for “mutually supporting world trade, monetary and financial systems” and “coordination of macroeconomic policies among countries to avoid negative spillover effects, especially in developing countries” It similarly urges debt relief for the Global South, stating that it “expresses concern over the increasing debt vulnerabilities of developing countries, the net negative capital flows from developing countries, the fluctuation of exchange rates and the tightening of global financial conditions, and in this regard stresses the need to explore the means and instruments needed to achieve debt sustainability and the measures necessary to reduce the indebtedness of developing countries.” The December 14 vote took place in the 53rd plenary meeting of the 77th session of the UNGA, featuring reports from the body’s Second Committee, which focuses on economic and financial affairs. The votes were very similar on related UNGA resolutions. They illustrated how the United States and its proxies act as rogue regimes, violating the will of the international community. A proposal on “international trade and development” had almost the exact same vote, with 122 in favor, 48 against, and one abstention (once again, Türkiye). In this resolution, “the Assembly urged the international community to adopt urgent and effective measures to eliminate the use of unilateral economic, financial or trade measures that are not authorized by relevant organs of the United Nations, and that are inconsistent with the principles of international law or the Charter of the United Nations or that contravene the basic principles of the multilateral trading system and that affect, in particular, but not exclusively, developing countries.” A related resolution emphasized the “role of the United Nations in promoting development in the context of globalization and interdependence.” In this vote, European countries abstained. The only votes against the resolution came from the United States and Israel. In the measure, “the Assembly noted with concern that the mobilization of sufficient financing remains a major challenge in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and that progress has not been shared evenly within and among countries, leading to further deepening of existing inequalities.” Even on other resolutions that were completely straightforward and common-sensical, the US voted against the entire world. The UNGA adopted a resolution calling to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity and reaffirming its contribution to sustainable development. 166 countries supported the resolution, while just three nations opposed it (the US, Israel, and Japan), with one abstention (South Korea). All 193 UN member states except for one, the USA, have ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity. Washington stands alone as the only capital on Earth that refuses to join the planet-saving agreement. The United States also opposed most of the world in a UN vote to recognized the “permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources.” This resolution passed with 159 countries in favor and 10 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Guatemala, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Togo, and Tuvalu). A mere eight member states voted against recognizing these basic political and civil rights for Palestinians, including the US, Israel, Canada, Chad, and small island nations that typically vote as US proxies at the UN, including the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau (all former US colonies that have “free association” agreements with Washington and use the dollar as their currency), and Nauru (which uses the Australian dollar). This pattern was yet again visible in a resolution titled “Oil Slick on Lebanese Shores,” in which the UN lightly criticized Israel for illegally bombing Lebanon’s Jiyeh Power Station in 2006, unleashing a massive oil spill that still causes problems today. In addition to severely damaging the environment, the UN noted that this Israeli attack cost Lebanon at least $856.4 million. The language of the resolution was very mild, expressing “its deep concern about the adverse implications of the destruction by the Israeli Air Force of the oil storage tanks in the direct vicinity of the Lebanese Jiyeh electric power plant for the achievement of sustainable development in Lebanon.” 160 member states voted in favor of the resolution, including European countries. It was opposed only by the US, Israel, Canada, Australia, and Washington’s proxies in the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau. These votes on December 14 were by no means the only time the United States has exposed to the world its status as an unaccountable rogue regime. For the 30th year in a row, almost every country on Earth voted at the UN to condemn the illegal, 60-year US blockade of Cuba 185 to 2 USA and apartheid Israel voted against 2 abstained: Bolsonaro's far-right Brazil and NATO's client regime in Ukrainehttps://t.co/g7KFeiYeGP — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 3, 2022 In recent UN votes condemning the six-decade US blockade on Cuba and calling on Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons, Washington and Tel Aviv spat in the face of the rest of the world. The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly, 152 to 5, to tell the Israeli apartheid regime to get rid of its nuclear weapons, which are illegal under international law https://t.co/YCQsbXWFZp — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 1, 2022

Write an article about: CBS censors its own report on Ukraine weapons corruption. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Amnesty International, CBS, Russia, Ukraine

Under Ukrainian government pressure, CBS News censored its own documentary “Arming Ukraine,” which showed that just around 30% of the weapons Western governments have sent actually go to the frontlines, with widespread corruption and black markets. Under Ukrainian government pressure, major US media outlet CBS News censored a documentary that it produced that exposed corruption in Ukraine. The report estimated that, of the tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons that Western governments have sent to help Ukraine wage a proxy war against Russia, just around 30% have actually made it to the frontlines. People involved in the Ukraine arms ratline told CBS in the documentary that there was significant corruption, due to “powerlords” and “oligarchs,” and that much of the military equipment was being siphoned off or sold on the “black market,” in what was a kind of “black hole.” CBS News published these revelations on August 4 in a joint article and video titled “Why military aid to Ukraine doesn’t always get to the front lines: ‘Like 30% of it reaches its final destination.’” The accompanying 23-minute documentary, called “Arming Ukraine,” featured CBS reporter Adam Yamaguchi on the ground in April, embedded with Ukrainian fighters, following weapons shipments in Poland, interviewing foreign mercenaries, and joining NATO exercises in Lithuania. The video was clearly thoroughly biased against Russia and in favor of Ukraine. It made no effort to portray itself as neutral or balanced. But even this was not propagandistic enough for Ukraine and its Western backers. Under intense pressure, CBS News was forced to retract its own documentary on August 7. It then changed the title of the accompanying article to “Why military aid in Ukraine may not always get to the front lines” and added a lengthy editor’s note explaining the changes. Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba condemned CBS on Twitter. “Welcome first step, but it is not enough,” he wrote. In a transparent assault on the freedom of the press, the top Ukrainian official called for “an internal investigation into who enabled this and why.” Welcome first step, but it is not enough. You have misled a huge audience by sharing unsubstantiated claims and damaging trust in supplies of vital military aid to a nation resisting aggression and genocide. There should be an internal investigation into who enabled this and why. https://t.co/kkA0boaLXX — Dmytro Kuleba (@DmytroKuleba) August 8, 2022 Despite these attacks from Ukraine’s government, CBS News was not the first mainstream US media outlet that acknowledged this problem. In April, CNN reported that the “US has few ways to track the substantial supply of anti-tank, anti-aircraft and other weaponry it has sent across the border into Ukraine,” calling it “a conscious risk the Biden administration is willing to take.” But CBS still gave in to the pressure and censored its own report. Before the video was retracted, it was copied and republished online. CBS reporter Adam Yamaguchi traveled to Ukraine to film in April, but the documentary was delayed and not published until August. Yamaguchi, who embedded with Ukrainian and NATO forces, was careful to blame everything on Russia. He made his pro-Ukraine perspective as clear as day, calling Moscow the “aggressor” and referring to Ukraine’s capital as Kyiv, not Kiev (the outcome of a Ukrainian government propaganda campaign). CBS reporter Adam Yamaguchi embedded with Ukrainian fighters in Donbas Noting the war in Ukraine began in 2014, the video conveniently failed to mention the violent US-sponsored coup d’etat that set off that conflict. Instead, CBS blamed Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea. (It also left out the democratic referendum held in which 97% of people in Crimea voted to become part of Russia, with 83% participation.) The CBS documentary was largely built around Jonas Ohman, a Swedish anti-Russian activist who has lived for years in Lithuania. Ohman is the founder and CEO of an organization called Blue/Yellow, which has provided tens of millions of dollars worth of Western military assistance to Ukraine. Jonas Ohman Although Blue/Yellow claims to be a “non-governmental organization” (NGO), Ohman made it clear in the video that he considers himself part of the Ukrainian fight against Russia, holding a rifle in one scene and declaring in another, “we have to win the war” and “we’ve got to win!” Ohman admitted to sending Western military equipment into Ukraine “since summer of 2014,” adding that he “lost count” of how many drones he delivered. He acknowledged that there is rampant corruption in Ukraine, that it is plagued by “powerlords” and “oligarchs” and has a large “black market” for weapons. For the CBS documentary, Yamaguchi interviewed another US mercenary who is helping oversee arms shipments and training soldiers in Ukraine, named Andy Milburn. Milburn is a US Marine veteran and founder and CEO of the Mozart Group (a play off of Russia’s Wagner Group). “I can tell you, unarguably, that, on the front-line units, these things are not getting there,” Milburn complained. Yamaguchi asked the US mercenary if it’s fair to call Ukraine a “black hole,” and Milburn said “it would appear that it’s a black hole, yeah.” “My biggest concern right now is that the guys that need to kill Russians with those weapons get those weapons,” he added. Ohman and Milburn were not the only ones who said Western arms shipments to Ukraine are getting diverted. CBS also interviewed a senior crisis adviser at Amnesty International, named Donatella Rovera. When asked where the weapons were going, Rovera answered “we don’t know,” adding that “there is really no information as to where they’re going at all.” Rovera pointed out that blind Western arms shipments like these have in the past ended up in the hands of extremists, such as genocidal ISIS insurgents who had US weapons in Iraq. Amnesty International is notorious for its bias in the interests of Western governments and its revolving door with Washington. But on Ukraine it has at least tried to be slightly more balanced. Amnesty published a report this August revealing that Ukraine’s military has been using civilian areas like schools as hospitals as human shields. Western governments and mainstream corporate media outlets furiously attacked Amnesty in response to the publication, forcing the leader of its Ukraine arm, Oksana Pokalchuk, to resign. The CBS News documentary also prominently featured a former US State Department official, Charles Kupchan, who served on the National Security Councils of Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Kupchan, whom CBS identified simply as a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, acknowledged that the conflict in Ukraine is a proxy war between NATO and Russia. “Ukraine is a proxy for the West,” he admitted. He also admitted that Russia is carefully trying not to escalate the war further.

Write an article about: Millions in Afghanistan are starving due to US sanctions. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Afghanistan, famine, sanctions, UN, United Nations

The Biden administration claims it wants to help the Afghan people, but US sanctions are starving millions of civilians and threatening a famine, the United Nations has warned. United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken claims to be “committed to supporting the people of Afghanistan,” but the reality is Washington is starving millions of Afghan civilians with suffocating sanctions. The American people are committed to supporting the people of Afghanistan. I met virtually today with @UNReliefChief Griffiths and International Committee of the Red Cross President @PMaurerICRC about strengthening the coordination of existing U.S. efforts with the @UN and @ICRC. — Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) January 15, 2022 The International Business Times reported, “Millions of Afghans are on the ‘verge of death’ as U.S. sanctions threaten half of Afghanistan’s population with food insecurity, cripple its banking system, and cause food prices to skyrocket.” According to the UN refugee agency (UNHCR), nearly 23 million Afghans, or 55% of the population, are facing “extreme levels of hunger.” Of those, almost 9 million are at risk of famine. UNHCR spokesperson Babar Baloch called it “a crisis of hunger and starvation.” Yet there is little discussion inside Washington of the disastrous impact of US sanctions. When the US ended its 20-year military occupation of Afghanistan in an August 2021 pullout, corporate media coverage skyrocketed – and it was almost universally against the withdrawal. Yet just a few months later, as Afghan civilians are being starved by US sanctions, the press is now utterly disinterested in the country, as Julie Hollar has documented for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). When the corporate media could exploit the name of Afghan civilians to defend an open-ended US-NATO war, it was more than eager. But now that those same Afghan civilians are suffering under US sanctions, the press corps is out to lunch.

Write an article about: EEUU convoca su alianza anti-China el ‘Quad’, y Beijing la llama ‘herramienta para la contención y el asedio’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Antony Blinken, Australia, China, India, Japón, Rusia, Scott Morrison

Estados Unidos, Japón y la India realizaron una reunión de la alianza Quad en Australia. Beijing la condenó como “una herramienta para contener y asediar a China para mantener la hegemonía estadounidense”, con una “mentalidad anticuada de la guerra fría”. (You can read this article in English here.) Estados Unidos ha unido a Japón, la India y Australia en una alianza anti-China llamada el Diálogo de Seguridad Cuadrilateral, o el Quad. Altos representantes de estos cuatro países se reunieron en la ciudad australiana de Melbourne el 11 de febrero para hablar de formas de contrarrestar a Beijing, entre otros temas. El gobierno chino respondió a la reunión condenando al Quad como “una herramienta para contener y asediar a China para mantener la hegemonía estadounidense”. Beijing acusó a la alianza de buscar “avivar la confrontación”, con una “mentalidad anticuada de la guerra fría”. El momento de esta reunión no fue una coincidencia; llegó justo en medio de los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno en Beijing, que EEUU, Australia y la India habían condenado con boicots diplomáticos. (El influyente periódico británico Financial Times describió los Juegos Olímpicos en Beijing como “el nuevo frente en la guerra fría entre EEUU y China”). La reunión en Melbourne contó con la presencia de los ministros de relaciones exteriores de EEUU, Japón, la India y Australia, y fue su cuarta reunión desde que la administración de Donald Trump restableció el Quad en 2017 para centrarse en contener a Beijing. The Quad is a vital part of our vision for the Indo-Pacific and shows the priority we place on working with partners and allies in the region. We had a productive discussion on issues that shape our collective prosperity and security. pic.twitter.com/VvEhZOEVAK — Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) February 11, 2022 El gobierno australiano respaldó con entusiasmo la reunión del Quad al enviar no solo a su ministra de relaciones exteriores, sino también a su primer ministro, Scott Morrison. Morrison, un acérrimo derechista y líder del Partido Liberal, ha propagado el miedo sobre la supuesta “amenaza” de China, convirtiéndolo en una parte central de su programa político. Bajo Morrison, Australia se ha vuelto un frente en la segunda guerra fría. El país se unió a una alianza militar anti-China con Washington y Londres llamada AUKUS, y anunció que comprará submarinos nucleares con tecnología estadounidense y británica – una decisión muy provocadora, dado que todos los países que tienen submarinos nucleares también tienen armas nucleares. En una conferencia de prensa antes de la reunión del Quad, Morrison afirmó que Australia ha enfrentado “coerción y presión”, implicando que China es culpable. Enmarcó el conflicto con Beijing como una cuestión de “libertad”, insistiendo en que la alianza existe para proteger “un orden mundial que favorece la libertad, y particularmente aquí en un Indo-Pacífico libre y abierto”. Appreciate that PM @ScottMorrisonMP met the Quad FMs collectively before we began talks. His insights and thoughts were valuable. We are focused on the early and effective realization of our Leaders' vision. pic.twitter.com/VfKMSRcbdw — Dr. S. Jaishankar (@DrSJaishankar) February 11, 2022 El secretario de estado de EEUU, Antony Blinken, dijo que los miembros del Quad “comparten preocupaciones de que en los últimos años China ha estado actuando de manera más represiva en casa y más agresiva en la región y, de hecho, potencialmente más allá”. Blinken se unió al primer ministro australiano al describir la reunión como “cuatro democracias reunidas”. Al yuxtaponerlos implícitamente contra Beijing, Morrison afirmó que el Quad consiste en “grandes democracias, grandes democracias liberales”. Ni Blinken ni Morrison mencionaron que Japón es esencialmente un estado de partido único que ha sido controlado por el Partido Liberal Democrático de derecha, con pocas excepciones, desde 1955, o que India está gobernada por el Partido Bharatiya Janata, una organización nacionalista hindú de extrema derecha, que está desmantelando el estado laico y atacando los derechos de las minorías religiosas. Hechos como estos, junto con la historia continua de genocidio contra los pueblos indígenas y violaciones brutales de los derechos civiles por parte de los gobiernos de EEUU y Australia, contradecían abiertamente su intento de retratar al Quad como un símbolo de libertad y democracia contra el supuesto autoritarismo chino. Los cancilleres de Estados Unidos, Australia, la India y Japón en la reunión del Quad en Melbourne el 11 de febrero Tras la reunión, los cuatro estados miembros del Quad emitieron una declaración conjunta. Por el uso del lenguaje, parece que el documento fue escrito en gran parte por Estados Unidos. Blinken afirmó en la conferencia de prensa que el Quad existe para defender el “Indo-Pacífico libre y abierto, la región más dinámica del mundo con las economías de más rápido crecimiento, la mitad de la población mundial”. La declaración se hizo eco de esta retórica, llamando a “promover un Indo-Pacífico libre y abierto – una región que sea inclusiva y resistente, y en la que los estados se esfuercen por proteger los intereses de su pueblo, libres de coerción”. Blinken dijo que el Quad busca “defender el sistema basado en reglas en lo que hemos invertido mucho tiempo y esfuerzo para construir durante todos estos años”. La declaración usó esta misma frase “basado en reglas” tres veces, lo que refleja los intentos de Washington de crear un nuevo marco legal internacional que controle, para aislar a China y Rusia. Aunque la declaración conjunta condenó enérgicamente a Corea del Norte y Myanmar, tuvo cuidado de no mencionar a China por su nombre. A pesar de esto, tenía como objetivo abrumador atacar a Beijing, refiriéndose implícitamente a ello como una amenaza para la región del Indo-Pacífico. El gobierno chino condenó enérgicamente la reunión del Quad del 11 de febrero en Australia. El portavoz del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Zhao Lijian, afirmó en una conferencia de prensa el mismo día: “China cree que el llamado grupo Quad improvisado por EEUU, Japón, la India y Australia es esencialmente una herramienta para contener y asediar a China para mantener la hegemonía de EEUU”. El Quad “tiene como objetivo avivar la confrontación y socavar la solidaridad y la cooperación internacionales”, dijo Zhao. El portavoz del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de China agregó: “Quiero enfatizar que la guerra fría terminó hace mucho tiempo. El intento de forjar una supuesta alianza para contener a China no obtiene apoyo y no conduce a ninguna parte”. “Los países relevantes deben abandonar la mentalidad anticuada de la guerra fría, corregir el enfoque erróneo de confrontación de bloques y juegos geopolíticos, y contribuir a la paz y la estabilidad en Asia-Pacífico”, dijo Zhao. Un reportero en la conferencia de prensa le pidió al portavoz del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores que respondiera al comentario del secretario de estado de EEUU, Blinken, de que “China ha estado actuando de manera más represiva en casa y más agresiva en la región”. Zhao respondió: “Hablando de ser agresivo en esta región y más allá, Estados Unidos es insuperable”. Speaking of being aggressive in this region and beyond, the United States is second to none. pic.twitter.com/hOL0DSUF5L — Spokesperson发言人办公室 (@MFA_China) February 12, 2022 Global Times, un periódico que es propiedad del People’s Daily, órgano oficial del Partido Comunista de China, respondió a la reunión de Australia con un artículo titulado “EEUU se une a los aliados del Quad para luchar en ‘guerras de dos frentes’ con China y Rusia a pesar de su fuerza débil”. El periódico semioficial chino escribió: “La señal es más clara que nunca de que EEUU está convirtiendo al Quad en una herramienta para cumplir su propio objetivo estratégico de contrarrestar a China y Rusia simultáneamente”. Señaló que Blinken mencionó el conflicto en Ucrania en la reunión del Quad, aunque la alianza afirma estar enfocada en las preocupaciones del Indo-Pacífico. Sin embargo, el intento de Washington de hacer que sus aliados Quad participen en una guerra fría contra Rusia también es menos probable. Australia ha tomado una línea dura contra Moscú, pero Japón e India tienen relaciones más complejas. Ciertamente, Japón y Rusia no son aliados, pero hasta hace poco tenían vínculos diplomáticos cordiales. Un conflicto en 2021 por unas islas en disputa provocó relaciones agrias, y Moscú criticó a Tokio por unirse a EEUU para amenazar a Rusia por Ucrania. El gobierno de la India, encabezado por el Partido Bharatiya Janata de extrema derecha y el primer ministro nacionalista hindú Narendra Modi, ha adoptado una línea extremadamente agresiva contra China. De hecho, el ministro de relaciones exteriores de la India, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, utilizó la reunión del Quad como una oportunidad para atacar a China, culpándola de una disputa fronteriza que ha llevado a la violencia. Sin embargo, mientras que los políticos ultraconservadores en Nueva Delhi, al igual que sus contrapartes de derecha en Occidente, han convertido a Beijing en un chivo expiatorio conveniente para sus problemas internos, la India no se ha unido a Estados Unidos en su campaña de guerra contra Rusia. En una conferencia de prensa previa a la reunión del Quad, un periodista preguntó al ministro de relaciones exteriores, Jaishankar, cuál es la posición de Nueva Delhi sobre el conflicto en Ucrania. Eludió la pregunta, repitiendo que “esta reunión está enfocada en el Indo-Pacífico”. La reunión de Australia dejó en claro que, si bien los miembros del Quad están unidos en su objetivo común de contener a China, todavía tienen diferencias políticas en otros temas.

Write an article about: German military preparing for potential war with Russia, leaked internal report reveals. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Bundeswehr, Germany, Lithuania, NATO, Russia, Ukraine

A leaked confidential strategy paper shows Germany is preparing for a potential war with Russia, as it boosts its budget and plans to become the world’s third-biggest military spender. Germany’s top newspaper Der Spiegel obtained a leaked confidential strategy paper that reveals the country’s military is preparing for a potential war with Russia. The German military, the Bundeswehr, released the secret 68-page document internally in September. The Bundeswehr chief, Inspector General Eberhard Zorn, warned that Germany could be attacked, and he proposed plans for a future armed conflict with Russia. The report claims that Germany faces “existential” threats. The document opens stating, “War in Europe is a reality again.” It predicts that the most likely scenario would be a conflict with Russia on NATO’s eastern flank. Der Spiegel noted that the strategy paper stresses the need for “deterrence.” In the past few decades, the German military has focused on small, specialized units, but this report says the armed forces will now prioritize training large units that are always ready for war. The document reaffirms the Bundeswehr’s commitment to the US-led NATO cartel, but also makes it clear that Berlin is beginning to consider its own strategic autonomy independent of Washington. Der Spiegel summarized the document as an outline for a “mega-reform” of the armed forces. The Germany newspaper has not translated the article into English, and the striking report got almost no coverage in the English-language press. As a member of NATO and the de facto leader of the European Union, Germany has played a significant role in the Western proxy war on Russia that began in 2014, when a US-sponsored coup d’etat violently overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected neutral government and installed a staunchly anti-Russian, pro-Western regime. This US-backed putsch set off a civil war in Ukraine. In an attempt to end the violence, Germany and France helped Ukraine negotiate the Minsk II accord with Russia in 2015. Berlin was supposed to guarantee that Kiev implemented the agreement, but Ukraine refused to do so – and Washington discouraged it from meeting its political obligations. Germany and France were generally seen as less hawkish against Russia than the United States. But when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the situation changed completely. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz described the escalation of the proxy war as a “turning point” for Europe. His government promptly embarked on the first substantial re-militarization of the country since the end of the first cold war. Scholz announced his administration would create a €100 billion “special defense fund,” in addition to the ballooning German military budget of €50 billion per year. In June, Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, approved this special fund. Reuters reported that Germany plans to devote at least 2% of its GDP to military expenditure, “making it the world’s third-biggest military spender behind the United States and China.” Germany’s military budget is expected to grow to nearly €60 billion by 2023, more than €70 billion by 2024, and eventually €80 billion by 2030. With the proxy war in Ukraine heating up, Germany is also playing a more active role in NATO. The New York Times reported in June that the US military is using bases in Germany to train Ukrainian troops, and Germany became home to a coalition cell of Western militaries planning the proxy war on Russia: Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine in February, the [US] Army’s 10th Special Forces Group, which before the war had been training Ukrainian commandos at a base in the country’s west, quietly established a coalition planning cell in Germany to coordinate military assistance to Ukrainian commandos and other Ukrainian troops. The cell has now grown to 20 nations. In September, Germany sent more troops to a permanent NATO deployment in Lithuania, a former member of the Soviet Union that is close to the border with Russia. In October, Berlin initiated a NATO military exercise in Lithuania which will involve roughly 5,000 German troops. With over 200 troops and 50 vehicles deployed in #Lithuania ??, the new German enhanced Vigilance Brigade?? will play a significant part in defending every inch of #NATO territory More info: https://t.co/Xtk9dRrMEz pic.twitter.com/TxWuPTmQvi — NATO (@NATO) October 6, 2022 The re-militarization of Germany is bipartisan, and has the support of both the current centrist, social-democratic government as well as the right-wing opposition. German state media outlet DW explained in June: the government has joined forces with the main opposition parties to change the constitution and allow €100 billion ($107 billion) in additional debt to upgrade the military — an unprecedented occurrence in the history of the Federal Republic. It comes on top of this year’s record defense budget of €50.4 billion and will be spent over the next five years. DW noted that this military spending is in addition to the billions of euros worth of support that Germany has provided to Ukraine in the proxy war with Russia. The only major political party that opposes the re-militarization of Germany is the socialist Die Linke (Left Party). DW reported: The Left Party in Germany is the country’s only major political camp to fundamentally reject the Bundeswehr’s additional funding. It calls the special fund a “cornerstone for permanent militarization” in Germany. “The purchase of nuclear bombers like the F-35, new tank systems, and armed drones is sending the stock prices and profits of the major arms makers soaring,” says Sevim Dagdalen, spokeswoman for international politics of the Left Party’s parliamentary group. Meanwhile, she says, poverty is on the rise in Germany. According to DW, €41 billion of this special fund will go to the Bundeswehr’s air force, which plans to buy CH-47F Chinook helicopters from the US corporation Boeing and F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, as well as the Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft from pan-European company Airbus. Germany has already ordered Heron TP armed drones from Israel. The Bundeswehr’s navy will receive €19 billion to modernize its forces with U12 submarines and other combat boats. The Bundeswehr’s ground forces were designated €17 billion to buy armored personnel carriers and more combat vehicles, including potentially tanks. Germany currently has troops in Mali, as part of a United Nations mission in western Africa, although Berlin has claimed it will withdraw them by 2024.

Write an article about: Ex US official admits Ukraine conflict is NATO ‘proxy war with Russia’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

CSIS, Eliot Cohen, NATO, Russia, Ukraine

Former US State Department official Eliot Cohen stated openly that the conflict in Ukraine is a NATO “proxy war with Russia,” and called for using the country to kill as many Russian soldiers as possible, “the more and faster the better.” A former US State Department official has stated openly that the conflict in Ukraine is a NATO “proxy war with Russia,” and called for killing as many Russian soldiers as possible, “the more and faster the better.” These comments were made by Eliot A. Cohen, who served as a counselor for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from 2007 to 2009, in the George W. Bush administration’s State Department. A staunch advocate for hardline neoconservative foreign policy, Cohen published an article in The Atlantic magazine on March 14, titled “America’s Hesitation Is Heartbreaking,” in which he praised the Joe Biden administration for waging an indirect war on Russia on multiple fronts, including through information war, economic war, and proxy war in Ukraine. Cohen complained, however, that Biden should do even more to up the ante, escalating the conflict even further. The Biden administration has already sent Ukraine more than 17,000 anti-tank weapons, including Javelin missiles, as well as 2,000 stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Some of these went directly to the notorious neo-Nazi Azov regiment. After sending $350 million in arms to Ukraine in late February, the Biden administration approved an additional $13.6 billion aid package in March, including $6.5 billion in military support. NATO is sending weapons and trainers to help neo-Nazis in Ukraine’s white-supremacist Azov movement fight Russia, as the US floods the country with weapons. This follows numerous reports of Western government support for Ukrainian far-right extremists.https://t.co/5gYgmU8PFo — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 10, 2022 Eliot Cohen insisted this is not nearly enough. “The stream of arms going into Ukraine needs to be a flood,” he proclaimed in his article in The Atlantic. “The United States and its NATO allies are engaged in a proxy war with Russia,” he wrote clearly. “They are supplying thousands of munitions and hopefully doing much else—sharing intelligence, for example—with the intent of killing Russian soldiers.” Cohen added on an equally explicit note: “we must face a fact: To break the will of Russia and free Ukraine from conquest and subjugation, many Russian soldiers have to flee, surrender, or die, and the more and faster the better.” “Thus far the Biden administration has done an admirable job of winning the information war, mobilizing the NATO alliance, and imposing crippling (if not yet complete) sanctions on the Russian economy,” he continued. “It has, it appears, sped the delivery of some weapon systems (notably Javelin anti-tank missiles and Stinger man-portable surface-to-air missiles) to Ukrainian forces.” The neoconservative hawk called for the Biden administration to give Ukraine fighter planes. He claimed sending MiG-29 jets would not escalate the proxy war into World War III with Russia – although many experts strongly disagree with him, including leaders of the Pentagon and US intelligence agencies. “If only we have the stomach for doing what needs to be done,” he wrote. Cohen was a leading supporter of the 2003 Iraq War, and has likewise called for Washington to wage a conventional war on Iran. Although he is no longer directly in government, Cohen works at the highly influential neoconservative think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which is funded by the US government and its allies, the weapons industry, and fossil fuel corporations. He is also a professor at the elite Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, which has a revolving door with the US government. Cohen’s ultra-bellicose views are quite representative of his fellow hawks in Washington; he is by no means alone. His article in The Atlantic provides an honest glimpse into how prominent US imperial planners see the crisis in Ukraine: as an opportunity to use the Ukrainian people as cannon fodder in a proxy war to bleed Russia.

Write an article about: It’s a jailable crime to support Russia’s Ukraine war in EU members Slovakia and Czech Republic. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Czech Republic, EU, European Union, Latvia, Russia, Ukraine

The European Union claims to represent freedom and democracy, but EU/NATO members Czech Republic and Slovakia made it a crime for citizens to support Russia’s war in Ukraine, punishable with years in prison. Latvia has a police hotline and encourages people to report neighbors suspected of sympathizing with Moscow. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) Western governments have portrayed the war between Russia and Ukraine as a supposed conflict between authoritarianism and democracy. At the same time, however, some of these Western governments are imposing authoritarian policies and harshly cracking down on freedom of expression and freedom of the press, banning Russian media outlets and even making it illegal to support the Russian military intervention. The United States and European Union have imposed a series of brutal sanctions on Russia, waging an economic war aimed at devaluing its currency, the ruble, which will make life difficult for tens of millions of Russian civilians. The EU has banned Russian media outlets RT and Sputnik, and US Silicon Valley corporations like Google and Twitter have censored their accounts. Numerous members of the EU and NATO, including the Czech Republic and Slovakia, have also made it a crime to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, threatening their citizens with years in prison. And fellow member Latvia has a police hotline where people can report neighbors they suspect of being pro-Russian. On February 27, Ukraine’s pro-Western, anti-Russian newspaper the Kyiv Independent reported, “Czech Republic makes it illegal to openly support Russia’s war against Ukraine.” The Ukrainian embassy in the Czech Republic made this new policy clear beyond a doubt, tweeting happily on February 27 that, if Czech citizens express support for the Russian intervention, they can be charged with support for “genocide,” and potentially imprisoned. Чеські правоохоронні органи попереджають, що публічне схвалення російського вторгнення в Україну може класифікуватися як "злочин заперечення, ставлення під сумнів, схвалення і виправдовування ГЕНОЦИДУ". Уже є два перші випадки затриманих, яким інкримунують цей параграф КК. — UKR Embassy in CZE (@UKRinCZE) February 27, 2022 The Czech Republic’s chief prosecutor, Igor Stříž, released a statement warning citizens that it is a crime to publicly express support for the Russian war or to praise Russian leaders for intervening in Ukraine. Stříž said those who do could be found guilty of denying, questioning, approving of, or justifying “genocide.” A local media outlet reported that Czech citizens who violate these laws could face three years in prison. The top Czech prosecutor claimed that the government supports freedom of speech, but emphasized that there are political limits on that speech. These authoritarian policies are now encouraging average people to become state informants and report their neighbors for daring to think differently. Czech newspapers reported on February 27, just three days after the beginning of the Russian invasion, that police were already investigating dozens of complaints against Czech citizens accused of sympathizing with Moscow. Another EU and NATO member state, Slovakia, has threatened even harsher penalties. Slovakia’s state media outlet RTVS reported that citizens who express support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could be criminally punished, and face 10 to 25 years in prison The public broadcaster said that endorsing Moscow’s actions could violate section 417 of Slovakia’s Criminal Code, on “threats to peace.” The Baltic state Latvia, an EU and NATO member that was previously part of the Soviet Union, has adopted a similar policy. Latvia now has a police hotline to report citizens who support Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine. Local media outlet Par drošību reported that there are least four Latvian laws that prohibit supporting and justifying the war. These statutes are similar to those of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The website encouraged Latvian citizens to report neighbors suspected of sympathizing with Moscow, providing them with a phone number and email address for the police. Meanwhile, in fellow EU and NATO member Italy, a university cited the invasion of Ukraine to justify suspending a course on the classic Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky died in 1881, and was in fact imprisoned by Russia’s czar because of his political views. The Italian writer, Paolo Nori, whose class at the University of Milano-Bicocca was cancelled published a video condemning the move as “ridiculous.” “Even dead Russians” are being censored, Nori lamented. Under public pressure, the university later backtracked and agreed to allow the course.

Write an article about: China launches Global South economic alliance to challenge US ‘unilateralism’ and ‘cold-war mentality’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Belt and Road Initiative, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Global Development Initiative, Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative, Nicaragua, UN, United Nations, Venezuela

China is creating international political and economic alliances to challenge US unipolar hegemony. The Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative promotes “win-win cooperation” as a model. China is leading an international effort to develop alliances to counter US hegemony. In March 2021, 17 nations — many led by anti-imperialist and progressive governments, including Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia among others — formed a diplomatic alliance called the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, which seeks to defend sovereignty and multilateralism against the unilateral domination of the United States and Western Europe. This January 20, China’s mission to the UN launched a new, economic version of this diplomatic alliance, called the Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative. This new Group of Friends seeks to promote China’s “Global Development Initiative” (GDI), and complements China’s massive international infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative. Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the creation of the GDI at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2021. He said the campaign aims at promoting “people-centered,” environmentally friendly development, with the primary goals of reducing poverty, helping formerly colonized countries in the Global South, and eventually achieving carbon neutrality. To this end, Beijing has sought to merge the GDI with the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Group of Friends of Global Development Initiative officially launched today! I thank member states and UN agencies for their support. Look forward to working together to meet challenges and advance post-COVID recovery and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. pic.twitter.com/LAcIICEfP6 — Zhang Jun (@ChinaAmbUN) January 20, 2022 The new Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative launched this January 20 consists of countries who have joined China in its GDI. In the founding meeting, Beijing’s ambassador cautioned against “unilateralism” and the “resurgent Cold-War mentality and the clamoring for ‘decoupling’” — a clear reference to the aggressive campaigns waged by Washington and Brussels. The Chinese ambassador explained that the GDI “is a platform for mutually beneficial and win-win cooperation.” While the United States and European Union have tried to recruit countries in a global Cold War Two alliance against China and Russia, Beijing made it clear that the GDI “is open and inclusive, and will not create any kind of small circles.” Representatives of the following nations participated in this founding meeting of the Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative, alongside China: Unlike the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, the Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative is not clearly anti-imperialist. It includes, for example, the reactionary Gulf monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, which collaborate with Western imperialism. And some other members are certainly not progressive friends of national-liberation struggles. But this new economic alliance shows the foundations for the structure of the new multipolar world being built, which is no longer dominated by US unipolar hegemony. In this increasingly multipolar world, we can expect to see more contradictory moves by countries like the Gulf monarchies, which are trying to balance the rise of China against the United States to their mutual benefit. This process is full of contradictions, but it part of a general weakening of US imperialism, and creates more political, economic, and diplomatic space for progressive and revolutionary forces in countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and beyond to not only survive but to thrive and advance. At the founding meeting, China’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Zhang Jun, explained Beijing’s thinking behind the new Group of Friends: As we speak, the world today is faced with many grave challenges. We are witnessing profound changes and a pandemic both unseen in a century. The wealth gap, recovery gap, development gap and immunity gap keep widening. Global development is under severe impact. The pandemic has left many countries, especially developing countries, high and dry. People of all countries are eager to get back onto the right track of sustainable development. Against this backdrop, the GDI proposed by President Xi aims at addressing the pressing challenges facing all countries, especially developing ones. And it is committed to practicing true multilateralism, putting people front and center, fully implementing the 2030 Agenda, and realizing the aspiration of all people for a better life. … Recent years have witnessed setbacks in global development, and widening wealth gap and increasing inequality among and within countries. The pandemic has further eroded the global poverty reduction gains in the past decade, one hundred and forty million people falling back into poverty, the number of people living in hunger reaching eight hundred million. We are also facing food security, energy security, climate change and other prominent issues. The implementation of the 2030 Agenda is confronted with serious challenges. Against such backdrop, the GDI adheres to the people-centered philosophy, prioritizes development, and promotes the international community to place development at the core of the global macro policy framework. I’m sure it will provide stronger and more targeted support to developing countries, making sure no one is left behind. It is important to note that the Initiative, with development as its priority and commitment to people-centered development, aims to protect and promote human rights through development, especially the right to subsistence and development of all people, including women, children and other vulnerable groups. The creation of the Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative is just one of a series of very interesting diplomatic moves happening behind the scenes. These developments don’t get coverage in mainstream corporate media because they’re not very sexy, but they are important. The launch got zero coverage in the mainstream English-language corporate media. Chinese state-backed media outlets did cover the event though. The Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, the diplomatic complement to the Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative, was formed in March 2021 by the following 16 UN member states and Palestine (a UN observer state): Both the diplomatic and the economic alliance are still very young, but expect to hear more about these Groups of Friends in the future. These are the seeds that have been planted for a new multipolar international order. The anti-imperialist Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter launched yesterday, featuring:AlgeriaAngolaBelarusBoliviaCambodiaChinaCubaDPRKEqui. GuineaEritreaIranLaosNicaraguaPalestineRussiaSaint Vincent and GrenadinesSyriaVenezuelahttps://t.co/4vc9sbpOlR pic.twitter.com/ErFDIed7cW — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 7, 2021

Write an article about: US and UK undermining Bosnian democracy with sectarian electoral law changes. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Bosnia, Yugoslavia

Bosnia and Herzegovina is already governed by a neocolonial system, but the US, UK, and Israel are further undermining democracy by pushing for sectarian election law amendments that could weaken the civil rights of minorities like Jews and Roma. Croatian President Zoran Milanović briefly made headlines this April when he threatened to veto the NATO candidacy of Finland and Sweden. Milanović claimed the Western military alliance would only receive Croatia’s support if neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina was forced to amend its election law according to terms deemed advantageous for Bosnian Croats. The amendments, proposed earlier this year by a Bosnian Croat body called the Croatian National Parliament (HNS), would limit voting rights and eligibility for some elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina to citizens identified as “Croats”. The changes would affect eligibility for positions explicitly reserved for Serbs, Croats or Muslims, which includes the tripartite presidency and some parliamentary seats. The changes are widely believed to favour the Bosnian section of the right-wing Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), Croatia’s main post-war ruling party, of which Prime Minister Andrej Plenković is a member (but not President Milanović). The strategy behind Milanović’s threats, leveraging a possible NATO veto for policy changes in third party states under implicit US pressure, echoes an earlier gambit by Türkiye, which suggested it would veto unless Finland and Sweden collaborated with Turkish efforts to repress Kurdish activism abroad. In a stunning humiliation for pro-NATO, pro-Kurdish liberals, concessions to Ankara were rapidly agreed by both NATO candidates. In Croatia’s case, the threats received only brief attention in English-language news coverage. Many anti-NATO commentators outside the region, unfamiliar with Milanović’s reputation for bizarre non sequiturs and gaffes, celebrated an apparent breach in NATO unity. Others noted the limited power over foreign policy exercised by Croatia’s presidency, and suggested nothing would come of his bluster. Croatia’s Prime Minister Plenković distanced his government from President Milanović’s remarks, and stated unambiguously that Croatia would support Sweden and Finland’s NATO applications, as Croatia did at NATO’s Madrid summit in June. However, Plenković has separately supported the amendments. The election law – which was subject to a separate set of amendments in July, likely a compromise with public opposition – has remained a key issue in local media, but has received little or no subsequent attention in North American media. The proposed amendments have been vociferously denounced by politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially by Muslims; by EU human rights groups; and near-unanimously by EU member states, including France and Germany. EU-based critics have invoked a series of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, beginning in 2009, which sought to invalidate part of the country’s current election law – a product of the Dayton Agreement – because it already prevents citizens of the country not identified as Serbs, Croats, or Muslim “Bosniaks” – such as Jews or Roma – from standing for certain elections. However, the amendments, which would further rescind civil rights for Jews and Roma living in Bosnia and Herzegovina, have been supported by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and, controversially, by Israel. Under the Dayton Agreement, which ended Bosnia’s civil war in 1995 and established a now-permanent EU/NATO military occupation, local authority is divided along the armistice line between two sectarian “entities”, respectively the Croat/Muslim “Federation” and the “Serb Republic”. The state presidency is shared by a council composed of one Muslim, one Croat, and one Serb. The entities operate basic public services, but are not states. The state of Bosnia and Herzegovina itself (as opposed to the entities) has limited powers on paper and almost none in practice. Real power in Bosnia, under Dayton, is exercised by a group of foreign states – members of the Peace Implementation Council (PIC). The PIC nominally includes countries such as Germany, Canada, Türkiye, and even Russia. However, increasingly, the US has near-total control over the implementation of Dayton; Russia is excluded in practice; and the EU’s role is limited to ineffectual complaints. The PIC appoints a neocolonial proconsul to the Office of the High Representative (OHR), with vast powers to amend or veto laws, dismiss elected officials, and rule Bosnia and Herzegovina by decree. Thus far, all high representatives have come from European Union member states. While previous appointments to the OHR reflected a compromise between NATO and Russia, and were historically ratified by the UN Security Council, Russia has refused to recognize NATO’s most recent preferred candidate, German politician Christian Schmidt, who took office in 2021. Relations between Bosnian institutions and politicians, and the OHR, have been extremely tense since Schmidt’s nomination, and tensions have only continued to escalate. Croatian President Milanović’s call to change his neighbor’s election legislation was effectively a request that the US pressure Bosnia and Herzegovina’s colonial governor to modify its laws to privilege Croats. Since Croatia’s president and prime minister belong to opposing parties, and Milanović’s own Social Democratic Party (SDP) has nothing to gain directly from Bosnia’s elections, his actual motives were never entirely clear, other than as an attempt to win nationalist political capital within Croatia itself. Beyond the possible quid pro quo related to NATO membership, evidence of which remains circumstantial, it’s also unclear why Washington has supported the amendments. The US and UK have insisted the OHR force through the amendments, in opposition to a virtual consensus of Bosnian Muslim politicians, European states, and European legal institutions that the amendments are discriminatory and anti-democratic. The amendments to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s election law were proposed by Croats, are expected to benefit Croats, and may only affect elections in the “Federation” entity, where Serb politicians have little to gain directly. However, Muslim condemnation has focused on possible benefits the amendments might provide Serbs. In some cases, such as in an article for Al Jazeera, it has been implied without evidence that Russia might be the dark, secret force behind the amendments. The argument is that, since Serbs and Croats are both minorities in the country, and since compromise wording of the amendments would likely benefit Serb nationalist politicians too, Serbs (or Russians) must be the real proponents of the changes. It is true that comments by Serb politicians have been ambiguous, suggesting support for the principle behind the amendments – that is, deepening the sectarian character of Bosnian elections to protect Serbs and Croats at the expense of other minorities – but opposing amendment efforts on procedural grounds. However, the nuance and context is completely lost in most English-language coverage, which is almost always anti-Serb. Crucially, Serb politicians do not recognize Schmidt’s authority to make the amendments, and have repeatedly opposed his efforts to do so. The fact remains that, irrespective of what pro-American Muslim liberals may want to believe, the US government has led the effort to impose the amendments. While the United States subsequently tried to backtrack and joined calls to suspend any amendments until after Bosnian elections on October 2, the US and UK have always been the main force in supporting the amendments. In practice, Washington unilaterally directs the OHR’s policies, whatever objections European or Bosnian politicians might raise. Conversely, Russia plays no direct role whatsoever in Bosnia’s political process, beyond its public, vocal support for Serb politicians. Russia continues to refuse to recognize Schmidt’s appointment to the OHR, and has echoed calls by Serbs suggesting he has no authority to impose the amendments. This is not to say that Russia has played a principled, unifying, anti-sectarian role in Bosnian politics; but the narrative that it is somehow commandeering US Balkan policy strains credulity. It is possible that the United States contrived an intervention on the Bosnian election law to stir conflict. Anglo-American Balkan policy has historically been predicated on exploiting conflicts between Serbs and Muslims. With Serbs seen as loyal to Russia, and Croatia seen as an unreliable German client state, the Bill Clinton administration in the 1990s saw Yugoslavia’s Muslim minority populations as conveniently desperate victims. In effect, Muslim vulnerability provided a pretext for permanent US occupation of the region. Immediately before Bosnia’s civil war, in 1992, all three parties – Serbs, Muslims, and Croats – had agreed to the Lisbon Agreement, a European initiative which would have prevented the violence. US ambassador Warren Zimmermann actively discouraged Bosnia’s president, Alija Izetbegović, from following through with the Lisbon Agreement. Izetbegović withdrew and the deal fell apart – an event echoed recently when British pressure (on behalf of the US) nixed a tentative peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Preventing the war would have saved tens of thousands of lives, and prevented the immeasurable harms done to a society and its people by four years of civil war. This damage included the destruction of the social fabric of Sarajevo, which, prior to the war, had been the cosmopolitan cultural centre of socialist Yugoslavia and, more than any other city in the country, a post-sectarian model of peaceful cooperation between different communities. Local sectarianism and nationalist opportunism played a decisive role in the conflict. So too did US intervention, which supported Yugoslavia’ s breakup at least as early as 1992. Support for sectarianism and secessionist movements greatly accelerated under the Clinton administration, as post-Cold War policy shifted toward limiting the geopolitical ambitions of a reunited Germany. The US, along with its anglosphere client states, sought to secure a geopolitical foothold in the Balkans. US intervention in Bosnia involved covert support for far-right Islamist extremists, essentially drawn from Osama Bin Laden’s network. Similar forces were later employed by the US to support a secessionist project in the Serbian province of Kosovo, now also under permanent NATO occupation. The Bosnian election law issue has not been the only locus of heightened regional tensions in recent months. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, EU and NATO forces increased the visibility of their military presence in Bosnia, flying French fighter jets over the country and sending uniformed troops down commercial streets. The proxy war in Ukraine threatens to drag the Balkans into a larger regional conflict, as the US, EU, and NATO militarize Bosnia and increase pressure on Serbia, and Ukrainian drones crash in Croatiahttps://t.co/OME68zHvzE — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) May 4, 2022 Most recently, Kosovo’s secessionist government attempted to force Serbs living in Kosovo to use its licence plates instead of Serbian ones. However, Kosovo’s prime minister, Albin Kurti, was forced to suspend the measure, likely under US pressure, and a status quo agreement was negotiated with Belgrade. Similar incidents in the past have fizzled out similarly. Given its history, it is not unreasonable to guess that the United States is instrumentalizing the Bosnian election law issue to stoke sectarian conflict and needlessly draw out the country’s political stalemate. Or perhaps Washington is simply trying to manage a tangle of conflicting alliances and regional objectives. Bosnian Croats have threatened to boycott the elections this October if their amendments are not adopted, and have sometimes made veiled threats to secede entirely. Bosnian Serbs have made similar threats in the past. The US and UK claim that their support for the election law amendments is intended to prevent the breakup of the country. However, notably absent from US officials’ calls for unity and cooperation is any suggestion that the US would ever support a final, post-Dayton settlement to Bosnia’s civil war. Dayton effectively keeps the country dysfunctional and pliant; incubates cliques of nationalist politicians; and precludes any possibility of the country meeting the needs of its citizens, or of ever joining the EU; all while providing a reliable pretext for a permanent US military presence in the country. While any final settlement would need to provide real responses to the concerns of the Serb and Croat minorities, civil society groups in Bosnia are correct to insist that Dayton’s sectarian political system is incompatible with secular liberal democracy. It would be wise, then, to continue asking why the United States government is so committed to keeping Dayton permanently in place.

Write an article about: China reaffirms ‘rock solid’ friendship with Russia, deepens economic integration amid Western sanctions. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, EU, European Union, Mir, Russia, sanctions, SWIFT, Ukraine, UnionPay, Wang Yi, Zhao Lijian

While the US and EU isolate Moscow over Ukraine, China is strengthening its alliance with Russia, calling it its “most important strategic partner.” In response to Western sanctions, Russian banks are moving to a Chinese payment system, and the Eurasian economies are integrating closer together. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) The United States and European Union have used Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that began on February 24 to try to isolate Moscow politically and strangle the country economically. At the same time, Russia has strengthened its alliance with China, deepening the integration of their economies. Washington and Brussels have created what is essentially a new iron curtain, imposing crushing sanctions aimed at devastating Russia’s economy and devaluing its currency, the ruble. The US and European countries have pledged to ban Russian oil. Several Russian banks have been removed from the SWIFT system for financial transactions. And Western sanctions have even hit Russia’s central bank, freezing its foreign assets. What this economic war has done is accelerated a process of decoupling of Russia from the West, one that began several years ago as Moscow has aimed to de-dollarize. At the same time, the Joe Biden administration has sought China’s help in trying to enforce these new sanctions and pressure Russia to de-escalate – despite the fact that Washington has spent years waging a new cold war on Beijing, making unsubstantiated and politicized accusations of genocide while imposing sanctions on the East Asian giant. The US strategy to use Ukraine as a wedge between Russia and China has not worked. Instead, the barrage of new sanctions on Moscow has had the impact of bolstering Eurasian integration of the Russian and Chinese economies. Meanwhile, China has firmly stood with Russia. Its foreign minister, Wang Yi, referred to Moscow as Beijing’s “most important strategic partner.” Wang denounced the United States for “acting irresponsibly on the international arena.” China stressed that its “rock-solid” friendship with Russia is “free from interference or discord sown by third parties” – a clear rebuke of Washington’s attempt to divide them. The U.S. met with China over three months to present intelligence showing Russia’s troop buildup near Ukraine and to urge Beijing to help avert war, U.S. officials said. Chinese officials rebuffed the U.S. and shared the information with Moscow.https://t.co/Ngbuu9P3n1 — The New York Times (@nytimes) February 25, 2022 By making the decision to militarily intervene in Ukraine in February 2022, Russia made it clear that it is no longer concerned with trying to integrate with the West. Moscow recognizes that its future lies in Eurasian integration with China, Iran, and other Eastern powers. Beijing has also helped Moscow weather the financial storm of Western sanctions and trade restrictions, and the two countries have strengthened their economic ties. China lifted all restrictions on imports of Russian wheat on February 24. Russia is the world’s largest exporter of wheat, and China has gradually increased imports from its northern neighbor. The South China Morning Post (SCMP) noted, “China could provide a lifeline to Russia’s economy after the United States and its allies imposed swift economic sanctions on Moscow.” The newspaper added that China’s ambassador to Russia, Zhang Hanhui, said Beijing “was ‘pleased’ to see that its currency has been widely used in Russian trade, financial investments and foreign reserves, and was also looking forward to discussions about yuan settlements in bilateral energy deals.” Russia’s state-owned bank VTB, the second-largest financial institution in the country, announced on March 9 that customers can open savings accounts in the Chinese currency, the yuan, with an interest rate of up to 8%. VTB Bank is offering a Chinese yuan savings account with a maximum interest rate of 8%, as the Russian lender faces strict sanctions from the U.S. and U.K. https://t.co/33vqAu7Zpm — Bloomberg Asia (@BloombergAsia) March 9, 2022 In a separate article, the SCMP reported that bilateral trade between China and Russia has increased during the Ukraine crisis, rising to US$26.4 billion in January and February, a 38.5% increase from the previous year, and the highest growth rate for these months since 2010. It did add, however, that export growth is slowing. In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Visa and Mastercard announced they would be limiting operations in the country. So Russia is turning toward its own domestic payment system, while expanding use of a Chinese counterpart. Moscow’s state news agency Tass published a report on March 6 revealing that various banks in Russia are already using China’s UnionPay system for financial transactions, including the state-owned Russian Agricultural Bank (Rosselkhozbank) and Promsvyazbank and the private Gazprombank and Sovcombank. Reuters noted that more Russian banks plan to work with UnionPay, including the state-owned Sberbank, Russia’s biggest bank, as well as the private Alfa Bank and Tinkoff. Russian banks rush to switch to Chinese card system https://t.co/Lit9GM4DdD pic.twitter.com/hmfz0ytq0K — Reuters (@Reuters) March 6, 2022 Russia has its own payment system, called Mir, which was created by the central bank in 2017, largely due to the effects of Western sanctions imposed on the country in 2014. Tass said some national banks are considering combining these Russian and Chinese payment services, and “will possibly issue co-badged cards linking Russia’s Mir and China’s UnionPay systems that will provide the option of payment for purchases and cash withdrawals abroad.” The Joe Biden administration has sought to turn Ukraine into a wedge between China and Russia, and prominent Western media pundits like the New York Times’ Paul Krugman have argued that “China can’t bail out Putin’s economy.” CNN declared that “China can’t do much to help Russia’s sanction-hit economy,” while Bloomberg prognosticated that Beijing made a “fateful choice on ties with Russia” that will supposedly come back to hurt it. At the same time, the US government has publicly threatened to hit Chinese firms with financial punishments if they refuse to comply with Western sanctions on Russia and help Moscow get around these unilateral coercive measures. Faced with this antagonistic strategy, China has doubled down on its support for Russia. In a press conference on March 7, Beijing’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, declared that the Chinese-Russian partnership is “free from interference or discord sown by third parties.” This was a clear rejection of attempts by the United States and European Union to create divisions between them. Wang said China and Russia are “each other’s most important close neighbors and strategic partners,” calling their relationship “one of the most crucial bilateral relations in the world.” “China and Russia jointly oppose attempts to revive the Cold War mindset,” Wang stressed, warning about Washington’s drive toward a new cold war. The Chinese foreign minister said Beijing and Moscow have a “shared commitment to ever-lasting friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation,” one that “is based on non-alliance, non-confrontation and non-targeting of any third party.” “The China-Russia relationship is grounded in a clear logic of history and driven by strong internal dynamics, and the friendship between the Chinese and Russian peoples is rock-solid,” Wang added. China and Russia have good energy cooperation and will continue to conduct normal trade cooperation including on oil & gas in the spirit of mutual respect, equality & mutual benefit. — Spokesperson发言人办公室 (@MFA_China) March 9, 2022 Bejing has also forcefully condemned Western sanctions on Russia. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Zhao Lijian stated, “China is definitely against unilateral sanctions that are not based on international law. Brandishing a sanctions baton will not bring peace and security. It will only lead to serious issues for the economy and the quality of life in the corresponding countries.” Zhao warned, “In this situation, everyone loses. Sanctions will only intensify division and confrontation.”

Write an article about: Xi blasts US ‘containment, encirclement’ of China, Foreign Ministry slams ‘hysterical neo-McCarthyism’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Cold War Two, Hua Chunying, new cold war, Qin Gang, Xi Jinping

President Xi Jinping denounced the US-led Western attempt to “contain, encircle, and suppress China”. Foreign Minister Qin Gang condemned Washington’s “hysterical neo-McCarthyism” and “malicious confrontation”, opposing the “cold war mentality”. Chinese President Xi Jinping has denounced the US-led Western attempt to “contain, encircle, and suppress China”. Foreign Minister Qin Gang likewise warned that the US government is pursuing a “hysterical neo-McCarthyism”, and that its “so-called ‘competition’ means to contain and suppress China in all respects and get the two countries locked in a zero-sum game”. Chinese political leaders are often very cautious and diplomatic with their language, and they frequently caution against the United States’ “cold war mentality”. These assertive comments show that Beijing is standing up for itself and pushing back as Washington wages an increasingly aggressive new cold war. “Western countries headed by the United States have contained, encircled and suppressed China in an all-round way, bringing unprecedentedly severe challenges to China’s development”, Xi said in a speech on March 7, reported by state media outlet Xinhua. Acknowledging the growing geopolitical tensions, Xi said China is “faced with high winds and choppy waters in the international environment”. He added that “the external environment for China’s development has changed drastically, with uncertainties and unexpected factors increasing remarkably”. The Wall Street Journal noted that “Xi’s comments marked an unusual departure for a leader who has generally refrained from directly criticizing the U.S. in public remarks—even as his decadelong leadership has demonstrated a pessimistic view of the bilateral relationship”. “Xi has typically been more measured and vague regarding the U.S. and other Western countries, referring to them as “certain” countries rather than naming them explicitly”, the newspaper added. This is him telling the Chinese people that China is under attack by the West as a whole, led by the US. Which is factually undeniable of course but him saying it out loud marks a real turning point. It probably means he's lost hope that a new cold war can be avoided. — Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) March 7, 2023 John Pang, a former Malaysian government official who frequently writes for Chinese media outlets, noted that, “Unlike western politicians, Chinese leaders err on the side of understatement and indirectness when discussing external threats, nor are they fond of using it to justify policy. I can’t recall his ever having put this so directly”. Despite these challenges, President Xi noted that his country has continued progressing: “China’s GDP registered an annual growth rate of 5.2 percent over the past five years. We won the critical battle against poverty as scheduled and finished building a moderately prosperous society in all respects”. Xi also reiterated his commitment to “common prosperity for all Chinese people“. In separate remarks, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said, “The US claim to ‘shape the strategic environment in which China operates’ actually reveals the real purpose of its Indo-Pacific Strategy, that is to encircle China”. She was referencing remarks made by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who announced this containment policy in a May 2022 speech. Hua affirmed, “Asia should be a stage for win-win cooperation rather than a chessboard for geopolitical contest. No Cold War should be reignited, and no Ukraine-style crisis should be repeated in Asia”. The US claim to “shape the strategic environment in which China operates” actually reveals the real purpose of its Indo-Pacific Strategy, that is to encircle China. — Hua Chunying 华春莹 (@SpokespersonCHN) March 7, 2023 China’s new Foreign Minister Qin Gang gave a press conference on March 7 in which he made similar remarks. He referenced the manufactured crisis in February, in which the US military shot down a Chinese balloon that its own experts admitted had likely been blown off course due to the weather. Qin said this balloon entering US airspace was “entirely an accident caused by force majeure”. He noted, “Even the United States did not believe it posed a physical threat”. “However, in violation of the spirit of international law and international customary practices, the United States acted with a presumption of guilt”, Qin added. “It overreacted, abused force, and dramatized the accident, creating a diplomatic crisis that could have been avoided”. US officials admitted the Chinese balloon they shot down on February 4 had likely been blown off course by unexpected weather. The US Air Force later spent $2 million using missiles to blow up a $12 hobbyist balloon.https://t.co/kY1r4Cb7Xx — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 21, 2023 Noting that Washington “regards China as its primary rival and biggest geopolitical challenge”, the foreign minister argued that “the US perception and views of China are seriously distorted”. He stated (emphasis added): The United States claims that it seeks to “out-compete” China but does not seek conflict. Yet in reality, its so-called “competition” means to contain and suppress China in all respects and get the two countries locked in a zero-sum game. The United States talks a lot about following rules. But imagine two athletes competing in an Olympic race. If one athlete, instead of focusing on giving one’s best, always tries to trip or even injure the other, that is not fair competition, but malicious confrontation and a foul! Its so-called “establishing guardrails” for China-US relations and “not seeking conflict” actually means that China should not respond in words or action when slandered or attacked. That is just impossible! If the United States does not hit the brake but continues to speed down the wrong path, no amount of guardrails can prevent derailing, and there will surely be conflict and confrontation. Who will bear the catastrophic consequences? Such competition is a reckless gamble with the stakes being the fundamental interests of the two peoples and even the future of humanity. Naturally China is firmly opposed to all this. If the United States has the ambition to make itself great again, it should also have a broad mind for the development of other countries. Containment and suppression will not make America great, and it will not stop the rejuvenation of China. The Chinese foreign minister was careful to distinguish the people of the United States from the government. “More and more people with vision and insight in the United States are deeply worried about the current state of China-US relations, and have been calling for a rational and pragmatic policy toward China”, he said. Qin previously served as China’s ambassador to the United States from 2021 to 2023. He affectionately recalled the time he spent working in the US and the friends he made. “The American people, just like the Chinese people, are friendly, kind and sincere, and want a better life and a better world”, he stressed. Qin concluded (emphasis added): I’m convinced that the China-US relationship should be determined by the common interests and shared responsibilities of the two countries and by the friendship between the Chinese and American peoples, rather than by US domestic politics or the hysterical neo-McCarthyism. China will continue to follow the principles put forth by President Xi Jinping, namely, mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation, to pursue a sound and stable relationship with the United States. We hope the US government will listen to the calls of the two peoples, rid of its strategic anxiety of “threat inflation”, abandon the zero-sum Cold War mentality.

Write an article about: US-Russia proxy war risks nuclear apocalypse, 60 years after Cuban Missile Crisis. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Aaron Good, Cuba, Cuban Missile Crisis, history, nuclear weapons, Russia, Ukraine

On the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world is closer than ever to nuclear apocalypse, with the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine and the US military deploying nukes to Europe and Australia. On the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world is closer than ever to nuclear apocalypse, with the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine. Historian and political scientist Aaron Good joined Multipolarista host Ben Norton to discuss the important lessons to learn from this dangerous historical episode: “US Nuclear Forces Chief Says ‘the Big One Is Coming’,” Antiwar.com, Dave DeCamp, November 6, 2022 The US Department of Defense reported on November 3, 2022: The current conflict in Ukraine is not the worst that the U.S. should be prepared for. Around the corner, said the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, the U.S. must be prepared for much more. “This Ukraine crisis that we’re in right now, this is just the warmup,” Navy Adm. Charles A. Richard, commander of Stratcom, said. “The big one is coming. And it isn’t going to be very long before we’re going to get tested in ways that we haven’t been tested a long time.” “US to send hi-tech nuclear weapons to Nato bases amid rising tensions with Russia,” The Telegraph, October 27, 2022 US to send hi-tech nuclear weapons to Nato bases amid rising tensions with Russia Deployment of B61-12 tactical bombs to Europe comes after Moscow held military exercises showcasing its own ballistic capabilities ?⬇️https://t.co/3qYXR00eQY pic.twitter.com/vyXPJUxjSI — Telegraph World News (@TelegraphWorld) October 28, 2022 “Finland May Allow NATO to Place Nuclear Weapons on Border With Russia,” Newsweek, October 26, 2022 "The U.S. already has around 100 nuclear weapons in Europe, positioned in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey" "The Polish government said it had held discussions with the U.S. government about hosting U.S. nuclear weapons"https://t.co/aajILTBF24 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 30, 2022 “US Air Force to deploy nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to Australia as tensions with China grow,” ABC News, October 30, 2022 No debate, no discussion — democracy shelved. ‘No nukes’ policy trashed — US is making northern Australia prime targets for their planned war with China. Military madness is fanning tensions with China. US to deploy nuclear B-52 bombers to Australia. https://t.co/FrbMKHosG8 — Peter Cronau (@PeterCronau) October 30, 2022 “US general on rare visit to nuclear-armed sub in Arabian Sea,” Associated Press, October 19, 2022 The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East boarded a U.S. ballistic missile submarine in the Arabian Sea on Wednesday, a rare move that highlighted U.S. nuclear undersea capabilities during tense times with #Iran and #Russia.https://t.co/6QkYAfcfJQ — Jason Brodsky (@JasonMBrodsky) October 20, 2022 In October 2022, Ukraine’s NATO-backed leader Zelensky called for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia: "President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky called on NATO to launch a preemptive strike against the Russian Federation in the event of a threat from its side to use nuclear weapons. He stated this during a video interview with the Lowy Institute" #Ukraine 1/https://t.co/0IvVX5e2n2 — Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) October 6, 2022 CIA veteran calls for US war on China and Russia, threatening nuclear strikes, in elite Foreign Policy magazine: A CIA/Pentagon veteran at NATO’s powerful Atlantic Council think tank published an article in elite Foreign Policy magazine calling for US war on China & Russia, including “threatening nonstrategic nuclear strikes” (This was before Russia invaded Ukraine)https://t.co/fqgbGjZYu5 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) May 5, 2022 Neoconservative pundit Anne Applebaum wrote in The Atlantic magazine: “Fear of Nuclear War Has Warped the West’s Ukraine Strategy: Leaders shouldn’t give in to Putin’s nuclear rhetoric” The US Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles wanted to drop nuclear bombs on China and Vietnam: “When Ike Was Asked to Nuke Vietnam,” Washington Post, 1982 Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (a leader of the Cold War, architect of the US national security state, and brother of CIA director Allen Dulles) declared in a meeting with fascist-supporting NATO that nuclear bombs were now "conventional" weapons and would be used on China pic.twitter.com/LgUVq3vccz — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 15, 2021 Foreign Minister Wang Yi said at the United Nations General Assembly in September stressed that “China is the only country in the world that pledges to keep to a path of peaceful development in its constitution,” and “is the only one among the five nuclear weapons states [the permanent members of the UN Security Council] that is committed to no first use of nuclear weapons”: "China is the only country in the world that pledges to keep to a path of peaceful development in its constitution" "It is the only one among the five nuclear weapons states [the permanent members of the UN Security Council] that is committed to no first use of nuclear weapons" pic.twitter.com/JImgLCPOie — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 24, 2022

Write an article about: Ukraine’s National Guard boasts of Nazis killing Russian Muslim ‘orcs’ with lard bullets. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Azov Battalion, Chechnya, Islamophobia, Russia, Ukraine

Ukraine’s National Guard praised its neo-Nazi fighters from the white-supremacist Azov movement for greasing bullets with pig fat to kill Russian Muslims, demonizing them as “orcs.” (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) Ukraine’s Western-backed National Guard has praised its Nazis fighters for greasing bullets with lard to kill Russian Muslims, demonizing them as “orcs.” The official, verified Twitter account of the Ukrainian National Guard tweeted a video on February 27 showing a soldier from the neo-Nazi Azov movement dipping bullets in pig fat. “Azov fighters of the National Guard greased the bullets with lard against the Kadyrov orcs?,” the Ukrainian National Guard wrote. Azov fighters of the National Guard greased the bullets with lard against the Kadyrov orcs? Бійці Азова Нацгвардії змастили кулі салом проти кадировських орків? Підписуйтесь на наш телеграм канал https://t.co/SBQltMr4bM pic.twitter.com/A1ci7tZL8r — НГУ (@ng_ukraine) February 27, 2022 “Kadyrov” is a reference to Ramzan Kadyrov, the leader of the Chechen Republic, a Muslim-majority region of the Russian Federation. The Ukrainian National Guard dehumanized these Muslim Chechen fighters in the Russian army by referring to them as “orcs,” brutish monsters from fantasy books like “The Lord of the Rings.” The Ukrainian Nazi soldier in this video is also greasing bullets with lard as a way to insult Muslims. In Islam, pork and other pig products are seen as haram, that is to say unclean and forbidden. In other words, the Western-backed Ukrainian state is publicly portraying Muslims as barbarians, and praising its Nazi soldiers for threatening to kill them with lard-greased bullets that they hope will send Chechen fighters to Hell. Azov is an explicitly neo-Nazi militia that helped lead a violent US-sponsored coup in Ukraine in 2014, and was subsequently incorporated into the Ukrainian National Guard. Azov uses Nazi symbols like the German Wolfsangel and preaches a white-supremacist fascist ideology that portrays Ukrainians as a pure white race fighting supposedly impure “Asiatic” Russians. The Nazi symbols used by Ukraine’s Azov Battalion Russia militarily intervened in Ukraine on February 24, claiming its goal is to demilitarize and “denazify” its neighbor’s government. Ukraine’s Western supporters have long insisted that Russian claims of Nazi influence in Ukraine are false or greatly exaggerated. But Ukraine’s own National Guard publicly praising its neo-Nazi fighters for insulting and killing Muslims shows that far-right extremist ideology is pervasive in the Ukrainian state, especially in the security services. In the back of this photo, you can also see a Canadian officer, alongside US military officers, meeting with Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which uses Nazi-era symbols.https://t.co/8tOZ9A7YGK pic.twitter.com/dAZBeFaHdU — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 16, 2018 Nazi Azov fighters have received training from the US military and support from other Western governments. NATO’s de facto think tank, the Atlantic Council, which is funded by the US State Department and Western governments, has previously praised Azov neo-Nazi fighters as anti-Russian heroes. NATO’s think tank the Atlantic Council, funded by the US and European governments, promoted Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in 2014, depicting its far-right extremist fighters as anti-Russia heroes while whitewashing their fascist ideology.https://t.co/5kisKUJPhf — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 23, 2022 Western corporate media outlets have also amplified Azov Nazi propaganda as recently as this January and February. Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion organized a photo op training Ukrainian elderly women and children to shoot guns. Top US and British media outlets eagerly spread the fascist propaganda to demonize Russia.https://t.co/NHFiMr4e7E — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 21, 2022

Write an article about: Ucrania admite que Rusia no planea invadir, pero EEUU y RU suministran armas mientras Alemania y Francia quieren la paz. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Alemania, EEUU, Francia, Reino Unido, Rusia, Ucrania

El presidente de Ucrania llama a la calma y su ministro de defensa admitió que “no hay motivos para creer” que Rusia está planeando una invasión, mientras que Estados Unidos y Reino Unido envían armas y tropas. (You can read this article in English here.) El ministro de defensa de Ucrania, Oleksii Reznikov, admitió que Rusia no tiene planes de invadir y le dijo al parlamento de su país que “a partir de hoy, no hay motivos para creer” que Moscú va a atacar pronto. Mientras los líderes de Ucrania afirman esto claramente y piden calma, Estados Unidos, Reino Unido y algunos estados miembros de la Unión Europea amenazan una guerra, por afirmaciones infundadas de que Rusia está preparando una invasión. Los grandes medios de comunicación de EEUU han avivado las llamas de la guerra. Citando a funcionarios anónimos de las agencias de inteligencia de EEUU, CNN publicó una elaborada teoría de la conspiración, afirmando que Moscú planea atacar a los rusoparlantes en el este de Ucrania en una “operación de bandera falsa” para justificar una invasión. CNN no ofreció ni una pizca de evidencia para corroborar esta extraordinaria acusación. El gobierno británico, igualmente sin ninguna prueba, acusó a Rusia de planear invadir Ucrania para instalar un régimen “títere”. Pero el gobierno de Ucrania reconoce que esto es sólo propaganda, y sabe que Moscú no está planeando una operación ofensiva. El medio norteamericano Associated Press (AP) reconoció esto en un informe del 25 de enero, titulado “Líderes ucranianos: mantengan la calma, la invasión rusa no es inminente”. “Los líderes de Ucrania el martes [25 de enero] le aseguraron a la nación que una invasión de la vecina Rusia no era inminente”, escribió AP. El presidente Volodímir Zelenski le dijo al público ucraniano que mantuviera la calma. La salida de algunos diplomáticos occidentales de Ucrania fue simplemente “parte de un complejo juego diplomático” que están jugando, dijo Zelenski. AP citó al ministro de defensa, Oleksii Reznikov, quien dijo al parlamento que “no hay motivos para creer” que Rusia pronto invadirá. “No se preocupen, duerman bien”, dijo Reznikov. “No es necesario que hagan las maletas”. El ministro de defensa de Ucrania dijo al canal de televisión ICTV, “A partir de hoy, las fuerzas armadas de Rusia no han creado grupos de ataque, lo que indicaría que estuvieron listos para lanzar una ofensiva mañana”. Agregó que la posibilidad de una invasión rusa durante los Juegos Olímpicos en Beijing era “baja”. Mientras que los líderes ucranianos llaman a la calma, algunos gobiernos occidentales parecen estar impulsando la guerra. Estados Unidos envió 200.000 libras de llamada “ayuda letal, incluyendo municiones” a Ucrania, lo que reforzó los $2.700 millones de dólares en apoyo que Washington ha entregado desde 2014. 2014 fue el año en que Washington y Bruselas respaldaron un violento golpe de estado en Ucrania e instalaron un gobierno pro occidental, irónicamente lo que Londres acusa ahora a Moscú. Reino Unido también entregó unos 2000 misiles antitanque a Ucrania, y envió decenas de tropas de élite. The shipment – and $2.7 billion USD since 2014 – demonstrates U.S. commitment to helping Ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of growing Russian aggression. ???? #partnershipstrong [2/2] pic.twitter.com/scPFWM3we7 — U.S. Embassy Kyiv (@USEmbassyKyiv) January 22, 2022 Sin embargo, no toda Europa hace ruido de sables. Alemania y Francia han demostrado que no quieren guerra. Alemania hasta ha impedido que Estonia, miembro de la UE y de la OTAN, envíe armas a Ucrania. Y en un reconocimiento implícito de que Berlín no está de acuerdo con su campaña belicosa, Gran Bretaña envió armas a Ucrania en una ruta tortuosa, evitando Alemania. El presidente francés, Emmanuel Macron, por su parte, quiere desescalar la situación. París pidió un diálogo con Rusia sobre Ucrania, y se ofreció a albergar negociaciones diplomáticas. Macron acaba de asumir como presidente del Consejo de la Unión Europea, lo que le da a sus palabras una importancia adicional. Berlín y París están preocupados por el grave daño que un conflicto de este tipo podría causar a las economías europeas, que todavía están integradas con Rusia. Los países que exportaron gas a la UE, en 2020 y 2021 La UE depende en gran parte de las importaciones rusas de gas y petróleo. Moscú sigue siendo el mayor exportador de energía a la UE. Los países que exportaron petróleo a la UE, en 2020 y 2021

Write an article about: US ambassador lectures China ‘threat’: ‘We’re the leader in this region (Asia)’!. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

AmCham China, American Chamber of Commerce in China, Antony Blinken, Chamber of Commerce, China, Iran, Israel, Myron Brilliant, Nicholas Burns, Thomas Nides, Victoria Nuland

In an interview with the Chamber of Commerce, US Ambassador Nicholas Burns referred to China as a “threat”, “great challenge”, and “very difficult government”, stating arrogantly, “The United States is staying in this region. We’re the leader in this [Indo-Pacific] region”. Washington’s ambassador to Beijing referred to China as a “threat” and “great challenge”. He stated arrogantly, “The United States is staying in this region. We’re the leader in this region”, referring to the Indo-Pacific. The ambassador, Nicholas Burns, insisted, “We’re going to hold our own out here. And I feel optimistic – I’m just concluding my first year as ambassador – about the American position in this country [China] and in this region”. In an interview with the US Chamber of Commerce, Burns made very aggressive comments, going so far as to blame China for the coronavirus pandemic, claiming Beijing is not being “honest about what happened three years ago in Wuhan, with the origin of the Covid-19 crisis”. The ambassador simultaneously praised the “bipartisan support in the Congress between Republicans and Democrats for a really robust American policy to defend our interests out here in the Indo-Pacific, to compete with the Chinese”. Burns said all of this at a February 27 event organized by the Chamber of Commerce, the most powerful corporate lobby group in Washington. The panel discussion, titled “American Leadership in an Age of Uncertainty”, also featured the US ambassador to Israel, Thomas Nides, and the third in command of the State Department, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland. Nuland is a hard-line neoconservative who was a key sponsor of a 2014 coup that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral President Viktor Yanukovych and installed a pro-Western regime, setting off the war that continues to this day. This Chamber of Commerce event on “American leadership” came one day before the US Congress held the first hearing of its hawkish “Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party”. The committee’s chairman, Republican Congressmember Mike Gallagher, described Washington’s new cold on Beijing in extreme terms: “This is not a polite tennis match. This is an existential struggle over what life will look like in the 21st century — and the most fundamental freedoms are at stake”. Great conversation with my friend @MyronBrilliant and two public servants I admire, Thomas Nides @USAmbIsrael and Victoria Nuland @UnderSecStateP, at the @USChamber InSTEP event about U.S. leadership in the world. Watch here: https://t.co/Vt0xO8yRtn — Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) February 28, 2023 On the Chamber of Commerce panel, Ambassador Burns said “China is going to be one of the great challenges for Americans going forward”. He added, “This is obviously a very difficult moment in the US-China relationship”. Referring to this “difficult relationship”, Burns complained that the Xi Jinping administration is “a very difficult government here in the People’s Republic of China”. The ambassador insisted that the US is not waging a new cold war on China and Russia, but rather a forceful campaign of “competition”. “From my perspective, sitting here in China, looking out at the Indo-Pacific, our American position is stronger than it was five or 10 years ago. It’s the strength of our alliances; it’s the strength of our private sector; it’s our innovative capacity and our R&D capacity which comes from our research institutions and our Big Tech companies”, Burns said. He called for “competing” with Beijing in four areas – military, economy, technology, and human rights: One of the great advantages we have right now, in dealing with a very difficult government here in the People’s Republic of China, in a competitive relationship, is that we have large-scale bipartisan agreement that we ought to be competing with China for military power in the Indo-Pacific. Competing in the economic and trade sphere for a much more level playing field for American business, because it’s not level right now. We’re certainly competing on technology. And of course we defend our values. We defend human rights. We take issue, great issue, with what the Chinese have done in Xinjiang, and Tibet, and Hong Kong, with the lack of religious freedom here. And I think there’s large-scale agreement, frankly, in our country, and also between Republicans and Democrats in Congress, that we’ve got to be competing in those four areas. Burns hysterically condemned “the balloon incident”, calling it “an outright violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States”, adding that “President Biden was absolutely correct in ordering the shoot-down of that balloon”. The ambassador didn’t mention that US government experts have acknowledged that the Chinese balloon likely had crossed into US territory by accident, due to unforeseen weather conditions. He also failed to note that the US military later spent roughly $2 million to shoot down a $12 hobbyist balloon. Burns depicted Chinese tech firms as threats to US national security. “Technology is going to remain a contested area”, he insisted, stressing that “there are real limits” on the ability of “Chinese companies to invest in companies in the United States in technology areas that we deem to be important for our national security”. The ambassador gloated: The Chinese believe, the Chinese leadership, that the East is rising and that the West, particularly the United States, was declining. I think two years into this administration, and on a bipartisan basis, I can say the United States is a strengthened position in the Indo-Pacific, and now the United States and NATO, and the United States and the European Union, are beginning to see the threat from China and the competition from China in the same way. Burns also called for strengthening US military support for Taiwan, asserting, “It is our obligation, obviously, to maintain our own military strength in and around Taiwan, in this part of the world, to make sure that the Taiwan authorities have the ability to deter any kind of Chinese offensive action, now or in the future”. In a Freudian slip, the US ambassador accidentally referred to Taiwan as a “country”, stating, “We want to live in a world where big countries can’t push small countries around – or in this case, not a country, but the Taiwan authorities”. The Chamber of Commerce event highlighted the incestuous relationship between US corporations and top diplomats in the State Department. The panel was moderated by the Chamber of Commerce’s executive vice president and head of international affairs, Myron Brilliant. He opened the discussion by approvingly quoting former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who declared, “If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future”. Brilliant said, “We’re going to pose the question today: Is America still the indispensable nation? Do we have the tools we need to project our leadership in a time of economic and geopolitical uncertainty?” All of the US diplomats on the panel responded by insisting, yes, the US is still the “leader” of the world. As ambassador, Burns’ main job is to act as a liaison for US corporate interests. “Supporting U.S. businesses here in China is one of my top priorities”, Burns tweeted proudly in June 2022, after meeting with the American Chamber of Commerce in China (AmCham China). Supporting U.S. businesses here in #China is one of my top priorities. Thanks to @AmCham_China Government Affairs Conference and its 150+ participants for the opportunity to speak with you. pic.twitter.com/b4FWolrrb0 — Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) June 24, 2022 Burns collaborates very closely with representatives of US corporations, meeting with the AmCham at least once per month. I had an important meeting with @AmCham_China. We want to help the 1100 U.S. businesses here compete on a more level playing field and meet challenges from the lockdown. pic.twitter.com/RCmvajUcNL — Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) May 25, 2022 In May 2022, he complained that US corporations in China want “a more level playing field”. Upon meeting with the AmCham yet again in April, Burns reiterated, “I strongly support American businesses”. Thanks to the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai for today’s discussion with ?? companies. I strongly support American businesses and their employees as they face difficult challenges during the Shanghai lockdown. @AmChamSh pic.twitter.com/kFxPaQfRIL — Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) April 25, 2022 Burns’ pro-corporate concerns were similarly reflected in a landmark speech delivered in May 2022 by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The top US diplomat essentially declared a new containment policy toward China, while complaining about its socialist policies and “market-distorting policies and practices, like subsidies and market access barriers, which China’s government has used for years to gain competitive advantage”. Like Burns, Blinken called for a “level playing field” for US corporations, lamenting, “Unlike U.S. companies and other market-oriented firms, Chinese companies don’t need to make a profit – they just get another injection of state-owned bank credit when funds are running low”. The February 2023 Chamber of Commerce event echoed this neoliberal economic ideology. The Chamber of Commerce vice president, Brilliant, complained about China’s “emphasis on state-owned enterprises and the regulatory behavior of the government”. Referring to the US “competition” with China and Russia, Brilliant said, “I think the private sector role in this has never been more important in working with our government, and we continue to do that”. He underscored his life goal is “to work with the private sector and ensure that we continue to see that close cooperation between the public and private sector”. Brilliant also lamented that Germany is too soft on China and India is too soft on Russia. The US ambassador to Israel, Thomas Nides, who was also on the panel, spoke openly of the incestuous relationship between the Chamber of Commerce and State Department. Nides told Brilliant, with a very casual tone, “You and I are good pals. We’ve spent a lot of time talking about things. I’m honored to be your friend”. The US ambassador referred to the interaction between them as “the game”: “Listen man, you and I have known each other for a long time, we’ve had lots of fun enjoyable trips together, a lot of activity. You represent what’s great about getting in the game”. Nides continued: “As the three of us have gotten into the game at different points, you’ve been in the game at a really important time, which is that the relationship between the business community and government is critical. None of us forget that”. He added: “I’ve had the honor to be in business. I’ve had the honor to be in the government. The reality is business and government need to work together; they need to have common agendas”. As US ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns has taken a very hawkish tone. In February, when the Chinese Foreign Ministry published a devastating report called “US Hegemony and Its Perils”, documenting Washington’s crimes around the world, Burns attacked it angrily as “crude propaganda” that is “unworthy of a great power”. This is crude propaganda and unworthy of a great power. The United States remains ready for meaningful cooperation to tackle shared global challenges. https://t.co/ZsntCxDIML pic.twitter.com/AEepa7X06b — Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) February 23, 2023 Under former President George W. Bush, Burns served as US ambassador to NATO, as well as under secretary of state for political affairs, the third-most powerful position in the State Department. He is a close ally of Victoria Nuland, the neoconservative under secretary of state for political affairs. In the February 27 Chamber of Commerce vent, Burns heaped praise on Nuland, commenting on “what a pleasure it is to serve with people like Toria Nuland, who is one of my closest friends and closest partners in the US foreign service”. In her remarks on the panel, Nuland stated, “Obviously, we are now at the end of the post-Cold War period. We’re in the post-post-Cold War period”. “So to me, unfortunately, it feels a lot like it did at the beginning of my career, that we have large powers contesting the rules of the road that favor freedom. They are doing it by threatening their neighbors, by coercing countries around the world”, Nuland added. “And therefore US leadership, which has always been essential, is even more essential”, she said. Nuland left the event earlier explaining, “I gotta run off and see Canadians and work on another hot problem, which is Haiti”. Nuland has been part of a group of Western hawks pushing for military intervention in Haiti. Canada has already deployed military planes and ships to the Caribbean nation, as Haitians warn of mission creep leading to a new Western occupation of their country. Also on the February 27 Chamber of Commerce panel was US Ambassador to Israel Thomas Nides. He denounced what he called a dangerous “axis” between Iran, Russia, and China. Blasting Tehran for selling drones to Moscow, Nides warned, “If you think there’s not an axis here between Iran and Russia, and God hopefully not China, it should be a wake-up call to all of us”. The US ambassador boasted that support for Israel remains bipartisan, despite the far-right extremist government in Israel, which includes representatives of a neo-fascist party and was compared to Nazi Germany by mainstream liberal newspaper Haaretz. “We have an unbreakable bond with the state of Israel. Regardless of who the prime minister is, regardless of the situation on the ground, that is not going to change”, he reaffirmed. Nides fearmongered about Iran, saying he is collaborating closely with Israel, and “we’re working on this day and night to make sure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon”. The US ambassador expressed staunch support for the anti-government protests in Iran. Nides added, “We don’t support regime change, I guess publicly anyway”.

Write an article about: NATO seeks to prevent Eurasian challenger to US world dominance, admits ex CIA chief Mike Pompeo. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, CIA, Hudson Institute, Mike Pompeo, NATO, Russia

Neoconservative ex CIA Director and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo admitted NATO seeks to prevent a “Russian-Chinese axis” and “pan-Eurasian colossus.” He described the new cold war as a battle over “economic hegemony” and resources, in a speech outlining Washington’s imperial strategy. Neoconservative former CIA Director and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo admitted that the NATO cartel seeks to “prevent the formation of a pan-Eurasian colossus” that could challenge Washington’s empire. The United States must remain “the dominant force in the world,” and “for an awfully long time to come,” he insisted. Pompeo made it clear that the new cold war between the US-EU-NATO bloc on one side and the Eurasian bloc led by China and Russia on the other is a battle over “economic hegemony,” and is rooted in control over fossil fuels and other resources. “We must prevent the formation of a Pan-Eurasian colossus incorporating Russia, but led by China,” Pompeo implored. “To do that, we have to strengthen NATO, and we see that nothing hinders Finland and Sweden’s entry into that organization.” Neoconservative ex CIA Director and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo admitted NATO seeks to prevent a “Russian-Chinese axis” & “pan-Eurasian colossus” He described the new cold war as a fight over “economic hegemony” to maintain US dominance Full video: https://t.co/gEpcTTNtJe pic.twitter.com/oiIjaY4Kp7 — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) July 5, 2022 The former CIA and State Department chief said this in an extremely hawkish speech on June 24, titled “War, Ukraine, and a Global Alliance for Freedom.” Pompeo delivered the bellicose remarks at the Hudson Institute, a neoconservative Washington-based think tank where he serves as a “distinguished fellow.” In addition to receiving funding from the Pentagon, the Hudson Institute is financed by large corporations such as ExxonMobil and billionaire oligarchs like the Kochs and Walton family. To stop a "Pan-Eurasian colossus" from forming, @mikepompeo stresses the importance of #Finland and #Sweden joining @NATO as well as #Russia's resulting increase in military capability if they are denied entry. pic.twitter.com/er0BKvcjEK — Hudson Institute (@HudsonInstitute) June 29, 2022 Pompeo’s insistence that NATO must dedicate itself to destroying any alternatives to US unipolar hegemony exposed the hollowness of claims that the US-led military alliance is “defensive.” NATO’s professed commitment to “human rights” and “democracy” is also clearly contradicted by the fact that one of its founding members in 1949 was the fascist dictatorship of Portugal. In 2019, Pompeo quipped, “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses.” In his latest speech at the Hudson Institute this June, Pompeo mapped out a hardline US strategy for the new cold war against both Russia and China. Pompeo condemned the Joe Biden administration for ending the US military occupation of Afghanistan in 2021, after 20 years of war. He argued that “America’s undisciplined withdrawal from Afghanistan was interpreted by Vladimir Putin as a green light,” and had weakened Washington’s hegemony. Pompeo made no effort to hide his goal: continued US imperial domination of the planet, without any challengers. “In America, we live in the greatest nation in the history of civilization,” he claimed. “We are not in decline, but rather we are a nation that will be ascendant, and we will be the dominant force in the world, and a force for good in the world, as we have been for the last decades, for an awfully long time to come. You can bank on it.” In order to maintain US dominance, Pompeo forcefully detailed how the United States is waging a new cold war to contain the “Russian-Chinese axis.” As secretary of state under former President Donald Trump, “I traveled the world, alerting the world to the threat from the Chinese Communist Party,” he explained. “China stated intent is to displace the United States as the world’s preeminent power,” Pompeo claimed. “We must not ever allow the communist model for development to proliferate,” he stated. In terms of China’s economy, Pompeo said, “We should force them to become more like us.” He stressed that Washington must “do its global leadership role in confronting the Chinese Communist Party.” Pompeo’s singular obsession with kneecapping China extended beyond the country’s government to Chinese people. Using xenophobic rhetoric, he warned that the “Chinese communists” are “inside the gates.” Echoing bigoted anti-Semitic tropes, Pompeo warned of the “Chinese problem,” claiming “they have their teeth into America. They attend our school board meetings. They attend our county commission meetings.” He even complained that there were “360,000 Chinese students, pre-Covid, studying in the United States of America.” Pompeo argued there is a “necessity of forming a new global alliance for freedom, which has to contest, which must contest, both Russian and Chinese aggression.” To this end, he called for expanding the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, the anti-China alliance between the United States, Japan, India, and Australia. Pompeo said South Korea, Britain, and France should be added to the Quad. He also argued that the AUKUS military pact between the US, UK, and Australia “should be folded into this expanded security alliance,” aimed at countering China. To wage this new cold war on both China and Russia, Pompeo argued the US should base its geopolitical strategy on what he called the “three lighthouses for liberty”: Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. He proposed that “linking these three bastions with NATO, as well as the new and expanded security framework for the Indo-Pacific, will form a global alliance for freedom.” “By aiding Ukraine, we undermined the creation of a Russian-Chinese axis bent on exerting military and economic hegemony in Europe, in Asia, and in the Middle East,” he said. Pompeo boasted that the Trump administration “did not hesitate in supplying Ukraine with weapons, such as the Javelin.” He also gloated that the proxy war in Ukraine is a warning to China over Taiwan. Pompeo openly called for supporting separatism in Taiwan, declaring, “It is my steadfast view that our government should immediately confer diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, for it is a free and sovereign country.” Allowing Taiwan to remain as part of China “would severely reduce American influence in the Indo-Pacific. America’s status as a superpower would be placed in jeopardy,” he argued. Washington must maintain influence over Taiwan, Pompeo went on, because it is “a primary technological and economic partner of the United States,” and the “principle supplier of high-end semiconductors to the United States’ economy.” At the heart of the US new cold war on China and Russia is a struggle for control of resources, Mike Pompeo stressed. “It is my conviction that America and the West must acknowledge the centrality of hydrocarbon energy to the world’s geopolitics,” he said. He insisted that the United States must “regain our energy dominance.” “Energy and economic security along with military strength are the pillars upon which geostrategic power and peace rest,” he added. The former CIA and State Department chief warned that, if NATO doesn’t stop Moscow, “Russia will become a juggernaut, dominating fossil fuels.” Invoking Ronald Reagan, Pompeo described the former Soviet Union as “the evil empire.” He insisted that NATO must “prevent Russia’s reconstitution of the Soviet Empire,” because it, “if rebuilt, even in small measure, would dictate world fossil fuel supplies, causing massive economic hemorrhaging in America and throughout the globe, affecting every single American.” Pompeo transparently described the conflict in Ukraine as a proxy war, arguing it serves US interests because it weakens Russia while US soldiers don’t have to put their lives on the line. He condemned the idea of peace talks, maintaining, “America and the nations of the world cannot continue the pretense that the war in Ukraine can end in a negotiated peace, which mollifies Russia, for such a peace cannot be negotiated with Vladimir Putin. Ukraine must win this war. It must win this war decisively.” “The war can be won,” he claimed. “This war can be won if America and our allies supply a range of our most capable conventional weapons to Kiev.” Pompeo called for providing Ukraine a “surface to air missile system that engage both aircraft and missiles.” He also heaped praise on Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, likening him to George Washington. Pompeo was clear that Ukraine should be added to NATO, claiming it is “silly” that it would cross Russia’s security redlines. “I’m not worried about escalation,” he said. He also called for the further militarization of Europe, chiding, “They need to do some soldiering.” Pompeo proudly credited the US government for overthrowing the Soviet Union, in a bipartisan anti-communist crusade during the first cold war. “Nine, count them, nine American presidents from each of our political parties, nine American presidents dismembered the Soviet empire, at enormous great human cost,” he said. “To allow it to even begin to be reconstituted is unthinkable.” While much of his speech was devoted to how the United States is a force for “freedom,” “democracy,” and “human rights,” Pompeo also insisted that Washington should strengthen its alliance with the dictatorial absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia, in the name of countering the “Iranian regime,” which he described as a kind of Biblical “evil.”

Write an article about: Report: Over 1.2 million killed in US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Afghanistan, Hans von Sponeck, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Iraq

At least 1.2 million people were killed in 12 years of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a scientific report by the Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. No fewer than 1.2 million people were killed in 12 years of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a scientific report. The study Body Count: Casualty Figures after 10 Years of the “War on Terror” was authored by the Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). The executive summary of the report reads (emphasis added): The purpose of this investigation is to provide as realistic an estimate as possible of the total body count in the three main war zones Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan during 12 years of ‘war on terrorism’. An extensive review has been made of the major studies and data published on the numbers of victims in these countries. This paper draws on additional information such as reports and statistics on military offensives and examines their completeness and plausibility. It applies interpolation to calculate the figures for those periods for which no information is available. Even now, 13 years after this war began, there has still been no equivalent study. This investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, i.e. a total of around 1.3 million. Not included in this figure are further war zones such as Yemen. The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated by the media and major NGOs. And this is only a conservative estimate. The total number of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely. Dr. Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general and UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, detailed in the preface of the report how official US government figures for deaths and injuries are grossly underestimated. “Governments and civil society know now that on all counts these assertions have proved to be preposterously false,” von Sponeck wrote. “Facts are indeed stubborn.” Physicians for Social Responsibility, the US affiliate of IPPNW, added, “Unfortunately, these deaths have been effectively hidden from our collective consciousness and consciences by political leaders seeking to pursue military solutions to complex global issues with little, if any, accountability.” The report also estimates that — once again, in a conservative estimate — the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost at least $3 trillion tax dollars. Today, the conditions of life for peoples in both nations are significantly worse. Former Afghan parliamentarian Malalai Joya lamented in a 2013 interview that, in her country, “imperialism and fundamentalism has joined hands.” Joya said: [The] consequences of the 12 years of occupation of U.S. and NATO, unfortunately, was more bloodshed, crimes, women rights, human rights violations, looting of our resource and changing of our country into mafia state, as during these 12 bloody years tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed by occupation forces and terrorist groups. Afghanistan remains under US occupation, in spite of Obama’s constant insistence he would remove troops by 2014. In Iraq, the government was completely destroyed. Al-Qaeda had no significant presence in the country when the US invaded; it was the illegal US occupation that brought extremists into Iraq. The chaos of the US war and occupation destabilized not just Iraq, but the entire Middle East, eventually leading to the rise of ISIS, the Frankenstein’s monster of US war. In the horrific 9/11 attacks, 2,977 Americans were killed. The US government responded to this act of terror with a merciless campaign of state terror. In the subsequent “War on Terror” and the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq — the latter of which had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks — more than 1.2 million Iraqis and Afghans were killed. This is a ratio of more than 400 to one.

Write an article about: UK foreign secretary demands Russia ‘withdraw’ troops from Russia, confuses it for Ukraine. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Britain, Liz Truss, Russia, Sergey Lavrov, UK, Ukraine, United Kingdom

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Liz Truss demanded that Russia “withdraw” troops from its own sovereign territory, confusing it for Ukraine. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said it was “like speaking to a deaf person,” and “facts bounce off” (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) The British government has become an international laughing stock after its foreign secretary demanded that Russia “withdraw” troops from its own territory. The UK’s top diplomat then confused Russian territory for Ukraine, and insisted that Moscow did not have sovereignty over its southern regions. On February 9, British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss arrived in the Russian capital to meet with her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov. In a tweet, Truss demanded that “Russia must immediately withdraw its forces and respect Ukraine’s sovereignty or face severe consequences.” Truss appeared to be confused, because Moscow does not have troops in Ukrainian territory. Russian troops have been deployed near the Ukrainian border, but they are firmly in Russian sovereign territory, so it was unclear how Moscow could “withdraw” them from its own country. In Moscow to meet Foreign Minister Lavrov and make clear that Russia must immediately withdraw its forces and respect Ukraine’s sovereignty or face severe consequences. Any incursion would be a huge mistake. Diplomacy is the only way forward and Russia must pursue that path. pic.twitter.com/weIAnr60Nh — Liz Truss (@trussliz) February 9, 2022 Truss is an avowedly right-wing politician from the Conservative Party. She has served in several different ministries in the UK, but has little foreign policy experience. Her lack of diplomatic skills was made painfully clear in a closed-door meeting she held with Foreign Minister Lavrov on February 10. Lavrov said it was very strange that Moscow was being asked to withdraw Russian troops from Russia, adding that what his country does inside its own territory is “not her business.” Lavrov asked Truss, according to a report in the newspaper Kommersant, if she recognized Russian sovereignty over the two southern regions of Voronezh and Rostov, where Moscow has troops. The UK foreign secretary replied confidently, “We will never recognize Russian sovereignty over these regions.” The British ambassador to Russia was then forced to correct Truss, pointing out that these regions are part of Russia, not Ukraine. Lavrov, one of the world’s most experienced and respected diplomats, dismissed his British counterpart as a neophyte who was way out of her depth. The Russian foreign minister said it was “like speaking to a deaf person who listens but does not hear,” and “facts bounce off.” “They say Russia is waiting until the ground freezes like a stone so its tanks can easily cross into Ukrainian territory,” Lavrov quipped, in comments translated by Reuters. “I think the ground was like that today with our British colleagues, from which numerous facts that we produced bounced off.” Lavrov added that UK-Russia relations “are probably at their lowest in many years now.” The United States and Britain have pushed aggressively for conflict with Russia over Ukraine, insisting without presenting any evidence that Moscow plans to invade its neighbor. The Ukrainian government, on the other hand, has repeatedly made it clear that it disagrees with Washington and London, maintaining that Russia does not have plans to invade. The UK foreign secretary’s confusion of Russian and Ukrainian territory is by no means the only embarrassing blunder made at this moment of high tensions. On February 4, the major US media outlet Bloomberg, owned and run by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, falsely reported that Russia invaded Ukraine, before quickly issuing a retraction.

Write an article about: Ukraine crisis is part of new cold war on Russia (and China). Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

AUKUS, China, Europe, France, Germany, Japan, Quad, Russia, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping

The US-manufactured crisis in Ukraine is part of the NATO drive to subordinate Europe, to prevent its tilt toward the China-Russia partnership and the Eurasian powers’ attempt to build a new multipolar world. As Russia has maintained its stand against NATO expansion, the United States, it seems, is prepared to escalate the situation to the brink of war. Why is Washington choosing to stoke a conflict with Russia, when it has declared China its greatest strategic rival? To grasp the full significance of this moment of crisis over Ukraine, it has to be understood in the wider global context. Speaking for the new cold warriors, British Conservative Member of Parliament Tobias Ellwood raised the warning flag: Today, non-western civilisations such as Russia and China are starting to shake up the old world order. … We are standing at the precipice of a new era in global uncertainty. If we blink now, the events of 2022 will determine how the next decade plays out. Russia must be opposed, we are told, not least because of its growing alliance with China. This indeed is more than a crisis over the future of Europe: it is about the future of the world order – but not in terms of Ellwood’s great power rivalry, rather in the context of a relative decline of US unipolarity and the rise of a multipolar trend. At this point in time the very legitimacy of US leadership as the world’s essential “deterrent” power against the world’s so-called “dictators” is on the line. The debacle surrounding the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, compounded by the lack of consultation with European allies on the announcement of the AUKUS (Australia – United Kingdom – United States) alliance have raised serious doubts around the world about US reliability. Faced with the Ukraine crisis, Washington now has to show that it is back. Should it fail or be seen to back down, this would reinforce the perception of US decline. This matters not least in the Indo-Pacific. There the US has been expanding its military reach – from Obama’s “Asian pivot” to the ramping up of “freedom of navigation” exercises in the South China Sea. Biden’s “new multilateralism” has seen the widening involvement of partners in its naval exercises around China’s coast and the strengthening of the Quad – a security alliance of the US, Australia, Japan and India. This follows AUKUS, and a US-Japan, then an Australia-Japan agreement on military cooperation. New defence deals between Japan and the UK and France may presage further NATO linkages into Asia region. At the same time Biden has shifted US focus toward Taiwan. Reneging on its promises to Russia not to expand NATO eastward, the Biden administration is now inching away from the “One China policy,” the very basis of US-China diplomatic relations. What happens over Ukraine may well set precedents for these Indo-Pacific developments. If the US and NATO uphold Ukraine’s supposed right to choose its alliances, this may embolden demands for Taiwanese independence. Conversely, a rollback in the supply of arms and military trainers to Ukraine from outside may work against the US moves to “partner” Taiwan through increased arms sales and US training of Taiwanese military. Any scaling back of NATO’s military architecture might discourage support for AUKUS expansion. And it could lend weight to China’s requirement that, under a South China Sea Code Of Conduct with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), joint military exercises involving countries outside the region should have the prior consent of all parties to the agreement. Underlying Biden’s new cold war, with China identified as the main challenger, is the realisation by strategists that the US cannot effectively contain the rising power on its own. Hence the effort to forge an “alliance of democracies to confront the world’s autocracies.” While superficially multilateral in form, this remains a unipolar strategy in essence, aimed at maintaining US global primacy. The new cold war narrative problematises Russia and China as aggressive and expansionist powers, to present US leadership as the solution to “defend democracy” in an uncertain world. What Presidents Xi and Putin want, the argument goes, is to make the world safe for autocracy: theirs is a quest to divide the world order, carving out their own spheres of influence. Both aspire, it is claimed, to restore the former glory of their empires, and in doing so, threaten democratic space within their respective regions and defy the “rules-based international order.” By denying Ukraine’s supposed sovereign right to join the NATO military alliance, Russia seeks to limit NATO influence and hence the US role in Europe. Similarly, by insisting on its claims in the South China Sea (in contravention a UNCLOS ruling about which not all legal experts have agreed) and warning Taiwan over its assertions to be a self-governing democratic island, China endeavours not only to push the US out of the Pacific but to displace it entirely as the unipolar global hegemon. In this new cold war narrative, NATO and now AUKUS are “defensive” alliances, essential to “stabilising” Europe and the Indo-Pacific respectively. What is more, the argument goes, given the brittle nature of their “autocracies,” Russia and China alike are supposedly channeling domestic anxieties into an aggressive nationalism. According to NATO’s logic, this makes them both extremely dangerous. Stoking their new cold war drive further is the perception of US weakness. This demands not diplomacy, but a show of strength. It is the logic of this NATO narrative, reinforced by the media and think tanks, that is raising the stakes in the Ukraine so high. The US has to prove itself as a force capable of confronting the so-called “dictators” of the world, according to this new cold war argument. Giving ground to Russia would cripple US deterrence against Iran or North Korea and, worse, signal the green light to purported Chinese expansionism. This relentless new cold war propaganda is in complete disregard the facts: Russia and China are both surrounded by US military bases and US missiles. While US military spending is three to four times greater than China’s, it is 16 times that of Russia. With the odds so stacked against them, neither country is likely to try to take on the US. If the US is looking to its European allies to take on the greater burden of containing Russia, so as to leave it free to concentrate its forces on China, the aim is also to pile pressure on Europe to adopt the cold war “military first” agenda – even at the expense of their economic interests. The point is that an alternative future is opening for the Europeans through the development of Eurasian integration. The growing economic relationship between Russia and China – through trade, currency swap arrangements, and energy deals – is further driving the new cross-regional dynamic. Both powers are reaching out to Europe: China through the Belt and Road Initiative and the EU-China Comprehensive Investment Agreement (now on hold), and Russia with its Eurasian Economic Union and Greater Eurasian Partnership. Lest the Europeans look east to their future, the US must drive a cold war wedge between Europe and Russia, as well as between Europe and China. US efforts to impose a ban on the Chinese tech giant Huawei were the tip of the iceberg. More is to come in terms of demands for greater trade and investment controls. What Washington seeks is to restrict China’s growth, and at the same time reverse its own decline by blocking cooperation between China and Europe, thereby making European markets captive to US core technologies, as it races against China for control over the key technologies of the fourth industrial revolution, from AI to quantum computing. The success of Biden’s new cold war “multilateralism” turns on the position of Europe. So the Ukraine crisis is being used as a lever to bring about unity among Europeans in a way not seen before – in the coordination of Iran-stye sanctions and military integration. This makes it all the easier, then, to follow the US in decoupling from China. The new US bid for global primacy is widely disrupting long-established patterns of regional ordering. NATO expansion has jettisoned the common security of the 1975 Helsinki Accords, and now all pressure is on to enlist Germany in the new cold war, demolishing its historical reluctance to get involved in military ventures. Likewise, the US strategy has brought Article 9 of Japan’s constitution, the “Peace Clause,” to breaking point, as this second major power in the East is urged to accept a more active military role. Across Asia, the cornerstones of the post-colonial order, which have exercised a certain constraint on US dominance, are being eroded: the division between the Gulf States and Israel over Palestine in the Middle East, for example; or the principle of non-alignment long held by India; or Southeast Asia’s military independence. A lengthy joint statement released by Russia and China this February, however, offers an outline for an alternative: a multipolar world. This historic declaration marks for the first time China’s opposition to further enlargement of NATO. But there is a great deal more substance to the initiative. Far from seeking their own exclusive spheres of influence, Russia and China set out a world order based on indivisible security, in which “no state can or should ensure its own security separately from the security of the rest of the world and at the expense of the security of other states.” In their call for demilitarisation, common concern is expressed over US plans to develop global missile defence, while the demand for the withdrawal of all nuclear weapons deployed abroad is endorsed. Support for the G20, BRICS, SCO, ASEAN, the East Asia Summit, and the Russia–India–China dialogue marks out the multipolar frame, one not of separation but greater interconnectedness between the Asia-Pacific and Eurasian regions. Stability is seen to lie in prioritising sustainable development, achievable through multipolarisation, but “with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role.” Equal access to the right to development together with the right to choice of development path and a more democratic international system of rule-making are essential in opposition to a one-size-fits-all development model. What has brought the world to this historic turning point is not a revanchist nationalism in both Russia and China. Rather, global stability is put at risk by the relentless drive of the US expansionism, imposing ideological dividing lines to establish exclusive blocs and alliances. In this trial of strength between a unipolar and a multipolar world, the US has not only to counter Russia’s and China’s demands for recognition as major powers, but also more widely to subordinate regional organisation in Europe and Asia to prevent their tilt toward the Russia-China initiative. The Ukraine crisis is a crucial moment in forging a new cold war coalition, as a step further in building an anti-China consensus. With US leadership credibility hanging in the balance, Biden’s international position is only as strong as its Atlantic alliance. A reluctant Europe may act as a brake on US ambitions. Thus the Russian threat is being hugely over-inflated, to break what remains of the European will to resist militarisation. The US ploy of provoking Russia into overplaying its hand has bet on Putin acting like a dictator according to whim. However the joint Putin-Xi statement has drawn attention to the wider context, forcing Western warmongers, as they threaten massive sanctions, to take stock of Russia’s options in its strengthening relations with China. What is in contention are two conflicting world agendas: the US new cold war militarisation on one side against a multipolar order now driven by Russia and China together, framed by the UN with sustainable development at its heart. For the Europeans, adopting the US agenda will mean commitment to perpetual military upgrading. But would they on the other hand rather see themselves better off with a peaceful and prosperous Russia, engaging in a Silk Road-type trade, reaching across to China and to East and Southeast Asia, working together in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)? The outcome of the standoff over Ukraine is going to determine not just the balance of power in Europe but the shaping of the world order in years to come, as US allies, partners, and adversaries alike look to adjust their positions in accordance with the shifting powers of the hegemon.

Write an article about: Latin American socialists unite with Iran-led Axis of Resistance against Western imperialism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

ALBA, Bolivarian Alliance, Daniel Ortega, Denis Moncada, Ebrahim Raisi, Gaza, Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, Hugo Chávez, Iran, Libya, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Megasis, Nicaragua, Palestine, Sacha Llorenti, Syria, Venezuela

The leftist governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia have found a key strategic ally in Iran, the heart of the Axis of Resistance. (This article was written for Al Mayadeen English.) Revolutionary socialist movements in Latin America are developing closer relations with anti-imperialist resistance forces in West Asia, building a united front against Western aggression and exploitation. This budding alliance is an extremely important development in the struggle against an authoritarian international political and economic system that is essentially a global dictatorship, ruled by the United States and its junior imperialist partners in the European Union, NATO, apartheid “Israel”, and the Gulf monarchies. As this Washington-led, trans-Atlantic hegemonic order was constructed over the past century, through a long series of wars, military occupations, foreign interventions, coups, regime-change operations, assassinations, and grossly unequal trade arrangements, two regions of the world have been especially targeted: Latin America and the Middle East, or more accurately West Asia. Both regions have plentiful natural resources and are very geostrategically located. Latin America has vast mineral reserves and agricultural products. West Asia has a plurality of the planet’s hydrocarbon reserves, and connects Europe to Asia, sitting right in the middle of what geopolitical analysts have long called the “World Island.” Given their status as principal targets of Western imperialism, it only makes sense for resistance forces in these regions to unite. Attempts at forming such an alliance had been made in the past — revolutionary Palestinian militants trained in Cuba and with Nicaragua’s Sandinistas, for instance, and Muammar al-Qaddafi’s Libya supported leftist Latin American guerrillas — but this collaboration was historically limited in scope. That is, until recently. As the United States accelerated its hybrid warfare to try to re-colonize Latin America and West Asia in the 2000s, indigenous anti-imperialist movements in both regions joined forces, forging not only close political ties, but economic relations as well. The leftist governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia have found a key strategic ally in Iran, the heart of the Axis of Resistance. The director of the main instrument of Latin American economic integration, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, known simply as the ALBA, took a historic trip to Tehran this August to meet with the new Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi. “Iran and the ALBA have a lot in common, and both seek to defend the independence and sovereignty of nations and confront the outrageousness of the United States,” remarked the ALBA’s executive secretary, the Bolivian diplomat Sacha Llorenti. Tuve el privilegio y el honor de sostener una reunión con S. E. Seyed Ebrahim Raisi, Presidente de la República Islámica de Irán. Extendimos las felicitaciones del @ALBATCP por su posesión, conversamos sobre nuestras coincidencias y la agenda en común. pic.twitter.com/atFubJwErM — Sacha Llorenti (@SachaLlorenti) August 4, 2021 For his part, Raisi kicked off his new administration calling for strengthening relations with Latin America, stressing that it is one of Tehran’s top foreign-policy priorities. “Iran is determined to develop its political and economic relations with the member states of the ALBA-TCP,” Raisi said, highlighting “the shared values and positions of both parties.” “There is no doubt that a greater development of the relations between Iran and Latin American countries can halt the North Americans and other arrogant countries,” Raisi added. Joining Llorenti in Tehran were top officials from Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia — all member states of the ALBA. In a meeting with Venezuela’s vice president of planning, Ricardo Menéndez, Raisi stated that “ Iran and Venezuela alike have common interests and enemies. We have always shown that with resistance and wisdom, we can thwart the plots of the United States and world imperialism.” #MásTemprano || VP Planificación de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, @rmenendezp sostuvo un encuentro con el Pdte de la República Islámica de Irán, Ebrahim Raisi, en el Palacio Blanco, con la finalidad de estrechar las relaciones entre ambas naciones.#LaClaveEsVacunarse pic.twitter.com/dYbItJBGW6 — MinPlanificación (@MPPPlanifica) August 4, 2021 Nicaragua’s Foreign Minister Denis Moncada met with Raisi as well, and called for strengthening relations with Tehran. The Iranian president praised the Central American nation’s Sandinista government as a model of resistance against US aggression, and said, “The people of Iran have always wished for success and victory for the revolutionary nation of Nicaragua.” Likewise, in his meeting with Raisi, Bolivian Foreign Minister Rogelio Mayta pledged to work more closely with Iran, stating, “Despite sabotage by the United States, we are determined to increase the level of relations with Tehran in all areas.” Iran’s support for revolutionary governments in Latin America goes beyond mere words. While many liberal and center-left political forces in the region have opportunistically turned their back on Venezuela, betraying their neighbor on behalf of Washington, Tehran has shown real, tangible support for Caracas. Both Venezuela and Iran are suffering from illegal US blockades, and these murderous sanctions have led to a shortage of food, medicine, and gasoline. (Venezuela has massive oil reserves, but it is some of the heaviest crude petrol on the planet, which cannot be used or exported without first being refined, so Caracas needs to import lighter crude or other materials that are blocked by Washington.) To help meet the needs of the Venezuelan people, Iran has repeatedly defied the criminal US blockade and delivered supplies to Caracas, sending huge tankers full of food, medicine, and fuel. In these altruistic acts, Tehran has valiantly risked US military aggression, putting its money where its mouth is to support the revolutionary government and people of Venezuela. Iran has also opened a supermarket chain in Venezuela, called Megasis, to help support an ally that is heavily reliant on food imports. It is part of a larger strategy to boost bilateral trade and economic cooperation between both nations. The brotherhood between Venezuela and Iran was most poignantly illustrated at the 2013 funeral of President Hugo Chávez, who initiated the Bolivarian Revolution. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was photographed hugging and consoling the Venezuelan Comandante’s crying mother. In the last 400 years the world powers have either slandered or assassinated the character of the champions of freedom, and independence. Chavez is alive until freedom, justice, and humanity is alive. God bless Him. pic.twitter.com/x08q2HH58K — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (@Ahmadinejad1956) March 8, 2020 Revolutionary Latin American governments have also sought to collaborate more closely with other forces in the West Asian Axis of Resistance. Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia vociferously opposed and condemned the US-led imperialist proxy wars against Libya and Syria, which expressly sought the collapse of the nations’ central governments, and succeeded in the former while failing in the latter. Similarly, these ALBA member states have all shown unflinching solidarity with Palestine. In response to apartheid “Israel’s” 2008–2009 massacre in Gaza, Venezuelan President Chávez officially broke ties with the Zionist regime, denouncing it as a “genocidal state” and “the murderous arm of the US government.” Then in 2010, in a daring challenge to Washington’s declaration that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea constituted a supposed “Axis of Evil,” Comandante Chávez announced an alliance with Syria, which he dubbed the “Axis of the Brave”. The Axis of the Brave was a “strategic alliance” against US imperialism, Chávez explained. “A new world is being built,” and “we seek a strategic relationship with that continent,” the Venezuelan president said, referring to West Asia. Less than a year after Chávez’s announcement, the United States and its proxies launched a devastating decade-long regime-change war on Syria — one that continues today, with more than one-third of Syria’s sovereign territory, seizing most of its oil and wheat reserves, illegally militarily occupied by the United States in the northeast and NATO member Turkey in the northwest. Chávez’s defense of and alliance with Syria against Western aggression led to the inauguration this March of a monument at the University of Damascus. #8M2021 #DiaInternacionalDeLaMujer Que mejor día que hoy para conmemorar, en la Universidad de Damasco #Siria, el 8vo aniversario de la siembra de ese gran feminista que fue nuestro Comandante Chávez. Siempre reivindicó el rol fundamental de la mujer en la sociedad. pic.twitter.com/slfIS2AyaY — José Gregorio Biomorgi Muzattiz (@Jose_Biomorgi) March 8, 2021 Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, the leader of the revolutionary Sandinista Liberation Front, has likewise steadfastly defended Syria and “ condemned all forms of aggression by foreign powers that attack the sovereignty and self-determination of the [Syrian] people, in clear and flagrant violation of international law.” During the 2011 NATO regime-change war that intentionally collapsed the state of Libya and unleashed open-air slave markets, Nicaragua’s Sandinista government staunchly opposed Western imperial aggression. As NATO bombed Libya, the US government refused to give a visa to the North African nation’s United Nations delegate. So in response, Nicaragua’s former foreign minister, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, announced he would represent Libya at the UN. (Washington then tried to block D’Escoto’s representation too.) Axis of Resistance forces in Yemen has returned the solidarity. The de facto government in northern Yemen, ruled by the revolutionary Houthi movement, known officially as Ansarallah, has staunchly defended Venezuela against US aggression. In a 2015 interview, a senior Ansarallah member declared, “We support Chávez in Venezuela.” When Washington initiated another coup attempt in Venezuela in February 2019, Ansarallah and leftist parties in Yemen held a protest condemning US interference. The Houthi movement that governs northern Yemen, known officially as Ansar Allah, joined leftist parties in expressing solidarity with Venezuela against a US coup attempt. Demonstrations like these dispel misleading corporate media narratives about Yemenhttps://t.co/0KGgM2ZHcX — The Grayzone (@TheGrayzoneNews) September 13, 2020 Latin American socialist governments and the Axis of Resistance in West Asia are the vanguards in the struggle to build a new, truly multipolar world based on national sovereignty and self-determination. Together, they are helping to construct a truly multilateral order that challenges the authoritarian, unilateral, and brutally violent system created and controlled by the United States and its junior partners in imperialism. This was further illustrated in July, when these nations launched an anti-imperialist alliance inside the United Nations, called the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter. Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia were joined by Iran, Syria, and Palestine, as well as the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, Algeria, the DPRK, Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Belarus, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The anti-imperialist Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter launched yesterday, featuring:AlgeriaAngolaBelarusBoliviaCambodiaChinaCubaDPRKEqui. GuineaEritreaIranLaosNicaraguaPalestineRussiaSaint Vincent and GrenadinesSyriaVenezuelahttps://t.co/4vc9sbpOlR pic.twitter.com/ErFDIed7cW — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 7, 2021 The economic partnership between member states of the Bolivarian Alliance and Iran likewise serves as a model for South-South integration that not only weakens Western imperial hegemony, but also helps to develop these countries in their mutual interests. The ALBA was itself created to remove the middleman of the United States, so that Latin American nations could trade with each other and strengthen their own domestic economies, cutting out the North American corporations that want them to be dependent on imports. The historic, 25-year, $400 billion agreement Iran signed with China this March was another crucially important step in building alternative economic structures to weaken Washington’s dominance. Similarly, the announcement that Cuba and Iran will work together to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines exemplifies how this South-South partnership can help overcome the global pandemic. If Latin America and West Asia can create a coherent formal alliance with China and Russia, it could pose a serious challenge to the imperialist US-EU-NATO axis. As the United States accelerates its new cold war on China and Russia, such a coalition will only become more urgent. Originally published at Al Mayadeen English on August 17, 2021

Write an article about: US-backed Saudi bombing killing most Yemeni civilians in years, despite Biden’s false claim to end war. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Ansarallah, Houthis, Joe Biden, Saudi Arabia, Yemen

President Biden claimed he would end the war on Yemen, but US-backed Saudi bombing has escalated. A Yemeni civilian is now killed or injured every hour on average, the highest casualty level since 2018. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) US President Joe Biden repeatedly claimed that he would end the war on Yemen, which has created the largest humanitarian crisis on Earth. But in reality, US-backed Saudi bombing of the poorest country in West Asia has reached the highest level in years, under the watch of the Biden administration. Yemeni civilians are paying the price, with one killed or wounded every hour, according to an analysis by Save the Children. The humanitarian organization said January 2022 was the deadliest month in Yemen since 2018. From January 6 to February 2, more than 200 adults and 15 children were killed in Yemen. Another 354 adults and 30 children were injured. Save the Children acknowledged that this is a conservative estimate, and the actual casualty figure is likely higher. Oxfam reported that at least 43 US-backed Saudi airstrikes hit civilian targets in Yemen in January 2022. “Most of these were on houses and farms, destroying homes and businesses that will take many years to rebuild,” the aid group wrote. PRESS RELEASE: Nearly one civilian was killed or injured every hour in #Yemen last month, making January the deadliest month since 2018, according to a new analysis by Save the Children. https://t.co/qRsoqEBCqo — Save the Children Global Media (@Save_GlobalNews) February 11, 2022 March 2022 will mark the seventh anniversary of the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen. During his 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden promised he would end this conflict. Then in February 2021, the newly inaugurated president claimed he was terminating US support for Saudi “offensive” operations in Yemen. Biden did not mention that the war is offensive by its very nature, given that Riyadh started it in March 2015 by launching a bombing campaign on its southern neighbor. It is widely acknowledged that Saudi Arabia would not be able to wage this war on Yemen were it not for the military, political, and logistical support it receives from the United States and Britain, not to mention the many billions of dollars worth of planes, missiles, bombs, and other weapons these two countries have sold to the Gulf monarchy. Even centrist Washington, DC-based think tanks that are closely linked to the US national security state, such as the Brookings Institution, have spoken openly of “Biden’s broken promise on Yemen.” The Biden administration has continued selling military technology to Saudi Arabia as it kills Yemeni civilians. This January, Saudi Arabia attacked a detention center in Yemen with a Raytheon laser-guided bomb, killing at least 91 people and wounding 236 more. Saudi Arabia attacked a detention center in Yemen with a US-made laser-guided bomb from Raytheon, killing 91 people and injuring 236. President Joe Biden claimed he'd end US support for Saudi bombing of Yemen, but has not. Instead he sold it more weaponshttps://t.co/vMZyz5Ahsv — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) January 30, 2022 Meanwhile, international institutions are doing little to nothing to try to stop the bloodshed in Yemen. The Norwegian Refugee Council warned that the number of civilians killed or injured in Yemen has nearly doubled since the UN Human Rights Council voted to end its monitoring of the conflict in October 2021. “In the four months before the end of the human rights monitoring, 823 civilians were injured or killed in the war. In the four months that followed, it was 1,535 civilians,” the refugee council reported, citing data from the Civilian Impact Monitoring Project. In this period, the number of civilian casualties caused by US-backed Saudi airstrikes increased by 39 times. Instead of pressuring its ally Saudi Arabia to end the war, the Biden administration is considering reverting to the policies of Donald Trump, by hitting the Yemeni indigenous resistance group Ansarallah, known popularly as the Houthis, with a so-called “terrorist” designation.

Write an article about: Brazil’s ex-president Dilma Rousseff: US-China conflict is neoliberalism vs socialism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Brazil, BRICS, China, Dilma Rousseff, economics, neoliberalism, Russia, Ukraine

Former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff analyzes the US-China conflict as “a rivalry of two systems,” a struggle between neoliberalism and socialism. Condemning US sanctions and “dollar hegemony,” she called for Latin America “to break with the Monroe Doctrine.” Brazil’s former president Dilma Rousseff has condemned US meddling and “hybrid war” in Latin America, while simultaneously praising China for creating a new model of economic development that challenges US-led neoliberal capitalism and the “Washington Consensus” imposed on the world. “We want, basically, to be able to break with the Monroe Doctrine,” Rousseff said, referring to the nearly 200-year-old colonial doctrine in which the US government claims Latin America as its geopolitical “backyard.” “We want Latin America to be for the Latin Americans, and not as the US wants it, in the Monroe Doctrine, which means Latin America for the North Americans, precisely the opposite,” the former Brazilian head of state added. “The so-called hybrid war unleashed by the US through second-generation coups, lawfare processes, and sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela led to a great setback, returning to the continent the inequality, misery, and hunger that had been overcome, or that it was about to get over,” she lamented. A leader of the left-wing Workers’ Party, Rousseff served as president of Brazil from 2011 until August 2016, when she was overthrown in a soft coup backed by the US government and her country’s powerful right-wing corporate oligarchy. Rousseff spoke about the increasing conflict between the United States and China not as a mere interstate dispute, but rather the result of “a rivalry of two systems”: US-led neoliberal capitalism versus socialism with Chinese characteristics. “The so-called Washington Consensus, a concept adopted by conservative Latin American governments, imposed the deregulation of the economy, the drastic reduction of the role of the state, and the abandonment of social and development policies,” she said. These neoliberal capitalists “condemned Latin America to be the most unequal continent in the world, with reduced economic growth, concentration of wealth and income, and specialization in the production of raw materials,” Rousseff commented. The former Brazilian president praised China for creating a “new development paradigm” based on “shared development” and “common prosperity.” China and Russia are also leading the development of a “new geopolitical pole,” she said, and this offers opportunities for Latin America to be more independent. Rousseff made these comments in a panel event on March 19, a virtual conference titled “21st Century Socialism: China and Latin America on the Frontline,” organized by the group Friends of Socialist China. Geopolitical Economy Report obtained a copy of Rousseff’s Portuguese-language prepared speech, and has translated some of her key points into English below. “Brazil always had a position of absolute independence with regard to international relations, with all countries in the world,” Dilma Rousseff emphasized at the beginning of her talk. “Latin America wants to have an autonomous and independent position,” she said. “It is not possible to continue reproducing the inferiority complex of the conservative elites and oligarchies that have done nothing but submit to the United States in a shameful way.” Rousseff argued that China has played an important role in balancing Latin America’s political and economic relationships, so the region is not so dominated by Washington. In this sense, Beijing has helped the region maintain independence and strategic autonomy. China is Brazil’s largest trade partner, and the largest trade partner for many other countries in the region, she noted. “Latin America’s position is not with the United States,” she stressed. “Latin America’s position affirms sovereignty, our position is independence, at the side of China. And this independence is not just for individual countries; it’s for the region.” Rousseff emphasized the importance of institutions like the BRICS, the framework integrating Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The BRICS “sought to reduce this unfair asymmetry” represented by institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, which are dominated by the United States and Global North countries, she noted. “Compared to the US, China has more respect for the role played by international organizations,” Rousseff added. Beijing defends multilateralism while Washington has attacked the United Nations and withdrew unilaterally from the Paris Agreement, she recalled. Unlike the United States, Rousseff argued, China has been a more equitable partner. And leaders in the Global South are increasingly looking to Beijing for lessons on how to develop their own countries. Dilma Rousseff applauded China for its “extraordinary development,” and for lifting more than 800 million people out of absolute poverty. She noted how China was an exemplary model for managing the Covid-19 pandemic, juxtaposing it against the public health disaster in the United States, where nearly 1 million people have died. China’s success in the pandemic, and its leading role in sending vaccines and protective equipment around the world, reflects its relative rise, whereas Washington’s failure shows its comparative decline, Rousseff argued. The former Brazilian president traced the beginning of Washington’s new cold war on Beijing back to the 2008 financial crisis. While the West was suffering, the crash did not significantly affect China, Rousseff noted. This led US elites to decide that China had to be contained; its economy had to stop growing so rapidly. The Barack Obama administration’s attempt to create a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was aimed at economically isolating China, she stated. Rousseff called this part of a larger US “containment policy,” and argued it is “extremely flawed and harmful to everyone.” US policy toward China subsequently “became very aggressive” under Donald Trump, and while the Joe Biden administration has tried to portray itself as more “diplomatic,” she noted, Washington has still pushed a needlessly hard line against China. Speaking of the US “prejudice” toward China, Dilma Rousseff noted that Western politicians have espoused chauvinistic views that China, or any other nation, could not develop without adopting their own model based on the free market and liberal democracy. Although she refrained from referring to the conflict as a new cold war, the former Brazilian leader stipulated that the crisis in US-China relations is a result of their two contrasting economic systems. “China has become a kind of factory for the world, while the US has de-industrialized, losing economic muscle and transforming itself into a kingdom of finance, with a fantastic concentration of income and wealth.” Neoliberalism is specifically what “laid the foundations for the decline of the US,” Rousseff said. There are three serious problems caused by neoliberalism, she argued: “the financialization of the economy, the increase in income and wealth inequality, and the erosion of democracy.” And these ills “are prevalent in all capitalist countries.” “The biggest problem with this system is the widening gap between rich and poor,” Rousseff cautioned. She cited Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who “admitted that 40 years of neoliberal practices have severely weakened the role of the state and public health policies, rendering the West helpless in the face of the pandemic.” “China is accelerating its policy toward a society where equity prevails,” she said, “while in capitalist countries, including the US, per capita income has concentrated and jobs have stagnated or shrunk. Social wealth is rapidly concentrated and the richest 1% is getting even richer.” “The financialization of the economy as a result of neoliberalism is the culprit that kills the dynamism of the capitalist system itself. Credit and finance gradually become obstacles rather than driving forces of production.” “The pursuit of limited government, uncontrolled labor market liberalization and the pursuit of profits lead to a rapid accumulation of financial wealth for those at the top of the social pyramid and de-industrializes the economy.” Rousseff contrasted these systemic problems of neoliberal capitalism with the alternative proposed by Beijing. “China’s strength lies in its pursuit of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics,” she argued. “This path follows the law of the market, but attaches strategic importance to the role of the state.” “The market mechanism and macro-regulation complement each other in China. Open to domestic and foreign private investment, it has increasingly controlled the distortions of oligopoly and speculation.” Chinese “regulation of economic activity acts to preserve competition and avoid financial bubbles and market distortions,” while the state ensures stability with “tighter control over real estate and tutorial services.” Rousseff praised China for creating a “new development paradigm” based on “shared development,” and commended Beijing for its idea of common prosperity. The United States has historically had excellent systems of education, science, and technological development, but this intellectual infrastructure has been in decline since the emergence of neoliberalism in the 1980s, and is at threat because the ultra-capitalist model has led to a massive disinvestment, Dilma Rousseff argued. On the other hand, China has become the world’s new leader in science and technology, thanks to its heavy public investment and state leadership, she said. China’s progress led Washington to launch a “technological lockdown” on Beijing, she noted, pointing to the ongoing “chip war” over control of semiconductors. The world knows that the Chinese company Huawei has the best 5G technology, and it is also cheaper than its US competitors, Rousseff stated. But “the US tries to prevent other countries from using Chinese 5G technology, even if they don’t have alternatives of their own to offer.” Meanwhile, neoliberalism has led to technological stagnation, the former Brazilian leader stated, because “companies only want and can only make money quickly, bringing limits to R&D activities.” China’s historic development, economic growth, and scientific and technological advancement have created opportunities to challenge “US dollar hegemony,” Dilma Rousseff argued. “In the financial sector, US dollar hegemony faces new challenges. As a global currency, the US dollar holds an irreplaceable position in international trade and payments. This has made the dollar a weapon of retaliation and a tool of extortion against other countries.” “Here in Latin America, we have two terrible examples: 60 years of blockade against Cuba, and now more recently the blockade on Venezuela, at a time of pandemic.” “The US government has been imposing far-reaching sanctions on foreign banks and companies that do business against the US’s wishes with countries like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and now Russia. They use their national jurisdiction as an international weapon. Given this, it is unlikely that the dollar will remain irreplaceable forever.” Dollar hegemony is also based on the SWIFT inter-bank messaging system, Rousseff said, which Washington has turned into a financial weapon. China began testing its own alternative to SWIFT as far back as 2015, she noted, and it is still being developed, but this process has been accelerated by the war in Ukraine. The People’s Bank of China has been testing digital currencies, including its own sovereign digital renminbi, Rousseff added. She criticized the US strategy of “decoupling” from China, calling it “absurd,” because Beijing is thoroughly integrated into the world economy, in complex webs that involve many nations. “In 2019, around 100 countries around the world traded and invested more with China than the US, and that number is still growing,” Rousseff said. China signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in 2020, she noted. This free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region involves nearly one-third of the global population and 30% of the global economy, making it larger than the European Union. The global political and economic system is in a process of fundamental change, Dilma Rousseff said. And “there is no more significant geopolitical consequence today than the growing strategic partnership between China and Russia.” “Ironically, it is precisely the maximum US pressure on Russia and the containment of China that played a key role in bringing the two countries closer together,” she added. “The economic sanctions stemming from Russia’s annexation of Crimea and now the war in Ukraine are strengthening a new geopolitical pole, and accelerating changes that would only come slowly.” In regard to the war in Ukraine, Rousseff complimented China for maintaining a neutral policy. The former Brazilian president called for peace while emphasizing how NATO helped to create the conflict in the first place. She emphasized that Latin America must unite and maintain an independent foreign policy, while seeking opportunities with this new geopolitical pole. Latin America needs to adapt to the changing economic order, she argued, to reduce its dependency on export of commodities, and “seek re-industrialization with new characteristics,” to partake in the new “technological revolution.” “Whoever remains as a mere importer of this technology,” she said, “will remain on the periphery, submitted and subordinated to foreign interests and policies.” “The transformation of the productive model is the main challenge for Latin Americans, to recover a path that allows them to achieve considerable economic growth with social justice.” “Producing and exporting mineral or agricultural commodities alone does not support equitable growth. Another model is needed for our region to reach high levels of industrialization and have a great capacity to add value to production based on the quality of education and work and scientific-technological innovation with the generation of better jobs.” Regional integration is a key part of this process, Rousseff stressed. “A true integration of Latin America is essential,” she said, noting the region has nearly 1 billion people, with “fantastic natural resources,” including oil, minerals, agricultural products, and water reserves. “The creation of UNASUR and CELAC was the political-institutional framework needed to ensure our autonomy and independence and enable an integration that would not only be commercial, but also productive, industrial, and educational, in order to reduce asymmetries and inequalities between countries and regions.” Progressive governments in Latin America need to increase the “presence of the state in the economy, the defense of the sovereignty of nations and democracy, and an open geopolitical relationship,” she added. China’s economic partnership and its Belt and Road Initiative offer many possibilities for the region, presenting an opportunity to be more independent, Rousseff argued. What “is wanted is Latin America for Latin Americans,” she said, “to be able to break with the Monroe Doctrine.”

Write an article about: China y Rusia declaran una ‘nueva era’ de multipolaridad, desafiando el intervencionismo de EEUU. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, multipolaridad, Rusia, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping

Tras reunirse en Beijing, Xi Jinping de China y Vladimir Putin de Rusia publicaron una declaración conjunta que aclara las divisiones ideológicas de la nueva guerra fría: Eurasia llama a la multipolaridad, la cooperación, la soberanía y la “redistribución del poder en el mundo” contra la hegemonía unipolar y el intervencionismo de EEUU. (You can read this article in English here.) El 4 de febrero de 2022 puede ser recordado en los libros de historia como una fecha importante en el cambio de la política global. Ese día no sólo fue la inauguración de los XXIV Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno en Beijing; también hubo una reunión histórica entre los presidentes de China y Rusia. Xi Jinping y Vladimir Putin firmaron una serie de importantes acuerdos económicos y políticos, profundizando la integración de las dos superpotencias euroasiáticas. Entre ellos es un acuerdo de 30 años en el que Rusia suministrará gas a China a través de un nuevo gasoducto, con ambas partes de las transferencias de energía manejadas por empresas estatales. Y como muestra de sus esfuerzos mutuos por desafiar el dominio del dólar estadounidense, decidieron hacer los pagos en euros. Tras la reunión Xi-Putin, los gobiernos chino y ruso emitieron una extensa declaración conjunta en la que declaran una “nueva era” de multipolaridad, proponiendo un nuevo modelo político internacional que dejará atrás el orden hegemónico unipolar dominado por Washington. Con más de 5.000 palabras, la declaración conjunta fue en cierto modo una especie de manifiesto. Obviamente, fue cuidadosamente redactado antes de la reunión, y definía claramente las líneas ideológicas contrastantes de la nueva guerra fría: por un lado están Estados Unidos y sus aliados de la OTAN, que defienden un statu quo basado en el unilateralismo y el intervencionismo (es decir, el imperialismo); del otro lado están China, Rusia y sus aliados, que están construyendo un nuevo sistema arraigado en el multilateralismo y la soberanía. “El mundo está pasando por cambios trascendentales y la humanidad está entrando en una nueva era de rápido desarrollo y profunda transformación”, dijo la declaración conjunta. En esta “nueva era”, ha surgido una “tendencia hacia la redistribución del poder en el mundo”, escribieron las potencias euroasiáticas. Ese centro de poder ya no se concentra en las capitales de las potencias colonialistas occidentales transatlánticas; el Este y el Sur se han levantado. Pekín y Moscú difícilmente podrían haber sido más directos en lo que proponían como alternativa: “condenaron la práctica de injerencia en los asuntos internos de otros estados con fines geopolíticos”, y en su lugar llamaron a “establecer un sistema multipolar justo de relaciones internacionales”, usando la palabra “multipolar” cuatro veces, y “multilateral” 11 veces más. La histórica declaración chino-rusa fue marcada por su llamado a la distensión y su insistencia en que la OTAN debe dejar de expandirse y “abandonar sus enfoques ideologizados de guerra fría, para respetar la soberanía, la seguridad y los intereses de otros países”. El hecho de que la declaración conjunta empleara ese lenguaje (advirtió tres veces sobre la mentalidad de “guerra fría” del bloque liderado por Estados Unidos) es un reconocimiento obvio por parte de las potencias euroasiáticas de que Washington está librando una segunda guerra fría, y que busca nada menos que el derrocamiento de los gobiernos en Pekín y Moscú. El ex secretario de estado de EEUU, Mike Pompeo, dejó este objetivo claro en un belicoso discurso en 2020 en la biblioteca Richard Nixon, en el que declaró, “Nosotros, las naciones del mundo que aman la libertad, debemos inducir a China a cambiar”. Pompeo, el ex director de la CIA, insistió, “Asegurar nuestras libertades del Partido Comunista de China es la misión de nuestro tiempo”. Luego, en 2021, el principal think tank (centro de investigación) de la OTAN, el Atlantic Council, publicó un documento titulado “the Longer Telegram” (el “telegrama más largo”), inspirado en “the Long Telegram” (el “telegrama largo”) de George Kennan, un diplomático de EEUU y arquitecto de la primera guerra fría, quien elaboró ​​​​la política de “contención” hacia la Unión Soviética. “The Longer Telegram” declaró que el presidente chino, Xi, debe ser reemplazado, y que Beijing debe verse obligada a “concluir que lo mejor para China es continuar operando dentro del orden internacional liberal liderado por Estados Unidos en lugar de construir un orden rival”. Los gobiernos de Beijing y Moscú están monitoreando estos acontecimientos, y pueden ver hacia dónde se dirigen. La declaración que emitieron el 4 de febrero fue su respuesta conjunta, pidiendo “el establecimiento de un nuevo tipo de relaciones entre las potencias mundiales basado en el respeto mutuo, la coexistencia pacífica y la cooperación de beneficio mutuo”, en lugar del conflicto. No es coincidencia que esta reunión entre Xi y Putin en Beijing, su primer encuentro cara a cara desde el comienzo de la pandemia de Covid-19, y la declaración conjunta que la acompaña también se produjeron en un momento de mayor tensión entre la OTAN y Rusia. La crisis fabricada en Ucrania a fines de 2021 y principios de 2022, junto con el rechazo flagrante del bloque occidental a reconocer cualquiera de las preocupaciones de seguridad de Moscú, mostró que la OTAN cree que tiene derecho a expandirse permanentemente y rodear militarmente a Rusia. Entonces, si bien la declaración conjunta solicitó una reducción de tensiones, “reiterando la necesidad de consolidación, no de división de la comunidad internacional, la necesidad de cooperación, no de confrontación”, también enfatizó que Beijing y Moscú están preparados para defenderse. Las potencias euroasiáticas escribieron “que las nuevas relaciones interestatales entre Rusia y China son superiores a las alianzas políticas y militares de la [primera] era de la Guerra Fría”. En una referencia inequívoca a la política exterior de Estados Unidos, la declaración conjunta chino-rusa dijo que las políticas de unilateralismo e injerencia de Washington solo representan una “minoría” y deben terminar: Algunos actores que representan una minoría a escala internacional continúan defendiendo enfoques unilaterales para abordar problemas internacionales y recurren a la fuerza; interfieren en los asuntos internos de otros estados, vulnerando sus legítimos derechos e intereses, e incitan a las contradicciones, diferencias y confrontaciones, obstaculizando así el desarrollo y progreso de la humanidad, en contra de la oposición de la comunidad internacional. Beijing y Moscú yuxtapusieron estas prácticas intervencionistas del imperialismo estadounidense con una propuesta de multipolaridad y “bienestar para todos”: [China y Rusia] piden a todos los estados que busquen el bienestar para todos y, con estos fines, para construir el diálogo y la confianza mutua, que fortalezcan el entendimiento mutuo, que defiendan valores humanos universales como la paz, el desarrollo, la igualdad, la justicia, la democracia y la libertad, que respeten los derechos de los pueblos a determinar de forma independiente las vías de desarrollo de sus países y la soberanía y los intereses de seguridad y desarrollo de los estados, para proteger la arquitectura internacional impulsada por las Naciones Unidas y el orden mundial basado en el derecho internacional, que busquen una genuina multipolaridad con la Las Naciones Unidas y su Consejo de Seguridad desempeñando un papel central y coordinada, que promuevan relaciones internacionales más democráticas y garanticen la paz, la estabilidad y el desarrollo sostenible en todo el mundo. El uso de la frase “orden mundial basado en el derecho internacional” fue importante, porque fue un rechazo del vago concepto del llamado “orden internacional basado en reglas” que el gobierno de EEUU ha tratado de imponer en el mundo. Los embajadores de China y Rusia en Estados Unidos publicaron un artículo conjunto en noviembre de 2021 que enfatizaba un punto similar, escribiendo: Sólo hay un sistema internacional en el mundo, es decir, el sistema internacional con las Naciones Unidas en su núcleo. Sólo existe un orden internacional, es decir, el que se sustenta en el derecho internacional. Y sólo hay un conjunto de reglas, es decir, las normas básicas que rigen las relaciones internacionales basadas en los propósitos y principios de la Carta de la ONU. Alardear del “orden internacional basado en reglas” sin hacer referencia a la ONU y al derecho internacional e intentar reemplazar las reglas internacionales con los dictados de ciertos bloques cae en la categoría de revisionismo y es obviamente antidemocrático. La declaración chino-rusa de febrero se hizo eco de gran parte de lo que los embajadores escribieron en noviembre, al tiempo que desarrollaba aún más la perspectiva euroasiática. Ambas declaraciones defendieron enérgicamente la democracia, pero con una definición ampliada y más amplia del término que refleja la auténtica democracia de los pueblos, no sólo un sistema superficial en el que “las personas sólo se despiertan cuando emiten sus votos y se envían de vuelta a la hibernación cuando termina la votación”. En un estridente rechazo a la ideología del “intervencionismo liberal” del gobierno estadounidense, las declaraciones chino-rusas condenaron el cínico “abuso de los valores democráticos y la injerencia en los asuntos internos de los estados soberanos con el pretexto de proteger la democracia y los derechos humanos”. Beijing y Moscú esperan defender los conceptos como el multilateralismo, la no injerencia y el respeto a la soberanía nacional mediante la democratización y el fortalecimiento de instituciones internacionales como la ONU, los BRICS, la Organización de Cooperación de Shanghái y la Unión Económica Euroasiática. Mientras que pidió “proteger la arquitectura internacional impulsada por las Naciones Unidas y el orden mundial basado en el derecho internacional”, la declaración chino-rusa de febrero instó a la democratización del organismo, para “buscar una multipolaridad genuina con las Naciones Unidas y su Consejo de Seguridad”. Beijing y Moscú también escribieron que “apuntan a fortalecer integralmente la Organización de Cooperación de Shanghái (OCS) y mejorar aún más su papel en la configuración de un orden mundial policéntrico basado en los principios universalmente reconocidos del derecho internacional, el multilateralismo y la seguridad igual, conjunta, indivisible, integral y sostenible”. Además las potencias euroasiáticas dijeron que “apoyan la asociación estratégica más profunda dentro de los BRICS”, el marco que reúne a Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica, para “promover la cooperación ampliada en tres áreas principales: la política y seguridad, la economía y finanzas e los intercambios humanitarios”. Parte de este realineamiento global también implica fusionar el enorme proyecto de infraestructura global de China, la Iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta, con la Unión Económica Euroasiática, el bloque económico liderado por Rusia. Beijing y Moscú escribieron: Los [países] buscan avanzar en su trabajo para vincular los planes de desarrollo de la Unión Económica Euroasiática [UEEA] y la Iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta con miras a intensificar la cooperación práctica entre la UEEA y China en diversas áreas y promover una mayor interconexión entre las regiones de Asia Pacífico y Eurasia. Los [países] reafirman su enfoque en la construcción de la Gran Asociación Euroasiática en paralelo y en coordinación con la construcción de la Franja y la Ruta para fomentar el desarrollo de asociaciones regionales, así como procesos de integración bilateral y multilateral en beneficio de los pueblos del continente euroasiático. Tras la reunión entre los presidentes Xi y Putin el 4 de febrero, el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de China publicó una declaración que resume los puntos principales de sus discusiones. Criticando implícitamente las afirmaciones superficiales del gobierno de EEUU de apoyar el multilateralismo y la democracia, Beijing escribió, “Amb[os países] han participado activamente en la reforma y la construcción del sistema de gobernanza global, han practicado conjuntamente el verdadero multilateralismo, han defendido el verdadero espíritu democrático y han desempeñado un papel transcendental tanto en la solidaridad de la comunidad internacional para superar en común las dificultades coyunturales como en el mantenimiento la equidad y la justicia internacional”. La declaración china enfatizó este llamado a la “equidad y justicia internacional”, repitiendo la frase tres veces. Al enfatizar la importancia de “defender la soberanía”, Beijing agregó que las potencias euroasiáticas deben “hacer frente eficazmente a la injerencia externa”, una referencia obvia al intervencionismo de Estados Unidos y sus operaciones de “cambio de régimen”. El mensaje de las declaraciones publicadas por Beijing y Moscú no podría haber sido más claro: la época de la hegemonía unipolar de EEUU ha muerto, y el mundo se encuentra ahora en una “nueva era” con un orden internacional basado en la multipolaridad y los principios de no injerencia. Al hacer estas declaraciones, las potencias euroasiáticas estaban trazando una línea ideológica en la arena. El mundo ya sabía qué modelo político y económico ofrecen Washington, Bruselas y la OTAN, pero ahora puede ver claramente qué plantean China y Rusia como alternativa.

Write an article about: New cold war neocolonialism: West threatens Solomon Islands over China alliance. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Australia, China, Cold War Two, new cold war, Solomon Islands, Taiwan

The Solomon Islands, a sovereign country in the Pacific, broke ties with Taiwan and allied with China. So the US backed a failed violent coup attempt. Australia now calls the area its “backyard,” and media moguls demand an invasion to prevent the nation from signing a security pact with Beijing. The Solomon Islands is a sovereign nation in the Pacific, near Papua New Guinea and Australia, with a population of nearly 700,000 people (making it larger than EU/NATO member Luxembourg, NATO members Iceland and Montenegro, and EU member Malta). As Western powers heat up their new cold war on China, they are increasingly treating the Solomon Islands as a colony, sponsoring a violent coup attempt and threatening the country for seeking to sign a security agreement with Beijing. Top Australian government officials have referred to the sovereign nation as part of their “backyard,” and a media mogul has publicly called for the Australian military to invade and overthrow its government. For decades, Washington used its economic leverage over the Solomon Islands to pressure the country to recognize Taiwan as an independent state. Taiwan is part of the People’s Republic of China, a fact recognized by 93% of UN member states. Just a dozen small countries still claim it is a separate nation. The Solomon Islands was one of them until 2019, when its democratically elected prime minister, Manasseh Sogavare, stood up to US pressure, ended diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, and formed an alliance with China. The United States and Australia responded aggressively, seeking to sow chaos internally, and even backing a violent coup attempt in 2021. [Thread] A dangerous situation is afoot in the Solomon Islands. A coup is on, with the government of @ManassehSogava1 is threatened with overthrow by a revolt in Malaita (pushed by the United States and Australia). Not much is being remarked about these developments. pic.twitter.com/yqMHOo4b8Q — Vijay Prashad (@vijayprashad) November 26, 2021 When the central government of the Solomon Islands recognized China in 2019, the US pressured the local government in Malaita, the country’s most populous island, to reject federal policy and to maintain its ties with Taiwan. Washington essentially bribed Malaita to continue recognizing Taiwan, pledging the province $25 million in US government aid. Then in November 2021, violent rioters attempted to overthrow the democratically elected central government, attacking the parliament and setting fire to police stations, while also burning down Chinese businesses and assaulting ethnic Chinese. Australia took advantage of the violence to send troops to the Solomon Islands. Journalist Vijay Prashad noted that Washington “built a coalition of anti-communists and pro-Zionist Christians” to try to overthrow the pro-Chinese government. The flag of apartheid Israel could be seen in photos of the violent protests. When Sogavare's government shifted his country's link to China, the US – driven by @marcorubio and other violators of international sovereignty – built a coalition of anti-communists and pro-Zionist Christians. See the Israeli flag held by those making the coup. pic.twitter.com/Czpwkuug60 — Vijay Prashad (@vijayprashad) November 26, 2021 The putsch failed. But the Western efforts to destabilize the Pacific nation have continued. This March 25, an Australian media mogul published an article openly calling on his nation’s military to invade the Solomon Islands, “capture” its islands, and “engineer regime change,” while also using “soft power” to advance Western interests. The author, David Llewellyn-Smith, is the founding publisher and editor of the website MacroBusiness, and the founding publisher and global economy editor of the prominent political magazine The Diplomat. Llewellyn-Smith used neocolonial rhetoric, referring to the Solomon Islands as part of Australia’s “backyard,” warning that “the CCP [Communist Party of China] occupies our backyard.” Australia must ready Solomon Islands invasion https://t.co/wfC12VoUbz — Macro Business (@macro_business) March 24, 2022 Western governments and media pundits have ironically claimed that China is trying to turn the Solomon Islands into a puppet, while they back violent coup attempts and threaten a military invasion. In reality, the Solomon Islands was historically colonized by the British, Germans, and Japanese, and it deeply values its hard-earned independence. Faced with these Western threats, the Solomon Islands decided to draft a security agreement with China. This enraged Australia, whose Prime Minister Scott Morrison said “there is great concern across the Pacific family.” Australia’s home affairs minister, Karen Andrews, resorted to familiar neocolonial rhetoric, fuming, “That is our backyard, this is our neighbourhood, and we are very concerned of any activity that is taking place in the Pacific Islands.” Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne implied the alliance would “undermine the stability and security of our region.” The government of New Zealand made similar comments, claiming it could “destabilise the current institutions and arrangements that have long underpinned the Pacific region’s security.” Many Western media outlets echoed this neocolonial rhetoric. British state media giant the BBC warned, “China gains a foothold in Australia’s backyard.” CNN said the region is “regarded by Canberra as its backyard.” German state media DW wrote that “Australia and New Zealand have for decades seen the Pacific islands as their ‘backyard.’” China gains a foothold in Australia's backyard https://t.co/j72YSrpAqJ — BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) March 29, 2022 In a speech this March 29, Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare criticized Western governments for this neocolonial attitude and for meddling in his nation’s internal affairs. Sogavare called it “insulting” to “be branded as unfit to manage our sovereign affairs or have other motives in pursuing our national interests.” He also revealed that the Solomon Islands security deal with China was “ready for signing.” Opposition politicians in the Solomon Islands had conspired with the Australian government to leak a copy of this proposed security agreement. Prime Minister Sogavare blasted them as “agents of foreign interference.” For its part, the Chinese government, which has helped lift 800 million citizens out of poverty since its 1949 revolution, said it “is ready to share its experience in poverty reduction and deepen development cooperation with Solomon Islands and other Pacific island countries, so as to help them find a path of poverty reduction and development that suits their national conditions, better cope with major public health events and natural disasters, and enhance their capacity to cope with climate change.”

Write an article about: US-backed Saudi bombing kills 38 Yemeni civilians a day, creating humanitarian disaster, feeding extremism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Al-Qaeda, AQAP, Saudi Arabia, Yemen

US-backed Saudi bombing is killing 38 Yemeni civilians a day, unleashing a humanitarian disaster, while fueling extremist groups like Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told the New York Times that the “disorder” in Yemen, greatly inflamed by the US-backed Saudi bombing campaign, has strengthened Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), allowing it to take more territory. The US-backed Saudi-led bombing in Yemen has killed at least 648 civilians since its air strikes began on 25 March, according to the UN. Saudi air strikes have rained down on bombed hospitals, schools, neighborhoods, and a refugee camp. Between 25 March and 12 April, an average of 38 Yemeni civilians were killed every single day from the Saudi-led bombing campaign. When ISIS beheads civilians, the world goes berserk. Yet when the US helps Saudi Arabia blow 648 Yemeni civilians to bits with bombs, the world is remarkably silent. This military intervention has created a humanitarian disaster in Yemen—the poorest nation in the Middle East, and one of the most impoverished in the world. Residents of Sana’a, the country’s largest city, told the BBC that they desperately need medical supplies, fuel, and food. “You have to remember that 40% of the population was food insecure way before the conflict. Now the situation is much more exacerbated by the attacks,” a Yemeni man told BBC. “Now there are long queues for food and for fuel as well. It’s a very dire situation.” In 2013, long before the violence broke out, over half (54%) of Yemenis lived in poverty—roughly 13.5 million people. Moreover, 40% of the population, and over 60% of the youth, was unemployed. As of 6 April, the World Health Organization estimated that almost 16 million people had already been affected in just the first few weeks of the military conflict, with over 334,000 Yemenis displaced and more than 254,000 refugees. Yemeni-Americans say they have also been abandoned by their own government, which is now facilitating the bombing of their country of origin. Businessman Mokhtar Alkhanshali described being trapped in the besieged nation. The civilian airport had been bombed, a no-fly zone had been imposed, and boats had ceased operation. He called US embassies in Yemen’s neighboring countries and was told “We are not evacuating any U.S. citizens at the moment. What we can do, though, is relay your messages to your loved ones.” “It looked like Armageddon. All hell had broken loose,” Alkhanshali told NPR. “I really didn’t know if I was going to live to see the morning. It was very frightening.” Alkhanshali was forced to make a risky and dangerous escape. He and a friend crossed the Red Sea in a small boat, without any navigation equipment. They landed in Djibouti, where they were detained for a few days, before flying back to the US. 11 days into the Saudi-led bombing campaign, on 5 April, a senior member of the Houthi rebel fighters told Reuters that they were willing to sit down for peace talks if the air strikes stopped. The bombs continued to fall. Safa Al-Ahmad, a Saudi journalist, filmmaker, and specialist on Yemen who has been one of the tiny handful of reporters to spend time with the Houthi rebels, indicates that the group’s ideology changes in response to political developments, but says “if I must describe the Houthis in one line, it would be the revivalist Zaydis with strong anti-imperialist agenda.” Al-Ahmad does not doubt that Iran is aiding the Houthis, but feels that the support is “vastly overblown” in the media. “There is very little good journalism that has been done to prove the extent of the relationship between the Houthis in Iran,” she explained. The party that is meddling the most in Yemen, Al-Ahmad points out, is in fact not Iran, but rather Saudi Arabia. The Houthis have a local agenda, they have local grievances, and local power. The rise of the Houthis themselves had nothing to do with the Iranians. … Saudi Arabia has deeper connections with Yemen. They have a large border with Yemen, and the Saudis have funded, sent money directly and arms to different groups inside Yemen. So I would argue between the two, Saudi Arabia has the much bigger influence and the upper hand in Yemen. US Secretary of State John Kerry condemned Iran for allegedly arming Houthi rebels in Yemen. He asserted that the US would not tolerate countries that “engage in overt warfare across lines, international boundaries and other countries.” Just one day before Kerry made these comments, the US announced it was expediting weapons shipments to help Saudi Arabia bomb Yemen. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a longtime resistance force in the region, expressed solidarity with the people of Yemen. “The US strategy today is for Arab regimes to conduct the fighting themselves – but using the same F-16s, missiles, drones and technology, produced and supplied by the US, to exert their destructive force against the people of the region,” remarked spokesperson Khaled Barakat. “The Saudi regime is the most brutal, reactionary, theocratic Arab regime that aims to strip Saudis of their humanity, crush the residents of the eastern part of the country, relentlessly repress migrant laborers, not to mention the systematic oppression of Saudi women. Saudi Arabia is the type of state that the U.S. values in the region and sees as a key ally,” Barakat added. “Yemen is economically the poorest Arab country, but its people have a long and proud history of resistance to colonialism, imperialism – and Saudi domination.” US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told the New York Times that the “disorder” in Yemen, greatly inflamed by the US-backed Saudi bombing campaign, has strengthened Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), allowing it to take more territory. Yemeni journalist Walid Al-Saqaf explained that the US drone program in Yemen “led to the growth of Al-Qaeda.” “The problem with the US is that they have a very short-term vision,” he said. They do not take “into consideration the long-reaching impact of having the drones or having purely anti-terrorist agenda in Yemen.” Al-Saqaf also warns against sectarian interpretations of the conflict. “I would very – be suspicious and cautious in claiming that this is a sectarian conflict. … [T]here are many elements within the region that are Sunni, and there are also elements that are supportive of the Houthis in various parts of the country that are also Sunni. So it’s really not purely a conflict driven by ethnic divide, or sectarian divide.” Regardless of the intentions of Saudi Arabia in bombing the indigent Yemeni population, what is clear is that its military intervention is indirectly helping AQAP. “Extremism flourishes when people don’t really have a choice,” Al-Saqaf explains. “Oftentimes you have cases where people are attracted to join radical groups because of the daily pay, or the, some sort of food supplies, or other protection that they get.” Baraa Shiban, Yemen project coordinator for the international human rights NGO Reprieve, lambasted the US for its continued military operations in the impoverished country. “You can’t bomb a country into existence, however much America seems determined to try,” he wrote in the Guardian. This is not the beginning of US intervention in Yemen, Shiban indicates. He recalls: Investigating US drone strikes on my country, I have seen the aftermath of aerial bombardment time and time again. The weeping father; the young girl unable to walk from shrapnel wounds; the mother, mute from shock. I try to record what has taken place; most of them just ask in return what my questions will do to bring back their loved ones. The few that find words express powerlessness and confusion as to why the might of a distant US military has been visited on their simple lives. For years, analysts, scholars, journalists, and civilians living under drones have cautioned that the US drone campaign in Yemen and elsewhere have made extremist groups even stronger. “Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair” wrote Ibrahim Mothanajune, in a 2012 op-ed in the New York Times titled “How Drones Help Al Qaeda.” US drones have regularly killed civilians, including young children, in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and more. In an October 2013 meeting in the Oval Office, Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai, the youngest Nobel Prize laureate in history, told Obama that US drone strikes are “fueling terrorism.” In December 2012, a US drone strike killed 12 Yemeni civilians at a wedding. Amnesty International has said that the killing of civilians by drone strikes may amount to war crimes, and has called for the US be held accountable. For many years, life for the average Yemeni has been full of great hardship—extreme poverty, the rise of militant Salafi groups, and the threat of drone attacks. US support for Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign is plunging the country into further chaos. The living conditions for myriad Yemeni civilians has become nothing short of catastrophic. And not only is this policy fundamentally inhumane, it only serves to further feed extremism in the region.

Write an article about: EU admits new cold war is not ‘democracy vs. autocracy’: ‘On our side, there are a lot of authoritarian regimes’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Cold War Two, EU, European Union, imperialism, Josep Borrell, media, Mexico, new cold war, Russia

The European Union’s top foreign-policy official Josep Borrell admitted the West’s new cold war on China and Russia is not a conflict of “democracies vs. authoritarians,” conceding, “On our side, there are a lot of authoritarian regimes.” (Se puede leer este informe en español aquí.) The European Union’s top foreign-policy official, Josep Borrell, admitted that the new cold war that the West is waging on China and Russia is not a conflict of “democracies vs. authoritarians.” “On our side, there are a lot of authoritarian regimes,” the EU’s de facto foreign minister conceded. Borrell’s comments directly contradicted those of US President Joe Biden, who claimed in his first State of the Union address in March that the new cold war is a “battle between democracy and autocracies.” The top EU diplomat instead recognized that the new cold war is a struggle in which economic “systems are in rivalry,” and that most of the Global South “do not want to be forced to take sides in this geopolitical competition,” because “they feel that the global system does not deliver,” and “because they blame us.” Borrell said the international political order is in a period of “messy multipolarity,” describing it as “a world of radical uncertainty,” where the “speed and scope of change is exceptional.” EU foreign-policy chief Josep Borrell says the “US-China competition” (ie, new cold war) is the “most important structuring force” and “will restructure the world” He admits “it is not true” that this is a conflict of “democracies vs authoritarians” (which is what Biden claimed) pic.twitter.com/MZl4MFSmwv — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 29, 2022 He made these remarks in a speech on October 10, opening the 2022 Ambassadors Conference in Brussels. Borrell explained: There are many crises around the world, which are the trends that move this world. First, a messy multipolarity. There is the US-China competition. This is the most important “structuring force”. The world is being structured around this competition – like it or not. The two big powers – big, big, big, very big – are competing and this competition will restructure the world. And this will coexist with a broader “democracies vs. authoritarians”, a big divide. I would not insist a lot on it because on our side, there are a lot of authoritarian regimes. We cannot say “we are the democracies”, and the ones which follow us are also democracies – that is not true. That is not true. Yes, there is a fight between the democratic systems and the authoritarian systems. But authoritarianism is, unhappily, developing a lot. Not just China, not just Russia. There is an authoritarian trend. Sometimes, they are still wearing the democracy suit, but they are no longer democracies. There are some who are not democracies at all – they do not even take the pity to look like democracies. So, this competition is a structuring force. The fight between democracies and authoritarians is there. But it is much more than that. In this same speech, Borrell confessed, “Our prosperity was based on China and Russia.” He acknowledged that the West’s neoliberal economic model was “based on cheap energy coming from Russia,” “access to the big China market,” and low-paid Chinese workers. This world of “messy multipolarity” is “not purely bipolar,” Borrell explained. He said there are “middle powers” and “swing states” that don’t take a firm side in the new cold war: The world is not purely bipolar. We have multiple players and poles, each one looking for their interest and values. Look at Turkey, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia. They are middle powers. They are swing states – they vote on one side or the other according to their interests, not only their theoretical values. But these people – I mention them again: Turkey, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia – are players and poles. This creates this messy multipolarity. These people – and there are a lot of people inside – are there, and not always following us. As an example of an independent leader of a “swing state,” Borrell said, “Look at Mexico’s President [Andrés Manuel López Obrador]’s recent speech.” “You heard what the Mexican President said about us recently,” the top EU diplomat said with a touch of anger. Borrell was referencing a letter in March in which López Obrador condemned the European Parliament as “flunkies of the reactionary and coup-plotting strategy of the corrupt” right-wing oligarchs in Mexico. López Obrador told the EU to “evolve, leave behind your obsessive meddling disguised as good intentions,” emphasizing, “Don’t forget that we are no longer a colony of anyone. Mexico is a free, independent, and sovereign country.” EU foreign-policy chief Borrell says: “The world is not purely bipolar.” It’s “messy multipolarity” Turkey, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, etc “are swing states; they vote on one side or the other according to their interests” They are “not always following us” pic.twitter.com/SlZd0HFdWT — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 29, 2022 In his speech, Borrell went on to admit that much of the Global South is neutral in this new cold war between the US and EU on one side and China and Russia on the other: And in the middle of that, we have the Global South. These people do not want to be forced to take sides in this geopolitical competition. More [importantly], they feel that the global system does not deliver, and they are not receiving their part. They are not receiving enough recognition. They do not have the role they should have according to their population and their economic weight. And when facing these multiple crises – these multipolar crises – financial, food and energy crises – it is clear that they are not there following us because they blame us, rightly or not. Two prominent former US diplomats made similar observations in September, noting that the countries representing 87% of the world’s population have refused to join the West’s new cold war. Borrell complains the Global South does not support the imperialist West in its new cold war: They “do not want to be forced to take sides in this geopolitical competition” “They feel the global system does not deliver… they are not there following us because they blame us” pic.twitter.com/gK6euZ01Od — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 29, 2022 The EU’s top foreign-policy official went on to clarify that the West’s conflict with China is a clash of opposing economic systems. Even while he referred to China as “our systemic rival,” Borrell acknowledged that average people’s lives have materially improved in China, and that is why Beijing has popular support. Borrell insisted that Europe must defend its model as the world’s “best combination” of “political freedom, economic prosperity, and social cohesion.” This foreshadowed explicitly neocolonialist remarks Borrell would make three days later on October 13, claiming “the world needs Europe” as a “beacon” and beautiful “garden” to civilize the barbarous “jungle” in “most of the rest of the world.” Borrell concluded his October 10 speech imploring diplomats at the EU Ambassadors Conference to adopt a darker “Hobbesian” philosophy and to “bring the voice of Europe” to the rest of the world, in order to show their model’s supposed superiority over China’s: When we say that China is our rival, systemic rival, systemic rival means that our systems are in rivalry. And the Chinese are trying to explain to the world that their system is much better. Because, well, maybe you are not going to choose your head of government, but you will have food, and heat, and social services, you will improve your living conditions. Many people in the world, yes, they go and vote and choose their government, but their material conditions are not being improved. And in the end, people want to live a better life. We have to explain what are the links between political freedom and a better life. We, Europeans, we have this extraordinary chance. We live in the world, in this part of the world, where political freedom, economic prosperity and social cohesion are the best, the best combination of all of that. But the rest of the world is not like this. Our fight is to try to explain that democracy, freedom, political freedom is not something that can be exchanged by economic prosperity or social cohesion. Both things have to go together. Otherwise, our model will perish, will not be able to survive in this world. We are too much Kantians and not enough Hobbesians, as the philosopher says. Let’s try to understand the world the way it is and bring the voice of Europe. The EU says socialist China is the capitalist West’s “systemic rival”: “our systems are in rivalry” Borrell admits China greatly improved living conditions, which is why it’s increasingly popular He repeats his racist claim Europe is superior, and calls to be more “Hobbesian” pic.twitter.com/QLPjdC4Bhw — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 29, 2022 In order to try to convince the world that Europe’s economic model is superior, the top EU foreign-policy official stressed that information warfare is imperative, in a international “battle of narratives.” Borrell described a “competitive world where everything is being weaponised. Everything is a weapon: energy, investments, information, migration flows, data, etc. There is a global fight about access to some strategic domains: cyber, maritime, or outer space.” He told the EU diplomats, “I need you to be much more engaged in this battle of narratives. It is not something secondary. It is not just winning the wars by sending tanks, missiles, and troops. It is a big battle: who is going to win the spirits and the souls of people?” “I need my delegations to step up on social media, on TV, in debates. Retweet our messages, our [European] External Action Service materials,” Borrell stressed. Borrell stresses information warfare is key in the new cold war He tells EU diplomats: “I need you to be much more engaged in this battle of narratives” “It is not just winning the wars by sending tanks, missiles, and troops” He calls for more propaganda, “in local languages” pic.twitter.com/zYBybdCj85 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 29, 2022

Write an article about: Bots are flooding social media with pro-US propaganda demonizing China, Russia & Iran, studies show. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, disinformation, Facebook, Graphika, Instagram, Iran, Meta, propaganda, Russia, social media, Stanford Internet Observatory, Twitter, Ukraine, University of Adelaide, YouTube

Scientific studies show huge numbers of bots are spreading pro-Western disinformation on social media, demonizing China, Russia, and Iran. 90% of bots posting about the proxy war in Ukraine push pro-NATO propaganda. (Se puede leer este informe en español aquí.) Two studies published this August expose how large numbers of fake accounts are spreading pro-Western and pro-NATO propaganda on social media, while demonizing US geopolitical adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran. An investigation by scholars in Australia found that more than 90% of bots posting on Twitter about the proxy war in Ukraine were promoting pro-Ukraine propaganda, whereas just 7% were promoting pro-Russia propaganda. A separate report co-authored by researchers at California’s Stanford University and a notorious US government contractor called Graphika revealed a large propaganda network on social media “that used deceptive tactics to promote pro-Western narratives in the Middle East and Central Asia.” The study detailed a “series of covert campaigns” on social media, which spread disinformation and fake news in a way that “consistently advanced narratives promoting the interests of the United States and its allies while opposing countries including Russia, China, and Iran.” These two investigations are part of a growing body of evidence showing how Western governments and their allies have weaponized social media platforms and turned them into weapons in a new cold war. A scientific study published by researchers from Australia’s University of Adelaide found that, of the bots on Twitter posting about the proxy war in Ukraine, 90.16% spread pro-Ukraine propaganda, while only 6.8% spread pro-Russia propaganda. (3.04% of the bots showed what they called “mixed behaviour,” publishing both pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian messages.) The scholars, from the university’s School of Mathematical Sciences, cannot in any way be considered pro-Russian. In fact, two of the co-authors disclosed that their work is funded by the Australian government through the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects. But the academics set out to investigate how “Both sides in the Ukrainian conflict use the online information environment to influence geopolitical dynamics and sway public opinion,” and they let the facts speak for themselves. The researchers analyzed more than 5.2 million tweets, retweets, quote tweets, and replies between February 23 and March 8 that used the hashtags #(I)StandWithUkraine, #(I)StandWithRussia, #(I)StandWithZelenskyy, #(I)StandWithPutin, #(I)SupportUkraine, or #(I)SupportRussia. (The scholars used both the versions #StandWithUkraine and #IStandWithUkraine, with and without the “I.”) They found that the vast majority of bots tweeted pro-Ukraine propaganda, specifically the hashtag #StandWithUkraine. Their study noted that the proxy war in Ukraine “emphasises the role social media plays in modern-day warfare, with conflict occurring in both the physical and information environments.” “Social media is a critical tool in information warfare,” the academics wrote. They cited another investigation that found that 19% of overall interactions on Twitter are directed from bots to real accounts, the vast majority in the form of retweets (74%) and mentions (25%). A separate study also published in August offered further insight into how social media is weaponized to spread pro-Western propaganda. Titled “Unheard Voice: Evaluating five years of pro-Western covert influence operations,” the report was co-authored by the Stanford Internet Observatory and an infamous intelligence company called Graphika. Graphika is notorious for working closely with the US government, contracting with the Pentagon, DARPA, and the Senate Intelligence Committee. Given its links to US intelligence agencies, Graphika’s role in this study could be seen as an example of a “limited hangout” – it provides a small glimpse into US information warfare activities, while covering up the vast majority of its operations. Although it is very limited in scope and has clear biases, the document does show how pro-Western propaganda networks on social media accuse China, Russia, and Iran of being “imperialist” while praising the US government. The pro-Western disinformation operations primarily used Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp (which are owned by Meta), as well as YouTube, Twitter, and Telegram. Some of the fake accounts involved in the coordinated propaganda campaign posed as “independent news outlets,” “political analysts,” or “teachers.” The Stanford Internet Observatory and Graphika succiently described the operation as “Fake News, Fake Faces, Fake Followers.” They wrote in the executive summary of their report (emphasis added): Our joint investigation found an interconnected web of accounts on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and five other social media platforms that used deceptive tactics to promote pro-Western narratives in the Middle East and Central Asia. The platforms’ datasets appear to cover a series of covert campaigns over a period of almost five years rather than one homogeneous operation. These campaigns consistently advanced narratives promoting the interests of the United States and its allies while opposing countries including Russia, China, and Iran. The accounts heavily criticized Russia in particular for the deaths of innocent civilians and other atrocities its soldiers committed in pursuit of the Kremlin’s “imperial ambitions” following its invasion of Ukraine in February this year. To promote this and other narratives, the accounts sometimes shared news articles from U.S. government-funded media outlets, such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, and links to websites sponsored by the U.S. military. The document explained that the propaganda accounts “created fake personas with GAN-generated faces, posed as independent media outlets, leveraged memes and short-form videos, attempted to start hashtag campaigns, and launched online petitions.” The Stanford Internet Observatory and Graphika described their investigation as “the most extensive case of covert pro-Western IO [influence operations] on social media to be reviewed and analyzed by open-source researchers to date.” The firms acknowledged that, “With few exceptions, the study of modern IO has overwhelmingly focused on activity linked to” Western adversaries “in countries such as Russia, China, and Iran.” Some of the language used in the report reflects the blatant bias of the firms, which referred to China, Russia, and Iran disparagingly as “authoritarian regimes.” Despite the many limitations of the study, however, the fact that it was co-published by an elite university and a notorious intelligence-linked US government contractor makes it impossible to deny that Western government are using social media platforms to spread disinformation and wage information warfare against their geopolitical adversaries. The Stanford Internet Observatory and Graphika investigation analyzed the pro-Western disinformation campaign by dividing its work into three regions: Central Asia (primarily in the Russian language), Iran (in Persian), and the Middle East (in Arabic). Although these pro-Western propaganda operations were conducted in different languages, many of their talking points and tactics overlapped. The Central Asia-themed disinformation was mostly in Russian, although some accounts posted in regional languages like Kazakh and Kyrgyz. In addition to using Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, Twitter, and Telegram, the Central Asia propaganda also employed the Russian social media apps VKontakte (VK) and Odnoklassniki. The report found that the disinformation operation involved creating a “sham media outlet” focused on Central Asia called Intergazeta. It “repeatedly copied news material with and without credit from reputable Western and pro-Western sources in Russian, such as Meduza.io and the BBC Russian Service.” Other accounts in the propaganda network “copied or translated content from U.S.-funded entities, such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the independent Kazakh news outlet informburo.kz.” They also created petitions using the US-based website Avaaz. One demanded that Kazakhstan should leave the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a military alliance with Russia. Another petition called on Kyrgyzstan to minimize Chinese influence. And two more insisted that Kazakhstan should ban Russian TV channels. The Central Asia disinformation network accused Russia and China of “imperialism,” while constantly spreading pro-US propaganda. The fake accounts demonized Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, its military intervention in Syria, and its security partnership with several African nations. The Stanford Internet Observatory and Graphika report noted that the disinformation operation also “concentrated on China and the treatment of Chinese Muslim minorities, particularly the Uighurs in Xinjiang province.” The fake accounts accused China of “genocide” against its Uyghur minority, and spread fake news stories alleging that Beijing harvest the organs of Muslims. The report identified another network of propaganda focused on Afghanistan. These fake accounts attacked Iran and accused it of having too much influence in the neighboring country. To do so, they posted disinformation from websites supported by the US military. This propaganda included outlandish fake news, alleging for instance that Iran is trafficking the organs of Afghan refugees, or claiming that Tehran is supposedly forcing Afghan refugees to fight in militias in Syria and Yemen. Like the Central Asia-focused disinformation operation, this anti-Iran network included “accounts claiming to be independent media outlets, [which] shared U.S.-funded Persian-language media,” from US state propaganda outlets like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Radio Farda and VOA Farsi. The fake accounts also shared “content from sources linked to the U.S. military,” such as websites sponsored by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). And they reposted material from Iran International, an anti-Iranian propaganda outlet based in Britain and funded by the Saudi monarchy. The Stanford Internet Observatory and Graphika wrote that this propaganda campaign was “critical of the Iranian government and often used a sarcastic tone to mock Iranian state media and other parts of the state apparatus.” Some of the fake accounts engaged with actual Iranians on Twitter, trying to get real people involved in the operation. They emphasized attacks on Tehran’s foreign policy. The report noted, “Anti-government accounts criticized Iran’s domestic and international policies and highlighted how the government’s costly international interventions undermined its ability to care for its citizens.” The fake accounts excoriated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), demonized resistance groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and condemned Iran for its political alliance with Russia. Another disinformation network identified in the Stanford Internet Observatory and Graphika report focused on spreading Arabic-language propaganda related to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. These fake accounts claimed Iran had too much influence in the region. They demonized Yemen’s revolutionary group Ansarallah (also known as the Houthi movement), and attacked Russia’s foreign policy. The report noted that some “accounts on Twitter posed as Iraqi activists in order to accuse Iran of threatening Iraq’s water security and flooding the country with crystal meth.” “Other assets highlighted Houthi-planted landmines killing civilians and promoted allegations that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would lead to a global food crisis,” it added. Some of the accounts falsely posed as Iraqis, and compared Iran to a “disease” destroying Iraq. At the same time, they demonized Iraqi Shia militias and portrayed them as puppets of Tehran. The propaganda campaign accused Iran of an “imperialist project in the Middle East.” The report noted that this disinformation operation also “amplified the narrative that Russian President Vladimir Putin planned to induce a global food crisis that would hit less economically developed countries the hardest.” At the same time, the fake accounts praised the United States, and particularly its soft-power arm USAID. Part of the disinformation network even spread propaganda heroizing the US soldiers who are illegally occupying Syrian territory.

Write an article about: US gov’t blatantly lies about NATO expansion to militarily encircle Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Antony Blinken, NATO, Russia, Ukraine

Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed the US-led military alliance “NATO never promised not to admit new members.” This is a lie contradicted by multiple Western government documents. The US government is trying to rewrite the past, acting as though no one else on the planet knows history. The Joe Biden administration has rejected Russia’s demand to stop expanding the NATO military alliance, which Washington leads. Secretary of State Antony Blinken falsely claimed that “NATO never promised not to admit new members” – a lie clearly contradicted by Washington’s own internal documents. Declassified records from the US, Soviet/Russian, German, British, and French governments show that Blinken’s predecessor, Secretary of State James Baker, promised the USSR back in 1990 that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward” after German reunification. This is an undeniable fact, a matter of public record, revealed in these documents published by the National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington, DC. The National Security Archive noted that Secretary of State Baker reassured Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev “not once, but three times” that NATO would expand “not one inch eastward,” in a February 9, 1990 meeting. Baker told the final Soviet leader that Washington agreed that, “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” But, ignoring this documented fact, the Biden administration has tried to erase history, while repurposing woke Tumblr rhetoric to push its “intersectional” imperialist agenda. Blinken accused Moscow of “gaslighting” about NATO’s intentions – while the US and its Western allies support neo-Nazis in Ukraine to try to militarily encircle Russia. In reality, Washington is the one gaslighting the world, falsely claiming that NATO never pledged not to expand, when everyone knows it did.

Write an article about: Yemen faces ‘world’s largest humanitarian crisis’ amid US/Saudi war, UN warns again and again. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Saudi Arabia, United Nations, Yemen

“Yemen is experiencing the world’s largest humanitarian crisis”, the UN warned, while the US helps Saudi Arabia bomb the impoverished country. The United Nations keeps warning again and again and again, “Yemen is experiencing the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.” In a previous article, I compiled UN statements and reports detailing how US-backed war in Yemen has created the “largest humanitarian crisis in the world.” This assessment was echoed by the UN humanitarian coordinator for Yemen, under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, Food and Agriculture Organization, and Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, along with a leading famine monitor created by the US government and the international NGO Save the Children. Yet, while the UN program to provide humanitarian assistance to prevent famine and mass starvation in Yemen is grossly underfunded, the US is instead ramping up its two-year-long war there, through its proxy Saudi Arabia — effectively exacerbating the catastrophe, not making it better. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reiterated this for the umpteenth time on April 24, writing: Close to 19 million people—two thirds of the population—need humanitarian assistance and protection. These people include more than 10 million extremely vulnerable Yeminis who require immediate assistance. A child under age 5 now dies every 10 minutes of preventable causes. The crisis in Yemen is entirely man-made. The country has been grappling with the disastrous effects of a conflict that has forced millions of people to flee their homes, exacerbated chronic humanitarian needs, and killed or injured thousands. The OCHA report on Yemen warned of the following horrific consequences if the “entirely man-made” catastrophe, fueled by US/Saudi war, does not end: 1. Around 7 million people will face starvation. 2. More than 8 million people will lack access to drinking water and sanitation. 3. The health system will completely decline. 4. Nearly 1.2 million malnourished children could die. 5. Millions of people will face grave threats to their basic rights. 6. Landmines and other explosives will threaten lives and delay assistance.

Write an article about: Pakistan coup regime bans Imran Khan, dissidents killed, as US eyes China ties, Israel normalization. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Imran Khan, Israel, Junaid S. Ahmad, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine

Following a US-backed coup, Pakistan’s military-dominated regime banned popular former Prime Minister Imran Khan from office, while army chief Bajwa visited Washington to discuss weakening ties with China, arming Ukraine, even recognizing apartheid Israel. After Prime Minister Imran Khan was overthrown in a US-backed soft coup, Pakistan’s unelected “imported government” has banned the country’s most popular politician from office, sparking huge protests. Pakistani scholar Junaid S. Ahmad spoke with Multipolarista editor Ben Norton about the army chief’s friendly trip to Washington and US efforts to pressure Pakistan to weaken ties with China, arm Ukraine in its war with Russia, and recognize apartheid Israel. Ahmad also addressed the growing political violence and assassination of dissident journalist Arshad Sharif, a prominent critic of the coup regime who had been reporting on its corruption. Fearing for his life, Sharif fled to Kenya, where he was shot in the head on October 23. Ahmad said Pakistan is “caught” in the middle of Washington’s new cold war on China. “But Pakistan is in a very weak position,” Ahmad cautioned. “The United States is now going after Pakistan because it sees Pakistan as the weakest link in all of this Eurasian integration project, and to try to get Pakistan to either remove itself or distance itself from that Eurasian project.” After a US-backed coup against Pakistan's PM Imran Khan, army chief Bajwa visited the US to discuss weakening ties with China, arming Ukraine, even recognizing apartheid Israel I discussed the scandal with Pakistani scholar Junaid S. Ahmad Full video: https://t.co/1X6rG0SMBL pic.twitter.com/lCsgB2TX3O — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 26, 2022 The leader of Pakistan’s powerful military travelled to the United States and Britain in October. Visiting Washington for an entire week, Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa held a series of meetings with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other top US officials. US government propaganda organ Voice of America (VOA) acknowledged that the Pakistani army chief’s trip was a “bid to redefine ties.” VOA reported that, “since the conclusion of the Afghan war, relations between Washington and Islamabad will largely be determined by ‘the geopolitical competition, global competition, between U.S. and China.'” This year marks the 75th anniversary of relations between the U.S. and ?? Pakistan. It was my pleasure to host Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, to the Pentagon where we discussed our long-standing defense partnership and areas of mutual interest. pic.twitter.com/ptiZDiqc8I — Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III (@SecDef) October 5, 2022 Japan’s news publication Nikkei Asia cited anonymous “sources with firsthand knowledge of the general’s recent meetings” who said that it shows Pakistan’s unelected coup regime is “seeking nothing less than a new arrangement with the U.S.” Nikkei reported: According to one official familiar with the proceedings, Bajwa presented a vision for a bilateral relationship “much like the Americans’ understanding with South Korea.” “He told them that we’d like to be a strategic partner of the U.S. not in name, but in action,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The report likewise made it clear that the United States wants Pakistan to soften its relations with China and recognize apartheid Israel – something that Imran Khan had adamantly refused to do. Nikkei wrote: In Washington, sources said that Bajwa, in addition to laying out a new vision for the relationship, explained Pakistan’s positions on a wide range of regional issues, even the prospect of opening up relations with Israel. Regarding China, sources said U.S. officials cautioned Bajwa about Islamabad’s proximity to Beijing. ???? “In Washington, sources said that Bajwa, in addition to laying out a new vision for the relationship, explained Pakistan's positions on a wide range of regional issues, even the prospect of opening up relations with Israel.”https://t.co/f0X3caw5f7 — Derek J. Grossman (@DerekJGrossman) October 24, 2022 As prime minister, Khan had maintained neutrality over the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine. The Pakistani leader had in fact visited Moscow and signed economic agreements with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Since the judicial coup, however, Islamabad has done a 180. Independent researchers have shown that Pakistan is providing Ukraine with ammunition and military equipment, allegedly sending artillery shells with the help of the British air force. English version: showing Pakistan army chief at Sandhurst and dates on shells with type of fuze. pic.twitter.com/bKpzsbODpH — ST (@aviation07101) September 2, 2022 At the same time, the Joe Biden administration has pledged $450 million worth of parts for the Pakistani military to modernize its F-16 fighter aircraft. This US-Pakistan arms deal comes at a time of economic crisis, rampant inflation, and growing poverty and hunger in the South Asian nation, further exacerbated by floods that killed nearly 2,000 Pakistanis and adversely impacted millions more. With the mounting instability in the country, Pakistan’s US-sponsored coup regime has cracked down hard, threatening dissidents with seven years in prison if they criticize the military on social media. BEWARE FOLKS: FIA will now have powers to take action on tweets, vlogs etc available on social media that attempt to harm army, navy or air force–OR anything on social media that is likely to cause mutiny. The offender will get seven years imprisonment.pic.twitter.com/99fYi5IhF3 — Riazul Haq (@Riazhaq) October 26, 2022 You can watch or listen to Multipolarista’s previous discussion with Pakistani scholar Junaid S. Ahmad here: “Pakistan’s Western-backed coup regime hits PM Imran Khan with ‘terrorism’ charges to silence dissent.” Pakistan’s Western-backed coup regime hits PM Imran Khan with ‘terrorism’ charges to silence dissent

Write an article about: CIA and NATO are waging sabotage attacks inside Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

CIA, Jack Murphy, JSOC, NATO, Russia, special operations, Ukraine

The CIA is using the intelligence agencies of a European NATO ally to launch sabotage attacks inside Russian territory, according to a report by journalist Jack Murphy. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) The CIA is using the spy agencies of a European NATO ally in order to launch sabotage attacks in Russian territory, according to journalist Jack Murphy. Murphy is a former US special operations officer who has extensive contacts inside the military and intelligence services. Citing multiple US government sources, Murphy reported that the CIA and the European state spent years developing “sleeper cells that the allied spy service has activated to hinder Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine by waging a secret war behind Russian lines.” Infrastructure that has been sabotaged in Russia includes railways, bridges, fuel depots, military facilities, power lines, and electrical plants. The NATO ally began sending sleeper cells into Russia in 2016, and with the help of “‘an extensive network’ of front companies,” the CIA and the European state smuggled in explosives, weapons, and other equipment. The US military has also been involved, Murphy reported. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) “has supported the sabotage operations with targeting information from intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, such as drones, that can see and hear deep into Russia.” The White House allegedly signed off on the sabotage operation. Murphy said, “Using an allied intelligence service to give the CIA an added layer of plausible deniability was an essential factor in U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision to approve the strikes.” I spent months working on this deep dive about the CIA working with a NATO intelligence ally to conduct sabotage strikes inside Russia. Merry Christmas.https://t.co/XGWLjkH5N0 — Jack Murphy (@JackMurphyRGR) December 24, 2022 President Barack Obama set the stage for this sabotage. The Washington Post revealed back in 2017 that, before Obama left office, he approved a “covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow.” And it is not just Russia whose territory has been attacked. In April 2022, the Washington Post reported that “a clandestine network of railway workers, hackers and dissident security forces went into action to disable or disrupt the railway links connecting Russia to Ukraine through Belarus, wreaking havoc on Russian supply lines.” According to Murphy, this sabotage operation inside Belarus was overseen by the CIA and its NATO ally. He did not name the European country whose spies are on the ground in Russia carrying out the attacks, but it has been speculated that it may be a Baltic state or perhaps Poland. While the CIA has officially denied involvement, Murphy pointed out, “Under Title 50 of the U.S. Code which authorizes covert actions, the CIA can lawfully deny the existence of these operations to everyone except the so-called ‘Gang of Eight'” – a reference to top level US officials. I hear that no fewer than three major national publications killed this deeply reported and well sourced story by ⁦@JackMurphyRGR⁩ under pressure from the CIA https://t.co/7xZWCmgA4W — Seth Harp (@sethharpesq) December 24, 2022 Journalist Seth Harp, who is also a US military veteran, tweeted the article and added, “I hear that no fewer than three major national publications killed this deeply reported and well sourced story by ⁦[Jack Murphy]⁩ under pressure from the CIA.” Murphy hinted at this in an editor’s note published with his report, disclosing that, “while working with editors at mainstream publications I was asked to do things that were illegal and unethical in one instance, and in another instance I felt that a senior CIA official was able to edit my article by making off the record statements, before he leaked a story to the New York Times to undermine this piece.” Murphy has published at numerous mainstream media outlets, and he is by no means pro-Russian. He has repeatedly condemned the Russian government and said President Vladimir “Putin is a wimp and a cry baby.” Murphy has likewise insisted that Moscow should withdraw its troops from Ukraine and criticized calls for a peaceful diplomatic solution to the conflict. Murphy’s report adds to a growing body of evidence documenting the CIA’s role in the proxy war in Ukraine. In January 2022, weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine, Yahoo News revealed that, since 2015, the CIA had been “overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel.” This CIA program was started by the Obama administration and subsequently expanded by the Donald Trump and Joe Biden White Houses. Yahoo News wrote: “By 2015, as part of this expanded anti-Russia effort, CIA Ground Branch paramilitaries also started traveling to the front in eastern Ukraine to advise their counterparts there.” Later in March 2022, Yahoo News followed up with another report admitting that, since 2014, Washington had a “covert CIA training program run from Ukraine’s eastern frontlines,” where US spies were supporting Ukrainians in the early stages of the proxy war against Russia. “We tried to really focus on op planning, then really hard mil skills like long-range marksmanship—not just the capacity to do it, but to know how to do it on a battlefield, to really deplete the leadership on the other side,” said the former official.https://t.co/IlSxf4wAIW — Zach Dorfman (@zachsdorfman) March 19, 2022 In June 2022, the New York Times acknowledged that the CIA and special operations forces from numerous European countries are physically in Ukraine overseeing the proxy war, providing weapons, intelligence, and training. The Times reported: “Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine in February, the [US] Army’s 10th Special Forces Group, which before the war had been training Ukrainian commandos at a base in the country’s west, quietly established a coalition planning cell in Germany to coordinate military assistance to Ukrainian commandos and other Ukrainian troops. The cell has now grown to 20 nations.” A stealthy network of allied commandos and CIA agents is coordinating weapons and information on the ground in Ukraine, hinting at the scale of covert support efforts. https://t.co/24xlFpYQE0 — The New York Times (@nytimes) June 26, 2022 Murphy drew parallels between the CIA sabotage operations targeting Russia today and the “stay-behind” networks that the US spy agency and NATO created during the first cold war, known popularly as Operation Gladio. These Western stay-behind networks included notorious fascist war criminals, Nazi collaborators, and organized crime elements. Murphy noted that, while it has long been claimed that these Gladio networks were dismantled in 1994, many in fact continued. The stay behinds are controversial for many reasons, mostly because of the Italian network referred to as GLADIO. To this day, we still don't know what the actual NATO program name is/was. Stay behind is known as the 4th infiltration method in Special Operations. — Jack Murphy (@JackMurphyRGR) December 28, 2022 Jack Murphy concluded his report warning of the potential of the proxy war in Ukraine escalating into a direct conventional war between the United States and Russia. In December 2022, the leader of the NATO military alliance acknowledged that this is a serious risk. “It is a terrible war in Ukraine. It is also a war that can become a full-fledged war that spreads into a major war between NATO and Russia,” said NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. He subsequently reiterated that “there is no doubt that a full-fledged war is a possibility.” Similarly, in November 2022, the commander of Stratcom, the US military command that oversees nuclear weapons, warned, “This Ukraine crisis that we’re in right now, this is just the warmup.” “The big one is coming,” said Navy Admiral Charles A. Richard. “And it isn’t going to be very long before we’re going to get tested in ways that we haven’t been tested a long time.” The dangers of NATO expansion and provocations in Ukraine had been known for decades. President Biden himself conceded in 1997 that the Baltic states joining NATO would cause “the greatest consternation,” which could “tip the balance” and result in a “vigorous and hostile reaction” by Russia. Former US Ambassador to Russia William J. Burns, who is now CIA director, warned in a classified 2008 State Department cable that NATO expansion to Ukraine would cross Moscow’s security “redlines” and “could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.”

Write an article about: NATO is arming and training Nazis in Ukraine, as US floods Russia’s neighbor with weapons. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Azov, Centuria, fascism, Israel, NATO, Nazis, racism, Russia, Ukraine

NATO is sending weapons and trainers to help neo-Nazis in Ukraine’s white-supremacist Azov movement fight Russia. This follows numerous reports of Western government support for Ukrainian far-right extremists. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) The US-led NATO military alliance is sending weapons to neo-Nazi extremists in Ukraine as they battle Russian soldiers. Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, the US government has flooded the country with arms, authorizing sending $350 million worth of military equipment to Kiev. In less than a week in late February and early March, the United States and other NATO member states transported more than 17,000 anti-tank weapons, including Javelin missiles, over the borders of Poland and Romania into Ukraine, the New York Times reported. Washington has also sent Kiev 2,000 stinger anti-aircraft missiles. And the Joe Biden administration gave the “green light” to NATO countries to send fighter jets to Ukraine. Western governments have invited hardened right-wing militants from around the world to travel to Ukraine to join the fight against Russia – just as they did in Afghanistan in the 1980s, in a strategy that gave birth to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Meanwhile, as NATO creates an insurgency in Ukraine, some of the fighters receiving these arms are white-supremacist fascists. The anti-Russian activist media platform NEXTA tweeted on March 8 that NATO countries had shipped Next Generation Light Anti-tank Weapon (NLAW) guided missiles and sent instructors to the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. “The Azov regiment was the first to learn about new weaponry,” admitted NEXTA, a Western-backed Belarusian opposition outlet. Azov is an explicitly neo-Nazi extremist group. A shipment of NLAW grenade launchers and instructors from #NATO countries arrived in #Kharkiv. The Azov regiment was the first to learn about new weaponry pic.twitter.com/CCzjN40rW7 — NEXTA (@nexta_tv) March 8, 2022 The Azov movement was founded as a fascist gang that served as the muscle behind a violent US-sponsored coup in Ukraine in 2014, overthrowing a democratically elected government that had maintained political neutrality, and instead installing a pro-Western and viciously anti-Russian regime. After the 2014 putsch, the Azov Battalion was officially incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard. It is now known as the Azov Detachment or Azov Regiment, and helps oversee special operations. Azov preaches a white-supremacist ideology that portrays Russians as “Asiatic” and Ukrainians and “pure” white people. It uses numerous neo-Nazi symbols, including the German wolfsangel and black sun. The Nazi symbols used by Ukraine’s Azov Battalion Given Azov’s links to white-supremacist fascist groups in the United States, there was actually a short-lived campaign to get the Ukrainian neo-Nazi militia listed as a terrorist organization. In 2019, Democratic New York Representative Max Rose and 39 more congressmembers wrote a letter to the State Department asking it to label Azov as a terrorist organization. That designation never came. Instead, Washington and NATO have armed Azov to wage a proxy war on Russia. The photos tweeted by NEXTA are far from the only piece of evidence showing that Western governments have supported Nazis in Ukraine. In 2017, US and Canadian military officers met with Azov Nazis in Ukraine and advised them on how to battle Russian-speaking Ukrainian independence fighters in the eastern Donbas region. Azov published photos of the meeting on its official website. In the back of this photo, you can also see a Canadian officer, alongside US military officers, meeting with Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which uses Nazi-era symbols.https://t.co/8tOZ9A7YGK pic.twitter.com/dAZBeFaHdU — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 16, 2018 The Canadian military officials who met with these Ukrainian Nazis later feared being exposed by the media. The Ottawa Citizen newspaper reported that the exposure of Canadian training for Azov fascists led to an official military review. Azov Nazis have also received weapons from Israel. In 2018, mainstream news outlet Haaretz reported that a group of prominent human rights activists filed a petition with Israel’s High Court of Justice demanding that the country stop exporting weapons to Ukraine, after Azov posted a video on its official YouTube channel showing a far-right fighter using Israeli Tavor rifles. Rights groups demand Israel stop arming neo-Nazis in the Ukraine https://t.co/mTH9yibe5L — Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) July 8, 2018 A 2021 study published by George Washington University in Washington, DC showed how Western governments supported another neo-Nazi group in Ukraine, called Centuria. Centuria is closely linked to Azov, and its extremist members have been photographed or filmed praising Nazi Germany and giving Hitler salutes. These avowed neo-Nazis are now officers in the Ukrainian military, and were trained by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Poland, and Canada. My latest article…Far-right extremists in Ukraine brag they have received training from the Canadian Forces: report https://t.co/0WmLNrIpft — David Pugliese (@davidpugliese) October 4, 2021 The George Washington University study on this neo-Nazi gang, titled “Far-Right Group Made Its Home in Ukraine’s Major Western Military Training Hub,” stated: As recently as April 2021, the group claimed that since its launch, members have participated in joint military exercises with France, the UK, Canada, the US, Germany, and Poland. … Meanwhile, several Western governments involved in training and arming Ukrainian troops stated, in response to the author’s request, that Ukraine is responsible for vetting Ukrainian soldiers trained by the West. None of the Western governments contacted—the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany—vet Ukrainian training recipients for extremist views and ties. In 2017, NATO published a highly produced propaganda film honoring Baltic Nazi collaborators, known as the Forest Brothers. The US-led military alliance depicted the fascist extremists as brave anti-Russian heroes for fighting the former Soviet Union, while curiously overlooking their alliance with Adolf Hitler. This is the story of the Forest Brothers who fought the Soviet army for their homelands after WWII pic.twitter.com/4JcfuJPmeO — NATO (@NATO) July 11, 2017

Write an article about: Apartheid Israel requires Palestinians to report romantic relationships to regime. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

apartheid, colonialism, Israel, Palestine, Palestinians, podcast, racism, West Bank

While Palestinians are forced off buses for being Arab, apartheid Israel now requires foreigners to notify the regime if they fall in love with a Palestinian in the occupied West Bank. If they marry, they must leave Palestine for a 6-month “cooling-off period.” The Israeli apartheid regime is cracking down even harder on the approximately 3 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank, which has been illegally militarily occupied by Israel since 1967. The BBC reported this September: “Foreigners must tell the Israeli defence ministry if they fall in love with a Palestinian in the occupied West Bank, according to new rules.” “If they marry, they will be required to leave after 27 months for a cooling-off period of at least half a year,” the BBC wrote. The report added that “foreigners [must] inform the Israeli authorities within 30 days of starting a relationship with a Palestinian ID holder.” Just a few weeks before, in August, the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that “about 50 Palestinian workers were made to get off the bus in the city of Bnei Brak area in order to accommodate three Jewish passengers who refused to ride with them and demanded the driver to force them off.” A Palestinian passenger recalled to the outlet, “After a few buses went by and didn’t stop – because Bus 288 is reserved for Jews only – one that was empty of Jews stopped for us and we got on.” Then, “Three Jews boarded in Bnei Brak and demanded that all the Arabs be taken off.” “The driver told us to ‘get off and figure it out’ who then drove off with the settlers,” the Palestinian said. On September 3, journalist Asa Winstanley reported that the Israeli apartheid regime sentenced a Palestinian aid worker to 12 years in prison “based on a sham conviction in a kangaroo court which relied on entirely fictional charges.” Mohammed El Halabi, the former director in Gaza of the international Christian charity World Vision, was convicted, but the Israeli court refused to made its ruling public, designating the 254-page document “classified.” In May, a mob of Israeli far-right extremists threatened Palestinians at Tel Aviv University, waving flags and chanting “death to the Arabs.” Zionist extremists went around @TelAvivUni, including dorms were some Arab Palestinian citizens were, shouting “death to the Arabs” among other hateful incitement. Neither the Israeli police nor the university did anything to protect the threatened students #Apartheid (1/4). pic.twitter.com/qyZnC9Lu1j — Sami Abou Shahadeh (@ShahadehAbou) May 17, 2022

Write an article about: Economist Michael Hudson on new cold war, super imperialism, China, Russia, de-dollarization. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, de-dollarization, dollar, economics, Great Reset, IMF, Michael Hudson, Russia, World Bank

Economist Michael Hudson discusses US “Super Imperialism,” the new cold war on China and Russia, the Joe Biden administration, and dedollarization. In this extended interview, renowned economist Michael Hudson discusses his concept of US “Super Imperialism,” the new cold war on China and Russia, the Joe Biden administration, and dedollarization – the potential end to the dollar as the global reserve currency. Benjamin Norton 0:03 Hello, everyone, I’m Ben Norton. You’re watching Moderate Rebels. And there will be a podcast version of this after, for people who want to listen. We are joined today by the economist Michael Hudson, one of the most important economists in the world, honestly, in my view. And I don’t think he needs introduction. He has written many books, and has been an economic adviser for multiple governments, and has a long history on Wall Street and academia. And you can find his work at Michael-Hudson.com. Today, we’re going to talk about an issue that Michael Hudson has been writing about for decades, and something that you’re never really going to hear from other economists, especially mainstream neoliberal economists, and that’s what he calls super imperialism. The US government has of course its military apparatus, which we talk about a lot here at Moderate Rebels and The Grayzone, with the war in Iraq, the war in Syria, the war in Libya, but then there’s also the economic form that imperialism takes. And Michael Hudson wrote the book Super Imperialism that details exactly how this system works. So today, Michael Hudson, I want to start just talking about what super imperialism looks like today, in the new cold war. This is something that we talk a lot about. We saw that Joe Biden gave his first kind of major speech to Congress – we’re not supposed to call it a state of the union because it’s still his first year – but Biden gave a joint speech to Congress in which he declared that the United States is in competition with China to own, “to win the 21st century,” as he put it. And we’ve seen that the US government, under Biden, and of course before under Trump, has imposed several rounds of sanctions on Russia and on China. So Professor Hudson, let’s just start today talking about what you think the posture has been of the Biden administration, vis a vis Trump. We saw that the Mike Pompeo State Department essentially declared a kind of new cold war on China. Pompeo gave a speech at the Richard Nixon library in which he said that the famous Nixon visit to China was a mistake, and that we have to contain China and eventually overthrow the Communist Party of China. And some Democrats hoped that the Biden administration would kind of take a step back. But we’ve seen that the Antony Blinken State Department has continued many of these aggressive policies, accusing China of genocide. And we’ve seen that the Treasury Department just imposed several new rounds of sanctions on Russia. So what is your view on on the new cold war that’s going on right now? Michael Hudson 2:57 Well, I had originally wanted to call my book Monetary Imperialism. The publisher wanted to call it Super Imperialism, in 1972, because it was really the US moving towards a unipolar order, where it was not competing with other imperialisms; it wanted to absorb European colonialism, absorb European imperialism, and really be the single unipolar power. And of course that is what really has come about. The United States is trying to become the only dominant power in the world. And in today’s Financial Times [on May 5], one of the reporters said, it’s as if the United States wants to be the world’s absentee landlord, and rent collector. So we’re dealing with a monetary and a rentier phenomenon. And when Biden gave his speech last week, there was a very marked change, right in the middle of it. The very beginning was very calm, offering means of improvement for the American economy, and a set of proposals that were so wonderful that they don’t have the chance of being enacted. And that was simply to co-opt what calls itself the left wing of the Democratic Party, if that’s not an oxymoron. And then all of a sudden, his body language changed, his voice changed, and there was just an anger towards Russia and towards China, a visceral anger that brought back the whole 30 years of his tenure in Congress. And he was the leading cold war proponent, the leading proponent of the military, and of course now he wants to increase the military budget. So while on the one hand, he’s continuing the nationalistic trade policies of the Trump administration, he’s escalating the cold war against Russia and China, in the belief that somehow if he can impose sanctions and punish them economically, that will lead to a fall of the government. Well, you can see what he’s projecting here. It’s obvious that the United States economy is going to be in real trouble. Once the Covid crisis stops uniting the country in a feeling that we’re all in this together – and certainly in New York, where I live, in August, the freeze on real estate evictions, by renters, and foreclosures on mortgagees is going to end, and it’s expected there will be 50,000 New Yorkers thrown into the street. They’ve very kindly decided to postpone this until August, so at least they can sleep in the park, and don’t have to begin sleeping in the subways until maybe October. There’s no way that any Wall Street economist that I know can see if the economy is really going to recover. The stock market is going way up, thanks to a Federal Reserve policy of subsidizing bonds and stocks, with 83% owned by the 1% of the population. But the Federal Reserve is not backing any spending into the actual economy. Well that’s where the first part of President Biden’s speech came in. He was talking about building infrastructure and somehow reviving the economy. But it doesn’t look like he’s going to get much support from this from the Republicans, and he wants to be bipartisan. In other words, he says the Democratic Party, as always, won’t do anything that Republicans wouldn’t agree on. Because the Democrats are an arm of the Republican Party. Their role is to protect the Republican Party from left-wing criticism. So you can expect a wishy washy sort of slow decline with a few rapid spikes in decline as the Covid crisis ends. And you’re having almost a preparation for this by – I think Biden and the government people realize that the economy cannot regain its former industrial position, because it’s a rentier economy now. Money is not made by companies investing in industry and factories and means of production. When companies do make profits, they are largely monopoly rents, or resource rents, or other forms of rent extraction. And 90% of corporate income in the United States is spent on share buybacks and dividend payouts, not on investing in new production. So nobody’s really expecting new private investment to occur in the United States, that is private capital investment in means of production. So Biden says, well, if the private sector won’t do it, then the government can do it. But his idea of the government doing it is to give government money to private companies that will build industrialization. And he wants to essentially replicate the military-industrial complex into an enormous public-private partnership, to build very, very high-cost infrastructure that will make it almost impossible for Americans to have any trade competitiveness with other countries. Well if you’re going to create a high-cost rentier economy, that is post-industrialized like that, what do you do? You say it’s not our fault, foreigners are doing it to us; it’s all China’s fault – as if China had something to do with American de-industrialization. China’s trying to avoid the rentier policies, avoid the financialization, avoid the privatization that has made America so high cost and so ineffective. And the [US] government is trying to sort of blame it. But I think there is something else behind this fight against China and especially Russia. The Democratic leadership seems to have an almost emotional, passionate antagonism towards Russia that can’t be explained on objective grounds. But it’s obviously there. Their attempt to isolate Russia is as if somehow they can recapture the dream of the Yeltsin 1990s, the dream of somehow replacing Putin with a pliant alcoholic kleptocrat like Yeltsin who will resume the sale of Russia’s national resources and public utilities to Americans. There’s no way that’s going to happen. The actual effect of the sanctions on Russia and China has been to drive them together into a unit, into a critical mass. And ironically, America’s attempt to isolate other countries is turning into an attempt to isolate itself. The question in this is, what about Europe? In the last few days, there has been a lot of discussion about cutting Russia off from the SWIFT bank clearing system, and of other sanctions against Russia. Russia has already worked with China to develop their own alternative to the SWIFT banking clearing system. So Russian domestic payments are not going to be that disrupted, after a week or two that they say it’ll take the put the new system in. But what cutting Russia off in the SWIFT system does is block its trade and its community, its economic relations with Western Europe. The United States, I think, realizes that if it can’t get through, if it can exploit Third World countries, or Russia or China, at least it can make Europe permanently dependent, and drawn, and really under US control. So if you look at the sanctions against Russia and China as a way to split Europe and make Europe increasingly dependent on the United States, not only for gas, and energy, but also for vaccines. These are the two issues that have been in the news in the last few weeks. Blinken and other US officials said that Russia offering its Sputnik V vaccine to Europe is divisive, is an attempt to break up the world’s “rules-based order.” This is amazing, that Russia’s attempt to – now that Pfizer and the other American companies are not producing enough vaccine to provide to Africa, South America, and Asian countries, the United States is attacking Russia, and Cuba, and China for offering other vaccines and saying they’re trying, their attempt to save lives through the rest of the world is an attempt to divide and break up the American order. Because only the Americans can have the intellectual property monopoly, something that Blinken mentioned in his speech, and that President Biden mentioned. The intellectual property monopoly means that America gets to tell other countries, our firms have the right to say, “Your money or your life” to Third World countries. And that will be our means of, “Well, you can’t pay, well, why don’t you sell off some more of your infrastructure? Why don’t you sell off more of your oil or mineral resources to us?” So what we’re seeing is an intensification of economic warfare against almost all the other countries in the world, hoping that somehow this will divide and conquer them, instead of driving them all together. Max Blumenthal 13:24 Yeah, hi Professor Hudson, I totally agree with you about the Democrats, at least the political class and their perspective on Russia. And you have kind of two types that command the Democratic Party. You have these boomers who grew up hiding under their desks during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and were indoctrinated on anti-communism, then they went through the trauma of the ’60s, and saw McGovern lose, and moved to the center. And so they see Putin as a revival of the KGB and the evil Soviet Union that forced them under their desks in elementary school. And then you have the 30 and 40 somethings who see Russia as this exporter of white nationalism and the right wing, and they get this constant steady stream of propaganda from BuzzFeed and other sites about that – completely ignoring Ukraine. But this is just a marketing strategy to me. I mean, there’s something that you’ve spoken about written about in Super Imperialism and in recent talks that I think lurks behind what both the Trump and Biden administrations call “great power competition.” And that is, while this political class sees a national rivalry with Russia and uses it to unite its own constituency, a very fractious constituency, there is what you called the conflict of economic and social systems. And I fully understand this with respect to China. You see industry journals, even rail journals in the US talking about the fear of the Chinese rail system “not playing by the rules,” which means the free market, because they’re receiving state subsidies and kicking the ass of the American rail system, expanding infrastructure. But you have also included Russia into this counter-hegemonic system, which some would call state capitalist or socialized system, versus the financialized system – where that land, basically, that giant landmass, which the state in China, certainly, and you seem to be saying Russia, is socializing, is seen as an existential threat to the very essence of what the US has been constructed as, as an empire, where finance, industry, corporations have merged with the state. I think you understand where I’m going here. How can – maybe you can explain a little bit more about how this is actually, when we see Russiagate or this cold war rhetoric, it’s actually kind of a marketing device for the real conflict of economic and social systems. Michael Hudson 16:12 Well the real existential threat isn’t a trade rivalry; it’s not one of technology at all. The existential threat is to the idea of an economy based on completely a rentier system. In today’s world, the banks play the role that landlords played from the feudal epoch through the 19th century. And all the classical economics, the whole concept of free markets, from the physiocrats, with their laissez faire to Adam Smith, through John Stuart Mill, the whole of classical economics was to free industrial capitalism from the rentier class, from the landlords, and from banking and the monopolies that banks created in organizing trusts. So the US realizes that the economy has been transformed in the last 40 years, since the 1980s, since Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, when Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no alternative.” Of course, there were many alternatives. But the United States says, if we can create, if we can turn the “rules-based order” of free markets and classical economics upside down, and say our rules-based order means no government power to regulate, no government progressive taxation, but a flat tax – like we convinced Russia to have, that they still have, by the way – if we can have a rules-based order that backs the rentier class – a hereditary, financial, wealthy 1% of the population – holding the rest of the economy in debt peonage, or reducing them to other forms of dependency in a patron-client relation, then we’ve restored essentially the feudal economy. But in order for us to do that, we have to make sure that there’s no alternative; we have to prevent any alternative. And China is an existential threat, because what it is doing – its policy, which is very largely ad hoc, and purely pragmatic – China’s policy is exactly the policy that made the United States the industrial power of the world in the 19th century. China, like the United States, built public utilities to provide public services at low, subsidized costs, so as to enable its private industry not to have to pay for the costs of education, for high rental costs and housing costs, and high monopoly rents. China is doing exactly what the United States did, and what the United States now says, no other country can do what we did; we’ve pulled up the ladder, and our wealthy rentier layer of the population that got rich, now, having gained control of the United States, and its politics, we want to control the whole world. And if there is another successful economy, whether it is China, or Russia, or Iran, or Venezuela – if there’s any other economy that retains a strong state power, strong regulatory power, progressive taxation, preventing a landlord class from somehow increasing housing costs, privatizing medical and health insurance, so instead of making it a public right – well, if we can prevent that from occurring anywhere, then people will really believe there is no alternative but to let our takeover that reverses the entire last two centuries of free market economics, and now the economy has to be free for the 1% to take over government enterprise, to privatize every part of government, including government itself, including the central banks especially, and including the health system, the educational system – all running either for profit or at a cost that has to be paid by credit creation, and essentially recreate the economy of the 13th century. Benjamin Norton 20:31 Yeah, Professor Hudson, the argument that you’re making here, which I have seen very few people make, is – I mean, I think it’s a correct argument – but it’s interesting because it contradicts this claim that we’ve seen from even a lot of people on the left, who argue that the new cold war, or in general just the conflict between Washington and Beijing, is not a clash of systems; rather, their argument is that China is yet another capitalist power, and it’s an inter-capitalist rivalry, similar to the rivalry that led to World War One, and that China and the US have very similar economic systems. But you’re arguing, in fact, the exact opposite. And I just want to read a really brief part of this column that you published at your website, Michael-Hudson.com; it’s called “America’s Neoliberal Financialization Policy vs. China’s Industrial Socialism.” And you have an interesting quote here from a US government advisor for the Reagan administration, Clyde Prestowitz, who wrote, kind of complaining, saying: China’s economy is incompatible with the main premises of the global economic system embodied today in the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and a long list of other free trade agreements. These pacts assume economies that are primarily market based with the role of the state circumscribed and micro-economic decisions largely left to private interests operating under a rule of law. This system never anticipated an economy like China’s in which state-owned enterprises account for one-third of production; the fusion of the civilian economy with the strategic-military economy is a government necessity; five year economic plans guide investment to targeted sectors; an eternally dominant political party names the CEOs of a third or more of major corporations and has established party cells in every significant company; the value of the currency is managed, corporate and personal data are minutely collected by the government to be used for economic and political control; and international trade is subject to being weaponized at any moment for strategic ends. Now in your column, you pointed out how this is actually a pretty funny comment coming from a US trade adviser, because some of those same things that the US is accusing China of – like namely weaponizing international trade, or fusing the civilian economy with the military economy – of course Washington embodies that really better than any other country in the world. But he is confirming the point that you argued is correct. His complaint was that China still has state-owned enterprises accounting for 1/3 of production, and that the Communist Party of China still guides the economy. And in old-school terms, going back to Lenin, they would say controls the commanding heights of the economy. So do you think that, when people on the left in the US and other countries argue that this is all just a rivalry, an inter-capitalist rivalry between the capitalist class in China and the capitalist class in United States, what do you think of that argument? Michael Hudson 23:45 Well I have spent a great deal of time in China, and I have professorships at a number of universities there. It certainly is fundamentally different from the United States. You may have noticed in the last month, China has moved against Jack Ma, who was developing his information technology system into a credit system. They knocked him down, stopped the issue of new shares, the IPO, and said only the government can keep finance and credit as a public utility. Now what Prestowitz calls state-owned enterprises used to be called public utilities in the United States. And in Europe, most public utilities were government owned, like the National Health System. In the United States, it broke away from that government direct ownership and management of many public utilities, but the electric utilities, the gas utilities, almost all public utilities providing natural monopoly services were regulated. Now they have been deregulated. In the last 40 years, you have almost no regulation at all. So China is, by keeping public utilities in the public domain, that means that these are not vehicles for rent extraction, that is for charging monopoly rents such as we pay in New York for cable services, such as Americans pay for the internet, such as Americans pay for public health, such as Americans pay for education. China provides free education. China provides, and Russia basically, free public health. Unfortunately, Russian public health means giving you an aspirin if you have a problem, but at least it is not privatized. So the United States is a rentier economy. And when left-wingers – or people who call themselves left-wingers, they’re really not left-wingers at all; they’re, I don’t know what, post-left – very few people who call themselves left-wingers distinguish between industrial capitalism and finance capitalism. Well, that’s the distinguishing feature of the last century. Ever since World War One, there has been a movement away from industrial capitalism, towards financialization of the economies, towards finance capitalism, based on a merger between the financial sector and the rent extraction sector, mainly the FIRE sector – finance, insurance, and real estate – and also the natural monopolies where the banks have taken the lead in organizing trusts and organizing monopolies. And so the basis of most bank credit in the United States is to provide the ownership of companies or monopoly rights. Now, China doesn’t make loans for these things. The People’s Bank of China is the central bank. And the central bank doesn’t create credit for corporate takeovers; it doesn’t create credit for speculation; it doesn’t provide an economy that enriches itself off economic rents and exploitation. But, obviously, there are many successful billionaires in China, many successful entrepreneurs, but these are largely industrial entrepreneurs who have actually created something. China managed to avoid the Russian Stalinist micromanagement that blocked any kind of market feedback, or any kind of spontaneous innovation. China let 100 flowers bloom; it let innovation take place. It let individuals get rich off innovation, as long as they conducted their business, and production, and wealth in the public interest, defined as uplifting the quality of labor and contributing to the economy’s long-term growth. Well finance capitalism, such as we have in the US, doesn’t live in the long run; its timeframe is short term, one quarter at most, three months. And the timeframe is, how can we increase the price of our stock so that we can sell out and jump out of the sinking boat, when the time comes. They are not concerned with making the economy richer; they’re not concerned with making their labor force happier, better paid, or with a better standard of living, or even getting long-term pensions, which have been replaced by defined contribution plans instead of defined benefit plans. It’s basically an exploitative system. And China’s whole management system, although it’s centrally managed, you need a strong state in order to prevent an independent rentier class, an independent financial class, from emerging and doing to modern economies what it did to the Byzantine Empire, and tried to do in the Bronze Age Near East: take over the government. China does not want a rentier class to do what they have done in the United States and make America into a centrally planned economy. We’re now more of a centrally planned economy than Nazi Germany was. But the centrally planned economy is in Wall Street, in the financial system, not the government. So when Biden and Blinken talk about a free market, they mean a market centrally planned by the financial sector, with the government and elected officials not having any role to play except to decide whether they want to vote for the Democratic or Republican sponsors and backers of the rentier interests. Max Blumenthal 30:01 How do you think the pandemic, and – well I guess I could say there is a class in Washington that believes that Covid-19 was deliberately cooked up in a lab in Wuhan, because financial capitalism has performed so poorly in this pandemic and has suffered such a setback, in contrast to China’s economy, which is the only major economy in the world to have grown. And they fostered this conspiracy theory, because they can’t really understand why that is. So maybe you can explain how the pandemic has accelerated the trends that you have been elucidating, and the contrast between financial and industrial capitalism? Michael Hudson 30:44 Well I’m shocked to hear you say that finance capitalism has performed badly. The 1% have made a trillion dollars since the Covid crisis began. The Covid crisis is the best money-making opportunity. This is a bonanza for finance capitalism; it’s wonderful, because they’re pulverizing economy, they’re picking up all the marbles. Max Blumenthal 31:06 I meant for people who are not reptilian shapeshifters. Michael Hudson 31:09 Ah, I know. You’ve gotta be careful about what’s working, you know… They have to somehow prepare the ground for the fact that things are not going to get better. Nobody knows whether they’re going to go back to offices or not; they probably won’t be able to go anywhere near the levels that they were before this fall, because the schools and the offices don’t have the ventilation systems to stop aerosol transmission. They don’t have fans; most of them don’t have windows. So the result is they’re expecting a crash in commercial property values in the major cities. I know New York landlords who are trying to sell out their buildings here, anticipating that well, things are not going to get back to normal, and they’re not being offered any money at all. Because all the buyers, the money, the new private capital funds that have all been created, with trillions of dollars in the last few months, are waiting for the crash to pick up office buildings, commercial real estate, foreclosed homes, foreclosed rental properties, all at pennies on the dollar – and to do essentially what Blackstone did after Obama’s 2008 crisis, of the 10,000 families he affected, and created a bonanza for his backers, who elected him, the banking sector. So they’re expecting another Obama-type disaster that will make finance capitalism even more successful in reducing the rest of the economy to a state of dependency. Max Blumenthal 32:58 Do you think that the lockdown policies has benefited this class that has earned trillions and trillions of dollars? Michael Hudson 33:08 Well what is the alternative? I think there had to be a lockdown. We have seen what happened in Asia and countries that did have a lockdown; they didn’t get sick. You had to have a lockdown not to get sick. The problem is not the lockdown. The problem is that other countries are not doing the evictions and the foreclosures that the Americans have. Things like this happened way back in the Bronze Age, which is what I’ve written a number of books on, in Babylonia – and I think we’ve spoken about this before. When there was a drought, or an economic crisis, or a disease, and debts couldn’t be paid, rents weren’t due, debts weren’t due. America could have avoided the whole problem that the lockdown had by saying, ok, nobody is able to go to work; it’s obvious they can’t make, most people can’t make enough money to pay the rent and the mortgage payments on their homes, or even get by, so we’re going to say this is a time out of time; we’re not going to enforce the enormous backlog of unpaid rent and unpaid debts that have occurred. Now, to some extent, the problem has been mitigated by first Trump and then Biden giving a more stingy CARES Act giveaway to families, that were able to use the $1400 and the $600 that they got, or $1200, basically to pay their landlords, and to pay the credit card companies, and to pay the banks. But once the Covid crisis is over, there’s not going to be any more bailout of people and they’re still going to have all of the arrears that they’ve been running up. And they’re going to be even more debt-strapped after this September than they were before the crisis. And what the crisis really did was just accelerate the polarizing trend that you have in the United States, between creditors and debtors, between property owners and renters, and between consumers and monopolists. These trends have been exacerbated. And it doesn’t look like the government is going to find an alternative because they say there isn’t any alternative; iff you don’t like it here, why don’t you go to China? Whereas Americans are not good enough in language to go en masse to China. Max Blumenthal 35:43 Yeah, I hope they – Michael Hudson 35:45 It used to be, they’d say, if you don’t like it, why don’t you go to Russia? Nobody says that anymore. But what are you going to do? Oh, well, OxyContin I guess is the alternative. Max Blumenthal 35:56 When I criticized Israel, they’d told me to go to Gaza. I was like, ok, if you’ll let me in, I mean, you control the borders. But on another related note. Last summer, Venezuela applied for an IMF loan. It was a small loan, something like $20 million, to allow it to buy medical supplies, because the pandemic had begun, and they were locking down their population. And of course the IMF said no. It wasn’t difficult to understand why. And we’ve seen this same rejection applied to Iran. However, in early 2015, I believe it was February, Joe Biden went to Kiev – it was his first trip to Kiev as the kind of imperial lord of the post-Maidan [coup] order – and he boasted that he had secured a gigantic IMF loan of billions of dollars for Ukraine. This is a country that already at that point was notorious for corruption, ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And that loan money went straight to Swiss banks, through the pockets of the few, 10 or 11 sweaty oligarchs that controlled the country. So how do you explain this? You have written that “the IMF is basically a small room in the Pentagon’s basement.” So how do you explain this disparity in treatment between countries like Ukraine, which are absolutely incapable of paying back these loans, are so notoriously corrupt, and countries like Venezuela and Iran, which are obviously targets of US empire? Michael Hudson 37:47 Well my book Super Imperialism is all about how the IMF was created as an arm of US foreign policy. And it still is an arm. And there’s a mentality that the IMF has; it’s a pro-creditor mentality, and it’s dominated thoroughly by the United States, in a cold war modality. That’s why Russia and China are seeking to create their own international bank. And the even more vicious arm of American imperialism, probably the most deadly, is the World Bank, which is enormously destructive, throughout the former Soviet Union, in the Third World, by pushing micro-currency loans that are aimed at essentially making loans to women as heads of families, 70%, 80%, and then breaking up the family, foreclosing on them – essentially using microcredit loans as a way of evicting masses of families from their property, and turning it over to the client oligarchies in these countries. And in blocking countries from developing their own food self-sufficiency in grain, making them dependent on US grain exports, that has been a central aim of the World Bank ever since its inception, fighting against land reform. So the World Bank and the IMF have always been probably the most viciously pro-rentier, anti-progressive institutions in the world. And as such, they’re guided by essentially America’s deep state, as an arm of subjugating other countries, preventing their self-sufficiency. The idea is, if you can impoverish them, you will somehow lead to a regime change and put in a client oligarchy that will be willing to make their economy dependent on the United States. That’s a US foreign policy in a nutshell since 1945. Benjamin Norton 40:01 Yeah, Professor Hudson related to Venezuela, you were talking about the impact of sanctions, and there’s a de facto blockade of Venezuela – a Venezuelan economist, named Pasqualina Curcio, recently wrote an article in a Venezuelan media outlet in which she estimated that $350 billion of Venezuelan assets have been stolen or frozen from the Venezuelan public. And they’re currently held in foreign banks, in the she calls it transnational private sector. And she points out that this number – I don’t believe it’s adjusted for inflation – but this number, $350 billion, is equivalent to 25 times what was invested to rebuild Europe after World War Two. So this reminds me of a term that I think you pioneered or you popularized: grabitization. You talk about how, after the US plundered the former Soviet Union, Russia and the former Soviet republics, forcing neoliberal shock therapy, that it wasn’t just privatization, it was grabitization; it was grab as much as you can, as quickly as you can. It seems to me that that kind of model has been applied to Venezuela, with Juan Guaidó, the attempt to impose a fake interim government that was never elected. Do you think that that parallel of grabitization is is appropriate for Venezuela? Michael Hudson 41:36 Well you’ve seen it very clearly, when its gold reserves were seized by the Bank of England, which said, America is really the democratic center of the world, and as the democratic center, because we’re the democracy we get to say who is the president of any country in the world; and we have found a nasty little opportunist that you just mentioned, and we have decided he is the head of it, and we’re giving all of Venezuela’s gold supply to him, even though the the Venezuelan people didn’t elect them. Well Chileans didn’t elect Pinochet either. As the “democratic center of the world,” America gets to designate the heads of any given country, by military force when necessary. And so of course, the gold supply was simply grabbed by England – which again, is a small branch, totally dependent on the United States – and grabbed the gold; they grabbed all of Venezuela’s holdings, its oil company’s distribution network and gas stations in the United States. And the problem goes back – Venezuela was tied in a knot long before [Hugo] Chávez. And it’s when the United States backed a series of dictators, ever since [Marcos] Perez Jiménez in the 1950s, who essentially drew up international loan contracts, not only pledging sovereign debt to whoever the bondholders were, but collateralizing Venezuela’s debt with all of its oil reserves, and all of the holdings of its oil company, including the US affiliates of all this. And so Venezuela is still suffering from the era of colonialism that America is trying to blame on Chávez and his successors and on socialism, instead of on the American assassination teams and killer squads that put in the dictators that pledged all of Venezuela’s oil reserves to the foreign bondholders. Max Blumenthal 43:50 It was recently reported that Bill Gates – besides creating this global Earth surveillance system, and having contracts with the NYPD for mass surveillance, and then asking for privacy in his divorce – has because become the largest landowner in the United States, the largest landlord, the largest owner of agricultural land. He also presides over the vaccine distribution system or program that the US is employing, GAVI. His apparatchiks, and people who came through the Gates network populate the World Health Organization. He is donating millions and millions of dollars to mainstream US media organizations. He is regarded as sort of, almost a scientific expert. Whereas when Joe Rogan says something that might be seen as sensible about vaccination, Anthony Fauci comes out and condemns him as not a scientific expert. I don’t even believe Bill Gates has a college degree. But I just was wondering, because of the dominant position that Bill Gates enjoys over all of these multilateral, international institutions, as well as internally within US domestic politics, where do you think he fits into your analysis of super imperialism? Michael Hudson 45:17 Well certainly, the private sector is trying to merge with government to the largest extent possible. I think it’s very interesting, what is the real effect of Gates’s purchase of American land? What he’s doing is not developing agriculture; he’s poisoning the land that he’s on. He is promoting the use of pesticides and herbicides that are destroying the soil quality of the land. If he were an agent of the KGB, trying to destroy American agriculture, to make it dependent on Russia’s resurgence in agriculture, you couldn’t ask for a better foreign agent, because the policies he’s footing are so destructive of soil fertility, so destructive of the bee population, so destructive of the biological element of the soil. And in fact, Gates is making the same mistake with his foundation that Khrushchev made in Russian agriculture, when he began to develop Siberia, thinking that that would restore Russia’s self-sufficiency and grain to get free of America’s threats of the grain embargo. The development of Siberian land under Khrushchev worked very well for three years, and then it collapsed. Because they didn’t use crop rotation; they didn’t use natural fertilizers; they didn’t use any replenishment of the soil. And the policy that Gates is promoting in agriculture, instead of replenishing the soil is poisoning it. So if you wouldn’t want your worst enemy to be in charge of taking over American agricultural land, you wouldn’t want him to have any role in that whatsoever. The fact is, he’s really stupid. Once you get $100 billion, your IQ drops 30%. And so he’s suffered from that. You want to just sort of belong. You’re not the same person anymore. And once you inherit money, right there, your IQ goes down 20%. So now he’s operating with 50% of an IQ. So of course, when you have his money wield influence over international organizations, you have a “democracy” taking over. Benjamin Norton 47:45 How do you think that Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation fits in to super imperialism and your analysis of US control of the international financial system. Michael Hudson 47:54 He is volunteering to get the support of the deep state by following policies that win the approval of the deep state. And essentially, imperialism is a mentality, and it’s a technocratic mentality, with the idea that all of the fruits of technology should be a kind of monopoly rent accruing to the financial sector. And he has bought into that mentality. And whether you’re in the private sector or in the state, if you’re into the rentier mentality, you’re into the super imperialism mentality. Benjamin Norton 48:37 Well do you also agree with the argument, it seems like Gates has invested not just billions of dollars, but really his life into what seems like the privatization of the global public health system. I mean, the Gates Foundation is one of the principal funders of the World Health Organization. This is not a state; this is a foundation run by a single capitalist. Michael Hudson 49:00 Well he made his money in his computer systems by having a monopoly power, and what bigger monopoly can you have than a monopoly over health care? Saying, “your money or your life.” So of course, he puts his money as a natural extension of having his monopoly. It’s the same mentality of trying to create a privatized monopoly to prevent health care from being offered freely – to say, every public utility, from education, to health care, to transportation has to be offered at cost, and that cost will include a profit – and in fact, whatever the market will bear for economic rent, and dividends, and management fees, and consulting fees, until it all looks like the military-industrial complex applied to the hitherto public sector. Max Blumenthal 50:07 Well and also as you mentioned, the micro-loans, the privatization of public education through charter schools, the cash-free system that he and other global oligarchs like Pierre Omidyar are trying to implement in places like India, where they’re trying to get the rural poor out of the cash system and get them in debt, and then I guess move them off their land. And we have seen suicides and social catastrophe already as a result of the implementation of this system. And now Gates, his obsession with vaccination, and openly stating that he does not want to remove patents; he is obsessed, along with the US government that represents his interests and the interests of Big Pharma, with protecting intellectual property, potentially at the peril of global health. And then, Pfizer announced that it sees a massive profit potential in the vaccination of children as young as two years old, with these experimental mRNA vaccine, so the CDC goes ahead and licenses that or is planning to license that. So it’s pretty obvious what’s taking place. I think what’s a little bit more confounding – I mean, this is a little bit of a diversion, and it’s really my last question; I hope we can get into some Patreon questions, and Ben, if you have anything else – it’s a little bit more confounding, as you know, that there has been this trans-atlantic alliance that the US has marketed, but now it is threatening sanctions on the most powerful economy of Europe, Germany, for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. And the US has, it seems – and I want to get your view on this – successfully disrupted this massive EU-Chinese trade deal by weaponizing human rights allegations, talking about the treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang, or the supposedly poisoning of Sergei Skripal, the poisoning of Alexei Navalny. These have all been weaponized to try to interrupt these deals with what were seen as core post-war US allies. How is Europe going to respond to this? I mean, they seem to be pretty much buckling under US pressure. But how is the EU and Europe responding to this obvious attack on their independence? And how could this alter the contours of super imperialism? Michael Hudson 52:58 Well I want to comment on what you said earlier about Pfizer. Pfizer just announced $3.5 billion profit just for the first quarter. What they call intellectual property is what used to be called monopoly rent is unearned income. And the intellectual property in vaccines means not only that other countries are going to have to pay a monopoly rent to Pfizer and other monopoly rent pharmaceutical companies, but that America has to block other countries from accepting Russia’s vaccine. And it is said that Russia’s attempt to export its Sputnik V vaccine is an attempt to create “dissension” in Europe, “dissension” in the Third World countries. It is “dissension” if you don’t let half of your population die. It’s an insistence that other countries have to die in order to guarantee the profits to Pfizer, once it is able to put in place, four years from now, the enough facilities to prevent the rest of the other 50% of the population from dying. This is absolutely evil. And unfortunately, the German elections that you mentioned, are coming up this fall. And the Americans are putting enormous pressure to push an anti-Russian, pro-NATO puppet, I think largely from the Green Party – which is the anti-green, right-wing military party in Europe, unlike the United States – the Green Party is all for sanctions against Russia, and saying you have to treat any socialist in the same way that we’ve treated Julian Assange. I mean Julian Assange is an example of America’s commitment to intellectual freedom and to personal freedom. And the assassination teams that it has been sending out to Ecuador. other Latin American countries recently are more examples of this. Max Blumenthal 55:14 Can I just interrupt? Sorry Professor. One example that I think our listeners and viewers might not know about that really strikingly illustrates the trend that you’re elucidating here, is that two days before the Czech Republic, echoing the US, accused Russia of having blown up a munitions dump in 2014, and fingered as suspects Petrov and Boshirov, the same supposedly Russian FSB or GRU agents who supposedly poisoned Sergei Skripal as the culprits – this happened this this happened two days after the Czech Republic had announced that it would accept the Russian Sputnik V five vaccine. And on April 20, two Czech Republic announced that it would no longer accept the Sputnik V vaccine. It looked like such a bogus intelligence intrigue cooked up by the CIA to sabotage Sputnik V in Central Europe. And of course, the US-funded NATO troll farm known as Bellingcat had already been investigating this munitions dump issue. So that was pretty telling. So I think it’s exactly right, what you’re saying. I just wanted to illustrate it with that. Michael Hudson 56:32 Well comedians all over Europe for having a field day with that. I mean, here are the two alleged KGB agents. Max Blumenthal 56:41 Not here, haha. Michael Hudson 56:43 Haha, ok well, I have seen many comedy shows about this. And the fact that they would have the same two KGB agents who allegedly poisoned the Skripals using the same false names in the same passports in Czechoslovakia – you know, there has to be a black comedy about about all of that. But you’re right, it’s amazing, the accusation that helping save lives in other countries by offering them free or inexpensive vaccines will undercut the profits of American companies is a crime against humanity, and must be punished by sanctions. It shows you that I guess the United Nations is dead. Max Blumenthal 57:35 And just picking up on something else you said. You mentioned the German Green Party. This sort of represents everything that’s fraudulent about what we consider green politics. It’s a pro-NATO, pro-war, pro-surveillance state green party. And there is a – I don’t want to call it a conspiracy theory – a suspicion, based on the appointment of Armin Laschet to Germany’s CDU party, the Christian Democratic Union of Angela Merkel, which has been the dominant party in Germany, that he is too pro-Russian, he’s made some comments criticizing US conduct in Syria, that the US is sort of quietly backing the Green Party and then we see the Green Party surging. What do you make of that? And what do you make of the idea of the US sort of backing this pro-NATO form of green politics, or a NATO-oriented Green New Deal to reestablish, or to retrench global US financial control? Michael Hudson 58:48 This has been consistent and unbroken US policy since World War Two. After World War Two, the United States interfered with Italian politics to keep the Italian communists out of power; it interfered in Greece by wholesale assassinations, both by England and America, of Greek communists; it interfered in Yugoslavia. What it has done in Germany is the same as it has been doing throughout Latin America, and the Third World, and other countries for the last 75 years. So this should not be surprising at all. What is appalling is that the European press is not dealing more with this, and that the American press isn’t picking up the little bit that the European press is commenting on. So even the Financial Times is saying what you just said about the German politics in the Green Party. The major German papers are – I mean, I’ve had numerous interviews with the Christian Democratic Party newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and other groups there. It’s appalling that the Germans are almost like the English in believing that because they were defeated in World War Two, there’s still a reliance not only on the United States, but also the resentment by the East Germans over the Russian occupation of East Germany, and the appalling conditions there, that Germany still is as if it’s juxtaposing East Germany to the United States without realizing how much the world has changed in the last 30 years. Benjamin Norton 1:00:41 Well, Professor Hudson, we’re at an hour here, and I don’t want to keep you too long. So we’re gonna start wrapping up and we have some questions. But before that, I wanted to point out, just while we were talking about Pfizer – here in Latin America, there was a story going around that didn’t really get much coverage, if any, in English in the US, and that was that Pfizer, when Argentina was in negotiations with Pfizer, Pfizer was demanding control over glaciers and fresh water in Argentina, as well as fish reserves, in order for the vaccines. Which ironically, is what pushed Argentina to ally with Russia, more closely with Russia – traditionally they have not been very close allies – and now Russia is providing the Sputnik V vaccine as one of the main vaccines for Argentina. So this is another example of the point you’ve often made about how, the more that the US Empire pushes other countries, that actually in some ways backfires and pushes them into an alliance with China and Russia. But just just in the last few minutes here, over on our Patreon, we actually have 15 questions. So I’m not gonna be able to ask all of them, unfortunately. And what I can say, Professor Hudson, is maybe maybe you could try to answer some of them briefly. But I’m not going to ask you all of them, just because I don’t want to keep you for another hour here, but just for a few minutes. So we have a few questions here; I’ll kind of combine them. One of them is about Modern Monetary Theory, MMT. And another one is about Dr. Stephanie Kelton’s book The Deficit Myth. So I’m wondering if you just want to briefly address Modern Monetary Theory, Stephanie Kelton, his work, and what you think about it? And then I would add my own question to that briefly: How does Modern Monetary Theory fit into super imperialism? Because the point I would add is that you can only do Modern Monetary Theory-style spending if you have a sovereign currency, and if that sovereign currency is backed by a military, and you don’t have to do trade in the US dollar. So in many ways, it seems to me that Modern Monetary Theory is only really possible for the US because of super imperialism. Michael Hudson 1:03:05 Well, Stephanie, has been the major promoter of the now obvious idea that governments do not have to borrow from bondholders in order to finance their budget deficits; they can simply print the money, and the effect of printing the money is no more inflationary than borrowing from billionaires. If you borrow from a billionaire, money that they would not have spent, and spend it into the economy, the monetary effect is exactly the same as simply printing the money and creating it. And Stephanie used to be the number one promoter of Modern Monetary Theory until of course she was overtaken by Donald Trump, who said, we can cut taxes, run an enormous deficit, and as long as we give all of the deficit to the wealthiest 1%, by using $8 trillion to bid up stock and bond prices, and only $2 trillion into the economy, we can create all the money we have. And of course, he has a larger audience than Stephanie has. We’ve gone around the world giving speeches together, but I think the largest audience we had was maybe 40,000 in a sports stadium in Italy once, where people came to hear us talk about Modern Monetary Theory. But we didn’t have Donald Trump’s constituency. And he has shown that Modern Monetary Theory works. The difference is that the Republicans’, and now the Democratic, and the Federal Reserve’s idea of monetary theory is, of course the government can create all the money it wants, simply by printing it, but because the government has been privatized by the commercial banks and the financial sector. And so when we do create money, we’re going to create it to enrich the 1% not the 99%. Well of course Stephanie and me, and the rest of the University of Missouri at Kansas City staff, Randy Ray, and the others, we all wanted – our whole idea of printing money to finance deficits was to spend it into the economy, to create a full-employment economy, like Pavlina Tcherneva has been urging. Our idea was not to create money to give it to create a stock and bond bubble. And so somehow, the idea of MMT has been hijacked by the right-wingers and the Federal Reserve that are running away wild with it beyond anything we could have imagined. Benjamin Norton 1:05:34 Well really quickly, Professor Hudson, I think there is a lot of value to Modern Monetary Theory, and you just articulated that. But at the same time, I’ve seen this, this argument, and I’m curious about your thoughts that – you could say that, for instance, Venezuela tried Modern Monetary Theory, but because the currency was totally devalued by an economic war by the United States; it doesn’t have the same kind of financial, international economic power that the United States has, or that a currency like the euro would have. So of course a country like Greece can’t do MMT because Greece doesn’t have a sovereign currency. And a country like Venezuela can do MMT. It seems to me that only a major economic power that other countries might use their currency to trade in, like the United States, would be able to carry out these policies. Michael Hudson 1:06:25 The key is the balance of payments effect. No country can go broke if its debts are denominated in its own currency. Venezuela can print all the domestic currency it needs to pay its debts to keep the economy going. But it can’t print dollars. Only the United States government can create dollars, and in as much as Venezuela’s foreign debt is in dollars, that is beyond the ability of its government and treasury to print. Benjamin Norton 1:06:35 Well and Greece can’t print euros. Michael Hudson 1:06:58 That’s right. It can’t do that either. And when the United States structured the Eurozone, it made sure that no central government, no national government could create its own national currency, so they can’t run budget deficits to spend into the economy to help a recovery. The Eurozone has turned Europe into a dead zone, because it is unable to use Modern Monetary Theory, because the European Central Bank – the terms of the Eurozone agreements are that no government can run a deficit of more than 3%. Well obviously if the United States functioned under the Eurozone rules, we couldn’t have had the Trump policies; we couldn’t have had the policies that President Biden is suggesting. So the Eurozone has committed economic suicide by following a pro-creditor, deflationary policy on the logic that, if the government doesn’t create credit, there’s only one source of financing for the economy, and that source is private banks. So the Eurozone economic philosophy is designed to enrich private banks and their credit creation, not the government credit duration. And that’s the key of Modern Monetary Theory. Either credit is going to be created by private banks and interest for the things that private banks lend credit for, or it will be created by government, for the public interest and the kinds of things that governments run deficits for, if they’re good governments, to spend into the economy. Benjamin Norton 1:08:49 Professor Hudson, here’s another interesting question from over at Patreon. Have you followed this debate on the so-called “Great Reset,” which the World Economic Forum has talked about; it’s their plan. We’ve also seen the Five Eyes countries have used this phrase, “Build back better,” we’ve seen again and again. There’s clearly coordination; the United States has used, the Biden administration has used that term a lot, the Australian Government, etc. So basically the World Economic Forum and other kind of neoliberal institutions have been pushing this Great Reset idea. There was a video that kind of went viral that was later taken down where there were 10 visions for our future in 2030, and the first one was that, “You will own nothing, but you will be happy.” And another point of it was that, like everything will be delivered via drone. Max Blumenthal 1:09:44 And you’ll subsist off Bill Gates’ Impossible Burgers or whatever. Benjamin Norton 1:09:50 It seems to be very similar to like a kind of a new shock doctrine, but do you have any thoughts? Max Blumenthal 1:09:54 Well they call it a Fourth Industrial Revolution. Michael Hudson 1:09:58 It’s so bizarre. It’s almost a comedy. It’s like the old comics they used to have in grade school, “What’s wrong with this picture?”, and you’d see birds flying upside down and all sorts of dogs walking people. It’s just such nonsense. Can you say about it? It’s silly. But again, that’s what happens when when you get rich enough to join the World Economic Forum, your IQ drops 30%, and you lose your sense of judgment. Max Blumenthal 1:10:33 Well I think there is a logic behind it, when you think about it in terms of a Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is to unlock new financial potential to keep global capitalism going. And this is where a Green New Deal comes in. Michael Hudson 1:10:0 Sure, if I was a billionaire, I would be subject to wealth addiction, and I’d want to own all the property in the world. And so of course, I’d tell everybody else, you’ll be happy with no property. I’ll own it all, and my friends will own it all. Of course, you’ll be happier. Just let us take it. I mean, that’s the message. Benjamin Norton 1:11:08 I don’t know if you saw Jodi Dean has a new book, and her argument is that we’re seeing a kind of, not necessarily a new economic transformation, but a shift into what you could just call neo-feudalism. And that is actually a totally different system, a different mode of production; it’s no longer even really capitalism. The Great Reset is just their vision for techno-neo-feudalism. Michael Hudson 1:11:30 Yes, this is not Karl Polanyi’s Great Transformation. It’s feudal, yeah, I’ve been saying all along, it’s neo-feudalism. That’s what a rentier class is, a rentier economy. The difference is that the financial interests today and the monopolists play the role that the landlords played in the 19th century, before democratic reform ended the landlord class as such. And by doing that, paved the way for the resurgence of the financial class and the monopolists. Ben Norton 1:12:02 Well a question that is very interesting – we were talking in our discussion before the interview, and Professor Hudson said he doesn’t follow cryptocurrencies a lot. But I’m just curious because we got a question over at Patreon, Professor Hudson, what do you think about cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin? Also Dogecoin has become popular. And this is related to non-fungible tokens, NFTs. There has been an argument that all of this is just a new form of speculation for rich people who have nothing to invest in. And there’s another argument, especially for NFTs, which is that this is a new way to launder money. But I’m wondering what you think about cryptocurrencies and these new technologies. Michael Hudson 1:12:48 Well I think that, functionally speaking, cryptocurrencies are like Andy Warhol etchings; they have no intrinsic value, except the fact that other people want to buy them, and enough other people may them as trophies. As people get richer and richer, they want to buy trophies. Andy Warhol etchings and other bad art is one example of a trophy, and having money in a cryptocurrency, like Bitcoin, is another kind of a trophy. I think its main function is either money laundering or tax evasion. And certainly the amount of energy that it uses to mine Bitcoins makes it impractical as any actual means of payment. So you have essentially cryptocurrency only as a means of storing your liquid money in an asset that you think other people will buy, so it’s all based on expectations, nothing intrinsic at all. It gives new meaning to the phrase fictitious capital. Ben Norton 1:13:53 So someone asked here, over at Patreon, do you think that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin could be a way to help get off the dollar, to de-dollarize? Michael Hudson 1:14:03 No, they have no effect at all. It’s just shunted aside. If everybody would put their money on Andy Warhol etchings, that wouldn’t have anything to do about the dollar; it wouldn’t affect – money put in Bitcoin doesn’t affect international trade, or international investment, or tourism, or any of the actual payments among countries. It’s completely separate; it’s like money held in a Caribbean offshore banking center. Max Blumenthal 1:14:33 Max Kaiser and the Velvet Underground are not going to be happy about this. Michael Hudson 1:14:41 I’m not sure. I’ve known Max for many years. He has an audience that wants to hear about cryptocurrency, but I don’t think he has any. Maybe things have changed, but I would be very surprised. He and I don’t I have real disagreements about that. But I don’t have his audience. We have different audiences. So we talk about different things. Max Blumenthal 1:15:09 Right, well, I think you’ve found some common ground with central banks. Benjamin Norton 1:15:15 I also do want to point out, just to our audience, for people who don’t know – among Michael’s audience are multiple governments who he has advised. I was actually gonna say earlier, it’s just funny to me that, in the US, economic experts, the so-called “experts,” are people like Larry Summers, the big privatizers, who have destroyed entire economies – in the case of the former Soviet Union, to subordinate Russia’s economy to US capital. But to me, it just says a lot that they’re considered so-called economic “experts,” whereas Professor Hudson has advised the Chinese government and other governments. So to me, it says a lot about who the real experts are, and especially when you look at the the financial voodoo and the snake-oil salesmen that make up Chicago Boy economics. Michael Hudson 1:16:10 Wait a minute, my first client was the US government. And it was after Super Imperialism, they hired me to in 1972 to explain Super Imperialism to them, and they gave the Hudson Institute a $75,000 contract, most of which went to my salary, in order to explain it all. So I certainly was viewed – Super Imperialism was done as part of my consulting with the US government, as was the sequel, Global Fracture. And then the Canadian government, Mexican government, and it all spread out from there. Benjamin Norton 1:16:47 Well, a few more questions before we wrap up here, Professor Hudson. This is a very interesting question: How do you think that China can deal with a problem like extremism, especially in regard to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, CPEC, in neighboring volatile countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Because we’ve seen that a key part of the Belt and Road Initiative has been to better integrate Central Asia and South Asia, some of these countries that do have a problem with extremism and secessionist movements. And that’s really at the heart of the New Silk Road. Michael Hudson 1:17:24 China is not as interfering as the United States is. It is trying to carefully avoid taking sides, for better or worse, in any of this. Pepe Escobar follows all of this pretty closely. It’s certainly not going to get militarily involved, as the United States does. Its main concern is that the United States foreign legion, essentially America’s major ally, is Saudi Arabia. America has an alternative to socialism, and the alternative is Wahhabi fanaticism. And it has worked for Saudi Arabia to use ISIS and other Wahhabi terrorist organizations to try to destabilize Russia from the south, which was Stalin’s great fear in World War Two, and to destabilize China from the Uighur section. So what China is trying to do is to prevent foreign-backed terrorism and sabotage in its own country, while trying to just make a modus vivendi with other countries that have problems and not to try to engage in the kind of regime change, much less military occupation, that is the centerpiece of American policy. Benjamin Norton 1:18:44 There’s another question here – we’ll probably just ask two more, two or three more here just to wrap up – but this could be an entire interview, so of course, we can keep it brief, and maybe we can have you back another time to talk about this. One of our patrons asked about “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” and said, from your experience working with the Chinese government and other education systems, do you see the political will from the Xi Jinping administration to keep toward on the socialist path? Or do you feel that China is having a new battle with capitalists and financialized forces within the system since Deng Xiaoping’s reforms? Michael Hudson 1:19:24 Well in the late 19th century, everyone viewed socialism as the more efficient evolution of industrial capitalism. So I don’t think it helps to say whether China is socialist or capitalist. The famous phrase from Deng went, “White cat, black cat, it doesn’t matter as long as it catches mice.” I think the Chinese are sort of in the process continually of reinventing their economy, of seeing what works and what doesn’t. I think they’re operating on a pragmatic, ad hoc basis, and that pragmatism doesn’t lead them to think, is this capitalist or socialist? They don’t think in terms of an abstract generality; they think very specifically, does this particular industry help develop China or not? Is it part of our overall long-term plan for 2025, 2030, and beyond? How does this fit into developing the economic structure of our economy to make it more practical? So I don’t think labels really help in this at all. They present themselves as a Marxist country, but Marx didn’t talk about the kind of problems that they’re handling now. And as one of my fellow professors at the Peiking University said, Marxism is the Chinese word for politics. And they’re political; they’re pragmatic; and you should think really in terms of what are they doing structurally, and not thinking, what label, especially what Western label, are we going to print or paste on what they’re doing? Labels don’t help; you actually have to get into the nitty gritty, looking at how they’re handling tax policy, how they’re handling land ownership and credit policy, how they’re handling the budget deficits of rural communities – these are the problems that they’re dealing with right now. Benjamin Norton 1:21:45 Yeah, there’s definitely on the left a very long history of holier-than-thou kind of No True Scotsman sentiment, so I think that’s very refreshing. Here’s another question, Professor Hudson: What do you think is the regional and international significance of the RCEP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership? That’s the trade trade agreement sign between countries in eastern and southeastern Asia in 2020. Michael Hudson 1:22:13 You can’t tell yet. There’s still a jockeying for position with its relationship to the United States, Europe, and other countries, so too early to tell. Benjamin Norton 1:22:27 Ok, here’s an interesting question, he said, Dr. Hudson, do you think land tax or the Singapore model is best for creating affordable housing for workers? And what can we do on local and state levels? Michael Hudson 1:22:45 The land tax is by far the best way of keeping housing prices down, because as countries get more prosperous, the value of the rented location is going to go up. As you develop educational systems, and parks, and public utilities, then you’re going to have the rental value of given sites and properties, houses and office buildings rise. Now, landlords don’t create this prosperity; they don’t create the public infrastructure that raises value. If you do not tax it away, then all of this rental value is going to be available to be pledged to banks, and the banks will lend enough money so that the mortgage interest is going to absorb all of the land rent. If you tax away the land rent, then this cannot be capitalized into higher value. And if you tax the land rent, number one, you don’t have to tax income, you don’t have to have a sales tax, you tax only the unearned economic rent. And the argument for that was all laid out by Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, and Marx, and Thorstein Veblen, and other people in the 19th century. So obviously, if you want low-cost housing, you want to prevent the financialization of real estate. And that I can assure you is one of the central problems that China is dealing with right now. And it’s a problem that I have a book coming out on this, a series of my lectures in China dealing with this, that will be available in about three months. Benjamin Norton 1:24:28 Final question, and we’ll wrap up. Thank you so much for joining us, Professor Hudson. This is another one of those questions that could go on forever, but we can just keep it brief, because we’re almost at 90 minutes here. Can any country attempt to move away from the dollar? Or does the economy need to be of a certain size? And does the country have to have specific resources to do so? Michael Hudson 1:24:51 Any country can move away from the dollar as long as they they are part of a system that has a critical mass. So the great threat to the dollar hegemony is that China, Russia, Iran, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization countries are going to be a critical mass, that Venezuela, much of Latin America, Africa, and the rest of Asia can all join. So, yes, as long as you’re part of, as long as there’s a viable alternative with a critical mass – the fact is, if you rely on the dollar, you’re probably going to get screwed. Because with the dollar, as we discussed earlier in the show, the US can grab your bank account, at any point; they can grab your gold reserves at any point. Even Germany is now asking for its gold reserves to be flown black slowly, month by month. Max Blumenthal 1:25:47 They can grab you. They can literally grab you. Look at Alex Saab. Michael Hudson 1:25:54 Right, indeed. So yes, any anyone can – within a few years, you’ll have an alternative economic order to the dollar, so that things don’t have to be the way they are. There is an alternative; Margaret Thatcher was wrong. And so is Biden and Blinken. Benjamin Norton 1:26:15 Excellent, well, thank you so much, Professor Hudson, for joining us. I just want to plug that a new version of his book Super Imperialism will be coming out soon, in a few months. And hopefully, Professor Hudson, we can have you back to discuss that. I’m looking forward to it. I think it’ll be very important. And I think we’re living through really a historical watershed moment, with what you just referenced, that there is a new international financial system being built right now, as we speak, and so few people acknowledge that’s even happening. So thanks so much for your work, and thanks for speaking with us. Michael Hudson 1:26:50 It’s been a very enjoyable discussion. Thanks for having me. Max Blumenthal 1:26:53 Thanks a lot, Professor. Benjamin Norton 1:26:55 Great, and if anyone wants to support the work we do here at Moderate Rebels, you can go over to Patreon, patreon.com. And I would also highly recommend checking out Michael Hudson’s website; that is Michael-Hudson.com. I would definitely never call myself anywhere near an economics specialist; I focus much more on politics. So I always find that such a valuable resource. I’m constantly going to read it. Because what’s good is that Professor Hudson has not only his articles, but he also has transcripts of all of the interviews that he does. And we will have a full transcript of this interview that he’s going to post over at Michael-Hudson.com. Thanks so much for joining us. And we will see you all next time. If you want to submit questions like we did in this broadcast, go to patreon.com. And we’ll see you all next time. Thanks.

Write an article about: US woos India’s far-right PM Modi to help wage new cold war on China. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

BJP, China, India, Joe Biden, Narendra Modi, Quad, RSS

The US government is trying to divide the BRICS bloc and recruit India for its new cold war on China. Biden doesn’t care that far-right Prime Minister Modi is closely linked to fascistic Hindu-supremacist groups that violently oppress minorities. India’s far-right Prime Minister Narendra Modi took a historic trip to the United States this June. President Joe Biden rolled out the proverbial red carpet for Modi, touting a “new era” to “strengthen our partnership for decades to come”, as the US seeks to recruit India for its new cold war on China. The two leaders released a joint statement implicitly criticizing China and Russia. Reuters made it clear that “Washington wants Delhi to be a strategic counterweight to China”, and that the two leaders signed “deals on defense and commerce aimed at countering China’s global influence”. Together, the United States and India – the world's oldest and largest democracies – are a combined force for global good. It's my pleasure to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the White House to strengthen our partnership for decades to come. pic.twitter.com/cj8d3Xzn8K — President Biden (@POTUS) June 22, 2023 Britain’s establishment newspaper The Guardian declared that there is a “bipartisan consensus” in the US that India’s far-right government is a “linchpin” in Washington’s efforts to weaken and destabilize Beijing. India is already a member of the US-led, anti-China military bloc the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), along with Japan and Australia. The Quad is often referred to as an “Indo-Pacific NATO” or “Asian NATO”, and is explicitly aimed at encircling China. Biden and Modi had a friendly meeting at the Quad leaders’ summit in Hiroshima this May. The Quad leaders’ summit in 2022 Inside India, Modi is notorious for his links to extremist Hindu-supremacist politics. In the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002, there was a massive pogrom in which hundreds of Muslims were killed. At the time, Modi was chief minister of the state. He oversaw the violence. During Modi’s tenure leading Gujarat, state-sponsored school textbooks glorified fascism, teaching children about “Hitler, the Supremo” and the “Internal Achievements of Nazism”. Modi is also a longtime member of the fascistic RSS paramilitary movement, whose early leaders praised Adolf Hitler and sought to model their religiously pure “Hindustan” off of the Third Reich, demonizing Muslims much in the same way as Nazi Germany demonized Jews. In his 1939 book We, or Our Nationhood Defined, RSS ideologue MS Golwalkar wrote, “To keep up the purity of the nation and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of Semitic races – the Jews. National pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by”. Modi’s far-right Hindu-nationalist party BJP is the political arm of the RSS. BJP lawmakers have given speeches openly calling for forcibly “re-converting” South Asian Muslims and Christians. They also routinely incite against Dalits and other low-caste Indians. In India today, left-wing activists are routinely attacked. Progressive media outlets that criticize the government’s neoliberal, anti-worker economic policies are raided. Their editors’ homes are ransacked by police. Despite his close links to violent extremist groups, Modi has enjoyed bipartisan support in Washington, among both Republicans and Democrats. On his trip to Washington this June, Modi delivered a speech before a joint session of Congress. Politicians from both sides of the aisle lavished him with standing ovations. While Biden welcomed fascist-linked Modi to Washington, he simultaneously smeared China’s President Xi Jinping as a “dictator”. Back when Barack Obama was president, the New York Times noted that the fellow Democrat also had a close “friendship” with Modi. Donald Trump’s relationship with Modi was even more intimate. The two far-right leaders symbolically held hands at a “Howdy, Modi” rally in Texas. In 2021, Trump’s former CIA Director turned Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasted that Washington had tried to weaken the BRICS by supporting Modi (along with Brazil’s far-right leader, Jair Bolsonaro). “Remember BRICS? Well, thanks to Jair Bolsonaro and Narendra Modi, the B and the I both get that the C and the R are threats to their people”, Pompeo tweeted triumphantly. The US goal is very clear: recruit India to divide BRICS and isolate China and Russia. Remember BRICS? Well, thanks to @jairbolsonaro and @narendramodi the B and the I both get that the C and the R are threats to their people. pic.twitter.com/JwL8E0uJte — Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 19, 2021 Modi had nothing to do with the creation of BRICS. The bloc was founded in 2009 under his predecessor, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, from the opposition Indian National Congress party – the main rival of Modi’s far-right BJP. The strains have become increasingly obvious. Former Indian diplomat MK Bhadrakumar wrote this January that “India’s got the BRICS blues”. Modi’s far-right regime in “India feels uneasy that the centre of gravity in BRICS is poised to shift further to the left”, he explained. Bhadrakumar noted that Modi is an avid “acolyte of the US-led ‘rules-based order'” – that is to say, the US-led imperialist system. These efforts appear to be working, at least partially. In a bad sign for the process of Asian integration, India was supposed to host a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in July, but Modi cancelled the in-person meeting and downgraded it to a mere virtual call. The Indian press noted that this “decision came as a surprise to many as the leaders of all SCO countries were expected to attend the summit physically in New Delhi”. China, Russia, and Pakistan are fellow SCO members. Iran recently joined as well. By cancelling the in-person summit, Modi indicated that the SCO is not a significant priority – while his trip to Washington was clearly at the top of his agenda. That said, India is not totally subservient to the US. India does still maintain close economic relations with Russia, largely because Moscow sells it oil at a big discount, along with cheap fertilizers. Russia is likewise the biggest supplier of weapons to India’s military. Delhi’s historic friendship with Moscow goes back to the days of the Soviet Union, when the left-leaning Indian National Congress party rejected Washington’s first cold war and led the Non-Aligned Movement. Modi’s government has not entirely rejected the foreign policy of India’s Non-Aligned past. But he has moved Delhi closer to Washington, and has increasingly antagonized China. The US is already India’s largest trading partner. Washington is now pressuring companies to “friendshore” operations, moving from China to India. Some firms may do so, but thus far not many have. At the moment, “friendshoring” seems to mostly be a media buzzword. Replacing massive, multimillion-dollar factories is much easier said than done. China also has capital controls, meaning Western investors can’t simply pull all of their capital out of the country on a whim. Furthermore, the reality is that China’s workforce is very skilled, and thus very difficult to replace. India does offer a massive market; its population just overtook China’s, making it the most-populous country on Earth. But while India may now have more people, its economy is a mere fraction of China’s. China has the world’s largest economy, when measured at purchasing power parity (PPP). China’s GDP per capita (PPP) in 2021 was $19,338, whereas India’s was just $7,242, according to World Bank data. When he arrived in the US, Modi was immediately greeted by a Who’s Who of the ruling class. Not only political leaders, but also a motley crew of oligarchs like Apple CEO Tim Cook and US government-subsidized anti-government billionaire Elon Musk. Hedge fund manager Ray Dalio met with the Indian leader and wrote excitedly, “I am pleased to be able to help PM Modi as he is a man whose time has come when India’s time has also come. He and India are in an analogous position to Deng Xiaoping and China in the early 1980s”. I am pleased to be able to help PM Modi as he is a man whose time has come when India’s time has also come. He and India are in an analogous position to Deng Xiaoping and China in the early 1980s–i.e., at the brink of the fastest growth rates and biggest transformations in the… https://t.co/20Hcc6TtAJ — Ray Dalio (@RayDalio) June 22, 2023 This comparison is absurd. Modi and Deng could hardly be more different. And the conflict between China and India is nothing at all like the Sino-Soviet Split. Deng’s reforms came after China had a revolution and implemented comprehensive agrarian and land reform – something India desperately needs. China’s incredible development was only possible because of that foundational step, which allowed it to move into a new phase of massive industrialization, to develop the productive forces needed to provide the material basis for advancing socialism. India never had a revolution. Its land reform after independence was very uneven and incomplete – and many of the progressive Nehruvian gains have since been reversed over decades of neoliberalism. China has always implemented five-year plans. This partial planning has undergirded its marvelous economic growth. Modi has no coherent economic development plan. Thus far, he has only continued the failed neoliberal model. Some US corporations will probably increase “friendshoring” to India, but unless the country has a concerted, state-led industrial policy that uses strategic foreign investments, technology transfers, and joint ventures to develop its own local infant industries (with protectionist policies to save them from being devoured by Western competitors), Indian workers will simply end up being increasingly exploited by foreign capital, with few long-term gains. In fact, Modi’s signature program “Make in India” has been a total failure. Modi launched the initiative in 2014, immediately after coming to power. He boldly claimed that India would become a manufacturing superpower, vowing that manufacturing would rise to 25% of GDP and create 100 million new jobs. Instead, India lost 24 million manufacturing jobs and its share of GDP fell from 17% to 14%, as of 2021. India’s Bloomberg affiliate reported in 2021: “Make in India has failed to achieve any of its stated goals. Rather, every indicator has worsened, be it the share of manufacturing in the economy or the number of jobs generated in manufacturing”. “For all his rhetoric of reviving Indian manufacturing to compete with China, Modi has done much worse than his predecessor Manmohan Singh”, the website added. Moreover, Modi’s far-right BJP is the polar opposite of the Communist Party of China. It has no coherent economic development plan either. Instead, the BJP and its fascistic RSS movement are focused on promoting Hindutva and waging (an often violent) culture war on Muslims and Dalits. Finally, the US economy is in a weaker position today than it was then – and is facing severe decline. In 1980, the US made up just over 20% of the global economy (with GDP measured at PPP). At the same time, India’s economy was slightly larger than China’s, with 2.77% compared to 2.26%, according to IMF data. As of 2023, the tables have completely turned. China now represents 18.92% of the world economy, bigger than the US at 15.39%, and significantly larger than India at 7.47%. Comparing Modi to Deng totally misunderstands the vastly different material conditions in China, India, and the US, then and now. The reality is that, this time, Washington simply doesn’t have the power needed to repeat its Kissingerian “triangular diplomacy”. US hegemony is in terminal decline. India may at the end of the day recognize this, hedge its bets, and return to a more non-aligned foreign policy. But Washington is doing everything it can to prevent that.

Write an article about: China and Russia declare ‘new era’ of multipolarity, challenging US interventionism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Belt and Road Initiative, BRICS, China, Eurasian Economic Union, multipolarity, NATO, Russia, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Ukraine, UN, United Nations

After meeting in Beijing, China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin released a joint statement clarifying the ideological divisions of the new cold war: Eurasian calls for multipolarity, cooperation, sovereignty, and “redistribution of power in the world” against US unipolar hegemony and interventionism. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) February 4, 2022 may very well be remembered in history textbooks as an important date in the shift of global politics. That day was not only the inauguration of the XXIV Olympic Winter Games in Beijing; it also saw a historic meeting between the presidents of China and Russia. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin signed a series of important economic and political agreements, deepening the integration of the two Eurasian superpowers. Among these was a major 30-year deal in which Russia will supply gas to China via a new pipeline, with both sides of the energy transfers managed by state-owned companies. And in a sign of their mutual efforts to challenge the dominance of the US dollar, they decided to settle the sales in euros. Following the Xi-Putin reunion, the Chinese and Russian governments released a lengthy joint statement declaring a “new era” of multipolarity, proposing a new international political model that will leave behind the unipolar hegemonic order dominated by Washington. At more than 5,000 words in length, the joint declaration was in some ways a kind of manifesto. It was obviously carefully drafted before the meeting, and it clearly defined the contrasting ideological lines of the new cold war: On one side is the United States and its NATO allies, which are defending a status quo based on unilateralism and interventionism (that is to say, imperialism); on the other side are China, Russia, and their allies, which are building a new system rooted in multilateralism and sovereignty. “The world is going through momentous changes, and humanity is entering a new era of rapid development and profound transformation,” the joint statement declared. In this “new era,” a “trend has emerged towards redistribution of power in the world,” the Eurasian powers wrote. That center of power is no longer concentrated in the capitals of trans-Atlantic Western colonialist powers; the East and the South have risen. Beijing and Moscow could hardly have been any more straightforward in what they were proposing as an alternative: they “condemn[ed] the practice of interference in the internal affairs of other states for geopolitical purposes,” and instead called “to establish a just multipolar system of international relations,” using the word “multipolar” four times, and “multilateral” 11 more. The historic Chinese-Russian statement was marked by its appeal for de-escalation, and its insistence that NATO must stop expanding and “abandon its ideologized cold war approaches, to respect the sovereignty, security and interests of other countries.” The fact that the joint statement employed such language (it warned three times of the US-led bloc’s “cold war” mentality) is an obvious acknowledgement by the Eurasian powers that Washington is waging a second cold war, and that it seeks nothing less than the overthrow of the governments in Beijing and Moscow. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made this goal clear as day in a bellicose 2020 speech at the Richard Nixon library, in which he declared, “We, the freedom-loving nations of the world, must induce China to change.” The former CIA director insisted, “Securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time.” Then in 2021, NATO’s de facto think tank the Atlantic Council published “The Longer Telegram,” modeled after the “long telegram” of cold warrior George Kennan, who crafted US containment policy toward the Soviet Union. The Longer Telegram stated that Chinese President Xi must be replaced and Beijing should be forced “to conclude that it is in China’s best interests to continue operating within the US-led liberal international order rather than building a rival order.” The governments in Beijing and Moscow are closely following these developments, and can see where they are headed. The statement they released on February 4 was their joint response, calling “for the establishment of a new kind of relationships between world powers on the basis of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial cooperation,” instead of conflict. It is no coincidence that this meeting between Xi and Putin in Beijing – their first face-to-face reunion since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic – and the accompanying joint statement also came at a time of heightened tensions between NATO and Russia. The manufactured crisis in Ukraine in late 2021 and early 2022, coupled with the Western bloc’s flagrant refusal to acknowledge any of Moscow’s security concerns, showed that NATO believes it has the right to permanently expand and militarily encircle Russia. So while the joint declaration requested de-escalation, “reiterat[ing] the need for consolidation, not division of the international community, the need for cooperation, not confrontation,” it also emphasized that Beijing and Moscow are prepared to defend themselves. The Eurasian powers stressed “that the new inter-State relations between Russia and China are superior to political and military alliances of the [first] Cold War era.” In an unambiguous reference to the foreign policy of the United States, the Chinese-Russian joint statement declared that Washington’s policies of unilateralism and interference only represent a “minority” and must end: Some actors representing but the minority on the international scale continue to advocate unilateral approaches to addressing international issues and resort to force; they interfere in the internal affairs of other states, infringing their legitimate rights and interests, and incite contradictions, differences and confrontation, thus hampering the development and progress of mankind, against the opposition from the international community. Beijing and Moscow juxtaposed these interventionist practices of US imperialism with a proposal of multipolarity and “well-being for all”: [China and Russia] call on all States to pursue well-being for all and, with these ends, to build dialogue and mutual trust, strengthen mutual understanding, champion such universal human values as peace, development, equality, justice, democracy and freedom, respect the rights of peoples to independently determine the development paths of their countries and the sovereignty and the security and development interests of States, to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role, promote more democratic international relations, and ensure peace, stability and sustainable development across the world. The declaration’s use of the phrase “international law-based world order” was important, because it was a rejection of the vague concept of the so-called “rules-based international order” that the US government has tried to impose on the world. China’s and Russia’s ambassadors to the United States published a joint article in November 2021 that emphasized a similar point, writing: There is only one international system in the world, i.e. the international system with the United Nations at its core. There is only one international order, i.e. the one underpinned by international law. And there is only one set of rules, i.e. the basic norms governing international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. Flaunting the “rules-based international order” without referencing the UN and international law and attempting to replace international rules with the dictums of certain blocs falls into the category of revisionism and is obviously anti-democratic. The February Chinese-Russian statement echoed much of what the ambassadors wrote in November, while further fleshing out the Eurasian perspective. Both declarations strongly defended democracy, but in a more comprehensive, expanded definition of the term that reflects real people’s democracy, not just a superficial system in which “people are only awakened when casting their votes and sent back to hibernation when the voting is over.” In a strident rejection of the “liberal interventionist” ideology of the US government, the Chinese-Russian statements condemned the cynical “abuse of democratic values and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the pretext of protecting democracy and human rights.” Beijing and Moscow hope to defend concepts like multilateralism, non-interference, and respect for national sovereignty by democratizing and strengthening international institutions such as the UN, BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and Eurasian Economic Union. While calling “to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order,” the February Chinese-Russian statement urged a democratization of the body, to “seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council.” Beijing and Moscow likewise wrote that they “aim to comprehensively strengthen the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and further enhance its role in shaping a polycentric world order based on the universally recognized principles of international law, multilateralism, equal, joint, indivisible, comprehensive and sustainable security.” Moreover, the Eurasian powers said they “support the deepened strategic partnership within BRICS,” the framework bringing together Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, to “promote the expanded cooperation in three main areas: politics and security, economy and finance, and humanitarian exchanges.” Part of this global realignment also involves merging China’s massive global infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative, with the Eurasian Economic Union, the Russia-led economic bloc. Beijing and Moscow wrote: The sides are seeking to advance their work to link the development plans for the Eurasian Economic Union [EAEU] and the Belt and Road Initiative with a view to intensifying practical cooperation between the EAEU and China in various areas and promoting greater interconnectedness between the Asia Pacific and Eurasian regions. The sides reaffirm their focus on building the Greater Eurasian Partnership in parallel and in coordination with the Belt and Road construction to foster the development of regional associations as well as bilateral and multilateral integration processes for the benefit of the peoples on the Eurasian continent. Following the meeting between Presidents Xi and Putin on February 4, China’s Foreign Ministry published a readout summarizing the main points of their discussions. Implicitly criticizing the US government’s superficial claims to support multilateralism and democracy, Beijing wrote, “The two sides have taken an active part in the reform and development of the global governance system, followed true multilateralism, safeguarded the true spirit of democracy, and served as a bulwark in mobilizing global solidarity at these trying times and upholding international fairness and justice.” The Chinese readout stressed this call for “international fairness and justice,” repeating the phrase three times. Emphasizing the importance of “upholding sovereignty” and “defending sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Beijing added that the Eurasian powers must “effectively counter external interference” – an obvious reference to US meddling and regime-change operations. The message of the statements published by Beijing and Moscow could not have been clearer: the era of US unipolar hegemony is dead, and the world is now in a “new era” with an international order based on multipolarity and principles of non-interference. In making these declarations, the Eurasian powers were drawing an ideological line in the sand. The world already knew what political and economic model Washington, Brussels, and NATO are offering, but now it can clearly see what China and Russia are posing as an alternative.

Write an article about: NATO failed in Ukraine against Russia. Now it’s targeting China. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Geopolitical Economy Hour, Michael Hudson, NATO, Pepe Escobar, Radhika Desai, Russia, Ukraine

Political economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson are joined by geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar to discuss how NATO has shifted from its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine to targeting China in the Pacific. Political economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson are joined by geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar to discuss how NATO has shifted from its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine to targeting China in the Pacific. You can find more episodes of Geopolitical Economy Hour here. RADHIKA DESAI: Hello, everyone, and welcome to the [14th] Geopolitical Economy Hour, the fortnightly show on the political and geopolitical economy of our times. I’m Radhika Desai. MICHAEL HUDSON: And I’m Michael Hudson. RADHIKA DESAI: And today we propose to discuss NATO in the aftermath of its recently concluded Vilnius Summit, exploring a variety of questions about how its assault on Russia is faring and the prospects of extending its sphere of operations to what NATO leaders like to call the Indo-Pacific. RADHIKA DESAI: And in order to do this, on today’s show, we are joined by none other than Pepe Escobar. Many of you will, of course, know who he is. He’s a Brazilian journalist, geopolitical analyst and author. Pepe, welcome to our show. PEPE ESCOBAR: It’s a huge honor and pleasure to be with you guys and with this fantastic audience, of course. And let’s rock. RADHIKA DESAI: All right. Let’s let’s rock. So basically, NATO is a huge topic and it’s surrounded by a considerable amount of smoke and a vast number of mirrors. So we have to try to understand we have to sort of push through all of this to try to understand what it is. It calls itself a defensive alliance, defensive. The fact of the matter is it was created as part of the Cold War, which the U.S. launched more or less single handedly before the Second World War was even over. It launched it against its own Second World War ally. And again, the United States did this, you know, launched the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as part of this launching of the Cold War. So there is no way in which this war is defensive. And what’s more, it’s also was an offense against communism, of course, but it has also been an offense against the third world. Essentially, NATO was also set up as a bit of a rival to the United Nations, which the U.S. liked less and less as it began to include more and more countries from the third world. Alliance? What sort of an alliance is it in which one about one member seeks to essentially damage and harm other members? That’s what the United States is doing, for instance, to Germany today. That’s what it did to the United Kingdom all those decades ago at the end of the Second World War. Much is also made of NATO’s unity. In reality, the effort, the mountains of effort required to paper over the cracks that are widening in NATO are, in fact, no longer even enough. And the cracks are showing through. The North Atlantic? What do you mean North Atlantic? NATO has long abandoned its alleged sphere of operation and it has penetrated more and more outside that sphere, not only within Europe, but is today, of course, as I’ve already said, preparing to penetrate the Indo-Pacific. One could lengthen this list of the lies that surround NATO. But why don’t we just launch into our conversation? We’ve decided to structure it around a series of questions. So let me just start us off by posing the first one. The first question we have is simply, where did the Vilnius Summit leave NATO? What are the principal features within the alliance that it exposed? Maybe we can start with you, Pepe, since you are our guest. PEPE ESCOBAR: Oh my God, can I throw a bomb? OK, guys, look, I have had this pleasure of following virtually every NATO summit for the past 15 years or so. So the evolution or the involution of NATO as a global Robocop has been distinct year after year. In fact, I started calling NATO global Robocop as early as 2010, 2011, 2012, because that was already obvious. And then when we got under a fog of war, Rasmussen as NATO General Secretary, usually they get a deranged Scandinavian as NATO General Secretary. Now the deranged Scandinavian is, of course, that piece of Norwegian wood, Jens Stoltenberg. So it’s very, very hot. I remember when I was in Sweden years ago and I was on a geopolitical roundtable in a university in southern Sweden, when I started talking about Rasmussen, my Swedish audience erupted in anger because they knew, they were postgrad students, they knew very well who Rasmussen was and they said, look, he’s destroying the reputation of Scandinavia as rational actors. And they knew it very well. Stoltenberg is not as rabid as Rasmussen, but he is sold basically by the people who control NATO, as you know, better, much better than I do, straight from Washington. And obviously those guys at NATO headquarters in Belgium are just following orders coming from Washington. Stoltenberg is sold as a sort of a relatively polite face of NATO, but the message is the same. And after the start of the special military operations, got even worse. So anything that comes from the mouth of Stoltenberg, we know that it’s coming from the mouth of the rabid, Straussian neocon psychos in D.C. And they have their Scandinavian guy, you know, just voicing them. The problem is he’s taken seriously all across Europe. I mean, seriously, Ursula von der Leyen now is the butt of jokes from Spain to Greece and everywhere in between. But Stoltenberg is actually taken seriously. And that’s what makes them even more dangerous. If you talk to an average citizen, let’s say here in France or in Italy or in Greece or in Germany, they take NATO’s pronouncement seriously. And the NATO 24-7 spin on the war against Russia, which basically says, no, we are not involved. We are not at war with Russia. We are not part of the war. And then he announces the umpteenth package coming either from the West, from the EU or NATO countries as well against Russia. So the problem is, most people, because of the mainstream media barrage all across Europe, they don’t get into the specifics. So they really don’t know that NATO is up to their necks and beyond in a war against Russia. The way Vilnius was covered by European mainstream media was that, no, once again, we are all united, the 27 of us against Russian aggression, the usual. But no specifics and much, much worse, only very, very sparse mentions of NATO extending the Robocop mandate to the Indo-Pacific and to the South China Sea. So in fact, what we’re seeing for the past year and a half, let’s put it this way, is that the North Atlantic Organization now has taken over the Indo-Pacific and the South China Sea. So they actually moved to Asia. So it’s not North Atlantic Organization. It’s Northern Hemisphere, Including the Far East Organization. But this is not explained, obviously, by, for instance, The Economist, The Financial Times, major newspapers in Italy, Le Monde here in France, etc. So obviously, the average European citizen is absolutely clueless about that. And the fact that the war, which is being lost dramatically in Ukraine, the narrative has been changing by the Americans, not yet by NATO. But on terms of NATO policy, there is a 4,400 page not-so-secret document at the end of the World News Summit, which categorizes their next steps in Russia, but also their next steps in the Indo-Pacific. And that’s the most worrying part of them all. And once again, I would say 99% of EU citizens are completely oblivious to all of that. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, I think the purpose of NATO from the beginning has always been to promote a unipolar U.S.-centered order. And it began with Europe, because NATO, in effect, has taken over European foreign policy, and even domestic policy. It’s written into the EU constitution. And certainly, you’ve seen the effect of the war in Ukraine is to make Western Europe a U.S. satellite. It’s cut off the trade with Russian gas and oil and fertilizer and other raw materials, making Europe dependent on U.S. suppliers at much, much higher prices. So the effect of NATO so far has been to sort of break away Europe from what seemed to be an increasingly close relationship of mutual economic gain between Germany and other European countries, trading and investing with Russia for low-cost raw materials, and with China for low-cost manufacturers. Well, the U.S. plan in just forcing a military solution in Ukraine has been to break away Russia’s ability to support China, to support Syria, to support Iran and other countries. The whole idea of NATO was to carve away any group that would seek to be independent of the U.S. world order. And of course, the ultimate aim, as President Biden has said again and again, is China is the number one enemy. Well, you can’t go against China right now, because it already has so much support from Russia and other countries. So NATO thought, well, how do we isolate China? We first of all have to break away its potential ally in Russia. And if we have a war in Ukraine, the neocons actually believe that the Russian people would rise up against President Putin and have a regime change, and the regime change would bring another Boris Yeltsin-type Western-oriented character. Well, the reality has been just the opposite. Hardly surprising, when a country is under attack, like Russian speakers are under attack in eastern Ukraine, well, the tendency of any population is to rally behind the leader. And that’s why Putin’s approval rating has gone up to 80 percent, much higher than any American or European leader. So what’s happened is that instead of NATO breaking up China, Russia, and other countries seeking to pursue their own policy, it’s driving them all together out of simply the need to protect their own economies from the U.S. sanctions and from the U.S. plan to break them up. And when the United States comes right out and says China is our enemy, Russia’s our enemy, and all their allies are enemy, hardly by surprise, the enemies get together. So the result is that NATO really, instead of isolating the members of the BRICS and the global majority of Eurasia with the global south, they’ve driven them all together. I don’t think there’s any truth at all in the rumor that the heads of NATO are really working for China’s foreign policy department. I don’t think they’re really in the pay of China’s government to make sure that Western Europe is driving all the other countries together under Chinese and Russian domination. And I don’t think they’re really working for the Russian State Department, either. But if you think of them as working for Russia and China, you realize suddenly you can explain all of the consequences of what the NATO policy is bringing about. It’s driving the rest of the world together and being an integrating force for the rest of the world by making an iron curtain, isolating the United States, England, and Western Europe away from the rest of the world, leaving the west of the world, the BRICS and the global majority to make their own new world order. RADHIKA DESAI: I mean, I think all of these are really interesting points. I mean, if I were to put, just summarize in one word what, where, you know, where Vilnius leaves NATO, I would say that word would be failure. Because even though NATO has a lot of things going for it, including, you know, governments in places, important capitals like Berlin that are willing to do everything that NATO wants, in fact, NATO is failing to achieve its objectives. And the key way in which it is failing is, of course, that all the help that has gone to the Ukrainian membership, they have essentially not been, they’re essentially going to fail in the battlefield. Sanctions, Michael, as you mentioned, have already failed to bring Russia down. Now there’s going to be failure in the battlefield. And if there is failure in the battlefield, then I think that the divisions within NATO, which are already quite apparent, I mean, the fact of the matter is that the various Eastern European countries wanted to give Ukraine membership or at least some sort of map to membership. And this was not permitted by Germany for its own reasons, but also by the United States. And President Biden cannot afford to be seen as essentially, you know, increasing the U.S.’s or NATO’s involvement in this war in any way. So the fact of the matter is that in this it has not succeeded either. Moreover, the military aid, you know, just think about this, the size of the actual military industrial complex possessed by the NATO countries collectively is enormous. But the fact of the matter is that still they have been unwilling to a considerable extent, but also unable to supply Ukraine with the quantity and quality of the arms that it needs so that it cannot succeed, could not succeed. And so the so-called counteroffensive is failing. And that’s the background against which the Vilnius Summit took place. With that background, even though it added Finland and hopes to add Sweden, having overcome President Erdogan’s limitations by offering him vast quantities of money, et cetera. The fact of the matter is that this alliance, the cracks within it are already showing. And I also feel that success against Russia is very critical to extending the alliance and its sphere of operations to China, because the fact of the matter is that if they can’t succeed against Russia, there’s definitely, they’re not going to succeed against China. And what’s more, there was already dissension over Russia. The fact of the matter is that the various NATO members are so deeply involved economically with China that they are not going to, they’re going to be even greater dissensions with essentially targeting China, even though all Washington’s puppets in various European capitals are huffing and puffing to try to achieve this by talking about de-risking and what have you. People like Ursula von der Leyen are in the forefront of this effort, but I don’t think they’re going to succeed for reasons, I think, Michael, that you also mentioned. The cost that these countries are going to have to pay for these wars costs not just militarily, but also economically. The consequences of the economic disruptions that it’s going to bring is going to create dissension within these people, is going to create popular discontent. It’s going to destabilize governments. And what’s more, it’s also going to create dissensions within the elites, because many of them have reasons to continue doing business not only with Russia, but also with China, in particular with China. So in that sense, I would say that the Vilnius Summit has simply shown the dysfunction of NATO to an even greater extent. Maybe we can go on to the next question, which is how is the proxy war on Ukraine faring? What does it mean for Biden and his larger strategy of uniting so-called democracies against the so-called autocracies and targeting China? I’ve kind of already segued into that topic. PEPE ESCOBAR: Well, I’ve been writing about this stuff for a year and a half, so I hate to repeat myself. But OK, let’s go straight to the point. NATO’s humiliation, full humiliation, is just around the corner. And compared to it, Afghanistan does not even qualify as a mini Disneyland. Just wait. Because in terms of the counteroffensive, it’s already dead. It lasted three weeks and it’s already dead. And there won’t be a counteroffensive 2.0. First of all, they have no personnel, qualified personnel. Second, they have no weapons. Third, they are being demilitarized on a daily basis, non-stop. Because if you follow any good writing in English, of course, if you don’t follow the ones writing Russian or Chinese, it’s understandable in the West. But if you follow the very good ones writing in English, starting with Andrei Martianov. Andrei Martianov is very funny because technically he’s an Azerbaijani. He was born in Baku, but in the old Soviet Union. But Andrei lives in Western USA. He writes in English. His blog is excellent. His podcasts are also excellent. And I would say, without a shadow of a doubt, in English, he’s the number one military analyst of what’s really going on in the war. And we have excellent American analysts like Colonel Douglas McGregor, Scott Ritter, etc. They all, in military terms, they all say the same thing. This thing is dead. This thing is practically over. The thing is how long […] NATO can get away with selling a fiction to a global audience. People in Germany, France, and Italy, the top three economies here in Europe, are already asking questions. I mean, industrialists, academics, they are not, of course, stigmatized in mainstream media, underground channels, parallel discussions, roundtables of very well-informed people, including intelligence people, French, Italians, etc. They say, look, there’s got. We need to find a way out of this, but it’s impossible because everything is controlled in Washington by those Straussian neocon psychos. Even them, not them, even the so-called Biden administration, which the way I’ve been writing for years, it doesn’t exist. What exists is the Biden combo. Biden is, as we all know, he cannot find his way to the next room. Everybody knows that. So the decisions are taken by the combo. And among the combo, the visible faces, which makes them even more toxic, are the toxic trio. Sullivan, Blinken and Nuland. But the guys who actually make these decisions, they are in the back. They never show up. So that makes it even more dangerous. We have an idea of who they are, but they never show up. They don’t need to. The messengers spread the message. And they are trying to change the narrative badly because they know that there’s going to be a massive humiliation just around the corner. The elections are getting closer and closer. You cannot go to the American public next year and present a NATO humiliation, which is obvious for 88% of the world, as a victory and try to get away with it. It’s absolutely impossible. People who bother to look at what’s really happening on the ground in the battlefield in Ukraine can see for themselves. So now they’re trying to change the narrative. And the best example these past few weeks, in fact, these past few days, was Edward Luttwak, which you all know as, let’s say, number one or number two Pentagon advisor for the past 50 years or so. He gave an interview that is absolutely incandescent, where he’s basically changing the subject to war on China. So this was, I would say, the official entry of the real war is against China, not in Ukraine, into mainstream media. It’s on YouTube. Everybody can watch it. Soon, if people start watching, soon we’ll have millions of views. And Edward, as you know, is a very, very clever operator. Even when he doesn’t say it, he’s spelling the whole game, in fact. Look, William Burns called Naryshkin. William Burns, head of CIA, Naryshkin, head of Russian foreign intelligence. This is true. Burns did call Naryshkin. They have a very important phone conversation, but not exactly what Edward is spinning. Basically, Naryshkin was trying to explain to Burns, look, if you, CIA, start mounting operations inside the Russian Federation, there are going to be repercussions for you guys. So, you know, go slow. Edward’s, basically, Edward’s spin was, no, Burns told Naryshkin that Putin and Biden should close a deal. Putin is not going to close a deal with the Biden administration. Forget it. The Biden administration knows exactly what Russia wants, which is exactly what Russia wanted in December 2021. Indivisibility of security. You guys know this very, very well. In our audience, I’m sure it’s familiar with that. Those letters that were sent to the Pentagon and the White House and got a non-answer. Also sent to NATO. It’s all about indivisibility of security for Europe and for the post-Soviet space. And at the time, the Americans ignored it. So now they want to go back to the table and discuss with the Russians. The Russians know very well when they receive a yes, no, or a no, yes, which was the case. So there’s nothing to discuss. And the Russian foreign ministry, the minister of defense, in putting himself over and over again has said, look, our set of conditions to end the war are there. The Americans know it very well. We can finish the whole thing with a phone call. They don’t make the phone call that really matters. It’s not Bernstein or Rischke. It’s the White House to Putin. This one is not going to happen anytime soon. But he’s still trying to find a way out. So if you think that this came straight out of a Kafka novel, yes, it did. And it keeps going. RADHIKA DESAI: How and when do you think the war might end? PEPE ESCOBAR: There are two short answers, Radhika. One, with the phone call, the war stops tomorrow. And they all go to a negotiating table somewhere in Finland, in Kazakhstan, in Geneva. And obviously there will be no agreement because the Americans will refuse to accept indivisibility of security. Everybody knows that. So there is no peaceful solution to this war. The only solution for this war is a complete humiliation of either side. As we look at the battlefield, we see that the humiliation of NATO is just around the corner, literally. And it doesn’t matter if you send F-16s in six months or in one year. It doesn’t matter if you have more Storm Shadows from Britain. It doesn’t matter if you send 1,000 Leopards from Germany. It doesn’t matter. And it’s very, very funny because even Putin himself is saying, look, whatever they send here, it will be incinerated. And he says that casually now. Before that, the Russian Minister of Defense was even trying to be relatively diplomatic. And now the Russians are even laughing about it because they are annihilating so-called top-of-the-line Western weapons with old Soviet weapons, modified Soviet weapons as well. So is this going on for another three months? It’s very possible. And there is going to be some sort of Russian, let’s say, crypto-offensive trying to take the whole of the east of Dnieper. They can take over everything. Another possibility, in the next few months or until early next year, go all the way to Odessa, which is something that every military analyst in Russia was saying since February last year. We have to go all the way to Odessa now, soon, immediately. So maybe this is going to happen. But the Russian Minister of Defense has different scenarios for what happens after what happened in Bakhmut, which was this World War I thing, absolutely devastating, lasting six or seven months. But it was a rehearsal to what the Russians might do when they really decide to get into war. So what Putin said a few months ago still applies. We haven’t even started yet. And they haven’t. Because their best weapons are still in the rear guard. Their top battalions are not part of the fighting yet. They are using their hypersonic missiles sparingly when they have a very specific target like that bunker near Lviv in western Ukraine that they destroyed a few months ago with one Kinzhal penetrating underground. And then nobody talked about it. The Pentagon didn’t talk about it. The Russian Minister of Defense didn’t talk about it because this was too sensitive. A lot of NATO people were killed in that Kinzhal strike. So the Russians are fighting with one hand behind their backs. No question. And with velvet gloves. But now, after all these attacks inside the Russian Federation including the second attack against the Kerch Bridge and attacks against civilians in Russia, they are starting to lose their patience. They have the possibility to increase lethality to any degree you can imagine. They don’t want it for the moment. They always leave a window open in case the Americans decide to start talking. And that brings us to an extremely complex matter which unfortunately we don’t have time at least today to talk about it, which is divisions at the top in Russia. There are oligarchs who are pro-ending the war. There are oligarchs who want to extend the war indefinitely because they are making a lot of money out of it. There are pro-EU people very, very close to the Kremlin. And there are the Silovikis and the ultra-nationalists who say no, we should cut off the head of the snake tomorrow in 20 minutes, which they can if they want to. So there are divisions inside Russia and at the highest levels. There is no division in terms of accomplishing the goals as fuzzy as they are of the special military operation. Demilitarization of Ukraine is on the way. They did it at least 50% if not more. Demilitarization of NATO is also working because they did it. Germany, they don’t have shells for one week if they decide to go into a war. Their Leopards are gone, not to mention the other ones. Which leads us to the most dangerous element in all that, which brings us back to our NATO discussion: the Poles, the rabbit hyenas of Europe. The Poles and the Baltics are cultivated by the Americans as their new strike force considering that the Ukrainian strike force is practically gone And that would assure the war entering another even more complicated stage and with no end in sight. The possibilities of this thing getting worse of course are endless but this one I would say is the number one. Subcontracting the next offensive to the Poles with help from other NATO mercenaries. Forget about Ukraine, now it’s going to be Poland independently, not part of NATO because they’re doing this on their own, NATO is not involved. And then we have a different actor on the Ukrainian battlefield because the Poles, their agenda as all of us know, is to annex Western Ukraine and they think they have a golden opportunity that they never had before in the past few decades to do it. So I’m sorry if I’m being so nihilistic but – MICHAEL HUDSON: – Well you may sound nihilistic but I think what you said Pepe is exactly what was being discussed at Vilnius and NATO. I think all the NATO people are in agreement with you. What we’re saying is no longer on the outside as a minority view. What you said is the majority view of NATO. They got together, they realized it, and it’s as if at the Vilnius meeting they said, okay we’re going to bury Ukraine, this is a funeral for Ukraine, we know that we can’t win, the only thing we want to do is. If there are any tanks and weapons left, let’s use them all up so that Europe will buy a huge bonanza for the American military industrial complex, Raytheon is very happy. But I think the message at Vilnius the associated meetings at the EU was, we’re finished with Ukraine, we’ve done everything that we set out to do, we’ve bled Russia, great success as you pointed out elsewhere our real enemy now is China. Now our center is really in the Pacific. Our center is in the China Sea. Specifically, let’s make Taiwan the new Ukraine. Let’s be willing to die for the last Taiwanese. Let’s do to China what we’ve just so wonderfully done to NATO. We’ve expended everything there, but while we’ve used our tanks and ammunition and armaments in the West now let’s use up our navy, there’s a huge market in building all the ships that a war with a provocation with China will do. Let’s send some of our ships that China will say well that’s our own territory we’re one country, let’s shift to a naval war in the Pacific now, and that seems to be what they all decided on. They don’t want to talk about Ukraine anymore, it makes them unhappy. I mean for us it’s saying, ha ha we told you all about it all along. For them they say, well we did what we could. And I think you’re right about Poland. In Poland they’re obsessed with the 15th century and the 16th century. When Poland had Lithuania, had many of the Baltic States, had Prussia. All of that. Had part of Ukraine. They want to recover their lost glory and the leaders of Poland are exactly as you said, and I think NATO isn’t really going to be a part of it, if Poland tries to attack Belarus or even isolate Königsberg. Somehow NATO’s not going to get involved if Russia retaliates with a slam. You can just remember what happened in World War II to remember that. I think what you’ve outlined, I think it’s what NATO agrees with RADHIKA DESAI: Well I mean let me complicate that a little bit, because the thing is that if there were to be any kind of Polish military action of the sort that you’re discussing, it’s going to actually divide NATO quite radically. There’ll be some powers who’ll be saying, we have to back Poland. This is a fight. And all the rhetoric about freedom and democracy and so on will come out. But the fact of the matter is beginning with the Germans and a whole lot of others, they’re not going to support, as Michael you were just saying, they’re not going to go along with that. So I think it’s more complicated. I think also that in terms of extending this to China I really think that military failure of the sort that we all agree the West is facing that NATO is facing is going to give people pause, first of all. That is to say, can the United States really do, can it really hold up the military end, so to speak? And it can’t. It spends more money on its military than the next however many states combined but still cannot produce weapons of the quantity and quality that even Ukraine needs, let alone the West as a whole will need if it goes to war with China. So in a sense it’s got an overpaid, pampered military industrial complex that cannot actually produce the weapons, so in that sense. And earlier I said Biden didn’t want to include Ukraine in NATO or not even give it a road map for electoral reasons, but I think there’s also another reason. They do not want a failed state in their ranks, because that’s what Ukraine will become soon. So in that sense I would say that the possibility of extending the war to China is much less secure I think. Also because, even the countries around China who the United States has been trying to divide from China for a long time, they continue to deepen their economic connections, trade relations, investment relations, etc with China.They’re not going to go to war with China in any easy way. They’re going to be deeply divided just as the European leadership is divided. In fact all of this kind of nicely segues into our next question, which is how much longer do you think Europe and other US allies sustain the appearance of unity? Because we know that Europe is paying a big economic cost. The unity that is much doubted has also been a very selective sort of, convenient sort of, unity where every country has sent whatever is convenient for it rather than what is needed in Ukraine. So how long do you think that even Europe can stay united, with the British pulling in one direction, the eastern states in another direction, Germany and France and Italy in yet another direction? How long can this unity be sustained? MICHAEL HUDSON: I don’t think it’s a question of countries fighting each other. It’s a question of the business interests fighting the political interests who basically are employees of the United States. The question is, are international relations going to be determined by economic factors and mutual gains as we all believe with the materialist approach to history, or is it going to be completely non-economic factors, or, as Janet Yellen and her European counterpart said, all trade is risk. Any trade with China or Russia or the Near East runs a risk of losing national security. Because if you trade with a country, you’re dependent on them, and therefore you should break off the trade with China. You should break off the trade. Well obviously, breaking off the trade with China and Russia has already led to the collapse of the German steel industry and the industries that use steel and the fertilizer industry and the glass making industry that uses gas. So the real question is, are European politics going to be based on economic long-term self-interest as we all assumed was the guiding shape of geopolitical arrangements, or is it going to be rejecting your self-interest in terms of national security, meaning, trade with the United States establishes absolute dependence on the United States. When Janet Yellen the US Secretary of the Treasury and [Von Leyen] you have to base all your trade on national security, that means all trade must be locking in your dependence on US exporters, US oil and gas exporters, now that we are your only suppliers of gas and oil. US farm exports. US computer information technology exports. US communications technology. Rejecting Huawei. How is it that the European politics is not dominated by the business interests, but by American fantasy that even American interests are not based on the benefits of American computer chip exporters. You’ve just had President Biden say we’re going to have to give 30 billion dollars to support US chip modernization, but the chip companies are going to have to lose one third of their total market which is China. And the chip companies have said, wait a minute you’re saying that we’re going to lose our markets and you’re going to try to make us grow again but without a market for our goods because our market is China. Even the United States is turning away from its economic self-interest to this obsession with we must dominate other countries. This obsession of the neocon to control other countries. I don’t think something like this has really come across before and those of us who believe in the economic determination of history can’t believe it’s going to go on very long but here we are. PEPE ESCOBAR: Just complementing what Michael said, it has to do with the astounding mediocrity of the current political elites in Europe. This is something that, of course, we have these conversations here in Europe, but of course, totally off the record. And you never see a debate like that on the opinion pages of Le Monde or in any nightly newscast. But German businesses, they are absolutely furious. And they said, look, there are already some sort of revolt that we need to get rid of this government as soon as possible. French interests, more or less the same thing. When Macron went to visit China recently, the businessman with Macron said, we don’t care what you discuss in terms of politics. We are here to do business with the Chinese, whatever you say. And in fact, they clinched a lot of very juicy contracts while they were in Beijing. The Italians, the same thing. The Italians are saying, are you nuts? You want to cut off the Italian partnership in the Belt and Road Initiative in Brie, which is a decision that they’ll have to take until the end of the year, beginning of next year. This is absurd. They’re going to invest in our ports. They’re creating jobs here. So, you know, there is a revolt in business circles. These are the three economists that really matter in Europe, Germany, France. Everybody else is an extra, you know. So we can see maybe, I would say, medium to long term, a change in the horizon. Short term, I would say it’s an absolute massive tactical victory by the Americans to cut off the EU, especially Germany, from Russia. The problem is the people who actually know how business is done, businessmen and industrialists, now they’re starting to get the full picture, not only for the next winter, but for the years ahead. So the best we should all expect is a change in governments in these three countries that really matter. In France, it’s not going to happen because, as we know, Macron was recently reelected, even though his popularity is probably less than zero at the moment. There’s no chance there’s going to be a coup d’etat to get rid of le petit roi, the little king. But French businessmen, they are as furious as their German counterparts. They say, so what do we got left? Are we going to transfer to the US? No. Are we going to transfer to Asia? Maybe. And obviously, if that happens, the social situation inside France, which is already mega explosive, then it’s going to be total combustion. And in Germany, the deindustrialization of Germany now is a fact, and the numbers are absolutely horrifying. They basically deindustrialized this year over 30% compared to last year. This is beyond enormous and unimaginable until a few months ago, right? And obviously, Eastern Europe doesn’t count. In Eastern Europe, they have other ideas. Apart from the Poles, the Romanians soon are going to start saying, ah, we want to recover our lands that now are part of Ukraine. And the Hungarians are going to say exactly the same thing. So basically, there will be a giant partition of Western Ukraine with everybody jumping in. So the ramifications of all that are, in terms of political economy and in geopolitical terms, are absolutely horrifying. And from the point of view of the average EU citizen, which is already being buried by taxes, the average French or Italian taxpayer basically pays 50% of what they earn in taxes. It’s completely absurd. They don’t get much in return because the social security system in both countries and the other ones is also collapsing. So ends barely meet for most people. They are starting to make the direct connection of throwing zillions of euros into Ukraine while the social situation inside the EU, as much as inside the US, as you know very well, is deteriorating very fast. RADHIKA DESAI: And this is so true. And just to go back to something that Michael was saying, you know, Michael, you were talking about how those of us who think that economic interests should determine political and geopolitical actions and so on, that we are somehow being pushed to reassess the basis of the way we think. But there’s a way of thinking about it. If you think about this in terms of the longer history of imperialism, and I’ve always said that it’s important to recognize that imperialism has been in decline since about 1914. It’s been a long one. It’s been a slow one. Some of us can’t wait for it to accelerate, but it has been in decline. And it’s come to the point where the very actions that are necessary to preserve the imperial system are in fact harming the very system on which it is based. So when you have that sort of, the snake eating its own tail situation, that’s when you begin to see that the contradictions of the system are mounting. And that’s the position, that’s the situation where we are at. That what the United States needs to do in order to preserve and extend the imperial system and therefore the capitalist system itself is proving harmful to capitalism. Now, what that means for the future is anybody’s guess. Supposing, you know, we got the kind of government that, the regime change. So if you got the kind of regime change that Pepe was mentioning and important European capitals, they will then have to go back to something like the approach that they were taking when Merkel made Germany dependent on Russia for its, you know, energy needs and so on and so forth. You could have something like that. But then what that has to do is we will see that the capitalist world is going to have to make terms with a world that is, you know, on the one hand socialist in the sense that China is socialist and other socialist powers. And on the other hand, if not socialist, like Russia, at least not willing to be subordinated to capitalism and therefore to be, to follow neoliberal principles, because neoliberal principles are nothing but subordination to capitalism. So in that sense, I think that we are looking at part of the reason why this situation looks as complex as it does is because of this very complicated situation of capitalism and imperialism today. So maybe we have time to at least go into one further question. And that is really, again, this is about the very economic question. But why do you think the Grain Deal broke down? What is the significance of the breakdown of the Grain Deal? Because remember, of course, remembering that originally the Grain Deal, you know, the West made a lot of noise about how Ukraine feeds the world and blah blah and so on. But in reality, the Grain Deal was arrived at in order that the big agribusinesses that are located in Ukraine will be able to export their grain and make a profit. That was the real reason for the Grain Deal. Now, of course, President Putin has given his own reasons and he’s actually given two sets of reasons. One is, you know, he’s pointed out that the West did not keep its side of the deal. But he also pointed out that the grain that was coming out of Ukraine was, in fact, not reaching the third world anyway. PEPE ESCOBAR: Three percent of the grain was reaching poor countries in Africa. You know what? They were discussing this this morning at a Valdai Club session this morning, previous to the Russia-Africa Summit that starts on Thursday. They were discussing that and they got into detail and they said the Russians were the only ones who actually exposed to the rest of the world a fiction. Over 40 percent was going to rich EU nations, not the poor EU nations. That’s number one. Number two, they were using the fact that Odessa port was the center to stockpile weapons in Odessa. Why the Russians are bombing Odessa since the beginning of this week? Because they are bombing exactly this as a stockpiling of weapons. And number three, they were organizing ways of using the corridors of the Grain Deal to attack the Black Sea fleet and especially Crimea. There you go. Michael, it’s all yours. MICHAEL HUDSON: Now that you said the whole point, what you said is exactly right. The grain that Russia had said, we’re producing the grain. We want to use this grain to give to the African countries to consolidate our linkage between Russia, China and the BRICS and the global south, specifically of Africa. Obviously for them, just as when they built the Aswan Dam in Egypt, for them trade and support was a means of creating national alliances and Europe prevented that. And as you pointed out, the big agricultural agribusiness companies wanted to make money for the same reason that Willie Sutton said, why do you rob banks? Because that’s where the money is. So of course they wanted to get paid by Europe instead of giving their product away for free. There’s no percentage of zero that you can really get out of this. And as you pointed out, Ukraine was trying to use this ostensibly humanitarian grain trade to stockpile weapons and use that sea transport as a means of, how do you attack Crimea? By the sea. That’s how they used a sea torpedo to blow up the bridge to Crimea. So you’re having exactly this. Russia has decided to demilitarize the Black Sea. Putin has said that if there’s any foreign ship that is not with Russian permission in the Black Sea, that would be treated as an enemy because who else would possibly go to the Black Sea? There are not going to be insurance companies that are going to guarantee the safety of shipping in a military war zone. So without getting insurance for your sea transport, how are you going to transport grain? That in itself has stopped it. And Putin had just listed a whole series of criteria that would be necessary for the grain deal to resume. And that included stopping the EU sanctions against the Russian banks that have to finance the grain deal, stopping all sorts of attacks on Russia, sort of using the grain transport path as a means of actually putting a warship in there to attack Russia. Essentially, Russia said, you’ll have to demilitarize the Black Sea if you want peaceful grain commerce across the Black Sea. The US is completely unwilling to do that. Congress will never go along with that. So essentially, the United States has blocked the grain deal. And it’s using its propaganda in Africa to say, oh, look, Russia is blocking it. That’s why you’re not being fed with the grain. Who are you going to believe, the Russian reality or the American cover story? That’s what’s being fought out in Africa right now. And Africa is becoming actually one of the great battlefields in this split between the unipolar US order and the emerging global majority order. And grain is the basis of this. The foundation of American trade policy since 1945 has been to prevent other countries from growing their own food. All of the World Bank loans to third world countries in the 50s, 60s and 70s have been for exporting plantation crops and for the US State Department opposing family-based farming to promote plantation crops, especially on lands owned by American exporting interests. The issue is the whole structure of African and Southern Hemisphere land tenure and whether they’re going to aim at feeding themselves just as the Europeans have fed themselves. And the issue that you didn’t mention with the grain deal was Ukraine says, all right, let’s try to export our grain by rail to Europe. Well, the center of European foreign policy, the most important economic aim of creating the common market in the first place was the common agricultural policy to protect French and German and other agriculture. And the last thing they want is for their farmers to be undersold with cheap Ukrainian grain that will hurt their economic interests. And so they’re European farmers and they have the agricultural policy that is blocking the shipment of Ukrainian grain through Europe. But apart from the fact that all of the storage facilities, the silos for grain are already being used for European farm grain, there’s nowhere to put that Ukrainian grain. The problem is insolvable from that point of view. RADHIKA DESAI: Yeah, that’s so true and important, Michael, that you sort of have broadened the picture to put the issue of the grain deal in the larger picture of imperialism and the way it has always operated. Because all the first world countries, the imperialist countries themselves actually pursue a very strict food security policy. Meanwhile, they tell third world countries, oh, you shouldn’t worry about food security. You should, as Michael rightly points out, produce the export crops. What are export crops? They are crops that the first world wants. Why should third world countries produce export crops? Because they exist as far as the third world, as far as first world countries are concerned, to supply cheap things that the West, which is largely non-tropical, cannot produce. So the third world is supposed to supply us with all those tropical fruits, vegetables, tobacco, cocoa, coffee, tea, whatever it is. And what’s really also interesting is, you know, people always think of the third world as being unable to feed itself. In reality, there are actually relatively few third world countries that have fallen for the definitely the very real inducements of the United States to not worry about food security. And besides, they are not rich enough to import a lot of food. So the extent of food dependence of first world countries is actually much greater. We import a lot more of our food than the average third world country and certainly big third world countries. And what that food export also does is it keeps inflation low. We are able to, in first world countries, buy things for next to nothing. And this is a big factor in keeping inflation low. So, yeah, I think this is very important to put the grain deal in the larger picture of imperialism. Now, I should say we are near to an hour in this show and we still have several questions to discuss. So what I propose is that next week we will come back and discuss the same issue and complete the number of various questions that we were discussing. So until next week, then we will have when we’ll have the second part of this program on NATO. Thanks, everyone, for watching. Thanks to Pepe for being our guest. He will be back next week. And, of course, thanks also to Paul Graham, who’s a videographer and all the others who support our show. Thank you very much. And till next time. MICHAEL HUDSON: If there is a next week.

Write an article about: China condemns ‘racist’ Western hypocrisy over Ukraine: You ignore victims in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Afghanistan, China, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, racism, Russia, Syria, Ukraine

China’s Foreign Ministry said the “US, NATO and some western media are very hypocritical” over Ukraine, that their “reports smack of racism” and are not “equally concerned about the civilian casualties in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Palestine.” The Chinese government blasted Western hypocrisy over the war in Ukraine, asking why there was not similar outrage over the civilian casualties caused by the US and NATO wars on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and former Yugoslavia. “The US, NATO and some western media are very hypocritical, especially as some reports smack of racism,” said a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry. “I wonder if you were equally concerned about the civilian casualties in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Palestine. Do these civilians mean nothing to you?” he asked. Beijing argued that it has been consistent in opposing wars and calling for peace everywhere, unlike the Western bloc. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian made these scathing comments in a press conference on March 17. A reporter from Western news agency AFP asked why China has not condemned Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. In an extremely biased loaded question, the AFP reporter said, “My question is given that China has not explicitly opposed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, should we assume that China therefore has no problem with this kind of indiscriminate killing of civilians?” The reporter went on: “President Biden has called President Putin a ‘war criminal’. Does China agree that Russia may have committed war crimes in Ukraine?” The deeply one-sided comments clearly angered Zhao Lijian, who condemned the “hypocrisy” and “racism” of the Western media. “On the Ukraine issue, China has made its view known that the international community should focus on two things, namely, peace talks and avoidance of a large-scale humanitarian crisis,” he said. “We have also made huge efforts in this regard. China has proposed a six-point initiative on easing the humanitarian situation in Ukraine and has taken real actions. We will continue to provide new humanitarian assistance as needed,” Zhao added. “I want to stress that China’s position on peace talks is consistent. You may refer to China’s statements on hotspot issues including Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Palestine and Israel,” the Foreign Ministry spokesman continued. “When it comes to civilian casualties and humanitarian situation, I wonder if you were equally concerned about the civilian casualties in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Palestine. Do these civilians mean nothing to you?” Zhao asked. “Do not forget Serbia in 1999, or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Did you show any care about civilian casualties there? If not, then you are in no position to make accusations against China,” he said. “China’s position is aboveboard, objective and just. But the US, NATO and some western media are very hypocritical, especially as some reports smack of racism,” Zhao continued. “We suggest some media focus more efforts on things that are conducive to promoting peace,” the Foreign Minister spokesman concluded. “They may advise the US and NATO countries not to supply ammunition or add fuel to the flame, but to sit down and build peace by talking with Europe, Russia and Ukraine.”

Write an article about: Pentagon says China and Russia are top US national security ‘threats,’ not terrorism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Cold War Two, Donald Trump, James Mattis, new cold war, Pentagon, Russia, war on terror

The US government is moving away from “war on terror” rhetoric as Defense Secretary Mattis says “great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of US national security.” (This report was first published at The Real News.) BENJAMIN NORTON: Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has justified numerous wars and interventions throughout the world under the pretext of a so-called “war on terror.” That appears to be is changing. In December, President Donald Trump released a new national security strategy, which reveals that the top priority for U.S. national security is not countering terrorism, but rather countering the influence of competing foreign states, namely China and Russia. Defense Secretary James Mattis made this incredibly significant announcement in a speech at John Hopkins University on January 19. JAMES MATTIS: The world, to quote George Shultz, is awash in change, defined by increasing global volatility and uncertainty with great power competition between nations becoming a reality once again. Though we will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists that we are engaged in today, but great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security. BENJAMIN NORTON: This marks a huge shift in U.S. government rhetoric on national security, which for nearly two decades has largely been synonymous with counterterrorism. The United States has used terrorism and the threat of extremist groups like al-Qaeda as an excuse to military intervene throughout the Middle East and North Africa, from Iraq to Libya, to Syria, to Yemen. Trump’s new national security strategy, however, singles out China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran as the primary targets of U.S. foreign policy. JAMES MATTIS: We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia are from each other… Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran persist in taking outlaw actions that threaten regional and even global stability. BENJAMIN NORTON: Defense Secretary Mattis said this is the first U.S. national defense strategy in 10 years. A key part of the Trump administration’s rhetoric in the document is the myth that the U.S. military is somehow underfunded. JAMES MATTIS: The negative impact on military readiness is resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our nation’s history and defense spending caps, because we have been operating also for nine of the last 10 years under continuing resolutions that have created an overstretched and under-resourced military. BENJAMIN NORTON: In reality, with a $611 billion budget in 2016, the United States already spent more on its military than the next eight largest countries combined — and six of those eight are U.S. allies. And in 2017, Congress voted to increase the already enormous U.S. military budget to a staggering $700 billion per year. Trump’s national security strategy also states that sustaining U.S. nuclear weapons and modernizing U.S. nuclear infrastructure is a key priority. These announcements from the Trump administration are yet another sign that the post-Cold War, U.S.-led hegemonic order is breaking down, and we are seeing the rise of a new multipolar world. Military rhetoric is changing from a war on terror to a more traditional, World War I-style great power rivalry. However, there has long been skepticism of the notion that the “war on terror” was ever even about stopping terror in the first place. The George W. Bush administration, which launched the endless war, falsely tried to link Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda to justify an invasion that the United Nations said was illegal. Moreover, while the United States has waged a drone war in Yemen since 2001, ostensibly to beat back al-Qaeda extremists, in recent years, there has simultaneously been a well-documented alliance between al-Qaeda and U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which have fought side-by-side against Yemen’s Houthi movement, Ansarallah. A similar alliance with al-Qaeda-linked Islamist extremists could be seen in the U.S.-backed opposition in Syria. The United States is not necessarily abandoning the war on terror, but the Trump administration’s new national security strategy stands out as one of the most frank admissions yet that U.S. foreign policy is principally about undermining foreign states that challenge U.S. economic and political interests, not about stopping extremist groups that threaten civilians. This announcement did not come out of nowhere. The shift began under former president Barack Obama, whose administration declared a “pivot to Asia” as a key part of its foreign policy. But this declaration is another indication of the Trump administration’s embrace of a more conventional, hawkish, bipartisan foreign policy. And it’s a sign of President Trump’s abandonment of any pretense of non-interventionism.

Write an article about: Pakistan’s Western-backed coup regime hits PM Imran Khan with ‘terrorism’ charges to silence dissent. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Imran Khan, Pakistan, podcast

After Pakistan’s elected Prime Minister Imran Khan was overthrown in a US-backed coup, the regime has charged him with “terrorism.” Scholar Junaid S. Ahmad discusses the desperate attempt to crush his mass movement. Pakistan’s elected Prime Minister Imran Khan was overthrown in a US-backed regime-change operation due to his independent foreign policy. Now the coup regime has charged him with “terrorism.” Pakistani scholar Junaid S. Ahmad discusses the desperate attempt to crush the mass movement and protests that Khan has led. Multipolarista’s previous interview with Junaid: US-backed coup in Pakistan overthrows PM Imran Khan over his independent foreign policy Read Junaid’s article warning about the coup: Pakistan warns of foreign-backed regime-change attempt, to disrupt China/Russia alliance

Write an article about: Sandinista Nicaragua allies with China, Russia, Iran against US imperialism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Covid-19, Daniel Ortega, Denis Moncada, Iran, Laureano Ortega, Nicaragua, Russia, vaccines

Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government is forming a closer alliance with China, Russia, and Iran in a common struggle against US imperialism, jointly resisting Washington’s illegal sanctions, meddling, and coup attempts. Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government has formed a political and economic alliance with China, Russia, and Iran, as a counterbalance against constant US meddling in the Central American nation. All four countries are targeted by illegal Western sanctions and coup attempts. So they have grown closer together in a common struggle against Washington’s aggression. In December 2021, Nicaragua re-established relations with the People’s Republic of China, and on December 31, 2021, Beijing re-opened its embassy in Managua. The People's Republic of China just reopened its embassy today in Nicaragua, a few weeks after the Sandinista government re-established relations. Nicaragua's right-wing US-backed Chamorro oligarch government had broken ties with China back in 1990.pic.twitter.com/OZiSO8o9v7 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 31, 2021 Foreign Minister Denis Moncada said Nicaragua and China are “two peoples who have fought for their national liberation with perseverance,” seeking the “eradication of poverty.” The Nicaraguan foreign minister said they seek to build a new world “that is multipolar.” Nicaraguan presidential advisor Laureano Ortega praised China for eliminating extreme poverty and showing how “to advance toward the comprehensive construction of a modern socialist model.” He also thanked Beijing for giving 2 billion Covid-19 vaccines to some 120 countries, including more than 1 million to Nicaragua. Right-wing US government-funded media outlets have expressed extreme distress over this growing alliance. Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega announced at his inauguration on January 10 that the country had signed a series of economic agreements with China. The most important of these officially incorporates the Central American nation into Beijing’s global Belt and Road Initiative. President Daniel Ortega said “the United States does not accept that the end of its hegemony is a fact.” Breaking: At his inauguration tonight, President Daniel Ortega announced that Nicaragua and China just signed a series of strategic agreements, including officially incorporating Nicaragua into Beijing's global Belt and Road Initiative, as well as programs on housing and trade. pic.twitter.com/n9URPvkkO1 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 11, 2022

Write an article about: US-Saudi war on Yemen has killed 377,000 people – UN estimate. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Joe Biden, Saudi Arabia, UN, UNDP, United Nations, Yemen

An estimated 377,000 Yemenis have died in the US-Saudi war on their country, and roughly 70% of deaths were children under age 5, according to a comprehensive United Nations report. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) The death toll of the US-UK-Saudi-Emirati war on Yemen is estimated to be at least 377,000 individuals, as of the end of 2021. More than two-thirds of these Yemenis killed were likely children. These statistics come from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which reported in November that the number of deaths by direct and indirect causes in Yemen was projected to surpass 377,000 by the end of 2021. March 2022 will mark the seventh anniversary of this war, which has caused the largest humanitarian crisis on Earth. Saudi Arabia initiated the war in March 2015 by launching airstrikes on its southern neighbor, with support and weapons from the United States, United Kingdom, and United Arab Emirates. Approximately 60% (226,000) of these estimated Yemeni deaths were because of indirect causes, according to the UNDP, such as preventable diseases or a lack of access to food, water, and healthcare. Roughly 40% (151,000) of these Yemenis suffered violent deaths, whether from US-backed Saudi airstrikes or front-line fighting. The UNDP said 70% (264,000) of the estimated Yemeni deaths were children under age 5. 15.6 million Yemenis live in extreme poverty, and 8.6 million suffer from under-nutrition, according to the report. The UNDP added that Yemen’s economy has suffered an estimated loss of US $126 billion in potential gross domestic product (GDP) since 2015. “If war in Yemen continues through 2030, we estimate that 1.3 million people will die as a result,” the report added ominously. Over 7 years of conflict caused the death of 377 thousand Yemenis, mostly children and mostly from indirect causes according to @UNDPYemenLearn more about the conflict's impact in 5th issue of our newsletter: https://t.co/ux7WIsTmbu Read UNDP's report: https://t.co/Kk11rptMn9 pic.twitter.com/fx8yp6p1QJ — @OSE_Yemen (@OSE_Yemen) January 6, 2022 The war on Yemen gets very little media coverage, and is rarely mentioned by political leaders in the United States. President Joe Biden claimed during his presidential campaign that he would end the war. In February 2021, the president announced that the United States would end support for “offensive” Saudi operations in Yemen – although by their very nature, all Saudi operations in Yemen are offensive, because the wealthy monarchy initiated the war by bombing its neighbor, the poorest country in West Asia. Yet the Biden administration has continued selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, and the war on Yemen has only escalated since the Democratic president entered office. Violence in Yemen is at the highest levels since 2018, with a civilian killed or wounded every hour on average. President Biden claimed he would end the war on Yemen, but US-backed Saudi bombing has escalated. A Yemeni civilian is now killed or injured every hour on average, the highest casualty level since 2018. This March marks the 7th anniversary of this war.https://t.co/v9ltD2095R — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 12, 2022

Write an article about: West sabotaged Ukraine peace deal with Russia, admit Zelensky official and Germany’s ex leader. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Boris Johnson, Davyd Arakhamia, Naftali Bennett, Russia, Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky

Russia wanted to sign a peace deal with Ukraine in March 2022, but NATO countries sabotaged it, according to Germany’s former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and the parliamentary faction leader of Zelensky’s political party, Davyd Arakhamia. The United States has played a key role in fueling the wars in both Israel-Palestine and Ukraine. The US government has sought to prevent peace in Gaza, vetoing resolutions in the UN Security Council that call for a ceasefire, while sending weapons to Israel to help it bomb densely populated civilian areas, contributing to the killing of more than 15,000 Palestinians, approximately 70% of whom are women and children. Since 2022, Washington has done exactly the same in Ukraine, torpedoing peace proposals that Russia had supported. This has been confirmed by numerous sources, including the former leader of Germany and a top Ukrainian official, as well as Israel’s ex prime minister. This October, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder explained in an interview how he had tried to negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia in 2022. Ukraine’s overtly anti-Russian newspaper Ukrainska Pravda reported on his bombshell remarks. Moscow had a concrete peace plan laid out, according to Schröder. It was based on five points: “Ukraine’s rejection of NATO membership, two official languages in Ukraine, Donbas autonomy, security guarantees for Ukraine, and negotiations on the status of Crimea”, Ukrainska Pravda wrote. But the former German leader said the United States sabotaged the peace talks. “The only people who could resolve the war over Ukraine are the Americans”, Schröder emphasized. “During the peace talks in March 2022 in Istanbul with [Ukraine’s Defense Minister] Rustem Umierov, Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed to. They had to coordinate everything they talked about with the Americans first”, he recalled. “However, nothing eventually happened. My impression is that nothing could happen because everything else was decided in Washington. It was fatal”, Schröder added. The former German head of state likewise warned that Russia will never accept NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia. “Regardless of who is in power, there is a belief in Russia that the West wants to expand further with NATO, namely into the post-Soviet area. Keywords: Georgia and Ukraine. No one at the head of Russia will allow this to happen. This danger analysis may be emotional, but it is real for Russia. The West must understand this and compromise accordingly; otherwise, peace will be tough to achieve”, Schröder stressed, in the comments quoted by Ukrainska Pravda. A top Ukrainian official and Germany's former leader have admitted that Russia wanted to sign a peace deal with Ukraine in March 2022, but NATO countries sabotaged it, instead preferring war. Link to full video below pic.twitter.com/WUVvBANiuN — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 3, 2023 The former German chancellor’s observations were further bolstered by the remarks of a top Ukrainian official. In November, Davyd Arakhamia sat down for an interview with Ukraine’s TV channel 1+1. Arakhamia is the parliamentary faction leader of the political party of Ukraine’s Western-backed President Volydmyr Zelensky. This interview was also reported on by Ukraine’s vehemently anti-Russian newspaper Ukrainska Pravda. Arakhamia represented Ukraine in the peace talks with Russia in Türkiye in March 2022. At those negotiations, Arakhamia admitted that Russia did indeed want peace, and neutrality “was the most important thing for them”. “They [the Russians] were prepared to end the war if we agreed to – as Finland once did – neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO”, the top Ukrainian official said, according to a translation by Ukrainska Pravda. “They really hoped almost to the last moment that they would force us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality”, he added. But Ukraine’s Western sponsors were adamantly opposed to the peace proposal. “When we returned from Istanbul, [British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight”, Arakhamia recalled. These important testimonies from Germany’s former leader and a top Ukrainian official both echo an admission made by Israel’s former prime minister. Israel’s ex Prime Minister Naftali Bennett explained in a February 2023 interview how he had been a mediator between Ukraine and Russia the year before. “Anything I did was coordinated down to the last detail with the US, Germany, and France”, Bennett said. And “there was a legitimate decision by the West to keep striking Putin”. Referring to the NATO bloc’s response to the peace proposal, the interviewer asked, “So they blocked it?” Bennett replied, “Basically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they’re wrong”.

Write an article about: Anarchist hero Murray Bookchin was a Zionist who whitewashed Israel’s colonialism and war crimes. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

anarchism, David Graeber, Debbie Bookchin, Gloria Steinem, Israel, Michael Walzer, Murray Bookchin, Rojava, SDF, Syria, Yasser Arafat, Zionism

Anarchist hero Murray Bookchin was a Zionist who whitewashed Israel and justified its colonialist policies and war crimes against Arabs, calling them “imperialists” Murray Bookchin is something of a saint in the anarchist community. His ideas on social ecology and what he termed “libertarian municipalism” and “communalism” have influenced generations of self-declared leftists, and he was frequently cited as an ideological force behind the anti-globalization and Occupy Wall Street movements. Bookchin became especially influential in Kurdish circles after Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), adopted his ideas to advance a vision of “democratic confederalism,” a vision his followers later attempted to implement in northeast Syria — with the help of the US military. What is not often mentioned, however, is that — like many of his anarchists and “libertarian socialist” peers — Bookchin was very soft on imperialism, and in some cases downright apologetic. Specifically, Bookchin was a Zionist who publicly whitewashed and even rationalized Israel’s crimes against humanity. He also frequently demonized independent post-colonial governments in the Global South, echoing imperialist propaganda and chauvinistic myths about countries targeted by the United States for regime change. In 1986 Bookchin published a liberal Zionist screed that sounds like it could have been written by a neoconservative New York Times pundit today. The essay — which is reprinted in full below — uncritically rehashes Hasbara talking points, erases the history of the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians, and blames neighboring Arab states and “Arab irredentists” for the failure of peace initiatives. Bookchin’s essay betrays a racist view of Arabs, as inherently authoritarian, blood-thirsty anti-Semitic hordes. This hero of the anti-communist left depicts independent Arab nations as the true “imperialists” in the Middle East, and likens anti-imperialist leaders in the region to US-backed right-wing military juntas in Latin America. This jingoistic outlook on the Global South might also explain why Bookchin’s proposed solution to halting the carnage of the mass-murdering capitalist machine was to move to an almost entirely white community in Burlington, Vermont and organize some community councils with his middle-class anarchist friends — while his government bombed and tortured poor people across the planet, including many Third World communists and socialists he excoriated as “authoritarian.” Murray Bookchin’s explicit, public support for Israeli colonialism, and his equally strident condemnations of anti-Zionist leftists, have been quietly swept under the rug by a Western “libertarian” left that is eager to portray allies of US imperialism as the truly progressive forces. With the international proxy war on Syria that began in 2011, Bookchin’s renown reached new heights. The Kurdish-led militia the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which is linked to the PKK and whose political program is based in large part on Bookchin’s thought, has enjoyed the support of the US empire. The YPG rebranded as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in 2015, at the direct request of the Pentagon. It subsequently allowed the construction of more than a dozen US military bases in northeastern Syria. The SDF’s spokesperson insisted in 2017 that American troops would be remaining in the region “ for decades to come,” as Washington had a “strategic interest” in maintaining its military occupation. A strategic interest indeed: this US-occupied area just so happens to have most of Syria’s oil reserves, and also serves as the nation’s breadbasket region. US-backed Kurdish nationalists, proud followers of Bookchin’s anarchist ideology, have even acceded to Washington’s demands and held Syria’s own grain production hostage, refusing to sell wheat to Damascus, as a political and economic weapon. In this roughly 30 percent of US-occupied, Syrian sovereign territory — an ethnically and religiously diverse area populated by not only Kurds but also Assyrians, Armenians, Turkmen, Arabs, and more — US-backed Kurdish nationalists created an autonomous region they referred to as Rojava. Rojava was aggressively marketed as a utopian social experiment in egalitarianism, ironically by the very same corporate media apparatus that has spent decades publishing propaganda and justifying wars of aggression against any shred of socialism that has dared to challenge the US-led capitalist imperialist system. Large segments of the Western left has fetishized the Kurdish groups in Syria with a kind of orientalist fixation, and mainstream journalists who are normally hopelessly antagonistic to the socialist left published report after report waxing poetic on how incredible, brave, enlightened, democratic, and feminist the YPG and its women’s wing the YPJ are — coincidentally right at the moment when these forces allied with the US and allowed American troops to occupy nearly a third of Syria’s sovereign territory. (By the way, there are women who fight in the Syrian army and allied militias, too — but they are dehumanized and disparagingly portrayed as “ Bashar al-Assad’s female fighters,” as if they were his personal property.) Writer David Mizner noted that the US government’s propaganda arm Voice of America, a longtime vehicle for CIA lies and information warfare against the international left, “even gave Bookchin a pat on the back,” praising the Vermont anarchist for inspiring Washington’s Kurdish allies in Syria. He's gained new prominence bc of Ocalan. Voice of America even gave Bookchin a pat on the back. https://t.co/XBG9nm8o5z — David Mizner (@DavidMizner) August 17, 2017 The soft spot so-called “libertarian socialism” has for imperialism — and that imperialists have for “libertarian socialists” — might also explain why today’s leading anarchist giants, including Noam Chomsky and David Graeber, signed an open letter in the New York Review of Books in 2018 calling for the US empire to “continue military support for the SDF.” Joining Chomsky and Graeber in signing the pro-military intervention letter were renowned academic Marxist intellectual David Harvey, Iraq War-supporting socdem Zionist Michael Walzer, and even liberal feminist luminary and former CIA agent Gloria Steinem — as well as Bookchin’s daughter Debbie Bookchin, who has devoted her life to Rojava. It may come as no surprise, then, that this American “libertarian socialist” and avowed anti-communist, whose writings ideologically informed a militia that is openly allied with US imperialism, had actually supported Zionism and imperialist designs in the Middle East. On May 4, 1986, Murray Bookchin published an article in his local newspaper, the Burlington Free Press, titled “ Attacks on Israel Ignore the Long History of Arab Conflict.” The full text of the essay can be found at the bottom of this post, under the image. This screed, by an ostensibly radical anarchist saint, sounds indistinguishable from the rhetoric of neoconservative pundits in the mainstream corporate media. Bookchin portrays Israel as a beacon of democracy in a backward region, demonizing Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and beyond as all hopeless bastions of oriental despotism. He condemns “anti-Israeli sentiment that has surfaced in the local press and the virtual equation of Zionism with anti-Arab racism,” and portrays Arabs as violent savages. Bookchin implores readers to never “forget the Jewish men and women who were slaughtered by the stalwarts of Arab nationalism,” and blamed “Arab irredentists” for the failure of so-called peace talks (that in reality Israel and its loyal protector the US empire were never truly interested in pursuing). He also condemns the “invasion of the country by Arab armies” without even mentioning the Nakba, Zionist militias’ murderous ethnic cleansing of the vast majority of the indigenous population of Palestine in 1947 and 1948, which created the refugee crisis that precipitated the Arab war. In fact, this “libertarian socialist” idol goes so far as condemn Egypt, Syria, and Jordan as “imperialist,” insisting there would be an independent Palestinian state were it not for their war on Israel. Bookchin’s essay turns reality on its head, depicting Israeli colonialists as hapless victims of “imperialist” brutality by authoritarian Arabs. He likens Palestinian nationalist leader Yasser Arafat to the Nazi-collaborating Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and compares Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi and Syria’s Hafez al-Assad to Washington-allied right-wing dictators in Latin America. Bookchin also regurgitates imperialist propaganda and lies, claiming Assad “slaughtered between 6,000 to 10,000 people in Kama in February 1982, for daring to challenge his leadership of the country.” What he does not mention, of course, is that this so-called uprising in Hama (which Bookchin misspells) had nothing to do with democracy or freedom. It was led by violent sectarian Islamist extremists who were directly backed by that benevolent democracy to the north, Turkey, and also enjoyed support from American and British intelligence services — much like the so-called uprising in Syria in 2011, an imperialist déjà vu. Not one to let simple facts get in the way of his Zionist apologism, Bookchin instead condemns what he calls “Syrian imperialism,” and speaks of avowed secularist Hafez al-Assad as a sectarian Alawite parallel to the theocratic Israeli fascist Meir Kahane In the article, Bookchin even notes that he wanted the Israeli colonial project to be a model of his decentralized vision of society, writing, “For years I had hoped that Israel or Palestine could have evolved into a Swiss-like confederation of Jews and Arabs.” But the anarchist idol was not able to disguise his utter contempt for Arabs. Echoing racist tropes, Bookchin laments that Arabs are using the Palestinian plight to cover up their own “cultural problems.” Murray Bookchin’s full article follows below: There is certainly much one can criticize about Israeli policy, particularly under the Likud government which orchestrated the invasion of Lebanon. But the torrent of anti-Israeli sentiment that has surfaced in the local press and the virtual equation of Zionism with anti-Arab racism impels me to reply with some vigor. For years I had hoped that Israel or Palestine could have evolved into a Swiss-like confederation of Jews and Arabs, a confederation in which both peoples could live peacefully with each other and develop their cultures creatively and harmoniously. Tragically, this was not to be. The United Nations resolution of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, was followed by the invasion of the country by Arab armies, notably the Egyptian, Syria, and highly trained Jordanian “Arab Legion” with direct or indirect aid from Iraq and other Arab nations. In some cases these armies, particularly the Arab irregulars who accompanied them, took no prisoners in their assaults on Jewish communities. Generally, they tried to systematically obliterate all Jewish settlements in their paths until they were stopped by furious and costly Jewish resistance. The invasion and the annihilatory combat it created set a terrible pattern of fear and bitterness that is not easy to erase from the minds of Israeli Jews. That a desperate lunatic element of Jewish zealots behaved in kind before it was stopped by the newly formed Israeli military forces should not allow us to forget the Jewish men and women who were slaughtered by the stalwarts of Arab nationalism even after they had raised white flags of surrender. I have seen very little mention of this fearful pattern of “combat” which stained the Arab invasions of Palestine and so profoundly influenced Jewish confidence in the value of “truce negotiations” and the predictability of peace agreements with Arab irredentists. Indeed, the partition lines that were eventually established after the 1948 invasions were the product of bloody warfare — literally the give-and-take of battle — not the “imperialistic” or “land-grabbing Zionists,” to use the language that is so much in vogue these days. Nor do I hear any longer of the ernest attempts by the the Haganah — the Jewish citizens’ militia of the partition era — to encourage Arabs to remain in their neighborhoods and towns, of the Israeli vehicles with loudspeakers that went through the streets of Jaffa, for example, urging Arabs not to succumb to the feelings of panic engendered by battle conditions and by extremists on both sides of the conflict. That many Arabs remained in Israel clearly challenges the myth that Israeli Jews tried to rid the country of its Moslem inhabitants. What seems to be totally ignored is the certainty that there would have been an Arab state in Palestine side-by-side with a Jewish one if Egyptian armies to the south, Syrian in the north, and Jordanian in the east had not tried to seize both U.N.-Partitioned lands with imperialist interests of their own and, when this failed, used the Palestinian refugees as pawns in future negotiations with the Israelis and their western supporters. There is another myth that must be removed: that the present volatile situation in the Middle East has its source in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts; indeed, that the relationship between the Jews and Arabs was “beatific” until it was poisoned by “Zionist ambitions.” Leaving aside the simplistic image of Middle East problems that this notion fosters, the extent to which it is a sheer distortion of Jewish-Arab relations in the past verges on the unspeakable. Are we to forget that Arab persecution of Jews, while less genocidal than European, has a centuries-long history of its own with the exception of Moslem Spain and Ottoman Turkey? That Arab pogroms against the Jews accompanies the Jewish settlement of pre-World War II Palestine, culminating in the extermination of the ages-old Jewish community of Hebron (once the seat of the Hebrew tribal confederacy) in the late 1920s? That the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1930s (the precursor of Yassar Arafat two generations ago) was an avowed admirer of Hitler and called for a “holy war” of extermination of Palestinian Jews up to and into World War II? That Jordan’s “Arab Legion” systematically leveled the old Jewish quarter of Jerusalem in 1948 and stabled horses at the Western Wall of Herod’s Temple, defiling the most sacred place of world Judaism? Are we to forget that General Hafez Assad, the so-called “president” of Syria (elected by a “majority” of 99.97 percent of the Syrian “electorate”) slaughtered between 6,000 to 10,000 people in Kama in February 1982, for daring to challenge his leadership of the country? One wonders why there was no storm of protest when Amnesty International in 1983 declared that “Syrian security forces have practiced systematic violations of human rights, including torture and political killings, and have been operating with impunity under the country’s emergency laws”? Why is there no concern over Syrian imperialism — notably Assad’s fantasy of absorbing Lebanon and Palestine, including Israel, if you please, into a Syrian empire — a goal every objective expert in the Middle East knows to be Assad’s Arabic version of Rabi Kahane’s insane version of a “Greater-Israel” — a notion that has been vigorously denounced by responsible Jewish and Zionist organizations in Israel and abroad. If the “core problem” of the Middle East, to use Miriam Ward’s words in her Vermont Perspective of April 27, is the confiscation of Palestinian land by Israel, what would the whole area look like if Israel and its Jewish population magically disappeared from the scene? Would Syria be less of a police state than it is today and would its Sunni Moslem majority feel less dominated, exploited, and manipulated by General Assad, who tends to speak for the Alawite Moslem minority of the country? Would Saudi princes cease to squander much of their country’s wealth on limosines, palaces, jewels, and real estate abroad, much less bring a modicum of freedom to their own people at home? Would Egyptian landowners, living in lavish opulence amidst incredible squalor, return a fraction of their landholdings to a starved Egyptian peasantry? Would Iraq free its Kurdish population to speak only of its most vocal and rebellious minorities, or meet their demands for genuine equal autonomy? Would the Iraq-Iran war come to an end, a war that has already claimed a million lives in the past few years? Would Colonel Khadafy cease to be a strutting militarist who has been trying to eat away at the territories of many of his neighbors? Would Khomeni and Moslem fundamentalism, whose main thrust is against any form of modernity and western culture, give equality to women and freedom to critics of Iran’s present-day theocratic regime? What is so disquieting about many persistent attacks of Israel is that they help to completely obfuscate what is really a “core problem” of the Palestinian people. This abandoned people is being used in the most unconscionable manner by the Arab states to conceal deep-seated economic, social, and cultural problems in their own lands and in the Middle East as a whole. That the differences between the Israelis and Palestinians have to be resoled equitably such that both people can live with a sense of security that resolves their fears of what has happened in the past and achieve a constructive harmony with each other goes without saying. I am not sure what that solution will be. But it certainly will not be achieved by acts of PLO-related terrorism against independently minded Arab mayors who are trying to negotiate a settlement between the two peoples at one end of the spectrum or lunatics like Rabbi Kahane at the other end who are trying to expel the Palestinians from their landholdings and communities. But crucial as such a settlement surely is, we should not bury the real “core problem” of the Middle East as embodied by its cynical politicians, landowners, oil barons, military juntas, fanatic clerics, and imperialistic predators in the welter and tragic problems that have emerged between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Given this background, it would be wise to remember that both peoples have more interests in common than they have differences. It would be a splendid example of political independence if people who raise a justifiable hue about military juntas in Latin America would remind themselves that they are confronted with an exact parallel in the Middle East — from Colonel Khadafy to General Assad?

Write an article about: German EU official uses racist rhetoric claiming Russians don’t value life. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

EU, European Union, Germany, neoliberalism, Russia, shock therapy, Soviet Union, Ukraine, USSR, WEF, World Economic Forum

A German EU official claimed Russians don’t value human life and thus aren’t Europeans. The ex NATO researcher was echoing a centuries-old colonialist trope used to justify genocide of Indigenous peoples, US war on Vietnam, and Israeli occupation of Palestine. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) A European Union official has used racist rhetoric to dehumanize Russians, claiming they don’t value human life, and are therefore not Europeans. The fact that the EU official is German is also eyebrow-raising, considering the country’s fascist history and genocidal attacks on Russians. Florence Gaub is deputy director of the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), which describes itself as “the Union’s agency dealing with the analysis of foreign, security and defence policy issues.” Gaub has also served as a researcher at the NATO Defense College, and has taught at numerous prestigious European universities. She currently works with the World Economic Forum (WEF), a corporate-backed neoliberal lobby group. On April 12, Gaub was invited on to Germany’s state media outlet ZDF, to discuss the Ukraine war on its top news program Heute, hosted by prominent journalist Markus Lanz. She used this large platform to launch a racist rant essentially claiming that the Russian people are uncivilized non-Europeans who don’t care about human life. This is the kind of racist BS they are now spreading in the EU: this #NATO advisor, @FlorenceGaub spews her version of Nazi-Germany's trope of "Untermenschen" USA in the Vietnam War also claimed: "Asians just don't care about death, like us".Disgusting dehumanisation#NotoNATO pic.twitter.com/ZsEk051VVf — Paul #SaveSheikhJarrah Dva ?? (@zoolooy) April 13, 2022 “We should not forget, even if Russians look European, they are not European, in a cultural sense,” Gaub declared in the German-language interview. “They [Russians] think differently about violence or death,” the EU official continued. “They have no concept of a liberal, post-modern life, a concept of life that each individual can choose. Instead, life simply can end early with death.” To try to justify her bigoted views, Gaub said that “Russian life expectancy is quite low, as you know. It is 70 for men.” She failed to explain that Russians had a healthy life expectancy under socialism in the Soviet Union, but after the United States and Western Europe overthrew the USSR from 1989 to 1991, they imposed brutal capitalist “shock therapy” on Russia that caused life expectancy to fall precipitously. A 2001 UNICEF report found that the grueling capitalist reforms forced on Russia in the 1990s caused 3.2 million excess deaths, leading life expectancy for men to drop by six years. In this period of Western-imposed mass privatizations and free market fundamentalism, 18 million Russian children were pushed into poverty. Over one-third of the population lived in poverty, with mass unemployment. There were high levels of child malnutrition, and a steep increase in HIV and tuberculosis cases. The Russian Federation was not able to get back to the level of life expectancy it had had under socialism in the Soviet Union in 1989 until 22 years later, in 2011. In other words, it took Russia two decades to recover from the devastating economic attack waged on it by the Western powers. A graph of Russian male life expectancy shows it precipitously fell after the overthrow of the Soviet Union In her racist rant, Florence Gaub, the German European Union official, conveniently failed to mention that life expectancy is even lower today in Ukraine than it is in Russia. Ukraine’s post-Soviet regime also suffered from the capitalist shock therapy imposed on it in the 1990s, although not quite as badly as Russia. Despite this, Russia’s life expectancy surpassed that of Ukraine in 2015. (For context, Cuba has a higher life expectancy than the United States, despite the fact that Cuba is a relatively poor, formerly colonized country that has been under an illegal US economic blockade for more than 60 years.) Despite these disparities, Gaub claims Russia is the country that does not value human life, not Ukraine. Many Western government officials likewise insist that Ukraine is a model of “democracy,” despite the fact that the authoritarian regime in Kiev banned communist parties and left-wing symbols, arrested elected opposition lawmakers, and shut down critical media outlets long before Russia invaded in February 2022, and have since prohibited another dozen opposition parties. Instead of addressing any of this historical context, the EU’s Florence Gaub chose to use racist rhetoric and claim that the political conflict in Ukraine is a product of Russian culture, that Russians simply don’t value life. “That is why they treat death differently, people simply die,” she claimed. The notion that a population targeted by Western imperialist powers supposedly doesn’t care about human life is a centuries-old colonial trope. ‘They don’t value life’: How the US empire dehumanizes its victims, from Indigenous genocide to Vietnam to Palestine European settlers claimed Native Americans did not value human life to try to justify their genocidal colonization of the Americas. The US Declaration of Independence itself echoes this racist rhetoric about “the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” To justify Washington’s decades-long war on Vietnam, which led up to to 3.8 million deaths, top US General William Westmoreland similarly claimed, “The Oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does a Westerner… Life is plentiful; life is cheap in the Orient. The philosophy of the Orient expresses that life is not important.” US general who led mass-murdering war in Vietnam (3.8M dead) claimed "The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as a Westerner" pic.twitter.com/WsTaeeb7iK — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 5, 2017 Today, officials from the Israeli apartheid regime frequently dehumanize indigenous Palestinians by claiming they don’t value life. US politicians make the same racist comments about the Chinese, to justify Washington’s new cold war on Beijing. Now German militarists are rehashing this racist rhetoric to accelerate the new cold war on Russia.

Write an article about: Twitter allows death threats against Russians in new Ukraine war policy. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Azov, Big Tech, Facebook, Meta, Nazis, Russia, Silicon Valley, social media, Twitter

Twitter updated its terms of service to allow users to call for the deaths of Russian politicians and soldiers, due to the war in Ukraine. This comes soon after US Senator Lindsey Graham called for assassinating President Vladimir Putin, and Facebook greenlighted support for Ukrainian Nazis. Twitter has made an exception to its rules that now allows for users to make death threats against Russians, due to the war in Ukraine. The Daily Beast quietly reported on March 8 that it had obtained an internal Twitter memo that states, “Based on the current safety guidelines on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, content wishing, hoping or calling for serious harm against leaders of the Russian government, military leaders, soldiers or para-military fighters will result in No Action.” That is to say, now that Western governments are sending billions of dollars of weapons to Ukrainian insurgents and essentially waging a war on Russia, the social media company gave its users the green light to discuss killing Russian politicians and soldiers. Like most major Silicon Valley corporations, Twitter is a US government contractor, and has worked with the Department of Homeland Security while taking money to promote US state propaganda outlets. This policy update came after prominent right-wing US Senator Lindsey Graham used Twitter to call for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Republican politician tweeted on March 3, “Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military? The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country – and the world – a great service.” Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military? The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country – and the world – a great service. — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) March 4, 2022 Graham, a major ally of former president Donald Trump, was echoing similar comments he had made in an interview with conservative talk show host Sean Hannity on Fox News. The Daily Beast reported on March 4 that a Twitter spokesperson had told the website “that Graham’s posts did not violate the platform’s rules against violent threats and incitement of physical harm. Therefore, no action will be taken against the tweets.” Twitter’s decision to allow death threats against Russians comes after Facebook reversed its ban on users praising Ukrainian Nazis. Facebook is also a US government contractor, and has worked with the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security. The social media giant Meta, which owns Facebook, said it now allows posts praising Ukraine’s explicitly neo-Nazi and white-supremacist Azov regiment because it is part of the country’s national guard and is fighting Russia.

Write an article about: NATO/West or Global Majority? Unipolar destruction or multipolar development? The world must choose. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, EU, European Union, Geopolitical Economy Hour, India, Israel, Michael Hudson, Narendra Modi, Radhika Desai, Russia, Ukraine

Political economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson discuss the fracturing international order between the NATO/West bloc and the Global Majority, analyzing Israel, Gaza, Ukraine, Russia, Argentina, and Europe. Political economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson discuss the fracturing international order between the NATO/West bloc and the Global Majority, analyzing Israel’s war on Gaza, Ukraine’s defeat in the proxy war against Russia, and the rise of the far-right in Argentina and Europe. You can find more episodes of Geopolitical Economy Hour here. RADHIKA DESAI: Hello, and welcome to the 19th Geopolitical Economy Hour, the program where we discuss the evolving political and geopolitical economy of our time. I’m Radhika Desai. MICHAEL HUDSON: And I’m Michael Hudson. And we bring you this program with the help of our host Ben Norton, our videographer Paul Graham, and our transcriber Zach Weisser. The carnage in Gaza has paused, though the possibility that this will open the door to a permanent resolution is remote. Little else seems to have changed. The U.S. remains doubled down on its one-sided support for a murderous Israel, the tail that wags the U.S. dog. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, it’s not only the United States that’s doubling down, it’s Europe that’s doubling down. And it’s becoming, you’re seeing, they’ve banned protests supporting the Palestinians in Germany, in France, and in Italy. And this is leading to the break between Europe, I think, and the Islamic countries. Yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu called Hamas the Nazis. And in Europe, the Arabs are calling Germany the Nazis. So it looks like the question is, what kind of Nazism is the U.S. and NATO alliance going to have? RADHIKA DESAI: And what is the definition of what a Nazi is anymore? I mean, it’s completely losing touch with the historical record. Indeed, as Michael, you rightly point out, the U.S. and Western governments generally are growing even further apart from their people, most of whom seem to favor a permanent ceasefire and a lasting solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. And one might add an end to the war over Ukraine and an end to persistent saber-rattling directed at China. The U.S. and NATO continue to mouth support for Ukraine, even as the inability to support Ukraine, whether with money, military production, or political legitimacy, becomes clear. And defeat for Ukraine is all but acknowledged. While the U.S. refuses to acknowledge it, the hunt for scapegoats has already begun in Kyiv. The upcoming NATO foreign ministers meeting continues to invite foreign ministers of Asian non-members such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, even though the possibility of the U.S. sustaining a third war front remains in question, even with allies, while the key to the entire Indo-Pacific strategy lies in tatters, because India’s Modi stands accused of organizing murders of citizens of allied countries on their territories, because, Modi claims, they are doing nothing about what he alleges is Sikh separatism in favor of a homeland called Khalistan. So all in all, the Western powers present a picture of increasingly impotent rage. Meanwhile, the world majority continues to side raucously in demonstrations or silently for peace and development. So today we want to discuss both the international and domestic dimensions of the increasingly divergent strategies represented by these two parts of the world, the NATO- and U.S.-led West on the one hand, and the world majority, which now includes, one would imagine, the overwhelming majority of the ordinary people of the Western world, who do not wish to pursue this militaristic and war-like line. They would rather have a policy which is more in line with what China, Russia, and other world majority countries are pursuing in favor of development. So we are looking at two very stark alternatives. The first represents destruction, both economic and military. And the second represents, again, development, both, in this case, economic and military, at least in the sense of providing for defense against the increasing aggression of Western powers. So I think you wanted to start our discussion off by discussing a couple of instances of economic self-harm that we are seeing in Western countries and those countries that seek to ally with them. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, while you were in China for the last few weeks, the whole post-1945 U.S.-centered order has been breaking up, most clearly in Germany and Argentina. So I want to talk a bit about the crises there, because they’re very closely related. And the BRICS countries also are just beginning to define themselves as an alternative to this. The main strains are financial right now, and not only financial, but the particular way in which the U.S.-centered neoliberal order that was put up in 1945 has now reached its limit. And you’re seeing that in the crises. And it’s largely a balance-of-payments crisis in Germany and Argentina connected to the budget deficits, all that with a kind of neoliberal junk economics that has frozen spending in Germany to prevent Germany from essentially using public funding to get over the depression that it’s created by declaring war on Russia, and it looks like China, too. And the fact that its middle class and labor class are being squeezed, just as they’re being squeezed in Argentina. So I think underlying both countries and their balance-of-payments deficit is a kind of false view of what causes inflation. And I just want to say one thing about where the German nuttiness comes from. The Germans say that we have to freeze government spending because that’s what is causing inflation. It’s not that the United States has blown up Nord Stream. It’s not that energy prices have gone up. It’s not that food prices have gone up. It’s because we’re running a deficit, too much social spending. And the only cause that the Germans realize except for inflation is government money creation. But that’s obviously not the case. Every hyperinflation in history, such as we’re seeing in Argentina now, whose prices have gone up 140% in the last year, every hyperinflation has come from the currency depreciation, from the balance-of-payments deficit. And Germany, now that it is deindustrializing, now that it cannot import, if affordable, gas and oil to run its industry, all of a sudden this anchor of the euro’s exchange rate has turned into a deficit, meaning the euro is looking like it’s on the downside. The reality back in the 1920s is Germany had to pay reparations. The payment of reparations caused the currency to plunge. When a currency goes down, as Germany’s did and Argentina’s today, the price of imports go up. And the price of imports go up, increase the domestic price of food, the domestic price of doing business. And so the government then has to create more money to enable these transactions of the economy to take place at the higher price level. In every case, the hyperinflation and even regular inflations are led by the balance-of-payments deficit, followed by a declining exchange rate, followed by increasing import prices and domestic prices, and then at the very end, money creation increases, just the opposite of what Milton Friedman and the Chicago School and the right-wingers say. When you have a false view of what causes inflation for the last 100 years, ever since the 1920s, it’s not a mistake. It’s because there’s a social interest in having a wrong view. The social interest is essentially to squeeze government and essentially privatize everything. What you’re seeing in Argentina now is that the incoming Mr. [Javier] Milei is trying to create a new government. He’s dropped the idea of dollarization, but he says there’s a simple way to stabilize Argentina’s balance-of-payments. And it’s exactly what Argentina did in 1991, and that is you sell off the public domain. Argentina was able to stabilize its exchange rate by selling its banks, selling its natural resources, selling its public utilities. Milei says, we can raise the exchange rate once again and stop the depreciation if we just sell off everything, sell off our roads, sell off our streets, sell off our land, sell off whatever natural resources we have, and you’re going to have an influx of foreign money coming in, and that foreign money is going to buy up our government, what we sell off from the government, and that will stop the inflation, and now you middle-class and working-class people can somehow survive. And, of course, the problem with this is once you privatize the public domain, the private owners are now going to raise the prices for public services. They’re going to turn government infrastructure into monopolies and extract monopoly rent, and all of this rent is then going to be remitted to their own countries abroad, and most foreigners in Argentina are Argentinians, the 50 families that run the economy, operating out of offshore banking centers, the Dutch West Indies, the United States, London, and so they’re pretending to be foreigners, so you’re having a huge privatization and the squeeze of the middle-class and the working-class. RADHIKA DESAI: What you say is really interesting, Michael, but first of all, let me just make one little qualification to what you’re saying, because, you know, Germany yesterday has announced that it has actually raised the debt brake. And so what that means is, and by the way, this is not the first time they’ve done so, they have done so repeatedly, particularly over the pandemic, but even before that, because quite frankly, the position they have taken that the German public debt should be limited to some ridiculously low amount, or rather the German deficit should be limited to a ridiculously low amount, can actually not be sustained, even in the case of an economy like Germany. And as you rightly point out, more recently, they have been indulging in deindustrialization. And what is at stake this time around is precisely the ability of the German government to give subsidies to German corporations to allegedly organize a green transition, but in reality, it’s not so much the green transition that matters, but the subsidy to the big corporations. And that’s the point I want to make, because, you know, we all say that neoliberalism is all about essentially freeing up markets and rolling back governments and reducing government spending even, but in reality, it is about none of those things primarily. That is the rhetoric that is indeed used, but it is used in order to essentially create a government policy paradigm, whose main purpose is to focus, is to protect the interests of and advance the interests of the biggest corporations in the country. And that’s what the German government was being prevented from doing by taking the money that it did not spend during the pandemic, which the parliament had allocated, and giving it to the Green Fund. The issue is not that it’s a Green Fund, the issue is that this would have gone in the form of subsidies and supports for Germany’s big corporations. So in that sense, neoliberalism is less about markets, all the junk economics is indeed junk economics, but its primary purpose is to serve the interests of big corporations. MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s quite correct. Under the claim that there’s a budget squeeze, what is cut back is the social spending on the population at large, the consumers. In Germany, what was cut back has been the subsidies of families that have to pay much higher prices now for their heating and for their oil and gas. And that’s cut back precisely for what you say, in order to help the large corporations. But the large corporations in Germany were very large, primarily industrial corporations. And there’s no way that a government subsidy can really protect these corporations, given the sixfold, somewhere threefold, sixfold increase in energy prices. So it’s very difficult. So what Germany has done is saying, OK, we are going to need more money, we’ll cut back social spending, but we’ll spend it on the war. And that’s what EU Commissioner President Ursula von Leyen said. And back in February, the Minister [Robert] Habeck, the economics minister, went to Washington and he said, the more Germany serves, the greater its role. That was his quote. In other words, he’s trying to increase, his role in Germany is to serve the U.S. interests in Ukraine. And you’re having Germany more for a war economy right now, even than how, I don’t know if it can save its industrial sector and its economy. But what it can do, at least, is act as America’s puppet, going for the war economy. And essentially, that’s really the problem. The inflation is going to increase there. There’s going to be a wage squeeze. And that’s what’s leading to the right wing shift all throughout Europe. The Social Democrats and the center parties are really the pro-war parties and the anti-labor parties now. And ironically enough, it’s the right wing in Germany with a little bit of the old Linke party with Sarah Wagenknecht. And it’s the right wing parties in Holland and in Hungary that are doing what used to be the left wing parties. All this is posing the question, will the European Union break up? And you can say the same thing for what’s happening for the global south countries now that Argentina is saying that it wants to leave the BRICS. RADHIKA DESAI: So this is really, again, very important and interesting, Michael. Because what we are looking at is really the world is splitting. And it’s splitting at two levels. On the one hand, there is a split, of course, among the countries of the world. And that split is a little more messy than we thought it would be. So countries like Argentina and India may not really remain part of this non-Western alliance or the world majority alliance. Although, of course, we’ve seen this before. It’s not necessarily anything new. When Bolsonaro was in power, then Brazil was not exactly pulling its weight in the BRICS, et cetera. So that was so but nevertheless, there is a polarization at the international level. But increasingly, there is also a polarization that is taking place within the Western countries. You don’t see the same polarization elsewhere. Within the Western countries, you are seeing a polarization between ordinary people upon whom governments are imposing austerity, low wages, ever-disappearing social services, increased taxes, et cetera, in order to finance, in Germany’s case, the war and subsidization of big corporations. And in the case of Argentina, as you said, essentially to service the interests of a small number of really rich families there. So at both levels, we are seeing polarization. And I would say that the real issue is that the neoliberal strategy does not work, which is why you get the election of people like Geert Wilders, because the so-called centrist governments basically create the mess and then people get alienated with it. They have nobody else to vote for, but these populists like Milei or Geert Wilders or what have you. And this is the whole sort of spectrum of Western politics has moved to the right in such a way as to leave people with no alternative. So essentially what we are also at the root of what we are looking at is the exhaustion of Western capitalism and the inability of political forces in most of the world to see that their salvation lies in a political strategy which is fundamentally different, which is not aimed at protecting the interests of a small number of big corporations. It is not articulated in the form of junk economics, but it is fundamentally a developmentalist strategy which involves pursuing the interests of the vast majority of the people, much like what we see in China. It’s not perfect, but it is broadly correct. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, we’ve been talking about this for the last few months and well, we’ve been talking about this in China, Russia and the global majority have been talking about this. The amazing thing is there is no talk about this in any major NATO party, nowhere in Europe, nowhere in the United States, nowhere in Canada are people coming and saying there has to be an alternative. The only alternative that is being discussed is in Eurasia, which is very interesting. And for the first time now, because of the split of the Israeli war against the Arab countries to create a greater Israel, you have the Arab countries now, I think, beginning to turn away from the European Union and from NATO. Now that they see Europe is backing the U.S. and they’re now working, I think, opening their eyes, at least, to the possibility of the kind of alternative there’s going to be. And that’s really what all of these shows that we’re doing are all about. RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely. And I just want to go back to what we started with, you know, you pointed out that a lot of this is financial and I completely agree with you that it is indeed financial, but it is also military and economic and political. So in the military sense, of course, what we are looking at in the Western world generally, which is backing Ukraine and now Israel, what’s really going on is that these countries which spend so much of their money, particularly the United States, but also these other countries, you know, a small proportion of their very big GDPs is still a very large amount. So they spend a lot of money on their militaries. But in fact, the last 18, 20 months of war against Ukraine has already depleted the arsenals of these countries. And even though the military industrial complex is making money hand over fist producing new weapons, the fact of the matter is this military industrial complex is turning out to be a toy weapons complex. It is not actually able to produce at the rate at which, say, Russia is able to produce or China is able to produce. So once again, on the productive front, even though it involves military production, which is usually regarded as a national priority, even though in the United States, the military industrial complex eats up about a trillion dollars, and probably that’s an underestimate every year. The fact is they cannot produce the weapons. The second associated fact is that they cannot produce technologically sophisticated weapons. I was just recently reading in the news that Iran has now produced a hypersonic missile. So Russia produces hypersonic missiles, China produces hypersonic missiles, now Iran produces hypersonic missiles. Meanwhile, the coddled military industrial complex of the West is not able to produce anything of the sort. So it is also a military confrontation which the West is losing. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, this is why there are calls for a ceasefire right now, both in Ukraine saying, well, there’s a stalemate in Ukraine, let’s just stop. And they want to stop because the West has run out of the weapons, even though the weapons don’t work. What they have, they’ve run out of. They’ve run out of tanks, they’ve run out of bullets, they’ve run out of missiles. They’re trying to buy some more bullets from South Korea, I think, the Ukraine is. But the fact is, obviously, it’s not a stalemate. The Ukrainians have been essentially losing their entire population and turning Ukraine into a land without the people, as they used to say of Palestine in 1947. It’s depopulated. And so what you’re having is a military that doesn’t work there. And regarding what you commented on quite correctly on Iran, it looks like both Israel and the United States want to end the ceasefire and then resume the fighting. It’s now primarily on the West Bank. There’s been no ceasefire at all on the West Bank. The murder squads have been going out. They call them “settlers”, to shoot the existing homeowners, take over their homes, and essentially make the West Bank and Palestine only for the Israeli population. If this continues, you’re going to have not only Lebanon and Hezbollah come up, you’re going to have Iran actually use these missiles. And you may see in the Near East fighting to the last Israeli to support the United States’ attempt to fight Iran. And they will not succeed, I don’t think, in the Near East any more than they’ll succeed in Ukraine. RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely, Michael. This is exactly what I was saying the other time when we were chatting with Pepe, you know. And in fact, let me say another thing, which is, you know, this is how the international and the domestic interact, you know, what we call the political and the geopolitical economy of the world interact. Part of the reason why we are going in this direction is that the West in general, and Biden in particular, cannot afford to admit defeat in Ukraine. And nor can he, in fact, what he seems to have decided to do, particularly given that he is essentially, you know, I never thought there would be such a thing, but you know, there are lame duck presidents. Well, I think he is a lame duck candidate. That is to say that there are essentially people in his own party who are saying that he should basically step aside. He’s not capable of running, but he is insisting on running. And I think one of the ways in which he’s going to try, he may not succeed, but he’s going to try to force the hand of the rest of his party and make them keep him as the candidate for president, is essentially he wants to run the campaign as a war president and a war president and then some. So he wants to go into the campaign with certainly one war, certainly two wars now, the war against Russia and as I pointed out last time, the war. So the war against Russia with using Ukraine as a proxy and now a war against Iran using Israel as a proxy. And here the position of Hamas and the Palestinians is actually to be likened not to Ukraine, not to Russia, as President Zelensky tried to do. But in fact, it is to be likened to Donbass, which Ukraine was pummeling before it became the proxy for a war against Ukraine. So now Israel will be a proxy for a war against Iran. And of course, meanwhile, the possibility that there may be a third front has not been closed. President Biden has said repeatedly that the United States will defend Taiwan in the case of, in the case of China trying to take Taiwan by force, etc. The fact is China has no intention of taking Taiwan by force. China has been engaged in an economic and charm offensive vis-a-vis Taiwan for decades now. And what, however, we have to look out for, is some provocation in the case of which the Biden administration will try to use Taiwan in the same way as a proxy against China, as it is using Ukraine against Russia and in the coming weeks and months may use Israel against Iran. Thankfully, there are elections in Taiwan and it is very likely that a sensible government will be elected in Taiwan, which may kibosh this possibility. But nevertheless, President Biden so far can be assured of at least trying to run as president, as a war president with a war on two fronts going on well into next November. That is why he can’t afford to admit defeat. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, in order for a sensitive government to take place, there has to be, I think the awareness is spreading now that the Western policy is a U.S. policy. It’s to try to control other countries by war. That’s the only way that the United States can exert control. It can’t have trade control anymore because it’s de-industrialized. It can’t even have financial control because of the problems that it has here. The only way that it has is to force other countries in a zero-sum game. As Donald Trump, who will be running against Biden, has said, America has to win on every trade deal. Well, the difference is that if China, Taiwan, Russia, Eurasia says there is an alternative to try to fight other people, and that’s to offer mutual gain. If you have the global majority following a policy of mutual gain, the Belt and Road Initiative to develop mutual trade among them and to have it Eurasian-centered instead of all centered on the United States and its satellite in London and Frankfurt, then that is really going to be the whole difference in Western from Eurasian policy. If you can have this at least at the center of Eurasian politics, I think you’ll have a recognition of just how great an alternative there is, even if it’s not appearing in the American and European political scene. RADHIKA DESAI: Again, I want to add to your point and to strengthen the excellent points you’re making, Michael. Let me take a minute to reflect on, just as we said, what is the domestic basis of U.S.’s militarism. It is an increasingly senile, financialized capitalism, which needs to be able to suck value out of the rest of the world in order to survive, which explains its militarism, its international aggression, etc. Meanwhile, we can very well ask, what are the contrasting domestic bases of the completely different foreign policy that China is pursuing? What we see here is that, essentially, sometime early in this century, in the first decade of the 21st century, the government in China realized that decades of reform and opening up had been important, it had been very good, it had created employment, it had dealt with the series of multiple crises that China had to deal with in the late 1960s with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and then the 1970s, but what it had not been able to do was to help China climb up the value ladder. So to modernize China’s industry, to make China’s industry develop technologically, and in order to address that problem, since that time, the Chinese government has been taking numerous industrial policy initiatives designed to upgrade the technology of China, and within less than a decade, by about the middle of the 2010s, it already became clear that China was becoming a technological leader in many fields, whether it is information and communication technology with Huawei, or with artificial intelligence, with green technology, and so on, with high-speed rail. By the way, we were in China, and we experienced a most amazing high-speed rail ride from Beijing to Xi’an, and I have to say, if they had high-speed rails like that, I’d never take another airplane ever in my life, unless it was for, you know, crossing oceans and so on, but anyway. So these are just amazing levels of technological development, and as we know, the US-led West has been reacting to this by increasingly making the international environment hostile to the extent they can for China, so all of the initiatives China has taken over the last decade and more, whether it is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Belt and Road Initiative, which celebrated its 10th anniversary this year, or more recently, all the various BRICS initiatives, its increasingly close alliance with Russia, its attempt to try to win over its own neighborhood, all of these things are essentially a way to try to resist this attempt of the United States to create a hostile international environment, and instead have a competing international order, which will be based not on aggression, on sucking out capital and value from the rest of the world, but rather on facilitating the development of the rest of the world, and that’s what we are looking at, and this is where, again, the world is standing before a set of alternatives, a very clear fork in the road. On the one side lies China, and still the world majority, even though countries like Argentina and India may be stepping back temporarily, we hope, from that, and on the other hand, the Western-led alliance, the U.S.-led alliance, which basically stands for financial exploitation, the sucking out of value through financial means from the rest of the world, while giving nothing in return, and militarism and aggression to compel the world to cooperate with this. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, there’s also a parallel fork in the road that we haven’t mentioned, but is very important, and that’s the global warming and the extreme weather that we have. Certainly, that’s one problem that’s facing China. What is making this a fork in the road is, why is the United States fighting so much to support Israel? It’s fighting not for Israel, but because Israel is a landed aircraft carrier to control the Near Eastern oil, and the American foreign policy is based, the one way in which it can control trade is by monopolizing the oil trade that American companies have been monopolizing ever since World War I, along with England and Holland for that. Well, if America is not going to leave the Near East easily, it’s still pumping oil out of Iraq, even though it’s been told to leave. The American forces in Iraq and in Syria are being attacked. Over the coming six months, I think you’re going to see the war being settled, one way or another, in the Near East. If there’s a defeat of the American oil in the Near East, this will entail a defeat of Israel, too. This fight is parallel to the Ukrainian fight, which ended up all to split Europe away from reliance on Russian oil. Well, obviously, Eurasia and the other countries that are threatened by global warming, despite the fact that Europe and the United States says that it’s in favor of the green ecology and cutting back pollution, the United States is the leading lobbyist for pollution, for accelerating global warming because the global warming is caused by its oil and gas. And that’s what the United States is using, hoping to use as a lever to control the energy and hence the GDP of other countries. That’s a related fight to what you’ve been saying. RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely, Michael. And let me bring this back to a monetary and financial question. You know, that is to say, climate change is also a monetary and financial question. Why do I say that? Because you see, recently, of course, we’ve had a lot of inflation. And while it is undoubtedly true that on the one hand, some of it has been caused by the war in Ukraine and the rise of food and energy prices. And while it is also true that big corporations in the United States in particular, but also elsewhere, are taking every opportunity to try to jack up prices and keep them there. Interestingly, they can only do this because, we’ve had big corporations for a very long time. So if that was the case, why didn’t we have inflation for the last two decades? We’ve had a highly monopolized economy in the US and many, most Western countries since then. The opportunity to jack up prices is only provided by supply chain bottlenecks, where those companies that do not suffer to the same extent from supply chain bottlenecks then use the opportunity to jack up prices. Fine. All of this is true. But there is an underlying cause of this. Why are supply chain bottlenecks being disrupted? I think they are being disrupted for two reasons, both of which have to do with the destructive strategy that the United States-led West is trying to impose on the rest of the world. On the one hand, you have an increase in supply chain bottlenecks to the extent that countries like China, but also a few other countries increasingly refuse to provide the United States with cheap goods, whether they are cheap primary products such as, you know, food products or coffee or whatever, and of course, oil, or whether it is cheap manufactured products. In both of these cases, the ability, the willingness of these countries to provide cheap goods has been declining because their own domestic markets are expanding and their own wage costs are rising, particularly in the case of China, which is a good thing. This is not a complaint. Wage costs should rise in developing countries. That’s what development is about. So that’s the first thing. And then the second thing is that neoliberal policy has so, has laid agriculture to waste in so many countries. And today, with climate change and the United States essentially ensuring through its wars that the world will remain too divided to do anything about climate change, we are looking at an increasingly desperate situation. Take, for example, the recent ban that India had to place on the export of oil. With the squeezing of consumption of ordinary poor people in India, India had become a major exporter of oil, sorry, of rice, on which countries like Nigeria, for example, had come to depend. Nigeria imports a lot of Indian rice. Now, if India bans the export of rice, Nigeria cannot import rice, which means prices of food in Nigeria are going to go up. And they are also going up in India because of climate change, because the rice harvest has not been sufficiently robust. So you can see that in general, you know, just as people have lost, have left the labor force in Western countries after the pandemic and so on, the labor market has shrunk. So similarly, more and more farmers have been either leaving or have been pushed out of agriculture, which means that agricultural production is in decline. And if we in the West think that this is an easy thing, just go to the supermarket and look at the number of things we import from the rest of the world, particularly the third world, in our daily diet, and you will see where the inflation is coming from. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, you mentioned India and I think that’s going to be a topic of some of our future broadcasts because there’s a whole crisis. It’s occurring right now. India has been exporting oil largely that it’s gotten from Russia and it’s paid for the oil In blocked rupees in other words, Russia can only use these rupees to buy Indian goods But there are only so many Indian goods that it can buy And at the current point in time. it doesn’t want to get more Indian rupees. So it’s the question that’s going on in Russia is, are they going to continue to sell oil to India for rupees that they can’t spend? Well in the past they were doing it because they hoped to have an alliance with India. And that’s why India and Russia, India was part of the BRICS. But now that it looks like India has decided to change its policy radically and to throw its backing behind the United States and to be sort of America’s landed aircraft carrier in Eurasia. You have Pakistan now saying, well, we want to apply to be a member of BRICS Plus at the upcoming January meeting. So if you have Pakistan replacing India in the BRICS that is going to obviously make the Belt and Road Initiative much easier for China, but it’s going to leave India out of this whole reconstruction of Eurasia that’s taking place. That’s a really radical change and India may end up just like Ukraine and Israel left out of the whole process. RADHIKA DESAI: Let me add a couple of complicating factors there. So what you say is absolutely right, but let me add a couple of further complicating layers. So the complicating layer number one is of course that the United States has been pursuing a strategy of essentially bringing India into its strategy in the Asian region in a very big way and this is represented by the shift from using the term Asia-pacific, which was the term that was favored until recently from the 1990s onwards until recently, the US foreign policy towards the Pacific region towards the what’s called the Western Pacific has been articulated by using the term Asia-Pacific. Now over the last three or four years, they have been using the term Indo-Pacific. And the purpose of using the term Indo-Pacific, and many people have dwelt on how you know, there was this German geographer who first coined the term etc, etc. But that has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with bringing India into the picture as a counterbalance to China, something that India has offered the United States for a very long time, especially when we have had this BJP, you know governments of this party that is in power today. So this happened early in the late 90s and is again happening now. And of course the same party has also pursued closer alliances with Israel. However, and now the West loves them for the same reason as they love Zelensky these are fucking fascists, I’m sorry, pardon my Greek, but these people are fascists in India. And so they thought they were going to get a strongman in Asia to support them, but the fact is that this strongman has turned out to be a bit of a rogue as far as they are concerned because now both Canada and the United States are saying that this government, the Modi government, has tried to assassinate Canadian and US nationals on Canadian and US territory. And it’s also the case I don’t know the truth of this but I can certainly report that the WhatsApp world and and the social media world in India is absolutely abuzz with supporters of the current government not saying how dare US and China accuse us of this but rather, we got them, we did it, we gave it to them. So really this is you know, there is an old saying, Who rides the tiger dare not dismount. So this is the situation in which Canada and the US now find themselves. So that’s the first complicating factor. The second is that Mr. Modi faces an election. It must take place before May of next year. Now, of course, there is every possibility particularly if it looks as though he’s going to lose. And this is a real possibility this time because all the opposition parties created a big coalition and they are going to fight as a big coalition, and if that coalition remains together Modi cannot win. So either he will try to disrupt this coalition, and if he cannot do that, then he will try to perhaps create a national emergency to postpone the election. This is also a possibility. But nevertheless, I would say we may very well see a new government in New Delhi coming up. So both of those things are complications. And we should probably wind down Michael, but can I just introduce a new thing? Maybe ask you to lead with it But you know you pointed out you pointed me to this book which was recently reviewed on Moon of Alabama By somebody called Fernandez about how there is a split between the US strategy of security versus hegemony. Maybe we can have a closing exchange about that and then bring our discussion to a close and of course any other remarks you want to add. MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s a good idea obviously the idea that national security is going to increase security is just the opposite in practice. The national security has not made Europe more safe. Europe is now threatened. It’s not made America more safe. The whole world now is threatened by Insecurity as a result of America’s national security saying if we can’t control every other country we don’t feel secure. That’s why America has to go to war all over the world. And it’s the national security that is making the whole world insecure. RADHIKA DESAI: Well, you know, let me just remind you of this particular paragraph. So basically we’re discussing the review of a discussion of a book by someone called Clinton Fernandes, who is an Australian and he has written a book called Subimperial Power which describes what Australia is doing and of course along with Australia other powers like the European powers as we know who are behaving like vassals of the United States. So this is the key paragraph in the review. In other words Fernandes’s point is that the key characteristic of the rules-based international order relates to the actual structure of the American or British or French or Australian social and economic system which seeks to enforce an order where the whole world is open to the penetration and control of their respective national monied classes which is why the order is about hegemony and not about security, Which is why the former so often come at the expense of the latter. So essentially what it seems that Mr Fernandes is arguing is that countries like Australia or Britain or France are not being vassals of the United States. They are in fact pursuing a strategy of what he calls hegemony, which is opposed to what he calls security. And so what he’s saying is that the pursuit of hegemony is antithetical to the pursuit of security. In other parts of this review it seems that Mr. Fernandes discusses the position taken by John Mearsheimer that you know the US which is essentially that US security is not advanced by these behaviors of the United States. But what we are really looking at in my humble opinion is a situation, or rather, let me rephrase that. What this argument completely forgets is the fact that all these countries the United States, Britain, Australia etc. They have never been pursuing national security if by that we mean the security of ordinary Americans, British, Australians, French, etc, etc. The fact is that they have always used the rhetoric of national security to justify what has always been what what would be called by Mr. Fernandes as hegemony and what ordinary people would call imperialism. Today imperialism is not like Roman imperialism or even the imperialism of the czarist Empire or the Ottoman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It is a specific capitalist imperialism in which, as I’ve argued under my geopolitical economy rubric, the contradictions of capitalism. On the one hand its tendency to overproduce commodities and capital and on the other hand its reliance on a constant supply of cheap inputs and labor. These two things come together to essentially create an impulsion or an imperative on the part of capitalist countries like the US, France, Britain, Australia, to essentially try to create a domination over peripheral nations so that they can require these peripheral nations in the past to absorb their excess commodities and capital. But today, when quite frankly excess commodities and capital are not the problem they once used to be because these capitalisms have become productively quite debilitated, but rather they are now sources for financial profits and sources of cheap labor and sources of cheap goods. But in all of these ways that this world is escaping from them. But anyway, this has always been the case. Imperialism has never been about the security of ordinary Americans. Ordinary Americans can be sent to die in the killing fields of Vietnam or Korea or wherever else as British people did and so on and so forth. So this is the real issue. And so to me I would say that while I don’t disagree with Mr. Fernandes in a certain sense what he’s saying is not necessarily very new because we’ve been saying the same thing but using different expressions. MICHAEL HUDSON:  So imperialism goes hand-in-hand with the class war and also with warfare financially by the United States and the core against the global majority. So what you’re having right now to put it all in the context of what we’ve been saying is that the whole Arab-Israel split is a catalyst. Somehow it’s shocked the whole world into forcing the global majority to Isolate itself from this NATO-US center or be sucked into it. And the only way it can isolate itself is to end not only end what has turned out to be a post-1945 financial colonialism. But you’ll have to reverse the effects of financial colonialism: the privatization of the government sector. You have to restore the government to the position that it was in throughout all of the rest of world history before privatization, this financial takeover in the name of national security. And that’s going to involve debt cancellation. It’ll involve de-privatization It’ll involve all the things that we’ve been talking about for what will be a Eurasian alternative to the US Cold War economic order. RADHIKA DESAI: That’s really a great note to end on Michael and I’ll just maybe add to that a very personal point and then we can wrap up. And that is that you know, as you said, I was recently in China. I attended the Tongzhou Global Development Forum there, which was a really exciting event with a lot of absolutely stellar speakers. And one of the things that I came away with is particularly after listening to the speeches of the major office holders in China and so on is that basically Chinese are really exceedingly angry at the way in which they are being treated by the United States and so on. But it is remarkable how they are restraining this anger in order to very quietly and methodically putting forward essentially a development agenda to counter the security agenda. So I think that, and maybe just one thing and maybe I’ll flag this for a future discussion, what really also came through in these discussions is the Chinese use the word globalization in a radically different sense in the way in which we use it, and perhaps we can weave this into our next discussion. And so I should say that we’ve been absent for a while over the last month or so, but we will now get back on a regular basis. We just had a very hectic month. I was traveling a lot and as you know, I was the target as well of a certain kind of campaign by my own government for pointing out that the government had been rather silly and bad by applauding a Nazi in Parliament. But anyway, we should be back. So you will hear from us in another couple of weeks. Thank you very much for joining us. Thanks once again to our host Ben Norton, our videographer Paul Graham, and our transcriber Zach Weisser. And until next time, bye, bye!

Write an article about: NAFO troll operation founded by Nazi: Researcher exposes far-right Ukrainian networks. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Azov, fascism, LaRouche, Moss Robeson, NAFO, Nazis, Russia, Ukraine

The vociferously pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia troll operation NAFO was founded by a Hitler-admiring anti-Semite. Independent researcher Moss Robeson discusses far-right NATO-backed networks, as well as the fascist LaRouche cult. Independent researcher Moss Robeson documented how the vociferously pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia troll operation NAFO was founded by a Nazi extremist. The group’s leader, Kamil Dyszewski (known more popularly as @Kama_Kamilia) is a Hitler-admiring anti-Semite who has heroized white-supremacist terrorists who committed mass shootings. In the interview below with Geopolitical Economy Report editor Ben Norton, Robeson discusses the pro-NATO propaganda campaign’s far-right roots, and the very real influence of fascist groups in Kiev’s state security services. He also addresses how the fascist LaRouche cult has tried to disrupt the anti-war movement in the United States. Read Robeson’s report on the Nazi origins of NAFO: https://mossrobeson.medium.com/ukes-kooks-spooks-nafo-735b66e48508 The original "fella" is a Nazi? What a surprise pic.twitter.com/9kAlZtbnbJ — Moss Robeson (@mossrobeson__) October 14, 2022 Check out Robeson’s article “LaRouche’s ‘Ukrainian Nazi’ Legacy”: https://mossrobeson.medium.com/larouches-ukrainian-nazi-legacy-7ab93aea3ea7 I personally think the LaRouche cult spearheading “anti-war” protests in the United States is, at least, just as pathetic and depressing as progressive Democrats in Congress retracting “the world’s softest trial balloon about diplomacy.” https://t.co/aZ6RN5Cg2m — Moss Robeson (@mossrobeson__) October 28, 2022 Robeson’s “Bandera Lobby Blog”: https://banderalobby.substack.com

Write an article about: How Israel is an apartheid regime, with Ali Abunimah. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Ali Abunimah, Amnesty International, Israel, Palestine

Mainstream human rights organization Amnesty International admitted Israel is committing apartheid against Palestinians, a crime against humanity. Journalist Ali Abunimah discusses the parallels to South Africa and roots in settler-colonialism. Mainstream human rights organization Amnesty International has come out publicly and said that “Israeli authorities must be held accountable for committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians,” writing that Israel’s “cruel system of domination” amounts to a “crime against humanity.” Geopolitical Economy Report spoke about Amnesty’s report with Palestinian-American journalist Ali Abunimah, editor of the Electronic Intifada. “You cannot claim to be a human rights organization if you do not address the glaring reality of persecution that Israel, with the support of the West, is inflicting on Palestinians and has been inflicting on them for decades,” he said. The fact that centrist NGOs that are notorious for their pro-Western bias have finally acknowledged what Palestinians have been saying for decades, Abunimah explained, shows how “Palestinians, through their resistance, in all its forms, are forcing even these liberal human rights organizations to recognize the reality.” He added that “Israel can no longer say that, ‘Oh, it’s just far-left radicals, and anti-Semites, and extremists who who are accusing us of apartheid.’ This is the world’s biggest, most mainstream human rights organization.” Amnesty’s investigation follows similar reports by Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, designating Israel an apartheid regime. You can watch or listen to the interview below: In the interview, Ali Abunimah discussed the many similarities between apartheid in South Africa and Palestine. “The point that is often missed about apartheid, in South Africa and in Palestine, is that it is inseparable from settler-colonialism,” he explained. “It’s not segregation for the sake of segregation.” “Of course, it is motivated and animated by notions of racial superiority,” Abunimah continued, “but it’s about removing the native people from the land,” so it can be conquered and exploited. South African anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu himself made this comparison, stating in 2014, “I know firsthand that Israel has created an apartheid reality within its borders and through its occupation. The parallels to my own beloved South Africa are painfully stark indeed.” The Israeli government and its supporters have responded to the Amnesty International apartheid designation by denouncing it as “anti-Semitic.” Abunimah said this “is now really the only weapon Israel has, because it cannot refute the mountains of evidence about its decades-long persecution of the Palestinian people.” “It’s just so cheap and so lazy to claim that Palestinians resist Israel because it’s Jewish. Palestinians don’t care that Israel claims to be a Jewish state,” he added. “Israel is an oppressor. It’s a colonizer. And it wouldn’t matter if it was French, or British, or German, or whatever.” “And in fact, it is French, and British, and German, because the Israeli colonial project wouldn’t exist without the billions in funding, and weaponry, and support it gets from the United States, from Canada, from the European Union, from Australia.” “Notice anything about that, by the way?” Abunimah continued. “It’s all the Anglo and European settler-colonial powers. And whenever you look at a UN vote related to Palestinian rights, and they show a map of the countries of how they voted, it’s always the European states and their colonial extensions – the US, Canada, and Australia, and a couple of outliers – that are on the side of Israel, and the rest of the world that stands for Palestinian rights.” “That’s not a coincidence. It’s that Israel is fundamentally a settler colonial project, and these countries identify with the Israeli settler-colonial project, and support it.”

Write an article about: Russia dropping US dollar for Chinese yuan – and fast. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, de-dollarization, dollar, economics, renminbi, Russia, trade, yuan

In response to Western sanctions, Russia’s central bank is dropping the US dollar and will buy Chinese yuan on the foreign exchange market. The yuan’s share of Moscow’s currency trading increased from 1% to 40-45% in 2022, while dollar trade halved from 80% to 40%. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) Russia has spent years trying to decrease its dependency on the US dollar. But especially since the escalation of the proxy war in Ukraine in 2022, Moscow has accelerated its drive toward de-dollarization. Western sanctions have locked Russia out of the US-dominated international financial architecture. Numerous Russian banks were disconnected from the SWIFT inter-bank messaging system. Washington and Brussels even froze a staggering $300 billion of the Russian central bank’s foreign exchange reserves. In response, Russia’s central bank has largely abandoned the US dollar and euro, and instead it plans to buy Chinese yuan on the currency market. In the span of less than a year, the yuan has quickly replaced the dollar as the most sought foreign currency in Moscow. According to the Federal Reserve, the US dollar is involved in around 80% of global trade, and the dollar makes up approximately 60% of globally disclosed official foreign reserves, as of 2021. But rising geopolitical conflict, fueled by Washington’s new cold war, has pushed Russia, China, Iran, and a growing list of countries to try to de-dollarize, or at least to diversify their foreign reserves. Reuters reported that daily “yuan-rouble trading volumes on the Moscow Exchange are already exceeding dollar-rouble trades on some days,” and noted that this trend is likely to increase in 2023. Russia has already made importers of its oil and gas pay in its currency, the ruble, in a challenge to the petrodollar. An anonymous source in Russia’s banking system told Reuters, “The central bank can currently now buy yuan,” and, “if next year budget revenues from the export of oil and gas exceed 8 trillion roubles, then the central bank will buy yuan.” Another anonymous source in the Russian government said to Reuters, “We have a lot of friendly currencies. On the exchange, the Chinese yuan is the most traded currency, it is the friendliest currency so far.” With the conflict in Ukraine and Western sanctions on Moscow shutting Russia's banks and many of its companies out of the dollar and euro payment systems, China’s yuan has swept into the country's markets, presenting an economic counterweight to the dollar https://t.co/3OsuyJqsEt pic.twitter.com/bJvcPUNvYW — Reuters (@Reuters) November 29, 2022 In a separate report, titled “The yuan’s the new dollar as Russia rides to the redback,” Reuters revealed that the yuan’s share of trading on Russia’s currency market increased from 1% to 40-45% in less than a year. At the same time, dollar trade halved from 80% to 40% of volumes on the Moscow Exchange. Russia has quickly become the world’s fourth-biggest offshore trading center for renminbi – a drastic change, considering it was not even in the top 15 at the beginning of the year. Reuters acknowledged that Moscow’s de-dollarization campaign is not new, but it accelerated in 2022. “While the yuan, or renminbi, has been making gradual inroads into Russia for years, the crawl has turned into a sprint in the past nine months as the currency has swept into the country’s markets and trade flows,” the media outlet wrote. It added, “Russia’s financial shift eastwards could boost cross-border commerce, present a growing economic counterweight to the dollar and limit Western efforts to pressure Moscow by economic means.” In a report in March, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned of an “erosion of dollar dominance.” The US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned of an “erosion of dollar dominance” Use of Chinese yuan in global central bank reserves is increasing And Western sanctions on Russia could weaken the dollar, strengthening other currencieshttps://t.co/weF255asil — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 31, 2022 The IMF noted that the use of Chinese yuan in global central bank reserves has increased, while holdings of the US dollar declined from roughly 70% in year 2000 to less than 60% by 2021. Western sanctions on Russia have also incentivized countries around the world to create new financial systems for regional trade in other currencies – not just adversaries, but also longtime US allies such as India, Egypt, and even Saudi Arabia. In July, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin visited Iran, where the two countries signed a $40 billion energy cooperation agreement, and pledged to deepen their economic integration. Both Putin and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called to challenge the dominance of the US dollar, instead proposing the use of local currencies for trade. Iran & Russia pledge to cut US dollar from global trade, strengthen China alliance Video, podcast, and sources here:https://t.co/MzXopEfBpW — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 23, 2022

Write an article about: Atrapada en la deuda del FMI, Argentina se alia con Rusia y China y se une a la Franja y la Ruta. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Alberto Fernández, Argentina, China, Covid-19, deuda, FMI, Rusia, vacunas, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping

Argentina está atrapada con $44 mil millones de deuda odiosa del FMI, controlado por EEUU. Buscando alternativas a la hegemonía estadounidense, el presidente Alberto Fernández viajó a Rusia y China, formando una alianza con las potencias euroasiáticas, incorporándose a la Iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta. (You can read this article in English here.) Estados Unidos interviene constantemente en los asuntos internos de América Latina, organizando golpes de estado, desestabilizando gobiernos independientes, endeudando a las naciones e imponiendo sanciones. Washington ve la región como propiedad propia, y el presidente Joe Biden se refirió a ella este enero como su “patio delantero”. En busca de alternativas a la hegemonía estadounidense, los gobiernos progresistas de América Latina han mirado cada vez más al otro lado del océano para formar alianzas con China y Rusia. El presidente de Argentina, Alberto Fernández, hizo exactamente eso este febrero, realizando viajes históricos a Beijing y Moscú para reunirse con sus homólogos Xi Jinping y Vladimir Putin. Fernández firmó una serie de acuerdos estratégicos, incorporando oficialmente a Argentina a la Iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta de Beijing, al tiempo que ampliaba sus alianzas económicas con las potencias euroasiáticas y decía a Moscú que Argentina “debe ser la puerta de entrada” a América Latina. China le ofreció $23.700 millones de dólares en financiamiento para proyectos de infraestructura e inversiones en la economía argentina. En las reuniones, Fernández también pidió que Argentina se sume al sistema BRICS, junto a Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica. Según los informes, Xi y Putin estuvieron de acuerdo. “Argentina tiene que dejar de tener esa dependencia tan grande que tiene con el FMI y los Estados Unidos, y tiene que abrirse camino hacia otros lados”, Fernández dijo. Los comentarios y las reuniones del presidente argentino con Putin y Xi molestaron al gobierno de EEUU. Argentina es una gran potencia latinoamericana, con importantes recursos naturales y la tercera economía más grande de la región (después de Brasil y México, que tienen poblaciones significativamente más grandes). Pero el desarrollo de Argentina a menudo ha sido lastrado por trampas de la deuda impuestas desde el exterior, lo que ha creado frecuentes crisis económicas, ciclos inflacionarios y devaluaciones de la moneda. El Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI), un brazo económico de Estados Unidos, sobre el cual solo Washington tiene poder de veto, tiene un control significativo sobre Argentina, habiendo atrapado a la nación en enormes sumas de deuda odiosa. En 2018, el presidente derechista de Argentina, Mauricio Macri, solicitó el préstamo más grande en la historia del FMI: un asombroso rescate de $57.100 millones de dólares. Macri era infame por su corrupción, y esto no era un secreto. Al aceptar dar una suma tan enorme de dinero al gobierno de Macri, plagado de escándalos, el FMI sabía que estaba atrapando a Argentina en una deuda que no podría pagar. Pero esta no fue la primera vez que el instrumento financiero dominado por Estados Unidos había atrapado a Argentina en una deuda odiosa. En diciembre de 2021, el FMI publicó un informe interno en el que admitió que el rescate de 2018 fracasó por completo en estabilizar la economía argentina. Pero cuando el presidente de centroizquierda de Argentina, Alberto Fernández, asumió el cargo en diciembre de 2019, su país estaba atrapado en una deuda de $44.5 mil millones de este programa que el propio FMI admitió que fue un fracaso total. ($44,500 millones del préstamo de los $57,100 millones ya se habían desembolsado, y Fernández canceló el resto.) El gobierno argentino ha intentado renegociar la deuda, pero el FMI ha impuesto condiciones que restringen severamente la soberanía de la nación – como nombrar a un economista británico que “será virtualmente el nuevo ministro de economía“, actuando como una especie de “cogobierno”, advirtió la destacada diplomática Alicia Castro. Buscando formas de evitar estas trampas de la deuda de EEUU, Fernández decidió en febrero volverse hacia las dos superpotencias emergentes de Eurasia. El 3 de febrero, el presidente Alberto Fernández viajó a Rusia para reunirse con el presidente Vladimir Putin. “Yo estoy empecinado en que la Argentina tiene que dejar de tener esa dependencia tan grande que tiene con el Fondo y con Estados Unidos. Tiene que abrirse camino a otros lados y me parece que ahí Rusia tiene un lugar muy importante”, dijo el mandatario. ???? | "Estamos dando un paso importante para que la Argentina y Rusia profundicen sus lazos", expresó el presidente @alferdez en una declaración conjunta que brindó junto a su par Vladímir Putin. #GiraPresidencial ? @KremlinRussia_Ehttps://t.co/aHl8tOuPZy pic.twitter.com/APoQR6VHtU — Casa Rosada (@CasaRosada) February 3, 2022 Fernández agregó, “Tendríamos que ver la manera de que Argentina se convierta en una puerta de entrada para que Rusia ingrese a América Latina”. El mandatario argentino le dijo a Putin, “Yo quiero que usted tenga la certeza de que veo una gran oportunidad para que podamos avanzar. Y quiero que sepa que tiene en mí un amigo que quiere ver de qué modo podemos avanzar juntos”. Los dos líderes hablaron de la inversión rusa en la economía argentina, el comercio, la construcción de ferrocarriles y la tecnología energética. Fernández también agradeció a Moscú por colaborar con su país en la producción de su vacuna Sputnik V contra la covid-19. Argentina fue el primer país del hemisferio occidental en hacerlo. El presidente argentino incluso señaló en su reunión que ha recibido tres dosis de la vacuna Sputnik V. Putin agregó: “Yo también”. Putin dijo que los dos países están de acuerdo en muchos temas y calificó a Argentina como “uno de los socios claves de Rusia en América Latina”. Es un honor haberme reunido con Vladímir Putin, presidente de Rusia. Tuvimos la oportunidad de intercambiar ideas sobre cómo podemos complementar mucho más el vínculo entre nuestras naciones. pic.twitter.com/ntmDGn6jtD — Alberto Fernández (@alferdez) February 3, 2022 Apenas tres días después de reunirse con Putin, el presidente Alberto Fernández viajó a China el 6 de febrero para reunirse con el presidente Xi Jinping. En este viaje histórico, Argentina se unió oficialmente a la Iniciativa Belt and Road de Beijing, un programa de infraestructura global masivo. Fernández y otros altos funcionarios argentinos firmaron acuerdos por $23.700 millones de dólares en financiamiento chino, incluyendo inversiones y proyectos de infraestructura. El financiamiento se desembolsará en dos partes: una, que ya está aprobada, proporcionará a Argentina $14 mil millones para 10 proyectos de infraestructura; el segundo, por $9.700 millones, financiará la integración de la nación sudamericana a la Franja y la Ruta. Hay tres proyectos chino-argentinos que encabezaban la lista de Fernández: la creación de redes 5G, el desarrollo de la industria argentina del litio y la construcción de la planta de energía nuclear Atucha III. Tuve una cordial, amistosa y fructífera reunión con Xi Jinping, presidente de China. Acordamos la incorporación de Argentina a la Franja y la Ruta de la Seda. Es una excelente noticia. Nuestro país obtendrá más de US$ 23 mil millones de inversiones chinas para obras y proyectos. pic.twitter.com/LGyIJ6zWdG — Alberto Fernández (@alferdez) February 6, 2022 Fernández también habló de la producción argentina de la vacuna de Sinopharm contra la covid-19, además de la Sputnik V de Rusia. Argentina y China firmaron un memorándum de entendimiento integral, que incluye 13 documentos de cooperación en áreas como energía verde, tecnología, educación, agricultura, comunicación y energía nuclear. Fernández y Xi hablaron de maneras para “profundizar las relaciones de cooperación política, comercial, económica, científica y cultural entre ambos países”, según una declaración del gobierno argentino tras la reunión. Aparentemente, los dos líderes se llevaron muy bien, y Fernández le dijo a Xi, “Si usted fuera argentino, sería peronista“. ???? | El presidente @alferdez mantuvo reuniones sobre el proyecto de producir en Argentina la vacuna de Sinopharm, participó de la inauguración de los JJOO de Invierno #Beijing2022 y visitó el Museo de la Historia del Partido Comunista. #GiraPresidencialhttps://t.co/acSH9rvpM7 pic.twitter.com/Edz7hHRLE8 — Casa Rosada (@CasaRosada) February 4, 2022 La incorporación de Argentina a la Franja y la Ruta se produce pocas semanas después de que Nicaragua se uniera a la iniciativa en enero, y Cuba en diciembre. Los crecientes vínculos de América Latina con China y Rusia muestran cómo el sistema internacional cada vez más multipolar ofrece a los países del Sur Global nuevos aliados que pueden servir como baluartes y alternativas a la hegemonía de Washington. Mientras los líderes derechistas de América Latina siguen mirando al norte a Estados Unidos como su brújula política, los gobiernos progresistas cruzan el océano hacia las potencias euroasiáticas de China, Rusia e Irán, construyendo nuevas alianzas internacionales que debilitan el control geopolítico de Washington sobre una región que el presidente de EEUU aún insiste es su “patio delantero”.

Write an article about: 87% of world doesn’t support West’s new cold war on Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Cold War Two, Global South, media, new cold war, Russia, Ukraine

Two ex US diplomats admitted 87% of the world’s population refuses to enforce the West’s sanctions on Russia, showing neutrality over the proxy war in Ukraine. They said “the outbreak of Cold War II” has led countries “to become increasingly multi-aligned,” especially in the Global South. Two former US diplomats have acknowledged that the vast majority of the global population does not support the West’s new cold war on Russia. In a Newsweek op-ed titled “Nearly 90 Percent of the World Isn’t Following Us on Ukraine,” ex diplomats Michael Gfoeller and David H. Rundell wrote: While the United States and its closest allies in Europe and Asia have imposed tough economic sanctions on Moscow, 87 percent of the world’s population has declined to follow us. Economic sanctions have united our adversaries in shared resistance. Less predictably, the outbreak of Cold War II, has also led countries that were once partners or non-aligned to become increasingly multi-aligned. They acknowledged that new multilateral institutions like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS are growing, and offer new opportunities for countries in the Global South. The diplomats also commented on the weakening of the Washington-controlled financial system and growing de-dollarization: The dollar’s reserve currency status remains a pillar of the global economic order, but trust in that order has been damaged. Economic sanctions have weaponized parts of the international banking and insurance sectors including the SWIFT fund transfer system. Assets have been seized and commodity contracts canceled. Calls for de-dollarization have become louder. When Russia demanded energy payments in rubles, yuan or UAE Dirhams, China and India complied. Many Asian economies are now being hit by both rising oil prices and the depreciation of their own currency against the dollar. As a result, they are expanding their use of bilateral currency swaps which allow them to trade among themselves in their own currencies. Eighty years ago the British pound lost its preeminent position among the world’s currencies. This is precisely what America’s adversaries are trying to do to the dollar and if the Saudis ever stop pricing oil in dollars, they may very well succeed. Multipolarista has previously reported on the decline in US dollar hegemony. IMF admits US dollar hegemony declining, due to rise of Chinese yuan, sanctions on Russia The article by these two former US diplomats provides further support for the analysis Multipolarista published in March, detailing how “Many Global South countries blame US/NATO for Ukraine war, not Russia.” Many Global South countries blame US/NATO for Ukraine war, not Russia The Wall Street Journal likewise acknowledged these inconvenient facts in a report in April titled “Anti-Russia Alliance Is Missing a Big Bloc: The Developing World.” The mainstream corporate newspaper wrote, “Western leaders seeking to build a global coalition to isolate Russia over its war on Ukraine are facing pushback from the world’s largest developing nations, including the democracies of India, Brazil and South Africa.” This reality has led some Western pundits to publish condescending, borderline racist editorials attacking the Global South. “No event this century has done as much as the Ukraine war to expose the difference in outlook between the west and … the ‘rest,'” commented conservative Financial Times columnist Janan Ganesh in June. He lamented that “Russia retains a net positive reputation in Egypt, Vietnam, India and other countries,” and that “Pro-Russia protests have flared up in west and central Africa.”

Write an article about: How China strengthened food security and fought poverty with state-funded cooperatives. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

agriculture, China, food

The world faces a food crisis due to war, sanctions, and inflation. China has shown how to strengthen food sovereignty, while fighting poverty, with state-funded agricultural cooperatives, government crackdown on waste, and investment in technology. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) The Covid-19 pandemic, the ensuing supply-chain crisis, and high rates of inflation around the world have led to rising food prices and fears of famine. These cascading and interlocking problems have pushed governments to prioritize economic self-sufficiency and food security. China is leading the way in this struggle. Beijing has shown how to strengthen food sovereignty, and simultaneously fight poverty, with a multi-pronged approach that combines state-funded agricultural cooperatives, stockpiling of nonperishable staples, a crackdown on waste, and government investment in new technologies. While the United Nations warns of “the specter of a global food shortage,” the Chinese government has provided countries with an alternative model to meet the needs of their people. At the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, on February 24, 2020, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a speech on food security, outlining a series of both short- and long-term steps that would ensure a stable food supply for the major city of Wuhan. At the time, Wuhan was under a harsh lockdown. Addressing food security was critical. The state’s program was ultimately successful. Although there were some problems with delivery, no one faced starvation during this harsh lockdown. The government managed to feed tens of millions of people. The strategy used in Wuhan was repeated later on in the pandemic. When cities like Xi’an or Shanghai faced lockdowns, local officials created similar networks of support to ensure that their tens of millions of residents had stable food supplies. While more 1 million people have died from the virus in the United States alone, Beijing’s zero Covid policy has saved countless lives. And it had the added benefit of strengthening China’s food sovereignty at a moment when the world was on the verge of a global crisis. The proxy war in Ukraine and the devastating Western sanctions imposed on Russia have led to concerns about global food supply. As of the end of 2021, Russia and Ukraine were responsible for nearly 30% of the world’s wheat exports. Sanctions have created a significant burden for agricultural exports, as firms that attempt to pay for or facilitate payment to Russian businesses fear being targeted. Moreover, the fighting has shut down many ports used for export in Ukraine. This has led to warnings from the United Nations and other international institutions that, as soon as late 2022 and early 2023, there could be food shortages and even famines among the poorest nations in the world, while food prices skyrocket and become increasingly unaffordable in wealthier nations. These growing crises have made understanding China’s policy of food sovereignty even more relevant. China has viewed food security as an essential goal for much of its history. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization notes that the East Asian nation has only 10 percent of the world’s arable land, yet is able to feed its own population, which represents roughly 20 percent of the global population, producing approximately 25 percent of the world’s grain. In theory, such a daunting global crisis of food production could be an existential threat to China. It has an enormous population with scarce arable land, and faces the possibility that a virus could hurt the capacity for workers to engage in agricultural work, while an external food crisis could hamstring the ability for the state to import supplies. Despite these material factors, however, there is a relatively low likelihood that China will face such a food crisis. How is this possible? Well before the pandemic began, Xi Jinping made a clarion call: “Chinese people should hold their rice bowls firmly in their own hands, with grains mainly produced by themselves.” Securing #Chinese People's "Rice Bowl"“We must firmly seize the initiative in food security and step up grain production year by year”, said H.E. XI Jinping, Chinese President and General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC). #SSOT pic.twitter.com/ASX2grOUUj — China Emb in South Sudan南苏丹纪行 (@ChinaEmb_Juba) April 7, 2022 This quote was a clear call for food self-sufficiency – exactly the kind of policy that the US-dominated World Bank has fastidiously sought to curtail throughout much of the Global South. Based on its model of socialism with Chinese characteristics, Beijing has pursued a development path that has made objective strides in food security, much to the displeasure of neoliberal financial institutions like the World Bank. From 2003 to 2013, Chinese grain output increased by roughly 50 percent, from 400 million tons per year to 600 million tons per year. The People’s Republic of China has made these enormous strides in food security in part because it is the largest agricultural subsidizer on the planet. This has led to attacks from the United States via the neoliberal World Trade Organization, which opposes Beijing’s agricultural subsidies. China’s remarkable accomplishments in agricultural production might be puzzling to some. After all subsidy isn’t unique to China; indeed, it’s a common feature of capitalist agricultural practices as well. However, there are distinct qualitative differences in Chinese agriculture practices that further show how it has made such resounding progress. China’s agriculture is still significantly organized on the basis of cooperative farming. Nearly half of farms are agricultural cooperatives, which more than 2.2 million legally registered. When President Xi came to power in 2013, he brought back a Mao Zedong-era system of state-run cooperatives to help fight poverty in rural areas while boosting agricultural output. From 2013 to 2019, the Chinese government rebuilt more than 10,000 primary supply and marketing cooperatives (SMCs), the South China Morning Post reported. There were nearly 32,000 SMCs across China as of 2019, in 95 percent of the country’s towns – a staggering increase from just 50 percent in 2013. The Post summarized, “Expanding that network is a key feature of Xi’s plan to revitalise the countryside – where the Communist Party of China has its roots – and deliver on his pledge to lift millions of people out of poverty, and narrow the income gap between rural and urban dwellers.” Xi Jinping has turned to a Mao Zedong-era system to lift millions of China’s rural poor out of poverty https://t.co/QkX2UeBJls — South China Morning Post (@SCMPNews) February 4, 2019 The results of this program have been staggering. State-supported cooperative farming has successfully been able to revitalize communities. This agricultural program was an essential part of how Beijing lifted more than 800 million people out of extreme poverty. The Chinese government has also directed its policies at trying to to reduce inequality between urban and rural areas. Much of this framework food security would be difficult to replicate without two key elements of China’s socialist construction: state ownership of land, and economic five-year plans. Indeed, “food and energy security” is one of the five main categories listed in Beijing’s 14th five-year plan. Additionally, the socialist state has a policy of “Two Assurances and Three Guarantees,” which the government describes as “assurances of adequate food and clothing, and guarantees of access to compulsory education, basic medical services and safe housing for impoverished rural residents.” As a result, Beijing has taken concrete measures to ensure that the public is prepared for just the kind of food crisis that the world is seeing unfold. The Chinese government has likewise long ensured that it has adequate agricultural reserves to weather a crisis. Reports indicate that Beijing has stockpiled enough rice and wheat to sustain the entire country for at least 18 months, in the event of an extreme crisis. In the latter half of 2020, the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, when the virus was nonexistent in China, the Communist Party passed laws requiring governments at local and state levels to have adequate reserves of staple foods and cooking oils. These laws stipulate that grains and oils are to be released in events of disasters, significant price disruptions, or other large emergencies. At the same time, the Chinese state has taken measures to ensure that food waste is curtailed, that efforts to innovate in their food production technology are supported, and that workers who are essential in the process of delivering food are protected. Beijing passed food waste laws that impose penalties on restaurants and commercial food enterprises which engage in wasteful behavior. #China Passes Law to Prevent #FoodWaste, Increase #FoodSecurity: https://t.co/96dKmzgZa7@NYCFoodPolicy pic.twitter.com/7RKcGNzQvX — Grow Further (@GrowFurther_) May 13, 2021 China has also systematically invested in new agricultural technologies, such as CRISPR. Beijing has adopted technology to its own material conditions, even finding ways to grow salt water-tolerant rice crops, to ensure that rising sea levels do not impact yields in agriculture. This is all part of a state-driven process, to ensure that food security is maintained. Even US corporate media outlets like Bloomberg have begrudgingly admitted that China is quickly becoming a global leader in biotechnology. The People’s Republic of China has additionally expanded unions to commercial food workers and delivery workers, for popular apps like Didi and Meituan, to make sure that workers have higher wages and better conditions, and that food delivery can be maintained through a well paid and loyal workforce. This has all been part of what Beijing calls its “People’s War on Covid-19,” whereby labor unions, non-governmental social institutions, and state bodies work together to collectively fight the virus. China is similarly creating a framework to wage a people’s war on hunger and food insecurity. The Chinese socialist system produces results. It utilizes state power to organize the people, gauges material conditions to determine long-term needs, and meet them. It succeeds in these goals where other political systems are failing. The contrast with the US system could hardly be more stark. Washington helped to foment the food crisis in the first place, with draconian sanctions that are will it hard for poor countries to buy wheat and fertilizer. Food prices are rising rapidly inside the United States, due to a combination of general inflation and blatant price-gouging by corporations. Crop growing cycles are off to a bad start in 2022, with US agricultural production lagging behind its five-year average in planting goals. Transportation of goods has also become more precarious, as grueling working conditions have rendered significant shortages of truck drivers, thereby raising prices on consumers even further, as delays become more common for many goods. Farmers in the United States have raised alarms about the possibility of serious problems in food security. Meanwhile, Congress and US political leaders have failed to create a long-term strategy to address domestic food security needs. Instead, they have proposed a haphazard food aid plan that experts say does not apportion adequate sums of money. In a revealing comment at NATO headquarters in March, US President Joe Biden conceded, “With regard to food shortage, yes, we did talk about food shortages. And – and it’s going to be real. The price of these sanctions is not just imposed upon Russia, it’s imposed upon an awful lot of countries as well, including European countries and our country as well.” All signs indicate that a food crisis is coming. And unlike leaders in capitalist nations, the leadership of the Communist Party of China has used foresight, long-term planning, and methods of socialist construction to prepare. In much the same way that the People’s Republic of China successfully handled Covid-19, it is setting itself up to weather the crisis domestically – while still showing international solidarity abroad. As this crisis arises, let it not be forgotten that socialist leadership in China was responsible for ensuring its people were protected, and that it took concrete steps to ensure that it’s people would be safe, while the leadership of capitalist countries left their people to die.

Write an article about: Biden admitted in 1997 NATO expansion would cause Russian ‘hostile reaction’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Atlantic Council, Baltic, Estonia, James Woolsey, Joe Biden, Latvia, Lithuania, NATO

Current US President Joe Biden admitted in a 1997 talk at the Atlantic Council that eastward NATO expansion into the Baltic states would cause a “vigorous and hostile reaction” by Russia. Current US President Joe Biden acknowledged in 1997 that eastward NATO expansion into the Baltic states would cause “the greatest consternation,” which could “tip the balance” and result in a “vigorous and hostile reaction” by Russia. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania did indeed become part of NATO in 2004. Estonia and Latvia directly border Russia, and frequently do military exercises with Western troops a mere 100 kilometers from the border. Biden’s 1997 comments were a clear admission that Washington knew its policy of pushing the US-led military alliance right up onto Russia’s borders could force Russia to respond with force, as Moscow did by invading Ukraine in February 2022. Biden made these remarks in a June 18, 1997 event at the Atlantic Council, NATO’s de facto think tank, and one of the most powerful organizations in Washington. At the time of the event, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were actively seeking to join NATO. (They later did in 1999.) Then a senator representing Delaware, Biden enthusiastically praised NATO and criticized fellow lawmakers who opposed its expansion. Biden called for the military alliance to continue to grow into Eastern Europe. But he conceded that this expansion could precipitate a “hostile reaction” from Moscow. “I think the one place where the greatest consternation would be caused in the short term, for admission – having nothing to do with the merit and preparedness of the countries coming in – would be to admit the Baltic states now, in terms of NATO-Russian, US-Russian relations,” Biden said. “And if there was ever anything that was going to tip the balance, were it to be tipped, in terms of a vigorous and hostile reaction, I don’t mean military, in Russia, it would be that,” he added. A video clip of Biden’s comments was published on Twitter by user @ImReadinHere. Biden in 1997 saying that the only thing that could provoke a "vigorous and hostile" Russian response would be if NATO expanded as far as the Baltic states pic.twitter.com/i0yfEgIGZA — . (@ImReadinHere) March 7, 2022 When Biden made these remarks, he was the ranking member, or top Democrat, on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden was introduced at the event by James Woolsey, a former CIA director who at the time served as head of the Atlantic Council. Woolsey celebrated Biden as “one of the leading and most important senators… in both the areas of judiciary and foreign policy.” These 1997 comments are by no means the only time that a top US government official admitted that NATO expansion could force Russia to respond. When the Senate approved NATO expansion in 1998, it was condemned by none other than leading cold warrior George Kennan, the architect of US containment policy toward the Soviet Union. Kennan warned in prescient words published by the New York Times: I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. In a 2008 classified State Department cable published by WikiLeaks, former US Ambassador to Russia William Burns, who now serves as Biden’s CIA director, likewise cautioned that NATO expansion into Ukraine would cross Moscow’s security “redlines” and “could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” Ex US Ambassador to Russia William Burns (now CIA director) admitted back in 2008 that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow's security "redlines" and could create violence & civil war, which would force Russia to intervene That's exactly what happenedhttps://t.co/8DOuuq5Og3 — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 27, 2022 Senior US, British, French, and German officials repeatedly promised the former Soviet Union in 1990 that NATO would not expand eastward after the reunification of Germany. This is an undeniable historical fact confirmed by numerous documents from Western governments. NATO broke this promise, however, adding 14 new member states, all east of Germany. A newly discovered document on a 1991 diplomatic meeting proves that the US, UK, France, and Germany promised the USSR that NATO would not expand east. It’s part of a growing body of evidence that the West broke its promise to Russia. via @Multipolaristahttps://t.co/KP6KHW2YyR — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 20, 2022

Write an article about: Gaza is one of the most heavily bombed areas in history. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Financial Times, Gaza, Israel, Palestine, World War II

Israel has turned Gaza into one of the most heavily bombed areas in history, according to a report in the Financial Times. Top UN experts warn that the Palestinian people are at risk of genocide. Gaza is one of the most heavily bombed areas in history, according to a report in the Financial Times. “Gaza will also go down as a place name denoting one of history’s heaviest conventional bombing campaigns”, an expert told the newspaper. More than 2 million Palestinians are trapped in the strip, making it one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. The UK’s Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron warned in 2010 that Israel’s suffocating blockade had turned Gaza into a giant “prison camp”. Human Rights Watch stated in 2022 that Tel Aviv’s 15-year siege of Gaza had made the strip “Israel’s open-air prison“. The human rights organization wrote, “The closure has devastated the economy in Gaza, contributed to fragmentation of the Palestinian people, and forms part of Israeli authorities’ crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against millions of Palestinians”. Israel has launched numerous bombing campaigns in Gaza – in 2008 to 2009, 2012, 2014, 2022, and 2023, among others. However, Israel’s assault on Gaza in 2023 has broken records, in terms of the massive civilian casualties and catastrophic destruction of infrastructure. The Financial Times detailed this devastation in a December 6 report: Citing estimates of damage to urban areas, military analysts say the destruction of northern Gaza in less than seven weeks has approached that caused by the years-long carpet-bombing of German cities during the second world war. “Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne — some of the world’s heaviest-ever bombings are remembered by their place names,” said Robert Pape, a US military historian and author of Bombing to Win, a landmark survey of 20th century bombing campaigns. “Gaza will also go down as a place name denoting one of history’s heaviest conventional bombing campaigns.” Whole neighbourhoods have been levelled. By December 4, more than 60 per cent of the buildings in north Gaza had been severely damaged, according to analysis of satellite radar data by Corey Scher of CUNY Graduate Center and Jamon Van Den Hoek of Oregon State University. That rises to as much as 70 per cent of buildings in some districts. Across the whole of Gaza, between 82,600 and 105,300 buildings have been left in ruins, according to the estimate, which counts buildings where at least half the structure was damaged. The catastrophic destruction of northern Gaza in less than seven weeks has approached that caused by the years-long carpet-bombing of German cities during the second world war https://t.co/Hm0YiTNOjr pic.twitter.com/vC3Nx3BP5X — Financial Times (@FT) December 7, 2023 In November, just over a month into Israel’s record-breaking assault, top UN experts published a statement that called on the “international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people“. “Grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians… point to a genocide in the making”, the UN experts said. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights wrote: [Israeli officials] illustrated evidence of increasing genocidal incitement, overt intent to “destroy the Palestinian people under occupation”, loud calls for a ‘second Nakba’ in Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the use of powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts, resulting in a colossal death toll and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure. “Many of us already raised the alarm about the risk of genocide in Gaza,” the experts said. “We are deeply disturbed by the failure of governments to heed our call and to achieve an immediate ceasefire. We are also profoundly concerned about the support of certain governments for Israel’s strategy of warfare against the besieged population of Gaza, and the failure of the international system to mobilise to prevent genocide,” they said. … Of those killed, about 41 per cent are children and 25 percent are women. On average, one child is killed and two are injured every 10 minutes during the war, turning Gaza into a “graveyard for children,” according to the UN Secretary-General. … “This occurs amidst Israel’s tightening of its 16-year unlawful blockade of Gaza, which has prevented people from escaping and left them without food, water, medicine and fuel for weeks now, despite international appeals to provide access for critical humanitarian aid. As we previously said, intentional starvation amounts to a war crime,” the experts said. #Gaza: UN experts point to evidence of genocide in the making, call for @UN protective presence in besieged enclave. “Failure to implement #CeasefireNowInGaza risks situation spiralling towards genocide conducted with 21st Century methods of warfare”: https://t.co/rdLSklxzj3 pic.twitter.com/80hWswVjju — UN Special Procedures (@UN_SPExperts) November 16, 2023 The United States has staunchly supported Israel throughout this war, sending the country billions of dollars worth of weapons and military assistance, aiding Tel Aviv in its crimes against humanity. Washington has also used its veto power in the United Nations Security Council to kill resolutions calling for a ceasefire or mere humanitarian pauses in Gaza.

Write an article about: West is out of touch with rest of world politically, EU-funded study admits. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

bipolarity, China, ECFR, EU, European Council on Foreign Relations, European Union, multipolarity, new cold war, Russia, Turkey, Türkiye, Ukraine

A study by the elite EU-funded European Council on Foreign Relations found the West is out of touch politically with the rest of the world. Most people in China, India, and Türkiye see Russia as an important ally, and they want multipolarity, not continued “American global supremacy”. A study by an elite European government-funded think tank found that, while the United States and Europe are growing closer together, the West is increasingly out of touch politically with the rest of the world. The report, from the EU member state-financed European Council on Foreign Relations, conceded that the system of “American global supremacy” is in rapid decline, and many people in the Global South want a new “multipolar world”. The series of polls concluded that NATO’s proxy war in “Ukraine confirmed the renewed centrality of American power to Europe”, uniting the West under Washington’s leadership. Today, Europeans and North Americans “hold many views in common about major global questions”. But this “consolidation of the West is taking place in an increasingly divided post-Western world”, the study acknowledged. The Global South is moving in the opposite direction. It described “a wide gap between the West and the ‘rest’ when it comes to their desired outcomes for the war and differing understandings of why the US and Europe support Ukraine”. The report admitted that, even if Ukraine somehow managed to win the NATO proxy war with Russia, “it is highly unlikely to restore a US-led global liberal order”, and, instead, “the West will have to live, as one pole of a multipolar world”. This study was conducted by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), a notoriously hawkish think tank that expresses overt anti-Russia and anti-China bias. The ECFR is funded by the European Parliament and numerous European governments, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and the Czech Republic, as well as key Western ally Japan. For the report, the ECFR commissioned polling in: It also surveyed people in nine major European Union member states, which it referred to collectively as the EU9: The pollsters interviewed a total of 19,765 adults in late December 2022 and early January 2023. The sample of participants in the West was representative of the general population. But the study disclosed that, in China, India, and Russia, the people surveyed in the polling only came from large cities, meaning the results may not reflect the views of those living in rural areas. The study suffered from bias. This slant was clear when the report misleadingly referred to the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine facilely as “Putin’s war” and “Russian aggression”, as if the West did not play a fundamental role in starting the conflict in the first place by sponsoring a violent coup d’etat in Kiev in 2014, repeatedly violating promises not to expand NATO east after the 1990 reunification of Germany, sabotaging the Minsk accords and peace talks, and ignoring Moscow’s 2021 request for security guarantees. But despite the ECFR study’s many flaws, its results convey an unmistakable message: The West is out of touch with the rest of the world. The report acknowledged this, choosing as its title: “United West, divided from the rest“. The Western nations surveyed in the study have a combined population of nearly 1 billion – approximately 13% of the global population of 8 billion. This is a mere fraction of the populations of China (1.41 billion), India (1.39 billion), Russia (142 million), and Türkiye (83 million). Together, these countries have a population of just over 3 billion – making up around 38% of the total global population. The ECFR polling shows how significantly the public opinion of the 13% in the West differs from that of the Eurasian powers. In its report, the European Council on Foreign Relations stated that the proxy war in “Ukraine marks both the consolidation of the West and the emergence of the long-heralded post-Western international order”. “Many in China state that American and European support for Ukraine is driven by the desire to protect Western dominance”, the study acknowledged. “And for the vast majority of Chinese and Turks, Western support for Ukraine is motivated by reasons other than a defence of Ukraine’s territorial integrity or of its democracy”, it added. 45% of people surveyed in China, 38% in Russia, 30% in Türkiye, and 23% in India said the US is supporting Ukraine simply in order “to defend Western dominance”. A plurality in these Eurasian nations thinks the same about Brussels. 40% of people surveyed in China, 46% in Russia, 27% in Türkiye, and 23% in India said Europe is supporting Ukraine in order “to defend Western dominance”. The report admitted that “people in non-Western countries possess a clear preference for the war to end now – even if it means Ukraine having to give up territory”. 54% of people surveyed in India, 48% in Türkiye, 44% in Russia, and 42% in China think “the conflict between Russia and Ukraine needs to stop as soon as possible, even if it means Ukraine giving control of areas to Russia”. Despite biased wording from the pollsters, an additional 12% of people in India, 8% in Türkiye, 29% in Russia, and 12% in China said “Western dominance of the world needs to be pushed back, even if it means accepting Russian territorial aggression against Ukraine”. While a majority of people in the United States, Britain, and EU consider Russia to be an “adversary with which we are in conflict”, the situation is the opposite in India, China, and Türkiye. In India, 80% of people surveyed see Russia as an ally or partner (51% as an “ally that shares our interests and values” and 29% as a “necessary partner with which we must strategically cooperate”). In China, 79% of people surveyed see Russia as an ally or partner (35% as an ally and 44% as a necessary partner). In Türkiye, 69% of people surveyed see Russia as an ally or partner (14% as an ally and 55% as a necessary partner). Another question in the poll showed how Western media propaganda has manipulated public opinion. The proxy war in Ukraine has made Russia seem stronger in India, Türkiye, China, and the country itself, whereas people across the West now see Moscow as weaker. This was another example of where Western views were the exact opposite of those in the Global South. The ECFR report admitted that, while US “President Joe Biden has framed the war [in Ukraine] as a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism”, this is not how people in the Global South see it. The pollsters asked participants which country they consider “comes closest to having a real democracy”. This question, again, reflected the bias of the study, turning the survey into a contest to see which country is supposedly the most democratic of all. Yet despite these limitations, more than three-quarters of people surveyed in China (77%) considered their country to “come closest to having a real democracy”. A separate study conducted in 2022 by another Western government-backed organization, the NATO-linked Alliance of Democracies Foundation, found that 83% of people in China consider their government a democracy, and 91% said they value democracy as important. (In the United States, on the other hand, just 49% of people said their government is a democracy.) The ECFR study also acknowledged, “Most people in major non-Western countries such as China, India, Turkiye, and Russia predict the West will soon be just one global pole among several. The West may still be the strongest party but it will not be hegemonic”. A plurality of people surveyed in China (30%) and Russia (33%) think the world will become increasingly multipolar. This is in stark contrast to the plurality of those surveyed in Britain (29%), the EU (28%), and the US (26%), who see the world returning to a bipolar system of cold war competition between a US-led bloc and a China-led bloc. The ECFR wrote: The West may be more consolidated now, but it is not necessarily more influential in global politics. The paradox is that this newfound unity is coinciding with the emergence of a post-Western world. The West has not disintegrated, but its consolidation has come at a moment when other powers will not simply do as it wishes.

Write an article about: How Western sanctions blow back, hurting Europe, deepening Asian integration. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Angela Merkel, ASEAN, China, dollar, energy, France, Francois Hollande, Germany, gold, Nord Stream, RCEP, Russia, sanctions, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, technology, Ukraine

Western sanctions led Russia to greatly increase trade with Asia, while devastating Europe’s economy. The US tech war against China is damaging its own industry. Economic coercion, through the imposition of sanctions, is an act of war. Many of these sanctions have caused hardship, especially for the civilian populations of targeted countries. But just as a rifle recoils on the shooter’s shoulder, potentially causing injury, so too can sanctions backfire on the user. That is the title of a new book, “Backfire: How Sanctions Reshape the World Against U.S. Interests.” This is not to say that sanctions don’t cause suffering, but they have a mere 13% success rate in altering a targeted state’s behavior in the way desired. The failure of sanctions has long been recognized, although that seems not to have dampened U.S. persistence in adding ever more of them. The blowback effect has begun, and more is predictably on the horizon. This present analysis will focus on the two main geopolitical targets of U.S. policy: Russia and China. At the moment, the U.S. is in a proxy war with Russia, with Ukraine in the military forefront. Before that, and alongside it now, is a running war of sanctions. The longest cause was the rise to power of Vladimir Putin, who restored Russia’s economic power and sovereignty by undoing some of the predatory effects of Russia’s privatization following U.S.-supported “shock therapy.” An early “Western” strategy to prevent a return of Russia as a great power was to bring many of its bordering states in Eastern Europe into NATO. Ukraine would be the last piece in what Russia perceives to be a military front of potential aggression. Whatever the outcome of that fight will be, sanctions are likely to continue. The U.S. first sanctioned 60 Russian individuals in 2012 with the Magnitsky Act, to punish those supposedly responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, an accountant for a tax-evader who was charged with corruption, and who was also politically linked to Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny – himself later a cause for further sanctions. In 2014, a U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine led to eight years of civil war, giving rise to separatist movements in the east of the country. Apparently following the 2019 report “Extending Russia” from the Pentagon-backed RAND Corporation, the U.S. selected Ukraine as the best option among neighboring countries to provoke Russia into over-extending itself. This proposed strategy seemed confirmed in December 2022 by Germany’s former chancellor, Angela Merkel, in an interview with the newspaper Die Zeit. She admitted that the “2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to buy time for Ukraine. Ukraine used this time to become stronger.” The Minsk agreements had been overseen by Germany and France. Former French President François Hollande confirmed the same soon after, stating, “Angela Merkel is right on this point.” Their strategy succeeded in “extending Russia” into Ukraine in February 2022. Sanctions have been raining down on Russia ever since, against individuals, companies, and government agencies, most importantly against its oil exports, but also against its sale of aluminum, uranium, and agricultural goods. Initial harm included a sizeable drop in Russia’s GDP and living standards, the loss of foreign investment, a sharp increase in inflation, and a temporary depreciation of the ruble. The U.S. later restricted Russia’s access to capital markets and to oil and gas extraction technology, which can inhibit Moscow’s financing of oil field development, notably in the Arctic, where Russia has the longest shoreline. However, Putin turned much of this around with policies of import substitution, government subsidies, and the nationalization of private oil companies, which by 2018 had grown back up to almost 40% more than before sanctions.1 In fact, the value of Russian exports grew after the 2022 sanctions. Russian farmers gained from import substitution and ensured the country’s food security. And while Russia exports less now to Britain, Sweden, the U.S., South Korea, and Germany, it exports more to Brazil, Japan, China, India, Turkey, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. India and China have increased their purchase of Russian oil; France relies on Russian uranium; Belgium still trades in diamonds with Russia; and the Netherlands offers access to Dutch ports for such cargo, the New York Times reported. While Russia’s exports to the U.S., the United Kingdom and other markets have fallen, its trade with China, India, Turkey and even Belgium and the Netherlands has boomed, driven in part by higher energy prices this year. https://t.co/MJLmBYdzzV pic.twitter.com/dbc4VYtSXw — The New York Times (@nytimes) November 2, 2022 Financial sanctions have also fallen short of their goal. The Bank of Russia’s reserve system has a surplus of pre-war levels. By the end of 2022, Russia’s foreign-exchange reserves were $581.7 billion USD, the fourth-highest in the world – while its ally China remained firmly in first place, with more than $3 trillion USD worth of assets. By contrast, Germany is facing the most collateral damage from the loss to its markets and the sanctions on energy, notably bringing an end to the supply of cheap Russian gas through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. In 2020, U.S. Congress imposed secondary sanctions on banks that processed transactions related to the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines and on ship insurers that serviced them. When construction of Nord Stream 2 was finished in 2021, Washington imposed new sanctions on insurance and certification companies to keep it from opening. Finally, both pipelines were sabotaged in an undersea explosion in September 2022. As a result, the industries that had made Germany preeminent in Europe, such as steel, chemicals, machinery, and automotives, are suffering from high energy costs and the loss of Russia’s aluminum, titanium, and palladium. As a consequence, one in four German companies is considering moving production to other countries, amid the energy crisis. While European nations like Germany and France appear publicly to support U.S. attempts to weaken the Russian government, they are furious at the cost to themselves in the form of lost trade agreements and investment opportunities. EU leaders are furious that the US is making lots of money from the proxy war in Ukraine by selling weapons and expensive natural gas Meanwhile European industries are being destroyed as high energy prices and US subsidies push its companies overseas https://t.co/cgtLK0ONC0 — Geopolitical Economy Report (@GeopoliticEcon) December 11, 2022 Their unease is compounded by suspicion of U.S. cupidity in substituting its energy sources – like liquified natural gas (LNG), which is several times more expensive – for cheaper Russian ones, and by record U.S. profits from selling more weapons. Furthermore, the Joe Biden administration’s attempt to re-shore manufacturing through its “Made in America” policy has led U.S. allies to charge that such protectionism violates international trade laws. In addition to the mounting costs of production due to the higher price of U.S. energy, this could push Europe into relative deindustrialization. Some countries have reacted by moving their factories to the U.S. to take advantage of the “Inflation Reduction Act”, which would subsidize a factory in the U.S. by up to $800 million. A move to the U.S. may save some companies, but will only further deindustrialize Europe. Another strategy being considered is European protectionism, which may put the trans-Atlantic political alliance on shakier footing.2 It is not just Europe that is mobilizing against U.S. protectionism. China, much of Southeast Asia, and some Latin American countries are acting similarly. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a political and economic union created by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Larger than the European Union and the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, RCEP includes China, the Philippines, Laos, Vietnam, Brunei, Cambodia, Singapore, and Thailand, as well as U.S. political allies Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea. Members of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) trade bloc Of course, this pits political and economic interests against each other in some cases, causing tensions that are a feature of blowback to U.S. economic coercion. The U.S. Congress has also used the financial sector to enforce its policies, imposing secondary sanctions on banks that process transactions with sanctioned parties. Secondary sanctions are imposed on countries that attempt to trade with the targets of primary sanctions. They are technically illegal, but many countries observe them out of fear of U.S. retaliation. Importantly, shipping companies and insurers often over-comply with sanctions that may not technically apply, which has delayed shipments of grain and fertilizer that are needed to prevent famine, notably in Africa. However, blowback looms in global finance, which could eventually erode U.S. power as exercised through the hegemony of the dollar. One of the ways to avoid primary and secondary sanctions is by trading in local currencies, rather than by using SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications), a member-owned system made up of banks and financial institutions worldwide, widely used for transactions that are denominated in dollars. SWIFT blocks payments that breach U.S. sanctions. Thus, more and more countries are trading in other currencies. Russia trades with India in rubles and rupees, and with China in rubles and renminbi. Also trading in national currencies are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and numerous Central Asian states, making up half the world’s population. The 2022 meeting of the heads of state of the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Alternative financial networks are being formed. The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) are working to develop a new reserve currency based on a basket of their national currencies. China has formed CIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System), a SWIFT-like payment network to internationalize the renminbi. Its co-founders included even some Western banks like Citi, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, along with numerous Asian and African banks. With about 1,300 banks in all, it is a challenge for the future.3 China is slowly edging its Renminbi into becoming an international currency, which would push the dollar into being only one member in a basket of currencies, rather than the dominant currency used in trade. Finally, there is the growth of digital currencies – electronic state-backed national currencies that act like cash, not to be confused with blockchain cryptocurrencies. National digital currencies will allow countries to trade directly, without having to go through mechanisms like SWIFT. The decline of dollar hegemony is expected, but with a long time horizon of two or three decades. However, the weaponization of finance has cost the U.S. a loss of trust. When foreign reserves can be frozen, as they have been for Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and Afghanistan, then no country can feel that its assets are safe. Many central banks, including China’s, have been buying gold for their reserves and selling U.S. securities. One important, contradictory result of the measures taken so far has been the growing closeness of Russia and China, who now hold joint military exercises. In terms of Beijing, whose spectacular growth presents a clear challenge to U.S. global dominance, Washington has begun a stronger form of economic coercion: export controls. Here the danger of blowback is even greater, possibly leading to a long-lasting trade war over semiconductors or microchips, the key to advanced civilian and military technology. In October 2022, the U.S. Commerce Department barred Chinese chip, biomedical, and chemical companies from importing highly advanced American chip design and manufacturing tools. The goal is to prevent Chinese companies from developing their own ability to manufacture comparable technology. Should secondary sanctions be applied in this case, other technology companies may be affected – like Samsung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which trade with China’s large market. However, a considerable illicit trade of chip smuggling is going on. An amusing, miniature version of this was the attempt to bring in chips in a fake baby bump. One possible blowback to U.S export controls could be China potentially retaliating by denying the U.S. rare earth minerals that are needed for the batteries used in most modern technological products. China oversees 60% of rare earth production. U.S. business interests have expressed concern about the consequences, especially given that Washington has failed to persuade its allies to adopt similar export controls. Moreover, the loss of the China market would be a “death warrant” for some U.S. semiconductor firms, whose decline in revenue could lead them to reduce their investment in research and development, and thus decline.4 Hence, the semiconductor industry prefers a narrower target on China’s defense and security industry. Finally, who sets the standards for microchips also holds considerable power. Chinese engineers are increasingly influential in the International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission, which gives Beijing a presence in help setting the rules. China has even set up a competitor to WiFi on its Digital Silk Road. And its global positioning system, Beidou, is three times more accurate than GPS.5 Decoupling into two world systems of technology would probably backfire on many levels. Semiconductor production consists of a highly integrated global network of resource extraction, design and manufacture. At present, Taiwan’s TSMC has the largest concentration of production, amounting to 92% of the most advanced chips. That makes Taiwan a key factor in the U.S.-China competition. And, for now, it provides the island with a “silicon shield” from military operations. It is becoming increasingly clear that the U.S. sanctions policies to maintain global dominance, although harmful and escalating, may have passed the peak of their effectiveness. Export controls could be more effectively destructive, but even their outcome is likely to fall short of the ultimate goal. Most observers consider that, in two or three decades, the U.S. will have come to terms with being only one of several important powers. The dollar will become one part of a basket of reserve currencies. The question is if Washington can commit itself to cooperation rather than competition, in matters of concern to humanity at large. The benefits could be enormous. 1 Jeremy Kuzmarov, “Trying to Unbalance Russia: The Fraudulent Origins and Impact of US Sanctions on Russia,” in Davis and Ness, p. 300, citing Richard Connolly, “Russia’s Response to Sanctions: How Western Economic Statecraft is Reshaping Political Economy in Russia,” Cambridge University Press, 2018 2 Rawi Abdelal and Aurelie Bros, “The End of Transatlanticism? How Sanctions are Dividing the West”, in Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development, no. 16, Pandemics & Geopolitics: The Quickening (Spring 2020) pp. 114-135. 3 Agathe Desmarais, Backfire: How Sanctions Reshape the World Against U.S. Interests. Columbia University Press, 2022, pp. 129-131. 4 Desmarais, p. 180. 5 Desmarais, p. 185.

Write an article about: German foreign minister: ‘We are fighting a war against Russia’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Annalena Baerbock, Council of Europe, Germany, imperialism, NATO, Russia, Sevim Dagdelen, Ukraine

“We are fighting a war against Russia”, Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock told the Council of Europe. “We can fight this war only together” she said, calling to send tanks and more weapons to Ukraine. The government of Germany has stated that Europe is at war with Russia. “We are fighting a war against Russia”, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock declared, as she addressed the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France on January 24. Baerbock insisted that Europe must remain united behind the proxy war in Ukraine, because if it is divided, “then Russia and Putin wins”. “Yes, we have to do more to defend Ukraine. Yes, we have to do more also on tanks. But the most important and the crucial part is that we do it together, and that we do not do the blame game in Europe, because we are fighting a war against Russia, and not against each other”, the German foreign minister said. “Obviously, Ukraine needs more military military support, but not only by one country like mine or the US, by all of us. We can fight this war only together”, she added. “We are fighting a war against Russia”, Germany's Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock told the Council of Europe. “We can fight this war only together” she said, calling to send tanks and more weapons to Ukraine, to escalate the NATO proxy war. More here: https://t.co/TBa3bNmhAk pic.twitter.com/NJWzybl5Qo — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 26, 2023 Baerbock’s remarks are part of a growing mountain of evidence showing that the conflict in Ukraine is a proxy war between NATO and Russia. In a speech in Poland in March 2022, US President Joe Biden made it clear that Washington’s goal is to overthrow Russian President Vladimir Putin. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin then admitted in April that the Pentagon seeks to “weaken” Russia. Former US State Department official Eliot Cohen wrote in Washington’s establishment magazine The Atlantic that NATO is fighting a “proxy war with Russia” in Ukraine, and he called to kill as many Russian soldiers as possible, “the more and faster the better”. The New York Times reported in June that CIA and special operations forces from NATO members Britain, France, Canada, and Lithuania have been on the ground in Ukraine, training and advising Ukrainian forces and overseeing the war against Russia. According to Yahoo News, CIA paramilitaries have been active in Ukraine, training forces to “kill Russians”, since immediately after the 2014 US-backed coup that overthrew Kiev’s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral government and installed a pro-Western regime. Today, the CIA and a European NATO ally are carrying out sabotage attacks inside Russian territory, according to US military veteran and journalist Jack Murphy. The German foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, addressed the Council of Europe and declared that “we are fighting a war against Russia” just one day before Berlin announced that it would send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. Germany made this decision, which amounts to a major escalation of the proxy war, promptly after the United States agreed to send M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. Baerbock is one of the most hawkish, and most powerful, ministers in the German government. She is a member of the country’s centrist Green Party, which is deeply interventionist and advocates a neoconservative foreign policy, strongly supporting the United States and NATO. Two weeks before making these remarks in Strasbourg, Baerbock traveled to Kharkiv, in eastern Ukraine, to visit the front lines of the battle with Russia. There, she urged Western countries to send even more weapons to Kiev. Although European leaders are thirsty for war, average working-class people in Europe overwhelmingly want peace. There have for months been large protests across Europe against the NATO proxy war in Ukraine – particularly due to the economic blowback that Western sanctions on Russia have caused, leading to skyrocketing energy prices and runaway inflation. A staggering 82% of people in the European Union agree with the statement that “Russia and Ukraine should be forced into peace talks in order to end the war”, according to a December 2022 poll by a think tank linked to the Hungarian government. Support for peace talks stands at a staggering 91% in Cyprus, 89% in Portugal and Greece, 87% in Spain, 86% in Italy, and 81% in both France and Germany. Yet despite the fact that four-fifths of Germans want the proxy war in Ukraine to end, EU leadership is only escalating the conflict. In her January 24 speech at the Council of Europe, Baerbock argued that “Russia’s war of aggression is not only a war against Ukraine; it is a war against the common European peace order”. She said: “This war is not only led by military action from Russia. This war from Russia against Ukraine, against the European peace order, also attacks our justice system. It attacks the institution like the Council of Europe. It attacks international criminal law. So I, speaking here has the foreign minister of Germany, but also as a European, yes, we have to do more military aid”. A warm welcome to German Foreign Minister @ABaerbock, who is addressing the Assembly now, and will later take questions from members. Watch live in seven languages:https://t.co/3IhvfMJBmN Or on YouTube, scrollable mid-stream:https://t.co/w7LnaSNHPH pic.twitter.com/loM7rQfiS5 — PACE (@PACE_News) January 24, 2023 “This is about our common European peace order, and this is why we are calling, with regard to tanks and other support, for a big international group”, the German foreign minister continued. “So what I’m saying here is we keep up with our military support, but we will definitely keep on going”. Baerbock insisted “we have to stand up and fight for” the “soul of Europe”, in a “a clear and united stance against Russia’s war”. Germany’s Federal Foreign Office stated that its “goal is the strategic reorientation of the [the Council of Europe] organisation following Russia’s exclusion in March 2022”. Baerbock argued that the “Council of Europe is more important than ever as a place which embodies the very pan-European unity that Putin wants to destroy”. “We must stand our ground in the face of this attack. Our response must be a resolute ‘now more than ever'”, she proclaimed. “The Council of Europe is more important than ever as a place which embodies the very pan-European unity that Putin wants to destroy.” – Foreign Minister @ABaerbock visits the @CoE in #Strasbourg, incl. talks at the @ECHR_CEDH & a speech at the @PACE_News. https://t.co/gtDHnK5LEe — GermanForeignOffice (@GermanyDiplo) January 24, 2023 After her address, Baerbock tweeted that “Europe is bigger than the EU. The COE [Council of Europe] and its convention of human rights is home to more than 700 [million]… In this era marked by Russia’s war, we have to defend these rights and our liberty”. #Europe is bigger than the EU. The @coe and its convention of human rights is home to more than 700 mio people. People with different stories and dreams – all united by their #HumanRights. In this era marked by Russia’s war, we have to defend these rights and our liberty. 1/2 — Außenministerin Annalena Baerbock (@ABaerbock) January 24, 2023 Some leftist politicians in Germany have warned about the dangerous consequences of Berlin’s escalation of the NATO proxy war. Member of Parliament Sevim Dagdelen, of Germany’s Die Linke (Left Party), said the US pressure campaign to push Berlin to send tanks to Ukraine “is obviously about passing Germany the poisoned chalice”. “Berlin is to be sent into the line of fire, to conclusively destroy German-Russian relations and turn them into open war for others’ benefit”, she wrote. “Germany is supposed to draw Russia’s counterfire”, Dagdelen argued. “One cannot escape the impression that it’s hoped a counterstrike would hit Berlin first and foremost. The US would thus achieve one of its long-term strategic objectives: to prevent cooperation between Germany and Russia forever”. The decision to send tanks to Ukraine “reveals the dangerous limits on German sovereignty”, she added, noting that the United States “has sufficient influence in the governments of its fellow NATO countries to achieve the outcome it desires”. German lawmaker @SevimDagdelen of the Left Party warns it is a "historic mistake" to send tanks to Ukraine: "Berlin is to be sent into the line of fire, to conclusively destroy German-Russian relations and turn them into open war for others’ [US] benefit"https://t.co/L6DVzqgXCG — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 26, 2023 Prominent US imperial planner Zbigniew Brzezinski – who, as national security advisor for President Jimmy Carter, was an architect of the US proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan – wrote in his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” that the United States was “the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power”. But Washington’s ability to maintain unipolar imperial hegemony over the planet depended on “whether it prevents the emergence of a dominant and antagonistic Eurasian power“, Brzezinski warned. “Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played”, he declared, emphasizing that “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America”. Brzezinski argued that the most “dangerous” scenarios for US imperialism would be an “antihegemonic coalition” led by China, Russia, and Iran, followed by a “Russo-German or a Russo-French” alliance. Ever since, the United States has sought to undermine Russian-German relations, sabotaging any attempts at Eurasian integration. This may explain why the Nord Stream pipelines between Russia and Germany were attacked in a suspicious sabotage incident. Dagdelen argued that, “In the context of a new policy of confrontation with the Eurasian bloc, Germany and Japan are to become frontline states with limited sovereignty for the US”. “Germany’s warmongers”, like Baerbock, “are acting as if they want primarily to serve the interests of US corporations and the United States as a whole”, Dagdelen wrote. The Left Party MP lamented that her country “is being swept along by a destructive oligarchisation in the economic and political spheres while masses of people slip into poverty”. She cautioned that “anyone who is really interested in defending democracy in Germany cannot leave the stage to the mouthpieces of a bored bourgeoisie just because they are afraid to be derided as stooges of the enemy. That is what happened in the First World War, and it must not happen again”.

Write an article about: The US is already preparing for its next war: on China. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, David Petraeus, Foreign Policy magazine, Japan, NATO, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine

While the US and NATO wage a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, military strategists and pundits in Washington have set their sights on China. (This article was first published at Danny Haiphong’s Substack blog. You can subscribe here.) Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is approaching its first birthday, in February 2023. Top military brass in Russia have long declared that the conflict is not between Russia and Ukraine, but rather Russia and NATO. Simply put, Ukraine is a pawn in another U.S. war. Europe’s economy and military have been sacrificed on the altar of U.S. warmongering toward Russia. Winter is here, and Ukraine’s prospects for getting out of the conflict with anything resembling “victory” have dissipated, if they ever really existed at all. Such has been admitted by two of the foreign-policy establishment’s most criminal members: Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates. In an op-ed with the Washington Post, Rice and Gates argue that time is not on Ukraine’s side. The U.S. must act fast or watch Ukraine suffer eventual defeat. Opinion by former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and former defense secretary Robert M. Gates: Time is not on Ukraine’s side https://t.co/TqoP9sXwsv — The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 7, 2023 Of course, for neoconservative hawks like Rice and Gates, a negotiated settlement is simply out of the question. The only option for the U.S. political and military establishment is to fortify Ukraine with the heaviest military equipment such as armored tanks to ensure victory on the battlefield. As geopolitical analyst Brian Berletic has noted, a major problem stands in the way of Rice and Gates’s demand: NATO is running out of weapons. The U.S. produces about 30,000 rounds per year for its 155 mm Howitzer long-range systems, a number that Ukraine uses in just two weeks of fighting Russia on the front lines. Russian missile strikes have made quick work of heavier equipment such as the vaunted HIMARS systems. Only larger NATO states like the U.S. and Germany have anything left to provide. So when Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky came to Congress begging for more weapons, he was likely disappointed in Joe Biden’s remark that the U.S. was not going to make promises to arm Ukraine with anything that could possibly lead to a World War III scenario between NATO and Russia. Russia’s critical victory in the city of Soledar has only intensified concerns among a major faction in the foreign policy establishment that Ukraine is depleting the U.S.’s capacity to wage war elsewhere. In this regard, no other matter of U.S. “national security” is more important than China. The RAND Corporation, a research arm of the Pentagon, has called China a “peer” competitor and the U.S.’s greatest long-term threat. Joe Biden’s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has also called China the greatest threat to the U.S.’s “security.” The Biden administration unveiled a new defense strategy, casting China as the greatest danger to American security and calling for an urgent, concerted effort to build the military capabilities to deter Beijing in the decades to come https://t.co/aD8reqtEzT — The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) October 27, 2022 NATO labeled China a “malicious actor” in the alliance’s latest Strategic Concept document, and pledged to play a larger role in curbing the so-called “threats” presented by its rise. A series published just after the new year in Foreign Policy, however, has blown the lid off of any subtleties to the U.S.’s preparations for a war with China. Titled “Lessons for the Next War,” the series features 12 essays from all corners of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. Contributors include former Obama-era CIA director and US army commander David Petraeus, former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and former Under Secretary of State and Trump-era NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller. Also included are representatives from a litany of hawkish think tanks, such as the US government-funded Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Accuracy and precision in battlefield sensors and munitions have shaped the war in Ukraine. This offers important implications for the Taiwan Strait, @Mauro_Gilli writes in FP's Winter 2023 issue. https://t.co/F4VffhCtZU pic.twitter.com/jZNhVx22sP — Foreign Policy (@ForeignPolicy) January 17, 2023 Their essays cover 12 areas of economic, cyber, military, diplomatic, and propaganda warfare. An important thread runs through each contribution: Russia has failed in Ukraine (a fabrication mixed with imperial hubris), making the present moment a perfect opportunity to prepare for an upcoming war in Taiwan against China. Foreign Policy’s chief editor Stefan Theil makes the aim of the series quite clear: Drawing the right lessons from the first 10 months of the Russian invasion, then, not only matters for the survival of Ukraine. It is also vital for deterring and preventing a future conflict—and, if necessary, fighting one. The most obvious potential hot spot and one that involves even greater stakes is, of course, Taiwan. Beyond repetitive lip service to “deterrence,” contributors make concrete suggestions on the best means to wage war with China. David Petraeus’s co-authored piece asserts that (all emphasis added): Ukraine points to the imperative for the United States and its Indo-Pacific allies to prioritize the near-term ability to field large numbers of relatively inexpensive, highly mobile anti-ship and anti-air missiles that can be dispersed and maneuvered throughout the first and second island chains against Beijing’s increasingly formidable naval and air forces. Large quantities of unmanned air, sea, and ground systems can amplify these missiles in the U.S. order of battle. In other words, the U.S.’s record $858 billion military budget needs to grow even larger to meet the challenge of China. Petraeus was directly responsible for targeting weddings and civilian areas during his time leading U.S. forces in Afghanistan, giving him first-hand knowledge of the capabilities of the U.S.’s military arsenal. The principles of anti-access/area denial strategy to deter and, if necessary, defeat aggression, used to great effect in Ukraine, are equally applicable in the Western Pacific, David Petraeus and Vance Serchuk write in FP's Winter 2023 issue. https://t.co/qWEwbztmSt pic.twitter.com/3igsK84Apr — Foreign Policy (@ForeignPolicy) January 16, 2023 Former Obama-era NATO Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen backs up Petraeus’s emphasis on pumping weapons into Taiwan, stating: weapons are what counts . . . With the help of its partners [Taiwan] must become a porcupine bristling with armaments to deter any possible attempt to take it by force. China must calculate that the cost of an invasion is simply too high to bear. However, Foreign Policy’s war stenographers clarify that preparing for war with China is about much more than weapons. Maria Shagina, research fellow on sanctions at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a bellicose think tank funded by the weapons industry and State Department, argues that the U.S. and its allies should devise a coherent plan of “economic statecraft” against China as soon as possible. Elisabeth Braw of the Carlyle Group-funded right-wing American Enterprise Institute proposes that the U.S. and its allies secure control over the information airwaves to ensure citizens “know exactly what to look for” from so-called “subversive” state and non-state actors that counter U.S. and NATO talking points. Of course, these so-called “preparations” are already underway. The U.S. spends hundreds of millions in its information war against China, and it recently banned Chinese semiconductor exports to compliment an already wide-ranging economic war on China. Foreign Policy’s “Lessons for the Next War” was part of a flurry indications that the U.S. foreign policy establishment is preparing for war with China. Two days following Foreign Policy’s series, top U.S. General in Japan James Bierman made the stunning admission in the Financial Times that U.S. is “setting the theater of war” by goading China into a Ukraine-style war over Taiwan. US military deepens ties with Japan and Philippines to prepare for China threat https://t.co/5hZaenqwif — Financial Times (@FT) January 8, 2023 The next day, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released a war simulation between the U.S. and China over Taiwan. Predictably, the U.S. government concluded that Chinese efforts to invade the island would fail at a great cost to the militaries of all parties. In May 2022, The Center for New American Security (CNAS), which is principally funded by military contractors, showcased its own war simulation on NBC’s Meet the Press. Back in February 2022, the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force joined the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in conducting joint military exercises, known as Noble Fusion, in the Philippine Sea. The US and Japan in the Noble Fusion military exercise in the Philippine Sea in February 2022 It’s important to note that U.S. war preparations with China have little do with Taiwan specifically. They’re a response to imperial decline and the rise of China and Russia. Beijing and Moscow both present their own specific challenges to Washington’s hegemony. Russia’s growing sovereignty and political independence from the U.S.-led West has undermined the Wolfowitz Doctrine of full-spectrum dominance over all territory of the former Soviet Union. China’s massive socialist-led market economy is set to surpass the U.S.’s stagnant finance capitalist system in GDP terms by 2035. Worse for the U.S. is that Russia and China have grown closer together. In economic terms, the Russia-China comprehensive strategic partnership has grown by leaps and bounds since the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation was established in 2001. Bilateral trade is expected to increase by 25% and reach a total volume of $200 billion ahead of the 2024 target date. Surging economic ties with China have given Russia further protection from U.S.-E.U. sanctions, with agricultural and energy exports to China increasing by the month. China and Russia have also increased coordination on matters of military coordination, color revolutions, and diplomacy in the face of a common threat: U.S. imperialism. But perhaps the biggest threat to U.S. hegemony resides in China and Russia’s leadership in the global movement for integration and de-dollarization. China and Russia are the principle leaders of multilateral institutions such as BRICS+ mechanism and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. These multilateral institutions set out to strengthen investment in all sectors of economic and social development between participating countries, especially in the realm of finance. In response to starvation sanctions imposed by the U.S. and E.U., and predatory loans from Western financial institutions, BRICS+ has united the largest Global South economies, uniting Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa in an effort to develop an alternative to the U.S. dollar-dominated neoliberal economic system. The strength of BRICS+ grew immensely in 2022. Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Iran, Argentina, and several other countries expressed interest in or applied to join BRICS+. BRICS+ is complimented by China and Russia’s own integration projects which aim to develop the infrastructure necessary to break free from the petrodollar. The “virtual group photo” taken at the 14th BRICS summit in 2022 China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) sports major cooperation agreements with more than 140 countries and consists of at least 2,000 development initiatives, many of which are completed or under construction. Talks of possibly merging the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the BRI are already underway. The same forces preparing for war with China have expressed deep concern about the future of the dollar amid growing Eurasian integration. Foreign Policy admitted in its marathon 12-essay series that U.S. sanctions have led China to pursue alternatives to the dollar with its trading partners. Zoltan Pozsar, an economist and former strategist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, recently sounded the alarm about what he termed “BRICSpansion” and the potential of China, Russia, Iran, and the Global South uniting around a new currency system backed by the wealth of commodities in their possession. Pozsar warns of “commodity encumbrance,” or the growing possibility that resource-rich nations like Russia will use their commodities as collateral to increase reserves of credit and financing. The interest that China and Saudi Arabia have shown in trading oil in Chinese yuan, Russia’s pursuit of an international reserve currency, and the idea of “BRICS coin” are presented as major threats to Western financial dominance. The U.S.’s answer to fading imperial hegemony is war – and more of it. War is an inherent feature of predatory neoliberalism, where corporations seek favorable conditions to exploit and plunder the planet’s laboring classes and resources. War is also a permanent, and very profitable, industry dominated by a tiny few military contractors. The ruling elite has calculated that U.S. imperialism cannot compete with China and Russia, making the rise of both an existential threat to the future of U.S.-led neoliberalism and imperialism. This sentiment has been expressed by NATO’s Atlantic Council think tank, and in the U.S.’s successive national security strategies of “Great Power” and “Strategic” Competition. That U.S. foreign-policy strategists and experts are planning for the next war should come as no surprise. U.S. imperialism does not target singular “enemies”; it targets alternative development models and the nations attempting to build them. As Henry Kissinger said, the United States “has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” The Ukraine proxy war is thus a testing ground for the larger U.S. agenda of imperial expansion. A common condition of peace and prosperity for humanity will depend in large part on undermining of this agenda, particularly within the citadel of imperialism: the United States.

Write an article about: France’s Macron opposes US cold war on China, wants independent Europe – but is it just rhetoric?. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, EU, European Union, France, Germany, trade, Ursula von der Leyen, Xi Jinping

France’s President Emmanuel Macron told Xi Jinping that he opposes the US war drive against China and wants an independent Europe with “strategic autonomy”. But he has made comments like this before, and failed to challenge Washington’s hegemony. France’s President Emmanuel Macron has called for Europe to be more independent of the United States, suggesting that Paris does not want to be part of Washington’s new cold war on China. Macron insisted that Europe should develop its own “strategic autonomy” and not simply be “followers” or “vassals” of the US. The French leader has made comments like these in the past, however, and has failed to take concrete actions to challenge US hegemony. In 2018, Macron (and his German counterpart, Angela Merkel) called for creating a “true European army”, as part of “a Europe which defends itself better alone, without just depending on the United States, in a more sovereign manner”. Yet nothing came of it. Paris even helped develop an alternative payment mechanism to circumvent illegal US sanctions on Iran, called INSTEX, but the system was barely used before it was shut down in early 2023. These facts, combined with the significant opposition against Macron’s proposed policies inside the European Union, suggest that the French leader will not be able to alter the region’s aggressive foreign policy against China, even if his intentions are genuine. Macron took a three-day trip to China this April, where he met with President Xi Jinping. Following the meeting, Politico published an exclusive interview with Macron. The French leader warned that there is a “great risk” if Europe “gets caught up in crises that are not ours, which prevents it from building its strategic autonomy”. “If the tensions between the two superpowers heat up … we won’t have the time nor the resources to finance our strategic autonomy and we will become vassals”, he said. "The great risk” Europe faces is getting "caught up in crises that are not ours," says Emmanuel Macron. In an exclusive interview aboard his plane, the French president explained why he wants Europe to reduce its dependency on the US ?https://t.co/JSLmEmnxIT — POLITICOEurope (@POLITICOEurope) April 9, 2023 Macron cautioned that European leaders must not “believe we are just America’s followers”, stating: The question Europeans need to answer … is it in our interest to accelerate [a crisis] on Taiwan? No. The worse thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the U.S. agenda and a Chinese overreaction. Macron also criticized the “extraterritoriality of the U.S. dollar” – a sign that Europe is frustrated with the overvalued hegemonic currency. This March, a French company was involved in the UAE’s first ever sale of liquified natural gas to China in Beijing’s currency, the renminbi. The main reason behind Macron’s trip to Beijing and his conciliatory tone is quite clear: China is the Eurozone’s top trading partner, and the region cannot sacrifice its economic relations with the Asian giant. Hawks in both Washington and Brussels have called for the West to economically “decouple” from China, but this is much easier said than done. Macron recognizes that it is a fool’s errand, and not practical. The European Parliament acknowledged that, “In 2020, China took over the position as the EU’s main trading partner in goods from the US, with an overall share of 16.2% in 2021 compared with 14.7% for the US”. In 2021, 22% of EU imports came from China – double the 11% from the US, and significantly more than the 8% of imports from Russia, 7% from the United Kingdom, and 6% from Switzerland, according to Eurostat data. In the same year, 10% of EU exports went to China, making it the third most important foreign market for Eurozone goods after the UK (13%) and the US (18%). This also explains why Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited China in November, and took a similarly conciliatory position toward Beijing. Following his trip, Scholz emphasized in an op-ed for Politico, “We don’t want to decouple from China, but can’t be overreliant”. The German leader acknowledged that “new centers of power are emerging in a multipolar world”, adding that “we aim to establish and expand partnerships with all of them”. In the case of Berlin, the issue is even more urgent. Germany’s top trading partner is China, providing the European nation with 12% of its imports in 2021 – roughly double Germany’s 6.1% of imports from the US. The Chinese market is also the second-most important for German goods, representing 7.6% of its exports in the same year, compared to 8.8% for the US. France’s economy is not as interconnected with China’s, but the Asian giant is still very important, as Paris’ seventh-biggest customer and sixth-biggest supplier in 2021. Germany and France are the Eurozone’s two largest economies, representing roughly 41% of the EU’s entire economy (24.26% and 16.72%, respectively). So if they oppose decoupling from China, it is difficult to see how the rest of the region could try to do so. However, whether or not Berlin or Paris could muster the political capital needed to challenge Washington’s hegemony is another question altogether. In 2019, they apparently tried to do so – but failed. European governments were angry that US President Donald Trump sabotaged the Iran nuclear deal by unilaterally withdrawing in May 2018, in flagrant violation of a UN Security Council resolution and therefore international law. Washington imposed heavy sanctions on Iran. But Europe wanted to continue trading with the West Asian nation. So, in response, Germany, France, and Britain developed the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), a new payment mechanism to circumvent US sanctions. Economist Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, founder of the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation think tank, recalled that, “In August 2018, EU high representative Federica Mogherini and foreign ministers Jean-Yves Le Drian of France, Heiko Maas of Germany, and Jeremy Hunt of the United Kingdom, issued a joint statement in which they committed to preserve ‘effective financial channels with Iran, and the continuation of Iran’s export of oil and gas’ in the face of the returning US sanctions”. However, there was a problem, Batmanghelidj wrote: Many European technocrats were reluctant to support a project which had the overt aim of blunting US sanctions power, even at a time when figures such as French finance minister Bruno Le Maire and Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte were making bold statements about the need for European economic sovereignty. Even INSTEX’s inaugural managing director, Per Fischer, departed given concerns over his association with a company that had been maligned by American officials as a sanctions busting scheme. Then, in May 2019, when the Trump administration cancelled a set of sanctions waivers, European purchases of Iranian oil ended. By January 2023, INSTEX was shut down – just four years after it was created, with little to show for it. INSTEX is shutting down. My thoughts on why the special purpose vehicle to protect European trade with Iran failed and what it means for the future of European economic sovereignty.https://t.co/Mn75lIp9Sz — Esfandyar Batmanghelidj (@yarbatman) February 3, 2023 Batmanghelidj concluded that “many considered the INSTEX project doomed even before the first transaction was completed”, and “most of the blame for INSTEX’s failure must lie with the Europeans”. “European officials promised a historic project to assert their economic sovereignty, but they never really committed to that undertaking”, he said. If such an undertaking failed so recently, it is difficult to see how Europe could today challenge US policy on an even more politically sensitive issue, and on a much bigger scale. Yes, China is significantly more important for Europe’s economy than Iran was, but the pressure from Washington is also much greater. In fact, European states are already capitulating to the United States and joining its tech war on China. Following Washington’s lead, the Netherlands has restricted the export of advanced microchip technology to Beijing. The European Commission vice-president for trade relations, Valdis Dombrovskis, has said this ban may expand to all of the Eurozone. “The way export controls function in the EU, it’s a national decision. But there is a possibility also to bring this decision (to) the EU level. The Dutch authorities have indicated they have this interest”, Dombrovskis stated in March. ?? The Dutch curb has been the source of speculation for months but was only made official on Wednesday in a government letter addressed to the country's parliament. #EuropeNews https://t.co/knaJNkizwX — Euronews Next (@euronewsnext) March 10, 2023 If Macron is truly committed to European “strategic autonomy” and relative independence from the United States, France may have to abandon the EU itself. Is Paris willing to do so? Back in 2018, when Donald Trump was president, Macron called for a “true European army”, arguing, “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America… We need a Europe which defends itself better alone, without just depending on the United States, in a more sovereign manner”. Then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed. Echoing Macron, she told the European parliament that November, “The times when we could rely on others is past”, and, “We have to look at the vision of one day creating a real, true European army”. But what came of this? Nothing. In fact, five years later, Europe is even more dependent on – and subordinated to – the United States than ever before. The proxy war against Russia in Ukraine has only deepened Washington’s influence over Brussels, strengthening and unifying NATO under US leadership. France’s purported commitment to paving the path of an independent foreign policy was called into question by Paris’ questionable role in Ukraine. A US-backed coup overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral government in 2014, installing a pro-Western regime. This ignited a civil war. Ostensibly in order resolve the conflict, France and fellow EU member Germany oversaw peace talks between Ukraine and the breakaway republics in the eastern Donbas region. Russia was part of the negotiations as well, in the so-called Normandy Format. In 2015, they passed the Minsk II accords. The protocols required Ukraine to decentralize state authority and provide autonomy for the Donbas, specifically for the embattled provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk. Yet Kiev refused to do so. The signing of the Minsk II accord in Belarus in February 2015 Macron’s predecessor, former French President François Hollande, admitted in a call with Russian pranksters Vivan and Lexus that Ukraine had instead used the Minsk accords to bide time to prepare for war with Moscow. “There was the idea that it was Putin who had wanted to buy time, but it was us [France and Germany] who wanted to buy time to allow Ukraine to recover, to strengthen its resources”, Hollande said. “That’s why we have to defend the Minsk negotiations, in which [Poroshenko] played a very important role. It was precisely during these seven years that there were ways for Ukraine to strengthen itself”, the former French leader added. The Russian pranksters had impersonated Ukraine’s ex-President Petro Poroshenko in order to get Hollande to agree to the video discussion. When Hollande found out who they really were, he tried to downplay his comments. But this was not the first time Hollande had made such an admission. Anti-Russian newspaper the Kyiv Independent interviewed Hollande in December, and asked him about remarks from former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had stated, “It was obvious that the conflict was going to be frozen, that the problem was not solved, but [the Minsk accords] just gave Ukraine precious time”. Hollande replied, “Angela Merkel is right on this point”. The former French president added, “Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity”. Although Hollande is not Macron, the two share many of the same views, and France’s foreign policy has remained consistent. This recent historical precedent suggests Paris may not be an honest diplomatic broker. For his part, Ukraine’s current Western-backed leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, admitted this February that he never planned to honor Minsk II, calling the Russia-sponsored peace deal with the Donbas breakaway republics an unacceptable “concession”. Ukraine’s Western-backed leader Volodymyr Zelensky admitted to the German newspaper Der Spiegel that he refused to implement the 2015 Minsk II peace deal with Russia. Germany and France said Ukraine used the agreement to "buy time" to prepare for war.https://t.co/PfwKKYAdrP — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 11, 2023 Zelensky said he had clearly told Macron and Merkel that “we cannot implement it”. “Procrastination is perfectly fine in diplomacy”, he explained. This revelation that Paris had known about Kiev’s unwillingness to abide by a peace agreement it had signed, but publicly expressed no concerns, reflects very negatively on France’s political commitments. There is no doubt that Beijing has watched the whole affair closely. Despite Macron’s many transparent limitations, the interview he conducted with Politico following his April 2023 visit to China set off a diplomatic scandal inside Europe. A group of neoconservative politicians from the hawkish Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) published a letter condemning Macron’s “ill-judged remarks” on Taiwan, Politico noted in a follow-up report. They declared, “It should be emphasized that the president’s words are severely out of step with the feeling across Europe’s legislatures and beyond”. Right-wing, pro-US political leaders in Eastern Europe were even angrier. Poland’s far-right Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki declared in the airport in Warsaw, “Instead of building strategic autonomy from the United States, I propose a strategic partnership with the United States”. Morawiecki made these comments as he boarded a plane to fly to Washington for a three-day state visit. Neoconservative US Senator Marco Rubio published a furious video on Twitter, arrogantly telling Macron, “Maybe, we should basically say we are going to focus on Taiwan and the threats that China poses, and you guys handle Ukraine and Europe”. We need to find out if @EmmanuelMacron speaks for Europe After his 6 hour meeting in China he told reporters that Europe should create distance with the U.S. & should not get involved in supporting America over China when it comes to Taiwanhttps://t.co/xoFmUGkumH pic.twitter.com/Ps718bXSyn — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) April 9, 2023 Britain’s establishment newspaper The Guardian quoted more hawkish European officials who denounced Macron’s opposition to the new cold war on China. It noted that the Wall Street Journal’s reliably right-wing editorial board condemned Macron as well. In short, there is a lot of momentum against Macron. And there is very little indication that he has the will, yet alone the ability, to handle it. None of this is to mention that Macron has barely any support at home. This March, Macron’s approval rating hit a record low of a mere 23%, with 72% disapproval, according to the polling firm Morning Consult. Since he came to power in 2017, the French president has faced mass protests against his right-wing neoliberal economic reforms, from the Yellow Vests mass movement to constant strikes. Diners sitting outside at a cafe in Paris enjoyed their wine amid the glow of a raging fire lit by demonstrators protesting France's unpopular pension reform plans. pic.twitter.com/tArlGUxJ5S — ABC 7 Chicago (@ABC7Chicago) March 28, 2023 In fact, while he was in Beijing, French unions were leading huge demonstrations against Macron’s attempts to raise the retirement age. Workers are outraged as their real wages fall in France, and across the region. Meanwhile, corporate profits in the Eurozone are at a record high. Real wages in the Eurozone are falling. The cost of living is way up. Energy prices are through the roof. Meanwhile, corporations' profit share is at record highs. https://t.co/OaASeG8hqv pic.twitter.com/gW4JO97smA — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 8, 2023 The limited room that Macron has to maneuver was reflected by the fact that he wasn’t even able to travel to China alone. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen joined Macron in Beijing – although she spent much less time meeting with Xi than the French leader did. Von der Leyen, the de facto EU chief, pushed a much more aggressive, antagonistic line against China, lecturing it on the so-called “rules-based international order” and the need for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine. Beijing has long criticized the West’s vague concept of the “rules-based international order”, which is never clearly defined. Instead, China has upheld the international law-based order with its center in the United Nations. A photo of von der Leyen and Macron sitting far away from Xi at a large circular table symbolically represented the political distance between the leaders. There is no "rules-based international order". The West never defines it, because it means whatever they want. China has always upheld the international law-based order centered in the United Nations – unlike the EU/NATO/US, which make their own "rules" and order everyone around https://t.co/rhokaMDXrl pic.twitter.com/mxlzsmuUGm — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 8, 2023 The Chinese press did express some hope that, perhaps, France could articulate a more independent policy. State media outlet Xinhua quoted President Xi, who “noted the profound historic transformation taking place in the world, and pointed out that China and France, as permanent members of the United Nations (UN) Security Council, major countries with a tradition of independence, and firm advocates for a multi-polar world and for greater democracy in international relations”. This was a hint that Beijing welcomes Paris’ calls for “strategic autonomy”, and would like Europe to establish itself as a separate pole in a multipolar world. But whether or not France could do so, if its political will truly is genuine, is highly dubious.

Write an article about: After Ukraine, US readies ‘transnational kill chain’ for Taiwan proxy war. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Link 16, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine

Washington approved the dangerous sale of the Link 16 communications system to Taiwan. This is the final link of what the US military calls a “transnational coalition kill chain” against China, and signals a commitment to kinetic war. In many traditions, when you paint or sculpt a Buddha, the eyes are the very last to be painted. It’s only after the eyes have been completed that the sculpture is fully alive and empowered. The United States has approved a $75 million weapons package to Taiwan province, involving the sale of the Link 16 communications system. The acquisition of Link 16 is analogous to “painting the eyes on the Buddha”: a last touch, it makes Taiwan’s military systems and weapons platforms live and far-seeing. It confers deadly powers, or more prosaically, in the words of the US military, it completes Taiwan as the final, lethal link of what the US Naval Institute calls a “transnational coalition kill chain”, for war against China. What exactly is Link 16? It is a key system in the US military communications arsenal. Specifically, it’s the jam-resistant tactical data network for coordinating NATO weapons systems for joint operations in war. If this sale is completed, it signals serious, granular, and single-minded commitment to kinetic war. It would signal that the Biden administration is as serious and unwavering in its desire to provoke and wage large-scale war with China over Taiwan as it was with Russia over Ukraine, which also saw the implementation of this system. More important than any single weapons platform, this system allows the Taiwan/ROC military to integrate and coordinate all its warfighting platforms with US, NATO, Japanese, Korean, Australian militaries in combined arms warfare. Link 16 would be the deadliest piece of technology yet to be transferred, because it allows sea, air, and land forces to be coordinated with others for lethal effect. It permits, for example, strategic nuclear/stealth bombers  (US B-1B Lancers, B-2 Spirits) to coordinate with electronic warfare and surveillance platforms  (EA Growlers, Prowlers, EP-3s), fighters and bombers (F-16,F-22, F-35s) as well as conduct joint arms warfare with US, French, British carrier battle groups, Japanese SDF destroyers, and South Korean Hyun Moo missile destroyers, as well as THAAD and Patriot radars and missile batteries. It also allows coordination with low-earth orbit satellites and other Space Force assets. In other words, Link 16 supplies a brain and nervous system to the various deadly limbs and arms that the Taiwan authorities have been acquiring and preparing on the prompting of the US. It ensures interoperability and US control. It effectively prepares Taiwan to be used as the spear tip and trigger of a multinational war offensive against China. To give a shoe-on-the-other-foot analogy, this would be like China giving separatists in a US territory or state (e.g. Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, Texas) not just arms and training – already a belligerent act of war, which the US is currently doing – but connecting insurgent militaries directly to the PLA’s surveillance, reconnaissance, and command/control systems. This coordinates and completes, to borrow the words of the US Naval Institute (USNI), the final link in a “transnational coalition kill chain” for war. The current US doctrine of war against China is based on distributed, dispersed, diffused, network-centric warfare to be conducted along the myriad islands of the archipelagic states encircling China in the Pacific. These are the “island chains” upon which the US has encircled and sown dragon’s teeth: tens of thousands of troops armed with mobile attack platforms and missiles. This is to be coordinated with subsurface warfare, automated/autonomous warfare, and longer-range stand-off weapons and attacks. Powerful think tanks like CSBA, CNAS, CSIS, RAND and the Pentagon have been working out the doctrine, details, logistics, and appropriations for this concept intensively for over a decade while advocating intensely for it. The sale of link 16 to Taiwan realizes and completes a key portion of this, binding the Chinese island as the keystone of this “multinational kill chain”. This doctrine of dispersion is based on a “rock-paper-scissors” concept that networked diffusion “offsets” (Chinese) precision. China’s capacity to defend itself and its littoral perimeter with precision missiles can be undermined with diffuse, distributed attacks from all across the island chains. Note that this diffusion and dispersion of attack platforms across the entire Pacific gives the lie to the claim that this is some inherently deterrent strategy to defend Taiwan island. Diffusion is clearly offensive, designed to overrun and overwhelm defenses: like Ukraine, this is not to deter war, but to enable it. This thus signals that aggressive total war against China is being prepared, in granular, lethal fashion on tactical and operational levels. On the strategic level, currently, at the CFR, CNAS, and other influential think tanks in Washington, the talk is all about “protracted warfare” with China, about pre-positioning systems and munitions for war, about ramping up to an industrial war footing for the inescapable necessity of war with China. This discussion includes preparations for a nuclear first strike on China. The US senses that the clock is running rapidly down on its power. If war is inevitable, then it is anxious to start war sooner rather than later. RAND warned in 2016 that 2025 was the outside window for the US to prevail in war with China. The “Minihan window” also hints at 2025. The “Davidson window” is 2027. The question in Washington regarding war with China is not if, but when–and how. Link 16 makes “how” easier, and brings “when” closer. The current administration has hardline Russophobes who want to continue to bleed Russia out in Ukraine. It wants protracted war with Russia. It firmly believes it can wage ambidextrous, multi-front war. Many US officials also believe that war with Ukraine and war with China are connected. They see Russia and China as a single axis of “revisionist powers” (i.e., official enemies) conspiring against the US to undermine its so-called “rules-based order” (i.e., US hegemony). Furthermore, if the US abandons Ukraine, this could weaken the Taiwan authorities’ resolve and willingness to wage war on behalf of Washington. Earlier in the war, when Russian gains in Ukraine were uncertain, Bi-khim Louise Hsiao (Taiwan’s current vice-president elect) gloated publicly and prominently that Ukraine’s victories were a message to China, as well as proof-of-concept of an effective doctrine for waging and winning war against China. As such, the Taiwan authorities were and are a major supporter of the Ukraine proxy war. But the converse also holds true. Based on the same premise, if the US abandons and loses Ukraine, it sends a clear message to the people on Taiwan island that they will be the next to be used and abandoned; that their US-imposed war and war doctrine (light, distributed, asymmetrical combined arms warfare) for fighting China is a recipe for catastrophic loss. The US plans on using proxies for war against China: Taiwan, Korea, Japan (JAKUS), Philippines, and Australia (AUKUS). Thus it cannot signal too overtly its perfidious, unreliable, and instrumental mindset. Washington has to keep up the pretense. It cannot be seen to overtly lose in or abandon Ukraine. It needs a “decent interval”, or a plausible pretext to cut and run. Still, the US is stretched thin. For example, it is relying on Korean munitions to Ukraine, and South Korea has provided more munitions than all of the EU combined. Moreover, the US is currently at war with itself. The fracturing of its body politic can only be unified with a common war against a common enemy. Russia is not that enemy for the US. China is. The Republicans want war with China now. Eli Ratner and Elbridge Colby have been fretting for years about the need to husband weaponry, arms, and munitions in order to wage war against China. Since the outbreak of Ukraine, Ratner has been working hard to pull India into the US defense industry’s supply chain, and claims to have been successful. South Korea’s considerable military-industrial complex is being pulled into sub-contracting for US war with China. Since many of its major Chaebol corporations got their start as subcontractors for the war in Vietnam (for example, Hyundai was a subcontractor for Halliburton/Brown & Root), the Korean economy is simply reverting back to its corporate-martial roots. South Korea’s economy is currently tanking due to US-forced sanctions on China. Major Korean electronic firms have lost 60 to 80% of their profits due to US-imposed chip sanctions. Under those conditions, military manufacturing and/or subcontracting looks to be the only way forward. In this way, the US is forcing a war economy onto its vassals. Furthermore, US aid to Ukraine benefits its own arms industry. The business of the US is war. Not only do existing US arms companies gain, but also the entire tech industry and supply chain benefits, and is currently re-orienting around this. Much of the US tech industry is seeking to suckle from the government teat, now flowing copiously in preparation for war. On the other hand, the general US economy is not doing well, with massive layoffs, especially in the consumer and business tech sector. The backstop of military Keynesianism, with the integration of think-tank lobbying groups funded by the arms industry with close ties to the administration (such as CNAS, West Exec Advisors, and CSIS) ensure that war is always the closest ready-to-hand resort for tough economic times. The US is simultaneously trying to decouple supply chains, which creates opportunities for US firms (both domestically and subcontracting with US vassals). Automated, AI-enabled warfare will be a key part of this development, as will be dispersed, distributed warfare platforms using proxies such as South Korea and Japan. This fits the existing historical pattern: the history of Western technology shows that technology and machinery have always been developed first for war. Afterwards, they become tools of entertainment and distraction, and later productive tools for general industrial use. This pattern goes back to the earliest machines and inventions of the West: the crane, the pulley, the lever, were all military technologies – machines of war (used in sieges). Later they became machines of illusion and distraction (used as stage machinery in Greek theater). Only much later were they applied for general use – and exploitation – in manufacture and production. This holds true for many other technologies, including: Nuclear power obviously derives from nuclear weapons. AI, too, from its inception, was conceived for automated battle management, especially to enable second strike after human life had been destroyed. An AI war is already in the works, with US sanctions on AI-related chips and computing, along with an algorithmic race to suppress dissent and critique in the information domain. War and business are intricately related in the west, and war is the first lever pulled when the economy stagnates critically or needs a boost. The US needs to abandon its neoconservative fantasies of hegemonic global empire and retreat gently into that good night, for there to be peace. Washington needs to negotiate in good faith with Russia, and begin the process of de-escalating its proxies in Ukraine, as well as in Palestine, and the Pacific. It needs to seek win-win cooperation in a multilateral order based on international law and mutual co-existence, not its own top-down “rules-based order”. It needs to respect the One China principle, end its interference in China’s affairs, and stop preparing and provoking war with China. However, the US ruling class is unwilling to do so. And it has only a few levers left to pull. The military one is the closest and most ready to hand. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”. Like a drunk at the bar after the final call – drunk with power – Washington is determined to go out with a fight. That fight could involve a nuclear first strike. Palestine has shown what it will try to get away with: brazen genocide with the whole world watching. The issue is no longer war or peace in Ukraine. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell sees Ukraine as a “unified field” of war with China. He revels in the possibility of a “magnificent symphony of death” in Asia. The coda, of course, will be a deafening fermata of silence across the entire planet. Unless we stop this insane march to war.

Write an article about: West tells Global South ‘you can’t be neutral’ in Ukraine war: You are either with us, or against us. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Annalena Baerbock, Antony Blinken, Dmytro Kuleba, Germany, Global South, neutrality, Non-Aligned Movement, Russia, Ukraine

The foreign ministers of the US, Germany, and Ukraine told the world at the Munich Security Conference, “Neutrality is not an option” in the West’s proxy war against Russia, implicitly criticizing the vast majority of Global South countries, which are independent. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) The foreign ministers of the United States, Germany, and Ukraine have told the world “you can’t be neutral” in NATO’s proxy war with Russia, recalling President George W. Bush’s infamous declaration, “You are either with us, or against us”. In doing so, these Western officials are implicitly criticizing the vast majority of the countries on Earth, which are in the Global South, and which have maintained strict neutrality over the war. In a joint event at the Munich Security Conference on February 18, Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock declared, “Neutrality is not an option, because then you are standing on the side of the aggressor”. Baerbock emphasized that “this is a plea we are also giving next week to the world again: Please take a side, a side for peace, a side for Ukraine, a side for the humanitarian international law, and these times this means also delivering ammunition so Ukraine can defend itself”. The German foreign minister’s comments were echoed by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. “As Annalena [Baerbock] said, there is no neutral position… There is no balance”, Blinken said, stressing, “You really can’t be neutral”. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba praised the West for “stand[ing] for principles and rules”, while implying that the Global South is barbaric and lawless. “We see an unprecedented unity of one part of the world that stands for principles and rules this world is based on, but we also see other parts of the world, some are neutral, which means effectively the support of Russia”, Kuleba said with disgust. Baerbock had previously made it clear that the West is waging war on Russia, declaring at the Council of Europe in January, “We are fighting a war against Russia”. The tone and context of the comments made by top Western officials at the Munich Security Conference on February 18 made it clear that they are angry with the Global South for refusing to join their proxy war. The foreign ministers of the US, Germany, and Ukraine told the world, “Neutrality is not an option” in the West’s proxy war against Russia. They were implicitly criticizing the Global South, which is neutral, and represents 6+ billion people. Full video: https://t.co/99Q5Y6GM66 pic.twitter.com/gBSQm3CsLd — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 20, 2023 A day before this discussion at the Munich Security Conference, French state media outlet France 24 published an article complaining that, “Over the past year, most Global South countries adopted a position of studied neutrality on the war in Ukraine”. In a deeply arrogant voice, the French state media outlet wrote dismissively that “what binds this diverse group [in the Global South] together is the quest for a ‘multipolar’ world order stacked against the ‘unipolar hegemony’ of the West”. It added smugly that this “also happens to be Russia’s favourite talking point”. This condescending talking point has been a consistent refrain coming from Western governments and media outlets, criticizing the Global South for not taking NATO’s side. The global population is roughly 8 billion people, and more than 6 billion live in countries that have been neutral in the Ukraine proxy war. These include the world’s most populous countries, such as: As Geopolitical Economy previously reported, two former US diplomats published an article in Newsweek in September admitting, “Nearly 90 Percent of the World Isn’t Following Us on Ukraine”. They wrote: While the United States and its closest allies in Europe and Asia have imposed tough economic sanctions on Moscow, 87 percent of the world’s population has declined to follow us. Economic sanctions have united our adversaries in shared resistance. Less predictably, the outbreak of Cold War II has also led countries that were once partners or non-aligned to become increasingly multi-aligned. This global divergence is especially clear when one looks at a map of which countries have imposed sanctions on Russia. These nations only represent a bit over 1 billion people: the United States, Canada, Britain, European Union, Australia, South Korea, and Japan (the last two of which have been militarily occupied by the US for decades). Russia commonly refers to this bloc as the “collective West”, and their comparatively wealth population as the “golden billion” that has benefited from the economic exploitation inherent in the imperialist world-system. The countries in yellow have sanctioned Russia. The countries in gray have not sanctioned Russia. pic.twitter.com/0md8fPxOoB — Ollie Vargas (@OllieVargas79) March 25, 2022 Geopolitical Economy previously cited an article published in March 2022 by British newspaper The Guardian, titled “Cold war echoes as African leaders resist criticising Putin’s war”, which lamented that “Many remember Moscow’s support for liberation from colonial rule, and a strong anti-imperialist feeling remains”. The publication noted with anger that most African nations were “calling for peace but blaming Nato’s eastward expansion for the war, complaining of western ‘double standards’ and resisting all calls to criticise Russia”. Today, almost all African countries are members of the Non-Aligned Movement, and are decidedly neutral. This Western narrative that Global South countries are not actually neutral goes back to the First Cold War. In 1961, leftist leaders of India, Ghana, Egypt, Indonesia, and Yugoslavia formed the Non-Aligned Movement. This bloc represented the majority of the world population and consisted of countries, largely in the Global South, that opposed colonialism and imperialism and did not want to participate in the cold war. They sought to build a truly multipolar world, not a bipolar one. Because the Non-Aligned Movement was led by socialists (India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Indonesia’s Sukarno, and Yugoslavia’s Josip Broz Tito), the United States and its cold war allies attacked the movement and claimed that being non-aligned really meant being a secret supporter of the Soviet-led communist bloc. The CIA backed a coup against Nkrumah in Ghana in 1966. The year before, the CIA sponsored a coup against Sukarno in Indonesia (and subsequently supported the genocide carried out by US-backed right-wing dictator Suharto, who killed between 1 and 3 million leftists). The United States also repeatedly tried to overthrow Nasser, but failed. Western imperialist powers have long adopted this George W. Bush-esque position, that any country that did not actively support them was against them. Ukraine itself had been an observer state in the Non-Aligned Movement. In 2010, the government of democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych voted to officially declare Ukraine non-aligned. But in February 2014, the United States sponsored a coup d’etat in Ukraine, which overthrew Yanukovych and installed a pro-Western regime. Soon after the violent putsch, Kiev officially dropped its non-aligned status and declared its intention to join the US-led NATO military alliance. A map of Non-Aligned Movement members (dark blue) and observer states (light blue) The misleading comments by Blinken, Baerbock, and Kuleba claiming the Global South is not actually neutral about Ukraine are objectively false. But this doesn’t mean that all of these Global South countries support Russia’s war. Many countries in the Global South have condemned the Russian invasion. On March 2, 2022, a week after Russia sent its troops into Ukraine, the majority of member states of the United Nations did vote to condemn the invasion, including many countries in the Global South. However, Eritrea, the DPRK, Syria, and Belarus voted against the resolution, and 35 member states abstained, including massive countries like China and India (which together have nearly 3 billion people), as well as Pakistan, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Algeria, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Mozambique, and Lao. Then in April, the General Assembly held another vote, this time to expel Russia from the UN Human Rights Council. There was less support for this resolution, with 93 votes in favor. 58 countries abstained, such as India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. 24 countries voted against the measure, including China, Iran, Algeria, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Ethiopia, Mali, Laos, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. URGENT? The UN General Assembly votes to suspend Russia's membership in the UN Human Rights Council @UN_HRC In favor: 93 Abstained: 58 Against: 24 pic.twitter.com/6EavdZJspc — UN News (@UN_News_Centre) April 7, 2022 The Western bloc wants the world to believe there are only two options: aligning with it, or opposing it. But most countries on Earth, representing the vast majority of the world’s population, in the Global South, truly are neutral. NATO is simply frustrated that 87% of the planet won’t join its war efforts.

Write an article about: In neocolonial rant, EU says Europe is ‘garden’ superior to rest of world’s barbaric ‘jungle’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

colonialism, EU, Europe, European Union, Josep Borrell, racism, Russia, Ukraine

EU foreign-policy chief Josep Borrell showed the West’s neocolonial mentality claiming “the world needs Europe” as a “beacon” and beautiful “garden” to civilize the barbarous “jungle” in the Global South. He also called for regime change to create a “post-Putin Russia.” The European Union’s top foreign-policy official showed how the colonialist mentality is still very much alive on the continent. EU foreign-policy chief Josep Borrell said “Europe is a garden,” which is “beautiful” and superior to the vast majority of the countries on Earth. On the other hand, he claimed, “Most of the rest of the world is a jungle, and the jungle could invade the garden.” Borrell argued that “the world needs Europe,” because it is a “beacon” that must civilize the rest of the world. The enlightened Western “gardeners have to go to the jungle,” he insisted, because if the supposed barbarians are not tamed, “the rest of the world will invade us.” Borrell delivered this overtly racist rant at the inauguration of the European Diplomatic Academy in Brussels on October 13. According to the official transcript, published at the EU website, Borrell said the following: Europe is a garden. We have built a garden. Everything works. It is the best combination of political freedom, economic prosperity and social cohesion that the humankind has been able to build – the three things together. And here, Bruges is maybe a good representation of beautiful things, intellectual life, wellbeing. The rest of the world – and you know this very well, Federica – is not exactly a garden. Most of the rest of the world is a jungle, and the jungle could invade the garden. The gardeners should take care of it, but they will not protect the garden by building walls. A nice small garden surrounded by high walls in order to prevent the jungle from coming in is not going to be a solution. Because the jungle has a strong growth capacity, and the wall will never be high enough in order to protect the garden. The gardeners have to go to the jungle. Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us, by different ways and means. Yes, this is my most important message: we have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. The EU foreign-policy chief failed to mention that, for more than 500 years, European colonialist powers have run the most violent empires in human history, overseeing mass genocides, racialized chattel slavery, ethnic cleansing, and constant wars. Instead, Borrell continued later in his remarks portraying Europe as a superior “beacon” of civilization: Believe me, Europe is a good example for many things. The world needs Europe. My experience of travelling around the world is that people look at us as a beacon. Why [do] so many people come to Europe? Are there flows of illegal or irregular migrants going to Russia? Not many. No, they are coming to Europe but for good reasons. Keep the garden, be good gardeners. But your duty will not be to take care of the garden itself but [of] the jungle outside. In the same speech, Borrell claimed Europe is superior because of its “institutions”: There is a big difference between Europe and the rest of the world – well, the rest of the world, understand me what I mean, no? – is that we have strong institutions. … The big difference between developed and not developed is not the economy, it is institutions. Here, we have a judiciary – a neutral, independent judiciary. Here, we have systems of distributing the revenue. Here, we have elections that provide a free for the citizens. Here, we have the red lights controlling the traffic, people taking the garbage. … The big difference between us and an important part of the rest of the world is that we have institutions. Despite his implications, countries across the Global South do indeed have independent judiciaries, tax services, free elections, traffic lights, and garbage collectors. But the EU’s top foreign-policy official apparently believes that the majority of the world’s population consists of illiterate knuckle-dragging cavemen. Borrell evidently could see that his comments were racist, so he cautiously added, “I cannot go to emerging countries and build institutions for them – they have to be built by them. Otherwise, it would be a kind of neo-colonialism.” But while he superficially rejected neocolonialism, Borrell’s remarks reflected a blatant neocolonialist mentality. And the EU foreign-policy chief’s use of the term “emerging countries” made it clear that his rant was aimed specifically at the formerly colonized nations in the Global South. In the same October 13 speech, Josep Borrell obliquely acknowledged that the West is fighting a new cold war against Russia and China. “Now, we are definitely out of the Cold War and the post-Cold War. The post-Cold War has ended with the Ukrainian war,” he said. Borrell made it clear that the EU’s goal is regime change in Moscow, to create a “post-Putin Russia” that can be integrated into the Western-dominated imperialist order. “After this war [in Ukraine], it will become a period of instability and we will have to build a new security order,” he implored. “How do we integrate Russia – the post-Putin Russia – in this world order is something that will put a lot of work for people thinking on diplomacy, and on how to practice and to implement it.” In the address, Borrell also praised US diplomat George Kennan, who was himself a staunch cold warrior and architect of the “containment” policy against the Soviet Union. Borrell called this moment a “time of exceptional change,” and said, “We live in a world of power politics. The rules-based system that we defend is challenged like never before.” “And we are certainly living also a ‘moment of creation’ of a new world. Because this war is changing a lot of things, and certainly it is changing the European Union. This war will create a different European Union, from different perspectives,” he added. In the entire speech, Borrell only once acknowledged criticism. “There are people who say that this war means the end for the European Union to have a foreign policy because we are following blindly the United States,” he conceded. But he insisted that this is false, and that Brussels is creating its own independent policies. Borrell’s remarks followed a similar address given the day before by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the EU Ambassadors Conference in Brussels. As Multipolarista reported, von der Leyen warned that China and Russia are “threats” in a “war for the future of the entire world.” The EU leader declared the China-Russia strategic partnership a “global challenge” to Western hegemony, and she called for weakening their influence in the Global South, cutting their access to raw materials, opposing Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, and expanding the EU. EU leader Ursula von der Leyen said China and Russia are "threats" to Western hegemony and the proxy war in Ukraine is "a war for the future of the entire world" She called to weaken their influence worldwide Full video: https://t.co/rLikCTRyhI Article: https://t.co/yxwgaBnT05 pic.twitter.com/YwtVpOg5K3 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 15, 2022 In his October 13 address, Josep Borrell boasted that the European Union had spent a lot time and resources pressuring countries around the world to vote at the United Nations the day before to oppose the incorporation of the former Ukrainian regions of Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia into the Russian Federation. “There was a lot of work behind it, a lot of outreach to many people in order to be sure that we were above the 140 line – which was the result of the first vote,” he bragged. But he complained that “too many” countries in the Global South refused to condemn Russia. “I have also to say that I am worried because there were too many abstentions,” Borrell lamented. “When more or less 20% of the world community decided not to support or not to reject the Russian annexation – for me, it is too many. It is too many.” When discussing the proxy war in Ukraine, Borrell also cavalierly touched on the possibility of nuclear war. The EU foreign-policy chief pledged that, if the conflict escalates to that degree, “the Russian army will be annihilated”: And then, there is the nuclear threat and Putin is saying he is not bluffing. Well, he cannot afford bluffing. And it has to be clear that the people supporting Ukraine and the European Union and the Member States, and the United Stated and NATO are not bluffing neither. And any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer, not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side that the Russian Army will be annihilated, and Putin should not be bluffing. This is a serious moment in the history, and we have to show our unity, and our strength and our determination. Complete determination. Borrell has repeatedly opposed attempts at brokering a peaceful, diplomatic settlement to the conflict in Ukraine. He instead publicly insists that the only solution is a military victory: “This war will be won on the battlefield.” Touched by the resilience, determination and hospitality of @ZelenskyyUA & @Denys_Shmyhal. I return with a clear to do list: 1. This war will be won on the battlefield. Additional €500 million from the #EPF are underway. Weapon deliveries will be tailored to Ukrainian needs. pic.twitter.com/Jgr61t9FfW — Josep Borrell Fontelles (@JosepBorrellF) April 9, 2022

Write an article about: Why does the US support Israel? A geopolitical analysis with economist Michael Hudson. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran, Israel, Michael Hudson, Middle East, oil, Saudi Arabia, West Asia

A geopolitical analysis of why the United States so strongly supports Israel: Economist Michael Hudson discusses with journalist Ben Norton. Why does the United States so strongly support Israel? Geopolitical Economy Report editor Ben Norton interviewed economist Michael Hudson to explore the reasons why Israel is such an important part of U.S. foreign policy and Washington’s attempt to dominate not only the region of the Middle East, but the entire world. Israel is an extension of U.S. geopolitical power in one of the most critically important regions of the world. In fact, it was current U.S. President Joe Biden, back in 1986, when he was a senator, who famously said that, if Israel didn’t exist, the United States would have to invent it: If we look at the Middle East, I think it’s about time we stop, those of us who support, as most of us do, Israel in this body, for apologizing for our support for Israel. There is no apology to be made. None. It is the best $3 billion investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region; the United States would have to go out and invent an Israel. I am with my colleagues who are on the floor of the Foreign Relations Committee, and we worry at length about NATO; and we worry about the eastern flank of NATO, Greece and Turkey, and how important it is. They pale by comparison… They pale by comparison in terms of the benefit that accrues to the United States of America. It goes without saying that the so-called Middle East, or a better term is West Asia, has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil and gas, and the entire world’s economic infrastructure relies heavily on fossil fuels. The planet is gradually moving toward new energy sources, which is needed to fight climate change, but fossil fuels are still absolutely critical to the global economy. And Washington’s goal has been to make sure that it can maintain steady prices in global oil and gas markets. But this is about something much bigger than just oil and gas. The U.S. military’s stated policy since the 1990s, since the end of the Cold War and the overthrow of the Soviet Union, is to try to maintain control over every region of the world. This was stated clearly in 1992 in the so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine. The U.S. National Security Council wrote: [The United States’] goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the reemergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies. These regions include Europe, East Asia, the Middle East/Persian Gulf, and Latin America. Consolidated, nondemocratic control of the resources of such a critical region could generate a significant threat to our security. Then, in 2004, the U.S. government published its National Military Strategy, in which Washington stressed that its goal was “Full Spectrum Dominance – the ability to control any situation or defeat any adversary across the range of military operations”. Historically, when it came to West Asia, the U.S. relied on a so-called “twin pillar” strategy. The west pillar was Saudi Arabia, and the east pillar was Iran. Until the 1979 revolution, Iran was governed by a shah, a dictatorial monarch who was backed by the United States and served U.S. interests in the region. However, following the 1979 revolution, the U.S. lost one of the pillars of its twin pillar strategy, and Israel became increasingly important for the United States to maintain control over this crucially strategic region. Many of the world’s top oil and gas producers are located in West Asia. Furthermore, some of the most important trading routes on Earth go through this region. It would be difficult to overstate how important Egypt’s Suez Canal is. It connects trade transiting from West Asia going into Europe, from the Red Sea into the Mediterranean. Around 30% of all of the world’s shipping containers pass through the Suez Canal. That represents around 12% of the total global trade of all goods. Then, directly south of the Suez Canal, where the Red Sea enters the Arabian Sea, there is a crucial geostrategic choke point known as the Bab al-Mandab Strait, off the coast of Yemen. There, more than 6 million barrels of oil pass through every single day. Historically, the United States has tried to dominate this region in order to maintain control of energy supplies and ensure these global trade routes that the globalized capitalist system is built on. As U.S. influence in the region has weakened in an increasingly multipolar world, Israel has become even more important for the United States to try to exercise hegemony in the region. One can see this clearly in the discussions over oil prices in OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which has essentially been expanded to OPEC+ to include Russia. Today, Saudi Arabia and Washington’s archenemy, Russia, play a key role in determining global oil prices. Historically, Saudi Arabia was a loyal U.S. proxy, but Riyadh has increasingly pursued a more non-aligned foreign policy. And a very big reason for that is that China is now the biggest trading partner of many of the countries in the region. For a decade, China has been the largest importer of oil and gas from the Persian Gulf, whereas U.S. oil imports peaked in 2005. Due to massive expansion of production and the shale boom in the 2010s, the United States established itself as one of the top three oil producers on Earth, reducing its need for crude from Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, through its global infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China is moving the center of world trade back to Asia. And the “road” in BRI is a reference to the New Silk Road. Can you guess which region is crucial in the New Silk Road and the BRI? Of course, it’s the Middle East – or, again, a better name is West Asia, and that term actually much better explains the geostrategic importance of this region, because it connects Asia to Europe. This explains why the United States has been so desperate to try to challenge the Belt and Road with its own attempts to build new trade routes. In particular, the U.S. seeks to make a trade route going from India into the Persian Gulf, and then up through Israel. So in all of these projects, Israel plays an important role, as an extension of U.S. imperial power in one of the most important regions of the world. That is why Biden said back in 1986 that if Israel didn’t exist, the U.S. would have to invent it. That is also why Biden repeated this in a White House meeting with Israel’s President Isaac Herzog on October 27, 2022: We’re also going to discuss the ironclad commitment – and this is, I’ll say this 5000 times in my career – the ironclad commitment the United States has to Israel, based on our principles, our ideas, our values; they’re the same values. And I have often said, Mr. President [Herzog], if there were not an Israel, we would have to invent one. And even as recently as October 18, 2023, Biden again repeated the same thing in a speech he made in Israel: “I have long said, if Israel didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it”. In that speech in 2023, Biden traveled to Israel in order to support the country as it was carrying out a brutal bombing campaign in Gaza, and ethnically cleansing Palestinians as part of what legal experts around the world have referred to as a “textbook case of genocide”. Top United Nations experts have warned that the Palestinian people are in danger of genocide by Israel. And the United States has steadfastly been supporting Israel, because, as Joe Biden said, Israel is an extension of U.S. imperial power in West Asia, and if it didn’t exist, Washington would have to invent it. Below follows a transcript of the interview that Geopolitical Economy Report editor Ben Norton conducted with economist Michael Hudson, author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. BEN NORTON: Michael, thanks for joining me today. We are speaking on November 9, and the latest death toll in the war in Gaza is that Israel has killed more than 10,000 Palestinians. The United Nations has referred to Gaza as a “graveyard for children”. More than 4,000 children have been killed. About 40% of the casualties are children. And the United States has continued to support Israel, not only diplomatically and politically, not only by, for instance, vetoing resolutions in the U.N. Security Council that call for a ceasefire, but furthermore, the U.S. has been sending billions of dollars to Israel. Not only the $3.8 billion that the U.S. always gives to Israel every year in military aid, but additionally, tens of billions of dollars more. So I am wondering if you could provide your analysis of why you think the U.S. is investing so many resources in supporting Israel while it is clearly committing war crimes. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, certainly it is supporting Israel, but it’s not supporting Israel because this is an altruistic act. To the United States, Israel is its landed aircraft carrier in the Near East. Israel is the takeoff point for America to control the Near East. And from the very time there was talk of creating an Israel, it was always that Israel was going to be an outpost, first of England, then of Russia, then of the United States in the Near East. And I can give you an anecdote. Netanyahu’s main national security advisor for the last few years has been Uzi Arad. I worked at the Hudson Institute for about five years, 1972 to ‘76. And I worked very closely with Uzi there. Uzi and I made two trips to Korea and Japan to talk about international finance. So we had a good chance to get to know each other. And on one trip, we stopped over from New York to San Francisco. And in San Francisco, there was a party or a gathering for people to meet us. And one of the U.S. generals came over and slapped Uzi on the back and said, you’re our landed aircraft carrier over there. We love you. Well, I could see Uzi feeling, tightening up and getting very embarrassed and didn’t really have anything to say. But the United States has always viewed Israel as just our foreign military base, not Israel. So of course, it wants to secure this military base. But when England first passed the act saying there should be in Israel the Balfour Declaration, it was because Britain wanted to control the Near East and its oil supplies. When Israel was formed in the United Nations, the first country to recognize it was Stalin and Russia, who thought that Russians were going to have a major influence over Israel. And then after that, of course, when Truman came in, the military immediately saw that America was replacing England as the chief of the Near East. And that was even after the fight, the overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953. So from the United States, it’s not Israel’s wagging the American tail, just the opposite. You mentioned that America is supporting Israel. I don’t think America is supporting Israel at all, nor do most Israelis, nor do most Democrats. America is supporting Netanyahu. It’s supporting Likud, not Israel. The majority of Israelis, certainly the non-religious Israelis, the core population of Israel since its founding, is opposing Likud and its policies. And so what really is happening is that to the United States, Netanyahu is the Israeli version of Zelensky in the Ukraine. And the advantage of having such an unpleasant, opportunist, and corrupt person as Netanyahu, who is under indictment for his bribery and corruption, is precisely that all of the attention now of the whole world that is so appalled by the attacks going on in Gaza, they’re not blaming the United States. They’re blaming Israel. They’re blaming Netanyahu and Israel for it, when it’s the United States that has been sending plane load after plane load of bombs, of guns. There are 22,000 machine guns, automatic guns, that are banned for sale in the United States that America is sending for the settlers to use on the West Bank. So there’s a pretense of good cop, bad cop. You have Mr. Blinken telling Netanyahu, when you bomb hospitals, make sure you do it according to the rules of war. And when you kill 100,000 Gaza children, make sure it’s all legal and in the war. And when you talk about ethnic cleansing and driving a population out, make sure that it’s all done legal. Well, of course, it’s not the rules of war, and there are war crimes being committed, but the United States is pretending to tell Netanyahu and the Israeli government, use smaller bombs. Be more gentle when you bomb the children in the hospital, when actually this is all for show. The United States is trying to say, well, we’re only there to give help to an ally. The whole world has noticed that the U.S. now has two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean, right off the Near Eastern shore, and it has an atomic submarine near the Persian Gulf. Why are they there? President Biden and Congress say we are not going to have American troops fighting Hamas in Gaza. We’re not going to get involved. Well, if the troops are not going to get involved, why are they there? Well, we know what the American planes are doing. Yesterday, they bombed yet another airport and a fuel depot in Syria. They’re bombing Syria. And it’s very clear that they’re there not to protect Israel, but to fight Iran. Again and again, every American newspaper, when it talks about Hamas, it says Hamas is acting on behalf of Iran. When it talks about Hezbollah, and is there going to be an intervention from Lebanon against northern Israel, they say Hezbollah are the Iranian puppets. Any time they talk about any Near Eastern leader, it’s really that all these leaders are puppets of Iran, just like in Ukraine and Central Europe, they talk about Hungary and other countries as all being puppets of Putin in Russia. Their focus, really – America isn’t trying to fight to protect Ukraine. It’s fighting for the last Ukrainian to be exhausted in what they’d hoped would be depleting Russia’s military. Well, it hasn’t worked. Well, the same thing in Israel. If the United States is pushing Israel and Netanyahu to escalate, escalate, escalate, to do something that at a point is going to lead Nasrallah to finally say, okay, we can’t take it anymore. We’re coming in and helping rescue the Gazians and especially rescue the West Bank, where just as much fighting is taking place. We’re going to come in. And that’s when the United States will then feel free to move not only against Lebanon, but all the way via Syria, Iraq, to Iran. What we’re seeing in Gaza and the West Bank today is only the catalyst, the trigger for the fact that the neocons say we are never going to have a better chance than we have right now to conquer Iran. So this is the point for the showdown, that if America is to control Near Eastern oil, and by controlling Near Eastern oil, by bringing it under the US control, it can control the energy imports of much of the world. And therefore, this gives American diplomats the power to cut off oil and gas and to sanction any country that tries to go multipolar, any country that tries to resist US unipolar control. BEN NORTON: Yeah, Michael, I think you’re really hitting such an important point, which is how this is one of the most geostrategic regions of the world, especially when it comes to hydrocarbons. The entire global economy is still very heavily reliant on oil and gas, and especially considering the US is not part of OPEC, and especially now considering that OPEC has really expanded essentially to OPEC+ and now includes Russia. That means that Saudi Arabia and Russia essentially can help control global oil prices. And we’ve seen this really, in fact, in the United States in the past few years with the rise of consumer price inflation. We saw that the Biden administration was concerned about gas prices, in particular in the lead up to the midterm elections. And the Biden administration has been releasing a lot of oil from the strategic oil reserves of the United States. And we can also see these kinds of statements in particular when we go back and look at the Bush administration. There are numerous people involved in the Bush administration and the so-called “War on Terror” who openly talked about how important it was for Washington to dominate this region. And I’m really thinking of, in 2007, when the top US general and NATO commander Wesley Clark famously disclosed that the Bush administration had made plans to overthrow seven countries in five years. And those were countries in North Africa and West Asia. Specifically, he revealed in an interview with journalist Amy Goodman on Democracy Now that Washington’s plans were to overthrow the governments of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finally Iran: WESLEY CLARK: About 10 days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me. And one of the generals called me and he said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second”. I said, “Well, you’re too busy”. He said, “No, no”. He says, “We’ve made the decision; we’re going to war with Iraq”. This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq, why?” He said, “I don’t know”. He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do”. So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no”. He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They’ve just made the decision to go to war with Iraq”. He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments”. And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail”. So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that”. He said, he reached over on his desk, he picked up a piece of paper, and he said, “I just got this down from upstairs”, meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office today, and he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran”. I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir”. I said, “Well, don’t show it to me”. And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” And he said, “Sorry, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!” AMY GOODMAN: I’m sorry, what did you say his name was? (laughs) WESLEY CLARK: I’m not going to give you his name. (laughs) AMY GOODMAN: So go through the countries again. WESLEY CLARK: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and then back to Iran. BEN NORTON: And since then, we of course saw the U.S. war on Iraq. We of course saw the proxy war in Syria that still goes on in many ways. The U.S. is occupying one-third of Syrian territory, including the oil rich areas. And Trump himself, President Donald Trump, boasted in a 2020 interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham that he was leaving U.S. troops in Syria to take the oil: DONALD TRUMP: And then they say, “He left troops in Syria”. You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They’re protecting the oil. LAURA INGRAHAM: We’re not taking the oil. We’re not taking it. DONALD TRUMP: Well, maybe we will, maybe we won’t. LAURA INGRAHAM: They’re protecting the facilities. DONALD TRUMP: I don’t know, maybe we should take it. But we have the oil. Right now, the United States has the oil. So they say, “He left troops in Syria”. No, I got rid of all of them, other than we’re protecting the oil; we have the oil. BEN NORTON: We also saw the U.S. impose sanctions on Lebanon, which contributed to hyperinflation and the destruction of the Lebanese economy. And that was largely because Hezbollah is part of the government, and the U.S. has been pressuring the Lebanese government to create a new government without Hezbollah. We also saw, of course, that NATO destroyed the Libyan state in 2011. Somalia also has a failed state. And Sudan was divided in no small part thanks to the U.S. and Israel supporting South Sudan’s separatist movement on ethno-religious lines, using religious sectarianism. So if you look at the list of countries that Wesley Clark named in 2006, the seven countries in five years, again, that was Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finally Iran; the only country that really has been able to maintain state stability, that has not been completely devastated by the United States, is Iran. Of course, it took longer than five years, but the U.S. was pretty successful. And of course Israel has played an important role in this U.S. goal to destabilize those governments in the region. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, let’s look and see how this was done. Remember after America was attacked on 9/11, there was a meeting at the White House, and everybody knew that the pilots were Saudi Arabians, and they knew that some of the pilots had been staying at the Saudi embassy in Los Angeles, I think, in the United States. But after 9/11, there was a cabinet meeting, and Rumsfeld said to the people there, look and find any link you can get to Iraq, forget Saudi Arabia, no problem, Iraq is the key. And he directed them to find it, and 9/11 became the excuse for attacking not Saudi Arabia, but Iraq, and going right on with it. Well, you needed a similar crisis in Libya. They said in Libya, there was some, I think, fundamentalists in the suburbs of one of the [cities], not the capital city, that were causing problems. And so you have to “protect” the innocent people from [Muammar Gadhafi], and you go in and grab all of their gold reserves, all of their money, and you take over the oil on behalf of France’s oil monopoly. Well, this is the role of the fighting in Gaza today. Netanyahu’s fight against Gaza is being used as the excuse for America moving its warships there, its submarines, and bombing, along with Israel, the Syrian airport so that the Syrians are not able to move weapons or any kind of military support either to Lebanon, to the west, or Iran, to the east. So it’s obvious that all of what we’re seeing is somehow to soften up public opinion for the fact that, well, just like we had to invade Iraq because of 9/11, we have to now finally fight and take out the oil refineries of Iran and their scientific institutes and any laboratories where they may be doing atomic research. And Iran realizes this. Last week, the Iranian press TV said that their defense minister says that if there’s any attack on Iran, whether by Israel or by anyone else, the U.S. and its foreign bases are going to be hit hard. Iran, Russia, China have all looked at the Gaza situation not as if it’s an Israeli action, but as if it’s the U.S. action. They all see exactly that it’s all about Iran, and the American press only says when it talks about Gaza or Hamas or Hezbollah or any other group, it’s always the Iranian tool so-and-so. They’re demonizing Iran in the same way that the neocons have demonized Russia to prepare for America declaring an undeclared war against Iran. And they may even declare war. Last night, on [November] 8, the Republicans had their presidential debate without Trump, and Nikki Haley said, you know, we’ve got to fight Iran, we’ve got to conquer it. And DeSantis of Florida said, yes, kill them all. He didn’t say who the them was. Was it Hamas? Was it everybody who lives in Gaza? Was it all of the Arabs in the Middle East? And we’re really seeing something very much like the Crusades here. It’s a real fight for who is going to control energy, because, again, the key, if you can control the world’s flow of energy, you can do to the whole world what the United States did to Germany last year by blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines. You can grind its industry to a halt, its chemical industry, its steelmaking industry, any of its energy-intensive industries, if countries do not agree to U.S. unipolar control. That’s why it wants to control these areas. Well, the wildcard here is Saudi Arabia. Well, in two days, I think you’re going to have the Iranian president visit Saudi Arabia, and we’re going to see what’s going to happen. But Saudi Arabia finds that while its role is key, Saudi Arabia could simply say we’re not going to export more oil until America pulls out of the Near East. But then all of Saudi Arabia’s monetary savings are invested in the U.S. The United States is holding the world hostage, not only by controlling its oil and gas and energy, but by controlling its finance. It’s like you have your money in a mafia bank or in Bankman-Fried’s cryptocurrency mutual fund. They can do whatever they want with it. So I think what would happen is it’s very unlikely that Saudi Arabia is ostensibly going to visibly break with the United States because the U.S. would hold it hostage. But I think what it would do would be what has been talked about ever since the 1960s, when similar problems came with Iran. And Iran’s ace in the hole has always been the ability to sink a ship in the Hormuz Strait, where the oil goes through a very narrow little strait, where if you sink a tanker there or a warship, it’s going to block all of the sea trade with Saudi Arabia. And that would certainly, number one, take Saudi Arabia off the hook for saying, we can’t help it. Of course, we’d love to export oil, but we can’t because the shipping lanes are all blocked because you, America, attacked Iran and they defended themselves by sinking the ship. So you can’t send your aircraft carriers and submarines to attack Iran. That’s very understandable. But the United States is causing a world crisis. Well, obviously, the United States knows that that’s going to happen because it’s been discussed literally for 50 years. Since I was at the Hudson Institute working on national security, it was being discussed what to do when Iran sinks the ship in the Strait of Hormuz. Well, the United States figures, okay, oil prices are going to go up. And if Iran fights back in this way, we then will have the power to do to the world what we did to Germany in 2022 when we cut off its oil. But in this case, we don’t take the blame. We’ll say, oh, we didn’t block the Saudi and Arab oil trade. It was that Iran that blocked it, and that’s why we’re going to bomb Iran, assuming that they can. So that, I think, is the contingency plan. And just as America had a contingency plan just like that, waiting for an opportunity, like 9-11, they needed a trigger, and Netanyahu has provided the trigger. And that’s why the United States has been backing Netanyahu. And of course, Iran says, well, we have the ability to really wipe out Israel. And in Congress, General Miley and the others have all said, well, we know that Iran could wipe out Israel. That’s why we have to attack Iran. But in attacking Iran, you send its missiles off to Israel, and again, Israel will end up being the Near Eastern equivalent of Ukraine. And that sort of is the plan, and I think a lot of Israelis see this, and they’re the ones who are worried and are opposing Netanyahu and trying to prevent him from triggering a whole set of military exchanges that Israel won’t be able to resist. And even though Iran, I’m sure they can bomb some places in Iran, but now that you have Russia, China, all supporting Iran through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, you’re having the lines being drawn very, very clearly. So it seems that this scenario is inevitable because Mearsheimer pointed out that it’s impossible to have a negotiated solution or settlement between Israel and Palestine. He said you can’t have a two-state solution because the Palestinian state is going to be like an Indian reservation in America, all sort of cut apart and isolated, not really a state. And you can’t have a single state because a single state is a theocratic state. It’s like, again, it’s like the United States in the Wild West in the 19th century. And I think the way to put it in perspective is to realize that what we’re seeing today in the attempt to split the world is very much like, excuse me, very much like what happened in the 12th and 13th century with the Crusades. BEN NORTON: Yeah, Michael, you raise a lot of very important points there. And I know you want to talk further about the Crusades and the historical analogy. And I think you made a really good point about the US empire standing in as the new Crusaders. But before you move away from the more contemporary political discussion, I wanted to highlight two very important points that you stressed. One is not only the hydrocarbon reserves in the Middle East, which are so important for the world economy and in the US attempt to maintain control over oil and gas supplies and in particular energy costs. There’s also an election coming up in 2024, and the US is concerned about gas prices and inflation. And of course, energy inputs are a key factor in inflation. But furthermore, this region is strategic because of trade routes. Of course, the Suez Canal, according to looking at data here from the World Economic Forum, 30% of the world’s shipping container volume transits through the Suez Canal and 12% of all global trade consists of goods that pass through the Suez Canal. And we saw this in 2021 when there was this big media scandal when a US ship got stuck in the Suez Canal. And this, of course, also came at the time when the world was coming out of the pandemic and there were all these supply chain shocks. So we can see how sensitive the global economy is to even small issues in the global supply chain. And when you talk about shipping routes, we’re not only talking about the Suez Canal, we’re also talking about in the Red Sea toward the south. You also have the Bab al-Mandab. This is a very important strait off of the coast of Yemen. And in the war in Yemen, starting in 2014 and 2015, a lot of the fighting back by the U.S. in this war was in the south, off of the Bab al-Mandab, because this is such an important strait where every single day millions of barrels of oil flow through this strait. And this also reminded me, Michael, you were talking about the historical context. And if you go back to 1956, Israel invaded Egypt. And why was that? Israel invaded Egypt because Egypt’s leftist president, Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal. And at that moment, what was very interesting is that the U.K. and France were strongly supporting Israel in this war against Egypt because they were concerned also about Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez. At that moment, the U.S. wasn’t as deeply pro-Israel as it later became. Of course, in 1967, in the Six-Day War, Israel attacked the neighboring Arab states and occupied part of Egypt, the Sinai, and then also what became Gaza. Israel occupied the Golan Heights of Syria, which remain illegally occupied Syrian territory today. And Israel occupied the West Bank, what we call the West Bank today. But another important detail about that is, after the 1967 war, Israel increasingly became much more of a U.S. ally. Whereas the first generation of Israeli leaders were much more, many of them were European, whereas the later generations of Israelis have been really American. I mean, someone like Netanyahu, he is an American. Netanyahu was raised in the United States. He went to high school in Philadelphia. He went to high school with Reggie Jackson, by the way. He spent his most formative years in the U.S. He went to college at MIT. He then worked in Boston, and he worked with many Republicans that he became friends with, like Mitt Romney, like Donald Trump. And then when he went back to Israel, he was sent to the U.S. to be a diplomat in the United States. So the new generation of Israeli leaders is much more American, essentially. And another detail you mentioned about Iran is so important, because, up until the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Iran of the Shah, the U.S.-backed monarchy, was such an important ally in the region. And in fact, Saudi Arabia and Iran were famously referred to as the twin pillars. Saudi Arabia was the west pillar and Iran was the east pillar. The U.S. used to try to dominate this region, of course, with the support of Israel as well. Well, with the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the U.S. lost that crucial east pillar, which meant that Israel became even more important from the perspective of the U.S. imperialism to maintain control over this region. So I just wanted to mention those details of the strategic importance of the trade routes, like the Bab al-Mandab Strait, like the Suez Canal, and also the fact that the Iranian Revolution fundamentally shifted U.S. policy in the region and made Israel even more important from the perspective of U.S. imperialism. And now we’re in a moment where, as you mentioned, the U.S. is even losing control over Saudi Arabia. So it’s losing both of its pillars, which is, again, why Washington is so desperate in propping up Israel, despite the fact that the entire region is completely against these settler-colonialist policies and these ethnic cleansing policies that Israel is carrying out right now, as the entire world is watching. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, to U.S. diplomats, what you call the support of Israel is really the support of the U.S.’ ability to militarily control the rest of the Near East. It’s all about oil. America is not giving all this money to Israel because it loves Israel, but because Israel is the military base from which the United States can attack Syria, Iraq, and Iran and Lebanon. So it’s a military base. And of course, it can frame this in terms of pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish policy, but this is only for the public relations view of the State Department. If American strategy is based on energy in the Near East, then Israel is only a means to this end. It’s not the end itself. And that’s why the United States needed to have an aggressive Israeli government. You can look at Netanyahu as being, in a way, a U.S. puppet, very much like Zelensky. Their positions are identical in their reliance on the United States against the majority of their own people. So you keep talking about America’s support of Israel. It’s not supporting Israel at all. It rejects the majority of Israelis. It supports the Israeli military, not the Israeli society or the culture, have nothing to do with Judaism at all. This is pure military politics, and that’s how I’ve always heard it discussed among the military and national security people. So you want to be careful not to be taken in by the cover story. There’s one other means of control, I think, that we should mention, and that is, you’ve had in the last month or so all sorts of statements by the United States that as soon as Russia conquers the Ukraine and solidifies its control, it’s going to bring up claims against war crimes, crimes against humanity, against Russia. America is trying to use the crooked court system. The International Criminal Court is a branch of the Pentagon in the State Department, and it’s the kangaroo court. The idea is that somehow the kangaroo court can give America judgments against Putin as they’ve declared him to be arrested anywhere he goes of people who respect the kangaroo court, and they can have all sorts of sanctions against Russian property elsewhere. Well, look at how on earth are they going to justify these claims of war crimes against Russia if in the view of what’s happening between Israel and Gaza right now, and in fact, the arms and the bombs that are being used against Gaza are U.S. bombs, U.S. arms. The U.S. is fueling it all. How on earth can the United States not accuse itself of war crimes on the basis of what it’s trying to accuse Russia of? Part of the splitting of the world that you’re going to see, whether or not the United States can actually bomb Iran, is going to be a whole setup of parallel courts and an isolation, not only of the United States, but as Europe is coming in. Basically, there’s a fight for who is going to control the world right now, and that’s why I mentioned the Crusades. I want to say I’ve been writing a history of the evolution of financial policy. I’ve done two volumes already, one on the Bronze Age Near East, …and forgive them their debts, and the other on classical antiquity, The Collapse of Antiquity. I’m now working on the third volume, which covers the Crusades to World War I. It’s really all about an attempt by Rome, that had hardly any economic power at all, to take over all of the five Christian bishoprics that were made. Constantinople was really the new Rome. That was the head of Orthodox Christianity. The emperor of Constantinople was really the emperor over the whole Christian world. It was followed by Antioch, Alexandria, and finally Jerusalem. The Crusades really began, before they attacked the Near East it began in the 11th century. And Rome was finally being attacked by the Norman armies that were coming in and grabbing parts of France and had moved into Italy. So the papacy made a deal with the Norman warlords, and it said, “We will give you the divine right to rule, we will recognize you as the Christian king, and we will excommunicate all of your enemies, but you have to pledge feudal fealty, loyalty to us, and you have to let us appoint your bishops and control the churches, which control most of your land, and you have to pay us tribute”. The papacy all during the 10th century was controlled by a small group of aristocratic families around Rome that treated the papacy just as they treat the local political mayor of a city or the local administrators. The church was just sort of run by a family. It had nothing to do with Christian religion at all. It was just, this is the church property, and one of our relatives, we’re always going to have as the pope. Well, the popes didn’t have any troops in the late 11th century, and so they got the troops by making a deal with the Normans, and they decided, okay, we’re going to have an ideal, we’re going to mount the Crusades, and we’re going to rescue Jerusalem from the “infidels”, the Muslims. Well, the problem is that Jerusalem didn’t need a rescue, because all throughout the medieval world, throughout Islam, no matter what the religion of the governing classes was, there was a religious tolerance, and that continued for hundreds of years under the Ottoman Empire. There was only one group that was intolerant, and that was the Romans, that said, “We have to control all of Christianity, in order to prevent these aristocratic Italian families from taking over again”. And so they mounted the Crusades, nominally against Jerusalem, but they ended up sacking Constantinople, and two centuries later, by 1291, the Christians lost in Acre. The whole Crusade against the Near East failed. I think you can see the parallel that I’m going to be drawing. So most of the Crusades were not fought against Islam, because Islam was too strong. The Crusades were fought against other Christians. And the fight of Roman Christianity was against the original Christianity for itself, as it existed over the last 10 centuries. Well, you’re having something like that today. Just as Rome appointed the Normans as feudal rulers, William the Conqueror in Sicily, the U.S. appoints Zelensky, supports Netanyahu, supports client oligarchs in Russia, supports Latin American dictators. So you have a U.S. view of the world that is not only unipolar, but in order to have unipolar U.S. control of the world, the U.S. has to be in charge of treating any foreign state, any foreign president as a feudal serf, basically, that they owe feudal loyalty to the United States’ sponsors. And just as you had the Inquisition formed in the 12th century, really, to enforce this obedience to Rome as opposed to independent southern France, and independent Italy, and Arab science in Spain, you have today the U.S. using the National Endowment for Democracy, and all of the organizations controlled by Victoria Nuland with her cookies, to support things. Well, you’re having the whole strategy of the Roman takeover, how it was going to take over other countries, how it was going to prevent other countries from becoming independent of Rome, is almost sentence for sentence what you get in American national security reports, how to control other countries. And that’s really the fight that we’re seeing there. And against that, you’re finding the fight of other countries, the global majority. But in this case, whereas Constantinople was looted in 1204 and sort of destroyed by the Fourth Crusade, Russia, and China, and Iran and the other countries have not been looted. The only thing that the United States can do right now is it’s setting up this military plan to attack Iran. What is the role going to be of, for instance, India? The attack on Iran and on oil is at the same time an attack on the Chinese-led Belt and Road Initiative, the whole attempt to control transportation, not only oil, but transportation by the global majority for each other’s mutual growth, mutual gain, mutual trade. And the United States is trying to have an alternative plan for all of this that would run from India, essentially largely through Israel, and making a cut right across Gaza, which is one of the big problems that are being discussed now, to the Israeli control of Gaza, which would control its offshore oil and gas. So you’re having the wild cards in the U.S. plan, India, Saudi Arabia, what will it do, and Turkey, because Turkey also has an interest in this oil and gas. And if the Islamic countries decide that they’re really under attack, and this attack by the Christian West against Islam is really a fight to the death, then Turkey will join with Saudi Arabia and with all of the other countries, the Shiites, and the Sunnis, and the Alawites will join together and say, what we have in common is the Islamic religion. That is really going to be essentially the extension of America’s fight against China and Russia. So what we’re seeing, I’m going to try to summarize now, what we’re really seeing is having fought Russia to the last Ukrainian, and threatening to fight Iran to the last Israeli. The United States is trying to send arms to Taiwan to say, wouldn’t you like to fight to the last Taiwanese against China? And that’s really the U.S. strategy all over the world. It’s trying to fuel other countries to fight wars for its own control. That’s how Rome used the Norman armies to conquer southern Italy, England, and Yugoslavia. Israel, and what is in the news over the whole attacks in Gaza, is only the opening stage, the trigger for this war, just as the shooting in Sarajevo started World War I in Serbia started everything. BEN NORTON: Well, you raised so many interesting points, Michael, and I think your analysis is very fresh and unique and very insightful. I wish we had more time to go into some of these topics, but we’ve already been speaking for about an hour. So I think we’re going to wrap up here. But I do want to thank you, Michael, for joining us. And of course, we’ll be back very soon for more analysis. For people who are interested, I actually have interviewed Michael. I did an interview recently on classical antiquity, and Rome and Greece. And he has also written about the history of debt up through the creation of Christianity in his book And Forgive Them Their Debts. And now he is working on this political, economic, materialist history of the Crusades. MICHAEL HUDSON: I didn’t realize when I began the book in the 1980s, drafting it, I didn’t realize how critical the Roman papacy was, and how similar it was to the State Department, and CIA, and the blob today in its plans for world conquest. BEN NORTON: Well, I’m sure in the future we will have many opportunities to discuss that research. Of course, for people who want to get more of Michael’s very important analysis, you should check out the show that he co-hosts here with friend of the show, Radhika Desai, and that is Geopolitical Economy Hour. If you go to our website, geopoliticaleconomy.com, or if you go to our YouTube channel, you can find a playlist with all of the different episodes of Geopolitical Economy Hour. So thanks again, Michael, and we’ll definitely have you back very soon. MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s good to be here. Thank you.

Write an article about: US blew up Nord Stream pipelines connecting Russia to Germany, journalist Seymour Hersh reports. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

CIA, George Friedman, Germany, Joe Biden, Mike Pompeo, NATO, Ned Price, Nord Stream, Norway, Russia, Seymour Hersh, Stratfor, US Navy, Victoria Nuland, Zbigniew Brzezinski

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh reported the US government destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines that delivered Russian gas to Germany. The Biden administration approved the CIA operation, which used explosives and Navy divers, with help from NATO member Norway. Renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has reported that the US government destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines that delivered Russian gas to Germany. The pipelines were blown up with explosives in a covert operation that was planned by the CIA and carried out by divers from the US Navy, Hersh reported. NATO member Norway also played a key role, using its Navy and Secret Service to assist in the attack. The remotely triggered explosives were placed on the Nord Stream pipelines in June 2022, during NATO military exercises in the Baltic Sea. They were subsequently blown up on September 26. The operation was reportedly approved by US President Joe Biden and overseen by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland. Hersh’s report is based on an internal “source with direct knowledge of the operational planning”. The source admitted that the sabotage of the pipelines constituted “an act of war”. Seymour Hersh is one of the most highly respected journalists in the world. He won the Pulitzer Prize, the top award in Western journalism, for his reporting on US war crimes in Vietnam. He has spent decades building up sources inside the US government. Hersh has also earned accolades for exposing US atrocities and cover-ups targeting Iraq, Iran, and Syria. The Biden White House and CIA both vehemently denied Hersh’s report on the Nord Stream pipelines, claiming it is false. According to US law, the White House and CIA can lie to the public about the existence of covert operations. In his own reporting on joint CIA-NATO sabotage operations inside Russian territory, prominent journalist and US military veteran Jack Murphy noted, “Under Title 50 of the U.S. Code which authorizes covert actions, the CIA can lawfully deny the existence of these operations to everyone except the so-called ‘Gang of Eight’” – a reference to top level US Congressional officials. Hersh explained in his report that the Biden administration decided to carry out the Nord Stream sabotage operation using the CIA and Navy divers, not US Special Operations forces, to avoid the legal obligation to notify the Gang of Eight. The Pulitzer prize-winning journalist published the bombshell article at his personal account on the blogging website Substack on February 8. In an accompanying piece, Hersh explained that he decided to use Substack because he has faced a long history of censorship from the mainstream corporate media outlets he has worked with, which litter his reports “with Pentagon denials” and act in “their publishers’ economic interests”. After Nord Stream was sabotaged, many US media outlets absurdly accused Russia of destroying its own pipelines. Hersh pointed out that these reports were not organic; they were “spurred on by calculated leaks from the White House”. While the US press fueled these outlandish conspiracy theories, the German media reported that the CIA had warned Berlin weeks before about possible attacks on gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea. Reuters also revealed that a reconnaissance jet from the US Navy flew near the Nord Stream wreckage just hours after the explosion. According to Hersh, the Biden administration’s meetings planning to destroy Nord Stream began in December 2021 – more than two months before Russia invaded Ukraine. The CIA developed the sabotage strategy by early 2022, before Russia sent in its troops on February 24, 2022. As Geopolitical Economy Report previously noted, President Biden personally threatened on February 7, 2022 that, “If Russia invades” Ukraine, “then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it”. Under Secretary of State Nuland made similar comments in a press conference on January 27, 2022, stating, “With regard to Nord Stream 2, we continue to have very strong and clear conversations with our German allies, and I want to be clear with you today: If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” CIA analyst turned State Department spokesman Ned Price used the exact same prepared phrase a day before, telling NPR, “I want to be very clear: if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward”. A month before Russia invaded, the neoconservative 3rd in command of the State Dep't, Victoria Nuland (main architect of the 2014 coup in Ukraine), threatened: “I want to be clear with you today: If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward” pic.twitter.com/nuX1ChSC51 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022 According to Hersh, the sabotage operation was carried out by divers from the US Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center, which is located in Florida’s Panama City. They put explosives on all four pipelines that make up Nord Stream. The Nord Stream system consists of two main pipelines, each of which has two smaller pipelines, known as Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2. The attack destroyed three of the four. Immediately after the attack, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken gloated, “Ultimately this is also a tremendous opportunity. It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy… That’s very significant, and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come”. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines: "It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy" "We've significantly increased our [gas] production… We’re now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe" pic.twitter.com/vS9SgDUd2i — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022 According to Seymour Hersh’s report, the “Norwegians were key” in the attack on Nord Stream. The US used NATO member Norway as its base of operations. Hersh noted that “the U.S. military has vastly expanded its presence inside Norway” in recent years, using the Scandinavian nation to spy on Russia. Every year, in June, NATO holds military exercises in the Baltic Sea known as Baltic Operations 22, or BALTOPS 22. During these exercises, off the coast of Denmark’s Bornholm Island, NATO divers practiced placing mines, tracking them, and destroying them. After the trap had been placed on Nord Stream in June, the Norwegian navy followed US orders and dropped a sonar buoy to set off the C4 explosives on September 26, Hersh wrote. Norway even surrendered its sovereignty to the US military in 2022, passing the Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA), which makes Washington the legal authority in northern parts of the country, preventing the local government from prosecuting US soldiers. Current NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was himself Norway’s former prime minister. Hersh observed that Stoltenberg is an aggressive war hawk who has collaborated with US intelligence agencies, and his source referred to the NATO chief as “the glove that fits the American hand”. Hersh added: “The Norwegians may have had other interests as well. The destruction of Nord Stream—if the Americans could pull it off—would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe”. What Hersh did not mention in his article is another striking detail: Just hours after Nord Stream was sabotaged, NATO members Norway, Denmark, and Poland announced the official opening of a new natural gas pipeline, the Baltic Pipe. The Baltic Pipe was built with funding from the European Union, and was meant expressly as an alternative to Nord Stream. Since the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up, Norway has replaced Russia as Europe’s largest supplier of pipeline gas. Norwegian gas shipments to Germany in particular have reached record highs. In 2021, Norway had provided Germany with less then 20% of its gas supply. By 2022, that figure had shot up to 33%. Meanwhile, the United States has also become the world’s largest liquified natural gas (LNG) exporter (tied with Qatar). European imports made up the “lion’s share” of US LNG exports in 2022, quickly replacing Asia as the new top market. In its move away from cheap Russian pipeline gas, Europe imported record amounts of much more expensive LNG in 2022, enriching fossil fuel corporations and importers. In a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Russia on January 26, 2023, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland declared with pride, “I am, and I think the administration is, very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea”. 3rd in command of the US State Dept, Ukraine coup architect Victoria Nuland, told Republican Senator Ted Cruz this January 26: “I am and I think the administration is very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea” pic.twitter.com/pfLpzZlldY — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 9, 2023 Nuland was responding to questions from Republican Senator Ted Cruz. Like Cruz, Nuland is a hard-line neoconservative. Nuland was a key figure in the violent US-backed coup in 2014 that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral government and installed a pro-Western regime. Another high-profile neoconservative politician in Europe, Radek Sikorski, the former foreign minister and defense minister of Poland, expressed his gratitude to Washington one day after the attack on Nord Stream. “Thank you, USA,” Sikorski tweeted, sharing a photo of the wreckage in the Baltic Sea, as the pipelines leaked environmentally destructive gas into the atmosphere. Before Nord Stream was physically attacked, the United States had waged economic warfare against the pipelines. The US government had sanctioned companies involved in the project, and even repeatedly threatened to impose sanctions on German firms. Due to US pressure, Nord Stream 2 was never officially opened, even after it was completed in September 2021, following years of construction and billions of dollars of investment from various European companies. In 2020, Donald Trump’s CIA Director turned Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pledged that the US government would “do everything we can” to stop Nord Stream 2. He said the pipeline was “dangerous” and a “threat”, boasting, “We’re the toughest administration ever on Russia”. After US Secretary of State Blinken called the attacks on Nord Stream a "tremendous opportunity" (3 times), Canada's Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly echoed: "We have increased our production" and "exported to the US for it to be sent to Europe" She advertised a new LNG facility pic.twitter.com/Mi5lcbppid — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022 Nord Stream 1, which was opened in 2011, under the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, provided Germany with a cheap, plentiful source of natural gas. This concerned the United States, which has long worried that German economic integration with Russia would challenge Washington’s hegemony. US imperial strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor and oversaw the CIA proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, warned of the danger of a German-Russian alliance in his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard”. A “Russo-German or a Russo-French flirtation” would come at “the detriment of Europe’s transatlantic connection with America”, Brzezinski wrote, emphasizing that preventing “the emergence of a dominant and antagonistic Eurasian power remains central to America’s capacity to exercise global primacy”. As the website UnHerd noted, another prominent US imperial strategist, George Friedman, wrote in 2010 that “the mere possibility that [Russia] might collaborate with Europe and particularly Germany opens up the most significant threat in the decade, a long-term threat that needs to be nipped in the bud”. Friedman served as chair of Stratfor, a private intelligence company that is so closely linked to US spy agencies that it is popularly known as the “shadow CIA”. In a 2015 speech, Friedman stated clearly: “The primordial interest of the United States, over which, for a century, we have fought wars — the First, Second, and Cold War — has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united they are the only force that could threaten us, and to make sure that that doesn’t happen”. US imperial strategist and ex chair of "shadow CIA" Stratfor, George Friedman, said in 2015: "The primordial interest of the U.S., over which for a century we have fought wars — the First, Second, and Cold War — has been [to sabotage] the relationship between Germany and Russia" pic.twitter.com/Huhaje2HOE — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 11, 2023

Write an article about: South Koreans protest US military drills simulating war with North. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, DPRK, Korea, Moon Jae-in, North Korea, podcast, Russia, South Korea, THAAD, Yoon Suk-yeol

South Koreans held huge protests against the US military and its largest joint war exercises in years, simulating attacks on the DPRK (North Korea) and the assassination of its leadership. South Koreans held huge protests against the US military and its largest joint war exercises in years, simulating attacks on the DPRK (North Korea) and the assassination of its leadership. Multipolarista spoke with Echo (Hyunsook Elizabeth Cho) and Colleen Moore from the peace groups Women Cross DMZ and Korea Peace Now to discuss the mass movement against US militarization and imperialism.

Write an article about: NATO’s 2022 plan declares second cold war on Russia and China. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Cold War Two, Finland, G7, INF, Jens Stoltenberg, King Felipe VI, NATO, new cold war, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia, Sweden, Turkey

NATO’s 2022 “strategic concept,” its first new plan since 2010, declares Russia a “threat” and China “systemic challenge.” It demonizes the Eurasian powers as “authoritarian actors” and “strategic competitors,” essentially declaring a second cold war to maintain Western hegemony. The US-led NATO military alliance has published a historic new plan outlining its goals. The document, officially titled the 2022 “Strategic Concept,” is the first such blueprint NATO has released since 2010. The 2022 Strategic Concept is essentially a call for a new cold war on both Russia and China. In the document, NATO condemned Russia and China as “authoritarian actors” and “strategic competitors” that pose “systemic challenges.” NATO referred to the Russian Federation specifically as “the most significant and direct threat.” It also claimed China “challenge[s] our interests, security and values” and “strives to subvert the rules-based international order.” The plan made it clear that the US-led military cartel is very concerned about the growing Eurasian alliance between Beijing and Moscow. “The deepening strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules-based international order run counter to our values and interests,” NATO wrote. The document euphemistically refers to this new cold war climate as an “environment of strategic competition.” NATO leaders at the 2022 Madrid summit The 2022 Strategic Concept was adopted unanimously by the leaders of NATO member states in a summit in Madrid, Spain in late June. NATO briefly summarized the plan stating that it “identifies Russia as the most significant and direct threat to Allied security, addresses China for the first time and includes other challenges like terrorism, cyber and hybrid.” Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said “NATO’s new Strategic Concept is the blueprint for the Alliance in a more dangerous and competitive world.” The Madrid summit showed how the US-led military cartel is expanding, and not just in Europe, but also in the Pacific region. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg meets with Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida at the Madrid summit on June 29 Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand – all of which are very far from the North Atlantic region – attended the NATO summit for the first time. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg meets with Korea’s President Yoon Suk-yeol on June 30 NATO member Turkey also revealed that it had reached an agreement with Sweden and Finland to allow the countries to join the alliance. (Finland shares a border with Russia, and in World War Two it allied with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union.) After the Madrid summit, NATO boasted that it had agreed to “the biggest overhaul of Allied collective defence and deterrence since the Cold War.” The US-led cartel announced more common funding, and said member states agreed to increase their national military spending to 2% or more of GDP. NATO promised to increase military support not only to Ukraine, but also to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Moldova. The Madrid summit came just one day after a meeting of the G7, the group of seven wealthy Western countries and Japan. This brought together the leaders of the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and Japan, as well as the European Union, in the Bavarian Alps from June 26 to 28. Like the NATO conference, the G7 summit was clearly aimed at coordinating tactics in a new cold war to weaken Russia and China. At that meeting, the G7 pledged $600 billion in spending on public-private partnerships to challenge Beijing’s global Belt and Road Initiative. The 2022 G7 summit in Germany While dubbing Russia its top “threat” and China a “systemic challenge” and “strategic competitor,” NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept portrays the second cold war that it is waging as a supposed battle between “democracy” and “authoritarianism.” “Pervasive instability, rising strategic competition and advancing authoritarianism challenge the Alliance’s interests and values,” the US-led military cartel wrote on the opening page of the plan. “Authoritarian actors challenge our interests, values and democratic way of life,” it added. In addition to focusing on Russia and China, the Strategic Concept portrayed Iran, Syria, and North Korea as threats. The document asserted that NATO exists to “safeguard our freedom and democracy” and is based on “shared democratic values,” in order to protect a “rules-based international order.” Left completely unmentioned was that numerous authoritarian regimes are currently members of NATO, including Turkey, Hungary, and Poland. Portugal’s former fascist dictatorship was likewise a founding member of NATO in 1949. NATO’s insistence that it is supposedly dedicated to protecting democracy, and not US hegemony, is especially ironic considering that the Madrid summit prominently featured Turkey’s autocratic leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey’s authoritarian leader Erdogan at the Madrid summit on June 28, signing an agreement to let Sweden and Finland join Western officials’ constant refrain at the Madrid summit that NATO exists to defend democracy was similarly undermined by the fact that Sweden and Finland refused to hold popular referenda on membership, meaning their people had no voice in the process and no opportunity to vote on whether or not they think joining the US-led military cartel is a good idea. NATO’s democratic window dressing was even more transparently contradicted by the opening of the summit on June 28, which featured a “special address” by Spain’s King Felipe VI. “The long-standing global struggle between tyranny and democracy is as relevant as ever,” Spain’s unelected hereditary monarch declared, without a hint of irony. “Great power competition is everywhere,” he added, obliquely referring to the new cold war on Russia and China. Later that night, NATO noted on its program that King Felipe VI hosted a “Royal Gala Dinner” at the “Royal Palace.” The paradoxical and hypocritical symbolism of the summit was striking, given the ubiquitous presence of the crown and the Spanish coat of arms, both representing the monarchy, on the official logo NATO used for its Madrid summit. These anti-democratic symbols appeared behind speakers as they waxed poetic about non-Western “authoritarianism.” Spain’s King Felipe VI introduces NATO’s Madrid Summit on June 28, 2022 In the 2022 Strategic Concept, NATO claimed, “Authoritarian actors challenge our interests, values and democratic way of life.” “They interfere in our democratic processes and institutions and target the security of our citizens through hybrid tactics, both directly and through proxies,” the document continued, referencing the Russiagate conspiracy theory, which despite being thoroughly debunked lives on in NATO’s rhetoric. In the plan, the US-led military cartel also emphasized its commitment to continue expanding. “NATO’s enlargement has been a historic success,” it insisted, underlining, “We reaffirm our Open Door policy.” NATO reaffirmed its promise to add former Soviet states Ukraine and Georgia as members, writing, “We reaffirm the decision we took at the 2008 Bucharest Summit and all subsequent decisions with respect to Georgia and Ukraine.” The US-led military cartel also called to deepen collaboration with Bosnia and Herzegovina. It similarly emphasized its close alliance with the European Union, describing it as a “unique and essential partner,” adding, “NATO and the EU play complementary, coherent and mutually reinforcing roles.” The 2022 Strategic Concept described NATO as a “defensive alliance,” despite its offensive wars on Libya in 2011, Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, and Yugoslavia in the 1990s. NATO claimed it has “three core tasks: deterrence and defence; crisis prevention and management; and cooperative security.” The US-led military cartel hinted it is ready for World War III if deemed necessary, underscoring that it is prepared for “high-intensity, multi-domain warfighting against nuclear-armed peer-competitors.” The Strategic Concept emphasized its firm commitment to nuclear weapons, describing them as unnegotiable: “As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.” It added that its “posture is based on an appropriate mix of nuclear, conventional and missile defence capabilities, complemented by space and cyber capabilities.” NATO accused Russia of “violations and selective implementation of its arms control obligations and commitments.” It did not mention that it is the US government that has unilaterally killed numerous arms control agreements with Moscow. In 2019, the Donald Trump administration withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF). Nobel Peace Prize-winning group the International Campaign on Nuclear Weapons called the unilateral US withdrawal “an irresponsible move that opens the path for a new nuclear arms race” and that “puts Europe (and the world) at risk.” While NATO blamed Russia, the International Campaign on Nuclear Weapons stated clearly, “Trump has fired the starting pistol on Cold War II. Only this one could be bigger, more dangerous, and the world may not be so lucky this time around.” Similarly, the 2022 Strategic Concept described Russia’s military operation in Ukraine as a “war of aggression” that “has shattered peace.” It failed to mention that there has not been peace in Ukraine since a 2014 US-sponsored coup violently overthrew the country’s democratically elected government, setting off a civil war that caused at least 14,000 deaths by the end of 2021, according to the United Nations. The US-led military cartel claimed “NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to the Russian Federation,” although the alliance has surrounded Moscow with hostile military bases and repeatedly expanded right up to its borders. A map of NATO expansion

Write an article about: UK refuses to admit Saudi Arabia is authoritarian, while condemning China and Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Britain, China, Liz Truss, Poland, Russia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, UK, United Kingdom

While demonizing China and Russia as “threats” to “democracy,” British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss refused to admit that Saudi Arabia is authoritarian, declined to condemn the monarchy’s execution of 81 people in one day, and would not acknowledge a single human rights abuse. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss refused to admit that Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian regime and would not acknowledge a single human rights abuse that the Gulf monarchy has committed, repeatedly evading questions by a member of parliament. She even declined to condemn Saudi Arabia’s execution of 81 people on one day. The top UK diplomat claimed “our overall objectives [are] promoting freedom and democracy around the world,” and she boasted of a global “Network of Liberty” being built by Britain. But at the same time, Truss praised the authoritarian Persian Gulf monarchies as key “partners” and “important allies of the United Kingdom.” She even noted that the UK is negotiating a trade deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). While celebrating the Saudi dictatorship, the British foreign secretary demonized China, Russia, and Iran as authoritarian, calling them “malign actors” and “threats” to so-called Western democracies. When pressed, Truss admitted that this clear double standard is rooted in economics, and specifically the fossil fuel industry. “What I’m focused on is making sure that we are dealing with the major threats to the world,” she said. “The number one threat we’re dealing with at the moment is the threat from Russia. In order to do that, we need to make sure that we have alternative energy sources. One of the key sources of energy is the Gulf region.” Liz Truss made these comments in response to questions from the UK Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, which held a hearing on June 28 to discuss the work of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. In the meeting, a member of parliament asked Truss seven times to name a human rights concern that she raised with a leader of a Gulf monarchy. She was unable to identify a single one, evading the questions. And the Saudi monarchy was not the only autocratic regime that Truss praised. While attacking China, Russia, and Iran for supposed authoritarianism, Truss reaffirmed Britain’s steadfast support for the dictatorship in Rwanda and the far-right authoritarian regime in Poland. “Of course, the United Kingdom and Rwanda have a very close relationship, which the Foreign Office is responsible for,” she boasted. “Rwanda is a country where we are building a series of partnerships with Rwanda on a number of issues,” Truss added. Rwanda’s authoritarian leader Paul Kagame has governed the country with an iron fist for more than two decades, thanks to staunch Western support. Truss also boasted of the UK’s close partnership with Poland, which has an authoritarian far-right government. When discussing the need to expand military spending and invest in more weapons in order to fight Russia, the British foreign secretary proudly noted, “We’re also working on this with our allies and partners, say, for example, Poland, who we have a defense agreement with.” Even mainstream Western media outlets, like the UK government’s own BBC, have acknowledged that Poland, an EU and NATO member, is authoritarian. While praising the authoritarian Western-backed regimes in Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, and Poland, Truss criticized the “geopolitical efforts by malign actors,” which she identified as Russia and China. She referred to both Eurasian nations as “key threats,” and called for strengthening and expanding NATO, including into the Pacific (very far from the North Atlantic region). “Russia is our number one immediate threat, although I do believe that in the long term we should be very, very concerned about China,” Truss said. “NATO needs to be more actively looking at the threat from China,” she emphasized. This June 28 parliamentary hearing was by no means the only time that British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has celebrated the Saudi monarchy as an ally against Russia. On March 23, Truss tweeted that she had spoken with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud, a member of the royal family, about “Russia’s egregious use of violence in Ukraine” and the importance of a coordinated “humanitarian response.” Truss made no mention of the 81 people who were executed by the Saudi monarchy on March 12, less than two weeks before their friendly call. Spoke to Saudi Arabia’s @FaisalbinFarhan. The UK is committed to working with international partners to call out Russia’s egregious use of violence in Ukraine and to support the humanitarian response. It is vital that the @UN speaks with one voice. pic.twitter.com/7vU4ZB9dbz — Liz Truss (@trussliz) March 23, 2022 Even Human Rights Watch (HRW), which is notorious for its extreme pro-Western bias, loudly condemned Riyadh’s mass execution, noting, “Rampant and systemic abuses in Saudi Arabia’s criminal justice system suggest it is highly unlikely that any of the men received a fair trial.” HRW pointed out that 41 of those executed were members of the Shia Muslim minority, “who have long suffered systemic discrimination and violence by the” Saudi regime. And on March 2, just three weeks before Truss’ call, HRW reported that a “Saudi man who was 14 at the time of his alleged crime and whose previous death penalty conviction was overturned by the Saudi Supreme Court was sentenced to death again.” Saudi authorities’ execution of 81 men on March 12, 2022 was its largest mass execution in years. Rampant and systemic abuses in Saudi Arabia’s criminal justice system suggest it is highly unlikely that any of the men received a fair trial. https://t.co/MV56iKyBP1 pic.twitter.com/gzpudT0iI3 — Human Rights Watch (@hrw) March 15, 2022 On February 25, a day after Russia invaded Ukraine, Truss tweeted that she discussed the issue with representatives of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Poland, and Hungary, all of which have authoritarian governments. Have spoken to nations across the world today including Poland, Saudi Arabia, UAE, China, Estonia, Hungary and USA. ?????????????? The UK is clear, all members of the UN should stand up for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. ?? — Liz Truss (@trussliz) February 25, 2022 In the June 28 parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Labour MP Chris Bryant grilled Liz Truss for four minutes over the British government’s support for the Saudi monarchy. A transcript of their heated exchange follows below: CHRIS BRYANT: You were talking about authoritarian regimes earlier, and you have said that the UK should be a robust counterweight to authoritarian regimes, and that we are ending our dependency on authoritarian regimes for energy. How would you describe the Gulf states? LIZ TRUSS: I would describe the Gulf states as partners of the United Kingdom. We’re currently negotiating a trade deal with the GCC. Now is every country that we work with exactly in line with United Kingdom policy on everything? No, they’re not. But they are important allies of the United Kingdom. CHRIS BRYANT: Hang on, Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, no? Yeah? LIZ TRUSS: I, what I would say, is that – CHRIS BRYANT: Is he responsible? LIZ TRUSS: Saudi Arabia is an important partner of the United Kingdom. CHRIS BRYANT: 81 executions, all on one day in Saudi Arabia. And you don’t think that that’s an authoritarian regime? LIZ TRUSS: What I’m focused on is making sure that we are dealing with the major threats to the world. The number one threat we’re dealing with at the moment is the threat from Russia. In order to do that, we need to make sure that we have alternative energy sources. One of the key sources of energy is the Gulf region. We’re not dealing in a perfect world. We’re dealing in a world where we need to make difficult decisions. And I think it is right that we build that closer trading relationship with the Gulf states. CHRIS BRYANT: If a country is an authoritarian regime, it’s fine to do business with it as long as the authoritarianism is only within its own borders, is that right? LIZ TRUSS: What we’re facing with Russia is a regime that is actively seeking to invade sovereign nations and create a greater Russia, recreate the former Soviet Union. What we’re seeing with China – CHRIS BRYANT: But we went hand in cap to them for 12 years, and now we’re doing the same with Saudi Arabia. LIZ TRUSS: Well, I think that was wrong. The approach that was taken to Russia by the West. CHRIS BRYANT: You supported it. LIZ TRUSS: It was wrong. CHRIS BRYANT: In the Gulf trade document that you just published, you say the government will continue to hold those who violate human rights to account. How are you doing that in the Gulf States at the moment? LIZ TRUSS: Well, these issues are raised regularly with the relevant ministers and leaders who we meet in the Gulf states. CHRIS BRYANT: You have personally? LIZ TRUSS: I have personally, yes. CHRIS BRYANT: Well, your spokesman said that you hadn’t. So what was the last human rights issue that you raised with a Gulf state leader? LIZ TRUSS: I would have to come back to the committee on the precise timing of that. CHRIS BRYANT: Well anything, just tell us anything that you have said on human rights. LIZ TRUSS: Well I certainly have raised it when I was in – CHRIS BRYANT: Go on, tell us one now. LIZ TRUSS: I’m just trying to remember my most recent visit. But I can assure you, I’ve raised it, and I will write to you with the details. CHRIS BRYANT: You can’t remember a single human rights issue that you’ve raised with a Gulf state leader? LIZ TRUSS: Well, I’ve raised particular issues when I’ve been in the Gulf. CHRIS BRYANT: Well name one. LIZ TRUSS: I’m not going to go into all the details of private conversations, which I will come back to you on in due course. CHRIS BRYANT: Name one.

Write an article about: Western media goes white nationalist, calls Ukraine more ‘civilized’ than Iraq, whitewashes US wars. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

corporate media, Israel, media, Russia, Somalia, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen

Media outlets are calling Ukraine “civilized,” emphasizing that its people are white European Christians, while ignoring or whitewashing the US military occupations of Syria and Iraq, Western-backed Saudi bombing of Yemen, and constant Israeli attacks on Syrians and Palestinians. Western corporate media outlets that published demonstrable lies to try to justify the 2003 US invasion of Iraq have done a 180 and suddenly become staunch anti-war voices condemning Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, which began on February 24. Mainstream North American and Western European journalists have adopted what is essentially a white-nationalist narrative that has been widely denounced as racist, depicting Ukraine as a “civilized” European Christian country that is more worthy of sympathy than formerly colonized countries in the Global South, where the United States and its allies are killing civilians every day. The US has roughly 800 foreign bases around the planet, with a military presence in the majority of the countries on Earth. The US is illegally militarily occupying both Iraq and Syria’s oil-rich territory, while helping Saudi Arabia bomb civilian areas in Yemen, in a nearly seven-year Western-backed war that has killed at least 377,000 Yemenis. In fact, within hours of the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States bombed Somalia, Western-sponsored Saudi forces bombed Yemen, and Israel bombed Syria, just after Israeli occupation soldiers killed a teenage Palestinian. The Times of Israel newspaper, without a hint of irony, even published an article on February 25 titled “Ukraine fighting reportedly not expected to keep Israel from bombing Syria.” Meanwhile, Western media networks have bent over backward to portray Ukrainians as more “worthy victims,” emphasizing their whiteness, European culture, and Christianity, while these same outlets dehumanize or simply ignore dark-skinned people and Muslims in the Global South who are “unworthy victims” of Western wars. This double standard was made blindingly obvious in comments by CBS News foreign correspondent Charlie D’Agata. In a broadcast on February 25, titled “Russia closes in on Kyiv with more explosions reported across Ukraine overnight,” D’Agata insisted that the war in Ukraine is unique because the country is “civilized,” unlike nations invaded by the United States. “This isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan, that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European — I have to choose those words carefully, too — city, where you wouldn’t expect that or hope that it’s going to happen,” the CBS News foreign correspondent declared. Western corporate media coverage of Ukraine has gone full-on white nationalist, calling Ukrainians “civilized” white European Christians while whitewashing the US war on Iraq, bombing of Yemen, and Israeli attacks on Syrians & Palestinians Read more here: https://t.co/YZCBzv4wXy pic.twitter.com/f4HZPOcaLz — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 28, 2022 The US war on Iraq killed more than 1 million people, and its two-decade war on Afghanistan killed hundreds of thousands more. But the “unworthy victims” of US wars are dehumanized as “uncivilized,” whereas the “worthy victims” of Washington’s adversary Russia are portrayed as “civilized” white Christians. D’Agata later apologized for his remarks, but he was by no means alone. NBC News correspondent Kelly Cobiella stated openly, “Just to put it bluntly, these are not refugees from Syria. These are refugees from neighboring Ukraine. I mean, that, quite frankly, is part of it. These are Christians. They’re whites. They’re very similar to people who live in Poland.” "Just to put it bluntly, these are not refugees from Syria. These are refugees from neighbouring Ukraine. I mean, that, quite frankly, is part of it. These are Christians. They're Whites. They're very similar to people who live in Poland."pic.twitter.com/T90tA101H9 — Zeeshan Khan (@IbnKhayyam) February 27, 2022 In the same vein, Ukraine’s deputy chief prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze, emphasized in an interview on the BBC that Ukrainians are unique victims because many have blond hair and blue eyes. “It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blond hair being killed, children being killed every day, with Putin’s missiles, and his helicopters, and his rockets,” Sakvarelidze said. Western media outlets deny that Ukraine has a massive Nazi problem (it does), while they spread Nazi-esque propaganda: "It's very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blond hair being killed with Putin's missiles" ? https://t.co/gCbnsm5EB4 — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 27, 2022 Sakvarelidze was formerly a member of parliament in Georgia, from the right-wing, pro-Western party of former President Mikheil Saakashvili, one of Washington’s most loyal allies in the region. Yet Sakvarelidze was given Ukrainian citizenship and appointed deputy general prosecutor in 2015, soon after the US-sponsored 2014 coup overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected president and installed a pro-Western puppet regime. Sakvarelidze’s Eurocentric rhetoric was echoed on Britain’s ITV News, by its correspondent Lucy Watson. Recalling seeing Ukrainian children in strollers (or “buggies,” in British English), Watson said in exasperation, “Every single one of those buggies is a young child who was at nursery school, who was being looked after by their parents. Their parents were going to work, eating, drinking in cafes, doing the things that you and I were doing two, three days ago.” “Now the unthinkable has happened to them. And this is not a developing, third world nation; this is Europe,” she added. 'Now the unthinkable has happened to them, and this is not a developing, third world nation, this is Europe.' pic.twitter.com/BFYvql7iie — black lives matter (@jrc1921) February 27, 2022 British Conservative politician Daniel Hannan exemplified the imperial hypocrisy in an article in the right-wing Telegraph newspaper on February 26, titled “Vladimir Putin’s monstrous invasion is an attack on civilisation itself.” “They seem so like us. That is what makes it so shocking. Ukraine is a European country. Its people watch Netflix and have Instagram accounts, vote in free elections and read uncensored newspapers,” Hannan wrote. “War is no longer something visited upon impoverished and remote populations. It can happen to anyone.” Ironically, many people in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and other countries attacked by the United States do indeed have Instagram accounts, and Netflix is available in some of these nations as well. But the obvious implication of this media narrative is that Global South countries invaded, bombed, and militarily occupied by the United States and its Western allies are not civilized, and therefore that Washington’s and Brussels’ wars are justified. This flagrant differentiation in treatment is a textbook example of the concept of “unworthy victims,” articulated by scholars Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky in their classic 1988 book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.” “Worthy victims” are those who are killed or abused by the US government’s Official Enemies – such as Russia, China, Iran, or Venezuela. “Unworthy victims” are the people killed and abused by the US government and its allies – in Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Nicaragua, Somalia, Panama, Congo, and beyond. Herman and Chomsky wrote: Our hypothesis is that worthy victims will be featured prominently and dramatically, that they will be humanized, and that their victimization will receive the detail and context in story construction that will generate reader interest and sympathetic emotion. In contrast, unworthy victims will merit only slight detail, minimal humanization, and little context that will excite and enrage. Western media coverage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine makes this imperial hypocrisy as clear as day.

Write an article about: West vs the rest: World opposes sanctions, only US & Europe support them. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Human Rights Council, sanctions, UN, United Nations

The UN Human Rights Council voted overwhelmingly to condemn sanctions. The only countries that expressed support for unilateral coercive measures were the US, UK, EU member states, Georgia, and Ukraine. The United Nations Human Rights Council voted overwhelmingly to condemn sanctions. The only countries that expressed support for the tool of economic warfare were the United States, Britain, European Union member states, Georgia, and Ukraine. Sanctions are formally known as unilateral coercive measures, and they violate international law. On 3 April, the UN Human Rights Council voted with 33 members in support of and 13 against a resolution that “urges all States to stop adopting, maintaining, implementing or complying with unilateral coercive measures”. The document, A/HRC/52/L.18, “urges the removal of such measures, as they are contrary to the [UN] Charter and norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States”. The resolution was submitted by Azerbaijan on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. It illustrated how UN votes are often the West versus the rest of the world: #HRC52 | Draft resolution A/HRC/52/L.18 on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights was ADOPTED. pic.twitter.com/qTuCWFbwG6 — UN Human Rights Council ?#HRC52 (@UN_HRC) April 3, 2023 The resolution stated that it “strongly condemns the continued unilateral application and enforcement by certain powers of such measures as tools of pressure, including political and economic pressure, against any country, particularly against least developed and developing countries, with a view to preventing these countries from exercising their right to decide, of their own free will, their own political, economic and social systems”. This is a clear reference to Washington’s blockades of Cuba and Venezuela, which aim to overthrow the country’s socialist governments, and which clearly violate international law. The resolution added that sanctions cause “serious violations of human rights of targeted populations”, with “particular consequences for women, children, including adolescents, the elderly and persons with disabilities”. The document cited many past UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions and reports by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights that also condemned unilateral sanctions. The West’s imposition of unilateral sanctions has skyrocketed in recent decades. According to a 2021 Treasury review, 9,421 parties were sanctioned by the US government at the end of that year, a staggering 933% increase since 2000. More than one-third of the global population lives in countries that are suffering under sanctions. A map of countries sanctioned by the United States

Write an article about: Who sabotaged Nord Stream pipelines? US boasts ‘tremendous opportunity’ to weaken Russia. CIA knew. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

EIA, EU, Europe, European Union, gas, Germany, LNG, Nord Stream, Nord Stream 2, oil, pipelines, Russia

Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines with Germany were sabotaged mere hours before the EU opened its own Baltic Sea pipeline from Norway to Poland. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken gloated that the attacks were a “tremendous opportunity” to weaken Moscow. A pair of natural gas pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, which were built to transport natural gas underwater through the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, were sabotaged in a series of explosions on September 26. These suspicious attacks came mere hours before NATO members Norway, Denmark, and Poland officially opened their own natural gas pipeline, called the Baltic Pipe, which was built with European Union funding in order to compete with Nord Stream. The Nord Stream pipelines are operated by company that is majority owned by Russia’s state gas giant Gazprom. Authorities in Norway and Denmark have blocked that company from inspecting the damage done to its own pipelines. That is to say, NATO member states have prevented the Switzerland-based company Nord Stream AG from conducting an investigation into the attacks on its property. Meanwhile, top officials in Washington have been positively giddy. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken enthusiastically called the attacks on Nord Stream a “tremendous opportunity” to weaken Moscow. The US fossil fuel industry has made a killing off of the proxy war in Ukraine. Western sanctions on Russia in response to its February 24, 2022 invasion of its neighbor have propelled the United States into becoming the world’s largest exporter of liquified natural gas (LNG). Much of that LNG has gone to Europe to make up for the drastic decline in Russian exports. NATO member Norway has also greatly benefited. It was already the largest oil and gas producer in Europe, even before inaugurating the Baltic Pipe, just one day after Nord Stream was sabotaged. The fact that an attack on Nord Stream was being planned was known in advance. By whom? None other than the CIA. The notorious US spy agency warned Germany weeks before the explosions. An expert in information warfare, former CIA Director John Brennan crafted an elaborate conspiracy to explain the sabotage of Nord Stream. He was joined by the ex chief of Germany’s spy agency the BND in accusing Russia of intentionally damaging its own pipelines. Although there is not a scintilla of evidence for this CIA-concocted conspiracy, it was enthusiastically repeated by Western governments and corporate media outlets. Moscow, for its part, said the US and its Western allies were responsible for the sabotage, which Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned as a grave act of “international terrorism.” The head of the Russian Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, pointed out that the CIA has a documented history of carrying out attacks like these. He recalled that the spy agency bombed pipelines in Nicaragua in 1983, as part of the US terrorist war on the Central American nation’s revolutionary Sandinista government. Months before the attacks on Nord Stream, top officials in Washington made foreboding comments threatening the pipelines. In February, President Joe Biden pledged that, if Russia invaded Ukraine, “We will bring an end to [Nord Stream].” US State Department spokesperson Ned Price and the third in command of the department, Victoria Nuland, likewise promised in January 2022 that “Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” In 2020, the Donald Trump’s administration secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, declared that the United States would “do everything we can” to stop Nord Stream. Washington has officially denied responsibility for the sabotage, instead pointing the finger Moscow. But these deeply provocative remarks by senior US officials have raised eyebrows around the world. A map of gas pipelines from Russia to Europe US Secretary of State Antony Blinken gloated that the attacks on Nord Stream offered a “tremendous opportunity” to weaken Russia. “Ultimately this is also a tremendous opportunity. It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy,” Blinken said. “That’s very significant, and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come.” US fossil fuel corporations in particular are reaping the rewards of this “tremendous opportunity.” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines: “It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy” “We’ve significantly increased our [gas] production… We’re now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe” pic.twitter.com/vS9SgDUd2i — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022 The top US diplomat noted that “we’ve significantly increased our production as well as making available to Europe liquefied natural gas. And we’re now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe to help compensate for any gas or oil that it’s losing.” Blinken made these comments in a September 30 press conference with Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly. She echoed, “we have increased our production, and, therefore, by increasing our production, we have exported to the U.S. for it to be eventually sent to Europe.” The top Canadian diplomat advertised a new liquified natural gas facility, Kitimat, that Ottawa plans to use to increase supply of LNG to Europe. After US Secretary of State Blinken called the attacks on Nord Stream a “tremendous opportunity” (3 times), Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly echoed: “We have increased our production” and “exported to the US for it to be sent to Europe” She advertised a new LNG facility pic.twitter.com/Mi5lcbppid — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022 It is not just the North American energy industry that stands to heavily profit from the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. Ukraine benefits as well. By using Nord Stream to send Germany natural gas through the Baltic Sea, Russia could cut out the intermediary of Ukraine, which was making billions of dollars in transit fees. While Western governments have pinned the blame on Russia, without a shred of proof, it makes no strategic sense that Moscow would sabotage its own pipelines, after investing billions of dollars in the project. Russia has even floated the possibility of investing more money to repair the pipelines. This would be a very strange move after bombing your own energy infrastructure. Yet the German government publicly rejected Russia’s offer to repair the pipelines. A spokesperson said Berlin would not accept Russian gas via Nord Stream 2, even if it is fixed. One day after the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, a prominent right-wing politician from Poland, who previously served as foreign minister and defense minister of the NATO and EU member, Radek Sikorski, all but openly stated that the United States was responsible. “Thank you, USA,” Sikorski tweeted, alongside a photo of the underwater gas leak in the Baltic Sea. Sikorski is an infamous anti-Russia hawk, and the husband of influential US neoconservative Anne Applebaum. Today he sits as an influential member of the European Parliament, and chairs its delegation for relations with the United States. Sikorski later deleted the tweet, but not before it was archived. Among pro-US politicians in Europe, Nord Stream had long been unpopular, and the pipelines had faced many threats before. Independent researchers pointed out on social media that, back in 2015, Swedish authorities discovered a drone rigged with explosives near Nord Stream 1. The country of origin of the drone was never disclosed. Every year, NATO organizes military exercises in the Baltic Sea, in which the US-led military alliance uses drones to clear sea mines. The 2022 exercises were held in June. Back in June of this year, NATO conducted its annual BALTOPS military exercise in the Baltic Sea. This year’s exercises had significant focus on using US Navy unmanned underwater vehicles to clear sea mines. pic.twitter.com/n8T4CfzP23 — professional hog groomer (@bidetmarxman) September 27, 2022 As intrepid investigators showed on Twitter, the US Navy conducted military exercises near the Danish island of Bornholm – precisely where Nord Stream was attacked on September 26. The US and British armed forces have also been training Ukraine’s military to hunt for mines with underwater drones, and held exercises as recently as August 26. Since these exercises in June, the British Royal Navy along with the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet has been training the Ukrainian military to use these same drones. pic.twitter.com/sZ6nlvuA21 — professional hog groomer (@bidetmarxman) September 27, 2022 The September 26 attacks on Nord Stream took place right at the moment when Russia was overseeing referenda to incorporate the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson into the Russian Federation. Russia had invaded Ukraine on February 24. But in the months leading up to what Moscow called its special military operation, senior US government officials publicly threatened Nord Stream. “If Russia invades,” Joe Biden said on February 7, “then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” The US president made this pledge in a press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. When a journalist asked Biden, “How will you do that exactly, since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control?”, the US leader responded cryptically, “I promise you, we will be able to do it.” US President Joe Biden threatened weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine: “If Russia invades… there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it” A journalist asked how, because it’s Russia/Germany’s pipeline. Biden said “I promise you, we will be able to do it” pic.twitter.com/twgKEaSP0B — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022 The former CIA director and secretary of state in the Donald Trump administration, Mike Pompeo, made similar remarks in 2020. In a July 30 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he condemned Nord Stream 2, which was still under construction at the time, as “dangerous” and a “threat.” “We will do everything we can to make sure that that pipeline doesn’t threaten Europe,” Pompeo reassured lawmakers. He threatened to impose more sanctions on parties involved in Nord Stream 2, and said proudly of the Trump administration, “We’re the toughest administration ever on Russia.” In 2020, ex CIA Director turned Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pledged the US would “do everything we can” to stop Nord Stream 2 He threatened sanctions, called the “dangerous” pipeline a “threat” “We’re the toughest administration ever on Russia,” he boasted of the Trump admin pic.twitter.com/GJoI2mFMRq — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022 Nord Stream was also targeted by the third in command of the US State Department, Victoria Nuland, a bellicose neoconservative and hard-line anti-Russia hawk who oversaw the 2014 coup in Ukraine, in which the country’s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral President Viktor Yanukovich was violently overthrown and replaced with a compliant pro-Western, vehemently anti-Russian regime. In a press conference on January 27, Nuland pledged, “With regard to Nord Stream 2, we continue to have very strong and clear conversations with our German allies, and I want to be clear with you today: If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” A month before Russia invaded, the neoconservative 3rd in command of the State Dep’t, Victoria Nuland (main architect of the 2014 coup in Ukraine), threatened: “I want to be clear with you today: If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward” pic.twitter.com/nuX1ChSC51 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022 These exact comments had been echoed the day before by US State Department spokesperson Ned Price, a former CIA analyst. Price told NPR, “I want to be very clear: if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” “I’m not going to get into the specifics,” Price added. “We will work with Germany to ensure it does not move forward.” Nord Stream 1 was officially opened in 2011. The pipeline provided Germany with natural gas for years, until it was temporarily shut down in 2022 due to the proxy war in Ukraine. At the time of the September 26, 2022 attacks, Nord Stream 1 was not in use. In response to strict Western sanctions on Russia, Moscow shut off gas deliveries. After years of construction, Nord Stream 2 was completed in September 2021. But the pipeline never became operational, as German authorities repeatedly delayed certification of it. Top German officials made it clear that Berlin’s unwillingness to give a green light to the completed pipeline was politically motivated. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, of Germany’s avowedly pro-NATO and anti-Russia Green Party, was deeply opposed to Nord Stream. And in a speech at the NATO-backed Munich Security Conference on February 18, a week before Russia invaded Ukraine, she threatened to stop the pipeline. Baerbock warned that, if “Russia takes action against Ukraine,” the “sanctions would be without precedent and would be coordinated and prepared with all partners.” “For me, for us, all options are on the table, including Nord Stream 2,” Baerbock said. She added, “We, as Germany, are prepared to pay a high economic price for this ourselves.” Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock pledged at the NATO-backed Munich Security Conference a week before Russia invaded Ukraine: “All options are on the table, including Nord Stream 2” “We, as Germany, are prepared to pay a high economic price for this ourselves” pic.twitter.com/3nD71p08QJ — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022 This context is what led even some prominent figures like Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs to suspect that the United States is responsible. Sachs is a mainstream US economist who helped Washington design the program of neoliberal capitalist shock therapy that it imposed on the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. He has since become a critic of the US government’s extremely belligerent foreign policy. In an interview with Bloomberg, Sachs argued “the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline” was likely “a US action, perhaps US and Poland.” Columbia Uni. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, a mainstream economist (who ironically oversaw the neoliberal capitalist shock therapy imposed on Russia that led to millions of deaths), argued: “The destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline” was likely “a US action, perhaps US and Poland” pic.twitter.com/Tk84gfdV5G — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022 Another country that stands to gain a lot from the sabotage of Nord Stream is NATO member Norway. The day after the suspicious explosions damaged Nord Stream, European authorities celebrated the opening of the Baltic Pipe, which will deliver gas from the North Sea off the Norwegian coast to Denmark and then to Poland. Since the NATO proxy war in Ukraine escalated in February 2022, following the Russian invasion, Norway became the largest oil and gas producer in Europe. This pipeline was partially funded by the European Union and developed by Danish state-owned company Energinet and Polish state-owned company Gaz-System. The Baltic Pipe was envisioned as a direct competitor with Nord Stream. Germany’s state media outlet DW trumpeted, “Baltic Pipe speeds up exit from Russian gas.” Norway’s Energy Minister, Terje Aasland, hailed the Baltic Pipe as “an important step on the important road to Europe’s independence from Russian energy.” Norway’s gas production is now at its highest ever level, and Aasland told Reuters that the country expects to “maintain the high gas volumes going forward” until at least 2030, benefiting from the decrease in Russian exports to Europe. Meanwhile, Norway and Denmark, which have a vested financial interest in seeing Nord Stream go permanently offline, have denied access to Nord Stream AG, the majority Russian state-owned company that manages the pipelines. Nord Stream AG complained that it “is unable to inspect the damaged sections of the gas pipeline due to the lack of earlier requested necessary permits” from Norwegian and Danish authorities. At the opening ceremony of the Baltic Pipe on September 27, numerous Polish government officials emphasized how important the EU-backed pipeline would be to weaken Moscow. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki gloated, “The era of Russian domination in the field of gas is coming to an end.” “For the past years, we have been preparing to gain independence from an unreliable partner – the Russian Federation,” echoed Poland’s minister of climate and environment, Anna Moskwa. “In these uncertain times, our situation is stable.” The Polish government’s top diplomat for strategic energy infrastructure, Mateusz Berger, added at the ceremony, “The opening of Baltic Pipe, a new corridor for natural gas supply from the Norwegian Shelf to Poland, will go down in history as a symbol of breaking away from our country’s long-standing energy dependence on Russia.” Along with Norway, the US fossil fuel industry has substantially benefited from the proxy war in Ukraine. In 2020, Russia was the largest supplier of oil and gas to Europe. Official EU data show that Russia provided 43% of its natural gas imports (followed by 21% from Norway), 29% of its crude oil (followed by 9% from the United States and 8% from Norway), and a staggering 54% of its coal (followed by 16% from the United States). Some individual EU member states relied even more on cheap Russian energy. Germany imported as much as 66% of its gas from Russia in 2020 (followed by 21% from Norway). But as Europe vows to boycott Russian energy, the United States has sought to take its place. Washington’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has spent months boasting in its regular press releases of the rapid growth of US exports. In September the EIA trumpeted, “The United States exported record amounts of petroleum products in the first half of 2022.” In the six months from January to June 2022, US exports of petroleum products hit their highest ever recorded level, at almost 6 million barrels per day, the EIA reported. US exports of petroleum products increased in the first half of 2022 by 11% compared with the same period in 2021. The EIA noted that EU sanctions that were adopted in June to ban imports of Russian energy do not take effect until December 2022 for crude oil and February 2023 for petroleum products. Washington expects to see a further increase in US energy exports to Europe after then. Although the blanket prohibition on Russia’s energy has not yet been implemented, the EIA gloated in August, “Russia’s natural gas pipeline exports to Europe decline to almost 40-year lows.” The US government agency noted that Russian natural gas exports by pipeline to the European Union and Britain decreased by nearly 40% in the first seven months of 2022 compared with the same period in 2021, and by nearly 50% compared with the five-year average from 2017 to 2021. Russia’s energy exports to Europe initially decreased in 2020 due to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. But they continued to drop throughout 2021, as political tensions between NATO and Moscow grew. Nord Stream 1 had been the largest source of Russian pipeline gas exports to Europe. The sabotage of the project will cut it off completely. While Russia’s energy exports to Europe have plummeted, the EIA boasted in July, “The United States became the world’s largest LNG exporter in the first half of 2022.” US liquified natural gas exports increased by 12% in the first half of 2022, compared with the second half of 2021. The EIA explained that this was partially because of “increased global demand, particularly in Europe.” US LNG exports are significantly more expensive than the cheap pipeline gas Europe was buying from Russia. But while European economies suffer through a crisis caused by skyrocketing energy prices, US gas producers are profiting from European citizens’ misery. In the first four months of 2022, the US exported 74% of its LNG to Europe, compared to an average of just 34% in 2021. Asia had been the top customer for US LNG in 2020 and 2021, but now Europe has become the main destination, as Russian exports have dwindled. “Europe imported record amounts of liquefied natural gas in 2022,” the EIA reported. It noted that LNG imports to the EU and UK “set an all-time historical record high in April 2022.” While Europe is importing more and more US LNG, natural gas production inside the United States is steadily increasing. The EIA reported in September that “U.S. natural gas producers are operating more drilling rigs now than at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020.” The EIA boasted that same month, “As of July 2022, the United States has more LNG export capacity than any other country and has exported more LNG than any other country.” And the US is further expanding its LNG production by developing three new export projects. During his presidential campaign, Joe Biden correctly observed that “climate change poses an existential threat – not just to our environment, but to our health, our communities, our national security, and our economic well-being.” The Biden campaign vowed to pursue “a Clean Energy Revolution,” and pledged to cut back on drilling and implement environmental protections. But since entering office, Biden has been even more conciliatory to the fossil fuel industry than his Republican predecessor Donald Trump. The Washington Post reported in December that the “Biden administration has approved more oil and gas drilling permits on public lands per month than the Trump administration did during the first three years of Donald Trump’s presidency.” The Center for Biological Diversity reported in January, before the drastic escalation in the NATO proxy war on Russia, that the Biden administration had “approved 3,557 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first year, far outpacing the Trump administration’s first-year total of 2,658.” US fossil fuel extraction has only increased further since then, as Washington takes advantage of the sanctions on Russia and turns Europe into a captive market for its gas. The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines thus helps the United States and Norway replace Russia as the top energy suppliers to Europe.

Write an article about: Canciller británica exige que Rusia ‘retire’ sus tropas de Rusia, la confunde con Ucrania. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Liz Truss, Reino Unido, Rusia, Sergey Lavrov, Ucrania

La secretaria de relaciones exteriores de Reino Unido, Liz Truss, exigió que Rusia “retirara” las tropas de su propio territorio soberano, confundiéndolo con Ucrania. El Canciller Sergey Lavrov dijo que era “como hablar con una persona sorda”, y “los hechos rebotan”. (You can read this article in English here.) El gobierno británico se ha convertido en el hazmerreír internacional después de que su secretaria de relaciones exteriores exigiera que Rusia “retirara” las tropas de su propio territorio. La principal diplomática de Reino Unido luego confundió el territorio ruso con Ucrania, e insistió en que Moscú no tenía soberanía sobre sus regiones del sur. El 9 de febrero, la canciller británica Liz Truss llegó a la capital rusa para reunirse con su homólogo ruso, Sergey Lavrov. En un tuit, Truss exigió que “Rusia debe retirar inmediatamente sus fuerzas y respetar la soberanía de Ucrania o enfrentar graves consecuencias”. Truss parecía estar confundido, porque Moscú no tiene tropas en territorio ucraniano. Se han desplegado tropas rusas cerca de la frontera con Ucrania, pero están firmemente en territorio soberano ruso, por lo que no estaba claro cómo Moscú podría “retirarlas” de su propio país. In Moscow to meet Foreign Minister Lavrov and make clear that Russia must immediately withdraw its forces and respect Ukraine’s sovereignty or face severe consequences. Any incursion would be a huge mistake. Diplomacy is the only way forward and Russia must pursue that path. pic.twitter.com/weIAnr60Nh — Liz Truss (@trussliz) February 9, 2022 Truss es una política declaradamente derechista del Partido Conservador. Ha servido en varios ministerios en Reino Unido, pero tiene poca experiencia en la política exterior. Su falta de habilidades diplomáticas quedó dolorosamente clara en una reunión a puerta cerrada que sostuvo con el ministro de relaciones exteriores ruso, Lavrov, el 10 de febrero. Lavrov dijo que era muy extraño que se le pidiera a Moscú que retirara las tropas rusas de Rusia, y agregó que lo que hace su país dentro de su propio territorio “no es asunto suyo”. Lavrov le preguntó a Truss, según un informe del diario Kommersant, si reconocía la soberanía rusa sobre las dos regiones del sur de Voronezh y Rostov, donde Moscú tiene tropas. La canciller de Reino Unido respondió con confianza: “Nunca reconoceremos la soberanía rusa sobre estas regiones”. Luego, el embajador británico en Rusia se vio obligado a corregir a Truss, señalando que estas regiones son parte de Rusia, no de Ucrania. Lavrov, uno de los diplomáticos más experimentados y respetados del mundo, descartó a su homóloga británica como un neófita que estaba fuera de su alcance. El ministro de relaciones exteriores de Rusia dijo que era “como hablar con una persona sorda que escucha pero no oye”, y “los hechos rebotan”. “Dicen que Rusia está esperando hasta que el suelo se congele como una piedra para que sus tanques puedan cruzar fácilmente al territorio ucraniano”, bromeó Lavrov. “Creo que el terreno era así hoy con nuestros colegas británicos, del cual rebotaron numerosos hechos que producimos”. Lavrov agregó que las relaciones entre Reino Unido y Rusia “probablemente estén en su nivel más bajo en muchos años”. Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña han presionado agresivamente por un conflicto con Rusia por Ucrania, insistiendo sin presentar ninguna evidencia de que Moscú planea invadir a su vecino. El gobierno ucraniano, por su parte, ha dejado claro en repetidas ocasiones que no está de acuerdo con Washington y Londres, al sostener que Rusia no tiene planes de invadir. La confusión de la canciller británica sobre el territorio ruso y ucraniano no es el único error vergonzoso cometido en este momento de alta tensión. El 4 de febrero, el medio de comunicación estadounidense Bloomberg, que pertenece a y es dirigido por el milmillonario Michael Bloomberg, informó falsamente que Rusia invadió Ucrania, antes de emitir rápidamente una retractación.

Write an article about: West votes against democracy, human rights, cultural diversity at UN; promotes mercenaries, sanctions. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

democracy, General Assembly, human rights, mercenaries, sanctions, unilateral coercive measures, United Nations

The West voted against the rest of the world on United Nations General Assembly resolutions, opposing democracy, human rights, and cultural diversity, while supporting mercenaries and unilateral coercive measures (sanctions). Western governments frequently claim that their foreign and domestic policies are motivated by “human rights” and “democracy”. They often even lecture their adversaries for purportedly failing to respect these concerns. But on the international stage, Western capitals have shown their commitments to be merely rhetorical, as they have consistently voted against these noble causes and refused to support measures that would tangibly protect them, in flagrant violation of the will of the vast majority of the international community. These stark double standards were on display on November 7 in the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly’s Third Committee, which is devoted to social, humanitarian, and cultural issues. In this three-hour session, the West opposed draft resolutions that called for promoting democracy, human rights, and cultural diversity, while  simultaneously supporting the use of mercenaries and the application of unilateral coercive measures, commonly known as sanctions. The extended West voted against the rest of the world on these issues. Its positions were virtually uniform as a bloc, led by the United States, including Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan. In fact, the chair of the General Assembly’s Third Committee is Austria’s representative to the United Nations, Alexander Marschik, and even he could not help but laugh in the session at the constant protestations of the US representative, who dominated the debate, speaking out against nearly every resolution to explain why the world should join with Washington in voting against it. (Marschik could not contain his laughter despite the fact that his own country, Austria, voted along with the US on each resolution.) Geopolitical Economy Report has created maps that illustrate the clear political divide between the West and the rest. In the November 7 session, nations debated a draft that condemned unilateral coercive measures, or sanctions, for violating the human rights of civilians in targeted countries. The resolution passed with 128 votes in favor and 54 against, and no abstentions. The General Assembly’s Third Committee likewise considered a measure that called for the “promotion of a democratic and equitable international order”. The resolution passed with 123 votes in favor and 54 against, plus 7 abstentions (from Armenia, Chile, Costa Rica, Liberia, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay). Another resolution sought to promote “human rights and cultural diversity”. The measure passed with 130 votes in favor and 54 against, and no abstentions. The Third Committee deliberated a draft that called for the “promotion of equitable geographical distribution in the membership of the human rights treaty bodies”. The resolution passed with 128 votes in favor and 52 against, and no abstentions. Another measure condemned the “use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination”. The resolution passed with 126 votes in favor and 52 against, plus 6 abstentions (from Kiribati, Liberia, Palau, Mexico, Tonga and Switzerland). The United Nations published a full video of the Third Committee’s session on November 7, in the 48th plenary meeting of the General Assembly’s 78th session.

Write an article about: Chinese balloon was not spying, US gov’t admits months after manufactured crisis. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

balloons, China, Jens Stoltenberg, Mike Gallagher, NATO, Pentagon

The Pentagon admitted that a Chinese balloon that crossed into US territory in February was not spying; it was likely blown off course by wind. But Washington and the media milked this manufactured scandal for new cold war propaganda. The US government has admitted that severe accusations it made against China were just a lot of hot air. The highest-ranking official in the US military has clarified that a Chinese balloon that crossed into US territory in February 2023 was not spying; it was likely blown off course by wind. CBS News published an interview this September with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, who stated, “The intelligence community, their assessment – and it’s a high-confidence assessment – [is] that there was no intelligence collection by that balloon”. Milley conceded that the large rubber object was probably pushed off track by powerful wind. This report, released seven months after the incident, has confirmed exactly what the Chinese government stated at the time: its balloon was not spying on the United States, and only accidentally entered its airspace. The US government has still insisted that the Chinese balloon had technology that could have potentially been used to gather information – although it has not clarified if that technology was focused specifically on collecting data on weather patterns, which is what Beijing said it was doing. Regardless, in another massive blow to Washington’s narrative, CBS News acknowledged in its report that, “After the Navy raised the wreckage from the bottom of the Atlantic, technical experts discovered the balloon’s sensors had never been activated while over the Continental United States“. So even if the Chinese balloon had the technological capacity to spy on the United States, as Washington claims, the sensor was never turned on. This is not the first time a senior US official has admitted that the Chinese balloon was not spying. In June, Pentagon press secretary Brigadier General Pat Ryder made very similar comments. “We’re aware that [the balloon] had intelligence collection capabilities, but it was our — and it has been our — assessment now that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States”, the Defense Department spokesman said, in remarks quoted by ABC News. These statements confirm that Geopolitical Economy Report was accurate in its analysis in February, which synthesized existing evidence at the time and concluded that the Chinese balloon had likely been blown off course by unexpected weather. US admits weather pushed Chinese balloon off course, US shot down hobbyists’ $12 balloon in $2M missile attack Despite these bombshells proving the entire scandal to be manufactured, Washington and the US media turned this weather accident into a diplomatic crisis, milking the incident to demonize China and depict it as a grave “threat”. The nationwide freakout was reminiscent of crude propaganda from the first cold war, when the US government produced “Duck and Cover” films instructing students to hide under their desks in the case of a sudden Soviet nuclear strike, or when Hollywood churned out blockbuster movies imploring North Americans to suspect their neighbors of being dastardly Russian communist spies. Today, the United States is waging a new, second cold war. Moscow is still a target, but this time Washington’s main adversary is Beijing. As CNN put it bluntly in February, “the Chinese balloon crisis could be a defining moment in the new Cold War”. During the manufactured scandal, the US State Department claimed the “high altitude balloon’s equipment was clearly for intelligence surveillance”, and was “capable of conducting signals intelligence collection operations”. The Pentagon referred to the rubber object as a “maneuverable Chinese surveillance balloon” that “violated U.S. airspace and international law, which is unacceptable”. The White House accused Beijing of operating a “global” espionage program, stating, “We know that these [Chinese] surveillance balloons have crossed over dozens of countries on multiple continents around the world, including some of our closest allies and partners”. Hawkish US politicians, like Republican Congressman Mike Gallagher, the chair of the House of Representatives’ Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, declared that the large rubber object “is a threat right here at home. It is a threat to American sovereignty, and it is a threat to the Midwest”. Fox News brought on air neoconservative activists from think tanks funded by the weapons industry, who argued that Beijing was using the balloon to spy on the US to “prepare the battlefield” for war. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg even claimed the rubber object was a threat to other Western governments. While standing next to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Stoltenberg insisted, “The balloon over the United States confirms a pattern of Chinese behavior where we see that China has invested heavily in new capabilities, including different types of surveillance and intelligence platforms… We need to be aware of the constant risk of Chinese intelligence and step up what we do to protect ourselves and react in a prudent and responsible way”.

Write an article about: China & Russia pledge ‘changes not seen in 100 years’: Xi & Putin take aim at US dollar hegemony. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, energy, gas, Mongolia, Power of Siberia, Russia, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping

China’s President Xi Jinping traveled to Russia to meet Vladimir Putin, pledging “changes the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years”, agreeing to deepen economic integration and challenge the hegemony of the US dollar using yuan and other currencies in international trade. China’s President Xi Jinping traveled to Russia to meet Vladimir Putin on March 20. While in Moscow, Xi said, “Right now there are changes the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years, and we are the ones driving these changes together”. Putin replied, “I agree”. The two leaders discussed plans to deepen economic integration. Both took aim at the hegemony of the US dollar, in particular. “It is important that our national currencies are increasingly used in bilateral trade”, Putin said on March 21. “We should continue promoting settlements in national currencies, and expand the reciprocal presence of financial and banking structures in our countries’ markets”. Two-thirds of trade between China and Russia is already conducted in rubles and yuan, he revealed. Putin called for the Chinese currency to be used globally. “We support using Chinese yuan in transactions between the Russian Federation and its partners in Asia, Africa and Latin America”, he stated. Bilateral trade between China and Russia hit a record high of $190.27 billion in 2022, according to Beijing’s Global Times newspaper. Trade between the two countries has grown by 116% since 2012. “In 2019, China and Russia jointly set the goal of their bilateral trade reaching $200 billion by 2024. The bilateral trade is expected to exceed $200 billion this year [2023]”, Global Times reported. Their bilateral trade increased by more than 30% in 2022 alone. “Trade in agricultural produce is growing even faster – by 41.4 percent in 2022”, Putin said, stressing the importance of “food security”. The Russian president noted the two countries have “80 important and promising bilateral projects in various fields worth around $165 billion”. Both leaders emphasized the role that the BRICS system and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) play in deepening their integration. “We will strengthen our cooperation within multilateral structures, including the SCO, BRICS, and the Group of Twenty [G20], and will promote genuine multipolarity in a bid to facilitate post-pandemic global economic recovery, all while stepping up our constructive efforts to shape a multipolar world“, Xi said. He invited Putin to visit China for the third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation. The Russian president attended the previous two conferences. China and Russia are “working together in civil aircraft construction, shipbuilding, and auto manufacturing”, Putin stated. He added, “We stand ready to support Chinese businesses in replacing the Western enterprises that left Russia”. Addressing the importance of “technological sovereignty”, Putin explained, “By combining our wealth of research capacity and industrial capabilities, Russia and China can become world leaders in information technology, cyber security, and artificial intelligence”. Xi emphasized that China seeks to “prioritise high-quality development”, based on the goals established in the 20th national congress of the Communist Party of China in 2022. “Energy cooperation is expanding. Russia is a strategic supplier of oil, natural gas, including LNG, coal, and electricity to China. The construction of nuclear power facilities continues”, Putin explained. As an example of growing energy cooperation, Putin mentioned the Power of Siberia natural gas pipeline, which is overseen by state-owned companies: the China National Petroleum Corporation and Russia’s Gazprom. “In 2022, Russia increased gas supplies to China via the Power of Siberia main pipeline by 50 percent”, Putin revealed. Power of Siberia reflects Russia’s transition away from the West and toward economic integration with Asia. In the March 21 talks, Putin revealed, “We have just discussed a good project, the new Power of Siberia-2 gas pipeline across Mongolia. We have reached agreement on most of the deal’s parameters”. Construction of Power of Siberia 2 will allegedly start in 2024, according to Mongolia’s Prime Minister Luvsannamsrain Oyun-Erdene. The Chinese leader illustrated how important Beijing considers its partnership with Moscow to be by pointing out that the meeting came “shortly after my most recent re-election as President of the PRC, and I chose Russia for my first foreign visit”. Xi added “that exactly 10 years ago, when I first became President of the People’s Republic of China, I also chose Russia for my first foreign visit“. Putin reflected, “It is symbolic that exactly ten years ago, we also met here, and it was your first visit to Russia as the President of the People’s Republic of China. Since then, we have made great strides in developing our relations. Our trade has more than doubled, from just over $87 billion, I believe, to almost $200, $185 billion to be exact”. Putin commented, “The President of China and I remain in touch at all times. Apart from bilateral summits, we meet on the sidelines of international events, and regularly talk to each other on the phone and by videoconference to discuss matters of mutual interest”. In a clear rejection of the West’s sanctions and new cold war on Moscow, Xi asserted, “No matter how the international landscape may change, China will stay committed to advancing the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era”. A joint statement published by the Chinese Foreign Ministry disclosed that Xi and Putin discussed Beijing’s proposal for peace talks to end the proxy war in Ukraine. “The Russian side reaffirms its commitment to the resumption of peace talks as soon as possible“, the statement said. “The Russian side welcomes China’s willingness to play a positive role for the political and diplomatic settlement of the Ukraine crisis and welcomes the constructive proposals set forth in China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis”, it added. “The two sides point out that to settle the Ukraine crisis, the legitimate security concerns of all countries must be respected, bloc confrontation should be prevented and fanning the flames avoided”, the statement emphasized. The US government staunchly opposes China’s attempt at brokering peace in Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal reported that the “U.S. is trying to head off a potential proposal from Beijing for a cease-fire in Ukraine”. In their joint statement, China and Russia also underscored that the “two sides oppose any unilateral sanctions unauthorized by the UN Security Council”. This was a clear indication that Beijing rejects the Western sanctions imposed on Moscow. The United States, Britain, and European Union have repeatedly sabotaged peace talks aimed at ending the proxy war in Ukraine, which were previously sponsored by officials from Türkiye and Israel. Putin also stated that “Russia congratulates China on helping to successfully bring about historic outcomes from the talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Beijing”. A few days before Xi visited Moscow, China, Russia, and Iran held joint military exercises. Beijing’s Foreign Ministry commented, “This exercise will help deepen practical cooperation between the participating countries’ navies … and inject positive energy into regional peace and stability”. This is exactly the scenario that former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski warned about in his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard”. He wrote that “the most dangerous scenario” that could prevent US control over Eurasia “would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition”. In his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard,” US imperial strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski warned “the most dangerous scenario [for the US empire] would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition” That now exists today:https://t.co/MzXopEfBpW pic.twitter.com/TcEXKuYqEi — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 23, 2022

Write an article about: Ukraine’s Zelensky sends love letter to US corporations, promising ‘big business’ for Wall Street. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

BlackRock, Chamber of Commerce, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Mykhailo Fedorov, National Association of State Chambers, neoliberalism, Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, Wall Street

In a video address to a US corporate lobby group, Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky thanked companies like BlackRock, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Starlink, insisting “everyone can become a big business by” investing in Ukraine, where “we are defending freedom and property”. Ukraine’s Western-backed leader Volodymyr Zelensky sent a love letter to US companies, thanking “such giants of the international financial and investment world as BlackRock, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs” for buying up his country’s assets. “Everyone can become a big business by working with Ukraine”, he enticed, claiming that the reconstruction of his nation “will be the largest economic project of our time in Europe”. Zelensky likewise praised the Starlink company of billionaire Elon Musk for its technological support, and he called for more Western weapons shipments, including Patriot missiles and Abram tanks. The Ukrainian leader delivered these remarks in a January 23 video address to US corporate lobby group the National Association of State Chambers. “We are defending freedom and property”, Zelensky declared, portraying the proxy war between NATO and Russia in Ukraine as a battle for the soul of the Western-led capitalist order. In a speech to a US corporate lobby group, Ukraine's Zelensky thanked Black Rock, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Elon Musk's Starlink, promising: “Everyone can become a big business by” buying up Ukrainian assets “We are defending freedom and property” More: https://t.co/fNZplLUr2n pic.twitter.com/XGZTBab9q9 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 25, 2023 Zelensky’s government has imposed some of the world’s most aggressive anti-worker policies, passing legislation that “deprives around 73% of workers of their right to union protection and collective bargaining”, which even the US government-funded Solidarity Center of the AFL-CIO labor federation condemned as a “significant assault on worker rights in Ukraine“. Zelensky’s staunchly anti-worker, anti-union, and pro-corporate ideology came through clear in the neoliberal rhetoric of the speech he gave to the US chamber of commerce organization. He compared governing Ukraine to running a business, and thanked the corporate executives at the conference “for this opportunity to address those who create the globally important economic strength of America”. The Ukrainian president’s office published on its official website a transcript of the speech, titled “After the end of the war, American business can become a locomotive of global economic growth”. “Thanks to the leadership of the United States of America, which has consolidated the world in defense of freedom, we see how to win this battle”, Zelensky effused. The speech sounded less like the words of a stateman and more like an advertisement by a used car salesman – except he is not selling cars; he is selling his country to foreign mega-corporations. Zelensky boasted (emphasis added): We have already managed to attract attention and have cooperation with such giants of the international financial and investment world as Black Rock, J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs. Such American brands as Starlink or Westinghouse have already become part of our, Ukrainian, way. Your brilliant defense systems – such as HIMARS or Bradleys – are already uniting our history of freedom with your enterprises. We are waiting for Patriots. We are looking closely at Abrams. Thousands of such examples are possible! And everyone can become a big business by working with Ukraine. In all sectors – from weapons and defense to construction, from communications to agriculture, from transport to IT, from banks to medicine. I believe that freedom must always win. And, I invite you to work with us right now. In comments clearly seeking to appeal to US conservatives, Zelensky also used the speech to repeatedly condemn “the Iranian regime”, which he demonized as Russia’s “terrorist ally”. Zelensky was addressing the 2023 winter meeting of the National Association of State Chambers in Boca Raton, Florida. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce tweeted proudly, “Our President Kevin Brinegar is among state chamber leaders at the National Assocation of State Chambers winter meeting in Florida hearing from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He thanked U.S. business leaders for support and for promoting free enterprise”. Our President Kevin Brinegar is among state chamber leaders at the National Assocation of State Chambers winter meeting in Florida hearing from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He thanked U.S. business leaders for support and for promoting free enterprise. #ukraine https://t.co/8Ijea6H6mP — Indiana Chamber (@IndianaChamber) January 23, 2023 In September 2022, Zelensky symbolically rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange via video stream. The Ukrainian leader declared that his country was “open for business”, with more than $400 billion in “investment options”. At the same time, Zelensky published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal calling on Western corporations to “Invest in the Future of Ukraine”. Kiev’s economic ministry launched a program called Advantage Ukraine, which it boasted offers profitable “public private partnerships, privatization and private ventures”, with the help of a “USAID-supported project team of investment bankers and researchers”. The Ukrainian government cited corporate executives at Google, Alphabet, and Microsoft, who urged more Western companies to buy up the country’s assets. Ukraine’s Zelensky told Wall Street his country is "open" for corporations to exploit it with $400 billion in state selloffs Economist Michael Hudson says Ukraine's vicious anti-labor policies are reminiscent of Chile's fascist Pinochet regimehttps://t.co/QconroKORI — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 9, 2022 Geopolitical Economy Report has also reported on the Ukraine Reform Conference and Ukraine Recovery Conference, meetings in which Western governments and corporations have met with top Ukrainian officials to plan aggressive neoliberal shock therapy – like the kind that was imposed on the Russian Federation in the early 1990s, which led to 3.2 million excess deaths, according to UNICEF. In a meeting in Switzerland in July 2022, Western and Ukrainian government representatives published economic blueprints that called for Kiev to cut labor laws, “open markets”, drop tariffs, deregulate industries, and “sell state-owned enterprises to private investors”. Zelensky has used the emergency of the war to ram through harsh anti-labor legislation, suspending collective bargaining rights and essentially making it illegal for most workers to form a union. Economist Michael Hudson compared Zelensky’s extreme neoliberal policies to those of Chile’s far-right US-backed former dictator Augusto Pinochet. Western governments and corporations met in Switzerland to plan harsh neoliberal economic policies to impose on post-war Ukraine, calling to cut labor laws, “open markets,” deregulate industries, and “sell state-owned enterprises to private investors.”https://t.co/J0n8db8ZLr — Geopolitical Economy Report (@GeopoliticaEcon) July 29, 2022 In December 2022, Zelensky held a video conference with billionaire Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager. In a press release, the Ukrainian government made it clear that BlackRock is overseeing its reconstruction process. Zelensky’s office said BlackRock will “advise the Ukrainian government on how to structure the country’s reconstruction funds”, and is “coordinating the efforts of all potential investors and participants in the reconstruction of our country, channelling investment into the most relevant and impactful sectors of the Ukrainian economy”. This means that, under Western tutelage, Ukraine has essentially privatized and outsourced its economic policy to BlackRock, one of the world’s most powerful corporations. BlackRock, which manages more than $8 trillion in assets, is a robber baron’s oligopolistic dream. The “big three” US asset managers BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street are the largest shareholders in nearly 90% of S&P 500 companies. Ukraine’s vice prime minister and minister of digital transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, published a video in July 2022 that clearly illustrated Kiev’s neoliberal vision for the future. The Ukrainian government’s economic plan looked like a scene out of a libertarian science-fiction film, where everything is privatized and corporations are free to exploit anyone without any regulation. Ukraine 2030 — the freest and most digital country in the world. Without bureaucracy, but with strong tech industry. Cashless & paperless. This is the future we are building. pic.twitter.com/XWs4E1pPGJ — Mykhailo Fedorov (@FedorovMykhailo) July 14, 2022

Write an article about: China pledges wealth redistribution, full employment, anti-corruption fight in 20th CPC national congress. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Communist Party of China, CPC, socialism, Xi Jinping

In its 20th national congress, the Communist Party of China (CPC) pledged to redistribute wealth to reduce inequality, pursue full employment, promote gender equality, expand social security and health care, protect the environment, and fight the “cancer” of corruption. The Communist Party of China (CPC) opened its 20th national congress on October 16. This meeting in Beijing brought together 2296 delegates from every province in the country in order to plan the next five years of policies. The CPC said its goal is to “write an even more magnificent chapter for socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era.” Multipolarista editor Ben Norton discussed the importance of the party congress in a discussion below with Danny Haiphong of The Left Lens and Carlos Martinez of Friends of Socialist China. In the 20th national congress, the CPC highlighted its commitments to Marxism, reducing inequality, peaceful reunification with Taiwan, its zero-covid policy, and especially the fight against the “cancer” of corruption. On October 16, President Xi Jinping delivered a lengthy report on behalf of 19th CPC Central Committee, which had been established in the 19th party congress in 2017. His speech reflected on the accomplishments of the previous five years, and outlined Beijing’s goals from 2023 to 2027. Xi said, “from this day forward, the central task of the CPC will be to lead the Chinese people of all ethnic groups in a concerted effort to realize the second centenary goal of building China into a great modern socialist country in all respects and to advance the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts through a Chinese path to modernization.” A key part of the report presented by Xi called for “Improving the People’s Wellbeing and Raising Quality of Life.” The CPC said its goals include redistributing wealth to reduce inequality, combatting unemployment, strengthening the health-care system, and improving social security, with an emphasis on gender equality and support for people with disabilities. Pledging “to promote high-quality and full employment,” the report stressed the need to prioritize less developed rural areas in addition to developed urban ones. “We will remain committed to the fundamental national policy of gender equality and protect the lawful rights and interests of women and children,” Xi said. “For people with disabilities, we will improve the social security and service systems and promote all-around development of related programs,” the CPC report added. Xi stated: We will promote equality of opportunity, increase the incomes of low-income earners, and expand the size of the middle-income group. We will improve the policy system for distribution based on factors of production, explore multiple avenues to enable the low- and middle-income groups to earn more from production factors, and increase the property income of urban and rural residents through more channels. We will enhance the roles of taxation, social security, and transfer payments in regulating income distribution. We will improve the personal income tax system and keep income distribution and the means of accumulating wealth well-regulated. We will protect lawful income, adjust excessive income, and prohibit illicit income. To fight climate change, the CPC also dedicated a section of its report to the importance of “pursuing green development and promoting harmony between humanity and nature.” “We will carry out coordinated industrial restructuring, pollution control, ecological conservation, and climate response, and we will promote concerted efforts to cut carbon emissions, reduce pollution, expand green development, and pursue economic growth,” Xi said. “We will prioritize ecological protection, conserve resources and use them efficiently, and pursue green and low-carbon development,” the Chinese president added. The following graphic from Dongsheng News shows the structure of the Communist Party of China: The structure of the Communist Party of China (CPC) (Credit: Dongsheng News) Back in 2017, in its 19th national congress, the CPC declared that “socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era.” The party changed its analysis of the central contradiction in Chinese society, which had previously emphasized the need to develop the productive forces and grow its economy, to now address “unbalanced development” and prioritize “equitable income distribution.” The CPC wrote in its 19th national congress: Through several decades of development, China has already maintained for a number of years the world’s second largest economy, the world’s largest manufacturer, the largest trading power, and the country with the biggest foreign exchange reserve. China ranks among the top of the world in economic, science and technology, military, and overall national strength. Accordingly, the principal contradiction of the Chinese society has evolved. In the past, the contradiction was between the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people and the backwardness of social production. Now, the principal contradiction is between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life. The needs to be met for the people to live a better life are increasingly broad. The Chinese people not only seek for their material and cultural needs, but also concern about their increasing demands for fairness and justice, rule of law, security, eco-environment, balanced urban and rural development, and equitable income distribution. These changes in the principal contradiction means higher requirements for China’s domestic and foreign policies. It also means new historical mission for the CPC. The Communist Party of China's 19th congress in 2017 was very important It made it clear the Chinese government changed its top mission from developing the productive forces and growing its economy to rectifying "unbalanced development," stressing "equitable income distribution" pic.twitter.com/jlgE3KvApf — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 7, 2022

Write an article about: China is ‘world’s sole manufacturing superpower’, with 35% of global output. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

CEPR, China, de-industrialization, industrialization, manufacturing, Richard Baldwin

China’s state-led economic development model and robust industrial policy has transformed it into what an influential European think tank calls “the world’s sole manufacturing superpower”, making up 35% of global gross production – more than the 9 next largest manufacturers combined. China has overseen world-historic economic growth through a government-led development model, in which state-owned enterprises control the natural monopolies and “commanding heights” of the economy, state-owned banks give favorable loans to strategic industries, and the state’s robust industrial policy helps the country move up the value chain toward higher value-added forms of production. This model, which Beijing officially refers to as a socialist market economy, has been so successful that a prominent European think tank has acknowledged that “China is now the world’s sole manufacturing superpower”. In 2020, China made up a staggering 35% of global gross manufacturing production. That is more than the combined output of the United States (12%), Japan (6%), Germany (4%), India (3%), South Korea (3%), Italy (2%), France (2%), and the United Kingdom. This is according to the research of Richard Baldwin, a professor of international economics at the IMD Business School in Lausanne, Switzerland, and the editor-in-chief of VoxEU, a publication hosted by the Europe-based Centre for Economic Policy Research, or CEPR (not to be confused with the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, which uses the same acronym). CEPR is very influential in European policy-making circles, and receives funding from France’s central bank and Finance Ministry, as well as the European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund, and numerous private banks in Europe. The think tank represents the political mainstream in the EU, and is by no means a “pro-Chinese” institution. In a January VoxEU research paper titled “China is the world’s sole manufacturing superpower“, Baldwin wrote (emphasis added): The US is the world’s sole military superpower. It spends more on its military than the ten next highest spending countries combined. China is now the world’s sole manufacturing superpower. Its production exceeds that of the nine next largest manufacturers combined. Baldwin explained that, even when output is measured at value added (that is, gross production minus the cost of intermediate goods bought to produce those manufactures), China makes up 29% of global manufacturing, compared to just 16% for the United States, 7% for Japan, 5% for Germany, 3% for South Korea, 3% for India, 2% for Italy, 2% for France, and 2% for Great Britain. Baldwin wrote (emphasis added): China’s industrialisation is unprecedented. The last time the ‘king of the manufacturing hill’ got knocked off the throne was when the US surpassed the UK just before WW1. It took the US the better part of a century to rise to the top; the China-US switch took about 15 or 20 years. China’s industrialisation, in short, defies comparison. He added that this “remarkable fact helps us to understand current US-China trade tensions”. China’s rapid industrialization through a state-led development model has coincided with the United States’ relative de-industrialization through a neoliberal economic model based on privatization, liberalization, deregulation, financialization, and unproductive speculation. Seeking to halt China’s rise, the US government has levied many rounds of unilateral sanctions and waged what Washington insiders have referred to as a “technology war” against China, imposing export restrictions in cutting-edge sectors like 5G, semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence. Western governments have pledged to “decouple” from the Chinese economy and “derisk” strategically important industries. However, in his CEPR research paper, Baldwin emphasized that the US is much more dependent on buying Chinese manufactured goods than China is dependent on the US market to sell its exports. “In 2020, the US was about three times more exposed to Chinese manufacturing production than vice versa”, Baldwin wrote. He added that “the numbers are astounding”. Baldwin cautioned, “Politicians may wish to decouple their economies from China. These data suggest that decoupling would be difficult, slow, expensive, and disruptive – especially to G7 manufacturers”.

Write an article about: UN votes 152 to 5 telling Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

IAEA, Israel, NPT, nuclear weapons, Palestine, UN, United Nations

The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly, 152 to 5, to tell the Israeli apartheid regime to get rid of its nuclear weapons, which are illegal under international law. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) The vast majority of countries on Earth voted in the United Nations General Assembly to condemn the Israeli apartheid regime for having nuclear weapons, in flagrant violation of international law. Israel is the only country in West Asia that has nukes. Tel Aviv has not officially acknowledged its possession of the planet-destroying weapons, but experts estimate it has at least 90 nuclear warheads, and perhaps hundreds. On October 28, a staggering 152 countries (79% of all UN member states) adopted a resolution that called on Israel to give up its atomic bombs, join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to supervise its nuclear facilities. Just five countries voted against the measure: the United States and Canada, the small island nations of Palau and Micronesia, and apartheid Israel itself. Another 24 countries abstained, mostly members of the European Union, NATO allies, and India. The October 28, 2022 UN General Assembly vote telling Israel to get rid of its illegal nuclear weapons The resolution, document A/C.1/77/L.2, was titled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.” It demands that Israel abide by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and put “all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.” The document likewise says Israel must commit “not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under fullscope Agency safeguards as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.” The resolution had been introduced by Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt (on behalf of the Arab League), Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and the UN-recognized state of Palestine. It was adopted in the 25th plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly’s First Committee, which is focused on disarmament and international security. The October 28, 2022 UN General Assembly vote telling Israel to get rid of its illegal nuclear weapons Back in 2019, the United States and apartheid Israel were the only countries on Earth that voted against UN General Assembly draft resolutions calling for establishing a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, preventing an arms race in outer space, and ending Washington’s illegal six-decade blockade of Cuba. Important breakthroughs have arrived at the UN seeking to prevent an arms race in outer space and create a nuclear weapons-free Middle East. There are just two main obstacles: the US and #Israel.@WomenMarch4Paz @Blacks4Peacehttps://t.co/BZbNaauNPn — Popular Resistance (@PopResistance) November 13, 2019

Write an article about: Following failed kidnapping of Imran Khan, Pakistan’s regime desperately cracks down on dissent. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Imran Khan, Pakistan, PTI

Pakistan’s toppled Prime Minister Imran Khan tried to defend himself against bogus corruption charges, but the military kidnapped him. The Supreme Court ruled it was an unlawful arrest and he was freed. So now the unelected regime is cracking down hard, threatening to prosecute protesters in army courts. Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan pledged to build a “Naya Pakistan” – a New Pakistan. He hoped to break with decades of internal misrule and gross corruption and offer a hopeful future for the world’s fifth-most populous country, of nearly 248 million people. Khan’s vision also meant a New Pakistan that ended its external dependencies and subordinate relationship with Washington, which could only be described as neo-colonial. Khan’s period in power came at a bad time, especially because of the Covid-19 crisis, and his own rule did at times reflect a lack of political acumen and an inability to implement all of the social welfare policies to which he was genuinely dedicated. But Khan’s term in power was cut short by a regime change-operation, which entailed the collusion of a 12-party coalition, including the two dominant political family dynasties of the Sharifs (of the party PML-N) and the Bhuttos (of the party PPP), who had played musical chairs in running the country as their personal fiefdoms for more than three decades. Also involved in the regime-change operation was the Chief of Army Staff (always the most powerful individual in the country), and a few of his followers in the military-intelligence apparatus; along with, of course, the United States, which has despised Khan’s independent thinking on foreign policy since 2001, when he established himself as a harsh critic of Washington’s so-called “War on Terror”. All of these power centers, especially the US embassy in Islamabad, cajoled members of Khan’s own party into abandoning him, with promises of political power (and personal riches). The idea was that the job was done, and that Khan and his political party, the PTI – the Movement for Justice – would gradually be eliminated as serious contenders from political life. But the exact opposite occurred. The color revolution instigated by Washington and these other forces backfired terribly. Despite the horrible state of the economy and the suffering of the social majorities, even during Khan’s rule, things changed following his ouster in April 2022, and tens of millions of Pakistanis have poured onto the streets. In these massive, ongoing protests, the Pakistani people have condemned the mafias and crooks (the term often used to describe Pakistan’s civilian politicians), as well as the brutal national-security state that has dragged the country back to the status quo ante of repression, corruption, and massive inequality and impoverishment. For a whole year now, enormous numbers of Pakistanis have been protesting peacefully and attending rallies held by Imran Khan, whose popularity has continued to soar. Khan is by far the most popular politician in Pakistan, with at least 61% support – in what was probably a conservative estimate in a survey this March by leading pollster Gallup. (The unelected prime minister who replaced Khan, Shehbaz Sharif, had 65% disapproval.) The Pakistani government and sections of the top brass of the military did not know what to make of this. Their complete attention for the past year has been dedicated to somehow eliminating Khan. Ludicrous charges of treason or corruption have constantly been leveled against him. Most gruesomely, there was an assassination attempt against Khan in November, which almost succeeded. Military commanders knew that Khan not only had the support of the people, but also of the majority of the military itself, especially among the soldiers, as well as many junior- and mid-rank officers. These were the same military forces that Khan repeatedly said had sacrificed their lives at the behest of Washington’s so-called “War on Terror.” More than 80,000 Pakistani lives were lost in this war, thousands of whom were military soldiers and officers, who had sometimes been ordered to kill innocent people who had nothing to do with terrorism. This explained the initial reluctance on the part of the generals to assault Khan and his supporters. But things soon changed. The current, unelected regime cooked up corruption charges against Imran Khan. The former prime minister said he was more than willing to go to court to debunk the accusations and expose the sham. This May, he traveled from Lahore to the Islamabad High Court for the case. As Khan entered the judicial compound, he was manhandled and abducted by military rangers, who were doing the job jointly at the behest of the intelligence services and Interior Ministry. Khan was kidnapped, with his whereabouts unknown for three days. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asserted that this was not a lawful arrest but rather an illegal kidnapping, and that Khan should be set free on bail. The Chief Justice and the Supreme Court hence also became a target for those who have been trying to eliminate Khan by all means. For them, there is no rule of law; they believe their word is law. When Khan was abducted and detained, huge numbers of demonstrators spent two full days flooding the major and minor cities and towns of the country in protest. The Pakistani national-security state primarily relied on the most gruesome and thuggish forces in its intelligence agencies to crack down on these protesters. In these constant demonstrations, thousands of PTI workers have been jailed, tortured, and imprisoned. Some have even been dragged out of their houses, and their family members have been harassed and detained. For a year, the protests were peaceful. But this May, there was looting, fires, and some violence. There is video footage demonstrating that hundreds of men in civilian clothing were jumping out of army vehicles, posing as protesters, engaging in this violent behavior. There is evidence suggesting that agents provocateurs at the service of the state were seeking to discredit Khan, depicting him and his followers as supporters of terrorism, demonizing the PTI as a supposed “terrorist” political party. The military top brass and the ruthlessly corrupt clowns running the government are so desperate they are now equating Khan’s political party with the TTP, the Pakistani Taliban. Their objective is obvious: to permanently disqualify the country’s most popular party from participating in elections and the political system itself. In the brutal crackdown this may, the regime has gone one step forward. The military establishment has said that all protesters involved in violence – basically anyone they want to accuse without any evidence – will not be tried in civil courts, but rather in army courts, where traditional due process rules will not be adhered to. They are using a law known as the Army Act. Mainstream Western organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have harshly condemned these Pakistani trials in army courts. The former wrote: Amnesty International has documented a catalogue of human right violations stemming from trying civilians in military courts in Pakistan, including flagrant disregard for due process, lack of transparency, coerced confessions, and executions after grossly unfair trials. Therefore, any indication that the trial of civilians could be held in military courts is incompatible with Pakistan’s obligations under international human rights law. This is purely an intimidation tactic, designed to crack down on dissent by exercising fear of an institution that has never been held to account for its overreach. There are several provisions under ordinary criminal laws that can be used to prosecute vandalism and destruction of public property. The right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Pakistan’s constitution, is severely undermined by this move and cannot be justified. It must be struck down immediately. Though late in their response, some on Pakistan’s professional left – despite their contempt and envy of Khan and his popularity – have also criticized the Army Act. The top brass of the military high command and the most venal elements of their intelligence services, along with their partners-in-crime in the current regime, believe this will finally solve the problem of Imran Khan’s threat to the status quo. But it is important to note that a major chunk of military officers and even corps commanders were not on board with this draconian move. The extremist elements implementing this “final solution” to the Khan problem feel that Washington and London’s support is sufficient for them to get away with whatever brutality they wish to inflict on his movement and the PTI at this point. When the military briefly kidnapped Khan in May, the US government refused to comment on the act, which amounted to a de facto endorsement. Since then, the State Department has only issued vague declarations on the need to respect the “rule of law” and “democratic principles” (despite the fact that the regime it is currently backing was not elected). However, there may be some divisions emerging in the Washington establishment over this whole gruesome affair in Pakistan. Even notorious neoconservative US diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad, who helped oversee the war on Afghanistan, has conceded that Pakistan is now a “military dictatorship”. Pakistan’s Army Chief continues to trample over democratic red lines. Now he has decided to try civilians in a military court that he will constitute. The name for this is military dictatorship, and it’s brazenly unconstitutional.#Pakistan [Thread] — Zalmay Khalilzad (@realZalmayMK) May 22, 2023 The US desperately wants a stable Pakistan, from which it could project its power, in a region where Washington has largely been forced to retreat, especially after its humiliating defeat in Afghanistan. The rapprochement arranged by China between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the normalization of ties between Syria and Saudi Arabia, were another major blow to US hegemony. Washington’s quislings in Pakistan’s military high command and the political class were principally tasked with providing the US with a blank check: air space for any operation to be conducted in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the restoration of a military base closed by the Pakistanis in 2011, and general obedience to US strategy to undermine and subvert any and all things related to Chinese and Russian prosperity, even if they also mean prosperity for Pakistan. This US strategy included sabotaging the Chinese-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of Beijing’s larger Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Washington apparently now believes that Islamabad could be coerced into becoming a sort of “major non-Quad ally,” causing the historic Sino-Pakistan relationship to crumble. However, the political consciousness of Pakistanis has been completely transformed over the past year, and Washington is starting to have doubts whether its planned agenda can be implemented by a government and national-security state so despised by so many Pakistanis. Despite having lost nearly all of its prestige and moral authority in the region, the US government could have the chance to earn the goodwill the Pakistani people, if it actually supported democracy and the rule of law in the country. US Congresswoman Maxine Water reportedly spoke with Imran Khan about the current regime’s human rights violations, and CNN’s Fareed Zakaria interviewed Khan, providing the people of the US a rare opportunity to know the facts, to separate the truth from the propaganda, and to urge their Congressional leaders to persuade the government to align itself with actual justice and the actual rule of law. They should feel the pulse of the masses of Pakistan and not opt for the short-lived gain from propping up dictators who will pliantly obey the US, against the interests of the common people. Such unwise foreign policy actions always result in blowback, and would only hurt US interests in the long run. The entire world knows which political party and political leader stands for democracy and fair elections in Pakistan. The world also knows which group does not want elections. The coalition that ironically calls itself the “Pakistan Democratic Movement” is in reality aimed at preventing democracy from emerging by refusing to hold elections. They are obsessed with banning, imprisoning, or even assassinating Imran Khan, the most popular and most honest political leader in Pakistan’s history. Why do they want to remove him? Because they know that Khan and his party will sweep the elections. This ramshackle group should more accurately be called the Pakistan Anti-Democratic Movement. Because of the horrendous levels of state repression taking place against his party members and leadership, Imran Khan asked supporters to stand strong during this dark period in Pakistan’s history. For the moment, he has cautioned the people to avoid confronting a ruthless state that is prepared to try thousands in military courts, while still holding thousands under arrest, subjecting many to the worst forms of torture. With a population eager for a revolution that would topple all the crooks and mafias in government – and in the Washington-backed military-intelligence senior personnel – it is difficult to see how such festering rage can be permanently subdued. The regime believes it has succeeded in being restored. But tens of millions of Pakistanis and intelligent observers can see that this is delusional thinking. The regime has crossed the Rubicon, a  “red line” that protesters had drawn to warn the criminals against this ongoing savage assault on Imran Khan and his peaceful supporters. It is hard to imagine that there will not be a cost to pay for that in a country of 248 million, where the bulk of the population is restive and impatient with what they have witnessed happening both to themselves and to the most popular leader in the nation’s history. Even more crucially, millions of Pakistanis are now empowered in a way they haven’t been for decades. They know change is possible – and it’s in sight. It’s only a matter of time.

Write an article about: Who is Pakistan’s Imran Khan? From athlete to protester of US wars to overthrown prime minister. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Imran Khan, Pakistan, podcast

Benjamin Norton speaks with Pakistani scholar Junaid S. Ahmad about Prime Minister Imran Khan, his history, and how he challenged Pakistan’s two-party system until he was overthrown in a US-backed soft coup. In this episode of the Multipolarista podcast, Benjamin Norton is joined by Pakistani scholar Junaid S. Ahmad to discuss how Pakistan’s elected Prime Minister Imran Khan was overthrown in a US-backed coup aimed at reversing his independent foreign policy – like his close alliance with China, improved relations with Russia and Iran, and staunch support for Palestine. Part 2 of 2 This video is also available at Rumble and Rokfin. You can also download the podcast at Substack. You can watch or listen to part 1 here: US-backed coup in Pakistan overthrows PM Imran Khan over his independent foreign policy Read Junaid’s article “Pakistan warns of foreign-backed regime-change attempt, to disrupt China/Russia alliance” Pakistan’s opposition is trying to overthrow Prime Minister Imran Khan with a no-confidence motion. Khan says he has proof of foreign funding for a regime-change op to reverse his independent foreign policy – especially his alliance with China and Russiahttps://t.co/wdIqWDlqss — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 1, 2022

Write an article about: Veterano de la CIA pide guerra contra China y Rusia, amenazando con ataques nucleares. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

armas nucleares, China, CIA, nueva guerra fría, Rusia, segunda guerra fría

Un veterano de la CIA y el Pentágono, Matthew Kroenig, publicó un artículo en una revista elitista en el que pide una guerra de Estados Unidos contra China y Rusia, incluyendo la “amenaza de ataques nucleares no estratégicos”. (You can read this article in English here.) Un veterano de la CIA y el Pentágono que ahora ayuda a dirigir una de las organizaciones más poderosas de Washington, Matthew Kroenig, ha publicado un artículo en la influyente revista Foreign Policy en el que pide a Estados Unidos que se prepare para librar la guerra contra China y Rusia. Kroenig desempeñó importantes funciones estatales de seguridad nacional en las administraciones de los presidentes George W. Bush, Barack Obama y Donald Trump, y tiene una influencia significativa en los círculos de la política exterior de Washington. Kroenig insistió en que el ejército estadounidense debería “amenazar con ataques nucleares no estratégicos” contra China sobre Taiwán y contra Rusia sobre Europa. Refiriéndose al conflicto de Washington con Beijing y Moscú como una “nueva guerra fría”, también pidió aumentar aún más el presupuesto militar anual de EEUU, que ya es de $768 mil millones. Sostuvo que “Estados Unidos puede permitirse gastar más que Rusia y China al mismo tiempo”. El veterano de la CIA y el Pentágono enfatizó que Washington debe enfrentarse a ambas superpotencias euroasiáticas, simultáneamente, para mantener la hegemonía unipolar estadounidense, que reconoció está en declive. Kroenig hizo estos argumentos en un artículo de amplia circulación, publicado el 18 de febrero en la revista de élite Foreign Policy, bajo el título “Washington debe prepararse para la guerra con Rusia y China”. Matthew Kroenig actualmente se desempeña como subdirector del Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security (Centro Scowcroft para Estrategia y Seguridad) en el Atlantic Council (Consejo Atlántico), un instituto de investigación de la alianza militar de la OTAN, liderada por Estados Unidos. El Atlantic Council, que está financiado por el gobierno de EEUU, otros gobiernos occidentales, la OTAN y la industria armamentística, tiene una enorme influencia en Washington y ayuda a crear la política exterior de cada administración. Además de su trabajo para la CIA y el Departamento de Defensa en las administraciones de Bush, Obama y Trump, Kroenig fue asesor de seguridad nacional para las campañas presidenciales de los republicanos Mitt Romney, en 2012, y Marco Rubio, en 2016. También es miembro del elite Council on Foreign Relations (Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores), y profesor de gobierno y servicio exterior en la prestigiosa Universidad de Georgetown en Washington. En resumen, Kroenig es una figura muy influyente en los círculos de la política exterior de EEUU, con credenciales impecables, y sus puntos de vista extremadamente agresivos que piden una guerra simultánea contra China y Rusia reflejan las opiniones de muchos de sus colegas en Washington. Matthew Kroenig resumió la opinión de muchas élites de la política exterior de Washington de que Estados Unidos debe hacer la guerra para mantener su control hegemónico indiscutible sobre el planeta, escribiendo: Estados Unidos sigue siendo la principal potencia mundial con intereses globales, y no puede darse el lujo de elegir entre Europa y el Indo-Pacífico. En cambio, Washington y sus aliados deberían desarrollar una estrategia de defensa capaz de disuadir y, si es necesario, derrotar a Rusia y China al mismo tiempo. Una de las tácticas que Estados Unidos podría usar para mantener su hegemonía unipolar, argumentó Kroenig, es la amenaza de una guerra nuclear: Finalmente, si es necesario, Washington siempre podría tomar una página de su libro de jugadas de la Guerra Fría y confiar más en las armas nucleares para compensar las ventajas locales y convencionales de sus rivales. La presencia de armas nucleares tácticas estadounidenses en Europa ayudó a disuadir al enorme Ejército Rojo soviético durante décadas. De manera similar, Estados Unidos podría confiar en amenazar con ataques nucleares no estratégicos para disuadir y, como último recurso, frustrar una invasión anfibia china de Taiwán o una incursión de tanques rusos en Europa. Sin duda, existen riesgos asociados con la disuasión nuclear, pero las armas nucleares han desempeñado un papel fundamental en la estrategia de defensa de EEUU durante tres cuartos de siglo, y es probable que continúen haciéndolo en las próximas décadas. Advirtiendo que “Moscú y Beijing están forjando una asociación estratégica más estrecha, incluso en asuntos militares”, Kroenig insistió en que Estados Unidos debe aumentar drásticamente el gasto militar, para “superar a Rusia y China al mismo tiempo”: Primero, Washington debería aumentar el gasto en defensa. Al contrario de quienes afirman que los recursos limitados obligarán a tomar decisiones difíciles, Estados Unidos puede permitirse gastar más que Rusia y China al mismo tiempo. Estados Unidos posee el 24 por ciento del PIB mundial en comparación con un 19 por ciento combinado en China y Rusia. Este año, Estados Unidos gastará $778 mil millones en defensa en comparación con solo $310 mil millones en Rusia y China. Además, Estados Unidos podría llegar a duplicar el gasto en defensa (actualmente el 2,8 por ciento del PIB) y seguir estando por debajo del promedio de la Guerra Fría (cerca del 7 por ciento del PIB). De hecho, dado que esta nueva Guerra Fría es tan peligrosa como la anterior, es necesario un aumento significativo en el gasto de defensa, centrado en las tecnologías de defensa emergentes del siglo XXI. … En resumen, incluso si esta nueva competencia estratégica se convierte en una carrera armamentista de dos contra uno, es probable que Washington prevalezca. Hizo un llamado a los aliados de EEUU para que también aumenten significativamente su gasto militar y escribió: “Los aliados europeos deberían invertir en armaduras y artillería, mientras que los aliados asiáticos compran minas navales, misiles arpón y submarinos”. Kroenig señaló que se espera que la administración de Joe Biden publique pronto una nueva Estrategia de Defensa Nacional de EEUU, que esencialmente pedirá a Washington que se centre exclusivamente en contener a China, no a Rusia. Pero esta estrategia supuestamente se retrasó debido a la crisis en Ucrania. Algunos legisladores estadounidenses han pedido que se reduzcan las tensiones con Moscú y que se intente formar una alianza con Rusia contra China, pero Kroenig argumentó que esto “no es realista”. Esta no es la primera vez que Matthew Kroenig aboga por una guerra estadounidense. En 2012, publicó un artículo en Foreign Affairs, el diario oficial del poderoso Council on Foreign Relations, en el que pedía al ejército estadounidense que lanzara ataques contra Irán. En 2021, Kroenig habló en una conferencia contra Irán organizada por una secta infame que se llama el Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK). Muchos derechistas belicosos en Washington han apoyado este grupo extremista para tratar de lograr un cambio de gobierno en Teherán. Elogió al Consejo Nacional de Resistencia de Irán (NCRI), una fachada del MEK, por la pretendida inteligencia que ha publicado sobre el supuesto programa nuclear de Teherán. Ciertamente, Matthew Kroenig no es el único funcionario de la inteligencia estadounidense que pide la guerra contra China. En noviembre de 2021, otro veterano de la CIA, David Sauer, publicó un artículo de opinión en The Hill titulado “Estados Unidos debe prepararse para la guerra con China por Taiwán”. “Para disuadir a China, Estados Unidos debe aumentar rápidamente sus fuerzas en el Pacífico, continuar fortaleciendo las alianzas militares en la región para garantizar el acceso a las bases en tiempos de conflicto y acelerar las entregas de equipos militares comprados a Taiwán”, escribió Sauer.

Write an article about: US convenes anti-China ‘Quad’ alliance, Beijing calls it ‘tool for containment and siege’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Antony Blinken, Australia, China, Cold War Two, India, Japan, new cold war, Quad, Russia, Scott Morrison, Ukraine

The US, Japan, and India held a meeting of the Quad alliance in Australia. Beijing condemned it as “a tool for containing and besieging China to maintain US hegemony,” with an “antiquated Cold War mentality.” (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) The United States has brought Japan, India, and Australia together in an anti-China alliance called the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad for short. Top representatives of these four countries convened in the Australian city of Melbourne on February 11, to discuss ways to counter Beijing, among other issues. The Chinese government responded to the meeting by condemning the Quad as “a tool for containing and besieging China to maintain US hegemony.” Beijing accused the alliance of seeking “to stoke confrontation,” with an “antiquated Cold War mentality.” The timing of this gathering was not coincidental; it came right in the middle of the Beijing Winter Olympics, which the US, Australia, and India had condemned with diplomatic boycotts. (Britain’s influential newspaper the Financial Times described the Beijing Olympics as “the new front line in the US-China cold war.”) The Melbourne meeting featured the foreign ministers of the US, Japan, India, and Australia, and was their fourth reunion since the Quad was re-established by the Donald Trump administration in 2017 to focus on containing Beijing. The Quad is a vital part of our vision for the Indo-Pacific and shows the priority we place on working with partners and allies in the region. We had a productive discussion on issues that shape our collective prosperity and security. pic.twitter.com/VvEhZOEVAK — Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) February 11, 2022 The Australian government enthusiastically endorsed the Quad meeting by not only sending its foreign minister but also its Prime Minister Scott Morrison, the leader of the right-wing Liberal Party, who has made fearmongering about the supposed “threat” of China a central part of his political program. Under Morrison, Australia has become a front line in the second cold war. The country joined an anti-China military alliance with Washington and London called AUKUS, and announced it is buying nuclear-powered submarines with North American and British technology – a very provocative move, given that all other countries that have nuclear submarines also have nuclear weapons. In a press conference before the Quad meeting, Morrison claimed Australia has faced “coercion and the pressure,” implying that China was guilty. He framed the conflict with Beijing as a matter of “freedom,” insisting that the alliance exists to protect “a world order that favors freedom, and particularly here in a free and open Indo-Pacific.” Appreciate that PM @ScottMorrisonMP met the Quad FMs collectively before we began talks. His insights and thoughts were valuable. We are focused on the early and effective realization of our Leaders' vision. pic.twitter.com/VfKMSRcbdw — Dr. S. Jaishankar (@DrSJaishankar) February 11, 2022 US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Quad members “share concerns that in recent years China has been acting more repressively at home and more aggressively in the region, and indeed potentially beyond.” Blinken joined the Australian prime minister in portraying the meeting as “four democracies coming together.” Juxtaposing them implicitly against Beijing, Morrison claimed the Quad consists of “great democracies, great liberal democracies.” Neither Blinken nor Morrison mentioned that Japan is essentially a one-party state that has been ruled by the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party, with few exceptions, since 1955, or that India is governed by the far-right Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, which has been dismantling the secular state and attacking the rights of religious minorities. Facts like these, along with the US and Australian governments’ continued history of genocide against Indigenous peoples and brutal violations of civil rights, blatantly contradicted their attempt to portray the Quad as a symbol of freedom and democracy against supposed Chinese authoritarianism. The foreign ministers of the United States, Australia, India, and Japan at the Quad meeting in Melbourne on February 11 Following the meeting, the four Quad member states released a joint statement. From the use of language, it appears that this declaration was largely written by the United States. Blinken stated in the press conference that the Quad exists to defend the “free and open Indo-Pacific, the most dynamic region in the world with the fastest growing economies, half the world’s population.” The statement echoed this rhetoric, calling “to advance a free and open Indo-Pacific – a region which is inclusive and resilient, and in which states strive to protect the interests of their people, free from coercion.” Blinken said the Quad seeks “to defend the rules-based system that we have spent tremendous time and effort building over these many years.” The declaration used this phrase “rules-based” three times, reflecting Washington’s attempts to create a new international legal framework that it controls, in order to isolate China and Russia. Although the joint statement forcefully condemned North Korea and Myanmar, it was careful not to mention China by name. Despite this, it was overwhelmingly aimed at attacking Beijing, implicitly referring to it as a threat to the Indo-Pacific region. The Chinese government vociferously condemned the February 11 Quad meeting in Australia. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian asserted in a press conference on the same day, “China believes that the so-called Quad group cobbled together by the US, Japan, India and Australia is essentially a tool for containing and besieging China to maintain US hegemony.” The Quad “aims to stoke confrontation and undermine international solidarity and cooperation,” Zhao said. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman added, “I want to stress that as the Cold War is long over. The attempt to forge a so-called alliance to contain China wins no support and leads nowhere.” “Relevant countries should abandon the antiquated Cold War mentality, correct the wrong approach of bloc confrontation and geopolitical games, and contribute to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific,” Zhao said. A reporter in the press conference asked the Foreign Ministry spokesman to respond to US Secretary of State Blinken’s comment that “China has been acting more repressively at home and more aggressively in the region.” Zhao replied, “Speaking of being aggressive in this region and beyond, the United States is second to none.” Speaking of being aggressive in this region and beyond, the United States is second to none. pic.twitter.com/hOL0DSUF5L — Spokesperson发言人办公室 (@MFA_China) February 12, 2022 Global Times, a newspaper owned by the Communist Party of China’s official organ People’s Daily, responded to the Australia meeting with an article titled “US ropes in Quad allies to fight ‘two-front wars’ with China and Russia despite spent force.” The semi-official Chinese newspaper wrote, “The sign is clearer than ever that the US is turning Quad into a tool to serve its own strategic goal of countering China and Russia simultaneously.” It noted that Blinken brought up the conflict in Ukraine in the Quad meeting, although the alliance claims to be focused on Indo-Pacific concerns. Washington’s attempt to get its Quad allies on board with a cold war against Russia as well is less likely, however. Australia has taken a hard line against Moscow, but Japan and India have more complex relationships. Japan and Russia are certainly not allies, but until recently they had cordial diplomatic ties. A conflict in 2021 over disputed islands led to souring relations, and Moscow has criticized Tokyo for joining the US in threatening Russia over Ukraine. India’s government, led by the far-right Bharatiya Janata Party and Hindu-nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has taken an extremely aggressive line against China. In fact, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar used the Quad meeting as an opportunity to attack China, blaming it for a border dispute that has led to violence. Yet while ultra-conservative Hindu-nationalist politicians in New Delhi, like their right-wing counterparts in the West, have turned Beijing into a convenient scapegoat for their domestic problems, India has not joined the United States in its war drive against Russia. In a press conference before the Quad meeting, a journalist asked Foreign Minister Jaishankar what New Delhi’s position is on the conflict in Ukraine. He evaded the question, repeating that “this meeting is focused on the Indo-Pacific.” The Australia reunion made it clear that, while the Quad members are united in their mutual goal to contain China, they still have political differences on other issues.

Write an article about: NY Times admits Saudi bombing of Yemen could not continue without US support. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

New York Times, Saudi Arabia, Yemen

The New York Times editorial board acknowledged that Saudi Arabia could not wage war on Yemen without US backing: “the coalition would be grounded if Washington withheld its support”. The editorial board of The New York Times has acknowledged what journalists and activists have said for well over a year: The Saudi Arabia’s brutal bombing campaign, which has ravaged Yemen and created a humanitarian catastrophe, would be impossible were it not for US support. “Experts say the coalition would be grounded if Washington withheld its support,” the US newspaper of record wrote in “America Is Complicit in the Carnage in Yemen,” an editorial published on August 17. The United States is complicit in the Saudi carnage in Yemen. https://t.co/WRiWwpQ6fM pic.twitter.com/1AJKIwI7Sw — New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) August 17, 2016 This admission comes a bit late, considering the US-backed bombing began in March 2015 — and, since then, thousands of civilians have been killed; millions have been displaced; more than half of the country, at least 14 million people, are going hungry; and parts of major Yemeni cities have been pulverized. “The United States is complicit in this carnage,” the editorial board conceded. “It has enabled the coalition in many ways, including selling arms to the Saudis.” The Times continued: Although many experts believe the threat to be overstated, Mr. Obama agreed to support the Yemen intervention — without formal authorization from Congress — and sell the Saudis even more weapons in part to appease Riyadh’s anger over the Iran nuclear deal. All told, since taking office, Mr. Obama has sold the Saudis $110 billion in arms, including Apache helicopters and missiles. Mr. Obama has also supplied the coalition such indispensable assistance as intelligence, in-flight refueling of aircraft and help in identifying appropriate targets. Experts say the coalition would be grounded if Washington withheld its support. Instead, the State Department last week approved the potential sale of $1.15 billion more in tanks and other equipment to Saudi Arabia to replace items destroyed in the war. The editorial board also recognized a UN report that found the coalition responsible for 60 percent of the deaths and injuries to Yemeni children, along with reports by human rights groups that document war crimes committed by the coalition. Many of these basic facts — which independent journalists have reported on for months— have been absent from the Times’ coverage of the war.

Write an article about: Pakistan warns of foreign-backed regime-change attempt, to disrupt China/Russia alliance. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Imran Khan, Islamophobia, Israel, Pakistan, Palestine, Russia, Saudi Arabia

Pakistan’s opposition is trying to overthrow Prime Minister Imran Khan with a no-confidence motion. Khan says the US sent him a threatening letter and he has proof of foreign funding for a regime-change operation, aimed at reversing his independent foreign policy – like his alliance with China and Russia and support for Palestine. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) While the world’s attention is understandably focused on the crisis in Ukraine, equally grave developments are taking place elsewhere. Perhaps the most consequential – and underreported – is a regime-change operation underway in Pakistan. This March, opposition lawmakers in Pakistan’s parliament launched a “no-confidence” motion aimed at overthrowing Prime Minister Imran Khan. Khan, who was democratically elected in 2018, has warned that an “effort is being made to topple the government with the help of foreign funds in our country.” “Our people are being used. Mostly unknowingly, but some knowingly are using this money against us,” Khan said at a rally on March 27. He added that the government had proof of these payments. Khan argued that these external interests seek to reverse his independent foreign policy. He recalled his predecessor Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a Pakistani prime minister who was overthrown in a US-backed coup in 1977, then executed following a show trial. Bhutto was punished “when he tried to bring in a free foreign policy to the country,” Khan declared. Khan specifically singled out the United States for meddling to try to remove him from power. He said he received a letter from Washington that threatened him for refusing to allow it to establish US military bases in Pakistan. He cautioned that the opposition is collaborating with the United States and other foreign countries in its no-confidence motion against him. #Pakistani PM #ImranKhan said that he has received threats from #Washington due to his rejection of establishing #US military bases in #Pakistan. He said he refuses to resign from his position, stressing that he will not kneel for any entity, nor will he allow his people to. pic.twitter.com/2LD4aajwiB — Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) March 31, 2022 These warnings came just over a month after Khan publicly criticized the US government for cynically using Pakistan to advance Washington’s interests. He also simultaneously praised China for always acting as a “friend” of Islamabad. “Whenever the US needed us, they established relations, and Pakistan became a frontline state [against the Soviet Union], and then abandoned it and slapped sanctions on us,” Khan complained. On the other hand, “China is a friend which has always stood by Pakistan,” he contrasted. The idea that a regime-change plot could even be conceived of, let alone attempted, in a nuclear-armed country of more than 220 million may seem shocking and preposterous. On the surface, it strikes as incredulous considering that Islamabad is a major world capital, arguably the most powerful within the Muslim-majority world. Nevertheless, it is precisely these characteristics that make Pakistan so geopolitically important. The following is an analysis of the principal reasons for why hostile foreign elites have decided that Prime Minister Imran Khan must go: Imran Khan was always dubbed a “fanatic” – i.e., overly critical of US foreign policy. Khan strongly opposed Washington’s so-called “war on terror,” and especially the war in Afghanistan, arguing that military solutions were both immoral and counterproductive. For this he was long disparagingly referred to as “Taliban Khan.” What bruised Washington’s ego even more was that Khan turned out to be right. The American debacle in Afghanistan that ended with Kabul falling to the Taliban was perceived by the US as a victory for Pakistan, and for Khan in particular. The US is unwilling to forgive Khan for its own humiliation in Afghanistan, even though he had little to do with it. Imran Khan’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2019 was condemned as overly audacious. A Pakistani leader speaking so strongly on issues of global injustice made Western elites feel that he had become way too big for his shoes. At least three of the points that he emphasized in his remarks rubbed Western supremacists in the wrong way. First, Khan condemned powerful Western countries for enabling elites of the Global South to plunder their own societies. Second, he highlighted Islamophobia as not a marginal affair, but as a dangerous phenomenon structuring our global order – and one that the world must take seriously. Relatedly, Khan scathingly criticized the insidious characterization of some Muslims as “moderate” and others as “radical.” These maliciously constructed distinctions have been essential to the political lexicon of the “war on terror.” Third, Khan spoke passionately about the Kashmiri struggle against Indian occupation in a way that few Pakistani (or any other) leaders have. His rhetorical performance seemed to be a page out of the anti-colonial playbook of the 1960s. Perhaps most concerning to Western elites is how Imran Khan has strengthened Pakistan’s decades-old relationship with China. Islamabad and Beijing are key partners in infrastructure projects aimed at connecting the region. They work together in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the Belt and Road Initiative. Pakistan-China relations have gone from strength to strength & CPEC is a reflection of our mutual commitment to this enduring relationship. — Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) October 1, 2019 Khan received a very warm reception at the Beijing Olympics this February. It was a clear affirmation that Islamabad remains Beijing’s close ally. In addition, President Xi Jinping and the Chinese leadership deem Khan to be a Pakistani leader genuinely interested in cooperation for Pakistan’s development, free from the enormous corruption and incompetence that characterize other political forces in the country. Whether this is true or not, Beijing believes it. And Xi has built a very close relationship with Khan personally. Furthermore, the fact that China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi attended the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Summit in Islamabad this March spoke volumes to China’s embrace of Pakistan’s leadership within the Muslim world. The recent breakthrough in the relationship between Pakistan and Russia seems to have been the straw that ultimately broke the camel’s back. Islamabad never had a close relationship with Moscow. On the contrary, Pakistan and the Soviet Union had been adversaries during the first cold war, and retained a level of bitterness and distance. Moscow was always considered a strong ally of New Delhi. But on the sidelines of the Beijing Olympics, Russian President Putin extended an invitation to Prime Minister Khan. Seeing an opportunity to at least neutralize a regional powerhouse that has historically been Islamabad’s foe, he agreed to the visit. However, as soon as Khan landed in Moscow, Putin launched his military assault against Ukraine. Khan was lambasted by Western capitals for not condemning Russia then, and this continued when he returned home. #Kremlin: Vladimir Putin met with Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan, who is in Russia on a working visit https://t.co/jrvKVN0fzX pic.twitter.com/WF7aupsZau — President of Russia (@KremlinRussia_E) February 24, 2022 Khan received a strongly worded letter from European ambassadors demanding he denounce Moscow. The prime minister’s response, “we are not your slaves,” became quite popular not only in Pakistan, but in many parts of the Muslim world and the Global South. Khan noted that his requests that these same Western countries condemn India’s behavior in Kashmir or Israel’s crimes in Palestine routinely fell on deaf ears. Since then, Khan has consistently called for an end to the war in Ukraine and a diplomatic solution. At the OIC summit he hosted, Khan specifically called on China to help mediate between Russia and Ukraine. But the rapprochement with Russia appears to be where Khan crossed the rubicon. As the global geopolitical battle lines are being rigidly drawn, Khan’s Pakistan seems to increasingly be on the “wrong side,” according to Washington. The decision to host the 48th Session of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) in Islamabad this March crystallized Imran Khan’s role as one of the most popular Muslim political leaders today. Khan seemed to be trying to mimic the performance and standing of Pakistan’s prime minister in the 1970s, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who similarly hosted an OIC meeting in Lahore, with great fanfare and purpose. Whatever one’s feelings about Islam and politics, there is no question that powerful external forces detest those Muslim actors that they cannot control. Washington has continued to work closely with brutal exclusivist forces such as al-Qaeda in Syria and the House of Saud. It has also cultivated a class of “moderate” Muslims since 9/11 that have faithfully delivered an empire-friendly Islam. There is one factor that unites all of these disparate Muslim actors: their servility to Washington. Unfortunately, Khan does not fit these imperial categories – as much as both Western and Pakistani liberal elites would want to portray him as a “fundamentalist.” Khan’s invocation of an Islamicate civilizational ethos that centers social justice, however incoherently articulated and scarcely implemented, also advanced a politics of countering Western supremacy. Imran Khan has demonstrated a gradual tilt toward countries that, on the whole, represent a counterweight to Saudi-led hegemony throughout the Muslim world. The 2019 Kuala Lumpur Summit called by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad marked a milestone in this project. Nations such as Turkey, Iran, and Qatar participated. Everyone knew that this was a significant attempt to challenge traditional Saudi dominance and influence. Mahathir, who is very fond of Khan, invited Pakistan, and the participants understood how important the Pakistani prime minister’s presence would be. Yet in the last minute, Islamabad pulled out. Days before the Kuala Lumpur Summit, Khan was summoned to Riyadh, where he was warned in no uncertain terms: You are not to go to Malaysia, and if you do, the House of Saud will begin the deportation of Pakistani laborers, halt all oil subsidies and supplies, rescind any and all loans, and so on. Khan was humiliated, but had to comply. He did not go to Kuala Lumpur. Imran Khan came to power with the blessing of the Pakistani army. The commonsense understanding was that he and the military have a snug relationship and are on the same page – to the point that Khan was for a time portrayed as a puppet of the military establishment. That has turned out not to be true. The military has always been in control of Pakistan’s national security and foreign policy. To the extent both Khan and the generals viewed things the same, all was fine. However, Khan turned out to be no pushover. He has firmly asserted his right to be a part of any crucial national security issue – a right most previous civilian governments readily relinquished. When the Pakistani media now incessantly reiterates “Khan has fallen out of favor with the military,” it simply means that the cat is finally out of the bag: Khan is no lackey of the men in khaki. For Washington, this is a huge problem. Having militaries to “set things straight” when leaders of the Global South become disobedient has been standard American operating procedure. One of the most important reasons why imperialist forces demand Imran Khan’s ouster is the obvious: his consistent and unequivocal support for the Palestinian struggle. His position became all too well-known and “controversial” when an intense campaign of pressure and threats came Islamabad’s way in 2020 and 2021. After several Gulf monarchies normalized relations with apartheid Israel, and the extent of their coziness was finally paraded publicly, what followed was painful arm-twisting of other Muslim countries to follow suit. For Tel Aviv, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and of course Washington, Islamabad was the real prize. For months, Pakistanis experienced an onslaught of information warfare geared to make the public more amenable to the idea of recognizing and accepting Israeli apartheid. Very quickly, it became obvious that not only the major national political parties, but also significant sections of the military high command all conveyed a willingness to entertain the idea of normalization. The motive of Pakistan’s ruling elite was obvious: such a step, they believed, would get them into the good graces of Washington, and enable their private coffers to exponentially grow. But Prime Minister Khan did not give in. By trying to lump indigenous Kashmiri freedom struggle as terrorism Trump siding with oppressor India as US supports oppressor in Palestine https://t.co/RfcU8q0W6M — Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) June 29, 2017 Prior to the hoopla around normalization, in May 2020, Khan vocally condemned Israel’s war on Gaza. He did not mince his words: “We are with Palestine. We are with Gaza.” At the OIC summit this March, even at the risk of embarrassing some of his guests (especially from the Gulf), Khan consistently spoke about the failure of Muslim countries to stop Israeli brutality against the Palestinians. There is no doubt that if Khan had avoided touching the Palestinian question, he would not be in so much trouble. While the reasons enunciated above explain why antagonistic global elites desire regime change in Islamabad, for the sake of clarity – especially for sincere liberal-progressive critics of Imran Khan – it is also worth acknowledging criticisms. Suffice to say, these are decidedly not reasons motivating this hybrid war on Pakistan: 1) Khan’s patriarchal views 2) Khan’s poor governance 3) Khan’s mismanagement of the economy Whether any of the above is true or not – (and they certainly may be – it ought to be self-evident that these issues have never been the real motivations of global elites in their imperial interventions. From the time that Khan first took power, we have been subject to an eerily familiar narrative. In the dirty war aimed at regime change in Syria, for years we heard the same refrain: the Assad regime is falling any day now. We have been fed the same slogan for the past three-and-a-half years in Pakistan as well: the Imran Khan “regime” is just about to fall. And since Khan has not “moderated” his views to be more palatable to the interests of Western capitals, the latter’s low-intensity hybrid war has been increased to full throttle. The standard falsehoods recycled against all targets of regime change, including Latin American countries like Venezuela, now prevail in the narrative on Pakistan. Claims that Khan is guilty of “increasingly authoritarian” rule, characterized by harsh repression of dissent and the media, fit an all too well-trodden script. Yet it just so happens that the overwhelming majority of both the print and electronic media in Pakistan have been incessantly anti-Khan. The hybrid warfare being waged against Pakistan – including information warfare, psyops, and the engineering of something like a “color revolution” – in no way means that there is not genuine opposition to the current government. But in Pakistan we saw a coordinated campaign emerge this March, leading up to the opposition’s “no-confidence” motion in the parliament. Virtually all of Pakistan’s media, dominant sections of elite civil society, and the opposition leaders and their moles in Khan’s political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), all of a sudden united in a full-scale blitzkrieg against Khan. That this came right at the moment when Western condemnations of the prime minister had reached their peak does not seem like a mere coincidence. As we witness geopolitical transformations of a world-historical importance, the international fault lines in this interregnum are becoming more visible. Pakistan’s growing proximity to China and Russia and the country’s commitment to the Eurasian integration project has activated the wrath of American ruling elites. At this particularly precarious conjuncture, Washington views Islamabad as a, if not the, major Muslim capital that needs to be controlled and severely disciplined if an independent Khan-type leader arises. The turmoil afflicting Pakistan is the outcome of a well-coordinated strategy to discipline and punish Khan. The opposition demand for a no-confidence vote in the National Assembly reflects the amalgamation of domestic and foreign machinations. This vote will be a reflection of the balance of forces, resulting either in a victory for Washington and its political quislings, or the retention of at least a quasi-sovereign Pakistan with Khan still in power. The shenanigans of politicians and their maneuvering to be on the “right side” of the political winds are the games of corrupt, power-hungry elites. None of this has anything to do with genuine grievances of Pakistanis, and is largely a diversion from the real global power play inside the country. Hostile global elites are trying desperately to find a new, Pakistani version of Juan Guaidó (the Western minion chosen unilaterally by Washington to replace Nicolás Maduro as supposed “interim president” of Venezuela). Whether or not Khan survives, anyone even vaguely familiar with global regime-change operations will see exactly what is going on.

Write an article about: Pakistan’s coup regime tries to arrest Imran Khan – but faces massive popular resistance. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Imran Khan, Pakistan, PTI, Shehbaz Sharif

With staunch US support, Pakistan’s unelected “imported government” is trying to arrest former Prime Minister Imran Khan, the most popular politician in the country, to prevent him from running in elections. But protesters are protecting him. If 2022 was the year of popular uprisings in Pakistan, raising hope for protesters fed up with a thoroughly corrupt and repressive civil-military regime, 2023 seems to be the year when the government is trying every dirty trick in the book to kill that hope. After a US-backed regime-change operation removed elected Prime Minister Imran Khan from power in April 2022, Pakistan witnessed an unprecedented phenomenon in the nation’s history: For the first time, a civilian politician who was ousted from power didn’t simply end up in the dustbin of history, alongside interchangeable corrupt politicians who for decades played musical chairs, competing to plunder the country. On the contrary, what occurred were massive outpourings of support for Khan and widespread opposition to the ancien régime put in power by Washington’s mercenaries in the military high command. The enormous popular rejection of the current “imported government”, as Khan calls it, has made Pakistan’s elites increasingly desperate. They want him eliminated. Assassination was their first method of choice – but they fumbled. At a rally in November, a gunman shot Khan in the leg, injuring but failing to kill him. In the meantime, Plan B is being implemented: Arrest Khan on bogus charges and disqualify him from politics forever. The former prime minister has been relentlessly holding peaceful demonstrations, demanding elections. The government knows that Khan would easily win, so it wants to prevent him from running. A Gallup poll in March found that Khan is by far the most popular politician in Pakistan, with a 61% approval rating, compared to 37% disapproval. The current, unelected Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has the complete opposite: a 32% approval rating, compared to 65% disapproval. The figures are clear: Nearly two-thirds of Pakistanis support Khan and oppose the unelected government. Nearly 61 per cent of Pakistanis have a "positive impression" of PTI chief Imran Khan, while just 36 per cent do so of PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif and foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardarihttps://t.co/6j41OU5WZu — WION (@WIONews) March 8, 2023 Faced with its deep unpopularity, on March 8, Pakistan’s regime initiated Plan B. Khan was leading a peaceful protest – one of the countless rallies he has organized since the April 2022 regime-change operation. This time, massive state security forces went on a rampage and tried to arrest Khan. But they could not do it. Standing between them and Khan were tens of thousands of his supporters. The only way to get to Khan would have been a bloodbath. This was avoided – although one Khan supporter was killed. We are heartbroken & outraged that PTI political worker Ali Bilal (Zille Shah), a person with disability, was murdered by the state in Lahore yesterday. He was only exercising his right to peaceful assembly (which he often turned festive) & ? protest! #StopThisFascism pic.twitter.com/3AutOvTW32 — Aurat March – عورت مارچ (@AuratMarchKHI) March 8, 2023 Then again, on March 13, Khan called for a rally in the city considered to be the heart of Pakistan: Lahore. Despite the entire state security machinery targeting him and his supporters, the rally in Lahore was one of the biggest the city has seen. Khan and the protesters marched confidently and peacefully in every corner of the city, where they seemed unstoppable, greeted with joy by ordinary Pakistanis of all walks of life. Pakistan's former PM Imran Khan stages a rally with thousands of supporters in Lahore as courts in Islamabad issue two more arrest warrants against him pic.twitter.com/fTKg2OW4t2 — TRT World Now (@TRTWorldNow) March 14, 2023 The former prime minister was undeterred, committed to holding demonstrations in the provinces of the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), in the lead-up to what he hopes will be national elections. On March 14, the regime escalated its crackdown. Police surrounded Khan’s house in Lahore and tried to arrest him. In response, thousands of supporters gathered at Khan’s home, protecting him. Current situation of Zaman Park Lahore now at 10:15pm. Massive rallies across the country are gathering there for the protection of Imran Khan.#زمان_پارک_پہنچو pic.twitter.com/Lyx6X0JdZO — PTI Islamabad (@PTIOfficialISB) March 15, 2023 The police responded with extreme violence, wounding dozens of protesters. From his house, Khan symbolically delivered a speech via video stream, sitting with the tear gas cannisters that had been fired outside. Tear gas shells fired at Imran Khan’s residence in Zaman Park Lahore. pic.twitter.com/BipjKywcVH — Shiffa Z. Yousafzai (@Shiffa_ZY) March 15, 2023 Khan’s determination to relentlessly participate in mass mobilizations has led the regime to try to ban him from public life. Even Western organizations that are often biased, such as Amnesty International, have condemned the unelected Pakistani government’s authoritarian tactics, which have included prohibiting all speeches and rallies by Khan, as well arresting people who criticize the military on Twitter. Authorities in Pakistan has placed a blanket ban on protests in Lahore. The authorities have used a draconian colonial-era law to crush dissent hours before several protests, including the #AuratMarch.#IWD2023 ?https://t.co/G4Z6Lz7Ujt — Amnesty International (@amnesty) March 8, 2023 There are two main factors preventing an all-out assault to arrest Khan: the wrath of the population that would ensue, and fear that significant ranks within the armed forces would revolt and turn their guns on their superiors, à la Vietnam. Indeed, it has been because of Khan’s popularity not just among ordinary Pakistani civilians but within the military ranks as well that the former prime minister has survived so far. Khan’s popularity among some parts of the army is easy to explain. Rank-and-file soldiers and the majority of the junior and mid-rank officer corps are not keen on Washington dictating a War on Terror 2.0. They have always appreciated Khan’s principled opposition, since day one, to any military solution to the militancy in Afghanistan and the northwest of Pakistan. Throughout 2022, Khan’s political party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI, the “Movement for Justice”), exponentially rose in popularity, in contrast to the all-too-visible political shenanigans of the coalition of feudal family dynasties and other corrupt forces in power. If it is true that Khan mismanaged both political and economic governance while in power, then the current lot has engendered a virtual implosion and collapse in the country. It is difficult to overstate how incensed ordinary Pakistanis are with the political mafias, significant sections of the military top brass, and the chief mafia don: Washington. One of the most disturbing aspects of what has been happening is the virtual connivance of liberal-left forces and the Pakistani deep state in attempting to eliminate Khan from the Pakistani political scene. The visceral hatred of Khan by Pakistan’s comprador elites cannot be explained by simply having differences with Khan on various policies – something that Khan’s own critical supporters have as well. No, for this elite class of the liberal, pro-Western Pakistani intelligentsia, Khan has committed the ultimate crime: socio-cultural class betrayal. Khan lived abroad for so long during his impressive cricket career. He studied at Oxford, and speaks perfect English. Thus Pakistan’s Westoxicated elites thought that Khan would behave just like them. Instead, Khan has rejected the condescending attitude that the country’s Western-educated elites show toward ordinary Pakistanis. Khan has mobilized tens of millions because of his sincerity to reimagine a new Pakistan, prioritizing social justice and an independent foreign policy. The fact that one small, sectarian leftist party or the other is not being given the credit of leading the revolt against the unpopular regime has made them neurotically envious of Khan. It is clear for all to see: Khan and the critical supporters both in and outside of his political party have become the most dangerous threat to Pakistan’s status quo. That is why we have seen very unusual and fast-paced meetings between US officials and Pakistan’s generals and regime officials: Washington’s “friends again”. This year marks the 75th anniversary of relations between the U.S. and ?? Pakistan. It was my pleasure to host Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, to the Pentagon where we discussed our long-standing defense partnership and areas of mutual interest. pic.twitter.com/ptiZDiqc8I — Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III (@SecDef) October 5, 2022 Elimination of Khan is absolutely necessary for the troika of these power centers: local comprador political elites, the military high command, and Washington. Why? Because they know that Khan and his party will sweep any elections that are held. In the meantime, Pakistan is enduring a deep economic crisis. The country has nearly exhausted its foreign exchange reserves. The regime is in talks with the US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) to save itself from bankruptcy. All of the corresponding policies of austerity and taxing the poor – “structural adjustment” – are to be expected. CIA officer turned US State Department spokesman Ned Price said in a press briefing on March 8 that Washington wants Pakistan to “continue working with the IMF” to impose “reforms that will improve Pakistan’s business environment”, in order to “make Pakistani businesses more attractive and competitive”. In other words, the US State Department wants Pakistan to double down on neoliberal economic policies, such as lowering wages and cutting social spending. If hated before, the current “imported government” is now despised more than ever. Khan’s foreign policy was anathema to Washington. He refused to recognize apartheid Israel as a legitimate state. He improved ties with Russia for straightforward reasons of economic necessity (as well as promoting the geostrategic stability in the broader Central Asian region). Khan mended ties and cooperated with Iran, even praising its revolutionary “dignity”. He strengthened ties with China. At the same time, Khan repeatedly said he desired friendly relations with Washington, proposing that they work together in peacebuilding in Afghanistan and the wider region. But these other foreign policy aims were utterly unacceptable to the mafia don, which seems to be set on a war path with Beijing (and others). Pakistan has been a close ally of China since the 1960s. But Islamabad’s intense obsession with pleasing Washington is a flagrant slap in the face of Beijing. The meetings that top Pakistani military officials, including the powerful Chief of Army Staff, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, have held with officials in Washington and London are not being missed upon by Beijing or Moscow. Though Pakistan is suffering through some of the worst economic woes in its history – thanks to the robber barons in power – the US still knows that the South Asian nation has one of the most formidable militaries in the world, and is a nuclear-powered country of 230 million. Washington also knows that it can easily woo the military top brass by reminding them of how only the US and its weapons and fighter jets can allow Pakistan to stay apace with arch-rival India, trying to match its military supremacy in the region. This is why the US is so keen on Pakistan participating in Joe Biden’s second “Summit for Democracy” in March 2023. (Despite the fact that Pakistan’s current government was not elected, and repeatedly resisted calls for holding a vote.) As prime minister, Khan respectfully declined the invitation to the first summit in 2021, because he knew exactly what the intention was: A declining empire seeking to muster as many nations as it can to be a part of its “coalition of the willing” against official enemies like China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. According to leaks by Pakistan’s own ambassador to the US (who has a soft spot for Khan), Washington wants to reestablish its old military base in Pakistan, which was closed down in 2011. The US is also reportedly dictating to Pakistan which militant groups to go after and which ones should be left alone – such as the anti-China East Turkestan independence movement or the ISIS elements giving trouble to Beijing and the Taliban government in Kabul. Most importantly, Washington wants to compel Islamabad to do everything possible to significantly reduce or halt any progress on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. Moreover, Washington and the Persian Gulf monarchies are having a splendid time in convincing the new favorable military-civilian regime in Islamabad to undertake an political 180 that Khan would never agree to: gradually normalizing relations with Tel Aviv. Nevertheless, what all of these power centers conspiring against Khan overlook is that they are dealing with a different Pakistani population now. The people’s political consciousness has exponentially risen with the ouster of Khan from power. Hence, whether Khan is assassinated or somehow arrested or disqualified from politics, the powers-that-be might get a rude awakening, and be surprised that they are dealing with a new Pakistan, with or without Khan – one that will have zero tolerance for their venality, corruption, and subordination to Washington.

Write an article about: US-backed Saudi coalition has bombed Yemen for 1 year, with little attention. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Saudi Arabia, Yemen

In a year of brutal bombing backed by the US and UK, Saudi Arabia has killed thousands of Yemeni civilians and displaced millions. Yet its atrocities get little coverage in the Western media. Exactly one year ago today, on March 26, 2015, a Saudi-led coalition armed and backed by the US and UK began bombing Yemen. In the past 365 days, more than 6,000 Yemenis have been killed, half of whom were civilians. For months, more than 80 percent of the population has needed humanitarian aid, and at least 2.5 million Yemenis — 10 percent of the country — have been displaced. Amid US/Saudi war, 82% of Yemenis need aid, 55% are hungry, 10% displaced — latest UN reporthttps://t.co/iZqicYnAMG pic.twitter.com/ap77Uu5Zl0 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 23, 2016 Saudi forces — with the help of many billions of dollars worth of American, British, and French weapons and military equipment, along with the guidance of American and British military officials, who are physically in the room with Saudi bombers and have access to a list of all targets — have ruthlessly bombed civilian areas, including hospitals, homes, schools, weddings, refugee camps, and even an Oxfam humanitarian aid warehouse. The UN has, on numerous occasions over a period of months, said the Saudi coalition is responsible for approximately two-thirds of civilian casualties. Despite the enormity of the violent imperial powers they are facing, the Yemeni people have bravely resisted. On the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the airstrikes, tens of thousands flooded the streets of the capital Sanaa for massive protests against the Western-backed coalition’s war crimes. Tens of thousands of Yemenis mark 1 year of Saudi bombing with mass protests https://t.co/BSTn0R56In pic.twitter.com/J8DIlmmYwY — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 27, 2016 Ultimately, the biggest winner of the war has not even been Saudi Arabia, but rather extremist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, who have exploited the chaos in order to grow and seize more territory as the Western-backed coalition continues to bomb the poorest country in the Middle East into oblivion. There has been little press coverage of the destructive war, and even less discussion in the US political system of the countless atrocities. The following is a kind of piecemeal and incomplete chronological documentation of the war crimes and destruction as they have slowly and painfully developed, based on stories I have written in the past year:

Write an article about: US votes against peace in Gaza, defying vast majority of planet at UN. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Gaza, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, UN, United Nations, Venezuela

The United States voted against a proposed humanitarian truce in Gaza, opposing the vast majority of the world in the United Nations General Assembly and protecting Israel as it kills thousands of Palestinian civilians. The vast majority of countries on Earth voted in the United Nations General Assembly for a proposed humanitarian truce in Gaza. The United States was one of the few nations that voted against the measure. Washington has protected and armed Israel as it has killed thousands of Palestinian civilians and carries out an ethnic cleansing operation in the densely populated Gaza strip. On October 27, the UN General Assembly held a vote on a resolution calling for an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities”. The final vote was 121 countries in favor of the humanitarian truce, with 14 countries against and 44 abstentions. When the results were first reported, there was a mistake. Iraq said there was a technical error on its machine; Baghdad made it clear that it had not meant to abstain and had actually voted in support of the resolution. So the real number was 121 countries in favor, not 120. The vast majority of the Global South voted for the humanitarian truce. The only large countries in the Global South that abstained were India and the Philippines, both of which have right-wing governments that are allied with the United States. Most nations in Asia and Africa supported the proposal. In Latin America, only a small handful of right-wing, US-allied governments voted against it or abstained. Even a few countries in Europe backed the measure, including France, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and Switzerland. The final vote would have been 122 if Venezuela were able to vote. The South American nation has strongly supported Palestine. Venezuela does not have formal diplomat relations with Israel, and has accused Tel Aviv of genocide and apartheid, referring to it as the “murderer arm of the US empire”. However, illegal US unilateral sanctions have prevented Venezuela from accessing its bank accounts and therefore paying its membership fees at the United Nations. The illegal US blockade has therefore taken away Venezuela’s voice at the UN General Assembly. In addition to this vote in the General Assembly, the United States used its veto power in the UN Security Council to kill a resolution calling for a ceasefire, which was drafted by Russia and voted on on October 16, as well as a measure proposing a humanitarian pause, which was introduced by Brazil and voted on on October 18.